dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 11928343 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 26, 2021 
The Petitioner, an information technology consulting business, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary in a "strategic business technology intelligence" position under the H-lB nonimmigrant 
classification for specialty occupations.1 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 record did not 
establish that: (1) the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation; and (2) that the 
Beneficiary would perform services in a specialty occupation for the requested employment period. 
The Director dismissed the Petitioner's subsequent motion to reopen and reconsider, and the matter is 
now before us on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 2 
We review the questions in this matter de novo.3 Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(I) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(I), 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 Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) , 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) 
2 Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
3 See Matter of Chri sta's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
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) 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). 
11. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will be employed in a "strategic business technology 
intelligence" position and that a minimum of a bachelor's degree in computer science, information 
science, information technology, or another closely related field is required for entry into the position. 
The Petitioner provided an initial list of twelve duties, which it expanded upon in response to the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE). While we will not list each duty here, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
Ill. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we conclude that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies 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. 
A. First Criterion 
4 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-lB petition, including evidence regarding the proffered position 
and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each 
one. 
2 
The criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(1) 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. To inform this inquiry, we will consider the information contained in the U.S. Department 
of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) regarding the duties and educational 
requirements of the wide variety of occupations it addresses. 5 The Petitioner designated the proffered 
position on the labor condition application (LCA) as a Standard Occupation Classification (SOC) code 
15-1199 "Computer Occupations, Al I Other" occupation. The Petitioner asserted that the duties of the 
proffered position are consistent with the duties of the "Business Intelligence Analysts" subcategory 
corresponding to SOC code 15-1199.08. 
The Handbook is a career resource offering information on hundreds of occupations. However, there are 
occupational categories which the Handbook does not cover in detail and instead provides only summary 
data.6 The subchapter of the Handbook titled "Data for Occupations Not Covered in Detail" states, in 
relevant part, that the "[t]ypical entry-level education" for a variety of occupations within the category of 
"[c]omputer and mathematical occupations" is a "Bachelor's degree," without indicating that the 
bachelor's degree must be in a specific specialty.7 Thus, the Handbook is not probative in establishing 
that these positions comprise an occupational group for which the normal minimum requirement for entry 
is at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
The Petitioner referenced DOL's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) summary report for 
"Business Intelligence Analysts" - SOC code 15-1199.08 in support of this criterion.8 The O*NET 
Summary Report provides general information regarding the occupation, but it does not support the 
Petitioner's assertion regarding the educational requirements for the occupation. For example, the Job 
Zone Four designation indicates that most, but some do not, require a four-year bachelor's degree. It 
does not specify the specific field of study, if any, from which the degree must come. The occupation's 
Specialized Vocational Preparation (SVP) rating of 7 < 8 is even less persuasive. 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 which, by definition, includes high school 
education and commercial or shop training.9 The SVP rating also does not specify the particular type 
of degree, if any, that a position would require. 
5 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. Nevertheless, to satisfy the first criterion, the burden of proof remains 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. 
6 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Data for Occupations Not Covered in 
Detail, https://www.bls.gov/ooh/about/data-for-occupations-not-covered-in-detail.htm (last visited Feb. 25, 2021). Here, 
the Handbook does not provide specific information for various occupations which might be classified within the occupational 
category. 
7 The Handbook also indicates that this occupation does not require work experience in a related occupation or typical 
on-the-job training. Id. 
8 After the filing of this petition, O*NET changed the SOC code designation for this occupational category to 15-2051.01. 
For further information, visit https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/15-2051.01 (last visited Feb. 25, 2021). 
9 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/help/online/svp. 
3 
The Petitioner asserts that O*NET states that "91 %" of the professionals in this occupation have obtained, 
at least, a bachelor's degree." A review of the education section of the 2019 summary report in the record, 
which surveys "respondents," reveals that 58% of "respondents" report having a bachelor's degree, and 
33% of "respondents" report having a master's degree. Although the summary report provides the 
educational requirements of "respondents," it does not account for 100% of the "respondents." Moreover, 
those survey results were based on a relatively small sample size: according to O*NET, that statistic 
was compiled based on 24 responses to a survey.10 Additionally, the respondents' positions within the 
occupation are not distinguished by career level (e.g., entry-level, mid-level, senior-level). Furthermore, 
the graph in the summary report does not indicate that the "education level" for the respondents must be 
in a specific specialty. For all of these reasons, O*NET does not establish the proffered position as a 
specialty occupation. 
We now turn to the position evaluation provided byl I Professor of Computer and 
Information Sciences atl I University. I [ lists the position duties and then 
declares that the position is specialized and requires a bachelor's degree in computer science, 
information science, information technology, or a related field. His evaluation includes little to no 
analysis of how he reached these conclusions, but in place of analysis, we note the frequency with 
whichl I labels the duties and the educational requirements as "highly technical," 
"complex," or "sophisticated." 
