dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 5879013 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-IB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 22, 2020 
The Petitioner, an environmental testing laboratory and services provider, seeks to temporarily employ 
the Beneficiary as a "systems analyst" under the H-IB 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-IB program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified 
foreign worker in a position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body 
of highly specialized knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific 
specialty ( or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the evidence of 
record does not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. Upon 
de novo 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). 
(]) 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 seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a "systems analyst." In a letter submitted in support 
of the petition, the Petitioner described the duties and responsibilities of the proffered position as 
follows: 
1. Assess objectives, procedures and inefficiencies in the computer system and 
evaluate software capabilities ( 10%) 
a. Review the system details to look for potential gaps and issues that may 
cause may not be compatible with the software 
b. Review the software to see how it could best be utilized on the system 
2. Analyze, design and develop plans for system testing and maintenance (15%) 
a. Use knowledge of system engineering to anticipate user application and 
develop changes to existing design 
b. Based on user application, design test scenarios for end-to-end testing 
c. Develop plans to execute the test scenarios, thoroughly validating the 
software changes made to the system 
3. Assess and develop specifications for tailoring software programs to determine 
feasibility, cost and time requirements, compatibility with existing systems and 
computer capabilities ( 10%) 
a. Analyze software and system together to identify the development 
constraints for changes 
b. Produce suggestions/possibilities for decisions, based on the analysis 
2 
4. Communicate with staff and management to identify operating procedures and 
modify program objectives (10%) 
a. Host recurring meetings to sync up team and ensure no work is being 
unnecessarily performed 
b. Ensure that work is being done towards the objectives in an efficient manner 
5. Evaluate user requirements for different applications such as those used for 
instrumental and business management systems (10%) 
a. Understand the needs of the user, in comparison the software available/to 
be built 
6. Confer with users eliciting feedback and experience with the software and hardware 
(5%) 
a. Discuss changes needed to software with users and consolidate into 
documentation 
b. Propose enhancements or different ways to tackle issues/concerns for users 
7. Draft training regimes, plans and outlines for users and modify as needed (15%) 
a. Learn user base and, with the software knowledge, create training material 
b. Outline software as necessary to assist users in understanding the software 
and to ease in use 
8. Coordinate technical support, resolve issues, answer questions and record outcomes 
(10%) 
a. Triage user concerns to be customer support or technical support 
b. Record outcomes of concerns 
c. Perform analysis on this support to gain efficiencies 
9. Ensure that the system and software are properly upgraded and performing 
optimally and make recommendations regarding allocation ofresources and system 
modifications (10%) 
a. Monitor system and software to ensure that no gaps or leaks start occurring 
b. During monitoring, if any enhancements are seen - recommend to superiors 
10. Keep abreast of current developments in the industry and methodologies (5%) 
a. Learn about the upcoming technologies by reading about them in relevant 
publications 
b. Monitor for release of new technologies and complete relevant 
training/certification 
In its support letter, the Petitioner also provided another version of the duties under the heading of 
"Specialty Occupation" and stated that the role of "the Systems Analyst for LIMS 2 is responsible for 
2 The record indicates that LTMS is an acronym for laboratory information management system. 
3 
end-[to- ]end management ofLIMS application with a need to involve in integration with external open 
source like DMS [Data Management System] and ELN [Electronic Laboratory Notebook]." 3 
The Petitioner stated that the minimum educational requirement for the proffered position is a 
bachelor's degree or the equivalent in "Engineering, CIS, Computer Science and Engineering, MIS, 
Computer Science or a related field." 
III. ANALYSIS 
For the reasons set out below, we have determined that the proffered position does not qualify as a 
specialty occupation. 4 Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties reqmre an 
educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 5 
A. First Criterion 
We tum first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which requires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. 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. 6 
On the labor condition application (LCA)7 submitted in support of the H-1B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Computer Systems Analysts" 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 15-1121. Thus, we reviewed the 
Handbook's subchapter entitled "How to Become a Computer Systems Analyst," which states, in relevant 
part, that a bachelor's degree in a computer or information science field is common, although not always 
a requirement. 8 
According to the Handbook, some firms hire analysts with business or liberal arts degrees. As 
discussed, we interpret the term "degree" to mean a degree in a spec[fic specialty that is directly related 
to the proposed position. See Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. Since there must be a close 
3 For the sake of brevity, we will not quote this version of the duties; however, we have closely reviewed and considered 
them. 
4 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
5 The Petitioner submitted documentation in support of the H-lB petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
6 We do not maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. That is, the occupational category 
designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered 
position, and we regularly review the Handbook on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of 
occupations that it addresses. To satisty the first criterion, however, the burden ofproofremains on the Petitioner to submit 
sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position would normally have a minimum, specialty degree 
requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
7 A petitioner submits the LCA to DOL to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B worker the higher of either the prevailing 
wage for the occupational classification in the area of employment or the actual wage paid by the employer to other 
employees with similar duties, experience, and qualifications. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.73l(a). 
