dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 698493 7 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR . 27, 2020 
The Petitioner , an information technology company , seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"technical analyst " 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. § l 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) . 
The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a 
position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor ' s or higher degree in the specific specialty ( or its 
equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the proffered 
position does not qualify as a specialty occupation. The Director also concluded that the Beneficiary 
is not qualified for the proffered position . On appeal , the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the Director erred . 
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 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 We follow the preponderanc e of the evidence standard as specified in Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 
(AAO 2010) . 
( I) 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. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner described the duties of the proffered "technical analyst" position, and the percentage of 
the Beneficiary's time required to perform them, as follows: 
• Resolving post-sales technical customer inquiries via phone and electronic means, 
as well as technical questions regarding the use of and troubleshooting for our 
Electronic Support Services [50%]; 
• Creating and [ u ]tilizing automated technology and instrumentation to diagnose, 
document, and resolve and avoid customer issues [ 10%]; 
• Perform product and documentation reviews [5%]; 
• Taking initiative for process improvement and internal systems design [5%]; 
• Facilitating customer relationships with [s]upport and providing advice and 
assistance to internal [Petitioner] employees on diverse customer situations and 
escalated issues [5%]; and 
• Resolving problems experienced during implementation, administration, and 
maintaining [the Petitioner's] [b ]usiness [i]ntelligence products [25%]. 2 
According to the Petitioner, the position requires "a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science, Computer 
Engineering, Management Information Systems, or [a] related field." 
2 The Petitioner provided expanded duty descriptions. Although we omit the expanded duty descriptions for brevity, we 
have reviewed them in their entirety. 
2 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 3 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its 
equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 4 
A. First Criterion 
The criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I) 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 (DOL) Occupational 
Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of 
the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 5 
On the labor condition application (LCA)6 submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Computer Systems Analysts," 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 15-1121. The subchapter of the 
Handbook titled "How to Become a Computer Systems Analyst" states, in relevant part, that "[a] 
bachelor's degree in computer or information science is common, although not always a requirement. 
Some firms hire analysts with business or liberal arts degrees who have skills in information 
technology or computer programming. . . . Many [ computer systems] analysts have liberal arts 
degrees and have gained programming or technical expertise elsewhere." Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Computer Systems Analysts, 
https ://www. b ls. ov /ooh/computer-and-information-technology/ computer-systems-analysts .htm#tab-
4 (last visited Mar. 26, 2020). 
The Handbook's observation that degrees in disparate fields of computer science, business, and liberal 
arts may qualify a worker for computer systems analyst positions does not establish that a bachelor's 
or higher degree in a spec[fic specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. Furthermore, the Handbook does not establish whether the 
combination of a liberal arts degree and generalized "programming or technical expertise" is 
equivalent to a bachelor's or higher degree in computer or information science, which is "not always 
a requirement" for entry. 
3 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
4 The Petitioner submitted documentation to suppmt the H-lB 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. 
5 We do not maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. That is, the occupational category 
designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered 
position, and we regularly review the Handbook on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of 
occupations that it addresses. Nevertheless, to satisty the first criterion, the burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to 
submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position would normally have a minimum, specialty 
degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
6 A petitioner submits the LCA to DOL to demonstrate that it will pay an H-lB worker the higher of either the prevailing 
wage for the occupational classification in the area of employment or the actual wage paid by the employer to other 
employees with similar duties, experience, and qualifications. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.73l(a). 
3 
Since there must be a close correlation between the required specialized studies and the position, the 
requirement of a degree with a generalized title, such as business or liberal arts, without farther 
specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz 
Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). 
To prove that a job requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge as required by section 214(i)(l) of the Act, a petitioner must establish that the position 
requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specialized field of study or its equivalent. 
As discussed supra, we interpret 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. Although a general­
purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business, may be a legitimate prerequisite for a 
particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify a conclusion that a particular 
position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 
147. Therefore, the Handbook's recognition that a general, non-specialty "background" in business is 
sufficient for entry into the occupation strongly suggests that a bachelor's degree in a spec[fic specialty 
is not a standard, minimum entry requirement for this occupation. 
The Petitioner also asserts on appeal that the Handbook's observations regarding the disparate degree 
fields that may qualify a worker for computer system analyst positions nevertheless satisfy the first 
criterion because: 
[ computer s ]ystems analysts must understand the business field they are working in. 
For example, a hospital may want an analyst with a thorough understanding of health 
plans . . . . Having knowledge of their industry helps [computer] systems analysts 
communicate with managers to determine the role of the information technology (IT) 
systems in an organization. 
