dismissed H-1B Case: Data Analytics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7750106 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-IB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR. 5, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an "analytics associate IV" 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 California Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish 
that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 1 
The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) reviews the questions in this matter de nova. 2 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: 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
1 Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010) . 
2 See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . 
(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 
A. Specialty Occupation 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not consider the evidence in the record, or in the 
alternative, did not explain the reasoning for rejecting the evidence. The Petitioner contends that the 
evidence establishes that the nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree 
in data analytics, business analytics, or a closely related quantitative and analytical field. The Petitioner 
does not challenge the Director's conclusion that the proffered position does not qualify as a specialty 
occupation under the first three criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Accordingly, we will restrict 
our analysis of the duties and evidence submitted to the fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
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. 3 The Petitioner asserts that the Director did not properly consider its nine-page response 
3 The Petitioner initially stated that the proffered position requires "at least a bachelor's degree ( or equivalent) in Analytics, 
Business Administration with a concentration in Analytics or a closely related field, plus related industry experience." The 
Petitioner did not define the amount of industry experience the position requires. In response to the Director's request for 
evidence, the Petitioner stated that it '"normally requires at least a bachelor's degree ( or equivalent) in a quantitative and 
analytical field such as Data Analytics, Business Administration with a concentration in Analytics or a closely related 
field." In the Director's decision, the Director pointed out that the Petitioner's website job posting for an Analytics 
2 
to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) regarding the specialized and complex nature of the 
position. We reviewed the Petitioner's descriptions of the duties of the position and note that the 
Petitioner provided four broad categories of responsibilities with a short explanation and example of 
each particular duty.4 For example, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary will "[p]rovide 
analytics and statistical expertise for development of accurate solutions based on business needs," and 
that "[t]his includes performing ad hoc analytics to determine what has happened and trend for the 
future." As an example of this task, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will analyze and produce 
data results to answer questions such as what hospital/zip codes are driving high cost air ambulance 
utilization. 
We reviewed the Petitioner's table, provided in response to the RFE, which added further detail to this 
particular responsibility category. Within the table, the Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary must 
identify the right data sets, clean the datasets and slice and dice the data identifying the right variables 
and parameters that are required for analysis and build predictive models that identify the hospitals 
and medical conditions that are the reasons of the increase in air ambulance use and cost. From this 
description we recognize that the Beneficiary will need basic business knowledge and some familiarity 
with datasets and analysis, however, we cannot conclude that this responsibility and the remaining 
tasks in the additional narrative require a bachelor's degree in a specific discipline, or its equivalent. 
The descriptions provide an overview of the position but do not include the necessary detail and 
information to demonstrate that this responsibility requires a bachelor's degree in a specific discipline, 
or its equivalent. 
Notably, the Petitioner identifies three courses that will prepare the Beneficiary to perform these 
duties. 5 First, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the skill set or education 
of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself qualifies as a specialty occupation. Second, 
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. Upon review, the record lacks sufficiently detailed information to 
distinguish the proffered position as more specialized and complex than other positions that can be 
performed by persons without at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
Upon review of the totality of the descriptions in the record pertaining to the Petitioner's particular 
position, the Petitioner has not described a position that requires more than a general bachelor's degree 
Associate IV position listed the qualifications as a ·'Bachelors in a data analytics affiliate field such as Business Statistics 
and Analysis, Business Administration, Finance, Information Systems, Computer Science or related. Six or more years of 
experience in data compilation, reporting and analytics utilizing data and analytics tools." The Petitioner does not offer 
an explanation for its differing requirements to perform the position on appeal. The Petitioner must resolve this 
inconsistency in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 T&N 
Dec. 582, 591-592 (BIA 1988). 
4 The Petitioner included three other main categories with a similar briefnanative for each category. We observe that the 
Director reviewed these responsibilities and repeated them in the decision. We have reviewed the duties in full and see no 
need to repeat them here. 
5 The Petitioner also indicates that three of the responsibility categories, including this particular category, require two 
associate degree courses in SQL. However, the record does not include evidence that the Beneficiary has taken either of 
these courses, although he appears to have been awarded a 2009 certificate in C, OOPS, Java, and Oracle SQL and a 2013 
certificate in computer basic, some programming languages, and data science related to Oracle and SQL. 
3 
and a couple of certifications in basic computer technology. The duties do not include the necessary 
detail to conclude that they require both the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly 
specialized knowledge and the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, as the minimum for entry into the occupation. See section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty occupation). 
