dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-1- CORP. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 12, 2019 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an information technology consulting company , seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "technical recruiter" under the H-lB 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-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 proffered position 
does not qualify as a specialty occupation . On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the Director erred. 
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. 
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 We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 
(AAO 2010). 
Matter of C-1- Corp. 
(]) 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"). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner described the duties of the proffered "technical recruiter" position, and the percentage 
of the Beneficiary's time required to perform them, as follows: 
• Analyze and successfully review technical job descriptions evaluating the technical 
project need, level of proficiency required in the project and key technical skills 
that will be essential for optimal performance [30%]; 
• Identify talents, recruit and examine their proficiencies in the following 
technologies [ 40%]: 
o Microsoft [t]echnologies, which includes but not [sic] limited to .Net, 
ASP.Net, C#, VB.Net, Object Oriented programing, LINQ, SQL Server, 
WCF ([W]indows [c]ommunication foundation), SOA ([s]ervice 
oriented architecture), [w]eb [s]ervices, HTML, XML, CSS, JavaScript 
and other tools used primarily for web design. 
o Java [t]echnologies, which includes but not [sic] limited to J2EE, JEE 
framework, JSP, EJB, [a]pplications [s]ervers like Glassfish, JBOSS, 
WebSphere, WebLogic, [d]evelopment platform (IDE) like Eclipse, 
[b ]uild tools like ANT, [t]esting frameworks like Junit, Mockito, 
EasyMock and other tools primarily for web design; [ and] 
• Maintain visibility of company-wide resource availability for re-deployment. 
Evaluate employees regarding their technical performance on continuing projects 
wherein skill like Java, Net, Sales Force [sic], Oracle, SQL Server, [ d]ata 
[a]nalytics, [and] reporting tools are being used and redeploying them to alternate 
project assignments to ensure total resource utilization [30%]. 
2 
Matter of C-1- Corp. 
According to the Petitioner, the position "requires a computer-related bachelor's degree." 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 2 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its 
equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 3 
A. First Criterion 
The criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I) 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 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. 4 
On the labor condition application (LCA)5 submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the "Human Resources Specialists" occupational category 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 13-1071. 
The subchapter of the Handbook titled "How to Become a Human Resources Specialist" states, in 
relevant part, that "[ a ]pplicants seeking positions as a human resources specialist usually must have a 
bachelor's degree in human resources, business, or a related field. Coursework typically includes 
business, industrial relations, psychology, professional writing, human resource management, and 
accounting." Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 
Human Resources Specialists, https://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/human-resources­
specialists.htm#tab-4 (last visited Sept. 10, 2019). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Handbook's observation that a "human resources specialist 
usually must have a bachelor's degree in human resources, business, or a related field" satisfies the 
first criterion. However, 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 
2 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
3 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H- lB petition, including evidence regarding the proffered position 
and its business operations. Although we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered 
each one. 
4 We do not maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source ofrelevant 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. 
5 A petitioner submits the LCA to DOL to demonstrate that it will pay an H-lB worker the higher of either the prevailing 
wage for the occupational classification in the area of employment or the actual wage paid by the employer to other 
employees with similar duties, experience, and qualifications. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.73l(a). 
3 
Matter of C-1- Corp. 
specialty occupation. Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. Notably, while the Handbook states that 
"[ c ]oursework typically includes business, industrial relations, psychology, professional writing, 
human resource management, and accounting," the Handbook does not establish such courses lead to 
a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
The Petitioner also asserts on appeal that a Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) survey "reflects that BLS 
has concluded that the occupation is within 'Job Zone Four: Considerable Preparation Needed,' which 
means that '[m]ost of these occupations require a four-year bachelor's degree."' However, similar to 
the Handbook's observation, the information referenced and submitted by the Petitioner does not 
indicate that the normal minimum requirement for entry into the particular position is a bachelor's or 
higher degree in a spec[fic specialty, or its equivalent. 
The Petitioner further asserts on appeal that an opinion letter from Dr.~------~ a professor 
of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science atl !University, submitted in response to the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE), establishes that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation under the first criterion. As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted 
by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron Int'!, 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. We are ultimately responsible for making the final 
determination regarding an individual's eligibility for the benefit sought; the submission of expert 
opinion letters is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id.; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 
500, 502 n.2 (BIA 2008) ("[E]xpert opinion testimony, while undoubtedly a form of evidence, does 
not purport to be evidence as to 'fact' but rather is admissible only if 'it will assist the trier of fact to 
understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue."') . 