8 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Computer Systems Analysts 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-systems-analysts.htm#tab-4 (last visited Jan 
22, 2020). 
4 
correlation between the required specialized studies and the position, this requirement for general and 
wide-ranging degrees in business and liberal arts strongly suggests that a computer systems analyst 
position is not categorically a specialty occupation. See id. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 
I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). The Handbook continues by stating that although many analysts 
have technical degrees, such a degree is not always a requirement - and that, in fact, many analysts 
have liberal arts degrees and gain programming or technical expertise elsewhere. It does not specify 
a degree level (e.g., associate's degree) for these business, technical, and liberal arts degrees. The 
Handbook therefore does not support the assertion that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for these positions. See also 
Altimetrik Corp. v. Cissna, No. 18-10116, 2018, WL 6604258, at *6 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 17, 2018) (also 
noting that because the Handbook "makes it clear that a degree in a computer-related field is not 
required" for these positions, "USCIS [was] entitled to deference in its finding that systems analysts 
are not required to have a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty"). 
The Petitioner submitted an evaluation from~-------~·, a professor and the director of 
graduate programs atl I University, for our consideration. In his letter, the professor (1) 
describes the credentials that he asserts qualify him to opine upon the nature of the proffered position; 
(2) discusses the duties proposed for the Beneficiary; and (3) states that these duties require at least a 
bachelor's degree in electrical and computer engineering, CIS, computer science and engineering, 
computer applications, information technology, computer science or a related field. We carefully 
evaluated the professor's assertions in support of the instant petition but, for the following reasons, 
determined his letter is not persuasive . 
.__ ____ _.I references the Handbook's information on the "Computer Systems Analysts" 
occupational category and compares the duties of the proffered position to the general duties listed in 
the Handbook for this category. I I states that "correlation between" the proffered duties 
and the duties listed in the Handbook "shows that 'Systems Analyst' duties and responsibilities are 
within the section pertinent to the occupation listed" in the Handbook. As we discussed above, the 
Handbook does not support the assertion that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for these positions. Therefore,! l's 
reliance on the Handbook is insufficient to demonstrate that the duties require a bachelor's degree in 
a specific specialty. 
Furthermore, we note that l I does not discuss the duties of the proffered position in any 
substantive detail. Nor does he discuss the duties in the specific context of the Petitioner's business 
or a particular project. Rather, he restates the same duties listed in the Petitioner's letter, which we 
quoted above. There is no indication that he possesses any knowledge of the Petitioner's proffered 
position beyond this job description. I I does not identify or discuss the nature of a project 
upon which the Beneficiary will work for the Petitioner and how such duties may factor into such a 
project. The Petitioner stated that the systems analyst is responsible for end-to-end management of 
LIMS application. However, I I does not discuss the duties within the context of the 
identified project. His level of familiarity with the actual job duties as they would be performed in the 
context of the Petitioner's project has therefore not been substantiated. 
~---~I states that for companies similar to the Petitioner, a "computer-related" bachelor's degree 
is a "standard baseline requirement." While the professor may believe, based on his experience in the 
5 
technology industry, that companies like the Petitioner should employ individuals with a degree in the 
fields noted above, his statement is insufficient to establish that an industry standard for a degree in a 
specific specialty exists for this occupation. The record contains insufficient evidence to corroborate 
I O Is assertion regarding industry standards. 
For the reasons discussed, we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the professor 
possessed the requisite information to adequately assess the nature of the position and appropriately 
determine the educational requirements of the position, based upon the job duties and level of 
responsibilities. Therefore, the opinion letter from I I is insufficient to satisfy the first 
criterion. Matter o_f 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."). 9 
The record also contains an evaluation from I I Notably, this evaluation letter predates 
the petition's filing by almost two years, which raises questions whether I I opinion is 
specifically for the proffered position. Moreover, his analyses falls short of providing a meaningful 
discussion of what the Beneficiary will actually do in the proffered position and how those duties 
require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge. I I 
does not discuss the systems analyst's role in relation to management of the LIMS application. The 
absence of any substantive discussion of the duties specific to a particular project raises doubts about his 
level of familiarity with the proffered position and also undermines his conclusion regarding the degree 
requirement of the position. While he notes that the proffered position "is a complex, highly technical 
occupation with specific knowledge requirements," he does not discuss the duties in detail or provide 
an analysis of the requirements of the proffered position within the context of the degree programs he 
identifies. 10 He identifies a few knowledge requirements and skills needed to perform the duties of a 
systems analyst position. While a few related courses and skills may be beneficial in performing 
certain duties of a position,! ldoes not discuss in detail 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. 
