dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF B-, INC . 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 17, 2019 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner , an information technology consulting firm, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 
as a "business systems analyst" under the H-lB nonirnmigrant 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 Petitioner did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation . On appeal, the Petitioner 
provides a brief and additional evidence, 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 of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 
(AAO 2010). 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
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. 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). 
As recognized by the court in Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88, where the work is to be performed for 
entities other than the petitioner, evidence of the client companies' job requirements is critical. The 
court held that the former Immigration and Naturalization Service had reasonably interpreted the 
statute and regulations as requiring the petitioner to produce evidence that a proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation on the basis of the requirements imposed by the entities using the 
beneficiary's services. Id. Such evidence must be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate the type and 
educational level of highly specialized knowledge in a specific discipline that is necessary to perform 
that particular work. 
II. ANALYSIS 
For the reasons set out below, we determine that the proffered position does not qualify as a specialty 
occupation. Specifically, the record provides inconsistent and insufficient information regarding the 
proffered position, which in tum precludes us from understanding the position's substantive nature 
and determining whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 2 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 B 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 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
The Petitioner, located in New Jersey, intends to assign the Beneficiary through a mid-vendor to work 
for the end-client, in Ohio, for the duration of the validity period requested. 3 The mid-vendor stated 
in its support letter that "[the mid-vendor] placed [the Beneficiary] as a Business Systems Analyst at 
[the end-client location] beginning on March 28, 2018 and continuing subject to [the end-client's] 
project requirements." However, the record lacks sufficient evidence of the end-client's project 
requirements, and the contractual relationship between the mid-vendor and the end-client. 
The Petitioner provided documents to substantiate the Beneficiary's work assignment including a 
subcontractor agreement (SA) between the Petitioner and the mid-vendor. The agreement specified, 
among other things, that: 
[a]ll services provided by [the Petitioner] must be performed in strict accordance with 
the terms, specifications and requirements contained in this agreement, the Work Order 
and, to the extent applicable to the services provided by [the Petitioner], the [end­
client's] contract with [the mid-vendor] including but not limited to ... [s]creening and 
qualification requirements, all of which shall be deemed incorporated into the Work 
Order and shall be binding up [the Petitioner]. 
The mid-vendor's work order indicates that the Beneficiary will perform services as a business 
systems analyst from March 2018 - February 2019. This document stipulates the Beneficiary's 
services are to be provided pursuant to the end client's contract letterl I The 
Petitioner provided a redacted copy of the referenced end-client contract letter which is eight pages in 
length, and reflects that the nature of the Beneficiary's placement was pursuant to "staff augmentation" 
agreements between the mid-vendor and the end-client. The contract farther provides that "[the end­
client] may request Services via its standard work order requests, releases, or another form of written 
authorization (a "Release"), substantially similar to the sample attached as Exhibit G to this contract." 
Notably, the section of the contract letter entitled "term and terminations" indicates that the contract 
"shall continue until November 2019 unless terminated by either party pursuant to the termination 
provisions of this contract. Following the Initial Term, the Parties may mutually agree in writing to 
additional two (2) year terms." But the Petitioner redacted the rest of the section and approximately 
three pages of the contract letter thereafter except for a paragraph which discusses the testing and 
selection process for candidates to the "Contract Labor Program," which specifies, among other things 
that, "[the mid-vendor] shall only submit qualified Personnel, and [the end-client] may interview such 
Personnel for [the end-client's] specific assignments." 4 
The Petitioner also provided other documents, which it described as a "purchase order from [the end­
client]." The document entitled 'job order profile," bears the mid-vendor's letterhead, and does not 
contain language to indicate that it is a work order request or "written authorization" issued by the 
3 The Petitioner employed the Beneficiary through post-completion optional practical training, and has provided copies of 
wage statements for his employment with the Petitioner. 8 C.F.R. §§ 274a.12( c )(3)(i)(B), 214.2(t)(l 0)(ii)(A)(3). 
