dismissed H-1B Case: Electronic Design Automation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8910377 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-18) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 1, 2020 
The Petitioner, an electronic design automation technology company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as an "associate applications engineer" under the H-18 nonimmigrant classification for 
specialty occupations.1 The H-18 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 record did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The matter is now before us 
on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate el igibi I ity by a preponderance of the evidence. 2 
We review the questions in this matter de novo.3 Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(I) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(I), 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 Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) , 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) 
2 Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
3 See Matter of Christa's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
(1) 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"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner provided a list of ten bulleted duties which it expanded upon in its response to the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE). While we will not list each duty here, we have reviewed each 
one, in addition to the entirety of the expanded descriptions. According to the Petitioner, the "associate 
applications engineer" position requires a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering, computer 
engineering, computer science, or a related field of study.4 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Specifically, the record (1) does not describe the position's duties with sufficient detail; and (2) does 
not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate 
with a specialty occupation. 
A. First Criterion 
We turn first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(1), 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 
4 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-lB petition, including evidence regarding the proffered position 
and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each 
one. 
2 
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. 5 
Preliminarily we note that the Petitioner cites to the Handbook's disclaimer to claim that the Handbook 
should not be used for any legal purpose. The pertinent disclaimer provides instructions on unintended 
uses of the Handbook, which are: (1) using the Handbook as a guide for determining (a) wages, (b) 
hours of work, (c) the right of a particular union to represent workers, (d) appropriate bargaining units, 
or (e) formal job evaluation systems; and (2) using the Handbook's data to compute future loss of 
earnings in adjudication proceedings involving work injuries or accidental deaths. In light of the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics' own endorsement of the Handbook as a reliable source of information on 
occupational categories and their entry requirements, and in light of the examples of unintended uses 
cited in the Handbook, we conclude that, if in fact it is the Petitioner's intent to so argue, the argument 
against any use of the Handbook in U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) adjudications 
is without merit. However, we concur with the Petitioner to the extent that it may be asserting that it 
would be erroneous to accord to the Handbook the weight or directive power of statute, regulation, or 
any legally binding document or directive. 
On the labor condition application (LCA)6 submitted in support of the H-1B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category of "Sales Engineers," corresponding 
to the Standard Occupational Classification code 41-9031. The subchapter of the Handbook titled 
"How to Become a Sales Engineer"7 states, in relevant part: 
A bachelor's degree is typically required to become a sales engineer .... Sales 
engineers typically need a bachelor's degree in engineering or a related field. However, 
a worker without a degree, but with previous sales experience as well as technical 
experience or training, may become a sales engineer. Workers who have a degree in a 
science, such as chemistry, or in business with little or no previous sales experience, 
also may become sales engineers. 
The Handbook does not establish that a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent is normally the minimum requirement for entry into sales engineer positions. The 
Handbook reports that in some circumstances, a degree-regardless of a specialty-is not required at 
all. Specifically, although the Handbook states that "[a] bachelor's degree is typically required to 
become a sales engineer," it then observes that "a worker without a degree, but with previous sales 
experience as well as technical experience or training, may become a sales engineer."8 The Handbook 
5 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. 
6 A petitioner submits the LCA to DOL to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1B 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 212(n)(1) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(a). 
7 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Sales Engineers, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/sales/sales-engineers.htm#tab-4 (last visited Aug. 27, 2020). 
8 Id. 
3 
does not establish that the "previous sales experience as well as technical experience or training" in 
lieu of a bachelor's or higher degree is equivalent to a qualifying degree. The Handbook does not 
elaborate on the circumstances when a bachelor's degree "is typically required" and when "a worker 
without a degree" but with some unspecified level of sales experience and technical training "may 
become a sales engineer." 
