dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8745579 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 23, 2020 
The Petitioner, an information technology services company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as an "architect" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(l5)(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 evidence of record 
does not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the 
questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
Upon de nova 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: 
(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. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary as an "architect," and indicates that the Beneficiary 
will be performing duties at an end-client location pursuant to its direct agreement with an end-client. 
On the LCA submitted in support of the petition, the Petitioner designated the proffered position under 
the occupational category "Computer Occupations, All Other" corresponding to the Standard 
Occupational Classification (SOC) code 15-1199. 1 The Petitioner provided a description of the 
proffered position in its initial letter of support and expanded on those duties in response to the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE). The record also contains documentation from the end-client 
confirming the duties of the position. For the sake of brevity, we will not quote the duty descriptions; 
however, we have closely reviewed and considered the duties. Regarding the position's educational 
requirements, the Petitioner and the end-client stated that the position requires a bachelor's degree or 
equivalent in computer science, engineering, information systems, or a related field. 
III. ANALYSIS 
We have reviewed the entire record of proceedings before us. For the reasons discussed below, we 
have determined that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a 
1 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 2 l 2(n)(l) of the Act; 
20 C.F.R. § 655.73 l(a). 
2 
specialty occupation. 2 Specifically, we conclude that 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. We often look to the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook 
(Handbook) regarding the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it 
addresses. 4 However, there are some occupations for which detailed profiles have not been developed, 
such as for the occupational category "Computer Occupations, All Other." 5 
Accordingly, in certain instances, the Handbook is not determinative. When the Handbook does not 
support the proposition that a proffered position is one that meets the statutory and regulatory 
provisions of a specialty occupation, it is the Petitioner's burden to provide probative evidence (e.g., 
documentation from other objective, authoritative sources) that supports a finding that the particular 
position in question qualifies as a specialty occupation. When more than one authoritative source 
exists, we will consider and weigh all the evidence presented to determine whether the particular 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner asserted that the duties of the proffered position are consistent with the duties of the 
"Computer Systems Engineers/Architects" occupation under SOC code 15-1199.02. The Petitioner 
referenced DOL's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) summary report for this occupational 
category as its alternative source for consideration. The summary report provides general information 
regarding the occupation; however, it does not support the Petitioner's assertion regarding the 
educational requirements for these positions. 
We have reviewed the O*NET Summary Report but find in unpersuasive. First, the Specialized 
Vocational Preparation (SVP) rating of "7 < 8" cited within O*NET does not establish that the 
proffered position is a specialty occupation. An SVP rating of 7 to less than ("<") 8 indicates that the 
occupation requires "over 2 years up to and including 4 years" of training. However, while the SVP 
rating indicates the total number of years of vocational preparation required for a particular position, 
it is important to note that it does not describe how those years are to be divided among training, 
experience, and formal education which, by definition, includes high school education and commercial 
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 petition, including evidence regarding the position and its business 
operations. While 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 of relevant information. That is, the occupational category 
designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered 
position, and we regularly review the Handbook on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of 
occupations that it addresses. To satisfy the first criterion, however, the burden ofproofremains on the Petitioner to submit 
sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position would normally have a minimum, specialty degree 
requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
5 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Data for Occupations Not Covered in 
Detail, on the Internet at https://www.bls.gov/ooh/about/data-for-occupations-not-covered-in-detail.htm (last visited Apr. 
13, 2020). 
3 
or shop training. The SVP rating also does not specify the particular type of degree, if any, that a 
position would require. 6 
Next, we will address D0L's designation in the summary report of the occupation as a Job Zone Four. 
Similar to the SVP rating, the summary report does not indicate that any academic credentials for Job 
Zone Four occupations must be directly related to the duties performed. 