The Petitioner also contends that the Director did not review the eight pages of the Beneficiary's work 
product as evidence to demonstrate that the position is specialized and complex. The Petitioner also 
claims that the Petitioner explained the work product and detailed how specific knowledge is required 
to perform the proffered position. Although the Petitioner provided a table with the "work product" 
labeled as work product #100, #101, #102, #200, etc., the actual documents are not labeled. We have 
reviewed: (1) a one-page document with several tables and a graph, which is titled Co-Ocurring 
Episode relation; (2) a document with a question, table, and recommendation, which appears to be a 
screenshot from a powerpoint presentation; (3) an exchange of emails between the Beneficiary and a 
third party reminding the Beneficiary to filter data for specific projects; (4) a document with a graph 
on the BRCA 1 and 2 foll sequence analysis; (5) an excel report on retinal imaging; (6) a document 
that includes a trend graph and a prior authorization dashboard graph; and (7) emails from the 
Beneficiary discussing SQL and SAS code with third parties. 
Although we can identify some of the documents as corresponding to the Petitioner's table of work 
product, such as the screenshot (2), the retinal imaging (5), and the prior authorization dashboard 
screenshot (6), we cannot otherwise tie the work product to specific projects or ascertain the work 
required to create the documents. The Petitioner's brief descriptions of the work product outlined in 
the table also do not convey an understanding of the complexity or specialization of the creation of 
the work product. For example, the Petitioner states that one document is a sample presentation to 
executives, another is a result of the Beneficiary pulling data from multiple source systems, and 
another shows a result from the Beneficiary receiving a list of desired fields and working with a 
business partner to develop the query. In other words, the documents and explanations are abstract 
and without sufficient context to demonstrate the knowledge required to create the work product. The 
work product does not corroborate that the proffered position's duties are so specialized and complex 
that they require knowledge usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
opinion authored b~ !Adjunct Professor of the Graduate School, 
The Petitioner farther claims that the Director did not consider and afford the proper~ 
.__ ________ ____.I Department, of the University I 16 We reviewed s 
6 Service records show thatl I used a template with conclusor_r findings and little or no analysis to support the 
Petitioner's particular position as a specialty occupation. For example, lrepeats an abbreviated version of the 
Petitioner's description of duties. repeats the duties listed in the Handbook for this occupation, lists a number of courses 
that may be part of a business or an analytics degree, and identifies three courses that may prepare an individual to perform 
the duties of this position. Service records show that this same template with the same language, organization. and similar 
conclusory statements regarding different occupations and also without supporting analysis has been submitted on behalf 
of other petitioners for a variety of occupations. The similarity in conclusions, without cogent analysis, strongly suggests 
that the authors of the opinions were asked to confirm a preconceived notion as to the required degrees, not objectively 
assess the proffered position and opine on the minimum bachelor's degree required. While we will review the opinion 
presented, it has little probative value as it does not include specific analysis of the duties of the particular position that is 
4 
opinion and observe that I I indicates he reviewed a number of documents including the 
Petitioner's organizational chart and material from the company's website. We note that the current 
record which includes background information from the Petitioner's website does not include a copy 
of the Petitioner's organizational chart. I I repeats an abbreviated version of the Petitioner's 
description of the proposed responsibilities and opines, without meaningful analysis, that a 
"Bachelor's Degree in Data Analytics, Business Administration with a concentration in Analytics, or 
a closely related field provides the student with the core body of highly srcialized knowledge, 
competencies and skills needed for a [sic] Analytics Associate IV position." I also lists 
16 courses 7 that could be taken in these fields that correspond to and prepare a student for the 
responsibilities of the position. I I later refers to three courses, computer programming, 
principles of finance, and IT project management, as particular courses that will prepare a student for 
the responsibilities of the position. These three courses are different than the three courses the 
Petitioner claims are relevant to and help the Beneficiary perform the duties of the proffered position. 8 
I I does not explain this difference. Moreover, I I does not offer a cogent analysis 
supporting a conclusion that the duties of the proposed responsibilities he reviewed are specialized 
and complex. 
We also reviewed! Is statement that the individual in the proffered position "is responsible 
for applying strategic and analytical skills and expertise gained in a course of study in a single body 
of highly specialized knowledge to major company challenges, including optimizing marketing spend 
across multiple channels, evaluating the company's geographic footprint to determine where to open 
the next store, and determining what drives the customer experience." Our review of the Petitioner's 
background and the proposed position do not refer to the individual in the proffered position analyzing 
the Petitioner's footprint in order to open stores or optimizing marketing spend across multiple 
channels. This raises significant questions regardin~~---~ts actual knowledge of the proffered 
position and the Petitioner's business operations and therefore lessens the probative value of his 
op1mon. 
