dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF I-A-, LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 20, 2019 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a healthcare information technology solutions company, seeks to employ the 
Beneficiary as a "Salesforce administrator/developer" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for 
specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 
8 U.S.C. § 110l(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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the evidence of record 
does not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and contends that the petition should be approved . Upon de 
nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
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) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is nonnally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
Matter of I-A-, LLC 
(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 stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a "Salesforce administrator/developer" at its 
end-client location id I Maryland. In its letter of support, the Petitioner provided seven, 
general job duties for the proffered position. In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), 
the Petitioner submitted additional information for the job description, including the approximate 
percentage of time the Beneficiary will spend on each duty and how the duties will be carried out. 
According to the Petitioner, the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree in business 
administration, engineering, management sciences, computer science, information systems, or a 
closely related field. 
III. ANALYSIS 
For the reasons set out below, we have determined that the proffered position does not qualify as a 
specialty occupation. Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an 
educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 1 In particular, 
we find that two separate factors independently bar approval of this petition: (1) the Petitioner's lack 
of a requirement for a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty; and (2) the Petitioner's lack to satisfy 
at least one of the four regulatory specialty-occupation criteria enumerated at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(l)-( 4). 
A. Lack of a Requirement for a Bachelor's Degree in a Specific Specialty, or the Equivalent 
The Petitioner asserts that many different fields of study are acceptable for performing the duties of 
the proffered position. For example, the Petitioner accepts degrees in a wide range of fields including 
1 The Petitioner submitted documentation in support of 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. 
2 
Matter of I-A-, LLC 
business administration, engineering, management sciences, computer science, and information 
systems. However, the acceptance of such a broad base of knowledge to perform the duties of the 
proffered position conflicts with the statutory definition of specialty occupation, which requires a 
bachelor's degree in "the specific specialty." Section 214(i)(l) of the Act (emphasis added). 2 
Additionally, the Petitioner indicates that a general bachelor's degree or a degree in business 
administration is also acceptable for the position. The Petitioner's acceptance of a general degree or 
a general-purpose business administration degree, without farther specialization, is incongruous with 
a conclusion that the proposed position qualifies as a specialty occupation. Rather, the Petitioner 
seems to find a degree of general applicability acceptable to perform the duties of the proffered 
position. 
A petitioner must demonstrate that the proffered position requires a precise and specific course of 
study that relates directly and closely to the position in question. Since there must be a close 
correlation between the required specialized studies and the position, the requirement of degrees in a 
wide range of fields such as business administration and engineering, or a degree with a generalized 
title such as business administration, without farther specification, does not establish the position as a 
specialty occupation. See Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147 (the degree requirement must be in a 
specific specialty that relates directly to the position, which a general-purpose business administration 
degree does not meet). Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., l 9 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988) 
( a general college degree is not sufficient for specialty occupation purposes). 
We have reviewed the Petitioner's argument that the fields of business administration, engineering, 
management sciences, computer science, and information systems are directly related to the duties of 
the proffered position. However, the Petitioner does not sufficiently explain how each field is directly 
related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position such that the required body of highly 
specialized knowledge is essentially an amalgamation of these different specialties. Section 
214(i)(l)(B) of the Act. Absent this evidence, it cannot be found that the particular position proffered 
in this matter has a normal minimum entry requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, under the Petitioner's own standards. 
B. The Specialty-Occupation Criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4) 
Even if we set that issue aside we would still conclude that the proffered position is not a specialty 
occupation because the evidence of record does not satisfy at least one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(ii)(l)-( 4). 3 
2 Whether read with the statutory "the" or the regulatory "a," both readings denote a singular "specialty." Section 
214(i)(l)(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). Nevertheless, we do not so narrowly interpret these provisions to 
exclude positions from qualifying as specialty occupations if they permit, as a minimum entry requirement, degrees in 
more than one closely related specialty. As explained, this also includes even seemingly disparate specialties provided the 
evidence of record establishes how each acceptable, specific field of study is directly related to the duties and 
responsibilities of the particular position. 
3 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
3 
Matter of I-A-, LLC 
1. First Criterion 
We turn first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which requires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. We recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational 
Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements 
of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 4 
On the labor condition application (LCA) 5 submitted in support of the H-1B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Computer Systems Analysts" 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 15-1121. Thus, we reviewed 
the Handbook's subchapter entitled "How to Become a Computer Systems Analyst," which states, in 
pertinent part, that a bachelor's degree in a computer or information science field is common, although 
not always a requirement. 6 According to the Handbook, some firms hire analysts with business or 
liberal arts degrees. As discussed, we interpret the term "degree" to mean a degree in a spec(fic 
specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. 
