dismissed H-1B Case: Data Analysis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8632552 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 22, 2020 
The Petitioner 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 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(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. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofSkirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 
2012). 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. ANALYSIS 
For the reasons discussed below, we have determined that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 1 Specifically, we conclude that 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 first tum to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I), 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 
1 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the petition, including evidence regarding the 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. 
2 
The Petitioner submitted the required DOL ETA Form 9035 & 9035E, Labor Condition Application 
for Nonimmigrant Workers (LCA) with this petition, where it classified the proffered position under 
the occupational title "Computer Systems Analysts," corresponding to the Standard Occupational 
Classification (SOC) code 15-1121. 4 According to the portion of the Handbook titled How to Become 
a Computer Systems Analyst, "[a] bachelor's degree in a computer or information science field is 
common, although not always a requirement. Some firms hire analysts with business or liberal arts 
degrees who have skills in information technology or computer programming." 5 The Handbook also 
states: "Although many computer systems analysts have technical degrees, such a degree is not always 
a requirement. Many analysts have liberal arts degrees and have gained programming or technical 
expertise elsewhere." 6 
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. As cited above, 
the Handbook specifically states that a bachelor's degree in a related field is "not always a 
requirement." The Handbook continues by indicating that there is a wide range of degrees that are 
acceptable for positions in this occupation, including general-purpose degrees in business and liberal 
arts. Again, we interpret the term "degree" to mean a degree in a specific specialty that directly relates 
to the proposed position. 7 
Since there must be a close correlation between the required specialized studies and the position, a 
requirement for general and wide-ranging degrees such as in business and liberal arts strongly suggests 
that computer systems analysts positions are not categorically a specialty occupation. 8 Further, while 
the Handbook indicates that computer systems analysts without a computer-related degree obtain 
related skills and experience elsewhere, it does not quantify the skills and experience needed for entry 
into this occupation by individuals without a computer-science related degree. It further reports that 
many analysts have technical degrees. However, the Handbook does not specify a degree level ( e.g., 
associate's degree, baccalaureate) for these technical degrees. 
In the absence of support from the Handbook, the Petitioner provided a copy of DO L's Appendix D: 
Professional Occupations Education and Training Categories. However, the Appendix D refers to a 
bachelor's degree in an unspecified specialty as a general requirement for a computer systems analyst 
occupation. A requirement for a bachelor's degree alone is not sufficient. 
4 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCTS) to demonstrate 
that it will pay the Beneficiary 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 experience and qualifications who 
are performing the same services. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(a). 
5 Bureau of Labor Statistics, DOL, Handbook, Computer Systems Analysts, https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and­
information-technology/computer-systems-analysts.htm#tab-4 (last visited April 3, 2020). 
6 Id. 
7 See Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147. 
8 See id. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). See also Altimetrik Corp. v. Cissna, 
No. 18-10116, 2018 WL 6604258, at *6 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 17, 2018) (the Handbook "makes it clear that a degree in a 
computer-related field is not required" for these positions, and therefore "USCTS [was] entitled to deference in its finding 
that systems analysts are not required to have a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty"). 
3 
On appeal, the Petitioner cites Next Generation Tech., Inc. v. Johnson 9 as relevant here and uses it to 
support a conclusion concerning the meaning of what is "normally" the minimum requirement for the 
position. We question the applicability of Next Generation Tech., Inc. in the instant matter, as it 
analyzed our reading of the Handbook concerning the entry requirements for positions located within 
the different and separate occupational category of "Computer Programmers," rather than the 
"Computer Systems Analysts" category designated by the Petitioner in the LCA relating to this 
case. As noted above, the Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a spec[fic specialty, 
or its equivalent, is normally required for entry into this occupation, nor does it indicate that the named 
fields comprise an exhaustive list. 
As recognized by another court, while the Handbook may establish the first regulatory criterion for 
certain professions, 10 many occupations are not described in such a categorical manner. 11 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." 12 In such 
a case, "[the Petitioner] could not simply rely on [the Handbook] profile, and instead 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." 13 
Moreover, the court in Next Generation Tech., Inc. relied in part on a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
(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. 14 
The Petitioner also cites Residential Finance Corp. v. USCIS for the proposition that "there is no 
apparent requirement that the specialized study needed be in a single academic discipline as opposed 
to a specialized course of study in related business specialties ... The knowledge and not the title of the 
degree is what is important. Diplomas rarely come bearing occupation specific majors." 15 We 
generally agree with the aforementioned proposition in Residential Finance that "[t]he knowledge and 
not the title of the degree is what is important." 16 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. 
