dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 9278309 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : WL Y 2, 2020 
The Petitioner, a software development and information technology services company, seeks to 
temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "business analyst" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification 
for specialty occupations .1 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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The matter is now before us 
on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . 2 
We review the questions in this matter de novo. 3 Upon de novo review, 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 . 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R . § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition but adds a 
non-exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered 
position must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
1 Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) , 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b ). 
2 Section 291 of the Act ; Matter ofCha wathe, 25 I&N Dec . 369, 375 (AAO 2010) . 
3 See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 l&N Dec . 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . 
(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. See Royal 
Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in a 
specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular 
position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary will serve as a business analyst for its end-client located in 
I INew Mexico. It submitted a list of sixteen duties with its initial filing, confirmed by the 
end-client, and the end-client expanded upon those duties in response to the Director's request for 
evidence (RFE) by noting the percentage of time the Beneficiary would devote to each stated duty. The 
Petitioner also provides additional details regarding the Beneficiary's duties on appeal. We will not repeat 
all the duties and descriptions here but have reviewed and considered each one. The Petitioner and 
end-client claim that the duties of the proffered position require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in 
computer science, information systems, engineering management or other closely related field in order 
to perform them. 
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 detail; and (2) does 
not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate 
with a specialty occupation. 4 
4 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. 
2 
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 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. 5 
On the labor condition application (LCA) 6 submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category of "Computer Systems Analysts" 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 15-1121. Though the Handbook 
reports that "[m]ost computer systems analysts have a bachelor's degree in a computer-related field," 7 
it also recognizes that a range of disparate degrees may be suitable for entering into this occupation. 
For example, the Handbook states that "[a]lthough many computer systems analysts have technical 
degrees, such a degree is not always a requirement" and that "[ m ]any analysts have liberal arts degrees 
and have gained programming or technical expertise elsewhere." 8 The Handbook does not clarify the 
type of technical degree or liberal arts degree (whether associate or bachelor's) and does not suggest how 
much programming or technical expertise would generally be required for an individual with a 
non-computer related degree to enter into the occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director ignored the following statement in the Handbook 
concerning the educational requirements for computer systems analysts: 
Because these analysts also are heavily involved in the business side of a company, it may 
be helpful to take business courses or major in management information systems. Some 
employers prefer applicants who have a master's degree in business administration 
(MBA) with a concentration in information systems. For more technically complex jobs, 
a master's degree in computer science may be more appropriate. 9 
While we acknowledge the Petitioner's assertions, we nevertheless note that the imprecise and varied 
information in the Handbook regarding the ways to enter into this occupation does not support a 
5 We do not maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. That is, the occupational category 
designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered 
position, and we regularly review the Handbook on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of 
occupations that it addresses. Nevertheless, to satisty the first criterion, the burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to 
submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position would normally have a minimum, specialty 
degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
6 A petitioner submits the LCA to DOL to demonstrate that it will pay an H-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, expenence, and qualifications. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 
20 C.F.R. § 655.73l(a). 
7 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 Jun. 
25, 2020). 
8 Id. 
9 Id. 
3 
conclusion that there is categorically a normal minimum educational requirement to enter the occupation. 
Because the Handbook indicates that some employers accept less than a bachelor's degree, and that this 
lesser degree may even be in a non-specific discipline, such as liberal arts, the Handbook does not 
describe the normal minimum educational requirement for the occupation in a categorical manner. 10 
For example, the Handbook recognizes that "[ a ]lthough many computer systems analysts have technical 
degrees, such a degree is not always a requirement" and that "[ m Jany analysts have liberal arts degrees 
and have gained programming or technical expertise elsewhere." 11 The Handbook does not clarify the 
type of technical degree or liberal arts degree (whether associate or bachelor's) and does not suggest how 
much programming or technical expertise would generally be required for an individual with a 
non-computer related degree to enter into the occupation. Because the Handbook indicates that some 
employers accept less than a bachelor's degree, and that this lesser degree may even be in a 
non-specific discipline, such as liberal arts, the Handbook does not describe the normal minimum 
educational requirement for the occupation in a categorical manner. Absent support from the 
Handbook, the Petitioner then must demonstrate that its particular position is among the computer systems 
analyst positions for which a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally 
required. 
