dismissed H-1B Case: Financial Analysis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 12685036 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : DEC . 29, 2020 
The Petitioner, a multimedia and video production marketing firm, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations .1 The H-1B 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 California Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation . We summarily dismissed the 
Petitioner's appeal and the Petitioner filed a motion to reopen and a motion to reconsider. 2 As the 
Petitioner has established that it timely filed a brief and supporting documents, we will grant the 
motions and reopen the matter. 
On appeal, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence .3 Upon de nova review, 4 we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § 1184(i)(l) , defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, 
and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) , 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(l5)(H)( i)(b). 
2 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a). 
3 Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
4 See Matter of Christo 's Inc ., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . 
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. 5 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner states the Beneficiary will be employed as a "e-commerce analyst" and provides the 
following job duties for the position: 6 
• Recommend annual business plans and provide short-term financial forecasting 
with [the Petitioner's] E-Commerce business clients to measure business 
efficacy; 
• Prepare financial analysis and reports, produce regular investment and financial 
forecasts to inform management decisions; 
• Monitor regular research into economic and market trends for clients and identify 
financial risks due to recent market changes; 
• Evaluate and analyze industry data, translate industry analysis into business 
insight to improve the marketing and sales performance for client companies; 
• Inform business decisions by using information on the company's market share 
and position to recommend price investment strategies to drive sales, manage 
investments, and evaluate returns; 
• Collaborate with client management on projects to achieve financial objectives 
by assessing market and economic factors and developing investment and 
business operation strategies; 
5 See Royal Siam COip. v. Chertof(, 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). 
6 While we will not quote the entire description for the sake of brevity, we have reviewed and considered it. 
2 
• Present reports on the investment trends, pncmg and sales data for the 
e-commerce industry as a whole, and financial developments that affect client's 
businesses. 
According to the Petitioner, the position requires at least a bachelor's degree in finance, or a closely 
related field. 7 
III. ANALYSIS 
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 (1) does not describe the position's duties with sufficient substantive 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 tum first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which requires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. To inform this inquiry, we will consider the information contained 
in the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) regarding the 
duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations it addresses. 8 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Financial Analysts" corresponding 
to the standard occupational classification (SOC) code 13-2051. 9 
We reviewed the information in the Handbook regarding this occupational category and conclude that 
the Handbook does not establish that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is required for 
"Financial Analysts." The subchapter of the Handbook entitled "How to Become a Financial Analyst" 
states "[a] number of fields of study provide appropriate preparation, including accounting, economics, 
finance, statistics, and mathematics." 10 By recognizing this occupation as multidisciplinary, the 
Handbook strongly indicates that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is not a normal, minimum 
7 The Petitioner submitted documentation to suppmt 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. 
8 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. 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. 
9 A petitioner submits the LCA to DOL to demonstrate that it will pay an H-lB worker the higher of either the prevailing 
wage for the occupational classification in the area of employment or the actual wage paid by the employer to other 
employees with similar duties, experience, and qualifications. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(a). 
10 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Financial Analysts, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/financial-analysts.htm (last visited Dec. 22, 2020). 
3 
entry requirement for this occupation. 11 Although the Handbook's report is insufficient to establish 
that this multidisciplinary occupation is categorically a specialty occupation, it does not preclude the 
Petitioner from establishing its particular position is a specialty occupation with other authoritative 
sources or under one of the other regulatory criteria. 12 
As an alternate authoritative source, the Petitioner refers to the Occupational Information Network 
(O*NET) for the proffered position's educational requirements. More particularly, the Petitioner 
quotes O*NET's "Education" chart depicting 96% of employers requiring at least a bachelor's 
degree. 13 While O*NET, which provides general information regarding the occupation, acknowledges 
that "most of these occupations require a four-year bachelor's degree," 14 it does not demonstrate that 
at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent is required. Therefore, O*NET 
does not establish that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is 
normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position. 
Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
B. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs. The first prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), contemplates common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows 
its focus to the Petitioner's specific position. 15 To satisfy this first prong, 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. 