Further, the Handbook's observation that workers with a bachelor's or higher degree in disparate 
fields, such as chemistry or business, are qualified to become sales engineers does not establish that a 
bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position's occupational category. The Petitioner cites to 
several district court cases to support the position that the statute and the regulation allow a finding of 
a specialty occupation even when more than one single field of study qualifies a candidate to perform 
in the position. 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)(1)(B) 
of the Act. In such a case, the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" would essentially be 
the same. 9 Since there must be a close correlation between the required "body of highly specialized 
knowledge" and the position, however, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in two disparate 
fields, such as philosophy and engineering, would not meet the statutory requirement that the degree 
be "in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)," unless the Petitioner establishes how each field is 
directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position.10 
As stated above, the Handbook references that an unspecified degree in business is sufficient to enter 
into the occupation. Because there must be a close correlation between the required specialized studies 
and the position, the requirement of a degree with a generalized title, such as business, without further 
specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation.11 To prove that a job requires 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge as required by 
section 214(i)(1) 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. 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. 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.12 Therefore, the Handbook's recognition that an unspecified general degree in business 
is sufficient for entry into the occupation strongly suggests that a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty is not a standard, minimum entry requirement for this occupation. 
9 Whether read with the statutory "the" or the regulatory "a," both readings denote a singular "specialty." Section 
214(i)(1)(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). Still, we do not so narrowly interpret these provisions to exclude 
positions from qualifying as specialty occupations if they permit, as a minimum entry requirement, degrees in more than 
one closely related specialty. As noted, this also includes even seemingly disparate specialties provided the evidence of 
record establishes how each acceptable, specific field of study is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
particular position. 
10 Section 214(i)(1)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). 
11 Cf. Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 l&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). 
12 Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. 
4 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides select language from the Handbook concerning sales engineers and 
places it in a chart alongside the Petitioner's interpretation of that language. The Petitioner uses this 
chart to argue that the Director's decision did not reflect a holistic view of the Handbook's information. 
Here, the Petitioner urges us to consider the Handbook's observation that "[a] bachelor's degree is 
typically required to become a sales engineer .... Sales engineers typically need a bachelor's degree 
in engineering or a related field. " 13 Excluded from the chart and the Petitioner's interpretative analysis 
is the Handbook's language that "a worker without a degree, but with previous sales experience as 
well as technical experience or training, may become a sales engineer."14 A review of the entire 
information observed in the Handbook regarding "How to Become a Sales Engineer" does not 
establish that a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into sales engineer positions, for the reasons discussed above. 
The Petitioner also cites to Next Generation Tech., Inc. v. Johnson15 as relevant here and uses it to 
support a conclusion concerning the meaning of what is "normally" the minimum requirement for the 
position.16 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 "Sales 
Engineer" 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 specific specialty, or its equivalent, is 
normally required for entry into this occupation, nor does it indicate the type of technical experience 
or training required to qualify those individuals who have no degree. 
While the Handbook may establish the first regulatory criterion for certain professions, 17 many 
occupations are not described in such a categorical manner.18 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."19 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."20 
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 
13 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Sales Engineers, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/sales/sales-engineers.htm#tab-4 (last visited Aug. 27, 2020). 
14 We incorporate by reference our prior analysis regarding the lack of information in the Handbook on whether this 
referenced experience would be the equivalent of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty. 
15 Next Generation Tech., Inc. v. Johnson, 328 F. Supp. 3d 252 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). 
16 Concerning all of the district court cases the Petitioner's cites, we note that in contrast to the broad precedential authority 
of the case law of a United States circuit court, we are not bound to follow the published decision of a United States district 
court in matters arising even within the same district. See Matter of K-S, 20 l&N Dec. 715, 719-20 (BIA 1993). 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 of law. Id. 
17 Such professions would include surgeons or attorneys, which indisputably require at least a bachelor's degree for entry 
into the occupation. 
18 See lnnova Sols., Inc. v. Baran, 2019 WL 3753334, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2019) (declining to follow Next Generation 
Tech., Inc.). 
19 Id.; see also Xiaotong Liu v. Baran, 2018 WL 7348851 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2018). 
20 See lnnova Sols., Inc. 2019 WL 3753334, at *8. 
5 
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. lnc.21 Therefore, we are unpersuaded that Next Generation Tech., Inc. requires us 
to conclude that the proffered position satisfies the first criterion. 
