dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF B-, INC . 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 4, 2019 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner , an information technology consulting firm, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 
as a "business systems analyst" under the H-lB nonirnmigrant classification for specialty occupations. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified 
foreign worker in a position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body 
of highly specialized knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's0 or higher degree in the specific 
specialty ( or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation . On appeal, the Petitioner 
provides a brief and additional evidence, and asserts that the Director erred in denying the petition. 
Upon de nova review , we will dismiss the appeal. 1 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge , 
and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
1 We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 
(AAO 2010). 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
(]) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We construe the term "degree" to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal 
Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in a 
specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular 
position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
As recognized by the court in Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88, where the work is to be performed for 
entities other than the petitioner, evidence of the client companies' job requirements is critical. The 
court held that the former Immigration and Naturalization Service had reasonably interpreted the 
statute and regulations as requiring the petitioner to produce evidence that a proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation on the basis of the requirements imposed by the entities using the 
beneficiary's services. Id. Such evidence must be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate the type and 
educational level of highly specialized knowledge in a specific discipline that is necessary to perform 
that particular work. 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner indicated that it will assign the Beneficiary through vendors to work as a "business 
systems analyst" for an end-client for the duration of the validity period requested. 2 The Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Management Analysts" 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 13-1111, at a Level II wage on 
the labor condition application (LCA)3 submitted in support of the H-lB petition. Within these 
2 The Petitioner most recently employed the Beneficiary through post-completion optional practical training, and has 
provided copies of wage statements for his employment with the Petitioner. 8 C.F.R. §§ 274a.12(c)(3)(i)(B), 
214.2(t)(l 0)(ii)(A)(3). 
3 A petitioner submits the LCA to the U.S. Department of Labor to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B worker the higher of 
2 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
proceedings the Petitioner has submitted several iterations of the duties of the proffered position. 4 For 
instance, the Petitioner provided a set of duties consisting of 25 items when it filed the petition. In 
response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), it submitted a revised list ofjob responsibilities 
containing job function headings, as follows: 5 
• Facilitating communication between IT, business units, and clients. 
• Acting as a liaison between business units and internal partners/external 
vendors by providing accurate and timely updates to all stakeholders and taking 
a proactive role in solution definition. 
• Assisting business partners to identify and clarify their goals and IT 
requirements. 
• Conducting requirements gathering, analysis, and design, risk analysis, risk 
m1t1gation, programming/construction, unit testing, and transition of 
applications into a production environment. 
• Producing concisely written and detailed business requirements. 
• Ensuring delivery of IT solutions are on schedule and folly functional. 
• Identifying and implementing productivity and quality control improvements. 
• Applying industry-standard analysis and documentation techniques to assist in 
organizing project work. 
• Following Software Developer Lifecycle (SDLC) processes. 
• Designing reports, creating complex SQL queries and pulling, manipulating, 
and analyzing complex data sets and making recommendations to the business 
to solve complex business challenges using tools like TOAD by Quest and SQL 
Developer. 
• Performing unique data set up for the UAT effort between multiple systems to 
ensure an integrated flow between Online Network on Evaluation (ONE) and 
third-party systems. 
• Creating business process models to capture the elementary process of the ONE 
system using [ various process modelling strategies and computer software 
programs]. 
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). 
4 We acknowledge that the Petitioner submitted additional information for the job duties, and have closely considered and 
reviewed this material, as with all evidence in the record. For instance, the Petitioner also included a listing of the 
Beneficiary's previous coursework for the purpose of correlating the need for the Beneficiary's education with the 
associated job duties of the position. However, we are required to follow long-standing legal standards and determine 
first, whether the proffered position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation, and second, whether the 
Beneficiary was qualified for the position at the time the nonimmigrant visa petition was filed. Cf Matter of Michael 
Hertz Assocs., 19 l&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988) ('The facts of a beneficiary's background only come at issue after 
it is found that the position in which the petitioner intends to employ him falls within [a specialty occupation]."). 
5 Also within the RFE. the Petitioner provided letters from the vendors and the end-client which substantially reiterate the 
various duties presented by the Petitioner. 