11 The Petitioner cites to Tapis Int'/ v. INS, 94 F. Supp. 2d 172 (D. Mass. 2000) and Residential Finance Corp. v. USCIS, 
839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012), to support its claim that the first regulatory criterion does not restrict the finding of 
a specialty occupation position to those that have a specifically tailored and titled degree program. We agree with the 
proposition that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is what is important." Residential Finance Corp., 839 F. 
Supp. 2d at 997. However, in general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry and biochemistry, a 
minimum of a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty is recognized as satisfying the "degree in the specific 
specialty ( or its equivalent)" requirement of section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act. In such a case, the required "body of highly 
specialized knowledge" would essentially be the same. Since there must be a close correlation between the required "body 
of highly specialized knowledge" and the position, however, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in disparate fields, 
as recognized in the Handbook, 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. See Section 2 l 4(i)( I )(B) of the Act ( emphasis added). The Petitioner has not done so here. 
12 On appeal, the Petitioner states its expert and industry letters satisfy multiple criteria of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) 
but were erroneously "discount[ ed]" in the Director's analysis. As two of the letters address industry standards and they 
all provide some analysis of the proffered position's duties, we will review them under the second and fourth regulatory 
criteria. We will discuss why the letters are not probative and incorporate our analysis into the other 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) criteria. 
13 O*NET OnLine Summary Report for "13-2051.00-Financial Analysts," https://www.onetonline.org/Archive_ONET­
SOC_20l0_Taxonomy_09_2020/link/summary/13-2051.00 (last visited Dec. 22, 2020). 
14 Id. 
15 As there are arguments and documents submitted in support of the second prong of the second criterion that overlap 
with criterion four, we will analyze these two criteria together. 
4 
We generally consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there is such a common degree 
requirement: whether an authoritative source 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." 16 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that an authoritative source reports at least 
a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required for the proffered position, and 
we incorporate our previous discussion on this matter. The Petitioner also does not submit evidence 
from an industry professional association indicating such a degree is a minimum requirement for entry 
into the position. 
The Petitioner submits copies of two job advertisements in the underlying record, and two on appeal, 
as evidence that its degree requirement is standard among its peer organizations for parallel positions 
to the proffered position. However, for the petitioner to establish that an advertising organization is 
similar, it must demonstrate that the petitioner and the organization share the same general 
characteristics. Without such evidence, postings submitted by a petitioner are generally outside the 
scope of consideration for this criterion, which encompasses only organizations similar to the 
petitioner. When determining whether the petitioner and the advertising organization share the same 
general characteristics, such factors 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 (to list just a few elements that may be considered). The job advertisements do not contain 
a description of the companies , and the Petitioner does not provide an explanation for how these 
companies are within the same industry and thereby within the scope of consideration. 17 
In addition, the advertisements are not written with sufficient detail to ascertain whether they would 
be for parallel positions. For example, what little detail is provided, i.e. the level of experience 
required, varies from 2 to 5 years, while the Petitioner has a one-year experience requirement. The 
degree requirements also vary within the job advertisements , allowing for numerous disparate fields, 
such as, finance, accounting , marketing, and business, 18 to be acceptable for entry into the position. 
Therefore, the advertisement s do not establish that at least a bachelor' s degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, as common to the industry. Moreover, such a limited number of postings, which 
16 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)). 
17 The job advertisements submitted on appeal have brief descriptions, identifying themselves as a "food and agri-business" 
and a "brand of Business-Grade cash products." The Petitioner , a multimedia and video production marketing firm, does 
not explain how these advertisements from different industries are relevant. The Petitioner asserts on appeal that "the role 
of an E-Commerce Analyst is so univer sal, that, even with apparently different industries, the role remains widely 
unchanged. " However , Petitioner does not provide support for this assertion. 
18 We note that a bachelor's degree in business, with no further specialization, will not justify the granting of a petition 
for an H-lB specialty occupation visa. See Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147; see also Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 
115l(D . Minn. 1999); 2233 Paradise Road, LLC v. Cissna, No. 17- cv- 01018- APG- VCF, 2018 WL 3312967 (D. Nev., 
July 3, 2018);XiaoTong Liu v. Baran, No. 18-00376-NS, 2018 WL 7348851 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 21, 2018); Parzenn Partners 
v. Baran, No. 19-cv-11515-ADB , 2019 WL 6130678 (D. Mass., Nov. 19, 2019). 
