dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6057071 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 20, 2020 
The Petitioner, an information, analytics and consulting services company in the healthcare industry, 
seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as "business systems analyst" under the H-lB 
nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-lB program allows a U.S. 
employer to temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a position that requires both: (a) the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge; and (b) the attainment 
of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty ( or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite 
for entry into the position . 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and additional documentation and asserts that the Director 
erred in denying the petition. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 1 
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 We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 
(AAO 2010). 
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: 
(]) 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. Chertojf, 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. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a "business systems analyst." In response to the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner described the duties and responsibilities of the 
proffered position as follows: 2 
Job Duty % time 
spent 
Be accountable for the daily deliverables and leverage required resources to 20% 
meet Service Level Agreement. 
Triage internal or customer reported issues to determine the validity of the 20% 
reported issue and undertake analysis and actions for resolution. 
Perform Quality Assurance activities to ensure high quality. 15% 
Communicate effectively to both business and technical stakeholders within 15% 
the project team. 
Foster relationships with key stakeholders, understanding their requirements 10% 
and recommend/implement solutions and provide guidance as needed. 
2 Each duty consisted of bullet points providing additional details. Although we omit the bullet points for brevity, we have 
reviewed them in their entirety. 
2 
Provide proactive analysis to provide potential reduce future risk and provide 10% 
recommendations. 
Define procedures and process for ongoing continuous improvement and 10% 
implement tools for automation. 
In response to a Request for Evidence (RFE) issued by the Director, the Petitioner provided a more 
detailed description of the Beneficiary's duties stating that she "works on our I !Rebate 
Deliverables' product within Managed Markets. The f urpose of the Rebate product is to standardize, 
edit, QC and deliver Managed Care rebate data to I. The Managed Care 
Organization (MCO) sends detail level I I product data and the competitive market share data to 
[Petitioner]. [Petitioner] is responsible to intake the files and perform ETL programs, which include 
handling different files formats and loading them into canonical layout by validating the Payer, 
Submitted Value template and NDC information in various stages based on client specifications. 
[Petitioner] is contracted to almost 120 MCO vendors [Petitioner]. Once the data is processed, the 
reformatted and QC'ed output files are sent tol lvia FTP. The programming tools used in this 
project are Informatica ETL tool, Hadoop/Oracle databases, Unix shell scripting and Alteryx QC 
reports. Also, the task includes the maintenance of Drug and Payer dimensions on weekly basis. The 
line of business submitted for Rebates processing are Commercial, Medicaid, Medicare D, Long Term 
Care, Oncology (Sutent) and Coverage Gap." The Petitioner stated that in her Business Systems 
Analyst role, the Beneficiary will thereby act as coordinator forl !Rebate Deliverables between 
Operations, Production Support and Development. 
The Petitioner indicated that the minimum educational requirement for the proffered position is a 
bachelor's degree or higher in information technology, computer science, clinical research, or a related 
field. 
III. ANALYSIS 
For the reasons set out below, we have determined that the proffered position does not qualify as a 
specialty occupation. 3 Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an 
educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 4 In particular, 
we find that two separate factors independently bar approval of this petition: (1) the Petitioner's lack 
of a requirement for a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent; and (3) the 
Petitioner's failure to satisfy at least one of the four regulatory specialty-occupation criteria 
enumerated at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4). 
A. Lack of a Requirement for a Bachelor's Degree in a Specific Specialty, or the Equivalent 
As noted, the Petitioner claims that the minimum educational requirement for the proffered position 
is a bachelor's degree or higher in information technology, computer science, clinical research, or a 
related field. 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 
3 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
4 The Petitioner submitted documentation in support of the H-IB petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 
"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 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. Section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act ( emphasis 
added). 
In other words, while the statutory "the" and the regulatory "a" both denote a singular "specialty," 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. See section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). As just stated, 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. Absent evidence to the contrary, we do not consider the field of clinical research closely 
related to the fields of information technology or computer science. 
Nor has the Petitioner established how the knowledge gained from a bachelor's 5 degree in any these 
fields would be directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the proffered position. For 
example, in explaining the importance of these degree fields, the Petitioner's expert claimed that a 
bachelor's degree from any of these three fields would provide "a background in requirements 
gathering; the analysis, design, and development of data architecture and performance needs; and the 
translation of business needs into functional requirements," as well as "computer engineering." 
However, we find the record of proceedings insufficient to establish that a bachelor's degree in clinical 
research would necessarily provide that background. 6 
The proffered position is not a specialty occupation for this reason alone, and for this reason alone the 
petition cannot be approved. 