3 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
III. ANALYSIS 
For the reasons set out below, we determine that the proffered position does not qualify as a specialty 
occupation. Specifically, the record provides inconsistent and insufficient information regarding the 
proffered position, which in tum precludes us from understanding the position's substantive nature 
and determining whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 6 
We conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently established the Beneficiary's offsite employment 
at the end-client location for the period of intended H-lB employment. The Petitioner intends to 
assign the Beneficiary through a mid-vendor and a prime-vendor to work for an end-client, in New 
Jersey. The claimed contractual chain is as follows: 
Petitioner ➔ B-I-, Inc. (mid-vendor) ➔ C-A-, Inc. (prime-vendor) ➔ E-T-S- (end-client). 
The Petitioner initially provided documents to substantiate the Beneficiary's work assignment, 
including an August 2016 subcontractor agreement (SA) between the Petitioner and the mid-vendor. 
The SA is an agreement for the Petitioner to "perform certain tasks at [the end-client location] through 
[the mid-vendor's] engagement partner, [the prime-vendor]." The document did not farther describe 
the duties to be performed, but simply noted that the assignment would commence in August 2016. 
The prime-vendor letters stated that it "is a [m]anaged [s]taffing provider for [the end-client]," omitted 
mention of the Petitioner, indicated that the Beneficiary was assigned to the end-client "through the 
[mid-vendor] to perform managed systems analyst activities at [the end-client location]," and noted 
that "[the prime-vendor] hopes to retain the services of [the Beneficiary] throughout the duration of 
his H-lB visa." The end-client letters referenced the Beneficiary's employment through the Petitioner 
and the prime-vendor, omitted mention of the mid-vendor, and noted that "[the Beneficiary] provides 
services to [the end-client]. This is an ongoing project and we anticipate utilizing his services until at 
least, September of 2021." 
Notably, the Director requested the contractual documentation between the parties for the 
Beneficiary's employment at the end-client location in her RFE. In response, the Petitioner provided 
a October 2016 amendment to the end-client's "Master Agreement for Staff Augmentation and 
Product Development Services" (MA) with the prime vendor, which discussed, among other things, 
the process by which the end-client may directly hire the prime-vendor's employees, and included a 
partially redacted "staff augmentation services rate card" for a variety of information technology 
positions for which the prime-vendor may provide personnel to the end-client. This document did not 
identify the Beneficiary, or describe the specifics of his proposed employment and the nature of the 
projects underway at the end-client location that might require his services. 
The Petitioner also provided a prime-vendor statement of work (SOW) for the provision of the 
Beneficiary's services as a "Business Systems Analyst III" at the end-client location for a "6+ months" 
duration, commencing in September 2016, a period of time that predated the requested employment 
in the petition. The SOW was executed between the prime-vendor and the mid-vendor, and omitted 
6 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H- IB petition, including evidence regarding the proffered position 
and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each 
one. 
4 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
mention of the Petitioner. The Petitioner also submitted a partially redacted end-client purchase order 
issued to the prime-vendor for "Staff-Augmentation - Master Central Bill Agreement" for a term 
starting in July 2018, and ending in September 2018, which predated the period of requested H-lB 
employment. The purchase order did not identify the services to be provided or the personnel to be 
assigned to the end-client under this short-term staff augmentation arrangement. 
Considering this material collectively, we conclude there is insufficient evidence of an obligation on 
the part of the end-client to provide work for the Beneficiary, let alone work of specialty occupation 
caliber for the requested validity period. In other words, the evidence of record is currently insufficient 
to establish the terms and conditions of the proffered position at the end-client location. 7 It is the 
Petitioner's burden to prove by a preponderance of evidence that it is qualified for the benefit sought. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. In evaluating the evidence, eligibility is to be determined 
not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. Id. Here, the documentation provided is not 
probative towards establishing the terms and conditions of the Beneficiary's assignment as imposed 
by the end-client. See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88 (where the work is to be performed for entities 
other than the petitioner, evidence of the client companies' job requirements is critical). 