4 In light of the redacted omissions, we conclude the Petitioner's submission of select sections of the end-client contract 
letter diminishes its evidentiary value, as it deprives us of the remaining portions that may reveal information either 
advantageous or detrimental to the petitioning organization's claims, and therefore, is of little probative value. It is the 
Petitioner's burden to prove by a preponderance of evidence that it is qualified for the benefit sought. Matter of Chawathe, 
25 l&N Dec. at 376. In evaluating the evidence, eligibility is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but 
by its quality. Id. 
3 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
end-client for the Beneficiary's placement. While the document identifies the Beneficiary and the 
end-client, notes the contracted job function is for a "Business/Systems Analyst/Liaison," and provides 
an abbreviated position description, it omits mention of the Petitioner. The mid-vendor's "placement 
record" provides information similar to the 'job order profile," identifies the Petitioner as the 
"vendor," and indicates that the Beneficiary was referred for employment with the end-client as an 
"Independent/SubContr" in February of 2018. Overall, we conclude there is insufficient evidence of 
an obligation on the part of the end-client to provide work for the Beneficiary, let alone work of 
specialty occupation caliber for the requested validity period. In other words, the evidence of record 
is currently insufficient to establish the terms and conditions of the proffered position at the end-client 
location. 5 
Moreover, a crucial aspect of this matter is whether the duties of the proffered position are described 
in such a way that we may discern the actual, substantive nature of the position. As noted, the record 
lacks sufficient evidence to substantiate the Beneficiary's assignment as represented by the Petitioner. 
Again, when a beneficiary will perform the work for entities other than the petitioner, evidence of the 
client companies' job requirements is critical. Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. When determining 
whether a position is a specialty occupation, we look at the nature of the business offering the 
employment and the description of the specific duties of the position as it relates to the performance 
of those duties within the context of that particular employer's business operations. 
On a fundamental level, we conclude that the Petitioner has not provided consistent and sufficient 
material about the end-client's projects that the Beneficiary will be engaged in. The Petitioner initially 
stated that the Beneficiary "will provide technical services on the project for the [end-client]," without 
farther explanation. The Director requested an explanation of how the Beneficiary's specific job 
duties relate to the Petitioner's and the end-client's products and services in a request for evidence 
(RFE). In response to the RFE, the Petitioner provided a letter and copies of the Beneficiary's project 
status reports which reflect that he would be assigned to the l I 
project], as follows: 
The c::]project's] purpose is to implement three components in ServiceNow 
application. The first is Notify which will be used to automate notifications for IT 
SWAT, critical and high incidents. The second is Incident Alert which will automate 
notifications of critical and high incidents and consolidate information of the incident 
throughout the lifecycle of the event in one location. The third component is On-Call 
Schedule which will provide a roster for call out in case of IT emergencies, IT 
degradation or IT outages which will enable Notify to send out automatic notifications 
to [end-client] employees and escalate when there is no response. This project will 
improve the customer experience around the Service Level Agreement performance 
via automation of callouts and notification, reduce cost, improves efficiency when 
executing the IT SW AT process and addresses the ITIL maturity assessment gap for 
lack of incident process. 
5 A petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). The agency made 
clear long ago that speculative employment is not permitted in the H-lB program. See, e.g..63 Fed. Reg. 30,419. 30,419-
20 (June 4, 1998). 
4 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
However, the record does not sufficiently substantiate this project. For example, the Petitioner 
provided a letter from the end-client in response to the Director's RFE. However, without more, this 
letter is insufficient to establish the terms and conditions of the Beneficiary's employment at the end­
client location. The end-client letter states that the Beneficiary is "on assignment" at the end-client 
location, and includes an abbreviated position description of the duties, and requirements. The letter 
lacks sufficient detail to establish the substantive nature of the work to be performed and a necessary 
correlation between the proffered position and a need for a particular level of education, or its 
equivalent, in a body of highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. Specifically, the end­
client states that the Beneficiary will: 
• Evaluate the internal technical needs of an organization and recommend solutions. 
• Serve as liaisons between internal departments and development team. Define the 
system and functional requirements. 
• Assess available technologies to create development specifications as well as 
detailed test cases. 
• Assist with testing to analyze results. 