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Computer Systems 
Analysts, https ://www. bls. ov /ooh/computer-and-information-technology/ computer-systems-analysts 
.htm#tab-4 (last visited Mar. 26, 2020). The Petitioner states that the Handbook's observation 
"directly addresses why the requirements for the position may vary be employer." However, the 
Handbook does not observe that a healthcare provider requires its computer systems analysts to have 
a bachelor's or higher degree in medicine in order to understand health plans-the Handbook observes 
that "[ m Jany [ computer systems] analysts have liberal arts degrees and have gained programming or 
technical expertise elsewhere." Id. Neither the Handbook nor the Petitioner explain how a bachelor's 
or higher degree in liberal arts helps computer systems analysts to "understand the business field they 
are working in," particularly when, as in this case, the business field in which the Beneficiary would 
work is information technology. Moreover, even if the Handbook established how a bachelor's or 
higher degree in business or liberal arts would help computer systems analysts understand health plans 
in the hospital example, as noted above, the Handbook does not establish that the unspecified level of 
"programming or technical expertise" combined with such a degree would be equivalent to a 
bachelor's or higher degree in computer science. 
On appeal, the Petitioner cites a district court case, Next Generation Tech., Inc. v. Johnson, (S.D.N.Y. 
Sept. 29, 2017), as relevant here. We first note that we are not bound to follow the published decision 
of a United States district court. See Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715, 719-20 (BIA 
4 
1993). Nevertheless, even if we considered the logic underlying the matter, we conclude that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
As recognized by another court, while the Handbook may establish the first regulatory criterion for 
certain professions, many occupations are not described in such a categorical manner. 7 See In nova 
Sols., Inc. v. Baran, 2019 WL 3753334, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2019) (declining to follow Next 
Generation Tech., Inc.). For example, "[the Handbook's] description for the Computer Programmer 
occupation does not describe the normal minimum educational requirements of the occupation in a 
categorical fashion." Id.; see also Xiaotong Liu v. Baran, 2018 WL 7348851 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 
2018). "Accordingly, [the Petitioner] could not simply rely on [the Handbook] profile, and instead 
had the burden to show that the particular position offered to [the Beneficiary] was among the 
Computer Programmer positions for which a bachelor's degree was normally required." See Innova 
Sols., Inc. 2019 WL 3753334, at *8. 
Moreover, the court in Next Generation Tech., Inc. relied in part on a USCIS policy memorandum 
regarding "Computer Programmers" indicating generally preferential treatment toward computer 
programmers, and "especially" toward companies in that particular petitioner's industry. However, 
USCIS rescinded the policy memorandum cited by the court in Next Generation Tech. Inc. 8 
Here, as noted, the Handbook does not describe the normal minimum educational requirement for the 
occupation in a categorical manner since employers accept various degrees including business and 
liberal arts. Further, as we will discuss further below, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established 
that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement 
for entry into the particular position. Therefore, for the reasons discussed, Next Generation Tech., Inc. 
does not establish that the proffered position satisfies the first criterion. 
Next, the Petitioner asserts on appeal that opinion letters written by~~-----_........,an associate 
professor of computer science at L O I University, and a professor 
of computer applications and information systems at the University of satisfy the first 
criterion. 9 
As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter 
of Caron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, we may give an opinion less 
weight if it is not in accord with other information in the record or if it is in any way questionable. 
Id. We are ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an individual's 
eligibility for the benefit sought; the submission of expert opinion letters is not presumptive evidence 
of eligibility. Id.; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, 502 n.2 (BIA 2008) ("[E]xpert opinion 
testimony, while undoubtedly a form of evidence, does not purport to be evidence as to 'fact' but 
7 Such professions would include surgeons or attorneys, which indisputably require at least a bachelor's degree for entry 
into the occupation. 
8 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0142, Rescission of the December 22. 2000 "Guidance memo on HJB 
computer related positions" (Mar. 31, 2017), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/nativedocuments/PM-6002-
0142-H-1 BComputerRelatedPositionsRecission.pdf. ~-~ 
9 The Petitioner submits the opinion letter written byl I for the first time on appeal. Although the record contains 
opinion letters written by other authors, the Petitioner does not assert on appeal, and the record does not support the 
conclusion, that those opinion letters establish the position is a specialty occupation under any criterion. 
5 
rather is admissible only if 'it will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a 
fact in issue."') . 
