dismissed H-1B Case: Data Analysis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 5630331 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 13, 2020 
The Petitioner, a technology solution company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "data 
analyst" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations . See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S .C. § 110l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) . The H-lB 
program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a position that 
requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge 
and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty ( or its equivalent) as a 
minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the evidence of 
record does not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The matter is 
now before us on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec . 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the 
questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec . 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l) , defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires : 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, 
and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States . 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a 
non-exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered 
position must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
( I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We construe the term "degree" to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal 
Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in a 
specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular 
position"). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a "data analyst." In a letter submitted in support of 
the petition, the Petitioner described the duties and responsibilities of the proffered position as follows: 
• Assist with data migration from existing client systems to the target environment[.] 
• Documenting the existing data models, translation rules, migration processes, and 
validation of the client's migrated PLM data. 
• Work closely with the client team and solution architect to ensure that the data 
migration strategy and processes are implemented. 
• Work with the Solution Architect to bring technical architecture expertise and 
recommendations to project[.] 
• Develop and document the data migration requirements and design processes to 
migrate data from the customer's current information system to the target 
applications. 
• Facilitate data discovery, data preparation, and data migration activities[.] 
• Facilitate data validation activities for migrated data. 
In its response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner expanded the duties in a 
table format by grouping them under the following headings and indicated the percentages of time the 
Beneficiary would spend on each duty as follows: 1 
1 For the sake of brevity. we will not quote the expanded version of the duties; however, we have closely reviewed and 
considered them. 
2 
• Assist with data migration from existing client systems to the target environment 
15% 
• Gather requirements from business users and evaluating BI systems to be 
implemented 10% 
• Data collection and processing data like data modelling and data cleansing 20% 
• Exploratory data analysis and data mining 25% 
• Business reporting, and visual analytic 20% 
• Validating reports and delivering of reports 5% 
• Documentation, support and training 5% 
According to the Petitioner, the position requires a "Bachelor's Degree m [c]omputer 
[s]cience/[i]nformation science/technical [e]ngineering, or related field." 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its 
equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation." 2 
A. First Criterion 
We tum first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which requires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. To inform this inquiry, we will consider the information contained 
in the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) regarding the 
duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations it addresses. 3 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Computer Systems Analysts" 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 15-1121. 4 Thus, we reviewed the 
Handbook's subchapter entitled "How to Become a Computer Systems Analyst," which states, in relevant 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation to suppmt the H-1 B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered position 
and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each 
one. 
3 We do not maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. That is, the occupational category 
designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered 
position, and we regularly review the Handbook on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of 
occupations that it addresses. Nevertheless, to satisfy the first criterion, the burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to 
submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position would normally have a minimum, specialty 
degree requirement, or its equivalent for entry. 
4 A petitioner submits the LCA to DOL to demonstrate that it will pay an H-lB worker the higher of either the prevailing 
wage for the occupational classification in the area of employment or the actual wage paid by the employer to other 
employees with similar duties, experience, and qualifications. Section 2 l 2(n)(l) of the Act; 
20 C.F.R. § 655.73 l(a). 
3 
part, that a bachelor's degree in a computer or information science field is common, although not always 
a requirement. 5 
According to the Handbook, some firms hire analysts with business or liberal arts degrees. As 
discussed, we interpret the term "degree" to mean a degree in a spec[fic specialty that is directly related 
to the proposed position. See Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. Since there must be a close 
correlation between the required specialized studies and the position, this requirement for general and 
wide-ranging degrees in business and liberal arts strongly suggests that a computer systems analyst 
position is not categorically a specialty occupation. See id. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 
19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). The Handbook continues by stating that although many 
analysts have technical degrees, such a degree is not always a requirement - and that, in fact, many 
analysts have liberal arts degrees and gain programming or technical expertise elsewhere. It does not 
specify a degree level (e.g., associate's degree) for these business, technical, and liberal arts degrees. 
The Handbook therefore does not support the assertion that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for these positions. See also 
Altimetrik Corp. v. Cissna, No. 18-10116, 2018, WL 6604258, at *6 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 17, 2018) (also 
noting that because the Handbook "makes it clear that a degree in a computer-related field is not 
required" for these positions, "USCIS [was] entitled to deference in its finding that systems analysts 
are not required to have a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty"). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that because the "very role of a Systems Analyst is to assist the 
organizations in reviewing their various IT systems in order to improve their efficiency ... it is only 
befitting that the candidate for the position is able to understand a fairly wide group of courses, some 
highly specialized and others more interdisciplinary .... " Citing to Next Generation Tech., Inc. v. 
Johnson, 328 F. Supp. 3d 252, 267 (S.D.N.Y. 2017), the Petitioner concludes that "if 'most' computer 
systems analysts have a bachelor's degree in the appropriate field, as is provided in the [Handbook], 
then it follows that the degree is 'normally' required for the position, and thus the position qualifies 
as a specialty occupation." 