5 
appear to have been consciously selected, have little probative value in establishing a common industry 
standard for parallel positions within similar companies. 19 
In support of this prong, the Petitioner also submits two letters as evidence of individuals from the 
~ attesting that similar firms routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals. One author, 
L___J states "I am the CEO" but does not describe the nature of the company. The author, claiming 
5 years of e-commerce industry experience, states, "it is the common practice that an e-commerce 
analyst for a company providing e-commerce services should have at least a bachelor's degree in 
Finance, Economics, Mathematics, or related fields." The second letter is froml I the "CEO" 
of a "marketing, public relations, and advertising company" in China. The second author, claiming 
twenty years of industry experience, states, "it is the common practice that an ecommerce analyst for 
a company providing e-commerce services should have at least a bachelor's degree in Finance, 
Economics, or closely related fields." Both authors assert their companies are "substantially similar" 
to Petitioner, but neither describes how they are similar. Neither author explains his or her experience 
in the industry. The authors do not offer corroborating evidence of similar companies' hiring policies 
within the industry or explain from where they draw their conclusions, providing little evidentiary 
weight to their assertions. 20 In addition, both letters have numerous identical passages, evidencing the 
use of templated language that further clouds the veracity of the authors' assertions. 21 Furthermore, 
two individual's uncorroborated letters regarding industry practice is insufficient to establish that there 
is a common requirement for a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty within similar companies in 
the industry for parallel positions. 22 
Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
19 See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 (7th ed. 1995). Given that there is no indication 
that the advertisements were randomly selected, the validity of any such inferences could not be accurately determined 
even if the sampling unit were sufficiently large. See id. at 195-96 ( explaining that "[r]andom selection is the key to [the] 
process [of probability sampling]" and that "random selection offers access to the body of probability theory, which 
provides the basis for estimates of population parameters and estimates of error"). 
20 See Xiaotong Liu, 2018 WL 7348851 at *10 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2018) (finding USCTS acted properly when it detennined 
that such generalizations do not explain how the author came to their conclusion, which is insufficient to meet the 
regulatory requirements). 
21 Matter of Caron Int"!, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (The service is not required to accept or may give less 
weight to an advisory opinion when it is "not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable."). 
22 We note that the Petitioner submits two additional letters on appeal identifying them as both industry and expert letters. 
One letter is from "CEO,"I I whose company "enables suppliers to develop, brand, market and sell their products 
to grow their business globally, expands cross-border marketing and ecommerce business." While the nature of this 
author's business may be similar to the Petitioner's, it does not share other general characteristics with the Petitioner, i.e. 
the company is 3 times the Petitioner's size. The author states the company has fifty e-commerce analysts and the company 
"require[s] at least a bachelor's degree in finance or a related field." However, of relevance, the author does not provide 
substantive detail on the duties of the company's e-commerce analysts and does not state the actual degrees of the 
e-commerce analysts. The second letter is from "COO,"I I whose company is the Petitioner's client. The author's 
opinion, based on experience with the Petitioner's e-commerce analysts and other "e-commerce service providers," claims 
"the common practice [for] an e-commerce analyst for a company providing e-commerce services should have at least a 
bachelor's degree in Finance or related fields." Both letters contain conclusory language, e.g. the authors do not 
substantively describe their experiences, or provide corroborating evidence for their statements, and are thereby not 
relevant or probative of common industry practice. 
6 
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 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. 
The Petitioner provides an undated online generated, "e-commerce analyst" advertisement. The 
Petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing for the nonimmigrant visa petition. 23 
Necessarily, evidence must be contemporaneous with the event to be proven and existent at the time 
of filing. Therefore, this posting holds little probative value. Moreover, one job posting over five 
years of business does not establish the Petitioner's past recruitment and hiring practices and does not 
sufficiently demonstrate that the employer normally requires a degree in a specific specialty or its 
equivalent for the proffered position. 