Since there must be a close correlation between the required specialized studies and the position, a 
requirement of general and wide-ranging degrees in business and liberal arts strongly suggests that a 
computer systems analyst position is not categorically a specialty occupation. See id. Cf Matter of 
Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). The Handbook continues by stating 
that many analysts have technical degrees, but such a degree is not always a requirement - and that, 
in fact, many analysts have liberal arts degrees and gain programming or technical expertise 
elsewhere. 7 The Handbook does not specify a degree level ( e.g., associate' s degree) for these business, 
technical, and liberal arts degrees. 
The Handbook, therefore, does not support the assertion that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for these positions. 
The Petitioner also referenced DOL's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) summary report 
for "Computer Systems Analysts" listed as SOC code 15-1121.00 for our consideration under this 
criterion. 
4 We do not maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source ofrelevant information. That is, the occupational category 
designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered 
position, and we regularly review the Handbook on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of 
occupations that it addresses. To satisfy the first criterion, however, the burden ofproofremains on the Petitioner to submit 
sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position would normally have a minimum, specialty degree 
requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
5 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). 
6 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Computer Systems Analysts, 
https :/ /www. b ls. gov/ oo hi computer-and-in form a ti on-techno 1 ogy/ computer-systems-analysts. htm#tab-4 (last visited 
Sept. 11, 2019). 
7 Id. 
4 
Matter of I-A-, LLC 
Though relevant, the information the Petitioner submitted from O*NET does not establish the 
Petitioner's eligibility under the first criterion, as it does not establish that a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or the equivalent, is normally required. The summary report provides general 
information regarding the occupation; however, it does not support the Petitioner's assertion regarding 
the educational requirements for these positions. For example, the Specific Vocational Preparation 
(SVP) rating, which is defined as "the amount oflapsed time required by a typical worker to learn the 
techniques, acquire the information, and develop the facility needed for average performance in a 
specific job-worker situation," cited within O*NET's Job Zone designates this position as having an 
SVP 7 < 8. This indicates that the occupation requires "over 2 years up to and including 4 years" of 
training. 8 While the SVP rating provides 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, formal education, and experience - and it does not specify the particular type 
of degree, if any, that a position would require. 9 The O*NET summary report for this occupation also 
does not specify that a degree is required, but instead states, "most of these occupations require a four­
year bachelor's degree, but some do not." Similar to the SVP rating, the Job Zone Four designation 
does not indicate that any academic credentials for Job Zone Four occupations must be directly related 
to the duties performed. 
Further, we observe that the summary report provides the educational requirements of "respondents," 
but does not account for 100% of the "respondents." The respondents' positions within the occupation 
are not distinguished by career level ( e.g., entry-level, mid-level, senior-level). Additionally, the graph 
in the summary report does not indicate that the "education level" for the respondents must be in a 
specific specialty. The survey indicates that 33% of "respondents" claim to hold a bachelor's degree 
and 14% of "respondents" claim to hold a master's degree. However, the same survey indicates that 
compared to bachelor's degree respondents almost the same amount of respondents, 29%, reported 
possessing at most an associate's degree, and further, 24% are unaccounted for. 10 Regardless, a 
requirement for a bachelor's degree alone is not sufficient. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted a letter froml I an associate professor of management 
information systems at I I University, in support of this criterion. In her letter, I I ( 1) 
describes the credentials that she asserts qualify her to opine upon the nature of the proffered position; 
(2) lists the duties proposed for the Beneficiary; and (3) states that these duties require at least a 
bachelor's degree in computer science, management information systems, business administration, or 
related field. We carefully evaluated! ts assertions in support of the instant petition but, for 
the following reasons, determined her letter is not persuasive. 
First, we note that I I does not discuss the duties of the proffered position in any substantive 
detail. Rather, she restates the same duties listed in the Petitioner's RFE response. She does not 
discuss them in the specific context of the Petitioner's business or the end-client project upon which 
8 This training may be acquired in a school, work, military, institutional, or vocational environment. Specific vocational 
training includes: vocational education, apprenticeship training, in-plant training, on-the-job training, and essential 
experience in other jobs. 
9 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/help/ 
online/svp. 
10 Nor is it apparent that these individuals' credentials were hiring prerequisites. 
5 
Matter of I-A-, LLC 
the Beneficiary would work. There is no indication that she possesses any knowledge of the 
Petitioner's proffered position beyond this limited job description, e.g., visited the Petitioner's 
business or the end-client site, observed the Petitioner's or the end-client's employees, interviewed 
them about the nature of their work, or documented the knowledge that these workers apply on the job 
prior to documenting her opinion regarding the proffered position. Her level of familiarity with the 
actual job duties as they would be performed in the context of the end-client project has therefore not 
been substantiated. 
