dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

(b)(6)
D"llAR 
Q 
3 'zo15 OFFICE: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish 
agency policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law 
or policy to your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to 
reconsider or a motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or 
Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B 
instructions at http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and 
other requirements. See also 8 C.P.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
�-·.;.-.,.� 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition, and the matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. The 
petition will be denied. 
On the Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129), the petitioner describes itself as a 
fifteen-employee "Information Technology" business established in In order to employ the 
beneficiary in what it designates as a full-time "Business Development Specialist" position at a 
salary of $52,000 per year, the petitioner seeks to classify him as a nonimmigrant worker in a 
specialty occupation pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the evidence of record does not demonstrate that 
the position proffered qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director's basis for denial was erroneous and contends that 
the petitioner satisfied the evidentiary requirements. 
The record of proceeding contains the following: (1) the Form I-129 and supporting documentat ion; 
(2) the director's request for additional evidence (RFE); (3) the petitioner's response to the RFE; (4) 
the director's letter denying the petition; and (5) the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, and 
supporting documentation. We have reviewed the record in its entirety before issuing our decision. 
Upon review of the entire record of proceeding, we find that the evidence of record does not overcome 
the director's grounds for denying this petition. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed, and the 
petition will be denied. 
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
The petitioner filed the Form I-129 on April 15, 2014, indicating that it is a fifteen-employee 
"Information Technology" company located at New 
Jersey. The petitioner indicated on the Form 1-129 that it seeks to employ the beneficiary as a 
"Business Development Specialist" and that the beneficiary will work at his home in California 
during the validity period. The Form I-129 is signed by who is identified elsewhere 
in the record as the petitioner's President. 
The Labor Condition Application (LCA) submitted to support the visa petition states that the 
proffered position is a "Business Development Specialist," and that it corresponds to Standard 
Occupational Classification (SOC) code and title "13-1199, Business Operations Specialists, All 
Others," from the Occupational Information Network (O*NET). The LCA further states that the 
proffered position is a Level I, entry-level, position. 
In support of the initial petition, the petitioner submitted a letter, dated April 11, 2014, on company 
letterhead listing the petitioner's address as 
· · 
New York. In 
this letter, the petitioner described itself and its overseas affiliates as a "comprehensive IT service 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
provider who can offer technically & commercially viable solutions to address all your IT needs." 
With regards to the duties of the proffered position, the petitioner stated the following: 
The role of Business Development Specialist in our company is very critical to our 
growth. This role reports to the President, and will be responsible for continued 
business development in line with our stated goals and projections. Beneficiary's job 
duties shall include planning, directing, or coordinating marketing policies and 
programs, such as determining the demand for products and services offered by a firm 
and its competitors, and identify potential customers. 
He will develop pricing strategies with the goal of maximizing the firm's profits or 
share of the market while ensuring the firm's customers are satisfied. Oversee 
product development or monitor trends that indicate the need for new products and 
services. 
Beneficiary will be required to bring in highly qualified leads & sales. He will then 
respond to inbound leads using consultative sales methods to close contracts. He 
must prepare monthly recap of sales highlights including wins, losses, and 
suggestions for improving sales processes. He will ensure that all data is 
appropriately collected in our He will also [be required] to send weekly sales 
force report detailing all open leads. 
The petitioner stated that "[t]he usual minimum requirement for performance of the job duties of a 
Business development specialist in our company, as with any other similar organization, is a 
Bachelor's degree in Science, computer science, computer engineering, electronics, engineering, 
physical sciences or equivalent." 
In support of the petition, the petitioner submitted, inter alia, its "Offer Letter" to the beneficiary 
which states, in pertinent part: "Your responsibilities will include but will not be limited to Business 
Development and Sales." It also states that the beneficiary "will be required to report to Mr. 
at [the petitioner's] corporate office." The petitioner also submitted evidence of the 
beneficiary's foreign degrees. 