The Petitioner cites to case law for the proposition that specialized study need not be in a single field 
and that the knowledge gained, not the title of the degree, is what is important. We generally agree 
with the proposition in Residential Finance Corp. v. USCIS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012), 
that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is what is important." Moreover, we also agree 
with the district court judge in Tapis Int'l v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 94 F. Supp. 2d 
172 (D. Mass. 2000), that in satisfying the specialty occupation requirements, both the Act and the 
regulations require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, and that this language 
indicates that the degree does not have to be a degree in a single specific specialty. 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. Because 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 computer science and social 
sciences, would not meet the statutory requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty ( or its 
equivalent)," 12 unless the Petitioner establishes how each field is directly related to the duties and 
responsibilities of the particular position. 13 It is important to note that in a subsequent case that was 
reviewed in the same jurisdiction, the court agreed with our analysis of Residential Finance. 14 
10 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"). 
11 Id. 
12 Section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act ( emphasis added). 
13 The courts in Residential Finance and Tapis Int'! did not eliminate the statutory "bachelor's or higher degree in the 
specific specialty" language imposed by Congress. Rather, they found that the petitioners in those cases had satisfied the 
requirement. 
14 See Health Carousel, LLCv. USCIS, No. 1:13-CV-23, 2014 WL 29591 (S.D. Ohio 2014). 
4 
In any event, the Petitioner has famished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition 
are analogous to those in Residential Finance or Tapis Int 'l. In contrast to the broad precedential 
authority of the case law of a United States circuit court, we are not bound to follow the published 
decision of a United States district court in matters arising even within the same district. 15 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 oflaw. 16 
The Petitioner has not established that the proffered position falls under an occupational category for 
which the Handbook, or another authoritative source, indicates that the normal minimum requirement for 
entry is at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The record lacks sufficient 
evidence to support a finding that the particular position proffered here would normally have such a 
minimum, specialty degree requirement or its equivalent. 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 degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show 
that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with 
a degree[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong contemplates 
common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific 
position. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
We generally consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there is such a common degree 
requirement: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the industry's 
professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether letters or 
affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry establish that such firms "routinely employ and 
recruit only degreed individuals." 17 
The Petitioner submitted a letter from the IT Director ofl I a software development and IT 
services corporation, in support of the assertion that other firms in the industry routinely employ and 
recruit only degreed individuals. According to the letter,I I requires its business analysts to have 
at least a bachelor's degree or equivalent in computer science, information systems or engineering, 
business administration, or engineering management. The letter also provided a brief overview of its 
requirements for a business analyst position. 
15 See Matter of K-S-, 20 T&N Dec. 715, 719-20 (BIA 1993). 
16 Id. 
17 See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D.Minn. 1999) (quoting Hird/Blaker Co1p. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 
1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) ( considering these "factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
5 
Upon review, we find this letter unpersuasive to establish that firms in the Petitioner's industry 
routinely employ and recruit degreed individuals. The letter indicates that I !currently employs 
one business analyst. While it states its general minimum requirements, which virtually mirrors the 
Petitioner's educational requirements, it provides no additional documentation to demonstrate that the 
company in fact employs a business analyst. Nor is there information on the company's business 
operations to demonstrate that it previously employed business analysts in positions similar to the 
proffered position, such that we could determine a routine hiring requirement. Finally, we note that 
I lwill accept individuals holding a degree in business administration for the position of business 
analyst. 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 Matter of Michael 
Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). 
The Petitioner also submitted job vacancy announcements for our consideration under this prong. To 
be relevant for this consideration, the job vacancy announcements must advertise "parallel positions," 
and the announcements must have been placed by organizations that (1) conduct business in the 
Petitioner's industry and (2) are also "similar" to the Petitioner. Upon review, however, the submitted 
job vacancy announcements do not satisfy that threshold. 
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, some of the postings 
do not include sufficient information about the tasks and responsibilities for the advertised positions. 
Moreover, the postings provide little to no information about the advertising companies, such that we 
can determine whether they are entities similar to the Petitioner. 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. 