• Considered subject matter expert within the discipline. 
• Conducts highly complex work critical to the organization. 
The end-client states that the assignment began in March 2018, and "will continue subject to [the end­
client's] project needs," but does not specify the duration of the project. Further, the end-client does 
not mention the referenced project. Here, the record contains insufficient supporting documentation 
that identifies the scope, duration, and magnitude of th~roject, to establish the substantive nature 
of the Beneficiary's role therein. 6 For instance, the Petitioner emphasized throughout the proceedings 
that the Beneficiary will liaise or interact with various end-client personnel and stakeholder groups, 
including: 
• Serve as liaisons between internal departments and development teams. 
• Conduct project kickoff meetings, brainstorming sessions and story mapping 
workshops to identify [the0project] or upcoming projects vision and gather 
high level epics and features. 
• Helps team access to key measurement data and suggests ways to utilized 
information for enhanced performance. 
• Determine technical risks, create technical risk assessment and mitigation plan and 
discuss with Cyber Security team, Networks team and Mobile App development 
team to identify third party risk to implement [ the0roject] and provide detailed 
update[ s] to Application Delivery Manager, Product Owner, Project Manager and 
Business Units. 
• Provide escalated ServiceNow support in response to IT Incidents as assigned by 
IT Service Management team and monitor its performance. 
• Present about the update on the project for budget used, technical functionalities 
developed, and any impediment/challenges faced by the team during the sprint in 
front of business units & managers. 
6 Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. 
5 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
Though the Petitioner described the job duties of the pos1t10n, the evidence does not show the 
operational structure within this initiative in a manner that would establish the Beneficiary's role. 
While the Director in the RFE requested organization charts that would delineate the Petitioner's and 
the end-client's organization, and staffing hierarchy (including the job titles of the positions that the 
Beneficiary will manage in the proffered position, and the job title of the individual he will report to), 
the Petitioner did not sufficiently address this aspect. In its RFE response, the Petitioner provided 
material which indicates that the Beneficiary reports to its vice president of training and development. 
The organization chart shows various positions, including this vice president's position with a 
downward arrow pointing to a box entitled "employees," which lends little insight into the proffered 
position's placement within the Petitioner's organizational hierarchy. Further, the Petitioner did not 
provide evidence of the end-client's project staffing hierarchy, and sufficient information about what 
th~project actually entails in order to establish the substantive nature of the Beneficiary's role as 
a "business systems analyst" within the context of this endeavor. Here, the documentation provided 
is not probative towards establishing the terms and conditions of the Beneficiary's assignment as 
imposed by the end-client. See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88 (where the work is to be performed for 
entities other than the petitioner, evidence of the client companies' job requirements is critical). 
Moreover, as noted, in determining the nature of a proffered position, the critical element is not the 
title of the position, but the duties of the underlying position. As part of our analysis, we review the 
duties of the proffered position to assess the duties and determine whether the described duties 
correspond to the duties and tasks listed in the O*NET Summary Report for the occupation designated 
in the LCA. 7 Here, the Petitioner submitted an LCA for the "Management Analysts" occupational 
category corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 13-1111. 8 The U.S. 
7 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b) requires that USCIS ensure that an LCA supports the H-IB petition filed on behalf of the Beneficiary. 
8 The O*NET Summary Report for positions located within the ·'Management Analysts" occupational category lists the 
following duties: 
• Document findings of study and prepare recommendations for implementation of new systems, 
procedures, or organizational changes. 
• Interview personnel and conduct on-site observation to ascertain unit functions, work performed, and 
methods, equipment. and personnel used. 
• Analyze data gathered and develop solutions or alternative methods of proceeding. 
• Plan study of work problems and procedures, such as organizational change, communications, 
information flow, integrated production methods, inventory control, or cost analysis. 
• Confer with personnel concerned to ensure successful functioning of newly implemented systems or 
procedures. 
• Gather and organize information on problems or procedures. 
• Prepare manuals and train workers in use of new forms, reports, procedures or equipment, according to 
organizational policy. 