Although! I includes a discussion of the qualifying fields, his evaluation identifies where 
the knowledge to perform the duties could be obtained, but not why the knowledge would be required. 
His analysis also confuses the ability of a person degreed in the qualifying fields to perform the duties 
of the proffered position with a degree requirement in order to perform the duties. To add value to 
this matter, I l's analysis must first flesh out the fundamental presupposition that the 
position requires specialized knowledge before discussing where the knowledge could be obtained or 
why a person with such knowledge could perform the duties well. As stated.I I provided 
little analysis of the duties, opting instead to repeat the Petitioner's descriptions and combine them 
with conclusory statements as to the required education. 
It is important to note that it appears as thoughl I used a template to support the 
Petitioner's particular position as a specialty occupation. The lack of cogent analysis strongly suggests 
thatl ~ was asked to confirm a preconceived notion as to the required degrees, not 
objectively assess the proffered position and opine on the minimum bachelor's degree required, if any. 
10 Employment & Training Administration, Dep't of Labor, Occupational Information Network, O*NET Resource Center, 
O*NET 24.2 Database, Education, Training, and Experience (click desired download format), available at 
https://www.onetcenter.org/dictionary/24.2/excel/education_training_experience.html (last visited Feb. 25, 2021). Since 
the filing of the petition, O*NET has updated its information, indicating that 76% of respondents report having a bachelor's 
degree, while 14% report having a master's degree. This statistic was compiled based on 21 responses to a survey, even 
fewer than the previous report. Employment & Training Administration, Dep't of Labor, Occupational Information 
Network, O*NET Resource Center, O*NET 25.2 Database, Education, Training, and Experience (click desired download 
format), available at https://www.onetcenter.org/dictionary/25.2/excel/education_training_experience.html (last visited 
Feb. 25, 2021). 
4 
While we will review the opinion presented, it has little probative value as it does not include specific 
analysis of the duties of the particular position that is the subject of this petition.11 
On appeal, the Petitioner's cites to Tapis lnt'I v. INS, 94 F. Supp. 2d 172 (D. Mass. 2000) and 
Residential Finance Corp. v. USCIS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012) to assert that the 
occupational category as a whole is not excluded from the definition of a specialty occupation. In 
Tapis, the U.S. district court found that while the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) 
was reasonable in requiring a bachelor's degree in a specific field, it abused its discretion by ignoring 
the portion of the regulations that allows for the equivalent of a specialized baccalaureate 
degree. According to the U.S. district court, INS's interpretation was not reasonable because H-1B 
visas would then only be available in fields where a specific degree was offered, ignoring the statutory 
definition allowing for "various combinations of academic and experience based training."12 The 
court elaborated that "[i]n fields where no specifically tailored baccalaureate program exists, the only 
possible way to achieve something equivalent is by studying a related field (or fields) and then 
obtaining specialized experience."13 
We agree with the district court judge in Tapis, that in satisfying the specialty occupation requirements, 
both the Act and the regulations require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, 
and that this language indicates that the degree does not have to be a degree in a single specific 
specialty. Moreover, we also agree that, if the requirements to perform the duties and job 
responsibilities of a proffered position are a combination of a general bachelor's degree and experience 
such that the standards at both section 214(i)(l)(A) and (B) of the Act have been satisfied, then the 
proffered position may qualify as a specialty occupation. We do not conclude, however, that the U.S. 
district court is stating that any position can qualify as a specialty occupation based solely on the 
claimed requirements of a petitioner. 
The Petitioner references Residential Finance, for the proposition that "[t]he knowledge and not the 
title of the degree is what is important. Diplomas rarely come bearing occupation-specific 
majors. What is required is an occupation that requires highly specialized knowledge and a 
prospective employee who has attained the credentialing indicating possession of that knowledge."14 
We agree with the proposition that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is what is 
important." In general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry and biochemistry, 
a minimum of a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty is recognized as satisfying the 
"degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)" requirement of section 214(i)(l)(B) of the 
Act. Again, since there must be a close correlation between the required "body of highly specialized 
knowledge" and the position, however, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in two disparate 
fields, would not meet the statutory requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent)," unless the Petitioner establishes how each field is directly related to the duties and 
11 We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron lnt'I, Inc., 
19 l&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any 
way questionable, we are not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Id. Here, the opinion presented 
does not offer a cogent analysis of the duties and why the duties require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. As we 
discuss I ~s opinion at various parts throughout this decision, we incorporate by reference all discussions of 
the opinion into our analysis of the other 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) criteria. 