In support of its arguments, the Petitioner also cited to DOL's Occupational Information Network 
(O*NET) summary report for "Sales Engineers" (SOC code 41-9031.00). The O*NET Summary 
Report does not establish that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, is normally 
required. It provides general information regarding the occupation, but it does not support a 
conclusion that the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the 
equivalent. Instead, O*NET assigns these positions a "Job Zone Four" rating, which states "most of 
these occupations require a four-year bachelor's degree, but some do not." Moreover, the Job Zone 
Four designation does not indicate that any academic credentials for Job Zone Four occupations must 
be directly related to the duties performed. 
In addition, the specialized vocational preparation (SVP) rating designates this occupation as 7 < 8. 
An SVP rating of 7 to less than("<") 8 indicates that the occupation requires "over 2 years up to and 
including 4 years" of training. While the SVP rating indicates the total number of years of vocational 
preparation required for a particular position, it is important to note that it does not describe how those 
years are to be divided among training, experience, and formal education. The SVP rating also does 
not specify the particular type of degree, if any, that a position would require. 22 Further, although the 
summary reports provide the educational requirements of "respondents," it does not account for 100% 
of the "respondents." Moreover, the respondents' positions within the occupation are not 
distinguished by career level (e.g., entry-level, mid-level, senior-level). Furthermore, the graph in the 
summary report does not indicate that the "education level" for the respondents must be in a specific 
specialty. For all of these reasons, O*NET does not establish the proffered position as a specialty 
occupation. 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation from a probative 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)(1). 
B. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs: "The degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show 
that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with 
a degree[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong contemplates 
common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific 
position. 
21 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0142, Rescission of the December 22, 2000 "Guidance memo on HlB 
computer related positions" (Mar. 31, 2017), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/nativedocuments/PM-6002-
0142-H-1 BComputerRelated PositionsRecission. pdf. 
22 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/ 
help/online/svp. 
6 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
We generally consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there is such a common degree 
requirement: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the industry's 
professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether letters or 
affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry establish that such firms "routinely employ and 
recruit only degreed individuals."23 As noted, the Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty is a common requirement within the industry for parallel positions among similar 
organizations. Also, the Petitioner did not submit evidence from an industry professional association 
or from firms or individuals in the industry indicating such a degree is a minimum requirement for 
entry into the position. 
The Petitioner submitted job vacancy announcements for our consideration under this prong. To be 
relevant for consideration, the job vacancy announcements must advertise "parallel positions," and the 
announcements must have been placed by organizations that (1) conduct business in the Petitioner's 
industry and (2) are also "similar" to the Petitioner. These job vacancy announcements do not satisfy that 
threshold. Upon review of the documents, we conclude that the Petitioner's reliance on the job 
announcements is misplaced. 
We will first consider whether the advertised job opportunities could be considered "parallel positions." 
While some of the position announcements offer general descriptions that appear to reflect the generic 
range of duties of positions falling within the sales engineer occupational category, we observe other 
postings in the grouping that do not contain sufficient information about the position. For instance, one 
of the Cadence Design System's positions contains only three bulleted position duties, one of which is 
"[s]upport Cadence products in the Digital and Signoff team." A description such as this does not offer 
a sufficient basis with which to draw any comparisons with the proffered position. 
Additionally, the postings appear to advertise more senior roles than the proffered position, as evidenced 
by the employers' requirements of significant experience beyond a bachelor's degree, including a 
bachelor's degree plus seven or eight years of experience, or a master's degree with a range of one to five 
years of experience. If these are parallel positions as claimed, then the Petitioner has not resolved how 
payment of the wage it has designated on the LCA correlates to the experience the position requires.24 If 
alternatively, the positions are not parallel, but rather represent a different or more specialized position 
23 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)). 