The director issued an RFE instructing the petitioner to submit, inter alia, additional documentation 
establishing that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner reiterated the same description of the duties of the proffered 
position, adding percentages of time spent on each duty. The petitioner explained that the 
beneficiary "will be deeply involved in early stage operations of industry analysis and account 
mining and will work directly with clients in developing account-holding relationships, providing 
go-to-market plans for the delivery of the employer's custom software products, and promoting IT 
service offerings direct! y to clients." The petitioner also stated that the position "will be responsible 
for executi ng the mechanics of actual client-facing sales processes, and must be capable of 
understanding software in aligning products with client requireme nts." Because of these duties, the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
petitioner asserted that the position requires "a Bachelor's degree background in an applicable 
computing [field] (coupled with the necessary business development and marketing knowledge 
needed to then execute product sales and marketing operations)." The petitioner elaborated: 
The broad and expansive duties of the position could not be adequately performed 
without a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering or other 
closely related field . . . . Moreover, a Bachelor's level education includes core, 
applicable concepts of product engineering, design, and functionality, such as will 
enable the Business Development Specialist to understand the products and to align 
product specifications with larger trends and innovations in the field. 
In support of the RFE, the petitioner submitted, inter alia, an "Expert Opinion Letter'' from Dr. 
Professor of Marketing at concluding that proffered position 
requires "the attainment of a Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering or 
other closely related field, coupled with business development and marketing knowledge as could 
have been obtained via further study or professional experience.'' 
The petitioner submitted three industry letters identically attesting that "the minimum educational 
. qualification required for the position of Busines s Development Specialist in our Company is a 
baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent." These letters further identically attest that the 
companies have "had individuals in this position with the minimum of a baccalaureate or equivalent 
degree in Engineering, Science, Computer Applications, Math, or Information Technology, or 
Computer Information Systems, or Computer Science, or related field." These letters identically 
conclude: "We have never hired anyone without the minimum of a baccalaureate degree in the 
above-mentioned field or equivalent." The petitioner also submitted letters from its affiliate 
companies, and identically attesting to the 
same. 
The petitioner submitted a list of employees who are employed by the petitioner or its affiliated 
companies as Business Development Specialists, along with copies of their foreign degrees and 
transcripts. The foreign degrees held by these individuals include: a Bachelor of Commerce; a 
Master in Personnel Management; a Post Graduate Diploma in Management with a concentration in 
Marketing and Human Resources Management; a general Bachelor of Arts; a Bachelor of 
Pharmacy; a Bachelor of Business Management; (!nd several Masters of Business Administration. 
The petitioner submitted several vacancy announcements, the majority of which required an 
unspecified bachelor's degree. Of the announcements that listed specific degree requirements, these 
announcements required degrees in the following fields of study: Finance, Accounting, Marketing, 
Business, Communications, Sales, Journalism, English, International Relations, or Life Sciences. 
The petitioner submitted organizational charts for its U.S. office and two of its oversees affiliates. 
These charts do not identify the names of individual employees or the number of employees in each 
particular position. The U.S. organizational chart, which lists a total of twenty positions, does not 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
list the name and title of the individual who will direct the beneficiary despite the director's request 
in the RPE. 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the evidence of record does not demonstrate that 
the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The petitioner filed the instant appeal. In the supporting brief, the petitioner largely reiterates the 
same job descriptions and other assertions previously made in response to the RPE, and resubmits 
copies of previously submitted evidence. 
II. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
The issue to be addressed is whether the position proffered here qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Upon review, we affirm that the evidence of record fails to establish that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation. 
A. The Law 
To meet its burden of proof in establishing the proffered position as a specialty occupation, the 
petitioner must establish that the employment it is offering to the beneficiary meets the following 
statutory and regulatory requirements. 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l) defines 
the term "specialty occupation" as one 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 term "specialty occupation" is further defined at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) as: 
An occupation which requires [(1)] theoretical and practical application of a body of 
highly specialized knowledge in fields of human endeavor including, but not limited 
to, architecture, engineering, mathematics, physical sciences, social sciences, 
medicine and health, education, business specialties, accounting, law, theology, and 
the arts, and which requires [(2)] the attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the 
United States. 
Pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, the position must 
also meet one of the following criteria: 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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 perfoim the duties is usually associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. 
