dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6296640 
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. 19, 2020 
The Petitioner, an information technology company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"technical account representative" 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)(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'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 proffered 
position does not qualify as a specialty occupation. On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional 
evidence and asserts that the Director erred. 
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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
1 We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 
(AAO 2010). 
(]) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We construe the term "degree" to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal 
Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in a 
specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular 
position"). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner described the duties of the proffered "technical account representative" position, and 
the percentage of the Beneficiary's time required to perform them, as follows: 
• Provide customers with regular assessments on the domains of strategy, process, 
governance, people and technology accompanied by recommendations for 
improvement in each area [ 10%]; 
• Act as the primary liaison between [the Petitioner], the customer, and the system 
integrator with respect to the implementation [30%]; 
• Serve as [the Petitioner's] support/services lead to the customer and provide 
business process, application functionality, technology, and implementation 
expertise by delivering a combination of business specifications analysis, technical 
consulting and project management skills [20%]; and 
• Escalate issues across multiple business units with [the Petitioner] (e.g. Technical 
Support, Expert Services, Sales, Consulting, Product Development, etc.) and 
marshal resources as necessary to resolve problems [ 40%]. 2 
According to the Petitioner, the position requires "a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science, Software 
Engineering, or a related field." 
2 The Petitioner provided expanded duty descriptions. Although we omit the expanded duty descriptions for brevity, we 
have reviewed them in their entirety. 
2 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 3 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its 
equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 4 
On appeal, the Petitioner specifically asserts that it "did not submit any evidence under [the third 
criterion]" and the record does not support the conclusion that the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation under that criterion. Accordingly, we limit our analysis to the first, second, and fourth 
criteria. 
A. First Criterion 
The criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I) requires that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular 
position. To inform this inquiry, 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. 5 
On the labor condition application (LCA)6 submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Computer Systems Analysts," 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 15-1121. The subchapter of the 
Handbook titled "How to Become a Computer Systems Analyst" states, in relevant part, that "[a] 
bachelor's degree in computer or information science is common, although not always a requirement. 
Some firms hire analysts with business or liberal arts degrees who have skills in information 
technology or computer programming. . . . Many [ computer systems] analysts have liberal arts 
degrees and have gained programming or technical expertise elsewhere." Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Computer Systems Analysts, 
https://www.bls.ov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-systems-analysts.htm#tab-
4 (last visited Feb. 19, 2020). 
The Handbook's observation that degrees in disparate fields of computer science, business, and liberal 
arts may qualify a worker for computer systems analyst positions does not establish that a bachelor's 
3 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
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. 
5 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. 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 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). 
3 
or higher degree in a spec[fic specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. Furthermore, the Handbook does not establish whether the 
combination of a liberal arts degree and generalized "programming or technical expertise" is 
equivalent to a bachelor's or higher degree in computer or information science, which is "not always 
a requirement" for entry. 
Since there must be a close correlation between the required specialized studies and the position, the 
requirement of a degree with a generalized title, such as business or liberal arts, without further 
specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz 
Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). 
To prove that a job requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge as required by section 214(i)(l) of the Act, a petitioner must establish that the position 
requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specialized field of study or its equivalent. 
As discussed supra, we interpret the degree requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to require a 
degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. Although a general­
purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business, may be a legitimate prerequisite for a 
particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify a conclusion that a particular 
position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 
147. Therefore, the Handbook's recognition that a general, non-specialty "background" in business is 
sufficient for entry into the occupation strongly suggests that a bachelor's degree in a spec[fic specialty 
is not a standard, minimum entry requirement for this occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner cites a district court case, Next Generation Tech., Inc. v. Johnson, (S.D.N.Y. 
Sept. 29, 2017), as relevant here. Next Generation Tech, Inc. arises out of a different jurisdiction than 
the instant matter. 7 Nevertheless, even if we considered the logic underlying Next Generation Tech, 
Inc., we find that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation. 