Finally, we note the Petitioner's assertion on appeal that 84% of respondents stated that they had a 
bachelor's degree or higher. 7 We note, however, that the summary report provides the educational 
requirements of"respondents," but does not account for 100% of the "respondents." The respondents' 
positions within the occupation are not distinguished by career level ( e.g., entry-level, mid-level, 
senior-level). Additionally, the graph in the summary report does not indicate that the "education 
level" for the respondents must be in a specific specialty. 8 For all of these reasons, 0*NET is not 
sufficient to establish the proffered position as a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner provides an opinion authored byl I a professor at the University o~ I 
In his letter, ProfessorLJ: (1) describes the credentials that he asserts qualify him to opine upon the 
nature of the proffered position; (2) references the duties proposed for the Beneficiary; and (3) states 
that those duties require at least a bachelor's degree in computer science, computer engineering, 
electronics engineering, com12uter information systems, information technology, or a related field. We 
carefully evaluated Professorc=J s assertions in support of the instant petition but, for the following 
reasons, determined his letter is not persuasive. 
First, the professor bases his opinions on the Petitioner's initial description of the position's duties and 
his own research into the Petitioner's domestic and foreign operations. However, the professor did 
not specifically discuss what his independent research entailed, nor was his research documentation 
provided in support of the petition. For instance, he relies on the 0*NET Summary Report, noting 
that the duties of the proffered position comport to this occupational category. As discussed above, 
however, the report does not demonstrate that the occupational category requires a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty. Moreover, the report does not indicate that the education level for the 
respondents in this report must be in a specific specialty, and it is unclear from the report whether the 
respondents are entry-level, mid-level, or senior-level within the field, or that their credentials were 
hiring prerequisites. Consequently, we find ProfessorOs reliance on the 0*NET summary report 
unpersuasive. 
Moreover, while we acknowledge Professor Os references to the description of the duties of the 
proffered position, we question his familiarity with the Beneficiary's duties as they would actually be 
performed. Specifically, ProfessorD discusses the duties in general with no specific reference to 
the Beneficiary. Most importantly, Professor Odoes not acknowledge or discuss the proposed 
assignment at the end-client location, nor does he reference or discuss the duties of the proffered 
position as described by the end-client. Rather, Professor D repeats the stated duties and offers 
6 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/ help/online/svp 
(last visited Mar. 24, 2020). 
7 Specifically, the summary report indicates that 57% hold bachelor's degrees, 17% hold masters' degrees, and 10% hold 
post-secondary ce11ificates. 
8 Nor is it apparent that these individuals' credentials were hiring prerequisites. 
4 
conclusions about their mm1mum educational requirements. While he attempts to offer some 
commentary on the various duties he discussed, the basis for his comments is not clear, and his level 
of familiarity of how such duties require at least a bachelor's degree in a relevant field is unclear. His 
opinion does not relate his conclusion to specific, concrete aspects of the Petitioner's business 
operations in relation to the assignment at the end-client to demonstrate a sound factual basis for the 
conclusion about the educational requirements for the particular position here at issue. 
We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of 
Caron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, where an opinion is not in accord 
with other information or is in any way questionable, we are not required to accept or may give less 
weight to that evidence. Id. Consistent with Matter of Caron, we decline to assign Professor D s 
letter any significant weight. 
The Petitioner also 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 that "[t]he knowledge and not the 
title of the degree is what is important." 9 Moreover, we also agree with the district court judge in 
Tap is Int 'l v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 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)," 10 unless the Petitioner establishes how each field is 
directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position. 11 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. 12 
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'!. 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. 13 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. 14 
9 Residential Finance, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985. 
10 Section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). 
11 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. 
12 See Health Carousel. LLC v. USC1S, No. 1:13-CV-23, 2014 WL 29591 (S.D. Ohio 2014). 
13 See Matter of K-S-, 20 l&N Dec. 715, 719-20 (BIA 1993). 
14 Id. 
5 
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)(]). 
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 concentrates on 
the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific 
position. 15 
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." 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)). 
Here and as already discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for 
which the Handbook ( or other independent, authoritative source) reports an industry-wide requirement 
for at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. Thus, we incorporate by 
reference the previous discussion on the matter. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not submit any letters or 
affidavits from similar firms or individuals in the Petitioner's industry attesting that such firms "routinely 
employ and recruit only degreed individuals." 