.__ __ ___.I asserts in his opinion letter that he was asked to provide an opinion regarding two issues: 
whether the Beneficiary "has earned the educational equivalent of a Bachelor's degree in Management 
Information Systems" and whether the Beneficiary "is qualified for the position of Technical Analyt," I 
not whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation under any criterion. Nevertheless, 
I !quotes the Petitioner's primary duty description provided above and opines that "[technical 
analyst] positions are generally given only to persons who have earned a Bachelor's degree in 
Computer Science, Engineering, Management Information Systems, or a related field." I I 
bases his opinion on "[a] letter from [the Petitioner]," "[a] copy of the job description," "[a] copy of 
[the Beneficiary's] diploma," "[t]ranscripts of the academic work leading to the [Beneficiary's] 
diploma," "[a] letter from [the Petitioner's subsidiary in India] certifying that [the Beneficiary] worked 
for this company for roughly 10.6 years," the Handbook, and the Occupational Information Network 
(O*NET). However, there is no indication thatl I has conducted any research or studies 
pertinent to the educational requirements for such positions, and no indication of recognition~ 
~sional organizations that he is an authority on those specific requirements. Given that LJ 
l__Js opinion is not substantiated by objective research or studies, and the extent to which his 
opinion is not in accord with other information in the record, it bears minimal probative value. See 
Matter of Caron Int 'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. at 795. 
On the other hand,I Is opinion letter does not appear to correspond to the proffered position. 
I ldoes not specifically refer to the Beneficiary and, although he lists duties for a position on 
which he based his opinion, they do not match the Petitioner's description of the proffered position's 
duties, quoted above. 10 Doubt cast on any aspect of a petitioner's proof may undermine the reliability 
and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Matter of Ho, 19 
I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). 
Additionally, there is no evidence thatl I has conducted any research or studies pertinent to the 
educational requirements for such positions, and no indication of recognition by professional 
organizations that he is an authority on those specific requirements. We note that, in a single 
paragraphJ I discusses his "research[] [into] the specific labor market and commerce standards 
for California, in which [the Petitioner] is incorporated." As a result,! !concludes that "the 
Technical Analyst position with [the Petitioner] as a Computer Systems Analyst occupation is typical 
and increasingly common." However, the Beneficiary, whoml ldoes not address specifically 
in his opinion letter, would work in Colorado, not in California. Therefore, his research into trends in 
California is misplaced. Furthermore,! ldid not report that he conducted research pertinent to 
the normal educational requirements for such positions throughout the United States. Additionally, 
as noted above, the Handbook observes that disparate fields such as business and liberal arts may 
qualify applicants, contrary to the opinions ofl land I I 
10 Although! kisserts that he copied the Petitioner's duty descriptions "verbatim," neither the number of duties, nor 
the language of the duty description. nor the percentage of the Beneficiary's time to perform any of the duties match the 
information in the record submitted by the Petitioner. 
6 
Given thntl ~s andl l's opinions are not substantiated by objective research or studies, 
and the extent to which their opinions are not in accord with other information in the record, they bear 
minimal probative value. See Matter of Caron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. at 795. 
In summation, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
B. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two alternative prongs: "The degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show 
that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with 
a degree[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). The first prong contemplates common industry 
practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific position. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy the 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." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 1999) 
(quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (considering these 
"factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
As noted above, the Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is a common requirement within the industry for parallel positions among 
similar organizations. Furthermore, the record does not establish that a professional association for 
computer systems analysts has made a qualifying degree a minimum entry requirement. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that 17 job postings submitted in response to the Director's request 
for evidence (RFE) satisfy the first prong of the second criterion. 11 The positions' titles, with the 
reported degree requirements, and the reported work locations are as follows: 
• Support engineer; "BS or MS [d]egree in computer science"; Las Colinas, Texas; 
• Support engineer; "BS in Computer Science, Engineering or related technical 
discipline"; Bellevue, Washington; 
• Support engineer; "Bachelor or Master Degree in Computer Science [or] Electronic 
Engineering"; Seoul, South Korea; 
11 The Petitioner asserts on appeal that its RFE response contains nine job postings. However, the RFE response contains 
10 job postings. 
