dismissed H-1B Case: Data Analytics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 21286101 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUN. 22, 2022 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary 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 Vermont Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not establish 
that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. The matter is now before us on appeal. On 
appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred by denying the petition. 
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 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the 
questions in this matter de nova. 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. LAW 
Section 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) of the Act defines an H-IB nonimmigrant as a foreign national "who is 
coming temporarily to the United States to perform services . .. in a specialty occupation described in 
section 214(i)(l) ... "(emphasis added). 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. 
By regulation, the Director is charged with determining whether the petition involves a specialty 
occupation as defined in section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(2). The Director 
may request additional evidence in the course of making this determination. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8). 
In addition, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the petition and must continue to 
be eligible through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is "a media website and mobile application 
who seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a 
"product analyst." The Petitioner provided a list of duties, along with the relevant percentage of time 
devoted to each duty, as follows: 
1. Perform deep dive analysis using SQL and Python programming languages to 
understand and optimize the key levers of the search product team. 40% 
2. Partner closely with data science teams and cross functional teams to generate 
insights and define strategy for search product roadmap. 5% 
3. Create compelling jupyter reports and dashboards to better interpret results of A/B 
experiments, inform launch review decisions and keep tracking core business 
metrics. 20% 
4. Design success and guardrail search metrics that serve as the North Stars for team 
efforts and model trade-off decisions. 5% 
5. Use Airflow to run data jobs that generate tables for team to query data and 
automatically report daily metrics on dashboards. 10% 
6. Work with product managers and software engineers to design data products, prove 
2 
their value by running experiments and release into production. 5% 
7. Perform frontend and backend logging audit, metrics drop investigation, and data 
requests/tickets to support tech foundation. 15% 
The Petitioner contends that to perform the duties of the position, a candidate must possess at least a 
bachelor's degree, or its equivalent, in information technology, analytics, or a closely related field. 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we conclude that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Specifically, the record does not include sufficient consistent, probative evidence establishing that the 
job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty 
occupation. 1 
A. First Criterion 
We turn 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. 
We recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) 
as a useful source of information regarding the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety 
of occupations that it addresses. The Petitioner designated the proffered position on the labor condition 
application (LCA) as an Occupational Information Network (O*NET) Standard Occupation 
Classification (SOC) code 15-1199.08 "Business Intelligence Analysts" under the SOC occupation 
15-1199 "Computer Occupations, All Other" occupation. 2 On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the 
"[Handbook], O*NET, [industry job postings], 3 and [the] Beneficiary's [education credentials] prove 
by the preponderance of the evidence" that the proffered position meets the first criterion. For the 
following reasons, we disagree. 
The Handbook is a career resource offering information on hundreds of occupations. However, there are 
occupational categories which the Handbook does not cover in detail, and instead provides only summary 
data.4 The subchapter of the Handbook titled "Data for Occupations Not Covered in Detail" states, in 
relevant part, that the "[t]ypical entry-level education" for a variety of occupations within the category of 
"[c]omputer occupations, all other" is a "[b]achelor's degree," without indicating that the bachelor's 
degree must be in a specific specialty. Thus, the Handbook is not probative in establishing that these 
positions comprise an occupational group for which the normal minimum requirement for entry is at least 
a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
1 The Petitioner submitted documentation to supp01t the H-IB petition, including evidence regarding the proffered position. 
While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 O*NET Online has updated the occupation code of SOC 15-1199 .08, "Business Intelligence Analysts," to SOC 15-
2051.01. For the purposes of this decision, we will refer to the occupation code used in the Director's decision, SOC 15-
1199 .08. See generally https://www.onetonline.org/ Archive_ ONET-SOC _ 2010 _Taxonomy_ 09 _ 2020. 
3 We will discuss the submitted job postings by other employers under the first prong of the second criterion of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
4 See Bureau of Labor Statistics. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Data for Occupations Not Covered 
in Detail, https://www.bls.gov/ooh/about/data-for-occupations-not-covered-in-detail.htm. Here, the Handbook does not 
provide specific information for the occupations which might be classified within the occupational category. 
