dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10446098 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-1B) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 19, 2020 
The Petitioner, an information technology consulting and staffing firm, seeks to temporarily employ 
the Beneficiary as a "business analyst" under the H-1B 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-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 Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the evidence of 
record does not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
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. See Matter of Christa's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
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) 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). 
11. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will be employed as a "business analyst" for an end-client 
located at~ _____ ___.California. The Petitioner provided a letter from the end-client, which 
states that the proffered position requires at a minimum: 
[T]wo (2) years of experience in product management, process improvement, technical 
consulting, Business Analysis or similar field and Bachelor of Science in a Science, 
Technology, Engineering, Mathematics field or related field and Advance degree in a 
Science, Technology, Engineering or Mathematics field or Master of Business 
Administration (MBA), a field closely and directly related to the nature of the work. 
The end-client letter also includes a job description for the proffered position. 
Ill. 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 does not include sufficient consistent, probative evidence establishing that the 
2 
job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty 
occupation.1 
From the outset, we conclude that the claimed requirement of a bachelor's degree in business 
administration without further specialization is inadequate to establish that the proposed position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. A petitioner must demonstrate that the proffered position requires 
a precise and specific course of study that relates directly and closely to the position in question. Since 
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 administration, without further 
specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf. Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 
l&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). 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. 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 administration, 
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. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007). See also Irish Help at Home LLC v. 
Melville, 13-cv-00943-MEJ, 2015 WL 848977 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2015), aff'd, 679 F. App'x 634 (9th 
Cir. 2017). For this reason alone, the proffered position is not a specialty occupation, and this petition 
cannot be approved. 
Even if we set this foundational deficiency aside, we would still conclude that the proffered position 
is not a specialty occupation because the evidence of record does not satisfy at least one of the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii)(l)-(4). 2 
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. To inform this inquiry, we will consider the information contained 
in the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) regarding the 
duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations it addresses. 3 
The Petitioner submitted the required DOL ETA Form 9035 & 9035E, Labor Condition Application 
for Nonimmigrant Workers (LCA) with this petition, where it classified the proffered position under 
1 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1B 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 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
3 We do not maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. That is, the occupational category 
designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered 
position, and we regularly review the Handbook on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of 
occupations that it addresses. Nevertheless, to satisfy the first criterion, the burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to 
submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position would normally have a minimum, specialty 
degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
3 
the occupational title "Computer Occupations, All Other," corresponding to the Standard Occupational 
Classification code 15-1199.00.4 
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. 5 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 and mathematical occupations" is a "Bachelor's degree," without indicating 
that the bachelor's degree must be in a specific specialty. 6 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. 
In support of its arguments, the Petitioner cited to various court opinions. Initially, 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 United States district courts in matters arising even within 
the same district. 7 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.8 
The Petitioner cited to RELX, Inc. v. Baran9 to support its argument that a position may be specialized 
even when the position permits more than one specific specialty for entry into it. As the foregoing 
discussion demonstrates, while we agree that the bachelor's degree does not have to be a degree in a 
single specific specialty, we do not agree with the analytical framework set forth by the RELX court. 
In RELX, the court did not address the statutory and regulatory provisions as they pertain to the 
requirement that the bachelor's degree, or its equivalent, be in a specific specialty. To avoid restricting 
the qualifying occupations to those for which a single, specific specialty exists, the court did not 
consider the requirement for specialization and overlooked that neither the Handbook nor the 
Occupational Information Network (O*NET) stated that the referenced bachelor's degree must be in 
a specific specialty. In overlooking this relevant detail, the court disposed of the precedential authority 
created by Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff10and continued to do so when it examined the evidence 
presented for the other criteria. 
4 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to demonstrate 
that it will pay the Beneficiary the higher of either the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the "area of 
employment" or the actual wage paid by the employer to other employees with similar experience and qualifications who 
are performing the same services. Section 212(n)(1) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(a). 
5 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 (last visited July 22, 2020). Here, 
the Handbook does not provide specific information for various occupations which might be classified within the occupational 
category. 
6 The Handbook also indicates that this occupation does not require work experience in a related occupation or typical 
on-the-job training. Id. 
