dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7052397 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 6, 2020 
The Petitioner, a virtualization software and cloud computing infrastructure company, seeks to 
temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "technical support engineer" under the H-lB nonimmigrant 
classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the evidence of 
record does not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 1 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. Upon 
de nova review , we will dismiss the appeal. 2 
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 On appeal, the Petitioner states that it did not receive the initial denial notice. However , U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) records indicate that a denial notice was sent. 
2 We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 
(AAO 2010). 
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. Chertojf, 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 "technical support engineer." 3 The Petitioner 
stated that the minimum educational requirement for the proffered position is a bachelor's degree or 
the equivalent in "Computer Science, Information Technology, or Telecommunications." 
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 require 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)(]), which requires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
3 For the sake of brevity, we will not quote the duties of the proffered position; 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-1 B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 
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 
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"). 
Though relevant, the information the Petitioner submits from DOL's Occupational Information 
Network (O*NET) does not establish the Petitioner's eligibility under the first criterion, as it does not 
establish that a bachelor's degree in a spec[fic specialty, or the equivalent, is normally required. The 
O*NET Summary Report provides general information regarding the occupation, but it does not 
support a conclusion that the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
the equivalent. Instead, O*NET assigns these positions a "Job Zone Four" rating, which states "most 
6 We do not maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source ofrelevant information. That is, the occupational category 
designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered 
position, and we regularly review the Handbook on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of 
occupations that it addresses. 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. 
7 A petitioner submits the LCA to DOL to demonstrate that it will pay an H-lB worker the higher of either the prevailing 
wage for the occupational classification in the area of employment or the actual wage paid by the employer to other 
employees with similar duties, experience, and qualifications. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.73l(a). 
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 Feb. 
5, 2020). 
3 
of these occupations require a four-year bachelor's degree, but some do not." Moreover, the Job Zone 
Four designation does not indicate that any academic credentials for Job Zone Four occupations must 
be directly related to the duties performed. In addition, the specialized vocational preparation (SVP) 
rating designates this occupation as 7 < 8. 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. 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. The SVP rating also does not specify the particular type of degree, 
if any, that a position would require. 9 For all of these reasons, O*NET does not establish the proffered 
position as a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner cites to Next Generation Tech., Inc. v. Johnson, 328 F. Supp. 3d 252, 267 (S.D.N.Y. 
2017) to state that the Director "did not give appropriate deference to O*NET and (the 
Handbook) .... " The Petitioner states that "[ a ]pplying the same logic from the case, it would not 
make sense to draw the conclusion that computer systems analysts are not typically required to have 
a bachelor's degree when, according to the O*NET, most computer systems analyst occupations 
require a bachelor's degree" (emphasis omitted). The Petitioner goes on to say that the Handbook 
"similarly indicates that '[m]ost computer systems analysts have a bachelor's degree in a 
computer-related field."' 
We first note that we are not bound to follow the published decision of a United States district 
court. SeeMatterofK-S-,20I&NDec. 715, 719-20(BIA 1993). Nevertheless,evenifweconsidered 
the logic underlying the matter, we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
As recognized by another court, while the Handbook may establish the first regulatory criterion for 
certain professions, many occupations are not described in such a categorical manner. 10 See Innova 
Sols., Inc. v. Baran, 2019 WL 3753334, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2019) (declining to follow Next 
Generation Tech., Inc.). For example, "[the Handbook's] description for the Computer Programmer 
occupation does not describe the normal minimum educational requirements of the occupation in a 
categorical fashion." Id.; see also Xiaotong Liu v. Baran, 2018 WL 7348851 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 
2018). "Accordingly, [the Petitioner] could not simply rely on [the Handbook] profile, and instead 
had the burden to show that the particular position offered to [ the Beneficiary] was among the 
Computer Programmer positions for which a bachelor's degree was normally required." See Innova 
Sols., Inc. 2019 WL 3753334, at *8. 
Moreover, the court in Next Generation Tech., Inc. relied in part on a USCIS policy memorandum 
regarding "Computer Programmers" indicating generally preferential treatment toward computer 
programmers, and "especially" toward companies in that particular petitioner's industry. However, 
USCIS rescinded the policy memorandum cited by the court in Next Generation Tech. Inc. 11 
9 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/ 
help/online/svp. 