First, the court in Next Generation Tech., Inc. addressed our reading of the Handbook's discussion of 
the entry requirements for positions located within a different and separate occupational category, 
"Computer Programmers," rather than the "Computer Systems Analysts" category designated by the 
Petitioner in the LCA relating to this case. As noted above, the Handbook specifically states, in part, 
that "[ s Jome firms hire analysts with business or liberal arts degrees who have skills in information 
technology or computer programming. . . . Many [ computer systems] analysts have liberal arts 
degrees and have gained programming or technical expertise elsewhere." Accordingly, workers with 
a bachelor's or higher degree in disparate fields such as business or liberal arts are qualified to become 
"technical account representatives." 
Moreover, the court in Next Generation Tech., Inc. relied in part on a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
(USCIS) policy memorandum regarding "Computer Programmers" indicating generally preferential 
7 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. See Matter of K-S-, 
20 T&N Dec. 715, 719-20 (BIA 1993). Although we will give the reasoning underlying a district judge's decision due 
consideration when it is properly before us, we need not follow the analysis as a matter of law. Id. 
4 
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. 8 Therefore, for the reasons discussed, we are unpersuaded that Next Generation 
Tech., Inc. requires us to conclude that the proffered position satisfies the first criterion. 
The Petitioner also asserts on appeal that the Handbook's observations regarding the disparate degree 
fields that may qualify a worker for computer system analyst positions nevertheless satisfy the first 
criterion because: 
[ computer s ]ystems analysts must understand the business field they are working in. 
For example, a hospital may want an analyst with a thorough understanding of health 
plans . . . . Having knowledge of their industry helps [computer] systems analysts 
communicate with managers to determine the role of the information technology (IT) 
systems in an organization. 
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Computer Systems 
Analysts, https://www.bls.ov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-systems-analysts 
.htm#tab-4 (last visited Feb. 19, 2020). The Petitioner states that the Handbook's observation "directly 
addresses why the requirements for the position may vary be employer." However, the Handbook 
does not observe that a healthcare provider requires its computer systems analysts to have a bachelor's 
or higher degree in medicine in order to understand health plans-the Handbook observes that"[ m ]any 
[ computer systems] analysts have liberal arts degrees and have gained programming or technical 
expertise elsewhere." Id. Neither the Handbook nor the Petitioner explain how a bachelor's or higher 
degree in liberal arts helps computer systems analysts to "understand the business field they are 
working in," particularly when, as in this case, the business field in which the Beneficiary would work 
is information technology. Moreover, even if the Handbook established how a bachelor's or higher 
degree in business or liberal arts would help computer systems analysts understand health plans in the 
hospital example, as noted above the Handbook does not establish that the unspecified level of 
"programming or technical expertise" combined with such a degree would be equivalent to a 
bachelor's or higher degree in computer science. 
Next, the Petitioner asserts on appeal that an opinion letter written b~.......,=====,--~I, a professor 
of computer applications and information systems at the University ofj I submitted for the 
first time on appeal, satisfies the first criterion. 
As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter 
of Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, we may give an opinion less 
weight if it is not in accord with other information in the record or if it is in any way questionable. 
Id. We are ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an individual's 
eligibility for the benefit sought; the submission of expert opinion letters is not presumptive evidence 
of eligibility. Id.; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, 502 n.2 (BIA 2008) ("[E]xpert opinion 
testimony, while undoubtedly a form of evidence, does not purport to be evidence as to 'fact' but 
8 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0142, Rescission of the December 22, 2000 ''Guidance memo on HJB 
computer related positions" (Mar. 31, 2017), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/nativedocuments/PM-6002-
0142-H- l BComputerRelatedPositionsRecission.pdf. 
5 
rather is admissible only if 'it will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a 
fact in issue."'). 