Finally, we reviewed I Is version of an interview and discussion with the Petitioner's 
manager of finance medicals and the Beneficiary. I I indicates that this discussion revealed 
that the pos1t10n requires: an understanding of insurance claims data, and current procedures 
terminology (CPT) codes, diagnosis related groups, relative value units and health plan requirements; 
that the position works with different stakeholders and with large datasets; responsibility for 
customized reports such as dashboards and other data visualizations; and, practical skills in object 
oriented programming languages especially in Java and Python with the ability to provide innovation 
and business insights regarding healthcare operations. I I concludes that it is abundantly clear, 
based on his conversations with the Petitioner's representative and the Beneficiary, that the proffered 
position is a professional specialty occupation. However,! I does not support his conclusion 
the subject of this petition. 
7 Our review of the Beneficiary's coursework does not include the majority of the courses I I references. 
8 The Petitioner lists six master degree level courses it claims the Beneficiary attended. Three of these courses taken at the 
University I I, along with other courses resulted in the award of a master's degree in business administration 
with a concentration in finance to the Beneficiary. Another three courses apparently are part of an online, hybrid 
curriculum provided by I ]university. The record does not include probative evidence that the Beneficiary 
completed the coursework he enrolled in at this university or that he was awarded a degree after completing sufficient 
coursework. 
5 
with analysis, nor does he provide insight into the level of complexity or demands associated with the 
proposed duties or the specialized knowledge required to perform them. For example, the record does 
not sufficiently demonstrate how understanding CPT and related codes and working with large 
datasets and having responsibility for customized reports such as dashboards and other data 
visualization, establishes a necessary correlation for a particular level of education, or educational 
equivalency, in a body of highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. There are analytical 
and technology occupations that may be performed with a general degree ( either at the bachelor or 
associates level) and certifications or undefined experience in a particular program or third party 
software. 9 Here the Petitioner does not sufficiently develop the specialization and complexity aspect 
of the proffered position to conclude that the actual duties satisfy the fourth criterion. 
We also reviewed the remaining three categories of tasks and the tables provided by the Petitioner 
regarding the courses it claims will be used to perform the job duties. The Petitioner's additional 
categories included: combining datasets from multiple systems, including Facets, Health Edge, 
ZeOmega, and Oracle servers, to perform financial analysis; maintaining the analytical foundation 
through business definitions and design of data marts; 10 and, presenting and explaining analyses to 
front line staff and various levels ofleadership based on an analysis of the multi-system data. For the 
reasons discussed above, we do not find the description, the work product, and the position opinion 
sufficient to establish that the duties are so specialized and complex that they require a bachelor's 
degree in a specific discipline, or its equivalent in order to perform them. 
The Petitioner does not include a description of the proposed day-to-day duties such that the 
description provides insight into the Beneficiary's day-to-day tasks, so that we may ascertain the level 
of specific knowledge that is required to perform those duties, and conclude that the duties are the 
duties of an "Operations Research Analysts" occupation, the occupation designated on the labor 
condition application (LCA). 11 There are a number of occupations with varying wage and academic 
requirements that require working with large datasets and preparing reports and recommendations. 12 
Here, the record is insufficient to establish that the proffered position is an "Operations Research 
Analysts" position, and further that the generally described duties require both the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and the attainment of a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as the minimum for entry into the 
occupation. See section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty 
occupation). 
9 An analytical knowledge base may be attained through a number of different lower-level courses in a variety of disparate 
fields. Core concepts developed in foundational courses are the prerequisites in a bachelor's degree program which then 
require higher-level courses in an increasingly narrower body of knowledge to produce the knowledge associated with a 
specific discipline. The record here does not include probative evidence explaining why the programming or analytical 
knowledge needed to perform the position cannot be attained with general bachelor's-level study or certifications. 
10 The Petitioner did not provide a distinct elaboration of this responsibility in its table describing coursework that would 
be used to perform the duty. 
11 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B 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 who are performing the same services. See Section 
212(n)(l) ofthe Act; 20 C.F.R. ~ 655.73l(a). 
12 See the Depa11ment of Labor's Occupational Information Network summary report for "Business Intelligence Analysts," 
SOC code 15-1198.08 at https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/15-l 199.08; and "Statisticians," SOC code 15-2041 at 
https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/15-2041.00. 