Moreover, a crucial aspect of this matter is whether the duties of the proffered position are described 
in such a way that we may discern the actual, substantive nature of the position. As noted, the record 
lacks sufficient evidence to substantiate the Beneficiary's assignment as represented by the Petitioner. 
Again, when a beneficiary will perform the work for entities other than the petitioner, evidence of the 
client companies' job requirements is critical. Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. When determining 
whether a position is a specialty occupation, we look at the nature of the business offering the 
employment and the description of the specific duties of the position as it relates to the performance 
of those duties within the context of that particular employer's business operations. 
On a fundamental level, we conclude that the Petitioner has not provided consistent and sufficient 
material about the end-client's projects that the Beneficiary will provide services for at the end-client 
location. The Petitioner initially stated that "the Beneficiary will provide technical services on the 
project for the [end-client]." The Director requested an explanation of how the Beneficiary's specific 
job duties relate to the Petitioner's and the end-client's products and services in her RFE. In response 
to the RFE, the Petitioner provided copies of the Beneficiary's "project status reports" for his 
assignment at the end-client location, which described the end-client's project as follows: 
[The] Online Network for Evaluation (ONE) scoring application provides [the end­
client] with a state-of-the-art, sustainable, and scalable solution to manage distributed 
or in-person scoring of more than 35 million CRs (Constructed Responses) annually. 
Enhanced capabilities for sample selection, training, monitoring, scoring and reporting, 
including several reporting functionalities, are intuitively designed to support standard, 
streamlined processes, and to facilitate online communications, rater mentoring and 
monitoring. ONE is the online constructed response scoring application developed in 
house by [ the end-client]. ONE supports scoring of text, scanned images, audio and 
7 A petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). The agency made 
clear long ago that speculative employment is not permitted in the H-lB program. See, e.g..63 Fed. Reg. 30,419, 30,419-
20 (June 4, 1998). 
5 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
video responses, as well as automated scoring by [end-client] scoring engines. 
Constructed responses are selected for raters using an innovative patent pending CR 
distribution engine that applies configured scoring rules, priorities and constraints with 
optimum efficiency. Test hierarchy, scoring rubrics, score scales, scoring notes and 
test items (both standard and innovative types) are retrieved automatically from the 
[end-client] I , I thus ensuring timely availability of 
current versions to ONE users. 
While this narrative gives a high level description about an application under "in-house" development 
by the end-client, the record does not sufficiently substantiate the nature of this project. For instance, 
while the Petitioner provided letters from the end-client, the letters are inadequate to establish the 
substantive nature of the work to be performed and a necessary correlation between the proffered 
position and a need for a particular level of education, or its equivalent, in a body of highly specialized 
knowledge in a specific specialty. Specifically, the end-client reiterates the Petitioner's position 
descriptions and states that the Beneficiary "provides services to [the end-client]," but does not 
reference or describe any of the projects to which the Beneficiary is to be assigned. Here, the record 
contains insufficient supporting documentation that identifies the scope, duration, and magnitude of 
the end-client's projects, to establish the substantive nature of the Beneficiary's role therein. 8 For 
instance, the Petitioner emphasized throughout the proceedings that the Beneficiary will coordinate, 
liaise or interact with various end-client personnel and stakeholder groups, to include: 
• Facilitating communication between IT, business units, and clients. 
• Acting as a liaison between business units and internal partners/external 
vendors by providing accurate and timely updates to all stakeholders and taking 
a proactive role in solution definition. 
• Assisting business partners to identify and clarify their goals and IT 
requirements. 
• Ensuring delivery of IT solutions are on schedule and fully functional. 
• Be a point of contact for offshore development and testing efforts; conducting 
daily status meetings to track progress and remove impediments. 
• Perform Requirements Gathering sessions to elicit technical and business 
requirements from Product Owners and SME's ... 
• Work alongside SR. IT Director's, Technical Architect's, Development Lead's, 
Project Manager's, Developers, and Quality Team's through the SDLC process 
to ensure delivery per business requirements. 
