dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6982278 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-IB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 3, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "WebSphere Administrator/ A WS 
Admin" 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. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
The California Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish 
that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. Upon 
de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 1 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l) , defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, 
and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition , but adds a 
non-exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered 
position must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
1We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 
(AAO 2010). 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We construe the term "degree" to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal 
Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in a 
specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular 
position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner, al I company that provides information technology services and solutions, 
seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a Web Sphere Administrator/ A WS Admin at the Petitioner's site in 
California. The Petitioner stated in its initial support letter that "[i]n light of the specialized work duties 
the offered position entails, it ... rises to the level of a specialty occupation requiring at least a bachelor's 
degree, as this is typically the minimum requirement and U.S. industry standard for entry into the 
position." On appeal, the Petitioner clarifies that the duties of the position "cannot be performed a by a 
person without a bachelor's degree in computers or related field." The record also contains an online job 
posting for the proffered position in which the Petitioner stated that the position requires a bachelor's 
degree in information technology, computer science, or a related field and an additional five years of 
work experience. 
III. ANALYSIS 
For the reasons discussed below, we have determined that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. Specifically, we conclude that the record does 
not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the job duties require an educational background, 
or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 2 
A. First Criterion 
We tum 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. To inform this inquiry, we recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the petition, including evidence regarding the position and its business 
operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 
(DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 3 
On the labor condition application (LCA) 4 submitted in support of the H-1B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Network and Computer Systems 
Administrators" corresponding to the Standard Occupation Classification (SOC) code 15-1142. 5 The 
Handbook states, in pertinent part, about these occupations: "Most employers require network and 
computer systems administrators to have a bachelor's degree in a field related to computer or 
information science. Others may require only a postsecondary certificate or an associate's degree." 6 
Notably, the Handbook specifically states that "some employers require only a postsecondary 
certificate or an associate's degree," rather than a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. Although 
we do not maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information, 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 will normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its 
equivalent, for entry. 
In the absence of support from the Handbook, the Petitioner submits alternative evidence for our 
consideration under this criterion, including information from DO L's Occupational Information Network 
(O*NET) and an evaluation of the proffered position. For the reasons discussed below, we find neither 
document persuasive. 
Though relevant, the O*NET' s summary report for positions located within the occupational category 
"Network and Computer Systems Administrators" corresponding to the Standard Occupation 
Classification (SOC) code 15-1142, does not establish the Petitioner's eligibility under the first criterion, 
as it does not establish that a bachelor's degree in a spec[fic 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 of lapsed 
time required by a typical worker to learn the techniques, acquire the information, and develop the facility 
3 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. To satisty 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. 
4 A petitioner submits the LCA to U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B 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). 
5 The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level II wage. A wage determination starts with an entry-level wage 
(Level I) and progresses to a higher wage level (up to Level IV) after considering the experience, education, and skill 
requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. 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_ 11 _ 2009 .pdf 
6Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Network and Computer 
Systems Administrators, https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/network-and-computer-systems 
-administrators.htm#tab-4 (last visited Jan. 2, 2020). 
3 
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. 7 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. 8 Nor does the O*NET summary 
report for this occupational category specify that a degree is required. Instead, it states that "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 referenced by the Petitioner does not indicate that any academic credentials for 
Job Zone Four occupations must be directly related to the duties performed. 
Moreover, the survey whose results O*NET highlights indicates that only 52% of the survey' s 
respondents reported possessing, at minimum, a bachelor's degree. 32% of the survey's respondents 
- nearly one-third - reported possessing either an associate's degree, or having taken some college 
coursework but not completing a degree. The remaining 16% of respondents' answers were not 
reported. Given the position's Level II wage-level designation on the LCA, we question whether the 
proffered position would fall within this 32%. At any rate, as with the rest of the summary report, 
O*NET does not report whether the 52% of survey respondents who did possess a bachelor's degree 
possessed a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, and whether possession of that 
specific degree was a condition of their hiring. For all of these reasons, O*NET 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. 
We next discuss the letter froml I of I I university School of Management, 
who offers his opinion on the requirements of the proffered position and also serves as the 
Beneficiary's foreign degree equivalency evaluator. As with O*NET's summar~ report, 9 I ts evaluation fails to establish eligibility under the first criterion. In his letter,._ _____ _. 