7 See Matter of K-S-, 20 l&N Dec. 715, 719-20 (BIA 1993). 
8 Id. 
9 RELX, Inc. v. Baran, 397 F.Supp.3d 41 (D.D.C. Aug. 5, 2019). 
10 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"). 
4 
We also disagree with the court's statement that "[the Petitioner] did not just make a general reference 
to O*NET. Rather, [the Petitioner] stated that the Data Analyst position is aligned with the DOL's 
"Business Intelligence Analyst" position for which there is a detailed description that is directly 
relevant to the inquiry of whether the position is specialized."11 While we agree that O*NET is 
relevant, the court's treatment of O*NET as dispositive simply because the proffered position aligned 
with the occupational category disregards the specific specialty analysis that underpins Royal Siam 
Corp. The RELX court further stated that "[s]ince the [Handbook] indeed does provide specific 
detailed information regarding educational requirements for the computer operations category, and the 
detailed information states most of the occupations require a four-year bachelor's degree, the agency's 
rationale was both factually inaccurate and not supported by the record. "12 Here, again the court did 
not undertake the proper inquiry regarding the specific educational requirements of the position and 
instead regards a general requirement for a bachelor's degree as sufficient to discharge the petitioner's 
burden. 
Because the Handbook and O*NET do not describe the normal minimum educational requirements 
with sufficient specificity to establish that the positions falling within the occupational category are 
specialized, we disagree with the court's reliance on these sources as establishing the requisite 
eligibility. Instead, we believe that absent support from the Handbook and O*NET, the court should 
have analyzed whether the petitioner had sufficiently demonstrated that its particular position was one 
for which a bachelor's degree would normally be required and whether the stated field(s) of study 
directly related to the performance of the duties.13 In other words, though we agree with the RELX 
court that the bachelor's degree does not have to be a degree in a single specific specialty, this 
agreement is predicated upon the fields of study being closely related to the duties of the position and 
the record reflecting evidence sufficient to establish such relation. 
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. 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, 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.14 For the foregoing reasons, we cannot agree with the 
11 RELX, Inc., 397 F.Supp.3d at 54. 
12 Id. 
13 Though the RELX court briefly discusses the duties of the position, it did not engage in analysis of whether the duties 
actually required the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment 
of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty as the minimum for entry into the occupation. Rather, after 
disposing of the authority set forth in Royal Siam Corp., the court accepted the petitioner's stated standards concerning its 
position. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387. 
14 Section 214(i)(1)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). 
5 
reasoning contained in the RELX decision15 and therefore conclude that the Petitioner's reliance upon 
the case does not support its eligibility. 16 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted printouts from various websites, such as study.com and 
learnhowtobecome.org. However, the printouts do not establish that at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required for the position. For instance, the printouts state that a 
bachelor's degree in business or business administration is sufficient for entry into the occupation. 
Thus, this strongly suggests that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is not normally the 
minimum entry requirement for this occupation. 
As the foregoing demonstrates, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation from a 
probative, authoritative source to substantiate its assertion regarding the minimum requirement for 
entry into this particular position. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(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 the 
common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific 
position. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
We generally consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there is such a common degree 
requirement: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the industry's 
professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether letters or 
affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms "routinely employ and recruit 
only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 1999) 
(quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (considering these 
"factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
15 The Petitioner also cited to Residential Finance Corp. v. USCIS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012) and Tapis lnt'I 
v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 94 F. Supp. 2d 172 (D. Mass. 2000) for the proposition that "there is no apparent 
requirement that the specialized study needed be in a single academic discipline ... The knowledge and not the title of the 
degree is what is important. Diplomas rarely come bearing occupation specific majors." As the Petitioner cited these 
cases for reasons similar to that which it cites to RELX, we incorporate herein by reference our discussion of closely related 
specialties as it pertains to our analysis of the RELX case. 
16 We further note that the Director's decision in RELX was not appealed to us. Based on the district court's findings and 
description of the record, if that matter had first been appealed through the available administrative process, we may very 
well have remanded the matter to the service center for a new decision to address many of the concerns articulated by the 
district court if they could not have been remedied by us in our de novo review of the matter. 