• Set up UAT to support end users to execute test cases and accept or suggest 
changes for the developed features. 
• Assist with backlog refinement, sprint, and release planning. Coordinate with 
the production support team and internal development team to handle bugs 
identified in production and resolve the issue by suggesting fixes. 
• Client and customer presentations, product demos to showcase system 
capabilities and get product sign-off. 
• Part of the AP reading event to understand the business, help users, conducted 
field studies at live scoring events, at the business sites, better analyze user 
8 Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. 
6 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
expenence and [troubleshoot] production issues, if any. Provide on-site 
support. 
Though the Petitioner described the job duties of the pos1t10n, the evidence does not show the 
operational structure within this initiative in a manner that would establish the Beneficiary's role. 
While the Director in the RFE requested organization charts that would delineate the Petitioner's and 
the end-client's organization, and staffing hierarchy (including the job titles of the positions that the 
Beneficiary will manage in the proffered position, and the job title of the individual he will report to), 
the Petitioner did not sufficiently address this aspect. In its RFE response, the Petitioner provided 
material which indicates that the Beneficiary reports to its vice president of training and development. 
The organization chart shows various positions, including this vice president's position with a 
downward arrow pointing to a box entitled "employees," which lends little insight into the proffered 
position's placement within the Petitioner's organizational hierarchy. Further, the Petitioner did not 
provide evidence of the end-client's project staffing hierarchy, and sufficient information about what 
the end-client's projects actually entail in order to establish the substantive nature of the Beneficiary's 
role as a "business systems analyst" within the context of this endeavor. Here, the documentation 
provided is not probative towards establishing the terms and conditions of the Beneficiary's 
assignment as imposed by the end-client. See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88 (where the work is to be 
performed for entities other than the petitioner, evidence of the client companies' job requirements is 
critical). 
Moreover, in determining the nature of a proffered position, the critical element is not the title of the 
position, but the duties of the underlying position. As part of our analysis, we review the duties of the 
proffered position to assess the duties and determine whether the described duties correspond to the 
duties and tasks listed in the O*NET Summary Report for the occupation designated in the LCA. In 
this case the Petitioner submitted an LCA for the "Management Analysts" occupational category 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 13-1111. 9 As noted, the 
9 The O*NET Summary Report for positions located within the ·'Management Analysts" occupational category lists the 
following duties: 
• Document findings of study and prepare recommendations for implementation of new systems, 
procedures, or organizational changes. 
• Interview personnel and conduct on-site observation to ascertain unit functions, work performed, and 
methods, equipment, and personnel used. 
• Analyze data gathered and develop solutions or alternative methods of proceeding. 
• Plan study of work problems and procedures, such as organizational change, communications, 
information flow, integrated production methods, inventory control, or cost analysis. 
• Confer with personnel concerned to ensure successful functioning of newly implemented systems or 
procedures. 
• Gather and organize information on problems or procedures. 
• Prepare manuals and train workers in use of new forms, reports, procedures or equipment, according to 
organizational policy. 
• Review forms and reports and confer with management and users about format, distribution, and 
purpose, identifying problems and improvements. 
• Develop and implement records management program for filing, protection, and retrieval of records, and 
assure compliance with program. 
7 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
Petitioner provided varied job descriptions for the proffered position which may comport, in part, with 
the typical tasks performed by individuals employed in the "Management Analysts" occupational 
category. The U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) 
states that "Management Analysts" typically: 10 
• Gather and organize information about the problem to be solved or the procedure to 
be improved 
• Interview personnel and conduct onsite observations to determine the methods, 
equipment, and personnel that will be needed 
• Analyze financial and other data, including revenue, expenditure, and employment 
reports 
• Develop solutions or alternative practices 
• Recommend new systems, procedures, or organizational changes 
• Make recommendations to management through presentations or written reports 
• Confer with managers to ensure changes are working 
However, despite the Petitioner's categorization of the proffered position as a "Management Analyst," 
the petition also contains considerable narrative that references a position that substantially entails 
system design, development, and testing functions. For example, the material in the record indicates 
that the Beneficiary will be involved in "reviewing and editing XML stubs using XML Pad for testing 
purposes," "identifying defects, documenting workaround and root causes, facilitating defect 
resolution and root cause analysis," "creating process flows, use cases, visual aids, wire frames, and 
mock up screens for discussions with business and technical teams," and "translating business 
requirements to functional and technical specifications." 