Furthermore, I I opinion letter does not substantiate his conclusions such that we can conclude 
that the Petitioner has met its burden of proof. For example,! I does not reference, cite, or 
discuss studies, surveys, industry publications, authoritative publications, or other sources of empirical 
information, which he may have consulted to complete his evaluation. 11 
We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter o_f 
Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. at 795. However, where an opinion is not in accord with other 
9 We hereby incorporate our discussion of I O l's letter into our discussion of the other 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) criteria. 
101 ~ states that the proffered position has "specific knowledge requirements that are gained in a cuniculum leading 
to a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer 
Information Systems, Computer Science & Engineering, Management Information Systems, Computer Applications, 
Information Technology, an applicable En~ineering field, or a related field." 
11 We hereby incorporate our discussion o ~' letter into our discussion of the other 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) 
criteria. 
6 
information or is in any way questionable, we are not required to accept or may give less weight to 
that evidence. Id. 
The record lacks sufficient evidence to support a finding that the proffered position is one for which a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry. For the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner has not met its burden to 
establish that the particular position offered in this matter requires a bachelor's or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, directly related to its duties in order to perform those tasks. Thus, 
the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I). 
B. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs: 'The degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show 
that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with 
a degree[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong contemplates the 
common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific 
position. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
We generally consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there is such a common degree 
requirement: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the industry's 
professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether letters or 
affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms "routinely employ and recruit 
only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 1999) 
(quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (considering these 
"factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
Here and as already discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for 
which the Handbook ( or other independent, authoritative source) reports an industry-wide requirement 
for at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. Thus, we incorporate by 
reference the previous discussion on the matter. Also, there are no submissions from the industry's 
professional association indicating that it has made a degree a minimum entry requirement. 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not make assertions under this criterion. However, in response to the 
Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner referenced the letters it submitted from companies 
which it characterized as "similar organizations within IT consulting industry" and stated that "it is 
normal practice for these similar organizations to minimally require a bachelor's degree in a specialty 
7 
field to fill this position." 12 Notably, in its support letter, the Petitioner specifically states that it is 
"not a consulting or staffing company," rather it is a company that provides services in "environmental, 
industrial hygiene, indoor air quality and microbiology lab testing." However, as the letters state and 
the Petitioner acknowledges, these organizations are information technology consulting companies 
and the letters provide insufficient insight into what makes them similar to the Petitioner. Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not established that these organizations are similar to it. 
The letters also lack information regarding the specific job duties and day-to-day responsibilities for 
the positions claimed to require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. Accordingly, there is 
insufficient information regarding the duties and responsibilities of the organizations' positions to 
determine whether the positions are the same or parallel to the proffered position. Moreover, we 
observe that the companies did not provide documentary evidence to corroborate that they currently, 
or in the past, employed individuals in parallel positions to the proffered position, nor did they provide 
adequate documentation to substantiate the claimed academic requirements. The companies did not 
submit sufficient probative evidence of their recruitment and hiring practices. Therefore, they are not 
persuasive in establishing the proffered position as a specialty occupation position under any of the 
criteria at§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 13 
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. 
§ 2 l 4.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
First, we note that the record does not sufficiently demonstrate the services that the Beneficiary would 
perform. The Petitioner stated that its "core business involves environmental, industrial hygiene, 
indoor air quality and microbiology lab testing services," but it is "also involved in tailoring software 
as it relates to the applications in chemical and biochemical laboratory analysis." The Petitioner stated 
that the systems analyst for LIMS is "responsible for end-[to-]end management of LIMS application 
with a need to involve in integration with external open source like DMS [Data management System] 
and ELN [Electronic Laboratory Notebook]." However, the record does not contain sufficient 
evidence regarding LIMS or substantiate services required for the proffered position. While the 
Petitioner submits contracts with various clients and purchase orders, the information contained in 
these contracts and purchase orders does not adequately establish the services to be provided by the 
12 The use of identical language and phrasing raises questions as to who actually wrote these letters, and undermines their 
overall credibility and probative value. In evaluating the evidence, the truth is to be determined not by the quantity of 
evidence alone but by its quality (including relevance, probative value, and credibility) of the evidence. Chawathe at 
376; Matter of E-M-,20 l&N Dec. 77. 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). 
13 We hereby incorporate our discussion of these letters into our discussion of the other 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) 
criteria. 
