dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 17000129 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-1B) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 11, 2021 
The Petitioner, an information technology services company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as an "Edi lead/technical lead" under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-1B 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 record did not 
establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief 
and asserts that the Director erred by denying the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence.1 We review the questions in this matter de nova. 2 Upon de nova 
review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Act defines an H-1B nonimmigrant as a foreign national "who is 
coming temporarily to the United States to perform services ... in a specialty occupation described in 
section 214(i)(l) ... "(emphasis added). 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 Section 291 of the Act ; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
2 See Matter of Christo '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. 
By regulation, the Director is charged with determining whether the petition involves a specialty 
occupation as defined in section 214(i)(1) of the Act. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(2). The Director 
may request additional evidence in the course of making this determination. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8). 
In addition, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the petition and must continue to 
be eligible through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will be employed as an "Edi lead/technical lead" and that 
the position requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree. The Petitioner submitted a list of duties with 
the initial submission and updated it with more detail 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. 
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. 
Specifically, the record (1) does not describe the position's duties with sufficient detail; and (2) does 
not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate 
with a specialty occupation.3 In particular, we find that three separate factors independently bar 
approval of this petition: (1) inconsistencies in the record; (2) the Petitioner's lack of a requirement 
for a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent; and (3) the Petitioner's failure to 
3 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1B 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 
satisfy at least one of the four regulatory specialty-occupation criteria enumerated at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(1)-(4). 
A. Inconsistencies in the Record 
At the outset, we observe discrepancies in the record that undermine the overall credibility of this 
petition. The Petitioner submitted three distinct versions of the job duties: (1) one in its support letter; 
(2) another in its itinerary; and (3) a third in a duties chart submitted with their RFE response.4 In 
particular, the itinerary of services and the "duties chart" document appear to recharacterize and/or 
combine duties listed from the support letter. As such, the duties on the itinerary and the duties chart 
do not appear to completely align with the duties in the support letter. For example, the duties chart 
document uses abbreviated job duties that lack detail to match them in the other documents. We 
cannot make a determination on the specialty-occupation issue when the duties have not remained 
consistent. 
We also note some duties were added to and/or missing from each version. For example, both the 
support letter and the duties chart claim that the Petitioner is managing or leading a team.5 However, 
the itinerary does not have a similar team management duty. Any additions or subtractions to the 
support letter's initial job duties may change the underlying requirements and knowledge needed for 
the occupation. Moreover, the itinerary and duties chart do not align with regard to how much time is 
spent on each duty since the position's duties are organized differently on each document. The 
Petitioner provided no explanation for these inconsistencies or ambiguities. 
These inconsistencies raise questions regarding the position's actual nature and its actual minimum 
requirements. The Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies.6 Unresolved material inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the 
reliability and sufficiency of other evidence submitted in support of the requested immigration 
benefit.7 
However, even if we were to set these inconsistencies aside, we would still dismiss the appeal because 
the Petitioner has not established that the position requires at least a specialized bachelor's degree or 
the equivalent. 
B. Lack of a Requirement for a Bachelor's Degree in a Specific Specialty, or the Equivalent 
The Petitioner's minimum requirement to perform the duties does not satisfy the statutory and 
regulatory definitions of the H-1B program. The degree requirement set by the statutory and 
4 The Petitioner also submitted a letter from the client which included another version of the job duties that lacked some 
of the duties from the support letter. 
5 The support letter includes the duty to "[d]evelop requirements and lead a team ofIT consultants in the development of 
requirements for complex specialized processes or system solutions." The duties chart document includes the duty to 
"[m]anage [o]ffshore and [o]nsite development teams." 
6 Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
7 Id. 
3 
regulatory framework is not just a bachelor's or higher degree, but a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty that is directly related to the duties of the position. 8 
Although the Petitioner maintains the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree, the submitted 
documents do not state the Petitioner requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or 
equivalent for the proffered position. A requirement for a bachelor's degree alone is not sufficient to 
merit an H-1B approval. Only the position evaluation letter from I ofl I I I states the minimum education requirement of the proffered position is a 
bachelor's or higher in computer science, information technology, or a closely related field "in 
accordance to conventional industry standards followed by institutions hiring skilled labor the [H-1B] 
visa program." However, the Petitioner itself makes no mention off hat reaujremr,nt, which leads us 
to question the reliability of I l's assertion. In any event,~ ___ ___.' s evaluation letter 
does not establish the Petitioner is a business that requires a specialized degree for the position. Absent 
the Petitioner's minimum requirement of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, it cannot be found 
that the proffered position 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. 
