dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-S-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 16,2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an information technology company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"quality assurance analyst" under the H-1 B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § ll0l(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, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the evidence of record satisfies all evidentiary requirements. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
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 crityria 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; 
Matter of A-S-, Inc. 
(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 tor 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.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Servicys (USCIS) has consistently 
interpreted the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean no't 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. Cherto_ff, 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 
In the H-1B petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a "quality assurance 
analyst." The Petitioner provided the following description of the duties of the proffered position: 
• Design test cases, plans, scenarios, scripts, or procedures. 
• Develop testing programs that address areas such as database impacts, software 
scenarios, regression testing, negative testing, error or bug retests, or usability. 
• Document software defects, using a bug tracking system, and report defects to 
software developers and project managers. 
• Involved in requirements gathering and understanding and identify, analyze, and 
document problems. 
• Monitor bug resolution efforts and track successes. 
• Create or maintain databases of known test defects. 
• Plan test schedules or strategies in accordance with project scope or delivery dates. 
• Adhere to the Organization wide process and project specific processes. 
• Involved in client interaction and status reports. 
• Reporting to the [Petitioner's] local manager. 
The Petitioner stated, "The position requires a bachelor's degree in Computer Science, Engineering, 
Math, or a related field." 
2 
Matter of A-S-, Inc. 
Subsequently, the Petitioner provided the following additional duty description: 
• Develop, implement and maintain detailed project schedule to coordinate multiple· 
activities. 
• Requirement gathering, analyzing and understanding 
• Identify the testing approach to suit the requirements 
• Preparing Test plans, estimates, delivery milestones 
• Track and review the progress on daily basis 
• Designing framework for automation testing 
• Developing automation test scripts 
• Analyzing results from continuous integration, finding the root cause for script 
failures and fixing them 
• Trouble shooting production issues and verification affixes 
• Complete responsibility of all QA deliverables 
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. 1 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or 
its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 2 
A. First Criterion 
We turn first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J), 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 
.: (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-1 B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Computer Occupations, All 
1 
Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 B 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. 
3 All of our references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not, however, 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 USC IS regularly reviews 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 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. 
4 
The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to USCIS to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B worker the 
3 
Matter of A-S-, Inc. 
Other" corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code (SOC) 15-1199, which 
includes SOC 15-1199.01, "Software Quality Assurance Engineers and Testers."
5 
The Handbook 
discusses software quality assurance analyst positions within its chapter describing the "Computer 
Systems Analysts" occupational category and states the following: 
A bachelor's degree in a computer or information science field 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. 
It further states: 
Most computer systems analysts have a bachelor's degree in a computer-related field. 
Because these analysts also are heavily involved in the business side of a company, it 
may be helpful to take business courses or major in management information 
systems. 
Some employers prefer applicants who have a master's degree in business 
administration (MBA) with a concentration in information systems. For more 
technically complex jobs, a master's degree in computer -science may be more 
appropriate. 
Although many computer systems analysts have technical degrees, such a degree is 
not always a requirement. Many analysts have liberal arts degrees and have gained 
programming or technical expertise elsewhere. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., 
"Computer Systems Analysts," http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/ 
computer-systems-analysts.htm#tab-4 (last visited Feb. 13, 2017).6 
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 experience and qualifications who are performing the same 
services. See Matter ofSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 545-546 (AAO 20 15). 
5 The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level I wage (the lowest of four assignable wage levels). We will 
consider this selection in our analysis of the position. The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" issued by 
the DOL provides a description of the wage levels. A Level I wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which 
the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the occupation. This wage rate indicates: (I) that 
the Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that he 
will be closely supervised and his work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that he will receive 
specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing 
Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://tlcdatacenter.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. /d. : 
6 
The Petitioner also submits this information. 
4 
(b)(6)
Maller of A-S-. Inc. 
The Handbook does not support the assertion that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, is nonnally the minimum requirement for these positions. This section of the 
narrative begins by stating that a bachelor's degree in a related field is not a requirement. The 
Handbook continues by stating that there is a wide-range of degrees that are acceptable for positions 
in this occupation, including general purpose degrees such as business and liberal arts. While the 
Handbook indicates that a bachelor's degree in a computer or information science field is common, 
it does not report that such a degree is normally a minimum requirement for entry. 