.__ ___ _.l's letter stated that he "relie[d] upon copies of the original documents provided by [the 
Beneficiary] and represented by [the Beneficiary] to be authentic and true copies of those documents." 
However,! ts letter did not specifically identify what those documents are. The letter 
paraphrased the Petitioner's description of the proffered position's duties as follows: 
• Use and understand the software requirements of clients and the software 
capabilities of [the Petitioner's] hiring candidates; 
• Analyze and successfully review technical job descriptions evaluating the technical 
project need; 
• Identify talents, recruit and examine their proficiencies in the following 
technologies; 
• Maintain visibility of companywide resource availability for re-deployment; 
• Use programs such as .Net, ASP.Net, C#, VB.Net, [o]bject [o]riented 
programming, LINQ, SQL Server, WCF ([W]indows [c]ommunication 
foundation), SOA ([s]ervice oriented architecture), [w]eb services, HTML, XML, 
CSS, JavaScript and other tools used primarily for web design. 
~---~Is summary of the proffered position's duties, based on information provided to him by 
the Beneficiary, differs from the Petitioner's description of the proffered position's duties. I I 
did not identify the technologies for which the Beneficiary would identify talents, recruit, and examine 
their proficiencies. I ts summary entirely omitted the Petitioner's discussion of Java 
4 
Matter of C-I- Corp. 
technologies for which the Beneficiary would identify talents, recruit, and examine their proficiencies. 
Additionally, although I ts summary included the types of Microsoft technologies listed in 
the Petitioner's duty description.I Is opinion was based on the Beneficiary using those 
technologies in an unspecified context, not as the types of technologies for which the Beneficiary 
would identify talents, recruit, and examine their proficiencies. The nature and the extent of the 
differences between the Petitioner's description compared tol Is summary of the proffered 
position's duties, upon which he based his opinion, raise questions regarding the position's substantive 
nature and whether I ts opinion assessed the actual proffered position. 
Additionally,! Is opinion letter did not specifically discuss the first criterion's requirements. 
~---~I asserted that "[a] company, such as [the Petitioner], that is seeking to employ a Technical 
Recruiter requires prospective candidates to have a strong foundation in the field of Computer Science, 
Information Systems, and related fields which can only be obtained through a Bachelor's degree in 
the field of Computer Science, Information systems, and related fields." That opinion is silent on 
whether the normal minimum requirements for entry into the particular position-among all 
employers, not just companies similar to the Petitioner-is a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, which is the focus of the first criterion. Moreover, even if I I 
opined on the first criterion, which he did not, the Handbook's observation, discussed above, indicates 
that the normal minimum requirement for entry into the proffered position is not a bachelor's or higher 
degree in a spec[fic specialty, or its equivalent. Accordingly, the Petitioner's assertion on appeal that 
"[t]here is nothing in the record ... that either contradicts or controverts the expert opinion from 
~------~' is misplaced. Based on the foregoing,! I's opinion letter bears minimal 
probative value. See Matter of Caron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. at 795. 
In summation, 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). The first prong contemplates common industry 
practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific position. 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not assert eligibility under the second prong of the second criterion. 6 
Instead, the Petitioner focuses on the first prong. Accordingly, we limit our analysis of the second 
criterion to the first prong. 
To satisfy the 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. 
6 The Petitioner asserts that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation under the similar, but distinct, fourth 
criterion. We address those assertions below. 
5 
Matter of C-1- Corp. 
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." 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)). 
Here, however, the Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, is a common requirement within the industry for parallel positions among similar 
organizations. Also, the Petitioner did not submit evidence from an industry professional association 
or from firms or individuals in the industry indicating such a degree is a minimum requirement for 
entry into the position to support the petition. 
On appeal, for the first time, the Petitioner submits a letter from one firm's "Senior Vice President & 
Head of Human Resource," stating in relevant part that "a Technical Recruiter with a technical degree 
is necessary to successfully doing [sic] this job. We normally require that a person have a U.S. 
Bachelor's Degree or equivalent in a related technical field of study for employment by our company 
in the Technical Recruiter role." 
However, in the RFE, the Director put the Petitioner on notice of required evidence and gave the 
Petitioner a reasonable opportunity to provide it for the record before the visa petition was adjudicated. 
The Petitioner did not submit the requested evidence and now submits it on appeal. 7 We will not 
consider this evidence. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of 
Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 537 (BIA 1988). The appeal will be adjudicated based on the record 
of proceedings before the Director. 