3 
The Petitioner maintains that O*NET demonstrates the positions located within this occupation are 
specialty occupation positions, because the occupation's job zone and required education suggests a 
bachelor's degree is normal. Contrary to the assertion of the Petitioner, O*NET does not state a 
requirement for a bachelor's degree for this occupation. Rather, it assigns this occupation a job zone 
"four" rating, which groups it among occupations for which "most ... require a four-year bachelor's 
degree, but some do not." Even if O*NET stated that a bachelor's degree is required to enter positions 
located within SOC 15-1199 .08, "Business Intelligence Analysts" (which it does not), O*NET does not 
describe the normal minimum educational requirements with sufficient specificity to establish that the 
positions falling within the occupational category are specialized. The O*NET summary report for 
"Business Intelligence Analysts" includes general information about the occupation.5 For example, 
O*NET includes specialized vocational preparation (SVP), job zone, education, and the knowledge or 
skills generally associated with the occupation. However, O*NET does not specify particular fields of 
study when discussing the type of preparation or degrees that might be needed to perform a particular 
occupation. Accordingly, O*NET does not establish that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
the equivalent, is normally required. 
The Petitioner cites to Tapis Int'l v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 94 F. Supp. 2d 172 (D. 
Mass. 2000) for the proposition that "the [ normally required] degree does not have to be a degree in a 
single specific specialty." While we agree with the Petitioner that the regulatory provisions do not 
restrict qualifying occupations to a single, specifically tailored, and titled degree program, that is not 
the issue. The issue is that neither the Handbook nor O*NET discuss the type of preparation or degrees 
that might be needed to perform the duties of positions in the "Business Intelligence Analysts" 
occupation. Therefore, this material is not probative evidence sufficient to establish that a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, is normally required to satisfy the first criterion. 
Lastly, while the Petitioner suggests on appeal that we examine the Beneficiary's education credentials 
to conclude that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent are normally required for 
entry into the occupation, we are required to follow long-standing legal standards and determine first, 
whether the proffered position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation, and second, 
whether the Beneficiary was qualified for the position at the time the nonimmigrant visa petition was 
filed. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988) ('The facts of a 
beneficiary's background only come at issue after it is found that the position in which the petitioner 
intends to employ him falls within [a specialty occupation]."). 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation from a probative source to substantiate its 
assertions regarding the normal minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). We 
incorporate our discussion regarding the Handbook, O*NET, and the Beneficiary's education 
credentials into our analyses of the other criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
B. First Prong of the 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 
5 See https://www.onetonline.org/Archive _ ONET-SOC _ 2010 _Taxonomy_ 09 _ 2020/link/summary/15-1199.08. 
4 
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. 6 
To satisfy the 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 (which in this case it 
does not); 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." 7 
The Petitioner contends that the job postings by other companies submitted in its response to the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE) confirm that the Petitioner's degree requirements are similar to 
those normally required in their industry, internet media. Specifically, the Petitioner avers the job postings 
were placed by its competitors and their duties are parallel to those of the proffered position. On appeal, 
the Petitioner submits additional information to demonstrate the companies placing the job postings 
conduct business in the internet media industry. However, even if these companies are similar 
organizations within the Petitioner's industry, we would still conclude the Petitioner has not 
established that the positions offered in the job postings are parallel to the proffered position. 
Here, the Petitioner does not require prior work experience and indicates that the proffered position is 
a Level II position on the labor condition application (LCA). 8 Collectively considering all of the job 
postings by other employers in the record, we conclude that the information provided about the 
advertised jobs does not support the Petitioner's assertion that they qualify as parallel positions to the 
instant pos1t10n. We summarize information about the advertised position prerequisites from a 
sampling of the job postings below: 
• A- posted a Senior Business Analyst position, which requires a master's degree in 
business administration degree (MBA), or a bachelor's degree in a technical major 
(business analytics, statistics, econometrics, computer science, engineering, finance) 
or comparable years of experience; and 5 years product management. ... experience. 