The Petitioner does not state how many e-commerce positions it has had since it was established in 
2015, or how manf it has currently, and the inconsistencies in the record make it difficult to ascertain 
this information. I the Petitioner's "HR Manager" states "we always require our 
e-Commerce analysts to possess at least a Bachelor's degree in Finance or a related field." He provides 
no references to the record to corroborate his statement and provides no additional information on 
Petitioner's past recruitment and hiring practices. The organizational chart shows twenty-two of the 
Petitioner's forty-five employees, so we are not aware of the entire reporting structure and other 
undepicted positions. In its initial support letter, the Petitioner states the Beneficiary has been in its 
employ as an "e-commerce analyst junior" since November 2018. This 'junior" position does not 
appear on the organizational chart and the Petitioner does not state how many of these positions exist. 
The organizational chart evidences one e-commerce analyst, identified as the Beneficiary. 24 In 
response to the RFE, the Petitioner identifies an individual, who it states has been its e-commerce 
analyst since November 2015. The organizational chart, however, identifies this individual as the 
Petitioner's "digital marketing strategist." The Petitioner bears the burden to establish the similarities 
of these positions, but the duties for the "digital marketing strategist" were not provided. On appeal, 
the Petitioner identifies another employee as an "e-Commerce Analyst," however this individual's 
resume, the organizational chart, and Petitioner's support letter contradict this assertion, evidencing 
his title as "financial analyst." The duties for this employee were also not provided and his pay records 
do not support him being employed in the proffered position. 25 On appeal, the Petitioner further states, 
"[ d]ue to privacy reasons, [it] is unable to provide the degrees and transcripts of all of the employees 
in similar positions within the company." The Petitioner does not explain how providing relevant, 
probative information on its hiring practice would be a privacy violation. The Petitioner must resolve 
23 See 8 C.F.R. ~ 103.2(b)(l). 
24 The record includes an offer letter dated March 15, 2019 "confirming" the Beneficiary as a part-time e-commerce 
analyst. 
25 According to its LCA, the Petitioner designated the "e-commerce analyst" position under the occupational category 
"Financial Analysts," SOC code 13-2051. At the time the LCA was certified, the Level I prevailing wage in the area of 
intended employment for "Financial Analysts" was $35.44 per hour. The employee's pay record, included on appeal, 
evidences this employee is paid $27.00 per hour, which is below prevailing wage for those in the "Financial Analysts" 
occupation. 
7 
discrepancies in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies.26 
The Petitioner does not explain any of these disparities and has not met its burden to establish it 
normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
D. Second Prong of 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. 
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. Upon review of the totality of 
the record, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained or documented why the proffered position is 
so "complex or unique" or "specialized and complex" that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty 
is required. 
We first look to the duties of the position. A crucial aspect is whether the Petitioner has sufficiently 
described the duties of the proffered position such that we may discern the nature of the position. The 
Petitioner provides a list enumerating seven main duties, broken down into sub-duties, and includes 
the relevant courses it claims are required to perform the duty. The Petitioner states the proffered 
position is part-time but does not designate which duties are major functions. The Petitioner does not 
provide sufficient information with regard to the order of importance or frequency of occurrence ( e.g., 
regularly, periodically, or at irregular intervals) with which the Beneficiary will perform the proffered 
position's duties. We note that certain tasks are repeated, such as analyzing business trends, evaluating 
industry data, forecasting revenue, and providing risk assessment. However, a substantive analysis of 
these core tasks was not provided by the Petitioner. 27 The duties state that the Beneficiary will use 
"SAS, Excel, and other statistics software" and repeats many times that the Beneficiary will run 
reports. It is not evident from the duties or analyzed in the record what, if any, specialized knowledge 
is required to run reports using this statistical software. Without a more meaningful job description, 
we are unable to ascertain the nature of the position, i.e. the actual work the Beneficiary would perform 
and thereby the level of education and knowledge necessary to perform the duties of the position. As 
26 See Matter of Ho, 19 T&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
27 The Petitioner provides a list of finance courses it believes is relevant to perform each duty, without an explanation of 
the knowledge these courses would provide. The titles of courses do not in and of themselves identify the specialized 
knowledge they would impart or how they relate to the duties. Moreover, while a few related courses may be beneficial 
in performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how an established curriculum of such 
courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the 
duties of the proffered position. 
8 
a result, we are unable to ascertain what "complex or unique" or "specialized and complex" knowledge 
would be necessary to perform these broadly described duties. 