Additionally, the copies of the Beneficiary's project status reports indicate that he routinely performed 
duties, such as "testing the validity insertion rates based on performance," "regression testing the 
sample distribution engine for bugs," "review test cases and test plan, set up the environment and data 
for the ST testing and ensure there is no roadblocks," "complete EFR's and Use cases for the release 
response from the 3rd rating queue functionality," and "complete partial analysis of the sample 
removal, identified bugs and redirected them to the development team." 
The Petitioner maintains on appeal that it "correctly used the [Management Analysts] SOC Code 13-
1111 based on the job duties for the proffered position." However, we are not persuaded by the 
Petitioner's submission. While the Petitioner submitted an LCA designating the "Management 
Analysts" occupational category for the proffered position, the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
• Design, evaluate, recommend, and approve changes of forms and reports. 
The O*NET Summary Report for "Management Analysts," may be viewed at https://www.onetonline.org 
/link/summary/13-1111 (last visited Aug. 30, 2019). 
10 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Management Analysts, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/management-analysts.htm#tab-2 (last visited Aug. 30, 2019). All of our 
references to the Handbook may be accessed at the Internet site http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not maintain that the 
Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. 
8 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
established that these position duties and responsibilities are consistent with the occupational category. 
Here, the Petitioner has not adequately explained how the design, development and testing of system 
software are closely related to the O*NET tasks and the Handbook's duties for the "Management 
Analysts" occupation. 11 Therefore, we are unable to conclude that the proffered position properly 
corresponds to the "Management Analyst" occupational category corresponding to SOC code 13-
1111, which raises additional questions regarding the substantive nature of the proffered position. The 
Petitioner must resolve these inconsistencies and ambiguities with independent, objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, Dec. 591-92. 
The Petitioner also submitted an opinion letter authored by.__ ________ _. Associate Dean 
in the School of Business at the.__ ________ __. In his letter, the professor (1) describes the 
credentials that he asserts qualify him to opine upon the nature of the proffered position; (2) describes 
the previously discussed initial job duty listings proposed for the Beneficiary; and (3) states that these 
duties require at least a bachelor's degree in business administration with a concentration in 
information systems, or a related area. We carefully evaluated the professor's assertions in support of 
the instant petition but find them insufficient. The professor states: 
I have had the opportunity to review several documents that give me a greater 
understanding of both [the Petitioner] itself and the Business Systems Analyst position 
that it seeks to fill. Amongst them are a company overview, an organizational chart, 
and brochure of products and services. The company overview outlines the business 
and data analytics as well as the enterprise IT consulting services that [the Petitioner] 
provides as well as how these services modernize the workplace to solve employment 
and management problems. The organization chart in tum gave me an in-depth 
knowledge of the inner workings of the company and where the Business Systems 
Analyst position fits in the company's hierarchy. Lastly, the brochure of products and 
services granted me an intimate knowledge of the consulting, marketing, sales, 
recruitment, and employment services that [ the Petitioner] offers to [ other information 
technology consulting firms], and the Agile development methodology that supports 
the provision of each service. 
First, while the professor references the Petitioner's business operations in analyzing the duties of the 
position, he does not mention that the Beneficiary will be assigned offsite working for an end-client. 