• A- posted a Sr. Business Analyst position, which requires bachelor's degree in 
economics, statistics, engineering, related discipline, or equivalent experience; and 6+ 
6 We will discuss the second prong of the second criterion in section D below. 
7 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 ofa degree requirement)). 
8 A petitioner submits the LCA to the Department of Labor (DOL) 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. Section 2 l 2(n)(l) of the Act; 
20 C.F.R. § 655.731 (a). A prevailing wage determination starts with an entry-level wage and progresses to a higher wage 
level after considering the experience, education, and skill requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. U.S. Dep't of 
Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs 
(rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised_ l l _ 2009.pdf 
5 
years' experience in making business recommendations and influencing stakeholders 
.... , gathering business requirements .... ; 4+ years' experience building dashboards 
using data visualization .... , 4+ years' experience in developing business analytics 
models ..... 
• A- posted a Business Analyst position, which requires a bachelor's degree preferably 
in an analytical field, ( e.g., economics, business, mathematics, statistics, finance); and 
5+ years' experience in working with databases and relational data set in a business 
setting. 
• M- posted a Business Analyst position, which requires a master's degree in business 
analytics, management information systems, operational research, statistics, or related 
field; and 24 months of work experience in the job offered. 
• M- posted a Business Planning and Operations Analyst position, which requires a 
master's degree in analytics, business logistics, or engineering or a closely related 
field; and one year of experience in the job offered or related occupation. 
• M- posted a Business Analyst position, which requires a bachelor's degree in an 
analytical field (e.g., computer science, engineering, mathematics, business) or a 
related field; and 5+ years' experience in business analytics, operations analytics, 
and/or strategy consulting, or 3+ years' experience with MBA/master's degree. 
• I- posted a Technical Program Manager . ... Ads Measurement position, which 
requires bachelor's degree in computer science or a related technical discipline, or 
equivalent experience; and 4+ years of software engineering, systems engineering, or 
technical production/program management experience. 
• F- posted a Technical Program Manager, Ads Ranking position, which requires a 
bachelor's degree in computer science or a related technical discipline, or equivalent 
experience; and 7+ years' experience in software engineering or technical 
product/program management. 
• G- posted a Business Analyst Lead, Go to Market position, which requires a bachelor's 
degree in mathematics, economics, engineering, data science, or a related field, or 
equivalent practical experience; and 5 years' experience working as an analyst or 
related role in data, consulting, or financial services environment. 
• G- posted a Data Analyst, Ads Marketing position, which requires a bachelor's degree 
in computer science, or equivalent practical experience, and 1 year of relevant work 
expenence. 
Notably, most of the postings appear to be for more senior, experienced positions than the proffered 
position. Moreover, even if we assume that the job postings include duties and responsibilities that are 
parallel to the duties listed for the proffered position, these job postings confirm that there are a variety of 
paths available to enter the occupation (to include simply work experience). The job postings also raise 
significant concerns that if the proffered position is parallel to the majority of the positions posted- as the 
Petitioner contends, that the Petitioner has not submitted a certified LCA that supports the petition. 9 
For example, the Petitioner identified the proffered position as a wage Level II position on the certified 
LCA. The "Business Intelligence Analysts" position for a Job Zone Four occupation with a Specialized 
9 See 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b), which requires that USCIS ensure that an LCA supp01ts the H-lB petition filed on behalf of 
the Beneficiary. 
6 
Vocational Preparation (SVP) rating of "7.0 < 8.0" requires a three-level increase in wage level for 
positions requiring more than four years of experience ( as many of the job postings do). 10 Thus, even 
though some of the job postings may have included duties similar to the duties of the proffered position, 
the majority of the postings are for more senior positions than the proposed position; or, if the duties and 
levels of responsibility truly correspond to the proffered position, the Petitioner has not provided a 
certified LCA that includes a wage level that is commensurate with the duties and responsibilities required 
of its position. 
