dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6502682 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR . 4, 2020 
The Petitioner, an information technology consulting company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "software engineer" under the H-IB 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 H-IB 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 and a subsequent motion to reconsider, 
concluding that the record did not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and asserts that the Director erred in denying the petition. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 1 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the tenn "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, 
and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States . 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
1 We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 
(AAO 2010). 
(]) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We construe the term "degree" to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal 
Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in a 
specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular 
position"). 
II. THE PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a "software engineer." In its initial letter of support, 
the Petitioner outlined several "important responsibilities of this job offer," as follows: 
(i) code the websites, web portals and web applications from scratch; (ii) integrate 
developed websites and web applications with file uploading functionality using 
Meteor.js' s3 package and the Amazon s3 API, (iii) maintain/improve the Company's 
Customer Service Representative web interface (Emberjs), (iv)create guidelines for 
other developers to follow when creating API for Emberjs-based Application, (v) 
collaborate with the back-end team to make sure our designs get implemented properly, 
(vi) configure Apache server to serve Emberjs application, and (vii) create web 
Application that combines both Emberjs and Zend Frameworks. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will 
"work to update and modify the web tools, listen to more data sources, and produce better data stream 
listening engines [and] will also work on the various customization of the product as required by [its] 
service agreement." The Petitioner farther stated that it wants the Beneficiary to be able to attend 
client meetings, understand their requirements and technical difficulties, and come up with technical 
solutions. 
The Petitioner indicated that the minimum entry requirement for the proffered position is a bachelor's 
degree, or equivalent, in computers, information systems, engineering, or a related field, and extensive 
knowledge and experience in web and User Interface developing. 
2 
III. ANALYSIS 
For the reasons set out below, we have determined that the proffered position does not qualify as a 
specialty occupation. 2 Specifically, the record does not: (1) describe the proffered position in 
sufficient detail; and (2) establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its 
equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 3 
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. We recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook 
Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of the wide 
variety of occupations that it addresses. 4 
On the labor condition application (LCA)5 submitted in support of the H-1B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Computer Systems Analysts" 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 15-1121. 6 Thus, we reviewed 
the Handbook's subchapter entitled "How to Become a Computer Systems Analyst," which states, in 
pertinent part, that a bachelor's degree in a computer or information science field is common, although 
not always a requirement. 7 According to the Handbook, some firms hire analysts with business or liberal 
arts degrees. As discussed, we interpret the term "degree" to mean a degree in a specific specialty that is 
directly related to the proposed position. See Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. Since there must be a 
close correlation between the required specialized studies and the position, a requirement of general and 
wide-ranging degrees in business and liberal arts strongly suggests that a computer systems analyst 
position is not categorically a specialty occupation. See id. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N 
Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). The Handbook continues by stating that many analysts have technical 
2 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
3 The Petitioner submitted documentation in support of the H-IB petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
4 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 satisfy the first criterion, however, the burden ofproofremains on the Petitioner to submit 
sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position would normally have a minimum, specialty degree 
requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
5 A petitioner submits the LCA to DOL to demonstrate that it will pay an H-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. § 655.731(a). 
6 The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level II wage. We will consider this selection in our analysis of the 
position. 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 
7 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Computer Systems Analysts 
https :/ /www. b ls. gov/ooh/ computer-and-in form a ti on-techno I ogy/ computer-systems-analysts. htm#tab-4 (last visited 
Mar. 4, 2020). 
3 
degrees, but such a degree is not always a requirement - and that, in fact, many analysts have liberal arts 
degrees and gain programming or technical expertise elsewhere. 8 The Handbook does not specify a 
degree level ( e.g., associate' s degree) for these business, technical, and liberal arts degrees. 
The Handbook, therefore, does not support the assertion that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for these positions. See also Altimetrik 
Corp. v. Cissna, No. 18-10116, 2018 WL 6604258, at *6 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 17, 2018) (the Handbook 
"makes it clear that a degree in a computer-related field is not required" for these positions, and 
therefore "USCIS [was] entitled to deference in its finding that systems analysts are not required to 
have a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty"). 
Further, the Petitioner claims that most computer programmer positions are specialty occupations and 
cites the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) memorandum from the Nebraska 
Service Center Director, Terry Way ('Terry Way memo"). However, the Terry Way memo has now 
been rescinded. See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0142, Rescission of the December 22, 2000 
"Guidance memo on HIE computer related positions" (Mar. 31, 2017), 
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/nativedocuments/PM-6002-0142-H-
1 BComputerRelatedPositionsRecission.pdf 
Furthermore, on appeal, the Petitioner states that "it is an error [ of] law and an abuse of discretion to now 
conclude that a position that provides an annual salary of $86,653 and designated as Level 2 wage ... is 
not a specialty occupation." In other words, the Petitioner contends that because it designated the 
proffered position at a Level II wage rate, it is sufficient to demonstrate that this position normally requires 
a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. We do not agree. As discussed, the Handbook does not 
indicate that positions located within this occupational category typically require a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or the equivalent, and contrary to the Petitioner's implication, the Handbook's analysis 
does not change when higher-paid positions are involved. Even if there were such an exception for 
higher-paid positions, we would not be persuaded that a Level II position, such as the one proffered here 
would, in fact, constitute such a higher-paid position. According to DOL's wage-level guidance, a Level 
II designation is appropriate for positions whose occupants "perform moderately complex tasks that 
require limited judgment." 9 The Petitioner's contentions, therefore, also do not support the assertion that 
at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement 
for these positions. 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation from a probative, authoritative source to 
substantiate its assertion regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. Thus, 
the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(]). 