24 The Petitioner noted on appeal that the prevailing wage survey it used to determine the wage it will pay the Beneficiary 
encompasses a bachelor's degree and up to two years of related experience. As noted, most of the postings indicate that 
the employers require significantly more experience than a bachelor's degree and two years of experience. Further, several 
of the postings indicate that the employer will pay a salary significantly higher, nearly $40,000 more, than the salary the 
Petitioner will pay to the Beneficiary. While geographic location may account for some of the salary variation, a salary of 
nearly $40,000 more suggests a more senior position. 
7 
than the proffered position, then the postings have no relevance in establishing an industry standard for 
positions located within the occupational category. In either instance, these postings suggest that the LCA 
may be inconsistent with the Petitioner's claims and the evidence within the record. As such, the 
Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the primary duties and responsibilities of the advertised 
positions parallel those of the proffered position, particularly in terms of seniority, responsibility, and 
substance. 
Nor does the record contain documentary evidence sufficient to establish that these job vacancy 
announcements were placed by companies that (1) conduct business in the Petitioner's industry and (2) 
are also "similar" to the Petitioner. When determining whether the employer posting a job listing and the 
Petitioner share the same general characteristics, factors to be considered may include information 
regarding the nature or type of organization and, when pertinent, the particular scope of operations, as 
well as the level of revenue and staffing. On the Form 1-129, the Petitioner states it has 2,324 employees, 
whereas the advertised companies have between 5,000 and 10,000 employees, or greater than 10,000 
employees, respectively. We have no information on revenue for the employers in the postings, nor do 
we have sufficient information concerning their overall operations with which to draw conclusions as to 
similarity with the Petitioner. 
For all of these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that these job vacancy announcements are 
relevant. Even if that threshold had been met, we would still conclude that they did not satisfy this prong 
of the second criterion. It is important to note that though the Petitioner submitted seven job postings, 
these postings come from only two employers. Rather than indicative of an overall industry standard for 
the occupational category, this grouping of advertisements may suggest that these two particular 
companies have a recruitment preference or practice. As the documentation does not establish that the 
Petitioner has met this prong of the regulations, further analysis regarding the specific information 
contained in each of the job postings is not necessary. 25 That is, not every deficit of every piece of 
evidence has been addressed. 26 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient probative evidence to establish that a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
25 The Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how representative the job postings are of the particular 
advertising employers' recruiting history for the type of job advertised. As the advertisements are only solicitations for 
hire, they are not evidence of the actual hiring practices of these employers. 
26 Even if all of the job postings indicated that a requirement of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is common to 
the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations, the Petitioner does not demonstrate what statistically valid 
inferences, if any, can be drawn from the job postings with regard to the common educational requirements for entry into 
parallel positions in similar organizations. See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 (7th ed. 
1995). 
8 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
The ten duties submitted in the initial filing mirror the range of duties described in the Handbook and 
O*NET but contain little Petitioner-specific information beyond the name of the relevant product. In 
fact, in its RFE response, the Petitioner acknowledged that the duties initially submitted were generic. 
The Director notified the Petitioner that its initial duty descriptions were insufficient to establish the 
position as a specialty occupation. In its RFE response, the Petitioner provided a chart of the original 
duties with expanded explanations for each duty, the percentages of time spent on each main duty, 
along with the courses undertaken by the Beneficiary which purportedly relate to each duty. Even 
with these expanded duties and the chart, we nevertheless conclude that the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently explained or documented why the proffered position is so complex or unique that a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is required.27 
The chart demonstrates what knowledge the Beneficiary has acquired and what courses enabled him 
to obtain this knowledge. Here, the Petitioner attempts to define its position based upon the 
qualifications of the proposed Beneficiary. Instead of relating how each of the knowledge areas relates 
to the duties of the position, the Petitioner merely lists the courses and knowledge in the adjacent 
column. The Petitioner does not explain why the knowledge is relevant to the duty or why it is 
required. As such, the Petitioner captures how each of the Beneficiary's qualifications meets the 
Petitioner's claimed knowledge requirements, but not how the duties of the position require 
specialized knowledge. 
A crucial aspect of this matter is whether the duties of the proffered position are described in such a 
way that we may discern the actual, substantive nature of the position. 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. 