Further, the degree requirements presented in the job postings (such as computer science, data science, 
engineering, economics, business, mathematics, statistics, finance, and business administration) are too 
varied and broad to be considered a degree in a specific discipline, or its equivalent. To prove that a job 
requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge as required 
by section 214(i)(l) of the Act, a petitioner must establish that the position requires the attainment of 
a bachelor's or higher degree in a specialized field of study or its equivalent. Again, we interpret the 
degree requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to require a degree in a specific specialty that is 
directly related to the proposed position. For instance, a general degree in business, without more, is 
insufficient to establish a position qualifies as a specialty occupation. Although a general-purpose 
bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business, may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular 
position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify a conclusion that a particular position 
qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. Therefore, 
the advertisements do not support a conclusion that there is a common industry requirement for parallel 
positions to the instant position within organizations that are similar to the Petitioner. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the job postings are pertinent to the matter at 
hand. As the job postings do 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. That is, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. 
On appeal, the Petitioner also presents an opinion letter from K-, a professor at D- University. He 
opmes: 
[Through] my own professional experience, and the evidence gathered by PayScale's 
survey of more than two million civilian employees in the United States, both confirm 
that a [b ]achelor's degree in Information Technology, Analytics and related fields is an 
industry-standard for positions relating to the design, construction, implementation, 
maintenance, management, and operation of data and information systems, such as the 
Product Analyst position discussed herein. 
While the professor outlines his professional experience in the fields of mathematics, stat1st1cs, 
computer science, and related fields, he does not identify the aspects of his professional experience 
that informed him regarding "industry standards data" that "confirms" the degree requirements for 
parallel positions within the Petitioner's particularly industry. Moreover, he does not discuss or 
present the evidence "gathered by PayScale's survey" to supports his assertions. The professor also 
10 See https://www.onetonline.org/Archive_ ONET-SOC_2010_Taxonomy_09 _2020/link/summary/15-1199.08. See also 
Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance. supra. 
7 
does not define the Petitioner's industry other than to generally allude to positions that relate to a wide 
array of information technology functions (such as design, management, and operation) for "data and 
information systems." We conclude that the professor's ambiguous and unsupported statements 
regarding common degree requirements for parallel positions within the Petitioner's industry lend little 
probative value to the matter here. 
The Petitioner also submits a letter from C-, a professor at B- University, who indicates that he has 
conducted research regarding "the industry standards for hiring for roles similar to the Product Analyst 
with [the Petitioner]." He also opines that a bachelor's degree or its equivalent in information 
technology, analytics, or a related field is the industry standard for parallel positions within the 
Petitioner's industry. The professor notes that his conclusions "can be borne out by examining readily 
accessible labor statistics and other available information." He specifically references the O*NET 
summary report for the "Business Intelligence Analysts" occupation, noting that according to its 
survey data, "approximately ninety-six percent of respondents affirmed that the appropriate minimum 
education requirement for a Business Intelligence Analysts is, at least a bachelor's degree." 
Notably, the referenced O*NET summary report provides the educational requirements of 
"respondents," but does not account for 100% of the "respondents." The respondents' positions within 
the occupation are not distinguished by career level ( e.g., entry-level, mid-level, senior-level). Finally, 
the graph in the summary report does not indicate that the "education level" for the respondents must 
be in a specific specialty. Therefore, O*NET respondent data does not substantiate the professor's 
conclusions in this regard. 
We also note that while both professors indicate that they conducted research about the Petitioner and 
its industry, reviewed its job descriptions for the proffered position, and interviewed A-, the 
Beneficiary's supervisor, they make no mention of reviewing the job postings submitted by the 
Petitioner's competitors to establish eligibility under the first prong of the second criterion. As 
discussed above, the job postings suggest that for entry into the advertised positions a wide variety of 
degrees (such as computer science, data science, engineering, economics, business, mathematics, 
statistics, finance, and business administration) appear to suffice for entry into the position; and that 
in many instances even relevant work experience alone seems to be sufficient. 