We first note that we are not bound to follow the published decision of a United States district 
court. SeeMatterofK-S-,20l&NDec. 715, 719-20(BIA 1993). Nevertheless,evenifweconsidered 
the logic underlying the matter, we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
As recognized by another court, while the Handbook may establish the first regulatory criterion for 
certain professions, many occupations are not described in such a categorical manner. 6 See In nova 
Sols., Inc. v. Baran, 2019 WL 3753334, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2019) (declining to follow Next 
Generation Tech., Inc.). For example, "[the Handbook's] description for the Computer Programmer 
occupation does not describe the normal minimum educational requirements of the occupation in a 
categorical fashion." Id.; see also Xiaotong Liu v. Baran, 2018 WL 7348851 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 
2018). "Accordingly, [the Petitioner] could not simply rely on [the Handbook] profile, and instead 
5 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Computer Systems Analysts 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-systems-analysts.htm#tab-4 (last visited Apr. 
10, 2020). 
6 Such professions would include surgeons or attorneys, which indisputably require at least a bachelor's degree for entry 
into the occupation. 
4 
had the burden to show that the particular position offered to [the Beneficiary] was among the 
Computer Programmer positions for which a bachelor's degree was normally required." See Innova 
Sols., Inc. 2019 WL 3753334, at *8. 
Moreover, the court in Next Generation Tech., Inc. relied in part on a USCIS policy memorandum 
regarding "Computer Programmers" indicating generally preferential treatment toward computer 
programmers, and "especially" toward companies in that particular petitioner's industry. However, 
USCIS rescinded the policy memorandum cited by the court in Next Generation Tech. Inc. 7 
The Petitioner also mentions Residential Finance Corp. v. USCIS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 
2012), for the proposition that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is what is 
important. Diplomas rarely come bearing occupation-specific majors." 
We agree with the aforementioned proposition that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is 
what is important." In general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry and 
biochemistry, a minimum of a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty is recognized as 
satisfying the "degree in the specific specialty ( or its equivalent)" requirement of section 214(i)(l )(B) 
of the Act. In such a case, the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" would essentially be 
the same. Since there must be a close correlation between the required "body of highly specialized 
knowledge" and the position, however, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in two disparate 
fields, such as philosophy and engineering, would not meet the statutory requirement that the degree 
be "in the specific specialty ( or its equivalent)," unless the Petitioner establishes how each field is 
directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position. Section 214(i)(l )(B) of the 
Act ( emphasis added). For the aforementioned reasons, however, the Petitioner has not met its burden 
to establish that the particular position offered in this matter requires a bachelor's or higher degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent, directly related to its duties in order to perform those tasks. 
In any event, the Petitioner has famished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition 
are analogous to those in Residential Finance. 8 As we noted above, in contrast to the broad 
precedential authority of the case law of a United States circuit court, we are not bound to follow the 
published decision of a United States district court in matters arising even within the same district. See 
Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. at 719-20. Although the reasoning underlying a district judge's decision 
will be given due consideration when it is properly before us, the analysis does not have to be followed 
as a matter oflaw. Id. 
7 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0142, Rescission of the December 22, 2000 "Guidance memo on HlB 
computer related positions" (Mar. 31, 2017), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/nativedocuments/PM-6002-
0142-H- l BComputerRelatedPositionsRecission.pdf. 
8 It is noted that the district judge's decision in that case appears to have been based largely on the many factual enors 
made by the Director in the decision denying the petition. We further note that the Director's decision was not appealed 
to us. Based on the district court's conclusions and description of the record, if that matter had first been appealed through 
the available administrative process, we may very well have remanded the matter to the service center for a new decision 
for many of the same reasons articulated by the district court if these errors could not have been remedied by us in our de 
novo review of the matter. 
5 
The Petitioner also refers to our non-precedent decisions and asserts that "both USCIS and the courts have 
repeatedly held that where most employers in an occupation require a bachelor's degree in a narrow range 
of majors, or a related major, or its equivalent, it is a specialty occupation."9 Non-precedent decisions 
apply existing law and policy to the specific facts of the individual case, and may be distinguishable based 
on the evidence in the record of proceedings, the issues considered, and applicable law and policy. The 
Petitioner has furnished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition are analogous to 
those in the unpublished decisions. While 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c) provides that our precedent decisions 
are binding on all USCIS employees in the administration of the Act, unpublished decisions are not 
similarly binding. 
The record lacks sufficient evidence to support a finding that the proffered position is one for which a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry. For the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner has not met its burden to 
establish that the particular position offered in this matter requires a bachelor's or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, directly related to its duties in order to perform those tasks. Thus, 
the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I). 
B. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs: "The degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show 
that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with 
a degree[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong contemplates 
common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific 
position. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
We generally consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there is such a common degree 
requirement: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the industry's 
professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether letters or 
affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry establish that such firms "routinely employ and 
recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 1999) 
(quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (considering these 
"factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
9 While the Petitioner provides the citation to one of our non-precedent decision, it states that "in at least 2,415 unpublished 
decisions" that "USCTS regularly approves H-1 B petitions for qualified aliens who are to be employed as engineers, 
computer scientists, certified public accountants, college professors, and other such occupations." The Petitioner did not 
indicate the source of this information and it is unclear how the Petitioner arrived at its conclusion. Moreover, the Petitioner 
has furnished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition are analogous to those in the unpublished 
decisions. 
6 
As noted, the Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is a common 
requirement within the industry for parallel positions among similar organizations. Also, the Petitioner 
did not submit evidence from an industry professional association or from firms or individuals in the 
industry indicating such a degree is a minimum requirement for entry into the position. 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner submitted copies of job announcements placed by other 
employers. However, upon review of the documents, we find that the Petitioner's reliance on the job 
announcements is misplaced. First, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that these organizations are 
similar. When determining whether the Petitioner and the advertising organization share the same 
general characteristics, we look at the information regarding the nature or type of organization, and, 
when pertinent, the particular scope of operations, as well as the level ofrevenue and staffing (to list 
just a few elements that may be considered). It is not sufficient for the Petitioner to claim that an 
organization is similar and in the same industry without providing a legitimate basis for such an 
assertion. For instance, the Petitioner did not submit information regarding the employers' revenue or 
staffing. In addition, the announcements include positions with companies operating in the fields of 
avionics entertainment, manufacturing, and food industry. The Petitioner did not sufficiently 
supplement the record of proceedings to establish that these advertising organizations are similar. 
Moreover, many of the advertisements do not appear to involve parallel positions, as they appear to 
be for more senior positions than the proffered position. For instance, the posting placed by FocusKPI 
Inc. requires a master's degree for the position. Moreover, in addition to the educational requirement, 
the posting placed by QSC requires "[ a ]t least 1 O+ years [ experience in] PLM business systems 
analysis;" the posting placed by Panasonic Avionics requires "5 years of experience in an operations 
and information systems management role;" the posting placed by MBO Partners requires a minimum 
of three years of experience in quantitative analysis as well as experience in "R, MATLAB, SPSS, 
SAS, Stata;" and, the posting placed by McCormick & Company, Inc. requires a minimum of"5 to 10 
years of experience working in PLM environment at a consumer industrial food company or pharmacy 
industry." On the other hand, while the Petitioner states that it prefers PLM experience, it does not 
make such experience a requirement for the position, nor does it indicate the length of experience it 
prefers. The Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the primary duties and responsibilities of 
the advertised positions are parallel to the proffered position. 
In addition, Team Engineering USA states it "prefers" a bachelor's degree. A preference for a degree 
in a field is not necessarily an indication of a minimum requirement. The job posting suggests, at best, 
that although a bachelor's degree is sometimes required for these positions, a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty ( or its equivalent) is not. 10 
10 It must be noted that even if all of the job postings indicated that a requirement of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations (which they do not). the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from the advertisements with regard to 
determining the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. See generally 
Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 (1995). Moreover, given that there is no indication that the 
advertisements were randomly selected, the validity of any such inferences could not be accurately determined even if the 
sampling unit were sufficiently large. See id. at 195-196 (explaining that "[r]andom selection is the key to [the] process 
[ of probability sampling]" and that "random selection offers access to the body of probability theory, which provides the 
basis for estimates of population parameters and estimates of error"). 
7 
As the documentation does not establish that the Petitioner has met this prong of the regulations, 
further analysis regarding the specific information contained in each of the job postings is not 
necessary. 11 That is, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. 
Without more, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
First, we note that the record does not sufficiently demonstrate the services the Beneficiary would 
perform. While the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary will "specifically work on the various 
PLM/QWIK [sic] related products and implementations being carried out by the company" the record 
does not contain sufficient evidence substantiating the services required for the proffered position. 
The Petitioner states that the "incumbent for the position will be performing analysis of data for 
clients ... " and a "successful migration enables [its] clients to increase their productivity .... " 
However, the Petitioner did not identify a specific client project to which the Beneficiary would be 
assigned. The Petitioner submitted contracts, invoices, and software licensing orders; however, it 
stated that these were submitted "ONLY TO SHOW" ( emphasis in the original) that "the company 
has existing clients for the projects." Without additional documents, these contracts, invoices and 
licensing orders have little probative weight towards establishing the actual work to be performed by 
the Beneficiary. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the position "requires an in-depth evaluation of variable factors 
and exercises judgment in selecting method, techniques and evaluation criteria for obtaining results." 