The Petitioner also asserts on appeal thatl Is opinion, discussed above, "is consistent with 
the industry's consensus that positions such as that [sic] even entry-level IT positions require a 
Bachelor's Degree in a [c]omputer-related field of study." As noted above,I ts opinion 
letter bears minimal probative value. See Matter of Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. at 795. Moreover, 
the Petitioner's discussion of degree requirements for "even entry-level IT positions" is confusing, 
given that the Petitioner designated the proffered position in the "Human Resources Specialist" 
occupational category, not an information technology occupational category. As noted above, the 
Handbook observed that [ a ]pplicants seeking positions as a human resources specialist usually must 
7 The Petitioner's ~E res
1
ponse consisted of a four-page letter, I l's three-page opinion letter along with 
information regarding University and his curriculum vita, other job postings that the Petitioner does not address on 
appeal, and evidence regarding one other employee, discussed below. We do not address the two job postings submitted 
in response to the RFE at length because the Petitioner does not address them on appeal. However, we note that the degree 
requirements from the sample size of only two employers include "a B.S. in Information Technology/ 
Management/Business Administration/Engineering/Science or closely related field" and a "Bachelor's degree that 
provides some knowledge in software development/engineering efforts, computer science, human resources or public 
relations." Therefore, the job postings do not establish a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent. 
6 
Matter of C-1- Corp. 
have a bachelor's degree in human resources, business, or a related field," 8 not "a Bachelor's Degree 
in a [ c ]omputer-related field of study." 
To support its assertions regarding the first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner submits on 
appeal articles titled 'Teaching Computer Science through Problems, not Solutions," "Computer 
Engineering Curricula 2016," "Computer Science Curricula 2013," and "Curriculum Guidelines for 
Undergraduate Degree Programs in Information Systems." Specifically, the Petitioner quotes the first 
article's statement that, "[r]egardless of the course topic, every instructor in a computing field 
endeavors to engage their students in deep problem-solving and critical thinking." The Petitioner cites 
the latter three articles to support its assertion that "the general curricular requirements for Bachelor's 
programs of study in computing fields have been established in direct response to the employment 
demands of this occupation." However, the observation regarding computing instructors' endeavors 
and the general curricular documents do not address whether a common degree requirement exists for 
entry into positions parallel to the proffered position in the "Human Resources Specialist" 
occupational category, among organizations similar to the Petitioner. 
The record does not contain other documentary evidence to establish whether a bachelor's or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common for entry into positions parallel to the proffered 
position among organizations similar to the Petitioner, in the Petitioner's industry. Accordingly, the 
Petitioner has not satisfied the first 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that an undated job announcement satisfies the third criterion. The 
job announcement summarizes the "technical recruiter" position's duties and states "Education: 
Bachelor's degree in Computer Science or related field with at least [±Jive (5) years of experience in 
the field." However, the job announcement does not establish when this position was advertised. 
Moreover, the record does not establish that the Petitioner has normally hired for the "technical 
recruiter" position consistent with this undated job announcement's requirement. 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted a resume and academic documents for the 
Petitioner's "other Technical Recruiter ... as proof that [ the Petitioner] normally requires its Technical 
Recruiters to possess at least a computer science-related bachelor's degree." The record does not 
contain documentary evidence regarding any other individual currently or formerly employed by the 
Petitioner. The resume, which is printed on the Petitioner's letterhead, indicates that the other 
employee's title is "sr. resource manager/sr. I.T. recruiter." In contrast to the Petitioner's description 
of the proffered position's duties, quoted above, the resume lists the employee's duties as follows: 
8 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Human Resources Specialists, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/human-resources-specialists.htm#tab-4 (last visited Sept. 10, 2019). 
7 
Matter of C-1- Corp. 
• Focused on partnering with talented IT professionals including; .NET, Java, 
Business Analysts, Project Managers, Data Analysts, Security Engineers, ERP 
consultants, DSB's, SQL, Sharepoint, Biztalk and more. 
• Supported and serviced state government agencies including State of TX, State of 
FL, Miami Dade County, State of GA, State of OR, State of ME, etc. 
• Develop recruiting strategies designed to identify qualified candidates through 
various recruiting tools. 
• Evaluate candidates' strengths compared with clients' requirements by, for 
example, evaluating, screening, and interviewing the candidate. 
• Negotiate wage rates and other terms and conditions of employment with 
candidates, and gain commitment from candidates for current and future job 
requirements. 
• Complete necessary pre-employment processes including reference checks and 
background/drug tests. 