For this reason alone, the record satisfies neither the statutory nor the regulatory definitions of the term 
"specialty occupation," and we could end our analysis here and dismiss the appeal on that basis. But 
we will not do so, because even if we were to set the issue of a generalized bachelor's degree aside we 
would still dismiss the appeal for a third reason, because the evidence of record does not satisfy any 
of the four specialty-occupation criteria. 
C. The Specialty-Occupation Criteria Enumerated at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(1)-(4) 
1. First Criterion 
We turn next to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(1), 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. Depaiiment of Labor's (DOL) Occupational 
Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as a source on the duties and educational requirements of the wide 
variety of occupations that it addresses. 9 The Petitioner designated the proffered position on the labor 
condition application (LCA) as a standard occupational classification (SOC) code 15-1199.02 
"Computer Systems Engineers/ Architects" occupation. 10 
8 See section 214(i)(1)(b) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
9 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. 
10 On Nov. 17, 2020, O*NET Online updated the occupation SOC 15-1199.02, Computer Systems Engineers/Architects 
to SOC 15-1299.08, Computer Systems Engineers/Architects. For the purposes of this decision, we will refer to the 
occupation to the code and name at the time of the Director's decision, SOC 15-1199.02, Computer Systems 
Engineers/Architects. See https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/15-1299.08 (last visited on Aug. 11, 2021). 
4 
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.11 This is one of them. 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.12 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. 
Next, the Petitioner argues the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) demonstrates that positions 
located within this occupation are specialty occupation positions, because (1) the occupation's job zone 
and required education suggests a bachelor's degree is normal; and (2) the occupation needs considerable 
skill, knowledge, or experience to perform this occupation. Contrary to the assertions of the Petitioner, 
O*NET does not state a requirement for a bachelor's degree for this occupation. Rather, it assigns this 
occupation a job zone "four" rating, which groups it among occupations for which "most ... require a 
four-year bachelor's degree, but some do not." Also, O*NET does not describe the normal minimum 
educational requirements with sufficient specificity to establish that the positions falling within the 
occupational category are specialized. The O*NET Summary Report for SOC 15-1199.02, "Computer 
Systems Engineers/Architects" includes general information about the occupation. For example, 
O*NET includes specialized vocational preparation (SVP), job zone, education, and the knowledge or 
skills generally associated with the occupation. However, O*NET does not specify particular fields of 
study when discussing the type of preparation or degrees that might be needed to perform a particular 
occupation. Accordingly, it does not establish that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the 
equivalent, is normally required. It does not satisfy the first criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states they provided information from Study.corn that showed "Technical Lead" 
positions require a bachelors' degree. However, the Petitioner did not provide any documents from 
Study.com. Rather, the record shows the Petitioner provided a hyperlink to a Study.com page that states 
the educational requirements for the "Technical Lead" is a bachelor's degree in computer science, 
computer engineering, or a related discipline.13 However, even if the Petitioner had submitted this 
webpage, we would still be compelled to observe that Study.com does not appear to be an industry 
authoritative source. Study.com appears to provide educational resources for students, and not 
industry professional associations that reflect the educational requirements for specific occupations 
within an industry. As such, the Study.com information does not support that a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into 
the position. Moreover, even if it did, it would still not satisfy the Petitioner's burden vis-a-vis the 
first criterion because regardless of what Study.com says regarding positions generally located within 
11 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 Aug. 11, 2021). 
Here, the Handbook does not provide specific information for various occupations, which might be classified within the 
occupational category. 
12 SOC 15-1199.02, Computer Systems Engineers/Architects (now listed as SOC 15-1299.08), is among the occupations 
not covered in detail in the Handbook. The Handbook also indicates that this occupation does not require work experience 
in a related occupation or typical on-the-job training. Id. 
13 Study.com, "Technical Lead: Salary, Responsibilities & Job Description" See 
https://study.com/articles/technical_lead_salary_responsibilitiesjob_description.html (last visited on Aug. 11, 2021). 
5 
this occupation, the Petitioner has never claimed that this position - the one proffered here - actually 
requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent. 