10 Such professions would include surgeons or attorneys, which indisputably require at least a bachelor's degree for entry 
into the occupation. 
11 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0142, Rescission of the December 22, 2000 "Guidance memo on HlB 
4 
Here, the Handbook does not describe the normal mm1mum educational requirement for the 
occupation in a categorical manner since a technical degree is not always a requirement for the 
computer systems analysts occupational category. Further, the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
established that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position. 
The Petitioner submitted an evaluation from.__ ________ _, a professor at University of 
.____,,,---------,~-----.,,........, 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 computer science, information technology, or telecommunications, or the equivalent. We 
carefully evaluated the professor's assertions in support of the instant petition but, for the following 
reasons, determined his letter is not persuasive. 
First, whilel I notes that the proffered position "is so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform these duties is usually gained through the attainment of a Bachelor's degree" in 
computer science, information technology, or telecommunications, 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. He identifies a few knowledge requirements and skills needed to 
perform the duties of a technical support engineer position. While a few related courses and skills 
may be beneficial in performing certain duties of a position,! I does 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 . 
.__ ___ ....,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 lstates that "it is apparent that the Technical Support Engineer's duties 
are typical of a Computer Systems Analysts" and that it is "noted in (the Handbook) the entry level 
education for Computer Systems Analysts is a Bachelor's Degree .... " The Petitioner also references 
O*NET and states that "most Computer Systems Analysts positions require a four-year Bachelor's 
Degree." As we discussed above, neither the Handbook nor O*NET supports 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 and O*NET is insufficient to 
demonstrate that the duties require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 
,__ __ __.I states that "the industry standard for a position such as Technical Support Engineer for (the 
Petitioner) is to be filled through recruiting a college graduate with the minimum of a Bachelor's 
Degree in Computer Science, Information Technology, or Telecommunications, or the equivalent." 
While the professor may believe, based on his experience in the 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. He does not specify the source of his information about typical hiring practices for parallel 
computer related positions" (Mar. 31, 2017), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/nativedocuments/PM-6002-
0142-H- l BComputerRelatedPositionsRecission.pdf. 
5 
positions among similar organizations in the industry. The record contains insufficient evidence to 
corroboratP. I I, s assertion regarding industry standards. 
For the reasons discussed, the opinion letter froml I is insufficient to satisfy the first 
criterion. 12 We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. 
Matter of Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. at 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. 
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 
12 We hereby incorporate our discussion of~I --~~s letter into our discussion of the other 8 C.F.R. § 2 l 4.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) 
criteria. 
6 
professional association indicating that it has made a degree a minimum entry requirement. We also 
incorporate by reference our earlier discussion regarding! ts statements on industry standards. 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner submitted copies of job announcements placed by other 
employers. However, upon review of the documents, we find that the Petitioner's reliance on the job 
announcements is misplaced. First, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that these organizations are 
similar. When determining whether the Petitioner and the advertising organization share the same 
general characteristics, we look at the information regarding the nature or type of organization, and, 
when pertinent, the particular scope of operations, as well as the level ofrevenue and staffing (to list 
just a few elements that may be considered). It is not sufficient for the Petitioner to claim that an 
organization is similar and in the same industry without providing a legitimate basis for such an 
assertion. For instance, the Petitioner did not submit information regarding the employers' revenue or 
staffing. The Petitioner did not sufficiently supplement the record of proceedings to establish that 
these advertising organizations are similar. 
Moreover, the advertisements do not appear to involve parallel positions. The Petitioner does not 
require experience in addition to its degree requirement. However, the positions in the announcements 
require a variety of technical and non-technical experience in addition to a degree requirement. For 
example, Google requires two years of industry experience for one of its positions and four years of 
experience in supporting, troubleshooting, and debugging web-based applications for the other 
pos1t10n. Microsoft requires "2+ years of experience with big data and or analytics products and 
services or equivalent" and "2+ years in customer or technical support or consulting or end-user 
support." Therefore, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the primary duties and 
responsibilities of the advertised positions are parallel to the proffered position. 13 
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. 14 That is, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. 
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). 