7 
• Support engineer; "Bachelor's degree required, majoring in Computer Science, 
Computer Engineering, [or] Computer Information Systems"; Seoul, South Korea; 
• Support engineer; "Bachelor degree in Computer Science [or] Electronic 
Engineering"; Taipei City, Taiwan; 
• Sr. technical support engineer; "Bachelor's or greater in Computer 
Science/Engineering or related discipline"; Austin, Texas, Raleigh, North Carolina, 
or Emeryville, California; 
• Remote software technical support - Linux; "Bachelor's degree in Computer 
Science/Engineering or Management of Information Systems"; Cairo, Egypt; 
• Support engineer; "Bachelor's degree in Computer Science, Engineering, 
Mathematics, Information Systems, or [a] related field"; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; 
• Senior support engineer; "Bachelor's degree in Computer Science, Computer 
Engineering, Software Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Information Systems 
or a related field of study"; Newton Square, Pennsylvania; 
• Preferred success functional specialist - [employer's products]; "University 
undergraduate degree ( or higher) in computer science, engineering or comparable 
educational background"; Newton Square, Pennsylvania; 
• Technical support analyst; "Bachelor's degree in Computing (or equivalent)"; 
Melbourne, Australia; 
• Technical support engineer; "Bachelor's degree in CS"; London or Reading, United 
Kingdom; 
• Technical support analyst (tier 2); "Bachelor's degree in Computing (or 
equivalent)"; Hyderabad, India; 
• Customer success support - tier 3; "Bachelor's degree in computer science"; 
Dublin, Ireland; 
• Customer success support; "Bachelor's degree in computer science"; Toronto or 
New Brunswick, Canada; 
• Technical support engineer; "BS in Computer Science, Information Technology or 
similar discipline"; China; and 
• Support engineer; "Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science, Engineering or a 
related field." 
We first note that the three employers who published the job postings are in the Petitioner's general 
industry. The record contains reports froml I, noting that the four employers for the first 
15 job postings listed above are among the Petitioner's "competitors." Common knowledge about the 
employer for the last two job postings also supports the conclusion that it is in the Petitioner's general 
industry. However, the record, and specifically the job postings, does not contain sufficient 
information to determine the extent to which the three employers are similar to the Petitioner beyond 
all being in the same general industry. 
Even if the record established that the employers are sufficiently similar to the Petitioner, the work 
locations for 10 of the 17 job postings are outside of the United States, in South Korea, Taiwan, Egypt, 
Australia, the United Kingdom, India, Ireland, Canada, and China. One of the job postings does not 
indicate a work location; however, based on the majority of the work locations among the submitted 
job postings being outside of the United States, the job posting's silence does not create a presumption 
that the work location is inside the United States. 
8 
Additionally, the few job postings that specifically identify a work location in the United States raise 
questions regarding the extent to which the positions are parallel to the proffered position. For 
example, two indicate that the positions are "sr." or "senior," raising questions regarding the extent to 
which they are parallel to the proffered position. As another example, one job posting discusses 
"technically supporting paid search results that appear on [the employer's web search engine] and 
other web properties [owned by the employer]," which appears dissimilar to the proffered positions 
described by the Petitioner. Other job postings do not provide sufficient information regarding the 
products or services for which the workers would provide support, in order to determine the extent to 
which the positions are parallel to the proffered position. 
Also on appeal, the Petitioner references a separate group of job postings it describes as 'job 
announcements for similar Computer Systems Analysts positions in parallel industries" or "adjacent 
industries." However, the second criterion does not contemplate "parallel industries" or "adjacent 
industries"; it contemplates whether "[t]he degree requirement [in a specific specialty] is common to 
the [petitioning entity's] industry in parallel positions among similar organizations." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii)(2). The Petitioner describes the other employers' "parallel" industries as follows: 
• Financial [s]ervices; 
• Cybersecurity; 
• [Office staff] outsourcing; 
• High-tech [ c ]ommercial [b Jank; 
• Product [e]ngineering and [t]echnology [s]ervices; and 
• Healthcare. 
The record does not establish that the Petitioner is in the financial services, office staff outsourcing, 
commercial banking, and healthcare industries. Accordingly, the job postings for employers in those 
industries bear minimal probative value for the second criterion. Additionally, the Petitioner describes 
the "[ s ]cope of [ o ]perations for the employer in the cybersecurity industry as "[h ]ardware, software, 
and services to investigate cybersecurity attacks, protect against malicious software, and analyze IT 
security risks"; however, the record does not establish that the Petitioner's services include 
investigating cybersecurity attacks or similar functions. Accordingly, the job posting for that employer 
bears minimal probative value. Furthermore, the Petitioner's generalized descriptions of the "[s]cope 
of [ o ]perations for the employer in the technology services industry, "[p ]roduct [ e ]ngineering, [ c ]loud 
& [i]nfrastructure, [s]ecurity, [b Jig [d]ata & [a]nalytics, [d]ata [m]anagement & [g]ovemance and IoT" 
does not provide sufficient information to determine the extent to which the employer is similar to the 
Petitioner. Even if the Petitioner's summary of the technology services company's scope of operations 
were sufficiently informative, the record does not otherwise establish the extent of the two entity's 
similarities. For example, the Petitioner reports that the technology services company's "[l]evel of 
[r]evenue" is "[u]ndisclosed." 