B. The Specialty-Occupation Criteria Enumerated at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii)(l)-(4) 
Even if we set that issue 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). 
5 We acknowledge that the Beneficiary has the equivalent of a master's degree in clinical research. However, the Petitioner 
claims that a bachelor's degree in clinical research would adequately prepare an individual to perform the duties of the 
proffered position. Requiring a master's degree - regardless of field- would mandate at minimum a one-level increase to 
the position's prevailing wage and a corresponding increase to the salary offered to the Beneficiary. 
6 We do not question whether a bachelor's degree in clinical research combined with additional coursework or work 
experience in information technology would provide that background. However, the Petitioner did not state such a 
requirement, and mandating those credentials on top of the bachelor's degree requirement could also have impacted the 
position's prevailing wage. 
4 
1. 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. We recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational 
Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements 
of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 7 
On the labor condition application (LCA)8 submitted in support of the H-1B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Computer Systems Analysts" 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 15-1121. Thus, we reviewed the 
Handbook's subchapter entitled "How to Become a Computer Systems Analyst," which states, in relevant 
part, that a bachelor's degree in a computer or information science field is common, although not always 
a requirement. 9 
According to the Handbook, some firms hire analysts with business or liberal arts degrees. As 
discussed, we interpret the term "degree" to mean a degree in a spec[fic specialty that is directly related 
to the proposed position. See Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. Since there must be a close 
correlation between the required specialized studies and the position, this requirement for general and 
wide-ranging degrees in business and liberal arts strongly suggests that a computer systems analyst 
position is not categorically a specialty occupation. See id. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 
I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). The Handbook continues by stating that although many analysts 
have technical degrees, such a degree is not always a requirement - and that, in fact, many analysts 
have liberal arts degrees and gain programming or technical expertise elsewhere. It does not specify 
a degree level (e.g., associate's degree) for these business, technical, and liberal arts degrees. The 
Handbook therefore does not support the assertion that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for these positions. See also 
Altimetrik Corp. v. Cissna, No. 18-10116, 2018, WL 6604258, at *6 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 17, 2018) (also 
noting that because the Handbook "makes it clear that a degree in a computer-related field is not 
required" for these positions, "USCIS [ was] entitled to deference in its finding that systems analysts 
are not required to have a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty"). 
As indicated, the Petitioner also submitted an evaluation fr9]ll]~ ......... -------.------1l Ph.D., an 
associate professor of computer systems technology at the L I College of Technology, 
I l for our consideration under this criterion. In his letter, the professor (1) 
7 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. To satisty the first criterion, however, the burden ofproofremains 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. 
8 A petitioner submits the LCA to DOL to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B worker the higher of either the prevailing 
wage for the occupational classification in the area of employment or the actual wage paid by the employer to other 
employees with similar duties, experience, and qualifications. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.73l(a). 
9 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Computer Systems Analysts 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-systems-analysts.htm#tab-4 (last visited Feb. 
19, 2020). 
5 
describes the credentials that he asserts qualify him to opine upon the nature of the proffered position; 
(2) discusses the duties proposed for the Beneficiary; and (3) states that these duties require at least a 
bachelor's degree in information technology, computer science, clinical research, or a related 
specialized field. We carefully evaluated the professor's assertions in support of the instant petition 
but, for the following reasons, determined his letter is not persuasive. 
First, the professor appears to agree with the Petitioner that the knowledge gained from a course of 
study leading to a bachelor's degree in computer science, information technology, or clinical research 
constitutes a "body of highly specialized knowledge" and is equivalent to a bachelor's degree in a 
"specific specialty." As indicated above, we do not agree. 
Moreover, the professor states that his assessment is based upon "copies of a letter from [ the Petitioner] 
outlining the job duties of the position and the required educational background for a candidate to hold 
the position, a supplemental, detailed job description issued by [the Petitioner] outlining the details to 
be performed by the [Beneficiary], and the academic documentation of the candidate." We note that 
I I states that "in the proffered position of Business Systems Analyst" with [Petitioner] , 
[Beneficiary] would be accountable for the daily deliverables and leverage required resources to meet 
the Service Level Agreement." This reference to a "Service Level Agreement" raises questions, as 
the Petitioner made no such reference and there is no evidence of any Service Level Agreement in the 
record of proceeding. Furthermore, althoughl I claims general familiarity with the 
Petitioner's business operations gained through research, he basically restated the same duties listed 
in the Petitioner's RFE response. There is no indication that he possessed any knowledge of the 
proffered position beyond the Petitioner's job description, which we find inadequate, and therefore his 
level of familiarity with the actual job duties as they would actually be performed has therefore not 
been substantiated. As a result, we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the professor 
possessed the requisite information to adequately assess the nature of the position and appropriately 
determine the educational requirements of the position, based upon the job duties and level of 
responsibilities. 