• Review forms and reports and confer with management and users about format, distribution, and 
purpose, identifying problems and improvements. 
• Develop and implement records management program for filing, protection, and retrieval of records, and 
assure compliance with program. 
• Design. evaluate, recommend, and approve changes of forms and reports. 
The O*NET Summary Report for "Management Analysts," may be viewed at https://www.onetonline.org 
/link/summary/13-1 I I I (last visited Sept. 12, 2019). 
6 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) states that "Management 
Analysts" typically: 9 
• Gather and organize information about the problem to be solved or the procedure 
to be improved 
• Interview personnel and conduct onsite observations to determine the methods, 
equipment, and personnel that will be needed 
• Analyze financial and other data, including revenue, expenditure, and employment 
reports 
• Develop solutions or alternative practices 
• Recommend new systems, procedures, or organizational changes 
• Make recommendations to management through presentations or written reports 
• Confer with managers to ensure changes are working 
The Petitioner job descriptions for the proffered position may comport, in part, with the typical tasks 
performed by individuals employed in the "Management Analysts" occupational category. However, 
despite the Petitioner's categorization of the proffered position as a "Management Analyst," the 
petition also contains considerable narrative that references a position that substantially entails system 
design, development, and testing functions. For example, the material in the record indicates that the 
Beneficiary will be "responsible for the efficient and reliable operation of moderately complex 
production applications under general direction," and will "troubleshoot and resolve technical 
problems impacting the applications performance utilizing appropriate metrics," "elicit requirements 
from internal ServiceNow users as per acceptance test driven development (ATDD) environment, 
discuss the requested functionalities and business values with the product owner," and "create feature 
file in Gherkin language to design automated test framework to run daily in ServiceNow and assist in 
creating test suites and test cases to reduce costs and defects." 
Additionally, the Petitioner provided copies of the Beneficiary's project status reports, which indicate 
that he routi~erformed duties, such as "[r]esolved few high and critical incidents, facilitated 
meetings forl___Jproject, performed manual testing and created a set of high-level requirements to 
implement Notify Module." While the Petitioner submitted an LCA designating the "Management 
Analysts" occupational category for the proffered position, the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
established that these position duties and responsibilities are consistent with the occupational category. 
Here, the Petitioner has not adequately explained how the design, development and testing of system 
software are closely related to the O*NET tasks and the Handbook's duties for the "Management 
Analysts" occupation. 10 The Petitioner must also resolve these inconsistencies and ambiguities with 
independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, Dec. 591-92. 
9 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Management Analysts, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/management-analysts.htm#tab-2 (last visited Sept. 12, 2019). All of our 
references to the Handbook may be accessed at the Internet site http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not maintain that the 
Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. 
10 See 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b). 
7 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
The Petitioner maintains on appeal that it "correctly used the [Management Analysts] SOC Code 13-
1111 based on the job duties for the proffered position." However, we are not persuaded by the 
Petitioner's submission. Notably, the O*NET Summary Report for a "Computer Systems Analysts" 
occupational category, corresponding to SOC 15-1121, shows that someone in this position will, 
among other things, "[ a ]nalyze [b ]usiness, and other data processing problems to implement and 
improve computer systems. Analyze user requirements, procedures, and problems to automate or 
improve existing systems and review computer system capabilities, workflow, and scheduling 
limitations ... " We observe that many of the software development and design, and systems testing 
duties of the proffered position appear to be closely related to the "Computer Systems Analysts" tasks 
described in the O*NET Summary Report for the occupation. 11 Based on the material presented in 
the record of proceedings, we are unable to conclude that the proffered position properly falls solely 
within the "Management Analyst" occupational category corresponding to SOC code 13-1111, which 
raises additional questions regarding the substantive nature of the proffered position. 
In general, if the duties of a proffered position involve more than one occupational category (i.e., 
"Management Analysts" and "Computer Systems Analysts"), the DOL's "Prevailing Wage 
Determination Policy Guidance" states that the employer "should default directly to the relevant 
O*NET-SOC occupational code for the highest paying occupation." 12 At the time the Petitioner's 
LCA was certified, the Level II prevailing wage for "Computer Systems Analysts" in the area of 
intended employment was $75,442 per year, which is significantly higher than the prevailing wage for 
11 For instance, the O*NET Summary report indicate that "Computer Systems Analysts" perform tasks, to include: 
• Test, maintain, and monitor computer programs and systems, including coordinating the installation of 
computer programs and systems. 