Moreover, the record does not include evidence tha~ l has published, conducted research, run 
surveys, or engaged in any enterprise, pursuit, or employment - academic or otherwise - regarding the 
minimum education requirements for the performance of the duties of the proffered position. While 
she may have anecdotal information regarding recruitment by employers for students who study 
management information systems, the record does not include any relevant research, studies, surveys, 
or other authoritative publications as part of her review and/or as a foundation for her opinion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner also provides a letter from I I a professor of computer 
science and information systems at~ University. In the letter, I I states that the 
proffered position requires a bachelor's degree in business administration, computer engineering, 
management sciences, com]uter science, information systems, or a related field. Similar to the 
previous letter.I does not discuss the duties of the proffered position in any substantive 
detail. Rather, he restates the same duties listed in the Petitioner's response to the RFE. He does not 
discuss them in the specific context of the Petitioner's business or the end-client project upon which 
the Beneficiary would work. Although I I states he has "performed research into the 
products and services of [the Petitioner], and the particular technologies and tools that are the focus of 
the subject position," there is no indication that he possesses any knowledge of the Petitioner's 
proffered position beyond this job description, e.g., visited the Petitioner's business or the end-client 
site, observed the Petitioner's or the end-client's employees, interviewed them about the nature of their 
work, or documented the knowledge that these workers apply on the job prior to documenting his 
opinion regarding the proffered position. 
MoreoverJ I refers to the position as "sufficiently advanced, complex, and professional," 
"specialized and complex," and "high-level" in his opinion. However, it is unclear if[ I 
was informed of the Petitioner's attestation on the LCA that the proffered position was a Level II wage 
position. A Level II position indicates that the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to perform only 
moderately complex tasks that require limited exercise of judgment compared to other positions within 
the same occupation. 11 The omission of a discussion or acknowledgement of the wage designation 
11 For additional information. see U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy 
Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised_ l l _ 2009.pdf 
We note that a low wage-level designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty 
occupation, just as a high wage-level designation does not definitively establish such a classification. In certain 
occupations (e.g., doctors or lawyers), a Level TT position would still require a minimum ofa bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, for entry. Similarly, however, a Level TV wage-designation would not reflect that an occupation 
qualifies as a specialty occupation if that higher-level position does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's 
6 
Matter of I-A-, LLC 
diminishes the evidentiary value of this opinion as it does not appear to be based on a complete 
understanding of the proffered position. 
Further, while I I states that he has conducted equivalency evaluations and pos1t10n 
evaluations that have been viewed as "expert testimony" and have been accepted by immigration 
authorities, there is no indication that he has conducted any research or studies pertinent to the 
educational requirements for such positions ( or parallel positions) in the Petitioner's industry for 
similar organizations, and no indication of recognition by professional organizations that he is an 
authority on those specific requirements. 
Even assuming! I possesses expertise on the degree requirements for computer systems 
analysts; his opinion letter does not substantiate his conclusions, such that we can conclude that the 
Petitioner has met its burden of proof For examphd Hoes not reference, cite, or discuss 
studies, surveys, industry publications, authoritative publications, or other sources of empirical 
information, which he may have consulted to complete his evaluation. 
Furthermore, according to both I I and I l a degree in business administration is 
acceptable for the proffered position. Again, while a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a 
degree in business administration, may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, requiring 
such a degree, without more, will not justify a finding that a particular position qualifies for 
classification as a specialty occupation. See Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147. Therefore,! Is and 
I l' recognition that a general, non-specialty degree in business administration is sufficient 
for entry into the occupation strongly suggests that a bachelor's degree in a spec[fic specialty is not 
normally the minimum entry requirement for this occupation. 
For the reasons discussed, we conclude that the opinion letters from I land I ~ are 
insufficient to satisfy the first criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Matter of Caron Int'!, 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."). 12 
On appeal, we note that the Petitioner cites to Matter of Skirball Cultural Center in support of the opinion 
letters; however, as discussed, the letters are not corroborated by probative evidence. It must be noted 
that we are not required to accept primarily conclusory assertions, even from a purported expert. 13 We 
may, in our discretion, use as advisory opinions submitted as expert testimony. 14 However, we are 
ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding eligibility for the benefit 
sought. 15 The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence 
of eligibility; we may, as this decision has done above, evaluate the content of those letters as to 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. That is, a position's wage-level designation may be a relevant factor but 
is not itself conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements of section 2 l 4(i)(l) of the Act. 
12 We hereby incorporate our discussion 0~ Is and I ~ letter into our discussion of the other 8 C.F.R. 
§ 2 l 4.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) criteria 
13 1756, Inc. v. Atty Gen, 745 F. Supp. 9, 17 (D.D.C. 1990). 
14 See Matter of Caron International, 19 T&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). 
1s Id. 