8 Id. 
9 The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level TT wage. The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" 
issued by the DOL provides a description of the wage levels. A Level TT wage rate is generally appropriate for positions 
for which the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have attained, either through education or experience, a good 
understanding of the occupation, but who will only perform moderately complex tasks that require limited judgment. 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. A 
prevailing wage determination starts with an entry-level wage and progresses to a higher wage level after considering the 
experience, education, and skill requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. Id. 
4 
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 casts its gaze upon the common 
industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific position. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
We generally consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there is such a common degree 
requirement: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the industry's 
professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether letters or 
affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms "routinely employ and recruit 
only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 1999) 
(quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (considering these 
"factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
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. Also, there are no submissions from the industry's professional association 
indicating that it has made a degree a minimum entry requirement. Furthermore, the Petitioner did 
not submit any letters or affidavits from similar firms or individuals in the Petitioner's industry 
attesting that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." 
In its motion to reconsider, the Petitioner submitted job vacancy announcements for our consideration 
under this prong. To be relevant for this consideration, the job vacancy announcements must advertise 
"parallel positions," and the announcements must have been placed by organizations that (1) conduct 
business in the Petitioner's industry and (2) are also "similar" to the Petitioner. These job vacancy 
announcements do not satisfy that threshold. Upon review of the documents, we find that the 
Petitioner's reliance on the job announcements is misplaced. 
We will first consider whether the advertised job opportunities could be considered "parallel 
positions." As noted, the Petitioner attested to DOL that the proffered position is a Level II position. 
However, two of the advertised positions require work experience beyond the requirements for a Level 
II position. For example, one advertised position requires a bachelor's degree plus five years of 
relevant experience, and another advertised position requires a bachelor's degree plus four years of 
relevant experience. Further, some of the advertisements do not include sufficient information about 
the duties and responsibilities for the advertised positions. Thus, it is not possible to determine 
important aspects of the jobs, such as the day-to-day responsibilities, complexity of the job duties, 
5 
supervisory duties (if any), and independent judgment required or the amount of supervision received. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the primary duties and responsibilities of 
the advertised positions parallel those of the proffered position. 
Nor does the record contain documentary evidence sufficient to establish that these job vacancy 
announcements were placed by companies that (1) conduct business in the Petitioner's industry and 
(2) are also "similar" to the Petitioner. Here, the Petitioner is an information technology consulting 
company with 12 employees. 10 In contrast, one of the advertised positions is for a University; another 
is for a financial institution with over 40,000 employees; another is for a marketing company; another 
is for a location intelligence company with over 200 employees; another is for a digital asset exchange 
company; another is for a global lifestyle brand company with over 150 employees; another is for a 
global investment firm with over 675 employees; another is for a social media platform; and the 
remaining advertisements do not provide sufficient information regarding the hiring employers. While 
these advertised positions appear to involve different industries, the Petitioner did not supplement the 
record of proceedings to establish that these advertising organizations are similar to it. 11 
Moreover, some of the postings do not indicate that at least a bachelor's degree in a directly related 
specific specialty ( or its equivalent) is required. For instance, several of the advertised positions require 
a bachelor's degree but do not identify a specific field of study for the degree. 12 Additionally, several 
advertised positions require a bachelor's degree and state one of the following: "or equivalent 
combination of education and experience;" "or equivalent work experience;" "or equivalent practical 
experience;" "or equivalent professional experience;" "or equivalent degree or experience." We do not 
know, however, what formulation those employers would use to determine the equivalent of a bachelor's 
degree, and if the H-lB category would utilize the same standard to ensure that the advertisements 
represented the same "equivalent" standard. 13 Overall, the job postings suggest, at best, that although a 
bachelor's degree is sometimes required for these positions, a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty ( or 
its equivalent) is not. 
For all of these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that these job vacancy announcements are 
relevant. 14 As the documentation does not establish that the Petitioner has met this prong of the 
10 Per the Petitioner's claim on the Form 1-129 at the time of filing the petition. 
11 The language of the regulation is clear and when determining whether the job vacancy announcements are relevant for 
consideration, the Petitioner must show that they are "similar" organizations. When determining whether the Petitioner 
and another organization share the same general characteristics, such factors may include information regarding the nature 
or type of organization, and, when peitinent, the pa1iicular scope of operations, as well as the level ofrevenue and staffing 
(to list just a few elements that may be considered). It is not sufficient for the Petitioner to claim that an organization is 
similar and in the same industry without providing a basis for the assertion. 
12 As discussed. the degree requirement set by the statutory and regulatory fi-amework of the H-lB program 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. Section 214(i)(l)(b) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). See Royal Siam Co1p., 484 F.3d at 147. 