Moreover, the duties are written such that we are unable to determine the Beneficiary's overall role 
and the record raises inconsistencies that only add to the lack of clarity. For example, it is unclear 
who the Beneficiary will make recommendations to, or how he is informing management decisions. 
The Beneficiary's offer letter states he will report to the company's "CEO," who is not listed on the 
organizational chart. However, the organizational chart indicates the Beneficiary would report to a 
financial analyst and the "HR Manager" states in his letter that the proffered position will report to the 
head of marketing. In addition, the Petitioner asserts that its "digital marketing strategist" and 
"financial analyst" share similar duties to the proffered position, further obfuscating the Beneficiary's 
level of responsibility and whether the work he will perform is specialized in nature. 
Turning to the Beneficiary's work product, we note that it depicts charts and tables, with a typed-up 
interpretation of the data. The write up is not clearly written, containing numerous grammatical errors, 
and provides very little substantive analysis. For example, it states, "the NPV shows positive which 
means this project is doable ... " and "that first couple years are make huge profit, but it reduced 
gradually." While the work product evidences that a basic knowledge of interpreting data may be 
necessary, it is not made clear in the work product or in the record how this task requires specialized 
knowledge. Moreover, the Petitioner does not provide context or an explanation of the Beneficiary's 
work product, other than to say it is "complex." Without more detailed analysis, the work product 
does not support that specialized knowledge attained through at least a baccalaureate degree in a 
specific discipline would be required. 28 
To establish the specialized nature of the proffered position's duties, the Petitioner also relies on its 
industry letters. After reviewinf the job description for the proffered position and relying on undefined 
experience, both I I and I state (verbatim), "[q]uantitative analysis based on data 
collected from customers' order history and the competitors' sales performance is critical in many 
aspects and requires understanding of mathematical and statistical principles analytically." They both 
then summarily state "it is reasonable to require the e-commerce analyst to have at least a bachelor's 
degree in Finance, Economics ... "29 The authors do not explain how degrees in these fields would 
provide the requisite knowledge to perform the duties or why any other degree would not lead to a 
sufficiently similar knowledge set. 30 Moreover, the degrees the authors list expand upon the 
Petitioner's degree requirement, undermining the Petitioner's argument that a degree in a specific 
specialty is required to perform the proffered position's duties. The authors also both state "a master's 
28 On appeal the Petitioner provides additional work product for the Beneficiary. The documents contain data in chart 
form, a page of"SAS code" and a page explaining "regression test results." Again, the Petitioner does not provide analysis 
of why the work product requires a degree in a specific specialty. Without context for or an explanation on the relevance 
of these documents and data within them, the work product itself does not independently explain how the proffered position 
is "specialized and complex" or "complex ol unique( 
29 The only difference in the quoted text is includes additional degrees as relevant to perform the duties of the 
proffered position. 
30 The industry letters submitted on appeal similarly describe general duties for e-commerce analysts and then summarily 
state a degree in finance is required. The authors do not provide an explanation for how a degree in finance would provide 
the requisite knowledge to perform the duties. 
9 
degree is preferred," which not only is inconsistent with the record but would raise LCA issues. 31 The 
Petitioner does not address these inconsistencies. As discussed herein, the Petitioner has the burden 
to provide relevant, probative, and credible evidence to establish that its claim is "more likely than 
not" or "probably" true. The industry letters make statements inconsistent with the record and they 
do not support their declarations with sufficiently detailed and qualified analysis. Their summary 
statements are unsupported by explanations, references to the record, or citations to studies, surveys, 
industry publications, authoritative publications, or other sources of empirical information. The 
conclusion the Petitioner requests us to draw from their letters is not self-evident, and we are not required 
to accept cursory or primarily conclusory statements as demonstrating eligibility. 32 
The Petitioner also submits an expert opinion letter from~-------~ Professor of Finance 
& Economics afl !university. The professor states his opinion is based on his experience, the 
Chartered Financial Analyst's curriculum book, and Petitioner's documents, which he does not 
identify. After reviewing the proffered position's duties, he states, "risk assessment," "collection and 
analysis of business data," and "defining solutions to address a business need" are all essential 
concepts needed to perform the proffered position's duties. He then states that these concepts, and 
many others required to perform the duties, are taught in finance courses. He identifies the courses, 
but not the knowledge contained in them that would provide these concepts. He then states the duties, 
"could not be performed satisfactorily without Bachelor-level competence in Finance or a related 
field." He does not define what he means by a "related field." Within this conclusory and exclusionary 
statement, the professor rules out any other means one could utilize to attain the requisite knowledge. 