• Manage contract employees while on assignment. Assess and investigate 
contractor related problems, and administer performance counseling, coaching, and 
disciplinary measures when necessary. 
The other employee's position does not appear to be sufficiently similar to the proffered position. The 
position's title indicates that the position is senior in authority to the proffered "technical recruiter" 
pos1t10n. Moreover, the duties of the "sr. resource manager/sr. I.T. recruiter" position include 
advanced tasks requiring high levels of authority, such as "[ n] egotiat[ ing] wage rates and other terms 
and conditions of employment," conducting reference checks and reviewing drug tests,"[ m ]anag[ing] 
contract employees," and "administer[ing] performance counseling, coaching, and disciplinary 
measures." These advanced, authoritative duties do not appear in the Petitioner's description of the 
proffered position's duties; therefore, the positions appear to be dissimilar. 9 
Additionally, even if the position of the only other employee identified by the Petitioner were 
sufficiently similar to the proffered position, the record does not establish that the Petitioner required 
a U.S. bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for entry into the "sr. 
resource manager/sr. I.T. recruiter" position. The other em:loyee holds an "MBA (IT)" from the 
I I University in I I India. The record contains an 
excerpt from a document, beginning with an item numbered 12, stating in item 14 that the "[a]pplicant 
has completed comparable level of U.S. education as indicated: ... f Bachelor's degree." 10 The 
excerpt from that document does not identify who prepared it, that individual's authority to review 
9 On appeal, the Petitioner supplements its description of the proffered position's duties, matching generalized descriptions 
of typical positions in the "Human Resources Specialist" position provided in an O*NET Online summary report. The 
supplement states, for the first time in the record, that the Beneficiary would "[ c ]onduct reference or background checks 
on job applicants" and "assist HR in conducting performance appraisals for his recruits and counsel candidates for skill 
up gradation for promotions" as part of the second [ 40%] of three main duties. However, the second duty, quoted above, 
does not address conducting reference or background checks or performance appraisals-it simply states that the 
Beneficiary would "[i]dentify talents, recruit and examine their proficiencies in [specified] technologies." A petitioner 
must establish eligibility at the time of filing the nonimmigrant visa petition and must continue to be eligible for the benefit 
through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. ~ I 03.2(b )(I). A visa petition may not be approved at a future date after a petitioner or 
beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248, 249 (Reg'l 
Comm'r 1978). 
10 The document lists possible qualifying items labeled ·'a." through ·j." Only item ·'f." is indicated with a checkmark. 
8 
Matter of C-1- Corp. 
academic credentials and issue such an opinion, and the identity of the "[ a ]pplicant" whose academic 
information was reviewed. Moreover, the excerpt does not state that the individual completed the 
equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty. Accordingly, the record does 
not establish that the Petitioner required a qualifying bachelor's or higher degree in a spec[fic specialty, 
or its equivalent, for the "sr. resource manager/sr. LT. recruiter" position. 
Furthermore, the resume indicates that the other employee has held the "sr. resource manager/sr. LT. 
recruiter" position since January 2015, but the Petitioner was founded in 2003. The lack of information 
regarding the Petitioner's hiring requirements for the proffered "technical recruiter" position between 
2003 and 2015, does not sufficiently establish the Petitioner's hiring history or normal requirements 
for the proffered position. 
On appeal, the Petitioner also asserts that I I's opinion letter, discussed above, satisfies the 
third criterion because he "agrees that it is necessary for the Petitioner to require a U.S. Bachelor's 
Degree or equivalent in a [ c ]omputer-related field of study for entry into the position." However,D 
I Is opinion that the proffered position "requires the services of someone with advanced training 
through a Bachelor's program in Computer Science, Information Systems, and related fields" is not 
an observation of whether the Petitioner normally requires a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, which is the focus of the third criterion. Moreover, I rs opinion 
letter does not assert that he reviewed evidence of the Petitioner's actual recruiting practices. Instead, 
as noted above, the letter states that "[t]his evaluation relies upon copies of the original documents 
provided by [the Beneficiary] and represented by [the Beneficiary] to be authentic and true copies of 
those documents," without identifying what those documents are. Because I ldoes not opine 
on the Petitioner's normal requirements or state that he reviewed documentary evidence of the 
Petitioner's actual recruiting practices, his opinion bears minimal probative value for the third 
criterion. See Matter of Caron Int 'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. at 795. 
In summation, 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the record satisfies the fourth criterion because an organizational 
chart "shows the essential nature of this role, situated amongst the other employees of [the Petitioner]." 