We acknowledge that the professors each contend that a bachelor's degree or its equivalent in 
information technology, analytics, or a related field is the common industry standard for parallel 
positions to the proffered position within the Petitioner's industry. However, the professors did not 
analyze or discuss the submitted job advertisements by the Petitioner's competitors, which appear to 
collectively present position prerequisites that are contrary to their own conclusions. The Petitioner 
must resolve these inconsistencies in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to 
where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Without more, the opinion letters are not sufficiently probative towards satisfying 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) or any other criterion in this regard. Matter of Caron Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 
795 (Comm'r 1988) (finding 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."). 
8 
We therefore conclude that the Petitioner has not met the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). We incorporate the above discussion and analyses regarding the job postings 
by the Petitioner's competitors, as well as the opinion letters, into our discussion of the other 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) criteria. 
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. Evidence 
provided in this criterion may include, but is not limited to, an organizational chart showing the 
Petitioner's hierarchy and staffing levels with corresponding and experience requirements for this 
position, as well as documentary evidence of past employment practices for the position. The record 
must establish that a petitioner's stated degree requirement is not a matter of preference for high­
caliber candidates but is necessitated instead by performance requirements of the position. See 
Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. Were we limited solely to reviewing a petitioner's claimed self-imposed 
requirements, an organization could bring any individual with a bachelor's degree to the United States 
to perform any occupation as long as the petitioning entity created a token degree requirement. Id. 
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient documentation in support of this criterion with the petition. 
In her RFE, the Director requested documentary evidence regarding the Petitioner's historical 
recruiting practices, including but not limited to, copies of present and past job postings or 
announcements for the proffered position showing that the Petitioner requires applicants to have a 
minimum of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent; and, an 
organizational chart showing the Petitioner's organizational hierarchy and staffing levels with 
corresponding educational experience requirements for the positions. 
In the RFE response, the Petitioner provided a letter from A-, the Beneficiary's supervisor, who 
explained that the proffered position is within the Petitioner's "Data Science and Product Analytics 
group," noting: "[t]his group contains about 90 employees total, with about 20 employees in positions 
like the product analyst position being offered to [the Beneficiary]." A- states that "[he] has 
participated in every hire on [his] team," and indicates that of the three individuals hired for the team, 
"all had a college degree." He describes the hiring process for the team members, as follows: 
Hiring procedures include reviewing resumes and identifying candidates with the 
required educational background (bachelor's degree or above in analytics or related 
quantitative fields) phone screens and on-site interviews that focus on the ability to pull 
and manipulate data, perform data analysis, develop models, design experiments and 
present findings. 
The Petitioner also provided organization charts and social media printouts for A-'s supervisory team 
members which show that he supervises nine employees, including two individuals in product analyst 
positions. However, the Petitioner's reliance on this material to establish the prerequisites for its 
product analyst position is misplaced. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that to meet this criterion 
under the preponderance of evidence standard: 
9 
[The Petitioner] only has to show that it 'probably' hired individuals with at least a 
bachelor's degree for this position. Petitioner met this standard because it provided the 
Linkedln profiles of nine (9) employees currently working in roles (similar) to the 
proffered position .... The Linkedln profiles carry probative value because they each 
(1) list the employees' degrees; and (2) list the employee's employment experience 
with job titles and dates of hire. 
To begin with, the Petitioner's proposition that it only has to show that it "probably hires persons with 
at least a bachelor's degree for this position" is not sufficient to demonstrate that it normally requires 
a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent for the position, as required by 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). Cf Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. 