6 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook, or other authoritative source, reports a requirement for at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, we incorporate by reference the previous discussion on the 
matter. Also, there are no submissions from the industry's professional association indicating that it 
has made a degree a minimum entry requirement. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not submit any 
letters or affidavits from similar firms or individuals in the Petitioner's industry attesting that such 
firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner submitted copies of job announcements placed by other 
employers. However, upon review of the documents, we find that the Petitioner's reliance on the job 
announcements is misplaced. First, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that these organizations are 
similar. When determining whether the Petitioner and the 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). It is not sufficient for the Petitioner to claim that an 
organization is similar and conducts business in the same industry without providing a legitimate basis 
for such an assertion. For instance, the Petitioner did not submit information regarding the employers' 
revenue. The Petitioner did not sufficiently supplement the record of proceedings to establish that 
these advertising organizations are similar. 
Moreover, many of the advertisements do not appear to involve parallel positions. For example, some 
of the advertisements appear to advertise more senior, experienced employment than the proffered 
position.17 Further, some of the postings do not include sufficient information about the tasks and 
responsibilities for the advertised positions. Thus, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that 
the primary duties and responsibilities of the advertised positions are parallel to those of the proffered 
position. 
In addition, some of the postings do not indicate that at least a bachelor's degree in a directly related 
specific specialty (or its equivalent) is required.18 For instance, the posting placed by Sapot Systems, 
Inc. states that a general degree (e.g., bachelor's degree in business) is acceptable for the position.19 
Moreover, the advertisement placed by Naviant, Inc. states "4-Year College Degree, preferably in 
Technology or Business-related degrees." A preference for a degree in a field is not necessarily an 
indication of a minimum requirement. Overall, the job postings suggest, at best, that although a 
bachelor's degree is sometimes required for these positions, a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty 
( or its equivalent) is not. 20 
17 For instance, the posting placed by Unbound Consulting states a requirement for a bachelor's degree and at least 7-10 
years of experience in business analytics, IT vendor management, or IT sourcing. 
18 As discussed, the degree requirement set by the statutory and regulatory framework of the H-1B program is not just a 
bachelor's or higher degree, but a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the duties of the 
position. See section 214(i){l){b) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
19 Again, although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business administration, may be a legitimate 
prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify a finding that a particular 
position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam, 484 F .3d at 14 7. 
20 It must be noted that 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 (which they do not), the Petitioner 
7 
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. 21 That is, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. 
Without more, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient 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 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
As recognized in Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88, it is necessary for the end-client to provide sufficient 
information regarding the proposed job duties to be performed at its location(s) in order to properly 
ascertain the minimum educational requirements necessary to perform those duties. In other words, 
as the employees in that case would provide services to the end-client and not to the petitioning staffing 
company, the job duties and alleged requirements to perform the duties that the Petitioner provided 
were irrelevant to a specialty occupation determination. See id. 
We reviewed the end-client's statements regarding the proffered position; however, while it provided 
additional information on how the duties would be carried out in response to the Director's request for 
evidence, the end-client has not sufficiently developed relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect 
of the proffered position. That is, the end-client has not explained in detail how the nature of some of 
the duties such as: 
I Develop stored procedures and complex SQL queries using advanced SQL functionalities such 
as Pivot, Common Table Expressions (CTE), Temp Tables in SQL server, Oracle Developer 
(ODS) and TOAD systems 
I Develop JIRA dashboards and create product backlogs, sprint backlogs and manage user 
stories to support development team during the Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC) 
has not demonstrated what statistically val id inferences, if any, can be drawn from the advertisements with regard to 
determining the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. See generally 
Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 (1995). Moreover, 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 195-196 (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"). 
21 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. 