Even if all of either group of 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 does not demonstrate what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be 
drawn from the job postings with regard to the common educational requirements for entry into 
parallel positions in similar organizations. See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 
186-228 (7th ed. 1995). Moreover, given that there is no indication that the advertisements were 
9 
randomly selected, the validity of any such inferences could not be accurately determined even if the 
sampling unit were sufficiently large. See id. at 195-96 ( explaining that"[ r ]andom selection is the key 
to [the] process [of probability sampling]" and that "random selection offers access to the body of 
probability theory, which provides the basis for estimates of population parameters and estimates of 
error"). 
In summation, both groups of job postings do not establish that a bachelor's or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations. 
The Petitioner also asserts on appeal that I l's opinion letter, discussed above, satisfies the first 
prong of the second criterion. 12 Specifically, the Petitioner quotes I Is opinion that "the 
industry standard for a position such as Technical Analyst for [the Petitioner] is to be filled through 
recruiting a college graduate with the minimum of a Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science, 
Computer Engineering, Computer Information S stems, Information Technology, or a related area, or 
the equivalent." However, as noted above, 's opinion does not appear to correspond to the 
petition and, even if it did, there is no indication that~--~ has conducted any research or studies 
pertinent to the educational requirements for such positions, and no indication of recognition by 
professional organizations that he is an authority on those specific requirements. Moreover, as noted 
above, the Handbook observes that derees in disparate fields such as business and liberal arts may 
qualify applicants. Given thaU~--~ s opinion is not substantiated by objective research or studies, 
and the extent to which his opinion is not in accord with other information in the record, it bears 
minimal probative value. See Matter of Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. at 795. 
In summation, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 2 l 4.2(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 asserts that it "does not offer off-the-shelf 'one size fits all' software"; 
instead, its "enterprise application software [is] designed to satisfy the very unique and specific needs 
of certain organizations of differing sizes and in a variety of industries." However, the Petitioner 
concedes that "[t]he common complaint about the enterprise software is that it lacks flexibility and 
agility." Accordingly, the Petitioner's statements that its software lacks flexibility and is designed to 
satisfy organizations of differing sizes undermines its statement that its software is not "one size fits 
all." The contradiction obscures our understanding of how complex the software for which a 
"technical analyst" must provide support is, and the extent to which a "technical analyst" must 
12 The Petitioner does not assert on appeaL and the record does not support the conclusion, that the opinion letter written 
by I referenced elsewhere, or any other opinion letter in the record satisfies the first prong of the second criterion. 
10 
understand how the enterprise software that "lacks flexibility" could be customized to "satisfy the very 
unique and specific needs of certain organizations of differing sizes in a variety of industries." 
The Petitioner focuses on eight specific expanded duty descriptions on appeal, 13 to assert that the 
proffered position is sufficiently complex or unique: 
• Understand the application architecture and code, database architecture, network 
architecture, various IT hardware platforms, multiple operating systems and 
troubleshoot, investigate and diagnose problems in complex systems; 
• Diagnose and troubleshoot issues by using SQL/PL-SQL; 
• Understand and write adhoc [sic] queries in order to diagnose various complex 
issues that our customers face; 
• Generate reports, transfer data between environments among other things by using 
XML, a markup language designed to transport data; 
• Detect data corruption or other serious faults that might be encountered by [the 
Petitioner's] customers; 
• Troubleshoot and diagnose issues found during the setup and day-to-day use of [the 
Petitioner's] [s]oftware. The root of these problems could lie in various slayers of 
the system (i.e. network layer, hardware, database, managed servers or application 
code); 
• Set up internal test cases to reproduce [a] customer's technical issues to enable the 
[Petitioner's] [d]evelopment team to fix bugs. While working through customers 
[sic] issues, there is often a need to test and reproduce the issues in-house in our 
test environment. These tests can involve setting up an end-to-end replica of the 
customer's data and configuration needed to reproduce the issues; in-depth 
knowledge of SQL, [ d]atabases and [ s ]ecurity which is required to accomplish such 
tasks; and 
• Author and maintain technical documents as part of the [k]knowledge [b]ase used 
by [the Petitioner's] customers and internal employees. This task includes creating, 
modifying, and reviewing content within the [k]nowledge [m]anagment [s]ystem 
( consultative articles, case studies, and white papers) as part of a constant and 
ongoing effort to have re-use value of the information that is derived on working 
each and every [s]ervice [r]equest. It includes authoring [d]ocuments/[n]otes and 
adding them to the [k]nowledge [b]ase for the benefit of [the Petitioner's] 
customers, with the aim of having them self-service the solution and thus 
potentially avoid the need to log a [s]ervice [r]equest. These [d]ocuments are 
extremely technical in nature and very specific and elaborate as to troubleshooting 
steps that can be followed by customers to resolve a problem at hand. 