• Troubleshoot program and system malfunctions to restore normal functioning. 
• Develop, document and revise system design procedures, test procedures, and quality standards. 
• Analyze information processing or computation needs and plan and design computer systems, using 
techniques such as structured analysis, data modeling and information engineering. 
• Expand or modify system to serve new purposes or improve work flow. 
• Consult with management to ensure agreement on system principles. 
• Use the computer in the analysis and solution of business problems, such as development of integrated 
production and inventory control and cost analysis systems. 
• Confer with clients regarding the nature of the information processing or computation needs a computer 
program is to address. 
• Coordinate and link the computer systems within an organization to increase compatibility and so 
information can be shared. 
• Define the goals of the system and devise flow charts and diagrams describing logical operational steps 
of programs. 
• Provide staff and users with assistance solving computer related problems, such as malfunctions and 
program problems. 
• Prepare cost-benefit and return-on-investment analyses to aid in decisions on system implementation. 
See https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/15-l 121.00. (Last visited Sept. 12, 2019.) 
12 A prevailing wage determination starts with an entry level wage and progresses to a higher wage level after considering 
the experience, education, and skill requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & 
Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009); 
http:/ /flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHCGuidance _Revised_ I I_ 2009 .pdf 
8 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
"Management Analysts" of $61,922 per year. 13 Thus, if the Petitioner's duties for the position fall 
under more than one occupational category, it should have chosen the relevant occupational code for 
the highest paying occupation, which was not "Management Analysts." As the Petitioner indicates 
that it will pay the Beneficiary $62,000, a rate significantly less than the prevailing wage for the 
"Computer Systems Analysts," the Petitioner has not established that LCA corresponds to the petition, 
including the occupational category certified therein. 14 
~nse to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner also submitted an opinion letter authored byl I 
L___J Associate Professor of Computer Science, Department of Electrical Engineering and 
Computer Science,! !University. In his letter, the professor (1) describes the credentials 
that he asserts qualify him to opine upon the nature of the proffered position; (2) describes the 
previously discussed job duties; and (3) states that these duties require at least a bachelor's degree in 
information systems or a related area. We carefully evaluated the professor's assertions in support of 
the instant petition but find them insufficient. The professor states: 
I have had the opportunity to review several documents that give me a greater 
understanding of both [the Petitioner] itself and the Business Systems Analyst position 
that it now seeks to fill. Amongst them are a company brochure, an organizational 
chart, and printouts from the company's website. The company brochure gave me 
broad knowledge of the company itself: its services, and its clients. The Organizational 
Chart in turn gave me an in-depth knowledge of the inner workings of the company 
and where the Business Systems Analyst position fits in the company's hierarchy. 
Lastly, the website printouts gave me in-depth information about the specific services 
offered by the company, their inherent complexity, and how they can best be utilized 
to serve potential clients. 
First, while the professor references the Petitioner's business operations in analyzing the duties of the 
position, he only mentions the end-client's project within the Petitioner's previously discussed position 
descripron, lphich he quoted in full in his letter. He does not otherwise mention or discuss the end­
client's roject within his analyses of the position. Importantly, he does not explain how the 
duties of the position would actually be performed in the context of the end-client's business 
enterprise. While we appreciate the professor's discussion of the duties provided by the Petitioner, 
his analyses falls short of providing a meaningful discussion of what the Beneficiary will actually do 
in the proffered position at the end-client location, and how those duties require the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge. 15 
Further, the Professor's reference to the Petitioner's organization chart, for the proposition that the 
document "gave [him] an in-depth knowledge of the inner workings of the company and where the 
Business Systems Analyst position fits in the company's hierarchy," seems incongruent with the 
information provided. As previously discussed, the record contains an organization chart which 
identifies a vice president's position (the Beneficiary's claimed supervisor) with a downward arrow 
13 For more information on the prevailing wages, see https://tlcdatacenter.com/OESWizardStart.aspx. (Last visited Sept. 12. 