9 Next Generation Tech., Inc. v. Johnson, 328 F. Supp. 3d 252 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2017). 
10 Such professions would include surgeons or attorneys, which indisputably require at least a bachelor's degree for entry 
into the occupation. 
11 See Innova Sols .. Inc. v. Baran, 2019 WL 3 753334, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2019) ( declining to follow Next Generation 
Tech .. Inc.). 
12 Id.; see also Xiaotong Liu v. Baran, 2018 WL 7348851 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2018). 
13 See Innova Sols., Inc. 2019 WL 3753334, at *8. 
14 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0142, Rescission of the December 22, 2000 ''Guidance memo on HJB 
computer related positions" (Mar. 31, 2017), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/nativedocuments/PM-6002-
0142-H- l BComputerRelatedPositionsRecission.pdf. 
15 Residential Finance Corp. v. USCIS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012). 
16 Residential Finance, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985. 
4 
Because 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 disparate fields 
would not meet the statutory requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty ( or its 
equivalent)," 17 unless the Petitioner establishes how each field is directly related to the duties and 
responsibilities of the particular position. 18 In the instant case, the Petitioner has provided insufficient 
evidence to establish the requirements for the proffered position and how each of the various fields 
are comprised of highly specialized knowledge directly related to the position. 
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 19 or any of the other cases cited. 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. 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. 21 It is also important 
to note that in a subsequent case reviewed in the same jurisdiction, the court agreed with our analysis 
of Residential Finance. 22 
The Petitioner also cites Matter of Doultsinos, 12 I&N Dec. 153 (Dist. Dir. 1967) and Matter of 
Rabbani, 12 I&N Dec. 15 (Dist. Dir. 1966) and states that occupations which required at least a 
bachelor's degree in a certain subject or a related field qualify as a member of the profession. Both of 
these decisions dealt with whether the beneficiaries were members of the professions as defined in 
section 10l(a)(32) of the Act. However, the issue before us in the instant case is whether the 
Petitioner's proffered position qualifies as a nonimmigrant H-1 B specialty occupation and not whether 
it is a profession. Thus, these precedent decisions can be distinguished from the present matter. 
Moreover, these decisions predate the statutes and regulations inaugurating the H-lB specialty 
occupation program. Therefore, the Petitioner's reliance on these cases is misplaced. 
In the instant matter, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation from a probative, 
authoritative source to substantiate its assertion regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this 
particular position. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
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 
17 Section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act ( emphasis added). 
18 The court in Residential Finance did not eliminate the statutory "bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty" 
language imposed by Congress. Rather, it found that the petitioner in that case had satisfied the requirement. 
19 The district judge's decision appears to have been based largely on the many factual errors 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 findings 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. 
20 See Matter of K-S-, 20 l&N Dec. 715, 719-20 (BIA 1993). 
21 Id. 
22 See Health Carousel, LLC v. USC1S, No. 1:13-CV-23, 2014 WL 29591 (S.D. Ohio 2014). 
5 
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 the 
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 attest 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)). 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook, or other authoritative source, reports a requirement for at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, we incorporate by reference the previous discussion on the 
matter. Also, there are no submissions from the industry's professional association indicating that it 
has made a degree a minimum entry requirement. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not submit any 
letters or affidavits from similar firms or individuals in the Petitioner's industry attesting that such 
firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." Nor is there any other evidence 
relevant for our consideration under this prong. Thus, based upon a complete review of the record of 
proceedings, we conclude that the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
The second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) 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. On appeal, the Petitioner does not 
assert eligibility under this prong of the criterion; therefore, further discussion is unnecessary. The 
Petitioner has not satisfied the second 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. Upon review of 
the record, we find that the Petitioner did not submit information regarding employees who currently 
or previously held the position. The record does not establish that the Petitioner normally requires at 
least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, directly related to the duties of the 
position. Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
6 
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. 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner submitted a letter froml l an Associate Dean and 
Associate Professor of Statistics in the6 I College and Graduate School of Liberal Arts at 
I Pniversity. In his letter, Dr. (1) describes the credentials that he asserts qualify him 
to opine upon the nature of the proffered position; (2) lists the duties proposed for the Beneficiary; and 
(3) states that these duties require at least a bachelor's degree in computer science, information 
systems, operations management, statistics, or a related field. We carefully evaluated Dr. c=]s 
assertions in support of the instant petition but, for the following reasons, determined his letter is not 
persuasive. 