(1) describes the credentials that he asserts qualify him to opine upon the nature of the proffered 
position; (2) lists the duties proposed for the Beneficiary; (3) offers his professional opinion on the 
types of candidates qualified to perform the duties of the proffered position; and (4) evaluates the 
Beneficiary's foreign degrees to be the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in computer science and 
a master's degree in computer information systems . 
.__ ____ _.I asserts that the proffered position is a specialty occupation and that it shares many of 
the same duties under the "Network and Computer Systems Administrators" occupational category. 
However, as discussed, we do not agree that the Handbook establishes that the proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
In his analysis of the proffered position,! I repeats the list of the Beneficiary's duties as 
submitted by the Petitioner and follows it with a discussion of the coursework involved in obtaining a 
typical bachelor's degree in computer science. I lthen links each of Beneficiary's duties 
7 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. 
8 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/help/ 
online/svp. 
4 
in the proffered position to a course of study in the computer science bachelor's degree program. While 
we acknowledge that I lmay be attempting to demonstrate how an established curriculum 
of courses leading to a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is required to perform the duties of the 
proffered position, we cannot agree with his analysis. 
First,I !confuses the ability of a degreed computer science person to perform the duties of 
the proffered position with a degree requirement in order to perform the duties. Whilel I 
may draw inferences that computer science related courses may be beneficial in performing certain 
duties of the position, we disagree with his inference that such a degree is required in order to perform 
the duties of the proffered position. Put simply, stating that a person with a bachelor's degree in 
computer science could perform the duties of the proffered position is not the same as stating that such 
a degree is required to perform those duties. As such, I l's analysis misconstrues the 
statutory and regulatory requirements of a specialty occupation. 
Second, we disagree withl ~s analysis of Glassdoor.com, Salary.com, and Payscale.com 
for the same reason.I I uses these websites to support his assertion that a WebSphere 
Administrator requires a bachelor's degree in computer science as the minimum entry requirement. 
Though the data collected by these websites may indicate that it is common for people with a 
bachelor's degree in computer science to find employment in a WebSphere Administrator position, 
this does not mean that Web Sphere Administrator jobs require a bachelor's degree in computer science 
as an industry standard. 
Finally, we observe! l's conclusion that an individual with "0-4 years" of work experience 
could perform the duties of the proffered position. This indicates that an individual with no work 
experience would be capable of performing the duties of the proffered positon, which conflicts directly 
with the minimum experience requirement stated by the Petitioner in its job posting. As noted, the 
Petitioner stated in its advertisement that the position requires, at minimum, five years' of work 
experience. This discrepancy raises questions as to whethe~ I fully understands the nature 
of the proffered position. 
For the foregoing reasons, I ts assertions in support of the instant pet1t10n are not 
persuasive. 9 We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as 
advisory. 10 The Petitioner asserts on appeal that due to the Director's improperly narrow 
understanding of the scope of Matter of Caron Int 'l, Inc., the Director erred in not relying on the 
opinion ofl Ito establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 11 However, 
the Petitioner also acknowledges on appeal that "USCIS is not required to give weight to testimony 
9 For efficiency's sake, we hereby incorporate the above discussion regarding the letter into our analysis of each criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
10Matter of Caron Tnt'l [J1c 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). 
11 We note that [ : ts letter submitted in the Petitioner's RFE response contains an evaluation of the Beneficiary's 
foreign degree and not an evaluation of the proffered position. Even assuming that it contained a position evaluation, 
similar errors of analysis prevent us from accepting I l's opinion as persuasive. For example,I.__ __ ~__. 
states, ·'the learning outcomes achieved via the curricular coursework. .. enable [the Beneficiary] to be aptly qualified for 
the position," and "courses related to Computer Science will endow [the Beneficiary] with the skills and core competencies 
to perform the daily job responsibilities of the [s]pecialty occupation of a "'WebSphere Administrator/ A WS Admin."' 
Pages 3 and 4 oti ~s letter in Petitioner's RFE response. 
5 
that lacks credibility or reliability for reasons demonstrated in the record." For the reasons discussed 
above, we conclude that the analysis of I I does in fact lack credibility and reliability. 