In his opinion letter, I I quotes verbatim the Petitioner's duty description, provided above, 
including the expanded description we omit for brevity. I I opines that "a Technical Account 
Representative with the specific duties [provided by the Petitioner] ... would normally be filled by a 
graduate with a minimum of a Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science, Software Engineering, a 
related area, or the equivalent." However, there is no indication thatl lhas conducted any 
research or studies pertinent to the educational requirements for such positions, and no indication of 
recognition by professional organizations that he is an authority on those specific requirements. We 
note that, in a single paragraph, I I discusses his "research[] [into] the specific labor market and 
commerce standards for California, in which [the Petitioner] is headquartered." As a resultJ I 
concludes that "the Technical Account Representative position with [the Petitioner] as a Computer 
Systems Analyst occupation is typical and increasingly common." However, the result ot1 Is 
research is learning that "[t]he [California] state website references federal level resources such as [the 
Handbook] ... to organize, inform, and reinforce information, statistic, and resources." As noted 
above, the Handbook observes that disparate fields such as business and liberal arts may qualify 
applicants, contrary tol I's opinion. Althoughl~---~bbserves that "labor market projections 
... [are] filtered through a state-specific lens," he does not report that his research discovered "state­
~ic" educational requirements for "technical account representative" positions. Given that D 
L_Js opinion is not substantiated by objective research or studies, and the extent to which his opinion 
is not in accord with other information in the record, it bears minimal probative value. See Matter of 
Caron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. at 795. 
In summation, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
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). 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 the first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
We generally consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there is such a common degree 
requirement: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the industry's 
professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether letters or 
affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry establish that such firms "routinely employ and 
recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 1999) 
6 
(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)). 
As noted above, the Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is a common requirement within the industry for parallel positions among 
similar organizations. Furthermore, the record does not establish that a professional association for 
computer systems analysts has made a qualifying degree a minimum entry requirement. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that five job postings submitted in response to the Director's request 
for evidence (RFE) satisfy the first prong of the second criterion. 9 The positions' titles, with the 
reported degree requirements, are as follows: 
• Cloud technical account manager; "Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science, Math, 
or related discipline"; 
• Technical account manager; "Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science, Math, or 
related discipline"; 
• Technical account manager, financial services; "Bachelor's degree in Computer 
Science, Mathematics, [or] a related technical field"; 
• Technical account manager, [the employer's] cloud; "Bachelor's degree in 
Computer Science, Mathematics, [or] a related technical field"; and 
• Technical account manager; "Bachelor's degree in business, information 
technology, computer science or related areas." 
We first note that the three employers who published the job postings are in the Petitioner's general 
industry. The record contains a report from D&B Hoovers, noting that the employer for the last job 
posting listed above is among the Petitioner's "top 3 competitors." Common knowledge about the 
two employers for the other job postings also supports the conclusion that they are in the Petitioner's 
general industry. However, the record, and specifically the job postings, does not contain sufficient 
information to determine the extent to which the three employers are similar to the Petitioner beyond 
all being in the same general industry. 
Additionally, the job postings contain information about the products or services for which the workers 
would provide support that differ from the Petitioner's description of its software, for which the 
Beneficiary would provide customer support, raising questions regarding the extent to which the 
positions are parallel to the proffered position. For example, the position specializing in "financial 
services" discusses "working with financial services organizations in a direct or consulting capacity, 
supporting migration of workloads in areas such as AML, [t]rade [s]urveillance, [m]arket [r]isk, 
[ c ]redit [r]isk, [ c ]apital markets, [r]etail [b ]anking, and [p ]rivate [ w ]ealth management" and 
"[e]xperience with governing bodies such as the OCC & SEC." Other job postings, such as the first 
two, do not provide sufficient information regarding the products or services for which the workers 
would provide support, in order to determine the extent to which the positions are parallel to the 
proffered position. Furthermore, both of the first two postings describe the positions as "a [s]enior 
9 The Petitioner asse11s on appeal that its RFE response contains seven job postings. However, the RFE response contains 
only five job postings. Additionally, although the Petitioner discusses degree information from the ·'seven job postings," 
it lists only five sets of degree requirements. 