7 
Matter of I-A-, LLC 
whether they support the Petitioner's eligibility claims. 16 We may ascribe less weight to an opinion 
that is not corroborated, in accord with other information, or is in any way questionable. 17 Thus, the 
content of the authors' statements and how they became aware of industry hiring standards are 
important considerations. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by Petitioner in 
support of a petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence. The letters considered 
above primarily contain bare assertions aligning with the Petitioner's eligibility claims without 
providing specific examples of how the author attained the expressed knowledge. Opinion letters that 
repeat or paraphrase/parrot the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the Petitioner's 
burden of proof. 18 
In the instant matter, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation from a probative, 
authoritative 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)(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) (emphasis added). The first prong contemplates the 
common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific 
position. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
We generally consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there is such a common degree 
requirement: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the industry's 
professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether letters or 
affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms "routinely employ and recruit 
16 See id. at 795; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 l&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expe1t opinion testimony does not 
purport to be evidence as to "fact"). We note that one element of the V-K- decision was overruled within Matter of Z-Z-
0-, 26 l&N Dec. 586 (BIA 2015); however, this does not affect the portion of V-K- we cite to here. The Z-Z-O- decision 
clearly limited its adverse treatment of the V-K- decision to the issue of "an Immigration Judge's predictive findings of 
what may or may not occur in the future ... " Z-Z-O-, 26 T&N Dec. at 590, which was related to the standard of review 
when evaluating an Immigration Judge's findings relating to an asylum applicant's reasonable fear claims. The Z-Z-O­
decision made no mention of the evidentiary weight of expert testimony. The limit to the overruling nature of Z-Z-O- is 
illustrated within a footnote in which the BIA stated that other than the standard of review for predictive factual findings, 
it did not address and would not disturb other conclusions in the V-K- decision. Z-Z-O-, 26 T&N Dec. at 593 
n.3. Consequently, the portion of the V-K- decision cited above remains effective. 
17 Caron International, 19 l&N Dec. at 795. 
18 Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr 
Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, No. 95 CIV. 10729 MBM, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
8 
Matter of I-A-, LLC 
only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 1999) 
(quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (considering these 
"factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook, or other authoritative source, reports a requirement for at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, we incorporate by reference the previous discussion on the 
matter. Also, there are no submissions from the industry's professional association indicating that it 
has made a degree a minimum entry requirement. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not submit any 
letters or affidavits from similar firms or individuals in the Petitioner's industry attesting that such 
firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." We acknowledge that the record of 
proceeding contains letters from I I and I I However, as previously discussed in 
detail, we find that the letters do not merit probative weight towards satisfying any criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 2 l 4.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) or establishing the proffered position as a specialty occupation. Thus, based upon 
a complete review of the record of proceedings, we conclude that 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. 
We reviewed the Petitioner's statements regarding the proffered pos1t10n; however, while the 
Petitioner provided additional information in how the duties would be carried out in response to the 
RFE, in some instances that information falls short of explaining what the Beneficiary will actually do 
on a day-to-day basis in the proffered position. That is, the Petitioner has not explained in detail how 
tasks such as: 
• understanding and gathering requirements from business stakeholders and author requirements 
specifications that will form the basis for technical development 
• perform entity relationship modeling to understand the business entities and relationships 
needed 
• be involved with strategic program management and prioritization of critical initiatives 
aligning with business goals 
• assist with detailed product feature prioritization facilitation and sprint planning with 
stakeholders 
• create and customize objects, fields, records and relationships needed to support the 
organizations business workflows like campaign management list management 
require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge. 
The listed job duties and tasks, when read in combination with the Petitioner's statements about its 
business operations and Level II-designation on the LCA, suggest that this particular position is not 
9 
Matter of I-A-, LLC 
so complex or unique relative to other computer systems analysts that the duties can only be performed 
by an individual with a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Moreover, 
as discussed previously, the Petitioner itself does not require a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. Nevertheless, while a few related courses may be beneficial in 
performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated how an 
established curriculum of 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 claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position, and references her 
qualifications. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education 
or experience of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative 
complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position, and it did not identify any tasks 
that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it normally 
requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. Upon review of 
the record, we find that the Petitioner did not submit information regarding employees who currently 
or previously held the position. The record does not establish that the Petitioner normally requires at 
least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, directly related to the duties of the 
position. Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
D. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature 
of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
For the reasons similar to those discussed under the second prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), 
we find 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 also incorporate our earlier 
discussion and analysis regarding the duties of the proffered position, and the designation of the 
position in the LCA as a Level II position relative to others within the same occupational category. 
10 
Matter of I-A-, LLC 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied any 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 reasons, with each considered an independent and alternative basis for 
the decision. 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 I-A-, LLC, ID# 4354341 (AAO Sept. 20, 2019) 
11