The Petitioner articulated one of the original duties as "[e]xecute both pre-sale and post-sale technical 
support activities, including assessment of how company products meet customer needs and the 
preparation of product specifications for development and installation of customized 
applications/solutions." This duty appears similar to another separately listed duty of "[p]rovide pre­
sale technical support in sales presentations and product demonstrations." The Petitioner does not 
explain how these duties differ, or if the same, why they are listed as distinctly separate duties. 
Likewise, the Petitioner restates in several ways that the Beneficiary will meet with customers to 
demonstrate the Petitioner's products in order to generate business. Specifically, we read variations 
of this same concept in the following verbatim duties: 
I Present and demonstrate [the Petitioner's products and tools] to new and existing 
customers; 
27 For the first time on appeal, the Petitioner provides information on the specific products and tools (printed circuit boards) 
referenced in the proffered position's duties. Though the promotional materials provide detailed information concerning 
the PCB products and tools, these materials do not convey, nor has the Petitioner established, how the Beneficiary's duties 
involving these products are specialized, complex, or unique. 
9 
I Conduct customer workshops and on-site technical seminars; 
I Illustrate the value [the Petitioner] brings to the customers by ... delivering 
demonstrations and technical presentations ... ; 
I Explain in details how [the Petitioner's solutions] can be implemented into 
customer and prospective projects; and 
I Provide on-site support. .. [t]his support might also include product and feature 
demonstrations to help solve customer issues; 
I [H]elp develop customer product presentations in order to obtain customer 
commitments. 
Simply repeating the same general duty several times does not add to our understanding of why the 
duty requires specialized knowledge. To illustrate further, though the Petitioner added the explanatory 
bullet that one of the duties involves "technical applications" that "are complex and require the use of 
solutions and methodologies learned from college-level courses and projects," the Petitioner does not 
explain why the technical applications are complex or how the knowledge obtained in the college­
level courses would be required. Furthermore, the Petitioner assigns different percentages of time to 
duties of the same or similar nature, which does not assist in our understanding of the position overall. 
The Petitioner often uses the duties themselves to describe the tasks within the duty. For instance, 
added to the duty of "[p]rovide on-site support when issues arise with client's use of [the Petitioner's 
products]," is the additional bullet of "goes on-site and debug[s] customer issues with their designs 
and see if [the Petitioner's tools] can help solve their issues." This type of circular description does 
not demonstrate why the work the Beneficiary performs is complex, unique, or specialized, nor does 
it provide additional information regarding what the duty involves beyond the original generic 
description of the duty. 
Another example is the duty to [w]ork closely with area sales management, account teams, and 
customers to understand business opportunities," which the Petitioner further describes as "[w]ork 
with management and the Account Team to profile accounts, help develop organizational charts, and 
understand customer business and technical needs." Not only do the nebulous phrases of "worth with," 
"work closely with," and "meet with" fail to define the Beneficiary's level of involvement in the task, 
but the Petitioner's explanation of the duty simply restates the duty, adding very little additional 
information. This does not allow us to understand what the Beneficiary will actually be doing when 
carrying out the tasks. For instance, we do not know if the Beneficiary will personally create the 
organizational charts or direct another person to create them. Nor does the Petitioner explain what the 
organizational charts will do or why the duty requires specialized knowledge. 
Finally, we read that the Beneficiary must "[u]nderstand complex problems customers face" and "[u]se 
interpersonal communication skills to translate customer design and simulation issues to [the 
Petitioner's] engineers." While the ability to understand something or to communicate interpersonally 
may be learned in a bachelor's degree program in one of the qualifying fields, the Petitioner has not 
explained why it must be learned in such a program. In particular, interpersonal skills may be learned 
in any academic program and indeed through life in general, which suggests it is not a skill of a 
specialized nature. 