The record does not establish how the proffered position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. For example, for the first expanded duty emphasized on appeal, the record does not 
sufficiently establish what is required for the Beneficiary to "understand" architecture, code, hardware 
13 In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner provided 17 expanded duty descriptions, restated on appeal as 24 
expanded duty descriptions, which as noted above we omit for brevity, although we have reviewed them in their entirety. 
11 
platforms, and operating systems. The record also does not elaborate on the "problems in complex 
systems" and the methodology the Beneficiary would use to "troubleshoot, investigate and diagnose" 
such problems. Accordingly, our ability to determine the extent to which understanding, 
troubleshooting, investigating, and diagnosing may be complex or unique is limited. As another 
example, the second expanded duty emphasized on appeal reiterates the prior description's language 
of "troubleshoot, investigate and diagnose problems" by stating the Beneficiary would "[ d]iagnose 
and troubleshoot issues by using SQL/PL-SQL," raising questions regarding how the two duties are 
distinguishable. We note that several of the expanded duty descriptions reiterate that the Beneficiary 
would troubleshoot and diagnose generalized issues, without expanding on the methodology of 
troubleshooting and diagnosing issues. Moreover, the additional, generalized statement that the 
Beneficiary would be "using SQL/PL-SQL" does not describe how the Beneficiary would use 
SQL/PL-SQL, limiting our ability to determine whether "using SQL-PL-SQL" in the particular 
position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a bachelor's or 
higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Similarly, as another example, the fourth 
expanded duty description emphasized on appeal does not specify how the Beneficiary would 
"[g]enerate reports" or "transfer data between environments among other things by using XML," 
limiting our ability to determine whether "using XML" to transfer data and generate reports 1s 
sufficiently complex or unique. 
The record does not substantiate how the remainder of the duty description is sufficiently complex or 
unique. For example, for the most time-consuming (50%) duty, the record does not inform how 
"[r]esolving post-sales technical customer inquiries via phone and electronic means, as well as 
technical questions" is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a 
bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Although, in response to the 
Director's RFE, the Petitioner summarized the products for which the Beneficiary would provide 
technical support and asserted that the Beneficiary is "expected to be well versed on these 
technologies," the record does not describe the nature of the complexity or uniqueness of the customer 
inquiries, technical questions, and the resolutions of them. The Petitioner asserted: 
While customers are responsible for the installation, configuration and use of the 
products, they may experience problems in the process and subsequently need technical 
assist from [the Petitioner] to solve them. Those issues may be related to product 
defects or customer error in the configuration or understanding of the product 
functionality. Support Engineers in [the Beneficiary's] 14 team are responsible for 
tracking incidents, diagnosis, replication, troubleshooting, and the resolution of 
complicated and critical cases. The focus of the team is to provide customer service on 
a technical and functional level and to ultimately drive complete and total resolution of 
each service incident and to proactively work issues with design for product 
improvement. This typically involves troubleshooting, then collaborating with 
functional and technical teams, often helping to resolve issues in areas such as 
middleware and cloud services & infrastructure. 
14 The Petitioner specifically referred to the team as the Beneficiary's supervisor's team, which is also the Beneficiary's 
team. 
12 
The record does not elaborate on the complexity or uniqueness of the "problems" customers may 
experience, how critical those problems are to using the products, and the complexity or uniqueness 
of the "technical assist ... to solve them." The generalized "product defects" and "customer error in 
the configuration or understanding of the product functionality" includes a broad spectrum of possible 
defects and errors, many of which are neither complex nor unique. Similarly, the tasks of "tracking 
incidents, diagnosis, replication, troubleshooting, and the resolution of' product defects and customer 
error depends, in part, on the complexity and uniqueness of the defects and customer errors, which 
remain unclear. 
The RFE response provides three expanded duties for the most time-consuming (50%) task: 
• Detect data corruption or other serious faults that might be encountered by [the 
Petitioner's] customers; 
• Understand the application architecture and code, database architecture, network 
architecture, various IT hardware platforms, multiple operating systems and 
troubleshoot, investigate, and diagnose problems in complex systems; and 
• Troubleshoot and diagnose issues found during the setup and day-to-day use of [the 
Petitioner's] software. The root of these problems could lie in various layers of the 
system (i.e. network layer, hardware, database, managed servers or application 
code). The Technical Analyst must be able to troubleshoot problems in one or 
multiple layers of the IT system. 