As a threshold issue, it is noted that 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must logically be read together with 
section 214(i)(1) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). In other words, this regulatory language 
must be construed in harmony with the thrust of the related provisions and with the statute as a 
whole. SeeK Mart Corp. v. Cartier Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) (holding that construction of 
language which takes into account the design of the statute as a whole is preferred); see also COlT 
Independence Joint Venture v. Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989); Matter of 
W-F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). As such, the criteria stated in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) 
should logically be read as being necessary but not necessarily sufficient to meet the statutory and 
regulatory definition of specialty occupation. To otherwise interpret this section as stating the 
necessary and sufficient conditions for meeting the definition of specialty occupation would result 
in particular positions meeting a condition under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory 
or regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). To avoid 
this result, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must therefore be read as providing supplemental criteria 
that must be met in accordance with, and not as alternatives to, the statutory and regulatory 
definitions of specialty occupation. 
As such and consonant with section 214(i)(1) of the Act and the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) consistently 
interprets the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any 
baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered 
position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertojf, 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"). Applying this standard, USCIS regularly approves H-lB petitions for 
qualified aliens who are to be employed as engineers, computer scientists, certified public 
accountants, college professors, and other such occupations. These professions, for which 
petitioners have regularly been able to establish a minimum entry requirement in the United States 
of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent directly related to the 
duties and responsibilities of the particular position, fairly represent the types of specialty 
occupations that Congress contemplated when it created the H-lB visa category. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
To determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, USers does not rely 
simply upon a proffered position's title. The specific duties of the position, combined with the 
nature of the petitioning entity's business operations, are factors to be considered. users must 
examine the ultimate employment of the beneficiary, and determine whether the position qualifies 
as a specialty occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d at 384. The critical 
element is not the title of the position nor an employer's self-imposed standards, but whether the 
position actually requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty as the 
minimum for entry into the occupation, as required by the Act. 
As recognized in Defensor v. Meissner, it is necessary for the end-client to provide sufficient 
information regarding the proposed job duties to be performed at its location(s) in order to properly 
ascertain the minimum educational requirements necessary to perform those duties. See Defensor, 
201 F.3d at 387-388. In other words, as the nurses in that case would provide services to the end­
client hospitals and not to the petitioning staffing company, the petitioner-provided job duties and 
alleged requirements to perform those duties were irrelevant to a specialty occupation 
determination. See id. 
B. Analysis 
The record of proceeding in this case is devoid of sufficient information regarding the specific job 
duties to be performed by the beneficiary. In establishing a position as a specialty occupation, a 
petitioner must describe the specific duties and responsibilities to be performed by a beneficiary in 
the context of its business operations. The petitioner has not done so here. 
In this matter, the record of proceeding presents the duties comprising the proffered position in terms 
of broad and vague duties. The petitioner has not explained the duties of the proffered position with 
sufficient detail. For instance, the petitioner asserted that the beneficiary will spend 25% of his 
time "bring[ing] in highly qualified leads & sales" and "respond[ing] to inbound leads using 
consultative sales methods to close contracts." The petitioner does not clarify what specific tasks 
the beneficiary will perform in the execution of "bring[ing] in" leads and sales. The petitioner also 
asserted that the beneficiary will spend 15% of his time "[p ]ricing strategies with the goal of 
maximizing the firm's profits or share of the market while ensuring the firm's customers are 
satisfied," but does not further clarify what specific tasks comprise "[p]ricing strategies." 
Furthermore, the petitioner's repeated use of the word "or" in describing the duties of the proffered 
position is problematic. For example, the petitioner asserted that the beneficiary will spend 25% of 
his time "[p]lanning, directing, or coordinating marketing policies." (Emphasis added). The 
petitioner does not clarify whether the beneficiary will be involved in planning, directing, or 
coordinating. This lack of clarification precludes any meaningful understanding of the beneficiary's 
actual duties, as the nature of a position that coordinates marketing policies can vary significant! y 
from a position that directs marketing policies. As another example, the petitioner asserts that the 
beneficiary will " [ o ]versee product development or monitor trends that indicate the need for new 
products and services," but does not clarify whether the beneficiary will actually be involved in 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
overseeing product development or monitoring trends. (Emphasis added). Again, this lack of 
clarification is critical, as the nature of a position that oversees product development can differ 
significantly from a position that only monitors trends. 