12 Tapis, 94 F. Supp. 2d at 176. 
13 Id. at 177. 
14 Residential Finance, 839 F. Supp. 2d at 997. 
5 
responsibilities of the particular position.15 For the previously discussed reasons, however, 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 and 
in order to perform those tasks. 
In contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case law of a United States circuit court, we are 
not bound to follow the published decision of a United States district court in matters arising even 
within the same district.16 Although the reasoning underlying a district judge's decision will be given 
due consideration when it is properly before us, the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter 
of law.17 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation from a probative source to substantiate its 
assertion regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. Thus, the 
Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(1). 
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 
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 establish that such firms "routinely employ and 
recruit only degreed individuals."18 
As noted, the Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is a common 
requirement within the industry for parallel positions among similar organizations. Also, the Petitioner 
did not submit evidence from an industry professional association or from firms or individuals in the 
industry indicating such a degree is a minimum requirement for entry into the position. 
15 Section 214(i)(1)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). 
16 See Matter of K-S-, 20 l&N Dec. 715, 719-20 (BIA 1993). 
11 Id. 
18 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)). 
6 
As alternative evidence for our consideration under this and the other criteria, we return to opinion letter 
submitted b~ I In his letter, he concludes that the industry standard for positions falling 
within the occupational category is a bachelor's degree in in computer science, information science, 
information technology, or a related field. Although he references hiring data from Monster.com and 
Indeed.com job recruitment sites in support of his conclusions, he does not provide the results of 
formal surveys, research, statistics, or other objective quantifying information to substantiate his 
opinion. Moreover, he does not provide an analysis of the duties posted on those sites to establish 
which positions fall within the occupational category or how they are analogous to the proffered 
position such that it would establish a general industry practice. For the reasons explained throughout 
this decision.I I opinion holds little weight in the instant matter. The Petitioner has 
not provided other evidence for our consider under the first prong of this criterion. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient probative evidence to establish that a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
Upon review of the totality of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained 
or documented why the proffered position is so complex or unique that a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty is required. A crucial aspect of this matter is determining whether the position actually 
requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge attained 
through at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific discipline. Based on the totality of the information 
in record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not explained in detail how the proffered position duties 
require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge. 
As the Director referenced, the Petitioner describes many of the duties in vague and general terms, 
such as "work with," without explaining what "working with" involves. Likewise, the Petitioner 
provided many circular descriptions which do not allow us to understand what the Beneficiary will 
actually do to carry out the position duties. For instance, though the duties relating to market forecasts 
and reports contain many bulleted sub-duties underneath, the duty descriptions are stated in the same 
terms as the duty itself. In other words, the duty to provide reports is described in terms of providing 
a report, which does not explain what tasks are involved in carrying out the duty. Though the Petitioner 
identifies the types of forecasts and reports that the Beneficiary provides along with how the Petitioner 
uses the information in the forecasts and reports, the descriptions do not convey the work the 
Beneficiary performs to produce the forecasts and reports. Further, the Petitioner does not sufficiently 
explain how the process for producing these reports involves specialized knowledge such that a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is required. 
7 
Another duty, that of maintaining a research database by identifying and assembling marketing 
information, is described in a similar circular fashion. The descriptions for the duty include "maintain 
the raw data" and "ensure that the data integrity is maintained," which do not explain how the 
Beneficiary performs the tasks that comprise this duty. Moreover, the Petitioner initially stated that 
the Beneficiary will build the research database, whereas in response to the RFE and on appeal, the 
Beneficiary merely maintains the database. The Petitioner has not acknowledged or explained the 
difference. 
Duties containing results-focused descriptions, rather than a description of the work required to 
produce the results provide an insufficient foundation to establish how the work is complex, unique, 
or specialized. For instance, although the Beneficiary will "identify and evaluate events," with the 
objective of increasing the Petitioner's business and visibility, it is not apparent how the Beneficiary 
identifies the events nor the criteria he will use to evaluate them. Other duties appear to be 
administrative or clerical in nature and we question whether they require any specialized knowledge 
or skill. Without further descriptions, it is not apparent how collecting and collating information from 
open source career websites, networking, maintaining relationships with customers, or creating 
presentation slide decks would require specialized knowledge. As described, it is difficult to 
determine how the Beneficiary will be relieved of performing non-qualifying duties. 
Some of the duties indicate that the Beneficiary will use third-party tools to produce the reports and 
forecasts, however the Petitioner has not explained how use of these tools requires specialized 
knowledge that can only be learned in a bachelor's degree program in one of the qualifying fields, or 
equivalent. The Beneficiary's work product samples contain many graphs and charts, but we have 
little insight into the type of work required to create them. We note that third-party statistical analysis 
programs generate graphs based on inputted data and it is therefore not apparent how generating these 
graphs requires the theoretical and practical application of specialized knowledge. Moreover, the 
Petitioner has not supplemented the work product documents with explanations of the graphs or what 
the Petitioner intends to do with them. 