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. For example, 
one posting will accept degrees in a number of disparate fields, such as business, math, economics, 
computer science, or technical equivalent. Another simply requires a bachelor's degree, without 
further specification. While a general-purpose bachelor's degree may be a legitimate prerequisite for 
a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify a conclusion that a 
particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d 
at 147. Moreover, several other postings indicate that a bachelor's degree in business administration 
is an acceptable prerequisite. As noted above, 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 Matter of Michael 
Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. at 560. 
6 
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. 18 That is, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. 19 
We acknowledge the Petitioner's assertion via the opinion letter P.rovided b~ I a faculty 
member in the College of Management and Technology at I I University inl~ ____ J~ 
Minnesota, which states that a minimum of a bachelor's degree in fields such as computer science, 
information systems, engineering management or another closely related field is the industry standard. 
I lrepeats monster.corn's generic description for a computer systems analyst which 
does not discuss academic requirements to perform the occupation, provides an overview of 
study.corn's essential information for this occupation, and notes that payscale.corn indicates that "the 
basic educational requirements for employment in this field is a bachelor's degree in computer science 
or engineering with a programming and design emphasis." 
The brief information! I repeats does not include persuasive argument or analysis 
establishing a common industry requirement for the computer systems analyst occupation; rather, the 
information listed appears to confirm the Handbook's report that the minimum entry-level 
requirements for this occupation varies. The generic information submitted regarding this occupation 
does not include detail of duties that are parallel to the proposed position or discuss hiring requirements 
for organizations similar to the Petitioner. I I's statement alone, absent corroborating 
evidence in the record, is insufficient to establish that a degree requirement is common to the industry in 
parallel positions among similar organizations. 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient probative evidence to establish that a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 2 l 4.2(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. 
18 The Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how representative the job postings are of the 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. 
19 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 has not demonstrated 
what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from the advertisements with regard to detennining 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 enor"). 
7 
We have reviewed the Petitioner's description of the proposed position and observe that this description 
presents a broad overview of a computer systems analyst. While we note the multiple descriptions of 
the duties provided by both the Petitioner and the end-client, we find that the descriptions do not 
adequately convey the level of complexity or uniqueness of the work that the Beneficiary will perform. 
The descriptions list the duties and the percentage of time the Beneficiary would devote to certain 
tasks. However, the record does not demonstrate that the necessary knowledge for the proffered 
position is attained through an established curriculum of particular courses leading to a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 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. The duties as described by the 
Petitioner and the end-client do not appear to be so complex or unique such that a degree in one of the 
fields identified by the Petitioner would be necessary to perform them. 
We return to the letter from! lupon whose opinion the Petitioner relies to establish 
the complexity and uniqueness of the position. I I repeated the Petitioner's 
description of duties, repeated portions of the DO L's Occupational Outlook Handbook's (Handbook) 
chapter on computer systems analysts and the O*NET Online's summary report for the occupation, 
and noted he had reviewed the Petitioner's website and information relating to their offered services . 
.__ ______ ___.also referred to several career and recruiting websites for their information on the 
duties of a computer systems analyst. These references do not establish the minimum requirements 
needed to perform the duties of the Petitioner's particular position. The relevance of these websites 
in establishing the proffered position is a specialty occupation has not been established. 
~------___.I also lists four "core duties" from the 2013 Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate 
,....P_r_o~g~n_1m_s_z_·n_C_o_m.....,Ruter Science, published by the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM).20 
.... I ______ _.]opines that because most, if not all, of the proposed duties fall within the scope of the 
topics taught in a university level bachelor's degree field, such as computer science or another closely 
related field curriculum, the position must be considered sufficiently specialized and complex to require 
a bachelor's degree or the equivalent in a field such as computer science. I I however, 
does not offer a cogent analysis correlating the duties of the particular position to the broadly described 
corresponding knowledge areas for a potential curriculum. Other than referring to the curriculum 
guidelines, he does not discuss their relevance in establishing that the particular position offered here 
requires a specific bachelor's degree. Moreover, he does not refer to the Handbook's more recent 
information on this occupation or attempt to distinguish the Handbook's report that several paths, 
including less than a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, are available as a minimum to enter this 
occupation. 