While the professor may believe, based on his experience in the technology industry, that companies 
like the Petitioner should employ individuals with a degree in the fields noted above, his statement 
alone is insufficient to establish that an industry standard for a degree in a specific specialty exists for 
this occupation. Further, the professor's opinion letter does not substantiate his conclusions, such that 
we can determine that the Petitioner has met its burden of proof. For instance, he opines that 'The 
research sources on which this expert opinion is based serve to supplement my extensive knowledge 
of the pertinent subject matter, as well as available information regarding the nature of the job duties 
of the proffered position of Business Systems Analyst, the specialized analytical functions to be 
fulfilled in the subject position, the required educational background to enable an individual to 
undertake the requisite duties, and the suitability of a degree in Information Technology, Computer 
Science, Clinical Research, or a related specialized field for the performance of the job duties 
specialized herein." However, he does not reference, cite, or discuss any studies, surveys, industry 
publications, authoritative publications, or other sources of empirical information which he may have 
consulted to complete his evaluation, in order to arrive at this vague conclusion. For example, we 
question the professor's knowledge regarding bachelor's degree programs in clinical research, and 
6 
therefore also question his ability to opine upon the knowledge, skills, and expertise that would be 
gained from such a course of study. 10 
For the reasons discussed, we conclude that the opinion letter froml I is insufficient 
to satisfy the first criterion. 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."). 11 Consistent with Caron Int 'l we decline to assign 
significant evidentiary weight to this evaluation. USCIS is not required to accept primarily conclusory 
assertions, even from a purported expert. 12 
The record lacks sufficient evidence to support a finding that the proffered position is one for which a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry. For the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner has not met its burden to 
establish that the particular position offered in this matter requires a bachelor's or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, directly related to its duties in order to perform those tasks. Thus, 
the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(]). 
2. 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. 
a. 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) 
10 The Beneficiary's undergraduate degree in "technology electronics and communication engineering" fi-om an institution 
in India is acknowledged, as is (again), the Beneficiary's educational equivalency to a master's degree in clinical science. 
However, both the Petitioner and the professor are claiming that a bachelor's degree in clinical research would prepare an 
individual to perform the duties of this position. If that is the case, then given the professor's apparent lack of knowledge 
in that field we question his ability to opine upon the duties and responsibilities of a position requiring such a background. 
11 We hereby incorporate our discussion of I Is letter into our discussion of the other 8 C.F.R. 
§ 2 l 4.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) criteria. 
12 1756, Inc. v. Att); Gen, 745 F. Supp. 9, 17 (D.D.C. 1990). 
7 
(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)). 
Here and as already discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for 
which the Handbook ( or other independent, authoritative source) reports an industry-wide 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 establish that firms or individuals in the Petitioner's industry routinely employ and 
recruit only degreed individuals. 
The Petitioner submitted several job announcements for our consideration under this prong. To be 
relevant under this prong, the job announcements must advertise "parallel positions." The regulation 
further requires that the organizations conduct business in the Petitioner's "industry" and are otherwise 
"similar" to the Petitioner. Upon review, we conclude that these job announcements do not satisfy 
these elements. 
The Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the primary duties and responsibilities of the 
advertised positions are parallel to those of the proffered position. For example, many of the advertised 
positions require significant work experience - a requirement the Petitioner does not mandate for the 
proffered position - which raises questions as to whether these positions' duties and responsibilities 
actually parallel those of the proffered position. 
Nor did the Petitioner submit sufficient evidence to establish that these advertising companies are 
"similar" to the Petitioner. The Petitioner is an information, analytics and consulting services 
company in the healthcare industry with 280 employees. However, the Petitioner submitted job 
announcements placed by inter alia, one of the largest defense contractor companies in the country, a 
financial services company, and a real estate firm. Notably, several advertisers do not provide 
sufficient information about their businesses, and we are unable to ascertain the nature of their 
businesses to conduct a legitimate comparison of the advertisers to the Petitioner. The Petitioner did 
submit four advertisements from companies which appear to be involved in the healthcare industry. 