Further, while the Petitioner has provided information about other employees on A-'s team, it has not 
shown that the incumbents are employed in positions that are substantively similar to the instant 
position for the purposes of determining its normal position prerequisites. While the organization 
chart for A-'s supervisory team notes each person's job title and the degrees that they hold, the chart 
does not provide the Petitioner's prerequisites for entry into their positions, nor does it give a 
description of the job duties performed by these individuals. Turning specifically to the evidence 
provided for the two product analysts ( Q- and E-) on A-' s team, the documentation suggests that Q­
held a bachelor's degree in economics and statistics, a master's degree in computer science, and at 
least two years ofrelevant work experience at the time of her hire. Likewise, it appears that E- held a 
bachelor's degree in mathematics and economics and at least three years of relevant work experience 
at the time of her hire. If so, then their product analyst positions would be more senior to the instant 
position, (which as previously discussed was identified as a wage Level II position on the certified 
LCA.) See Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, supra. 
On appeal, the Petitioner points to its letters, organization charts, and employees' social media profiles, 
suggesting that the employees' qualifications at hire were synonymous with its minimum requirements 
for the product analyst positions that they were hired into. However, it has not shown that the academic 
and experiential credentials of its employees at the time of their hire were more than a matter of its 
preference for high-caliber candidates, instead of the substantive performance requirements of the 
positions for which they were hired. Notably, even if the Petitioner always requires a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty to perform the duties of the proffered position, the record must still 
establish that its stated degree requirement is needed by the performance requirements of the position. 
Defensor, supra. 
Though requested by the Director in her RFE, the Petitioner has not provided copies of the job 
announcements used to hire individuals employed in its product analyst positions, or submitted other 
probative, contemporaneous evidence to show what prerequisites were actually specified during their 
hiring process. Absent information about the prerequisites utilized when hiring its employees, and 
evidence regarding what their positions entail, the Petitioner has not substantiated, more likely than 
not, that their qualifications at hire were the prerequisites for the duties and responsibilities that that 
they were hired to perform, and not a matter of its preference for high-caliber candidates. Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. "Failure to submit requested evidence which precludes a material 
line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the [petition]." 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14). 
10 
For these reasons, we agree with the Director's determination that the record does not establish that 
the Petitioner normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the 
position. 
Moreover, we take administrative notice that while conducting a routine, pre-adjudication search of 
publicly available sources, we discovered the Petitioner's job posting on its own website for its product 
analyst position, 11 which specifies prerequisites for the position, such as "4+ years of experience 
analyzing data in fast-paced, data driven environment with proven ability to apply scientific methods 
to solve real-world problems on web-scale data," and the "ability to manipulate large data sets with 
high dimensionality and complexity; fluency in SQL (or other database languages) and a scripting 
language (Python or R)," but does not require any level of post-secondary education, such as a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. The Petitioner should be prepared to address the inconsistent 
information in the record regarding its prerequisites for the proffered position in any future H-1 B 
filings. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92. 
The Petitioner in this matter has not established that it normally requires at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position proffered here. Therefore, the Petitioner has 
not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). We incorporate our discussion regarding 
the Petitioner's letters, organization charts, and employee social media profiles into our analyses of 
the other criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
D. Second Prong of the Second Criterion and Fourth Criterion 
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. 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. 
To make such determinations, we must review the actual duties the Beneficiary will be expected to 
perform to ascertain whether those duties require at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, due to their complexity, uniqueness, or specialization. To accomplish this task in 
this matter, we review the duties in conjunction with the specific project(s) or work assignments to 
which the Beneficiary will be assigned. To allow otherwise results in generic descriptions of duties 
that, while they may appear (in some instances) to comprise the duties of a specialty occupation, are 
not related to any actual services the Beneficiary is expected to provide. 
The Petitioner paraphrases the statutory definition of a "specialty occupation" found at section 
2 l 4(i)(l) of the Act, indicating that "this position requires theoretical and practical application of a 
body of highly specialized knowledge in Information Technology, Analytics, or a closely related 
field." It further contends: 'The duties required for this position are extremely complex and ensure 
[the Petitioner] continues to deliver high quality services, this position must be filled by an individual 
who meets these minimum education and experience requirements." 