6 
B. Beneficiary's Qualifications 
We do not need to examine the issue of the Beneficiary's qualifications, because the Petitioner has not 
provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. In 
other words, the Beneficiary's credentials to perform a particular job are relevant only when the job is 
found to be a specialty occupation. Therefore, we need not address the Beneficiary's qualifications 
further. However, in this matter we note several inconsistencies that raise concern regarding the 
credibility of the Beneficiary's credentials and work experience. These concerns must be addressed 
in any future proceedings. 
The Petitioner initially submitted a credential and experience evaluation prepar;....:e:...::d:....b=.........-========-
1 I Associate Professor, Department of Computer Systems Technology,~-----~-
College of Technology ~ I, dated February 26, 2019. 
I !reviewed the Beneficiary's foreign degrees and concluded that the foreign degrees satisfied 
the academic requirements for a bachelor's-level degree equivalency in the field of business 
administration. I I then reviewed the Beneficiary's prior work experience in the field of 
analytics and opined that the Beneficiary's experience would be comparable to a university-level 
major equivalency in analytics. 
We reviewed the information submitted by the Petitioner as well asl ts website regarding the 
program for granting college credit based on "life experience," and note that it indicates the following: 
(1) that credit for life experience is not evaluated during the admissions process at I I but only 
after the student has enrolled in the program; (2) that credit is not awarded for experiences but for the 
student's ability to demonstrate that these experiences constitute college-level learning; (3) that 
students can earn up to 15 credits for documented learning experiences, published works, or artistic 
performances that occurred before they started college, during a hiatus of at least one year in their 
college careers, or in their current job if they were doing the same job for at least two years before 
starting college, provided they can show that what they learned or did is equivalent to college level 
work; (4) that enrolled students can pursue the life experience option when they have earned between 
45 and 90 credits; and (5) that credit for prior learning cannot be applied to area(s) of concentration, 
liberal arts, residency, or core distribution requirements - in other words, this credit is always elective 
credit. I I does not discuss these limitations and restrictions placed on I I's program 
for granting college-level credit based on an individual's training and/or work experience. Nor does 
I I dis~ methodologies he used to evaluate the Beneficiary's past experience within 
the context of theL__J program. 
The lack of an analysis of the Beneficiary's work experience within the context in whichl lissues 
college credit for life or work experience significantly diminishes the probative value of D 
~--~I's evaluation. We may, in our discretion, discount or give less weight to an evaluation of a 
person's foreign education where that opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way 
questionable. Matter of Sea, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 817,820 (Comm'r 1988). We exercise that discretion 
in this matter and find that this evaluation does not satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(l). 
Additionally, the experience letters upon whichl I claims to rely are brilf and creat: 
ambiguity in the record regarding the Beneficiary's work. For example, the letter from I 
dated February 19, 2019, notes that the Beneficiary participated in F-1 Curricular/Optional Practical 
7 
Training from June to December 2016, from December 2016 to December 2017, and again from 
January 2018 to May 2019, a date subsequent to the date of the letter. Further, the letters do not 
provide the necessary detail to ascertain the nature of the duties the Beneficiary performed or to 
conclude that his experience was progressively responsible. Moreover, the letters are insufficient to 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary's work experience was gained while working with peers, supervisors, 
or subordinates who have a degree or its equivalent in the specialty occupation. We cannot conclude 
that the Beneficiary's work experience assists in establishing the Beneficiary has the equivalent of at 
least a U.S. bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 
Finally, I I seems unaware that the Beneficiary was awarded a U.S. Master of Business 
Administration degree, with a concentration in Finance, in December 2016 by the University! I I 11 ts lack of reference to a degree issued more than two years prior to his academic 
and experience evaluation raises credibility issues regarding eitherl Is evaluation or the 
documents in the record purporting to show this degree was awarded to the Beneficiary. In addition 
to this credibility issue, we also observe that the record includes a statement from I I 
University that the Beneficiary has enrolled in or completed several courses during the 2017 and 2018 
academic years. However, as noted above, there is insufficient evidence to establish what additional 
degree the Beneficiary is pursuing, if any. Without an academic credential establishing that a degree 
was issued byl I University, the record is insufficient to establish the relevance of the 
I !coursework to this proceeding. 
The record does not include sufficient probative credible evidence that the Beneficiary would be 
qualified to perform the proffered position even if the Petitioner had established that the position 
qualified as a specialty occupation. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and 
alternative basis for the decision. 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. 
8