As the foregoing demonstrates, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation from a 
probative source to substantiate its assertion regarding the normal 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). 
2. 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.14 
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."15 
The Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which the Handbook (or other 
independent, authoritative sources) reports an industry-wide requirement for at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, we incorporate by reference the previous 
discussion on the matter. 
We again reviewed the Study.com information and the hyperlink provided by the Petitioner. As 
previously discussed, the Study.com webpage does not demonstrate a minimum degree entry 
requirement into the occupation from an industry professional association. 
Next, we will review the two job postings submitted by the Petitioner on appeal. To be relevant for 
consideration under this prong, the descriptions on the job postings must describe positions that are 
parallel to the proffered position, and the job postings must have been placed by organizations that 
(1) conduct business in the Petitioner's industry and (2) are also "similar" to the Petitioner. Absent such 
evidence, job postings submitted by the Petitioner are generally outside the scope of consideration for 
this prong, which encompasses only organizations that are similar to the Petitioner. 
14 We will discuss the second prong of the second criterion in section D below. 
15 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 
In their appeal, the Petitioner concedes that both of these advertisements are for positions "in different 
industries." That concession alone constitutes a sufficient basis for us to disregard them. Even if we 
reviewed each advertisement, we would still conclude that the Petitioner had not provided enough 
information on the companies in the advertisements to establish the companies are similar to their 
industry. In addition, even if we concluded that these companies were similar organizations within 
the same industry, we would still conclude that the Petitioner had not established that the nature of the 
positions advertised in the job postings are parallel to those of the proffered position. 
Our review of the job postings confirms that these positions are different from, and not "parallel" to, 
the Petitioner's position. The proffered position requires no experience; however both of the job 
postings require an experienced individual with at least five years of experience. We also note that 
one of the job postings requires a successful candidate to have at least two professional certificates, 
which is not a requirement of the proffered position. As such, these job postings do not advertise 
positions that are "parallel" to the proffered position.16 
Even if all of the job descriptions and requirements on 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), we would still find that the Petitioner had not demonstrated what 
statistically valid inferences, if any, could be drawn from the two job postings with regard to the 
common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations.17 
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.18 
We now return to I l's letter. As previously mentioned, I I claims that 
"conventional industry standards" state the minimum educational requirement is a bachelor's or higher 
degree in computer science, information technology or related field. However, he does not provide 
any evidence or data to support this assertion. Moreover.I I does not appear aware that the 
Petitioner requires only a general bachelor's degree to perform the duties it describes which 
undermines his conclusion regarding "conventional industry standards." As such, the probative value 
ofl Is opinion is significantly diminished. 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii){A){2). 
16 If these are in fact parallel positions as claimed, we would have significant questions as to whether the proffered position 
corresponds to and supports the H-1B petition, as required. 
17 See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 (7th ed. 1995). 
18 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"). 
7 
3. Third Criterion 
The third criterion at 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. Evidence 
provided to establish eligibility under this criterion may include, but is not limited to, an organizational 
chart showing the Petitioner's hierarchy and staffing levels with corresponding and experience 
requirements for this position, as well as documentary evidence of past employment practices for the 
position. The Petitioner does not challenge this portion of the Director's decision and therefore does 
not overcome it. The record does not establish that the Petitioner normally requires at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the proffered position. Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
4. Second Prong of the Second Criterion and Fourth Criterion 
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. 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. 
Upon review of the totality of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained 
or documented why the position or its constituent duties are so "complex or unique" or "specialized 
and complex" that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is required. When determining whether 
a position is a specialty occupation, we look at 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. As mentioned, the Petitioner's initial list of job duties 
were supplemented by the Petitioner's itinerary of services which provided more details including the 
percentage of time the Beneficiary would devote to certain tasks along with the tools and technologies 
needed to complete each duty. With their RFE response, the Petitioner provided a job duties chart that 
also included, in part, the Beneficiary's coursework related to each task. Although the Petitioner 
provided a more detailed description of the duties, the Petitioner does not to sufficiently establish how 
these duties require specialized knowledge. 