11 See https:// (last visited Jun. 22, 2022). 
11 
On appeal, the Petitioner points to the letter from the Beneficiary's supervisor, A-, submitted in its 
RFE response, asserting that the information detailed in the letter "was more than enough for USCIS 
to find that the [proffered position's duties] are sufficiently complex or unique." In the letter, A­
expounded upon the duties of the instant position, the skills and knowledge to perform them, and the 
relevant academic courses that the Beneficiary took while pursuing his education. For instance, with 
regard to the first job duty - in which the Beneficiary will spend 40% of his work time, A- highlights 
the need for the Beneficiary to have SQL and Python programming skills and indicates that the 
Beneficiary gained the requisite knowledge to perform these tasks through courses such as "Databases 
and Info Retrieval," and "Introduction to Java and Python." As evidence of this work A- included an 
exemplar of a SQL query and a SPL user data pull that was run by the Beneficiary. Likewise for the 
fifth job duty - which will encompass 10% of his time, A- indicates that the Beneficiary must have 
knowledge of "datatypes/structure, data pipeline/workflow/lineage," and SparkSQL programming 
skill" which he gained through academic courses such as "Data Structure" and "Analytics for Big 
Data." A- provided exemplars of data jobs to create reporting metrics for search data as evidence of 
this work. 
While we acknowledge that the Petitioner may be attempting to demonstrate how an established 
curriculum of courses leading to a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is required to perform the 
duties of the proffered position, we cannot agree with his analysis. Here, the Petitioner confuses the 
ability of a degreed information technology person to qualify for - and be competent in - performing 
the duties of the proffered position with a degree requirement in order to perform the duties. While 
the Petitioner may draw inferences that certain information technology related courses may be 
beneficial in performing various duties of the position, we disagree with its inference that such a degree 
is required in order to perform the duties of the proffered position. Put simply, stating that a person 
with a bachelor's degree could perform the duties of the proffered position is not the same as stating 
that a degree in a specific specialty is required to perform those duties. As such, the Petitioner's 
analysis misconstrues the statutory and regulatory requirements of a specialty occupation. 
Moreover, on a fundamental level, we conclude that the Petitioner has not provided sufficient material 
about the information technology initiatives that will require the Beneficiary's services. When 
determining whether a position is a specialty occupation, we look at whether the position actually 
requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge attained 
through at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific discipline. 
For instance, the Petitioner emphasizes that the Beneficiary will coordinate, liaise or interact with 
various internal stakeholder groups, to include "[p ]artner[ing] closely with data science teams and cross 
functional teams to generate insights and define strategy for search product roadmap," and "[w]ork[ing] 
with product managers and software engineers to design data products, prove their value by running 
experiments and release into production." A- also indicates that in his supervisory role he "works with 
cross functional partners such as engineering, product, design, marketing etc. to make sure that the 
insights being produced by the team through data are used across different functions." Further, the 
members of the Beneficiary's team hold titles such as "data scientist," "ads insights TL," "head of 
measurements & insights," as well as the aforementioned product analysts. Though the Petitioner 
described the job duties of the position, the evidence does not adequately show the operational 
structure within this information technology construct in a manner that would establish the 
specialization, complexity, or uniqueness of the Beneficiary's role therein. 