7 
TAM," indicating that they are advanced or supervisory in nature, raising questions regarding the 
extent to which they are parallel to the proffered position. 
Moreover, regardless of whether the employers are sufficiently similar to the Petitioner and whether 
the positions are parallel to the proffered position, the job postings do not establish that a requirement 
of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, are common among the 
sample. For the fifth job posting listed above, the allowance of a bachelor's degree in "business," 
along with "information technology [ and] computer science" does not establish that the position 
requires a bachelor's or higher degree in a spec[fic specialty, or its equivalent. 
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 does not demonstrate what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from the job 
postings with regard to the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in 
similar organizations. See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 (7th ed. 
1995). Moreover, given that there is no indication that the advertisements were randomly selected, 
the validity of any such inferences could not be accurately determined even if the sampling unit were 
sufficiently large. See id. at 195-96 (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"). 
In summation, the job postings do not establish that a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations. 
The Petitioner also asserts on appeal that I l's opinion letter, discussed above, satisfies the first 
prong of the second criterion. Specifically, the Petitioner quotesl f s opinion that "the industry 
standard for a position such as Technical Account Representative for [the Petitioner] is to be filled 
through recruiting a college graduate with the minimum of a Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science, 
Software Engineering, a related area, or the equivalent." However, as noted above, there is no 
indication that I I has conducted any research or studies pertinent to the educational 
requirements for such positions, and no indication of recognition by professional organizations that he 
is an authority on those specific requirements. Moreover, as noted above, the Handbook observes that 
~es in disparate fields such as business and liberal arts may qualify applicants. Given thatO 
L_J' s opinion is not substantiated by objective research or studies, and the extent to which his opinion 
is not in accord with other information in the record, it bears minimal probative value. See Matter of 
Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. at 795. 
In summation, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
The second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) 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. 
8 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that it "does not offer off-the-shelf 'one size fits all' software"; 
instead, its "enterprise application software [is] designed to satisfy the very unique and specific needs 
of certain organizations of differing sizes and in a variety of industries." However, the Petitioner 
concedes that "[t]he common complaint about the enterprise software is that it lacks flexibility and 
agility." Accordingly, the Petitioner's statements that its software lacks flexibility and is designed to 
satisfy organizations of differing sizes undermines its statement that its software is not "one size fits 
all." The contradiction obscures our understanding of how complex the software for which a 
"technical account representative" must provide support is, and the extent to which a "technical 
account representative" must understand how the enterprise software that "lacks flexibility" could be 
customized to "satisfy the very unique and specific needs of certain organizations of differing sizes in 
a variety of industries." 
The Petitioner focuses on 12 specific expanded duty descriptions on appeal, 10 to assert that the 
proffered position is sufficiently complex or unique: 
• Propose changes to customer environments and applications where improvements 
can be made, and interact with customers regularly via conference calls to keep 
them apprised of these proposals. 
• Analyze customers' business processes and suggest changes. 
• Apply [the Petitioner's] analytics, GRC and other proprietary tools to assess 
customer environments. 
• Help customers to optimize their business process through the application of [the 
Petitioner's] products to critical aspects of business. 
• Migrate customers' applications from legacy [Petitioner] hosted environment and 
on-premise to new generation of [the Petitioner's] [c]loud infrastructure. 
• Apply expertise in an array of [the Petitioner's] products and technologies ... to 
effectively migrate customer applications to [the Petitioner's] environments. 
• Apply internally developed tools and applications, including [the Petitioner's] 
[ r ]eporting tools like [b ]usiness [ a ]nalytics to effectively assess and measure project 
success, and report to [the Petitioner's] and [c]ustomer [m]anagement. 
• Apply release and updates ofregular and emergency security fixes, based on regular 
research of [the Petitioner's] products, to [the Petitioner's] applications in customer 
environments immediately. 
• Handle critical technical issues for customers, utilizing experience with [the 
Petitioner's] [t]echnologies .... 