First, we note that Dr.0 does not discuss the duties of the proffered position in any substantive 
detail. Rather, he restates the same duties listed in the Petitioner's response to the Director's request 
for evidence. He does not discuss them in the specific context of the Petitioner's business. There is 
no indication that he possesses any knowledge of the Petitioner's proffered position beyond this job 
description, e.g., visited the Petitioner's business, observed the Petitioner's employees, interviewed 
them about the nature of their work, or documented the knowledge that these workers apply on the job 
prior to documenting his opinion regarding the proffered position. His level of familiarity with the 
actual job duties as they would be performed in the context of the Petitioner's business has therefore 
not been substantiated. 
In addition, Dr.c=]refers to the position asl "siglificantly complex," and "specialized and complex" 
in his opinion. However, it is unclear if Dr. was informed of the Petitioner's attestation on the 
LCA that the proffered position was a Level II wage position. A Level II position indicates that the 
Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to perform only moderately complex tasks that require limited 
exercise of judgment compared to other positions within the same occupation. 23 The omission of a 
discussion or acknowledgement of the wage designation diminishes the evidentiary value of this 
opinion as it does not appear to be based on a complete understanding of the proffered position. 
23 For additional information, see U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy 
Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://t1cdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised_ 11 _ 2009.pdf 
We note that a low wage-level designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty 
occupation, just as a high wage-level designation does not definitively establish such a classification. In certain 
occupations ( e.g., doctors or lawyers), a Level TT position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, for entry. Similarly, however, a Level TV wage-designation would not reflect that an occupation 
qualifies as a specialty occupation if that higher-level position does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. That is, a position's wage-level designation may be a relevant factor but 
is not itself conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements of section 2 l 4(i)(l) of the Act. 
7 
Moreover, the record does not include evidence that Dr.0has published, conducted research, run 
surveys, or engaged in any enterprise, pursuit, or employment - academic or otherwise - regarding the 
minimum education requirements for the performance of the duties of the proffered position. While 
he may have anecdotal information regarding recruitment by employers for students who study 
statistics, mathematics, and computer science, the record does not include any relevant research, 
studies, surveys, or other authoritative publications as part of his review and/or as a foundation for his 
opm10n. 
For the reasons discussed, we conclude that the opinion letter from Dr.c=]is insufficient to satisfy 
this criterion. Matter of Caron Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (The service is not 
required to accept or may give less weight to an advisory opinion when it is "not in accord with other 
information or is in any way questionable."). 24 
The Petitioner also submitted a list of job duties and the percentage of time the Beneficiary would 
devote to each duty, along with the knowledge needed to complete each task and an explanation of the 
Beneficiary's relevant coursework. However, the record does not sufficiently demonstrate that the 
necessary knowledge for the proffered position is attained through an established curriculum of 
particular courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
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. In fact, the duties as described by the Petitioner, which includes tasks 
such as "[ w ]ork directly with the data engineers to improve day-to-day processes by using the 
Advanced SQL knowledge," "[a]utomation of daily and monthly SQL processes and enhance the 
turnaround time of the overall process," "[ c ]orporate Analytics team provides immediate fix for data 
issues and document the tickets into the JIRA system for efficient defect management," "[ a Jct as 
technical liaison between partners and team on all A WS technical aspects," and [p ]repare and give 
trainings, organize workshop and transfer of knowledge" do not appear to be so specialized and 
complex from other computer systems analyst positions such that a degree in a specific specialty would 
be necessary to perform them. 
Notably, the Beneficiary's proposed job duties include collaborations with "data engineers," and 
"corporate analytics team." However, the Petitioner has not identified the individuals the Beneficiary 
would work with or how they relate to his assignment. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the pos1t10n and references his 
qualifications. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education 
or experience of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence 
that the duties require more than technical proficiency in the information technology field. Thus, 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). 
24 We hereby incorporate our discussion ofDr.c=Js letter into our discussion of the other 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) 
criteria. 
8 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The appeal will be 
dismissed for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The 
Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
9