10 
The Petitioner has not explained in detail how the duties of the position require the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge. 28 Moreover, we conclude that the 
Petitioner has not shown that the duties of the position are so complex or unique that they can be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
As alternative evidence for our consideration under this and the other criteria, the Petitioner submits an 
opinion letter froml I, Dean and Professor in the Graduate School of Engineering and 
Management at thd I Institute of Technology.I Is letter starts with his qualifications 
to opine on the matter, followed by an overview of the Petitioner's organization and the proffered 
position. He then repeats the duties that were already provided to us by the Petitioner, provides a 
conclusion concerning the educational requirements of the position, as well as a conclusion that these 
educational requirements comprise an industry standard. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude 
thatl ~s letter offers little probative value in this matter.29 
From the outset, we note tha~ l's opinion confuses the ability of a degreed sales engineer to 
perform the duties of the proffered position with a degree requirement in order to perform the duties. 
I ts discussion focuses on his conclusion that a person with a bachelor's degree in one of the 
qualifying fields could perform the duties of the proffered position well. He states that the skills 
required to execute the duties of the position are learned in a bachelor's degree programs for computer 
science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a closely related field and that a such a degree 
"provides the student with the core competencies and skills needed to execute the specialized duties of 
Associate Applications Engineer." Similarly, thoughl I lists several of the position's duties 
and states that such duties "are learned and refined through" courses in the qualifying fields, he does 
not provide an analysis or explanation as to why these courses would be required in order to perform 
the duties. 
Whilel I may draw inferences that certain courses or knowledge obtained through a particular 
bachelor's degree program may be beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, we disagree 
with the inference that a specific degree is required in order to perform the duties of the proffered 
position.I !statements indicate that he conflates the suitability or ideal qualifications of a 
candidate for the position with the minimum entry requirements for the position. As such, he 
misconstrues the statutory and regulatory requirements of a specialty occupation. 
In addition to the above,j jstates that after reviewing the list of duties, it is his opinion that 
the specific duties listed "would be considered a professional position and would normally be filled 
by a graduate with a minimum of a Bachelor's degree" in the aforementioned fields. Absent from this 
conclusion is a follow-up discussion or analysis that explains and supports this assertion. I~ 
I I pivots to a discussion of the standard content that such courses provide. Though L___J 
claims in his conclusion that his letter explains "how the knowledge and skills required for the 
successful execution of these [proffered position's] duties come through Bachelor's-level coursework 
28 We note that knowledge of the Petitioner's particular products would presumably be acquired through on-the-job training 
and likely would not be learned in a bachelor's degree program in one of the qualifying fields. The Petitioner does not 
acknowledge or address this. 
29 We incorporate our discussion otl Is opinion into our discussion of the other 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) 
criteria. 
11 
in the stated fields," he does not actually provide such an explanation. Rather, he repeats the 
Petitioner's duties and analyzes academic course content. Absent an explanation of how he arrived at 
his conclusions, we cannot agree with them. In place of analysis, we note the frequency with which 
I I labels the duties and responsibilities as "specialized," "professional," "advanced," or 
"complex." We conclude thatl ltends to classify the duties and the educational requirements 
with adjectives to suggest the specialized nature of the work, rather than providing actual analysis of 
why the work is specialized. 
Further, it appears as though! lused a template with conclusory findings and little or no 
analysis to support the conclusion that the Petitioner's particular position is a specialty occupation. 
The lack of cogent analysis strongly suggests thatl ~as 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, if any.30 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 the subject of this petition. 31 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position and references his 
qualifications. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education 
or experience of a particular beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative 
complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the position, and it did not identify any tasks that are so 
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). 
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. To satisfy this 
criterion, the record must establish that the specific performance requirements of the position 
generated the recruiting and hiring history. 
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.32 
Were USCIS limited solely to reviewing the Petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, then any 
individual with a bachelor's degree could be brought to the United States to perform any occupation 
as long as the Petitioner created a token degree requirement.33 Evidence provided in support of this 
criterion may include, but is not limited to, documentation regarding the Petitioner's past recruitment 
and hiring practices, as well as information regarding employees who previously held the position. 
30 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. 