Similar to the above discussion, the duty of"[ detecting] data corruption or other serious faults" does 
not establish the complexity or uniqueness of the methodology for detecting the corruption or faults 
in order to determine whether only an individual with a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, can detect them. Additionally, as noted above, the record does not establish 
whether a qualifying degree is required to "understand" the various architecture, platforms, and 
systems in order to "troubleshoot, investigate, and diagnose" the generalized "problems" and "issues." 
Furthermore, the record does not establish the extent to which the Beneficiary's team relies on 
automated software to assist in understanding, troubleshooting, investigating, and diagnosing 
problems and issues, or scripted responses to provide while "[r ]esolving post-sales technical customer 
inquiries via phone and electronic means." 
Furthermore, we note that the Petitioner asserts the Beneficiary would spend up to 50% of his time 
"working with [the Petitioner's] with [sic] development team and peer senior members" and"[ setting] 
up internal test cases to reproduce customer's technical issues to enable the [Petitioner's] 
[ d]evelopment team to fix bugs." The record does not establish the roles and responsibilities of the 
other individuals in the technical development team; however, considering that the Beneficiary's 
duties overlap with a team of other workers, the record raises questions regarding how unique the 
Beneficiary's duties within the Petitioner's organization are. 15 We note that the Beneficiary may have 
15 Furthermore, the phrase "peer senior members" is confusing because it raises questions regarding whether the members 
are members of the development team or a team of workers who provide "[p]ost-sales support to technical customer 
inquiries via phone and electronic means," which does not appear to be a development team. Additionally, regardless of 
the team in which the members work, the phrase raises questions regarding whether the members with whom the 
Beneficiary would work are senior to the Beneficiary and his peers or whether the Beneficiary and his peers are senior to 
other workers with whom the Beneficiary would work. 
13 
developed knowledge of the Petitioner's products during his overseas employment; however, the 
record does not establish whether that level of knowledge is equivalent to a bachelor's or higher degree 
in a specific specialty, and moreover whether the position requires such a level. In any event, the 
record does not establish how these tasks, requiring up to 50% of the Beneficiary's time to perform, 
are so complex and unique that they can be performed only by an individual with a bachelor's or 
higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. For similar reasons, the record does not 
establish that the remainder of the duties are so complex or unique that they can be performed only by 
an individual with a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
The Petitioner also asserts on appeal that I f s opinion letter, discussed above, satisfies the 
second prong of the second criterion. 16 The Petitioner specifically emphasizes! ts opinion 
that "a candidate must have completed course work [sic] and training in [c]omputer [s]cience, 
[ c ]omputer [ e ]ngineering, [ c ]omputer [i]nformation [ s ]ystems, [i]nformation technology, or [a] related 
area at the undergraduate level at a minimum to competently handle the duties required by the 
Technical Analyst position." However, as discussed above, the Handbook observes that a candidate 
need not have a bachelor's or higher degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a related 
field, or its equivalent, for entry into the particular position; rather, degrees in disparate fields such as 
business or liberal arts may qualify applicants. Moreover, as noted above, I ts opinion does 
not appear to correspond to the petition and, even if it did, there is no indication that I lhas 
conducted any research or studies pertinent to educational requirements for such positions, and no 
indication of recognition~essional organizations that he is an authority on those specific 
requirements. Given thatl___J's opinion is not substantiated by objective research or studies, and 
the extent to which it is not in accord with other information in the record, it bears minimal probative 
value. See Matter of Caron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. at 795. 
The Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties 
of the position, and it did not identify any tasks that are so complex or unique that only a specifically 
degreed individual could perform them. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second 
alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it normally 
requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that 16 job announcements for "Technical Analyst positions similar 
or parallel to the proffered position" satisfy the third criterion. However, 10 of the 16 job 
announcements state verbatim in sections titled "Detailed Description and Job Requirements" that the 
positions require a "BS Computer [sic] Science / Management Information Systems / Science / 
Engineering I Math/ Physics/ Chemistry." However, the allowance of a bachelor's degree in any 
"science" field, which may include fields unrelated to computer science such as biology and zoology, 
and moreover the specific inclusion of a bachelor's degree in chemistry, which does not appear to be 
16 The Petitioner does not assert on appeal, and the record does not support the conclusion, that the opinion letter written 
by I I referenced elsewhere, or any other opinion letter in the record satisfies the second prong of the second 
criterion. 