In relevant part, the organizational chart indicates that the Petitioner's "technical program" consists of 
a manager, a training division, and a "technical team" of "programmer analysts," "software 
developers," and "test analysts." However, the organizational chart does not describe the duties of 
any of the "technical program" positions for which the proffered "technical recruiter" position would 
recruit, to establish the extent of their specialization and complexity. Therefore, the organizational 
chart does not provide information regarding the proffered position's specialization or complexity. 
Furthermore, the organizational chart does not indicate the quantity of the Petitioner's training division 
employees, programmer analysts, software developers, and test analysts; how many of those positions 
9 
Matter of C-1- Corp. 
are vacant; and the frequency of turnover among the positions that are currently filled. Accordingly, 
the organizational chart does not indicate the scope of the Petitioner's technical recruiting needs. In 
summation, the organizational chart bears minimal probative value for the fourth criterion. 
The Petitioner also asserts on appeal that its "additional explanation regarding the Technical Recruiter 
duties for the job offered this [sic] Beneficiary show[s] that the position cannot be performed by 
someone who does not have at least a Bachelor's Degree." However, the supplement the Petitioner 
submits on appeal does not indicate 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 bachelor's 
or higher degree in a spec[fic specialty, or its equivalent. For some tasks, the Petitioner asserts that 
the Beneficiary "must possess Computer or IT related education & experience to perform this job 
function successfully." For other tasks, the Beneficiary states that the Beneficiary "will assist HR to 
complete the hiring process," indicating that the knowledge required to perform them is usually 
associated with human resources or business administration, as observed in the Handbook, not 
knowledge usually associated with computer science. 11 Accordingly, the supplemental duty 
description does not establish eligibility under the fourth criterion. 
Additionally, the Petitioner asserts on appeal thatl Is opinion letter, discussed above, 
"supports the Petitioner's claim this [sic] position-at [the Petitioner]-is so complex that the job 
requires a person have at least a Bachelor's Degree." However, as discussed above, the nature and the 
extent of the differences between the Petitioner's and.__ ___ __.'s proffered position's duties, upon 
which he based his opinion, raise questions regarding the position's substantive nature and whether 
I rs opinion assessed the actual proffered position. Even to the extent thatl I's 
opinion is credible, he concludes summarily that "the position of Technical Recruiter requires the 
theoretical and practical application of an advanced, highly specialized body of knowledge in the field 
of Computer Science, Information Systems, and related fields," without explaining which aspects of 
the position led him to form his opinion. Considered as a whole, along with the evidence in the record, 
I Is opinion bears minimal probative value for the fourth criterion. 
The Petitioner also asserts on appeal that "the detailed description of the technical requirements from 
[the Petitioner's] customers ... reflect that these are roles that are themselves demanding employment 
of professional IT workers." The Petitioner asserts that, because the Beneficiary must review clients' 
requirements in order to recruit those workers, he must possess "a computer-related bachelor's 
degree." On appeal, for the first time in the record, the Petitioner submits evidence regarding clients' 
requirements and recruiting attempts. 
Similar to the issue with the letter addressing one other company's hiring practices, the Director put 
the Petitioner on notice of required evidence in the RFE and gave the Petitioner a reasonable 
opportunity to provide it for the record before the visa petition was adjudicated. The Petitioner did 
not submit the requested evidence and now submits it on appeal. We will not consider this evidence 
11 Again, as noted above, the supplemental duty description asserts that the position would entail performing tasks not 
addressed in the record before the appeal, such as conducting reference or background checks and performance appraisals. 
A visa petition may not be approved at a future date after a petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of 
facts. See Matter of Michelin Tire Co1p., 17 l&N Dec. 248, 249 (Reg'! Comm'r 1978). 
10 
Matter of C-1- Corp. 
for any purpose. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. at 766; see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N 
Dec. at 537. 
Even if the evidence regarding clients' requirements and recruiting attempts were properly before us, 
it would not establish that the knowledge required to perform the proffered "technical recruiter" 
position's duties is usually associated with a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. For example, one recruiting summary contains a note that, as of October 2018, the 
"candidates submitted to date did not have enough Hadoop experience-candidates must have 3+ 
years of experience." Determining whether a candidate states that she or he possesses three or more 
years of experience with Hadoop, and whether a resume and reference checks support such a 
statement, does not appear so specialized and complex to require a bachelor's or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
In summation, the Petitioner has not demonstrated in the record 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofC-1- Corp., ID# 4515437 (AAO Sept. 12, 2019) 
11