The Petitioner 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. 
15 On appeal, although the Petitioner generally asserts that it has satisfied all four of the alternate criteria under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it declines to specifically address the second criterion and offers no new assertions or evidence to 
overcome the Director's bases for denial under this criterion. Neve1theless, we will briefly address the evidence previously 
submitted by the Petitioner in support of eligibility under both prongs of this criterion. 
6 
The Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the primary duties and responsibilities of the 
advertised positions are parallel to those of the proffered position. For example, many of the advertised 
positions require significant work experience - a requirement the Petitioner does not mandate for the 
proffered position - which raises questions as to whether these positions' duties and responsibilities 
actually parallel those of the proffered position. 16 In addition to a bachelor's degree, one 
advertisement requires "8-10 years of related systems engineering experience, including supervisory 
experience," another requires "5 years of relevant experience," and yet another requires "4+ years of 
experience with systems engineering." Further, some of the postings do not include sufficient 
information about the tasks and responsibilities for the advertised positions. Thus, the Petitioner has 
not sufficiently established that the primary duties and responsibilities of the advertised positions are 
parallel to those of the proffered position. 
The Petitioner has not established that these job vacancy announcements are relevant. Even if that 
threshold had been met, we would still find that they did not satisfy this prong of the second criterion, 
as they do not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, is common to 
the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 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. 17 That is, not every deficit of every 
job posting has been addressed. 18 
We again tum to Professorc=Js opinion letter, which states: "it is standard for a company such as 
[the Petitioner] to hire an Engineer 19 and require the individual to have attained at least a Bachelor's 
Degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Electronics Engineering, Computer Information 
Systems, Information Technology, or a related field, or the equivalent." His letter does not substantiate 
his conclusions, such that we can conclude that the Petitioner has met its burden of proof. Here, the 
professor does not reference, cite, or discuss any studies, surveys, industry publications, authoritative 
publications, or other sources of empirical information which he may have consulted to arrive at this 
conclusion. His level of knowledge of the hiring practices of similar lcompjnies is not substantiated 
in his opinion, and we again find his assertions unpersuasive. Professor asserts a general industry 
16 The Petitioner classified the proffered position as a Level TT, qualified position on the LCA, indicating that the Petitioner 
expects the Beneficiary to perform only moderately complex tasks that require limited exercise of judgment compared to 
other positions within the same occupation. As a result, it is unclear how the proffered position can be considered parallel 
to the positions in the submitted postings referenced above given their extensive experience requirements. 
17 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. 
18 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 determining the common 
educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice 
of Social Research 186-228 (1995). Moreover, given that there is no indication that the advertisements were randomly 
selected, the validity of any such inferences could not be accurately determined even if the sampling unit were sufficiently 
large. See id. at 195-196 (explaining that "[r]andom selection is the key to [the] process [of probability sampling]" and 
that "random selection offers access to the body of probability theory, which provides the basis for estimates of population 
parameters and estimates of enor"). 
19 Professorc=Js reference to the position as that ofan "engineer" raises further doubts regarding his familiarity with 
the position, which the Petitioner has designed as an "architect." 
7 
educational standard for the proffered position without referencing any supporting authority or any 
empirical basis for the pronouncement. 
The Petitioner also references a seminal study entitled "Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate 
Degree Programs in Computer Engineering" by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers 
(IEEE) and also references the Association for Computer Machinery, noting that both professional 
associations support its assertions regarding the degree requirements for the proffered position. As 
noted by the Director, it is not apparent that either association states that an industry standard for a 
specific degree to perform the duties of the proffered position of architect is required. 
Without more, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. On appeal, the Petitioner does not contest specifically contest the Director's findings under 
this prong. 
We have reviewed the Petitioner's description of the proposed position and observe that this description 
presents a broad overview of an architect position. 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 on a day-to-day basis. 