• Use internally built [p ]roblem [ m ]atching tools and [b Jug repository to identify 
problems and provide solutions. 
• Use [the Petitioner's] [b]ug logging system and Jira tools to document product 
issues in situations where [the Petitioner's] [d]evelopment is involved. 
• Contribute to building technical repository, which helps different teams within [the 
Petitioner] to quickly resolve some of the known/repeated issues. 
10 In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner provided 31 expanded duty descriptions, which as noted above we omit 
for brevity, although we have reviewed them in their entirety. 
9 
The record does not establish how the proffered position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. For example, for the first expanded duty quoted above, the record does not elaborate on 
the type of "changes to customer environments and applications" the Beneficiary would "propose." 
Accordingly, our ability to determine the extent to which proposing changes may be complex or unique 
is limited. As another example, for the second expanded duty, the record does not provide details 
about "customers' business processes," the methodology the Beneficiary would use to analyze those 
processes, and the types of changes the Beneficiary would suggest based on that analysis, again 
limiting our ability to determine the complexity or uniqueness of tasks such as analyzing and 
suggesting. Similarly, for the fourth expanded duty, the record does not clarify how the Petitioner's 
customers "optimize their business process" and how the Beneficiary would "help" the customers do 
so. Accordingly, our ability to determine the extent to which helping may be complex or unique is 
limited. The remainder of the descriptions with tasks such as "[ a ]pply expertise," "[h ]andle critical 
technical issues," and "[ c ]ontribute to building [a] technical repository" are similarly generalized and 
unsubstantiated. 
Furthermore, we note that the Petitioner asserts in the primary duty description that the Beneficiary 
would spend 40% of his time "[ escalating] issues across multiple business units with [ the Petitioner] 
( e.g. Technical Support, Expert Services, Sales, Consulting, Product Development, etc.) and 
marshal[ing] resources as necessary to resolve problems." Considering that the Beneficiary's duties 
overlap with teams of other workers in technical support, expert services, sales, consulting, and 
product development departments to whom the Beneficiary would escalate issues, the record raises 
questions regarding how unique the Beneficiary's duties within the Petitioner's organization are. 
The Petitioner also asserts on appeal that I Is opinion letter, discussed above, satisfies the 
second prong of the second criterion. The Petitioner specifically emphasizes I Is opinion that 
"a candidate must have completed course work [sic] and training in Computer Science, Software 
Engineering, or a related area at the undergraduate level at a minimum to competently handle the 
duties required by the Technical Account Representative position." However, as discussed above, the 
Handbook observes that a candidate need not have a bachelor's or higher degree in computer science, 
computer engineering, or a related field, or its equivalent, for entry into the particular position; rather, 
degrees in disparate fields such as business or liberal arts may qualify applicants. Moreover, as noted 
above, there is no indication that I I has conducted any research or studies pertinent to 
educational requirements for such positions, and no indication of recognition by ~rofessional 
organizations that he is an authority on those specific requirements. Given that I s opinion is 
not substantiated by objective research or studies, and the extent to which it is not in accord with other 
information in the record, it bears minimal probative value. See Matter o_f Caron Int 'l, Inc., 19 I&N 
Dec. at 795. 
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). 
10 
C. 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. 
The Petitioner's assertions on appeal regarding the fourth criterion are identical to its assertions 
regarding the second prong of the second criterion. 11 However, for the reasons stated above in the 
analysis regarding the second prong of the second criterion, we are unpersuaded 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 bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
Again we note that, given thatl f s opinion is not substantiated by objective research or studies 
pertinent to this criterion, and the extent to which his opinion is not in accord with other information 
in the record, it bears minimal probative value. See Matter of Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. at 795. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated in the record 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). 
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. 
11 The Petitioner addresses both criteria in the same section under a heading that addressed both the second prong of the 
second criterion and the fourth criterion. Although the two criteria are similar, they are distinct. 
11