Though he mentions the Petitioner's consulting services and other aspects of the Petitioner's business 
operations, he does not discuss identify or discuss the end-client's projects. Importantly, he does not 
explain how the duties of the position would actually be performed in the context of the end-client's 
business enterprise. While we appreciate the professor's discussion of the duties provided by the 
Petitioner, his analyses falls short of providing a meaningful discussion of what the Beneficiary will 
actually do in the proffered position at the end-client location, and how those duties require the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge. 12 
We also determine that the Professor's reference to the Petitioner's organization chart, for the 
proposition that the document offered "an in-depth knowledge of the inner workings of the company 
11 See 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b). 
12 Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88 
9 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
and where the Business Systems Analyst position fits in the company's hierarchy," seems incongruent 
with the information provided. As previously discussed, the record contains an organization chart 
which identifies a vice president's position (the Beneficiary's claimed supervisor) with a downward 
arrow pointing to a box entitled "employees" as the illustration of the proffered position's placement 
within the Petitioner's organizational hierarchy. In contrast to the professor's statements, the 
organization chart does not specifically identify business systems analyst positions within the 
Petitioner's staffing structure. While we recognize that the professor may have relied on documents 
not included in the record, given the vague material that we have reviewed, we conclude that the basis 
for his analysis in this regard has not been substantiated. 
In light of the above, we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the professor possessed 
the requisite information to adequately assess the nature of the position and appropriately determine 
the educational requirements of the position, based upon the job duties and level ofresponsibilities. 
Notably, the professor also does not address the variances between the minimum requirements for the 
position as stipulated by the Petitioner, prime-vendor, mid-vendor, and end-client relative to his own 
conclusions regarding the position requirements. Here, the Petitioner initially required a bachelor's 
degree without specialization for entry into the position. Later, in the RFE response, the Petitioner 
submitted a job posting for a business systems analyst position within its organization which specified a 
"minimum of a bachelor's degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Computer Information 
Systems or a closely related field," and additionally substantial work experience, to include "3+ years' 
ERP system implementation experience required, 2+ years' Microsoft Dynamics AX experience 
preferred, and 3+ years' experience with [various information technologies] preferred." The prime­
vendor's letter reflected position requirements of a "bachelor's degree with extensive coursework in 
Computer Science." The end-client letter specified that "bachelor's or master's degrees in Business 
Administration or Management with emphasis on Information Systems were required for the position." 
On appeal, the Petitioner restated the professor's requirements (e.g., a bachelor's degree in business 
administration with a concentration in information systems, or a related area) and asserted that they 
"verify" the requirements of the position. 13 However, the Petitioner does not explain why the professor's 
position requirements differ from its own requirements, nor does it discuss the reasons for the variances 
in the position requirements in other material within the record. The Petitioner must also resolve these 
inconsistencies and ambiguities with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies.14 
For the reasons discussed, we find that the professor's opinion letter lends little probative value to the 
matter here. Matter of Caron Int 'I, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (The service is not required to 
accept or may give less weight to an advisory opinion when it is "not in accord with other information or 
is in any way questionable."). For the sake of brevity, we will not address other deficiencies within his 
analyses of the proffered position. 
Without sufficient and consistent evidence of the Beneficiary's duties in relation to specific end­
client's project(s), and of the minimum requirements necessary to perform the duties of the position, 
13 The Petitioner later asserts on appeal that "the highly complex nature of the job duties of the proff:ered position confirms that 
the incumbent in the position would require at least a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science, or a related field" was required. 
14 Matter of Ho, Dec. at 591-92. 
10 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
the Petitioner has not established the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the 
Beneficiary, which therefore precludes a conclusion that the proffered position satisfies any criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), because it is the substantive nature of that work that determines (1) the 
normal minimum educational requirement for entry into the particular position, which is the focus of 
criterion 1; (2) industry positions which are parallel to the proffered position and thus appropriate for 
review for a common degree requirement, under the first alternate prong of criterion 2; (3) the level of 
complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position, which is the focus of the second alternate prong of 
criterion 2; ( 4) the factual justification for a petitioner normally requiring a degree or its equivalent, when 
that is an issue under criterion 3; and ( 5) the degree of specialization and complexity of the specific duties, 
which is the focus of criterion 4. 15 
IV. CONCLUSION 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of B-, Inc., ID# 4994835 (AAO Sept. 4, 2019) 
15 As the lack of probative and consistent evidence in the record precludes a conclusion that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation and is dispositive of the appeal, we will not fiuiher discuss the Petitioner's assertions on appeal 
regarding the criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
11