8 
I Understand the end-to-end functionality and applicability of systems, softwares and different 
technical systems (KPHC, FS, ODS, Clarity etc.) used by business teams for current processes 
to determine the system requirements and feasibility for automation solutions 
I Provide insights into reporting requirements/report development, user interfaces, and 
coordinate UAT and the final evaluation and deployment of the system solution during and 
after system/BP solution development in test and production environments 
I Provide technical guidance to developers and help resolve their technical or process related 
concerns for the projects current under automation 
I Debug code & work closely with software developers, blue prism developers and SQL 
developers to help them resolve issues/bugs in their codes and logical flows 
I Identify business challenges and opportunities for improvement and solve them using problem 
solving frameworks, to make strategic or tactical recommendations to drive and achieve 
operational efficiencies 
I Document the current state "as is" process and develop future state processes with new 
technology implementation through software tools such as MS-Visio, MS Excel, SDLC 
framework 
I Develop relationships with upstream and downstream business partners to drive culture 
change, client communications, and related work regarding system changes, implementations, 
and related business process impacts 
I Manage the intake and discovery process of new opportunities, document processes, identify 
unique steps and data sources to accomplish automation 
I Interact with multiple stakeholders to document, review business requirements and evaluate 
the feasibility of new technological solutions such as Robotic Process Automation (RPA), 
Machine Learning & NLP etc. to address inefficiencies 
I Identify and make specific recommendations about key performance indicators (KPls) and 
how they can be utilized to achieve operational efficiencies 
I Create reports, pivot analysis, dashboards and PowerPoint presentations to track progress of 
ongoing and future projects and present them to management and business owners in weekly 
status meetings 
are so complex and unique that the knowledge required to perform them is usually associated with the 
attainment of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
In addition to the above, the end-client lists one of the duties as "[c]onduct gap analyses to document 
discrepancies between business requirements and system capabilities to identify programming 
solutions such as Robotic Process Automation bot development, predictive modelling, batch 
processing etc. to meet business needs and to drive maximum efficacy." In addition, the end-client 
state that the Beneficiary will "[w]ork closely with business users when the automation solution is 
deployed in production environment to make sure the solution integrated seamlessly with existing 
systems & functionalities." However, these duties focus on an outcome or result, rather than the 
process undertaken to produce such an outcome or result. Such circular descriptions do not 
meaningfully convey the duties of the position apart from its overal I outcome. Thus, these descriptions 
do not sufficiently convey the nature of the position or why it is so complex. 
The Petitioner also submitted copies of the Beneficiary's work products at the end-client's location. 
However, the Petitioner does not sufficiently explain how these documents distinguish and 
9 
differentiate the duties of the proffered position from the typical duties performed by other business 
analysts, and why the proffered duties require a baccalaureate (or higher degree) in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, as claimed. 
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 proposed 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 duties 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. 
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. 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. 
We observe that the record includes inconsistent information regarding the minimum requirements for 
the proffered position. For instance, the Petitioner initially stated that the proffered position requires 
a bachelor's degree in computer science. However, the end-client letter from March 2019 states that 
the position requires at least a "Bachelor's degree (or the equivalent) in Business Analytics & 
Operations Management." Moreover, the end-client letter from September 2019 and the end-client's 
job posting states that the proffered position requires the fol lowing: 
[T]wo (2) years of experience in product management, process improvement, technical 
consulting, Business Analysis or similar field and Bachelor of Science in a Science, 
Technology, Engineering, Mathematics field or related field and Advance degree in a 
Science, Technology, Engineering or Mathematics field or Master of Business 
Administration (MBA), a field closely and directly related to the nature of the work. 
As recognized by the court in Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88, where the work is to be performed for an 
entity other than the petitioner, evidence of the client company's job requirements is critical. Here, 
the end-client states that a degree in business administration is acceptable for the proffered position. 
As previously discussed, while a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business 
administration, may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, 
without more, will not justify a finding that a particular position qualifies for classification as a 
10 
specialty occupation. See Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147. Therefore, the end-client does not normally 
require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty for this position. 
In sum, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(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. 
In the instant case, relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by the 
Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. While the position may require that the Beneficiary 
possess some skills and technical knowledge in order to perform these duties, the Petitioner nor the 
end-client have sufficiently explained how these tasks require the theoretical and practical application 
of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the 
specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation. The record does not 
include sufficient probative evidence that the duties require more than technical proficiency in the 
field. Thus, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that its proffered position is one with duties 
sufficiently specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
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. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The 
Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
11