14 
related to the field of computer science, does not establish that the Petitioner normally requires a 
bachelor's or higher degree in a spec[fic specialty, or its equivalent. Although a small portion of the 
job announcements provide other academic requirements, we note that they are described as 
"[ a ]dvanced [ c ]ustomer [ s ]ervices" positions, raising questions regarding the extent to which they are 
parallel to the proffered "technical analyst" position. 
Additionally, the job announcements are undated, raising questions regarding whether they establish 
the Petitioner's hiring history at the time of filing the petition. Although the job announcements are 
undated, we note that they all bear a string of numbers and letters, many of which beginning with 
either "18" or "19," possibly indicating that they are for job announcements posted in 2018 and 2019, 
after the petition filing date, in which case they would not bear probative value for the third criterion. 
A petitioner must establish eligibility for the benefit it is seeking at the time the petition is filed. See 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). A visa petition may not be approved based on speculation of future eligibility 
or after the Petitioner or Beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Michelin 
Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248,249 (Reg'l Comm'r 1978). 
The Petitioner also submits for the first time on appeal a table with three columns, listing 26 six-digit 
"Employee IDs"; with a corresponding "Degree" level of either "Bachelor," "Bachelor (equiv.)," 
"Master," or "Master ( equiv.)"; and a "Subject/Major," respectively. The Petitioner describes this 
table as "a list of a representative sampling of current employees holding this exact position, as well 
as their respective degrees." However, the record does not establish whether or when the Petitioner 
hired the represented individuals, and the duties of the individuals' positions, in order to determine the 
extent to which they are similar to the proffered position and whether the positions require the 
individuals to possess a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. On the 
contrary, as discussed above, the job announcements in the record establish that the Petitioner does 
not require a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, but rather permits 
degrees in general fields of science, and specifically in the field of chemistry, which, without additional 
explanation, does not appear to be related to the field of computer science, for "Technical Analyst 
positions similar or parallel to the proffered position." 
The Petitioner again asserts on appeal that I ~ s opinion letter satisfies the third criterion. 17 
Specifically, the Petitioner emphasizes! Is conclusion that "[the Petitioner] would naturally 
seek out only a Computer Systems Analyst for a position such as Technical Analyst among the 
majority of such professionals as described bv [the Handbook] and O*NET who hold a Bachelor's 
Degree." 18 However, as noted aboveJ ]s opinion does not appear to correspond to the petition 
and, even if it did, contrary tol b opinion, the job announcements discussed above establish 
that the Petitioner does not seek out only workers with a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, for 'Technical Analyst positions similar or parallel to the proffered 
17 The Petitioner does not assert on appeaL and the record does not support the conclusion, that the opinion letter written 
bv I I referenced elsewhere, or any other opinion letter in the record satisfies the third criterion. 
18 The O*NET summary report for "Computer Systems Analysts" does not state a requirement for a bachelor's degree for 
this occupation. Rather, it assigns this occupation a Job Zone "Four" rating, which groups it among occupations for which 
"most ... require a four-year bachelor's degree, but some do not." O*NET OnLine Summary Report for "15-1121.00 -
Computer Systems Analysts," http://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/15-1121.00 (last visited Mar. 26, 2020). The 
summary report does not indicate that the bachelor's or higher degree must be in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
15 
position." Again, given the extent to whichl l's opinion is not in accord with other information 
in the record, it bears minimal probative value. See Matter of Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. at 795. 
In summation, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
D. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature 
of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
The Petitioner's assertions on appeal regarding the fourth criterion are identical to its assertions 
regarding the second prong of the second criterion. 19 However, for the reasons stated above in the 
analysis regarding the second prong of the second criterion, we are unpersuaded 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 bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
Again we note that, given thatl Is opinion does not appear to correspond to the petition, it is 
not substantiated by objective research or studies, and the extent to which his opinion is not in accord 
with other information in the record, it bears minimal probative value. 20 See Matter of Caron Int 'l, 
Inc., 19 I&N Dec. at 795. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated in the record 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 our conclusion that the proffered position does not qualify as a specialty occupation is 
dispositive, we reserve our opinion regarding whether the Beneficiary is qualified for the position. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
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. 
19 The Petitioner addresses both criteria in the same section under a heading that addressed both the second prong of the 
second criterion and the fourth criterion. Although the two criteria are similar, they are distinct. 
20 The Petitioner does not assert on appeal, and the record does not support the conclusion, that the opinion letter written 
b~ I referenced elsewhere, or any other opinion letter in the record satisfies the fourth criterion. 
16