Nonetheless, the record does not contain sufficient documentary evidence to establish the similarity 
of these various companies to the Petitioner in terms of size, scale and scope of operations, or any 
other essential nature in order to demonstrate that they are "similar" to the Petitioner for purposes of 
the first prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
For all of these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that these job announcements are relevant. 
Even if that threshold had been met, we would still find that they did not satisfy this prong of the 
second criterion, as they do not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the 
equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 13 As noted 
13 In addition, the Petitioner does not demonstrate what statistically valid inferences, if any, could 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). 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. Sec id. at 195-96 (explaining that "[r]andom selection is the 
8 
in the preceding paragraph, one advertiser indicates that a degree in several different fields of study 
would suffice, including a bachelor's degree in business, with no further specialization. 
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. 14 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). 
b. 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 we have noted, the Petitioner submitted a list of job duties and the percentage of time the 
Beneficiary would devote to certain tasks, along with an organizational chart that includes the 
Beneficiary. We have taken into account the Petitioner's arguments that the healthcare industry is 
being reshaped, and that its own particular business is highly specialized. However, we conclude 
nonetheless that the Petitioner has not sufficiently developed relative complexity or uniqueness as an 
aspect of the proffered position. In other words, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the duties of 
the proffered position as described in the record require the theoretical and practical application of a 
body of highly specialized knowledge such that a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, is required to perform them. For example, the Petitioner did not submit information 
relevant to a detailed course of study leading to a specialty degree and establish how such a curriculum 
would be necessary to perform the duties it believes are so complex and unique. While a few related 
courses may be beneficial, or even required, in performing certain duties of the position, we find that 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated how an established curriculum of such courses leading to a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a spec[fic specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the 
duties of the proffered position. To the contrary, it appears as though a range of degrees in unrelated 
fields would suffice. 
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"). 
As such, even if the job vacancy announcements supported the finding that the position requires a bachelor's or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, it could not be found that such a limited number of postings that appear to 
have been consciously selected could credibly refute the findings of the Handbook published by the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics that such a position does not normally require at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
14 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. 
9 
Furthermore, we note that the Petitioner designated the proffered position as an entry-level position 
within the occupational category by selecting a Level I wage. This designation, when read in 
combination with the Petitioner's job descriptions and the Handbook's account of the requirements 
for this occupation, further suggests that the particular position is not so complex or unique that the 
duties can only be performed by an individual with bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent. 
The Petitioner does not sufficiently develop the relative specialization and complexity, or uniqueness 
of the duties as an aspect of the proffered position. In other words, the proposed duties have not been 
described with sufficient specificity to show that they are more specialized and complex or unique 
than computer systems analyst positions that are not usually associated with at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Both opinion letters from I I are 
repetitive and conclusory and do not appear to be based on a complete understanding of the particular 
position, its level of responsibility within the organization, and the lack of complexity of the duties 
based on the Level I wage. There is insufficient evidence in the record to support a conclusion that 
the knowledge to perform the duties of a business systems analyst position, as described by the 
Petitioner, can only be gained from a bachelor's degree, or equivalent, in a specific specialty. The 
record, includin~ ~ s opinion, does not include probative evidence establishing that 
the proposed position is so complex or unique that a only an individual with a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty can perform the position. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
3. 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. 
Although the Petitioner provided an organizational chart for the Beneficiary's department, we note 
that all of the individuals on the organizational chart hold different job titles than the Beneficiary (i.e., 
lead software engineer, lead applications developer, lead ETL developer, lead sharepoint architect, 
etc.). Furthermore, these individuals also hold different degrees in different areas of concentration 
than the Beneficiary, such as a master's degree in mathematical statistics and probability, an MS in 
physics, a bachelor's of technology in electronics and communication engineering, and a bachelor of 
science in electronics engineering. We therefore question the relevance and evidentiary value of this 
documentation. Absent additional evidence, the Petitioner has not established that these individuals 
10 
have or had the same or similar substantive responsibilities, duties, and performance requirements as 
the proffered position. We further observe that the Petitioner also did not submit any documentation 
showing actual employment of these employees, such as pay statements or tax information. 
The Petitioner has thus not persuasively established that it normally requires at least 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). 
4. 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 the Petitioner provided a more detailed description of the Beneficiary's duties in the proffered 
position in response to the RFE, and again references this more detailed description of duties in its 
arguments on appeal, we are not persuaded that the position as described by the Petitioner requires the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge. Upon review, the record 
does not establish the proffered position as more specialized and complex from other positions that can 
be performed by persons without at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. For 
reasons similar to those discussed under the second prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), we find 
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). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
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 here, 
and the petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
11