13 It must be noted that 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 adve1iisements 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. Sec 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 error"). 
14 The Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how representative the job postings are of the particular 
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. 
7 
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 draws our attention to a letter froml l the Beneficiary's manager, 
and asserts that this letter "provides concrete examples of the tools and technologies that the 
Beneficiary will be working on as a Technical Support Engineer." I I provided a brief 
description of the technology that the Petitioner utilizes and stated that the "purpose of the 
Beneficiary's role is to effectively analyze requirements, issues and procedures to implement and 
improve the computer systems" that require " a deep understanding of complex technical issues related 
to Computer Science, Information Technology, and Telecommunications." The letter included a list 
of job duties and the percentage of time the Beneficiary would devote to certain tasks. I I 
stated that because of the "high-caliber nature of the work," "the wide latitude of responsibilities of 
the Technical Support Engineer," and "the highly complex nature of the technologies positioned at the 
forefront of the filed," the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree in computer science, 
information technology, or telecommunications. However,! I did not explain the proffered 
duties with sufficient detail within the context of the Petitioner's computer systems to demonstrate 
that knowledge necessary to perform the duties obtained through an established curriculum of 
particular courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent 
is required for the proffered position. I l's general statements regarding the "highly complex 
nature" of the technologies that require "a deep understanding of complex technical issues" are not 
sufficient to demonstrate that the 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. While a few 
related courses and skills 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. Moreover, the duties provided indicate that the Beneficiary will "develop software solutions 
working on problems of moderate scope," which raises questions regarding the claimed complexity of 
the proffered duties. 
Furthermore, althoug~ I states that the Beneficiary will be "part of an expert team," 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 ]nalyze computer systems . . . and fix technical issues to improve systems and 
optimize operational efficiency," "[ u ]tilize technical expertise and internal tools to provide effective 
solutions to customer issues," and "[a]pply knowledge of computer system/engineering principles, 
best practices, and technologies to the design, development, testing, and production of various [the 
Petitioner] products and services" do not illuminate the substantive application of knowledge involved 
or any particular educational requirement associated with such duties. Generalized descriptions of the 
duties do not establish a necessary correlation between the proffered position and a need for a 
particular level of education, or its equivalency, in a body of highly specialized knowledge in a specific 
specialty. 
8 
.__ ___ _.I also asserts that the nature of the position's "specific responsibilities and knowledge is so 
specialized and complex that knowledge required to perform these duties is usuall: gained through 
the attainment of a Bachelor's Degree" in a specific specialty. However,! Jdoes not discuss 
the duties in any substantive detail. While the professor provides a brief: general description of the 
Petitioner's business activities and reiterates the position duties as expressed in the Petitioner's letters, 
there is no indication that he possessed any knowledge of the Petitioner's proffered position beyond 
this material. His level of familiarity with the actual job duties as they would be performed in the 
context of the Petitioner's business has therefore not been substantiated. In his letter, I I 
regularly refers to the position as "complex" and "specialized." However, he does not discuss that the 
Beneficiary will be working on problems of "moderate scope." The omission of a discussion or 
acknowledgement of this aspect of the duties diminishes the evidentiary value of this opinion as it 
does not appear to be based on a complete understanding of the proffered position. Here, we also 
incorporate by reference our earlier discussion regarding! l's opinion letter. Again, we may, 
in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron 
Int 'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. at 79 5. 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. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position, 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the "Beneficiary's manager ... describes the Company's hiring 
practices in detail" and submits an organizational chart that displays four former employees and four 
current employees (including the Beneficiary and the current manager) with information regarding the 
degrees they hold. However, the record does not contain evidence substantiating these individual's 
educational credentials. Moreover, some of these individuals have position titles different than the 
9 
proffered position's title. For example, one of the positions is titled "escalation engineer," and two of 
the positions are supervisory-level positions. Further, the record does not contain a detailed 
description of the duties performed by these individual. Therefore, the Petitioner has not established 
that the positions held by these individuals are the same or similar to the proffered position. Moreover, 
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 1998 and employs over 10,000 individuals in the 
United States. 15 However, it provided information only for four current and four former employees 
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 22 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). 
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. 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. 
15 See Form 1-129, page 5. 
10 
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. 
11