Moreover, the record contradicts this statement as the Handbook, the Petitioner's industry letters, and the 
job advertisements of other companies all recognize other degrees that would prepare an individual for 
the proffered position. In addition, later in his letter the professor undermines his own statement by 
adding, "it is clear that the E-Commerce Analyst position discussed herein requires, as per industry 
standards, a Bachelor's degree in accounting, economics, finance, statistics, and mathematics, or a 
related field." The professor does not explain this inconsistency. 
In viewing the professor's opinion as a whole, we conclude that he does not sufficiently explain or analyze 
why the duties, though labeled "complex" and "unique" require specialized knowledge. 33 While the 
31 If the Petitioner requires a master's degree, this requirement would conflict with its designation of the occupation as a 
Level I "Financial Analyst." SOC code 13-2051 on the LCA. O*NET indicates that this occupation has a Job Zone 4 
rating, which groups it among occupations for which "most ... require a four-year bachelor's degree, but some do not." 
O*NET OnLine Summary Report for "13-2051.00 - Financial Analysts," https://www.onetonline.org/Archive_ONET­
SOC_20l0_Taxonomy_09 _2020/link/summary/13-2051.00 (last visited Dec. 22, 2020). Thus, if the Petitioner requires a 
master's degree to perform the duties of this occupation, the wage level would increase by at least one level, to a wage 
Level II, because of the master's degree requirement and the labor condition application (LCA) in the record would not 
correspond to the pet1t1on. See Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, available at 
http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised_ 11 _ 2009.pdf. 
32 See I 756, Inc. v. Att'y Gen, 745 F. Supp. 9, 17 (D.D.C. 1990) (finding USCTS acted properly in not crediting petitioner's 
conclusory assertions). 
33 The professor also makes conclusory statements, lacking explanation for his leaps in logic and reasoning. As examples, 
he states, "it is my opinion that the [curriculum book] documents the knowledge typical of Bachelor-level study of Finance 
and related fields, and therefore, if the duties for the E-Commerce Analyst role require the application of that knowledge, 
it follows that the position requires a Bachelor's degree in Finance or related" and "if any of the job duties require 
competence in a major knowledge area, it stands to reason that the whole of the job's responsibilities could not be 
performed satisfactorily without Bachelor-level competence in Finance or a related field." 
professor may draw inferences that certain courses or knowledge obtained through a bachelor's degree 
program in finance may be beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, we disagree with 
the conclusion that such a degree is required in order to perform them. While we have reviewed the 
opinion letter presented, it has little probative value as it does not include sufficient specific analysis 
of the duties of the particular position nor does it sufficiently relate those duties to the stated 
educational qualifications required to perform them. 34 
The Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative specialization as an aspect of the duties of the 
position, and it did not identify tasks that are sufficiently complex or unique to satisfy the second 
alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) or specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Upon review of the totality of the evidence submitted, the Petitioner has not established that more 
likely than not, the proffered position is a specialty occupation under any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R . 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Moreover, the record does not establish that the Petitioner has satisfied the 
statutory and regulatory definitions of specialty occupation. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. 35 The Petitioner has not 
met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
34 The Director found that the professor reached his conclusion solely based on the Petitioner 's job description and found 
without the "constructs and measures" used for his analysis, he did not sufficiently establish his viewpoint. The Director 
listed ways the professor could have established support for his statements. The Petitioner asserts that the Director erred 
in imposing novel substantive or evidentiary requirements , citing to Kazarian v. USCJS, 596 F.3d 1115, 1121 (9th Cir. 
2010). However , the Petitioner misinterprets the Director , who is not creating evidentiary requirements but holding the 
Petitioner to its burden of proof and explaining that the professor's statements are conclusory and will be given less weight. 
It is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. See Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1361; Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369. 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. See Matter of Caron Int '!, 19 I&N 
Dec. at 795. 
35 See Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 
11