Therefore, even applying the Petitioner's own conclusions about the scope of Matter of Caron Int'!, 
Inc., we are not required to accept the opinion and may give it less weight. 12 
We conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the proffered position is located within an 
occupational category for which a relevant, authoritative source indicates that the normal minimum 
entry requirement is at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent. Moreover, 
the Petitioner has not provided documentation from a probative source to substantiate its assertion 
regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. The Petitioner therefore 
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 
common industry practice with regard to positions that are "parallel" to the one under consideration, 
while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific position. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. We generally 
consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there is such a common degree requirement: 
whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the industry's professional 
association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether letters or affidavits from 
firms or individuals in the industry establish that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed 
individuals." 13 
As noted above, the Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is a 
common requirement within the industry for parallel positions among similar organizations. Also, the 
Petitioner did not submit evidence from an industry professional association. 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner submitted a letter from~------~ in its RFE 
response and a letter froml I on appeal. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that 
these organizations are similar to the Petitioner. When determining whether the Petitioner and the 
organization share the same general characteristics, a few elements that may be considered include 
information regarding the nature or type of organization, and, when pertinent, the particular scope of 
operations, as well as the level of revenue and staffing. It is not sufficient for the Petitioner to claim 
12Matter of Caron lnt'l,Jnc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). 
13 See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 1999) (quoting Herd/Blacker COip. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 
1095, 1102 ( considering these "factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement) (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
6 
that an organization is similar and conducts business in the same industry without providing a 
legitimate basis for such an assertion. The letters state only that these companies provide IT services 
and without more, these companies cannot be determined to be similar to the Petitioner. 
Even ifwe were to accept! las a similar organization to the Petitioner, which we do 
not, the letter does not state that the comp:nv requires a bachelor's degree in a specific field, as the 
Director noted in her decision. I I asserts that its minimum requirement for a 
Software Engineer position is a bachelor's degree, without further reguirin: that the degree be in any 
specific specialty. Moreover, neither I I nor I I. provides any 
information concerning whether the duties of their Software Engineer or WebSphere 
Administrator/ A WS Admin positions are similar or the same as the Beneficiary's duties. From a 
position title alone, we cannot determine whether these positions are parallel to the proffered position. 
Finally, neither organization provides any evidence to substantiate its claim of recruiting and hiring 
only persons with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for parallel 
positions. Without corroborating evidence to establish an actual routine in hiring, general statements 
submitted at the behest of the Petitioner offer little probative value. Even if such additional evidence 
were submitted, two letters from organizations that may or may not be similar to the Petitioner, would 
not establish an industry standard that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is 
required as a minimum entry requirement for a W ebSphere Administrator position. 
Without more, 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). 
2. Second Prong 
We will now consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
Upon review of the totality of the record, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained or documented 
why the proffered position is so complex or unique that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is 
required. A crucial aspect of this matter is whether the Petitioner has submitted sufficient and 
consistent evidence describing the proffered position such that we may discern the nature of the 
position. The Petitioner has not done so here. Preliminary, we note that the Petitioner stated on page 
three of its RFE response that the Beneficiary has been offered the position of "Software Developer -
Applications," which suggests either that this support letter was prepared for a different person or that 
the proffered position itself has not been described with sufficient accuracy such that we may discern 
its nature. 
Placing this discrepancy aside, when determining whether a position is a specialty occupation, we also 
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. 
7 
The Petitioner provided many vague and general job duties such as "Monitor Database Backup on 
A WS cloud S3," "[l]everage source code" and "work closely with customers and prospects to make 
them successful." Such generic descriptions do not provide sufficient information regarding the 
particular work and associated educational requirements, nor do they allow us to understand what the 
Beneficiary would actually do as he carries out these undefined tasks. 
Furthermore, several bulleted items in the proffered position's duty list are not actual duties. For 
instance, listed items include, "a DMZ (Dematerialized Zone) can be set up with the help of Amazon 
Virtual Private Cloud by the developer," "[a]ccess can be limited to read-only for some users," and 
"A WS provided the A WS S3 CLI tools for storing and accessing ... " Here, the Petitioner provides 
general information about what a particular tool, application, or system can do, but does not relate this 
to a duty or task of the proffered position. 
Similarly, other bulleted items such as, "[ u ]nderstand the deployment, installation, and configuration 
characteristics," "[ u ]nderstand application expectations from initial deployment to future scalability, 
availability, and backup and recovery requirements," and "[g]ained experience in deploying 
applications" contain information about the knowledge or experience involved in the position, rather 
than a duty or task. 