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. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the pos1t10n and references her 
qualifications. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education 
or experience of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative 
complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position, and it did not identify any tasks 
that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
8 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it normally 
requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. 
The record must establish that a petitioner's stated degree requirement is not a matter of preference for 
high-caliber candidates but is necessitated instead by performance requirements of the position. See 
Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. Were we limited solely to reviewing a petitioner's claimed self-imposed 
requirements, an organization could bring any individual with a bachelor's degree to the United States to 
perform any occupation as long as the petitioning entity created a token degree requirement. Id. Evidence 
provided in support of this criterion may include, but is not limited to, documentation regarding the 
Petitioner's past recruitment and hiring practices, as well as information regarding employees who 
previously held the position. 
Here, the Petitioner states that it has satisfied this criterion by submitting copies of its own 
advertisements for positions it deems similar to the proffered position. However, the record is devoid 
of evidence of the Petitioner's historical hiring practices regarding the position of "architect." 
Upon review, we note that the submitted postings are for the following positions: "Azure Solutions 
Engineer," "Azure Cloud Enterprise Architect," "Cloud Architect," "Network Architect," and "Mobile 
Solution Architect." A review of these postings indicates that most of these positions require extensive 
experience in addition to their minimum educational requirements of a bachelor's degree. For 
example, the advertisement for the "Mobile Solution Architect" requires at least 10 years of mobile 
design experience, whereas the posting for "Azure Cloud Enterprise Architect" requires at least 10-15 
years of experience. As the Petitioner does not require such experience for the position of architect, 
these advertisements do not appear to correspond to the proffered position. 
Even if these advertisements otherwise corresponded to the proffered position of architect, the record 
contains no evidence to demonstrate that the Petitioner currently or previously employed individuals 
in the proffered position. The record contains insufficient evidence that other individuals hold or have 
previously held the same position, with the same or similar substantive responsibilities, duties, and 
performance requirements as the proffered position. 
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 position. 20 Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the 
third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
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 
20 We note the Petitioner's reference to Professor c=J s opinion under this criterion. However, Professor D opines 
regarding the general education requirements of the occupation in question, and not the particular hiring hist01y of the 
Petitioner, which is the subject of this criterion. 
9 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
As discussed, neither the Handbook nor another authoritative source indicates that a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, is normally required for positions located within this 
occupational category, and the descriptions of the proffered position's duties provide insufficient 
information to determine whether the nature of the position is so specialized and complex that it can 
be performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
Nevertheless, we have again reviewed the duties of the proffered position in full. The descriptions do not 
detail the specialized and complex nature of specific duties the Beneficiary will perform. The Petitioner 
describes a position that involves knowledge of information technology methods and techniques. The 
Petitioner, 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 Professorc=]s opinion in order to ascertain what elements of thl partilular 
position are specialized and complex, but again do not find the opinion persuasive. Professor does 
not present a descriptive analysis that supports his ultimate conclusion that the duties described are 
specialized, requiring a bachelor's degree in computer science, computer engineering, electronics 
engineering, computer information systems, information technology, or a related field. We again note 
that the information upon which his opinion is based is unclear, and is not supported with analysis 
demonstrating that the duties of the Tropord position require a bachelor's degree in one of the 
specialties identified above. Professor does not adequately explain why the position cannot be 
performed by a person without a specialty degree. 
In summary, we conclude that the opinion letter rendered by Professor~ is not probative in 
establishing the proffered position as a specialty occupation. The conclusion reached by Professor 
C::J1acks the requisite specificity and detail and is not supported by independent, objective evidence 
demonstrating the manner in which he reached such conclusion. There is an inadequate factual 
foundation established to support thl opinilon and the opinion is not in accord with other information 
in the record. Specifically, Professor does not discuss the duties as they specifically relate to the 
Beneficia~the Beneficiary's assignment at the end-client location. Therefore, the letter from 
ProfessorL_Jdoes not establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
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. 
As the Petitioner has not satisfied at least one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has 
not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
10 
IV. CONCLUSION 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden here 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
11