13 See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5). 
14 Even if all of the job postings indicated that a requirement of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is common to 
the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations (which they do not), the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from the advertisements with regard to determining the common 
educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice 
of Social Research 186-228 (1995). Moreover, given that there is no indication that the advertisements were randomly 
selected, the validity of any such inferences could not be accurately determined even if the sampling unit were sufficiently 
6 
regulations, further analysis regarding the specific information contained in each of the job postings 
is not necessary. 15 That is, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. 
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 
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. On appeal, the Petitioner does not 
assert eligibility under this prong of the criterion; therefore, further discussion is unnecessary. The 
Petitioner has not satisfied the second 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. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner stated that "every single IT employee working for the company in 
the same/similar specialty occupation holds a Bachelor's degree if not a Master's degree in the specialty 
occupation and/or the combination of the degree and experience that gives them the required ... 
knowledge in their field of employment" ( emphasis in original). However, the Petitioner did not submit 
any evidence in support of its assertions on the record. Instead, the Petitioner provided a letter from 
its Vice President of Operations. 
The letter from the Petitioner's Vice President of Operations stated that the proffered position is an entry 
level specialty occupation within the company and that, due to the knowledge required for the position, 
it requires a bachelor's degree to be able to discharge the responsibilities of the job. The letter further 
stated that "all of [the Petitioner's] employees hold at least a Bachelor's degree or higher." However, the 
Vice President of Operations did not identify any specific specialty for the bachelor's degree requirement. 
Further, the Petitioner has not submitted evidence of the individuals' education credentials or employment 
with the Petitioner, nor has the Petitioner demonstrated that those individuals are ( or were) employed in 
the same capacity as the Beneficiary. Given the lack of an identified specific field of study in its letter 
and the lack of information pertaining to its employees, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that it 
normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty for the proffered position. 
The Petitioner also submitted copies of two of its own advertisements for the positions of "front-end 
developer" and "business analyst (operations)." The "front-end developer" position advertisement 
large. See id. at 195-196 (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"). 
15 The Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how representative the job postings are of the particular 
advertising employers' recruiting history for the type of job advertised. As the advertisements are only solicitations for 
hire, they are not evidence of the actual hiring practices of these employers. 
7 
requires a "bachelor's degree in computer science/IT/engineering/related field." However, the brief 
duties listed for the advertised position do not appear to be the same or similar to the duties of the 
proffered position. The "business analyst (operations)" position advertisement requires a "master's 
degree in business, economics, finance, or a related subject and 1 plus yr of work exp. or [a] bachelor's 
degree in business, economics, finance, or a related field w/ 5 plus yrs of work exp. in related field." 
While the Petitioner indicated that the proffered position here is at a Wage Level II on the LCA, it 
appears that the advertised position is for a more senior position in its requirement for a master's 
degree plus one year of experience or a bachelor's degree plus five years of experience. Further, the 
brief duties listed for the advertised position also do not appear to be the same or similar to the duties 
of the proffered position. 
As such, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the proffered position is the same or similar 
to the advertised positions such that we can conclude that the Petitioner normally requires a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent for this 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. See 
Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. Were we limited solely to reviewing a petitioner's claimed self-imposed 
requirements, an organization could bring any individual with a bachelor's degree to the United States to 
perform any occupation as long as the petitioning entity created a token degree requirement. Id. 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. 
We conclude that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient documentary evidence to support the assertion 
that it normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, directly 
related to the duties of the position. 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. 
We reviewed the Petitioner's statements regarding the proffered position; however, while the 
Petitioner briefly stated that the Beneficiary will "work to update and modify the web tools, listen to 
more data sources, and produce better data stream listening engines [ and] will also work on the various 
customization of the product as required by [its] service agreement," it has not sufficiently developed 
relative specialization or complexity as an aspect of the proffered position. That is, the Petitioner has 
not explained in detail how the nature of the duties such as: 
• code the websites, web portals and web applications from scratch 
• integrate developed websites and web applications with file uploading functionality 
• maintain/improve the Company's Customer Service Representative web interface 
• create guidelines for other developers to follow 
8 
• collaborate with the back-end team to make sure company designs get implemented 
properly 
• configure Apache server to serve Emberjs application 
• create web Application that combines both Emberjs and Zend Frameworks 
• update and modify web tools 
• listen to more data sources and produce better data stream listening engines 
• work on the various customization of the product 
• attend client meetings, understand requirements and technical difficulties, and come up 
with technical solutions 
are so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is usually associated with 
the attainment of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. These listed duties, 
when read in combination with the evidence found in record of proceedings, suggest that the nature of 
this particular position is not so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them 
is usually associated with the attainment of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner provided documentation outlining its "patented intellectual 
properties that . . . help build unique software robots that can automate customer interactions and 
provide deep real time insights into customer behavior." However, while this documentation provides 
information about the Petitioner's business and some of its operations, it does not farther identify how 
the job duties of the proffered position or the position itself requires the theoretical and practical 
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge. 
Accordingly, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one with 
duties sufficiently specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
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. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
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. 
9