8 
Beneficiary. For example, the contract with .__ _____ __,r states that the Petitioner shall "[p ]ick 
up samples from [the company] ... [p ]rovide sample bottles[,] [p ]erform requested analytical tests on 
samples[,] [r]eport results to the Company's Contract Manager ... [, and] [p]rovide timely submission 
of invoices." However, it is unclear what the Beneficiary's specific role would be for the requested 
services. We also note that the Petitioner submitted only pages 1, 4, 5, and 37 of this contract. 
Therefore, we cannot determine whether the pages that were not submitted provide information 
relevant to the Beneficiary's role in the project. Without additional documents, these contracts and 
purchase orders have little probative weight towards establishing the actual work to be performed by 
the Beneficiary. 
In the record, the Petitioner emphasizes its contract with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA). We first note that the Petitioner submitted only the first 18 pages of the 46-page document 
and the Petitioner does not state the reason for not submitting the foll document. We also note that 
the information contained in the pages submitted is limited in scope and does not adequately establish 
the services to be provided. For example, the document contains Standard Form 26, Award/Contract 
(provides identifying information for the parties, table of contents, and parties' signatures), pricing 
information for various tests, and information on the limitation of government's obligation. But, the 
submitted pages do not provide any insight into what services the Petitioner would provide and the 
Beneficiary's role for the work resulting from the EPA contract. Furthermore, the contract document 
references "task orders" and states that the "Contractor agrees to perform work on each task 
order .... " However, the record does not contain a task order by the EPA and the Petitioner does not 
explain the reason for not submitting it. 
Aside from the issues noted above, the record does not contain a sufficiently detailed description of 
the Beneficiary's duties to establish that the position requires the theoretical and practical application 
of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in 
the specific specialty, or its equivalent. The duties such as "[a]ssess objectives, procedures and 
inefficiencies in the computer system and evaluate software capabilities," "[ a ]nalyze, design and 
develop plans for system testing and maintenance," "[ c ]ommunicate with staff and management to 
identify operating procedures and modify program objectives," and "[e]nsure that the system and 
software are properly upgraded and performing optimally and make recommendations regarding 
allocation of resources and system modifications" do not illuminate the substantive application of 
knowledge involved or any particular educational requirement associated with such duties. 
We also question the proposed tasks to "[ d]raft training regimes, plans and outlines for users," "create 
training material," and "[ o ]utline software as necessary to assist users in understanding the software 
and to ease in use." The Petitioner did not establish how these duties require an individual with a 
bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 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. 
Moreover, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary will "[ c ]oordinate technical support" and 
"[c]communicate with staff and management to identify operating procedures." However, the 
Petitioner did not submit an organizational chart. Therefore, the organizational set-up, the 
9 
Beneficiary's position within the Petitioner's overall organizational hierarchy, and the extent of his 
duties cannot be determined. With the broadly described duties and the lack of evidence regarding 
work specific to a particular project, the record lacks sufficient information to understand the nature 
of the actual proffered position and to determine that the duties require the theoretical and practical 
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge attained by a bachelor's degree, or higher, in a 
specific discipline. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the pos1t10n, and references his 
qualifications. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education 
or experience of a 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). 
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. 
The Petitioner provided information for five of its employees to demonstrate its hiring practices. The 
Petitioner submitted petition approval notices and some of the supporting documents for their 
immigration proceedings, as well as Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, for these individuals. 
However, the Petitioner did not submit an organizational chart. Therefore, the organizational set-up, 
these individuals' positions in relation to the Beneficiary's position within the Petitioner's overall 
organizational hierarchy, and the extent of their duties cannot be determined. Further, the Petitioner 
did not provide the total number of people it has employed to serve in the proffered position. The 
Petitioner has been in operation since 1987. However, it submitted information only for five 
individuals to demonstrate its hiring history for the proffered position. Consequently, it cannot be 
determined how representative the Petitioner's claim regarding these individuals are of the Petitioner's 
normal recruiting and hiring practice for its 33 years of history in business. 
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. Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
10 
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. 
As discussed above, relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by 
the Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position because the substantive nature of the position has 
not been developed. 14 In other words, the proposed duties have not been described with sufficient 
specificity to show that they are more specialized and complex than computer systems analyst 
positions that are not usually associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. Nor has the Petitioner explained how the Beneficiary's 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. 
That is, the Petitioner did not submit information relevant to a detailed course of study leading to a 
specialty degree and did not establish how such a curriculum is necessary to perform the duties it 
claims are so specialized and complex. 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 evidence of record does not establish that this position is significantly different from other 
computer systems analyst positions such that it refutes the Handbook's information to the effect that 
there is a spectrum of degrees acceptable for computer systems analyst positions, including degrees of 
general applicability. In other words, the record lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish 
the proffered position as more complex and specialized than computer systems analyst or other closely 
related positions that can be performed by persons without at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 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). 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
14 We also incorporate by reference the previous discussion on the matter under the second prong of criterion (2). 
11