The duties and description feature significant use of tools for which the Petitioner has not explained 
why skills using such technologies could not be gained through certifications in these technologies, 
through a vocational degree, or by attendance at a computer bootcamp. For example, the Beneficiary's 
work is performed using tools such as, SharePoint, Microsoft Office, PuTTY, and FileZilla, but the 
Petitioner makes I ittle effort to explain why the use of these technologies makes the position "complex 
or unique" or "specialized and complex," or why it requires at least a specialized bachelor's degree, 
or its equivalent. Accordingly, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown that the duties of the 
position are so "complex or unique" or "specialized and complex" that they can be performed only by 
an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
The Petitioner also provides a list of courses the Beneficiary completed and asserts these courses 
provided him the requisite knowledge to perform the duties of the proffered position. However, 
8 
whether or not a particular beneficiary has completed a specialized course of study directly related to the 
proffered position is irrelevant to the issue of whether a proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation, i.e., whether the duties of the proffered position require the theoretical and practical 
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and the attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Although the Petitioner asserts the Beneficiary's coursework 
will prepare him for the duties of the proffered position, 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.19 As such, the 
Beneficiary's coursework does not demonstrate that the position's duties require at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
In addition, neither the Petitioner's claim that a duty requires relevant knowledge and skill, nor the 
courses taken by the Beneficiary, sufficiently develop the nature of the position itself such that we can 
ascertain whether it actually requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. Rather the claims suggest that the Beneficiary only needs to develop certain skills or 
knowledge of certain limited subjects to perform the tasks. In other words, the Petitioner did not 
submit information relevant to a detailed course of study leading to a specialty degree and did not 
establish how such a curriculum is necessary to perform the duties it claims are so "complex or unique" 
or "specialized and complex." While development of skills or knowledge in certain topics may be 
beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
duties of the proffered position require a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
We now return td ts letter. In his letter.I I (1) describes the credentials that he 
asserts qualify him to opine upon the nature of the proffered position and (2) states the position is 
specialized and requires at least a bachelor's degree or its equivalent in computer science, information 
technology, or a closely related field. However.I I does not establish why the job duties are 
"complex or unique" or "specialized and complex" such that they require at least a specialized bachelor's 
degree, or its equivalent. 
Rather.I I makes a conclusionary statement that the position is "professional" and can be 
performed by "persons with a high level understanding of the logic, programming, software design 
and analysis of that particular software system," and therefore the job duties "[require] an attainment 
of at least a bachelor's or higher level degree in Computer Science, Information Technology, or related 
field." Yet.I I also appears to contradict himself by stating the duties of the proffered position 
require software development life cycle knowledge "that [is] acquired by a combination of academics, 
specialized training and/or hands on professional experience." In this statement,! I accepts 
that the knowledge to perform some of these duties can be attained outside of a specialized bachelor's 
degree, but he does not discuss in detail the training and experience that provide the same knowledge set. 
Therefore.I I neither establishes the position requires a specialized bachelor's degree nor 
discusses in detail why other methods could not lead to a sufficiently similar knowledge set, for example, 
19 We are required to follow long-standing legal standards and determine first, whether the proffered position qualifies for 
classification as a specialty occupation, and second, whether the Beneficiary was qualified for the position at the time the 
nonimmigrant visa petition was filed. Cf. Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988) ("The 
facts of a beneficiary's background only come at issue after it is found that the position in which the petitioner intends to 
employ him falls within [a specialty occupation]."). 
9 
training or experience to gain this knowledge or alternate degrees that would be acceptable. A lack of 
sufficient consideration of alternatives is a basis that can adversely affect the evidentiary weight of such 
an opinion. 
In addition introduces information that does not appear to be related to the Petitioner. 
,___ ___ _.states the Beneficiary will be "managing and supporting applications of Fannie Mae" 
and "acts as an interface between Production Support Services Org and the lnfoSec World within 
Fannie Mae." However, none of the position's duties or supporting documents establish the 
Beneficiary or Petitioner is working for or with Fannie Mae. This discrepancy creates doubt as to 
whether! ts analysis accurately reflects the proffered position. Thus,I l's 
opinion is not persuasive. In sum, the opinion letter does not provide a sufficient basis to establish 
that the proffered position is a specialty occupation requiring a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty. 
In light of all the above, the Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative specialization and 
complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position, and it did not identify any tasks 
that are so specialized and 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) or 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
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. Moreover, the record 
does not establish that the Petitioner satisfied the statutory and regulatory definitions of specialty 
occupation. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
As set forth above, we conclude that the evidence of record does not establish, more likely than not, 
that the proffered position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. Accordingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 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. 
10