Moreover, while.__ ______ _.recites the list of duties for the position upon which he relied, he 
does not discuss the duties within the context of the end-client project. In fact, there is no mention of 
20 The knowledge areas are not sufficiently concise to correlate particular courses in an established curriculum of such 
courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, that is required to perform the 
duties of the proffered position. The guidelines for potential curriculums are too broad to establish a particular position 
requires a body of highly specialized knowledge attained in a bachelor's degree program in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. The relevance of these guidelines in establishing this position is a specialty occupation is not evident from the 
opinion's reference to them. 
8 
the Beneficiary's assignment at the end-client at all, thereby raising doubts regarding his familiarity 
with the actual duties to be performed in this matter. .__ ______ ___, does not state that he 
reviewed information regarding whether the end-client requires a bachelor's or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, to perform the position's duties, which is critical. See Defensor, 
201 F.3d at 387-88. Accordingly,! ts opinion, which does not address the end-client 
project and its requirements, bears minimal probative value. 
As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter 
of Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, we may give an opinion less 
weight if it is not in accord with other information in the record or if it is in any way questionable. Id. 
Upon review of this evaluation, is does not sufficiently correspond to the record and has little probative 
value. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the pos1t10n and references his 
qualifications. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education 
or experience of a particular beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative 
complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the 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. To satisfy this 
criterion, the record must establish that the specific performance requirements of the position 
generated the recruiting and hiring history. 
Further, 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. 
Here, the Petitioner maintains that it requires a bachelor's degree for the same or similar positions as the 
one proffered here, and indicates that all computer related employees have a bachelor's degree or higher 
in a computer related field. In support of this assertion, the Petitioner submitted the educational 
credentials for several employees, along with copies of their paystubs. We infer that the Petitioner wishes 
to demonstrate that its employees have specialized degrees. However, while some individuals possess 
U.S. degrees, many of the degrees are foreign degrees and are not accompanied by a foreign degree 
evaluation to substantiate such a degree as being the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree or higher. 
9 
A more critical deficiency is that the record does not include any job duties performed by these employees, 
or the job advertisements for their positions. Although the Petitioner submitted a copy of one employment 
offer letter tol I the offer letter indicates that this individual will be employed as a "SharePoint 
& .NET Developer," not a business analyst. As such, the record contains insufficient evidence that any 
of these individuals have or had the same or similar substantive responsibilities, duties, and 
performance requirements as the proffered position. The Petitioner did not provide the total number of 
people it has employed in the past to serve in the proffered position. Though it has been in business since 
2012, the Petitioner has provided no information about its past hiring history for the business analyst 
position. Consequently, no determination can be made about the Petitioner's normal recruiting and hiring 
practices for the proffered position when the submitted employment evidence covers only current 
employees who occupy positions different than the proffered one. The Petitioner has not persuasively 
established that it normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, 
for the proffered position. 
Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(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. 
The descriptions of the proflered position do not detail the specialized and complex nature of specific 
duties the Beneficiary will perform. The Petitioner and end-client describe a position that involves 
knowledge of information technology methods and techniques. The record, however, does not develop 
relative specialization and complexity as an aspect of the proffered position. The proposed duties do not 
include meaningful discussion of what the Beneficiary will actually be required to do in the proffered 
position and how those duties require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly 
specialized knowledge. 
We have again reviewed I I's opinion in order to ascertain what elements of the 
particular position are specialized and complex, but again do not find the opinion persuasive. I I I !refers to several of the duties of the particular position as core duties that fit within the topics 
covered in a computer science curriculum and then concludes that as such the position must be 
sufficiently specialized and complex as to require a bachelor's degree, or the equivalent, in a field such 
as computer science, information science, engineering management, or another closely related field. 
However,! I does not offer an analysis of the proposed duties and a meaningful 
explanation of why the duties require a bachelor's degree in a specific srecialty, rather than a general 
degree or experience. Neither the Petitioner nor I have demonstrated how an 
established curriculum of 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. Overall, I I 
I I's evaluation does not offer a persuasive analysis of the duties of the Petitioner's particular 
position sufficient to demonstrate that the duties are specialized and complex or that they comprise 
the duties of a specialty occupation. Put simply, stating that a person with a bachelor's degree in 
10 
computer science could perform the duties of the proffered position is not the same as establishing that 
such a degree is required to perform those duties. 
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 has not 
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. Consequently, the Petitioner 
has not satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
III. CONCLUSION 
In visa petition proceedings, it is a petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
11