12 
The duties and descriptions also feature use of tools for which the Petitioner has not adequately explained 
why skills using such technologies could not be gained through certifications in these technologies, 
through a vocational (associate's) degree, or a computer bootcamp. For example, the Petitioner states 
that the Beneficiary would "[u]se Python to randomly sample a subset of users and get engagement data 
(metrics we are interested in" and that he must be "[f]amiliar with all kinds of data types/structures and 
use appropriate ones for fields/columns in a data scheme." The Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary 
must be well-versed in technological languages and approaches, such as SQL, Python, Spark, regression 
analysis, and Hadoop clusters, as well as understand database management system (DBMS). However, 
the Petitioner does not sufficiently explain how use of these tools makes the position "specialized and 
complex" or "complex or unique" or requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
We now tum again to the opinion letters from professors' K- and C-. In their letters, the professors 
(1) describe the credentials that they assert qualify them to opine upon the nature of the proffered 
position; (2) quote verbatim the position descriptions that the Petitioner provided in the RFE response; 
and (3) state, among other things, that the position requires highly specialized knowledge of 
information technology or analytics which would only be possessed by a candidate with no less than 
a bachelor's degree in information technology, analytics, a related field, or its equivalent. The 
professors assert the responsibilities of the position corresponds to some of the knowledge contained 
in the 2017 Curriculum Guidelines for Baccalaureate Degree Programs in I11formation Technology 
(Curriculum), published by the Association of Computing Machinery (ACM). In their opinion, the 
Petitioner's product analyst position would require one of the listed degrees; they maintain that it 
requires a high degree of technical knowledge and that the job duties can only be satisfactorily 
performed by an individual with bachelor's-level competence in these fields. 
However, the professors' assertions are not persuasive. Although the proffered position may require 
certain knowledge competencies within the information technology field that are found in the 
aforementioned university curriculum guideline, the professor does not adequately explain why the 
specific duties themselves require knowledge associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty. Also, the Curriculum does not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is 
necessary to obtain the knowledge for the particular position; rather its purpose is to develop a 
postsecondary computer science curriculum. 12 The professors similarly rely on INFORMS Analytical 
Body of Knowledge (ABok) as "a valuable resource for instructors who are developing or 
revising/modernizing analytics courses and programs." 13 The professors' reliance on the Curriculum 
and ABoK documentation is not persuasive as it does not support a conclusion that the Petitioner's 
particular position is so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform 
them or that the duties are specialized and complex such that the duties are usually associated with a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 
Moreover, while the professors opine that the duties of the Petitioner's position are so complex and unique 
that "only" a candidate who has attained at least a bachelor's degree in information technology, analytics, 
a related field, or its equivalent, they do not acknowledge or discuss other methods that could also lead to 
12 Association for Computing Machinery, 2017 Curriculum Guidelines/or Baccalaureate Degree Programs in Information 
Technology, https://www .acm.org/binaries/content/assets/ education/curricula-recommendations/it201 7 .pdf 
13 See generally https://info.informs.org/abok. 
13 
a sufficiently similar knowledge set, for example, the amount of required training or experience to gain 
this knowledge, alternate degrees, or certifications that would be acceptable. As a matter of discretion, 
we may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron Int 'I, Inc., 19 
I&N Dec. 791. However, we are ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding 
an individual's eligibility for the benefit sought; the submission of expert opinion letters is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id.; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, 502 n.2 (BIA 
2008) ("[E]xpert opinion testimony, while undoubtedly a form of evidence, does not purport to be 
evidence as to 'fact' but rather is admissible only if 'it will assist the trier of fact to understand the 
evidence or to determine a fact in issue."'). Here, the opinion letters, without more, do not provide a 
sufficient basis to establish that the duties described are "complex or unique" or "specialized and 
complex" such that the position requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 
On appeal, the Petitioner looks to articles about the business intelligence analyst occupation submitted 
in its RFE response to support its assertion that the proffered position satisfies the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). It indicates that the articles "clearly provide that the [occupation], and by 
extension [the] Petitioner's [proffered] position is usually associated with a [bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent]." As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not shown that this 
occupation is one that normally requires such a prerequisite for entry into the position. Additionally, 
while the referenced articles generally discuss various attributes about the business intelligence analyst 
occupation, the articles do not explain how the instant position is so specialized and unique, or 
complex and unique that the knowledge required to perform the duties of the position is usually 
associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
In light of all the above, the Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative specialization and 
complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position, and it did not identify any tasks 
that are so specialized and complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform 
them. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) or 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
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. Moreover, the record 
does not establish that the Petitioner satisfied the statutory and regulatory definitions of specialty 
occupation. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As set forth above, we conclude that the evidence of record does not establish, more likely than not, 
that the proffered position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. Accordingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
14