Other work product documents contain descriptions of numerous activities and tasks that must be 
carried out in order to accomplish various projects. It is not apparent from documents whether the 
Beneficiary both created the project documents, as well as will be performing the work described 
therein, or whether other groups carry out the activities for which the Beneficiary provides a listing of 
the desired functionality that others must create. Though these documents indicate that the Beneficiary 
may have developed project plans, these documents do not establish how the work required to create 
the documents involved specialized knowledge. 
In returning to the letter froml I we observe that he rearranges the Petitioner's list of 
duties into a paragraph format and intersperses the paragraphs with his conclusions about the required 
education to perform the duties. As the Petitioner already provided a list of duties.I ts 
restructuring of the duties into paragraph form adds little to the discussion in this matter. Merely 
repeating the duties and declaring them to be specialized and complex does not add to our 
understanding of the position or substantiate howl I arrived at his conclusions. For 
instance.I I lists numerous duties and several times declares that the duties involve 
technical, quantitative, and analytical responsibilities. He does not explain how or why the duties 
involve such responsibilities, nor does he explain how this, even if true, would establish that the 
8 
position is specialized. Absent an explanation to establish the complexity or specialized nature of the 
duties, we cannot acceptl l's assertions. Accordingly, we conclude thatl I 
classifies the duties and the educational requirements with numerous adjectives to suggest the 
specialized nature of the work, rather than providing actual analysis of why the work is specialized. 
As previously stated.I Is opinion carries little weight in this matter. 
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 particular 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 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. To satisfy this 
criterion, the record must establish that the specific performance requirements of the position 
generated the recruiting and hiring history. 
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.19 
Were U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) limited solely to reviewing the Petitioner's 
claimed self-imposed requirements, then any individual with a bachelor's degree could be brought to 
the United States to perform any occupation as long as the Petitioner created a token degree 
requirement. 20 Evidence provided in support of this criterion may include, but is not limited to, 
documentation regarding the Petitioner's past recruitment and hiring practices, as well as information 
regarding employees who previously held the position. 
Here, the Petitioner does not offer evidence of its past recruiting and hiring history for the proffered 
position, but rather relies upon its support letter which states that performance of the duties of the 
position requires a bachelor's degree or equivalent applicable experience in computer science, 
information science, information technology, a related field. The Petitioner did not submit evidence 
of previous or current employees who have served in the proffered position. Consequently, 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 proffered position. Thus, 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 
19 See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. 
20 Id. 
9 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
Although some tasks may connote a requirement of fami I iarity with general business pri nci pies, including 
marketing knowledge, the record is insufficient to establish that the duties require anything more than a 
few basic courses and a broad educational background. While a few such courses may be beneficial in 
performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner, who bears the burden of proof, 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 Petitioner asserts that the proffered position is essential to the Petitioner's business, that the 
Beneficiary's work increases its ability to effectively and strategically perform its business activities, 
and that the importance of the Beneficiary's position is reflected in his high rank on the Petitioner's 
organizational chart. While a relevant consideration, neither the importance of the work, nor the 
proffered position's role within it, can substitute for specialization. Here, the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently substantiated its claim as to the importance of the work, nor has the Petitioner sufficiently 
connected the nature of the work to the need for a bachelor's degree in one of the qualifying fields. 
For the same reasons we discussed under the second prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established 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). We incorporate our earlier 
discussion and analysis on this matter. 
Consequently, the Petitioner has not satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 21 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reason. In visa petition proceedings, it is a 
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. 
21 On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in concluding that the Petitioner had not established that the 
Beneficiary would perform services in a specialty occupation for the duration of the employment period. The Petitioner 
reiterates that the Beneficiary will work in-house for the Petitioner at the Petitioner's site and that the proffered position's 
work product is not sold or delivered to another entity. In support of these assertions, the Petitioner refers, in part, to an 
Employment Offer Letter and an Employment Agreement, both of which reference the Beneficiary's interaction with the 
Petitioner's clients. The Employment Offer Letter specifically prohibits the Beneficiary from taking employment with 
clients that he has been assigned to work with, while the Employment Agreement additionally prohibits employment with 
vendors introduced to the Beneficiary directly or indirectly. If the Beneficiary will work in-house as claimed, the Petitioner 
has not adequately explained why such prohibitions to the Beneficiary's employment with clients and vendors would be 
contractually necessary. As the Petitioner has not established that the proffered position is a specialty occupation, this 
issue is not dispositive of the matter at hand. However, the Petitioner should be prepared to address this discrepancy in 
any future H-lB filings. 
10 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
11