Notably, the petitioner's uoffer Letter" to the beneficiary states that his job responsibilities "will 
include but will not be limited to Business Development and Sales. u (Emphasis added). The phrase 
"will not be limited to" denotes that the beneficiary will perform other job duties outside of the 
scope of business development and sales. The petitioner has not provided any clarification as to 
what these other job responsibilities will be. 
In addition, there are discrepancies and deficiencies regarding the petitioner's business operations 
that further hinder our understanding of the proffered position. For instance, despite the petitioner's 
repeated assertions that the beneficiary will report directly to its President, Mr. the U.S. 
organizational chart does not depict a uPresidentu position. Instead, it depicts the Business 
Development Specialist position as being subordinate to an unidentified Sales personnel or 
department, and all positions as being ultimately subordinate to an unidentified CEO. The 
petitioner's "Offer Letter" states that the beneficiary will report Mr. but the 
evidence of record does not identify Mr. position within the petitioning organization 
or further clarify his supervisory role, if any, over the beneficiary. The petitioner has not explained 
why it concurrently claims that the beneficiary will report directly to Mr. as well as Mr. 
Moreover, the petitioner's U.S. organizational chart depicts twenty different positions, 
but the petitioner attested on the Form I-129 that it employs only fifteen employees. We note that 
on the Form I-129 filed on April 15, 2014, the petitioner listed its business address as 
New Jersey, however, the petitioner's initial support letter dated 
April 11, 2014 listed its address as New York. The 
petitioner has not explained these different addresses. 
We observe that the petitioner repeatedly emphasizes the marketing-related duties required of the 
proffered position, but none of the petitioner's organizational charts (for either its U.S. office or its 
overseas affiliates) depicts any marketing positions or personnel. For example, the petitioner states 
that the beneficiary's job duties include "planning, directing, or coordinating marketing policies and 
programs." However, the petitioner has not explained who will perform the actual marketing 
functions which the beneficiary will purportedly plan, direct, or coordinate. The petitioner's list of 
duties for the proffered position does not contain any explicit marketing duties. The petitioner's 
apparent lack of marketing personnel raises questions as to the petitioner's ability to relieve the 
beneficiary from performing non-specialty occupation marketing services, and undermines the 
credibility of the petitioner's descriptions of the proffered position within the context of its business 
operations. 
It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent 
objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless 
the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 
19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in 
support of the visa petition. !d. 
Based upon the deficiencies in the record, including the vague descriptions of the proposed duties 
and the unclear nature of the petitioner's business operations, the evidence of record fails to 
establish the substantive nature of the proffered position. The failure to establish the substantive 
nature of the work to be performed by the beneficiary, therefore, precludes a finding that the 
proffered position satisfies any criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), because it is the 
substantive nature of that work that determines: (1) the normal minimum educational requirement 
for the particular position, which is the focus of criterion 1; (2) industry positions which are parallel 
to the proffered position and thus appropriate for review for a common degree requirement, under 
the first alternate prong of criterion 2; (3) the level of complexity or uniqueness of the proffered 
position, which is the focus of the second alternate prong of criterion 2; ( 4) the factual justification 
for a petitioner normally requiring a degree or its equivalent, when that is an issue under criterion 3; 
and (5) the degree of specialization and complexity of the specific duties, which is the focus of 
criterion 4. 
Accordingly, as the petitioner has. not established that it has satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it cannot be found that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
For this additional reason, the appeal will be dismissed and the petition denied. 
Fiuthermore, even if the petitioner were able to establish the substantive nature of the work to be 
performed by the beneficiary, we still could not find that the proffered the proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. Specifically, the petitioner asserts that the minimum educational 
requirement for the proffered position is "a Bachelor's degree in Science, computer science, 
computer engineering, electronics, engineering, [and] physical sciences." 
With respect to "engineering," the issue is that the field of "engineering" is a broad category that 
covers numerous and various specialties, some of which are only related through the basic 
principles of science and mathematics, e.g., nuclear engineering and aerospace engineering. 
Therefore, besides a degree in electrical engineering, it is not readily apparent that a general degree 
in engineering or one of its other sub-specialties, such as chemical engineering or nuclear 
engineering, is closely related to computer science or that engineering or any and all engineering 
specialties are directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position proffered 
in this matter. 