Although the Petitioner states that the position requires "technical expertise" in "data models, database 
design development, data mining and segmentation techniques," as well as "immense knowledge of 
Data Structure and IT implementation, Algorithms analysis and design, Database Management 
Systems, Networking and Architecture, Middleware concepts, and Software Engineering knowledge 
(Software Development Life Cycle)," it has not demonstrated that an established curriculum of 
particular courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent 
is required for the proffered position. While a few related courses and skills may be beneficial in 
performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how an established 
curriculum of such courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, is required to perform the duties of the proffered position. 
11 The Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how representative the job postings are of the particular 
advertising employers' recruiting history for the type of job advertised. As the advertisements are only solicitations for 
hire, they are not evidence of the actual hiring practices of these employers. 
8 
Furthermore, the record does not contain a sufficiently detailed description of the Beneficiary's duties 
to establish that the position requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly 
specialized knowledge, and the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty, 
or its equivalent. The duties such as "[d]evelop[ing] and document[ing] the data migration 
requirements and design[ing] processes to migrate data from the customer's current information 
system to the target applications," "[f]acilitating data validation activities for migrated data," 
"[g]athering [r]requirements from Business Users and planning the existing BI system for 
implementation," "[ c ]ollecting data from different systems," "[b ]uilding Time series analysis," and 
"b ]uilding forecasting reports and trend reports" do not illuminate the substantive application of 
knowledge involved or any particular educational requirement associated with such duties. 12 
We also question the proposed tasks listed in "Documentation, support and training" heading such as 
"[ d]ocumenting and [p ]roviding it to users to explain the business definitions and videos to use the 
reports," "[t]raining the business users to interact with reports," and "[p]roviding [t]echnical and 
functional support for the business users." The Petitioner did not establish how these duties require 
an individual with a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. While the 
position may require that the Beneficiary possess some skills and technical knowledge in order to perform 
these duties, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how these tasks require the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment of a bachelor's or 
higher degree in the specific specialty ( or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation. 
Moreover, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary will "[ w ]ork closely with the team and solution 
architect to ensure that the data migration strategy and processes are implement" and "[work] with 
[a]rchitects to plan and build data ware house [sic] infrastructure." While the Petitioner submitted an 
organizational chart depicting various teams for the "Qiwk Products," it did not indicate in which team 
the Beneficiary would perform her duties and did not depict the various positions within each team. 
Therefore, the various positions within the organizational set-up, the Beneficiary's position within the 
Petitioner's overall organizational hierarchy, and the extent of her duties cannot be determined. With 
the broadly described duties and the lack of evidence regarding work specific to a particular client's 
project, the record lacks sufficient information to understand the nature of the actual proffered position 
and to determine that the duties require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly 
specialized knowledge attained by a bachelor's degree, or higher, in a specific discipline. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position, and references her 
qualifications. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education 
or experience of a particular beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative 
complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position, and it did not identify any tasks 
that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. 
µ...is....ajso notewo7hv thr the Petitioner incorrectly states that the Beneficiary holds a degree from 
L_Juniversity College of Engineering and Technology), India." Furthermore, the Petitioner 
mistakenly and repeatedly references the Beneficiary in the masculine pronoun case. The record lacks 
12 These duties are listed in the expanded version of the duties provided in response to the Director's RFE. 
9 
an explanation for these inconsistencies. Thus, we must question the accuracy of the documents and 
whether the information provided is correctly attributed to this particular Beneficiary and position. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it normally 
requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. The Petitioner 
does not assert, nor does the record demonstrate, eligibility under this criterion. Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
D. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature 
of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
As discussed above, relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by 
the Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position because the substantive nature of the position has 
not been developed. 13 In other words, the proposed duties have not been described with sufficient 
specificity to show that they are more specialized and complex than computer systems analyst 
positions that are not usually associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. Nor has the Petitioner explained how the Beneficiary's tasks require the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment of a bachelor's or 
higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation. 
That is, the Petitioner did not submit information relevant to a detailed course of study leading to a 
specialty degree and did not establish how such a curriculum is necessary to perform the duties it 
claims are so specialized and complex. While a few related courses may be beneficial in performing 
certain duties of the position, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how an established curriculum of 
such courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is 
required to perform the duties of the proffered position. 
The evidence of record does not establish that this position is significantly different from other 
computer systems analyst positions such that it refutes the Handbook's information to the effect that 
there is a spectrum of degrees acceptable for computer systems analyst positions, including degrees of 
general applicability. In other words, the record lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish 
the proffered position as more complex and specialized than computer systems analyst or other closely 
related positions that can be performed by persons without at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. 
13 We also incorporate by reference the previous discussion on the matter under the second prong of criterion (2). 
10 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that its proffered position is one with duties sufficiently 
specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
Consequently, the Petitioner has not satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
11