According to the Handbook, many systems analysts have liberal arts degrees and have gained 
programming or technical expertise elsewhere. It further reports that many analysts have technical 
degrees. We obser-Ve that the Handbook does not specify a degree level (e.g., associate's degree, 
baccalaureate) for these technical degrees. Moreover, it specifically states that such a degree is not 
always a requirement. Thus, the Handbook does not support the claim that the occupational 
category of computer systems analyst is one for which normally the minimum requirement for entry 
is a baccalaureate degree (or higher) in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Even if it did, the 
record lacks sufficient evidence to support a finding that the particular position proffered here, an 
entry-level position with the Level I characteristics discussed above, would nom1ally have such a 
minimum, specialty degree requirement or its equivalent. 
In support of the petition, the Petitioner submits information from O*NET as well as the evaluation 
of the position provided by a professor at 
We find neither persuasive. 
We will first discuss the materials from O*NET. In accessing the O*NET Summary Report for 15-: 
1199.01 - the provision referenced by the Petitioner - we observe that O*NET does not state a 
requirement for a bachelor's degree for this occupation. Rather, it assigns this occupation a Job 
Zone "Four" rating, which groups it among occupations for which "most ... require a four-year 
bachelor's degree, but some do not." O*NET OnLine Summary Report for "15-1199.01- Software 
Quality Assurance Engineers and Testers," http:l/ww\v.onetonline.org /link/summary/15-1199.01 
(last visited Feb. 13, 2017). Further, O*NET does not indicate that 4-year bachelor's degrees 
required by Job Zone Four occupations must be in ;a specific specialty directly related to the 
occupation. Therefore, O*NET does not establish the proffered position as a specialty occupation. 
Nor are vJe persuaded by evaluation , which was prepared for a "Consultant-Quality 
Assurance Analyst" position. Though the Petitioner claims that the. position discussed by 
i~ similar to the proffered position here, we are not persuaded. First, the two positions do 
not have tpe same title, which raises questions as to whether opinion applies to the 
position offered here. Further, we note that according to the information upon which he 
based his conclusions was provided by It is not clear who is and his 
relationship to the Petitioner. Moreover , while provides a brief, general description of 
the Petitioner's business activities , he does not demonstrate in-depth knowledge of its operations or 
how the duties of the position \Vould actually be performed in the context of its business enterprise. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-S-, Inc. 
In addition, opinion letter does not cite specific instances in which his past opinions 
have been 
accepted or recognized as authoritative on this particular issue .. There is no indication that 
he has conducted any research or 
studies pertinent to the educational requirements for such positions 
(or parallel positions) in the Petitioner's industry for similar organizations, and no indication of 
recognition by professional organizations that he is an authority on those specific requirements. His 
curriculum vitae does not reflect that he has published any works on the academic/experience 
requirements for quality assurance analysts (or related issues). 
Even assuming possessed expertise on the degree requirements for quality assurance 
analysts, his opinion letter does not substantiate his conclusions, such that we can conclude that the 
Petitioner has met its burden of proof. First, does not reference, cite, or discuss any 
studies, surveys, industry publications, authoritative publications, or other sources of empirical 
information which he may have consulted to complete his evaluation. Second, does not 
indicate that he considered, or was even aware of, the fact that the Petitioner submitted an LCA for a 
Level I, entry-level position. Through this designation, the Petitioner indicated that the position is a 
comparatively lmv, entry-level position relative to others within its occupation. We consider this a 
significant omission, in that it suggests an incomplete review of the position i'n question and a faulty 
factual basis for ultimate conclusion as to the educational requirements 6f the position 
upon which he opines. 
For the reasons discussed, we find that opinion letter lends little probative value to the 
matter here. Matter of Caron lnt 'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm 'r 1988) (The service is not 
required to accept or may give less weight to an advisory opinion when it is "not in accord with 
other information or is in any way questionable."). 
Therefore, 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) (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. 
6 
Matter of A-S-, Inc. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by USCIS 
include: 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)). 
Here and as already discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for 
which the Handbook (or other independent, authoritative source) 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." Nor is there any other evidence for our consideration under this prong. 