31 We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron lnt'I, Inc., 
19 l&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any 
way questionable, we are not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Id. Here, the opinion presented 
does not offer analysis of the duties and why the duties require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 
32 See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. 
33 Id. 
12 
The Petitioner submitted several of its own job postings and states that because these postings feature 
requirements for a minimum of a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering, this establishes that it is 
more likely than not that the Petitioner normally requires a specialized degree for the proffered position. 
The Petitioner acknowledges that not all of the postings advertise positions with the same title as the 
proffered position, but it contends the positions are nevertheless the same or similar to the proffered 
position. While we have duly considered the Petitioner's claims, it is not apparent that these positions are 
the same or similar to the proffered position. All of the positions require a bachelor's degree in addition 
to a significant amount of relevant experience, including a bachelor's degree plus three, five and even ten 
years' experience. We reiterate the concern raised in our discussion of the first prong of the second 
criterion: if these are parallel positions as claimed, then the Petitioner has not resolved how payment of 
the wage it has designated on the LCA correlates to the experience the position requires. If alternatively, 
the positions are not parallel, but rather represent a different or more specialized position than the 
proffered position, then the postings have no relevance in establishing the Petitioner's normal hiring 
practice. In either instance, these postings suggest that the LCA may be inconsistent with the Petitioner's 
claims and the evidence within the record. 
Though it has been in business since 1981, the Petitioner has not provided the total number of people it 
has employed in the past to serve in the proffered position nor has it provided information about its past 
hiring history for the proffered position. Consequently, no determination can be made about the 
Petitioner's normal recruiting and hiring practices for the proffered position. The Petitioner has not 
persuasively established that it normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, for the proffered position. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h )( 4)(i i i)(A)(3). 
D. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature 
of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
Although some tasks may connote a requirement of familiarity with sales principles and circuit board 
knowledge, the record is insufficient to establish that the duties require anything more than a few basic 
courses and a broad educational background. While a few such courses may be beneficial in performing 
certain duties of the position, the Petitioner, who bears the burden of proof, 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. 
For the same reasons we discussed under the second prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established 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). We incorporate our earlier 
discussion and analysis on this matter. 
Consequently, the Petitioner has not satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
13 
Ill. LCA 
Though not addressed by the Director in her decision, we conclude that the Petitioner has not 
established that the LCA corresponds to and supports the petition as required. The purpose of the 
LCA wage requirement is "to protect U.S. workers' wages and eliminate any economic incentive or 
advantage in hiring temporary foreign workers."34 It also serves to protect H-1B workers from wage 
abuses. A petitioner submits the LCA to the Department of Labor (DOL) to demonstrate that it will 
pay an H-1B 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.35 While DOL certifies the LCA, USCIS determines whether the LCA's 
content corresponds with the H-1B petition.36 
We reiterate the concerns noted in the previous section regarding the experience level required for 
positions that the Petitioner claims parallel the proffered position. We also note that the LCA states 
that the Beneficiary will work in the city of Novi within the county of Oakland and the state of 
Massachusetts. We acknowledge that this may have been a typographical error and that the Petitioner 
meant to write "MI" to signify Michigan. The Petitioner elected to establish the wage level through a 
prevailing wage survey rather than through OES wage levels that are verifiable online. As such, we 
have insufficient information with which to conclude that the LCA corresponds to the Petition as 
required.37 
IV. 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, with each considered an independent and 
alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is a 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. 
34 See Labor Condition Applications and Requirements for Employers Using Nonimmigrants on H-1B Visas in Specialty 
Occupations and as Fashion Models; Labor Certification Process for Permanent Employment of Aliens in the United 
States, 65 Fed. Reg. 80,110, 80,110-11 (proposed Dec. 20, 2000) (to be codified at 20 C.F.R. pts. 655-56). 
35 Section 212(n)(1) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(a). 
36 See 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b) ("OHS determines whether the petition is supported by an LCA which corresponds with the 
petition ... "). 
37 We reviewed the three pages of the Radford Global Technology Survey that the Petitioner submitted on appeal. These 
pages do not contain the survey's complete methodology or sufficient information on the job codes, levels, and 
occupational categories such that we may independently verify the prevailing wage information. 
14