2019). 
14 See Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.73 l(a). 
15 Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. 
9 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
pointing to a box entitled "employees" as the illustration of the proffered position's placement within 
the Petitioner's organizational hierarchy. In contrast to the professor's statements, the organization 
chart does not specifically identify business systems analyst positions within the Petitioner's staffing 
structure. While we recognize that the professor may have relied on documents not included in the 
record, given the vague material that we have reviewed, we conclude that the basis for his analysis in 
this regard has not been substantiated. 
In light of the above, 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 ofresponsibilities. 
Notably, the professor also does not address the variances between the minimum requirements for the 
position as stipulated by the Petitioner, mid-vendor, and end-client relative to his own conclusions 
regarding the position requirements. The Petitioner initially stated that a candidate for the proffered 
position must simply possess a "bachelor's degree." It also provided a March 2018 mid-vendor letter 
which specified that "we expect [the Petitioner's] employee working on this project to be a degreed 
professional or have the educational/experiential equivalent of a degree in a relevant field." 
Contemporaneous with the submission of the professor's opinion letter, the Petitioner submitted other 
material that provided a diverse and inconsistent range of requirements for the proffered position, 
including: 
• An end-client letter that specified minimum position requirements of "a Bachelor's 
degree in Computer Science, Information Systems[,] Business with a 10 to 14 years of 
experience in IT Software Development," which the Petitioner asserted "confirms the 
educational requirement of the position." 
• A mid-vendor letter and the mid-vendor's job order profile which also indicated 
minimum position requirements of "a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science, 
Information Systems[,] Business with a 10 to 14 years of experience in IT Software 
Development." 
• The Petitioner's June 2017 Business Systems Analyst job announcement which 
required "a minimum of a Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science, Computer 
Engineering, Computer Information Systems or a closely related field. The job notice 
further indicated extensive experience requirements, to include "3+ years' system 
implementation required," and "2+ years' Microsoft Dynamics AX" and "3+ years' 
experience [ with various technologies]" preferred. 
On appeal, the Petitioner restated the professor's requirements (e.g., a bachelor's degree in information 
systems or a related area) and asserted "[t]he record of this proceeding does not include anything to 
contradict I ts position requirements] to successfully perform the duties [ of the proffered 
position]." However, the Petitioner does not explain why l l's position requirements differ from 
the wide array of position requirements that the Petitioner, mid-vendor, and end-client 
contemporaneously put forth, nor does it otherwise discuss the reasons for the variances in the position 
requirements within the material in the record.16 
16 Matter of Ho, Dec. 591-92. 
10 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
For the reasons discussed, we find that the professor's opinion letter lends little probative value to the 
matter here. Matter of Caron Int 'l, 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."). For the sake of brevity, we will not address other deficiencies within his 
analyses of the proffered position. 
Due to inconsistencies and lack of sufficient information in the record, we conclude that the Petitioner 
has not established the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the Beneficiary. This 
precludes a conclusion that the proffered position satisfies any criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), because it is the substantive nature of that work that determines (1) the normal 
minimum educational requirement for entry into the particular position, which is the focus of criterion 1; 
(2) industry positions which are parallel to the proffered position and thus appropriate for review for a 
common degree requirement, under the first alternate prong of criterion 2; (3) the level of complexity or 
uniqueness of the proffered position, which is the focus of the second alternate prong ofcriterion 2; (4) the 
factual justification for a petitioner normally requiring a degree or its equivalent, when that is an issue 
under criterion 3; and (5) the degree of specialization and complexity of the specific duties, which is the 
focus of criterion 4. 17 
III. 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 of B-, Inc., ID# 4793883 (AAO Sept. 17, 2019) 
17 As the lack of probative and consistent evidence in the record precludes a conclusion that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation and is dispositive of the appeal, we will not fiuther discuss the Petitioner's assertions on appeal 
regarding the criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
11