Likewise, it is not readily apparent that a general degree in science or one of its other sub­
specialties, such as physical sciences (which the petitioner expressly accepts), is closely related to 
computer science or that science or any and all science specialties are directly related to the duties 
and responsibilities of the particular position proffered in this matter. For instance, the petitioner 
states that "a Bachelor's level education includes core, applicable concepts of product engineering, 
design, and functionality, such as will enable the Business Development Specialist to understand 
the products and to align product specifications with larger trends and innovations in the field," but 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
has not explained why a degree in physical sciences would necessarily include courses in product 
engineering, design, and functionality. 
Here and as indicated above, the petitioner, who bears the burden of proof in this proceeding, fails 
to establish either (1) that computer science, science, and engineering in general are closely related 
fields or (2) that engineering or any and all engineering specialties, and science or any and all 
science specialties, are directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the proffered position. 
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. Accordingly, as the evidence of record fails to 
establish a standard, minimum requirement of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or 
its equivalent for entry into the particular position, it does not support the proffered position as 
being a specialty occupation and, in fact, supports the opposite conclusion. 
Therefore, absent evidence of a direct relationship between the claimed degrees required and the 
duties and responsibilities of the position, it cannot be found that the proffered position requires 
anything more than a general bachelor's degree. As explained above, USCIS interprets 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. USCIS has consistently stated that, although a general­
purpose bachelor's degree 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 Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007). 
We note that the petitioner has undermined its own assertions regarding the minimum educational 
requirement for the proffered position. That is, despite the petitioner's statement that it and its 
affiliates have "never hired anyone without the minimum of a baccalaureate degree in [Engineering, 
Science, Computer Applications, Math, or Information Technology, or Computer Information 
Systems, or Computer Science, or related field] or equivalent," the evidence demonstrates that the 
employees who the petitioner asserts are employed by the petitioner or its affiliates as Business 
Development Specialists do not all possess these degrees. Specifically, the petitioner submitted 
evidence that it employs individuals as Business Development Specialists who possess foreign 
degrees in a variety of other fields including, inter alia, Commerce, Personnel Management, 
Management with a concentration in Marketing and Human Resources Management, Pharmacy, 
Business Management, and Business Administration. The petitioner has not established how all of 
these varying fields indicate a standard educational requirement that is directly related to the duties 
and responsibilifies of the particular position. 
Again, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by 
independent objective evidence; any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not 
suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92. Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of 
course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in 
support of the visa petition. !d. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
As such, even if the substantive nature of the work had been established, the instant petition could 
not be approved for this additional reason. 
Finally, we will briefly address why we decline to regard the "Expert Opinion Letter" from Dr. 
as probative evidence of the proffered position as a specialty occupation. The petitioner has 
not established that Dr. a Professor of Marketing, can reasonably be considered an "expert" 
or is otherwise qualified to render an advisory opinion about the proffered position. 
Specifically, Dr. explains his qualifications as having "a Doctoral Degree in Marketing (with 
minors in Accounting, Economics and Finance) from , and 
extensive experience as a professor of marketing, business, management, and related fields, 11 as well 
as consulting experience "primarily focused in the areas of marketing, advertising, and branding." 
Dr. does not, however, explain in detail the extent of his knowledge of the petitioner's 
industry in general, or with regard to the particular operations of business entities in that industry of 
the relative size and scope of the petitioner. While Dr. summarily states that he has "had 
ample opportunity to observe the infrastructures and requirements of firms of varying sizes ... 
including highly technical industries, such as the business information technology industry in which 
the employer operates, 11 he does not further explain what particular business operations he has 
observed, the extent of his observations, and how such observations renders him an expert with 
respect to the proffered position. Moreover, we see no evidence that he has obtained first-hand 
knowledge of the petitioner's operations or otherwise obtained sufficient knowledge of the actual 
requirements of the proffered position for us to accord his opinion any weight at all. 
We may, in our discretion, use as advisory opinion statements submitted as expert testimony. 
However, where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, 
we are not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Matter of Caron 
International, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988). 
III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 
As set forth above, we agree with the director's finding that the evidence of record does not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. 
Accordingly, the director's decision will not be disturbed. 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed. 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; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.