As such, the Petitioner did not sufficiently develop a relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect 
of the position. The evidence of record does not establish that this position is so complex or unique 
that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree. The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary 
is well-qualified for the position, and references the Beneficiary's qualifications as evidence that the 
proffered position is a specialty occupation. 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. Here, the Petitioner did 
not sufficiently develop a relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position. 
Thus, it cannot be concluded that the Petitioner has 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. The record must 
establish that a petitioner's stated degree requirement is not a matter of preference for high-caliber 
candidates but is necessitated instead by performance requirements of the position. 14 Were U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) limited solely to reviewing the Petitioner's claimed 
self-imposed requirements, then any individual with a bachelor's degree could be brought to the 
United States to perform any occupation as long as the Petitioner created a token degree requirement. 15 
Evidence provided in support of this criterion may include, but is not limited to, documentation 
regarding the Petitioner's past recruitment and hiring practices, as well as information regarding 
employees who previously held the position. 
14 See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. 
1s Id. 
8 
The Petitioner submitted a list of its entire I I staff, along with copies of educational records 
for some, but not all of them. We infer that the Petitioner wishes to demonstrate that its employees have 
specialized degrees. However, all of the degrees are foreign degrees and none is accompanied by a 
foreign degree evaluation to substantiate such a degree as being the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree 
or higher. Furthermore, one individuai,I lis shown as having simply a "bachelor's" 
with no information as to her field of study or major, nor is there a copy of her degree in the record. 
Therefore, no inference can be made as to her education being specialized. 
A more critical deficiency than the above, is that the list provided by the Petitioner indicates that none of 
its I I employees occupies a WebSphere Administrator/ A WS Admin position. Equally critical, the 
record does not include any job duties performed by these employees, or the job advertisements for their 
positions. As such, the record contains insufficient evidence that these individuals have or had the 
same or similar substantive responsibilities, duties, and performance requirements as the proffered 
position. The Petitioner did not provide the total number of people it has employed in the past to serve 
in the proffered position. Though it has been in business since 2010, the Petitioner has provided no 
information about its past hiring history for the WebSphere Administrator/ A WS Admin position. 
Consequently, no determination can be made about the Petitioner's normal recruiting and hiring practices 
for the proffered position when the submitted employment evidence covers only current employees who 
occupy positions different than the proffered one. The Petitioner has not persuasively established that it 
normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the proffered 
position. 
Finally, we note that the Petitioner submitted two printouts of its online job advertisement for the 
proffered position. However, the job posting submitted with the RFE indicates that it was posted "13 
minutes ago," which was several months after the filing of the petition and receipt of the RFE. 
Evidence that the Petitioner creates after USCIS points out a deficiency with regard to the third 
criterion will not be considered independent and objective evidence. While the posting submitted on 
appeal does pre-date the petition filing by a couple of months, a single posting is not evidence of a 
hiring practice, nor is mere recruitment to be conflated with hiring. Therefore, these postings are 
insufficient to establish the Petitioner's past recruitment and hiring practices. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not satisfied the third criterion of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
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. 
Here, the Petitioner claims that the position's nature and the specific duties are 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. However, as mentioned, the 
Petitioner provided vague and general job duties, as well as supplemental information that cannot be 
construed as a duty. While some skills and knowledge in computer science or another related 
specialization may be beneficial in performing these duties, the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
9 
explained how these tasks require the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific 
specialty ( or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation. We also incorporate by 
reference our discussion ofl ts advisory opinion. 
The Petitioner has not established that the nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex 
that the knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The record does not satisfy 
the fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 16 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 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. 
16 As the proffered position is not a specialty occupation we will not fully address the additional deficiencies we have 
observed in the record of proceedings, other than to advise the Petitioner that the LCA does not appear to correspond to 
and support the H-1 B petition, as required. As noted, the Petitioner stated that in addition to the degree requirement, the 
proffered position also requires five years' of work experience, which would appear to necessitate, at minimum, a Level 
III wage on the LCA. This petition therefore cannot be approved for this additional reason, and the Petitioner should be 
prepared to address the issue in any future H-IB filings. 
10