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 next 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 le51st a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
A review of the record of proceedings finds that the Petitioner has not credibly demonstrated that the 
duties the Beneficiary will be responsible for or perform on a day-to-day basis constitute a position 
so complex or unique that it can only be performed by a person with at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. Even when considering the Petitioner's general descriptions of 
the proffered position's duties, the evidence of record does not establish why a few related courses 
or industry experience alone is insufficient preparation for the proffered position. While a few 
related courses may be beneficial, or even required, in perforn1ing certain duties of the position, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated how an established curriculum of such courses leading to a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the 
duties of the proffered position. The description of the duties does not specifically identify any tasks 
that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. The 
record lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish the proffered position as more complex 
or unique from other positions that can be performed by persons·without at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
7 
Matter ofA-S-, Inc. 
Further, the Petitioner attested on the submitted LCA that the wage level for the proffered position is 
a Level I wage. 7 Therefore, the evidence of record does not establish that this position is 
significantly different from other positions in the occupation such that it refutes the Handbook's 
information to the effect that there is a spectrum of degrees acceptable for such positions, including 
degrees not in a specific specialty. In other words, the record lacks sut1iciently detailed information 
to distinguish the proffered position as unique from or more complex than positions that can be 
performed by persons without at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. As the Petitioner did not demonstrate how the proffered position is so complex or 
unique relative to other positions w·ithin the same occupational category that do not require at least a 
baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for entry into the occupation in the 
United States, 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 Petitioner provided a list often people whom it stated, "are or were employed by [the Petitioner] 
in H-IB status in the position of Quality Assurance Analyst" and submitted copies oftheir diplomas. 
However, our analysis under this criterion encompasses all of the Petitioner's quality assurance 
analysts and is not limited to those who held H -1 B status. Though the Petitioner did not indicate 
whether these 10 individuals are the only people it has employed as quality assurance analysts, we 
observe that the Petitioner claims that it has 75 employees and has been in business for more than 20 
1 years. Further, the current record is insufficient to demonstrate that the duties of the positions held 
by these 10 individuals mirror the ones proffered here. These ten diplomas therefore do not establish 
eligibility under this criterion. 
We have reviewed the job vacancy announcement placed by the Petitioner advertising a QA Analyst 
position in New York. It states that the position requires a "BS/MS in Computer Science or a 
relevant field." However, that position is apparently not similar to the position proffered here, as 
that position requires 5 years of \vork experience in a software testing role and 3 years of managing 
onsite/offshore testing teams. The proffered position, on the other hand, is a Level I, entry-level 
position. 
7 The issue here is that the Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level 1 position undermines its claim that the 
position is particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation. 
Nevertheless, it is important to note that a Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position from 
classification as a specialty occupation. In certain occupations (doctors or lawyers, for example), such a position would 
still require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for entry. Similarly, however, a 
Level IV wage-designation would not reflect that an occupation qualifies as a specialty occupation if that higher-level 
position does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. That 
is, a position's wage level designation may be a consideration but is not a substitute for a determination of whether a 
proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)( 1) of the Act. 
8 
Matter of A-S-, Inc. 
Finally, the Petitioner's own statement about the requirements of the proffered position does not 
indicate that the proffered position requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty 
or its equivalent. As was noted above, in a letter submitted with the H-1 B petition, the Petitioner 
stated that the proffered position requires at least a bachelor's degree in "Computer Science, 
Engineering, Math, or a related field." 
In general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry and biochemistry, a minimum 
of a bacheJot's or higher degree in more than one specialty is recognized as satisfying the "degree in 
the specific specialty (or its equivalent)" requirement of section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act. In such a 
case, the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" would essentially be the same. Since 
there must be a close correlation between the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" and 
the position, however, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in two disparate fields, such as 
philosophy and engineering, would not meet the statutory requirem~nt that the degree be "in the 
specific specialty (or its equivalent)," unless the petitioner establishes how each field is directly 
related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position such that the required "body of 
highly specialized knowledge" is essentially an amalgamation of these different specialties. Section 
214(i)( 1 )(B) of the Act (emphasis added). 
In the instant case, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how computer science, mathematics, any and 
all branches of engineering, 8 and all subjects related to them are each directly related to the duties of 
the proffered position such that those apparently disparate subjects should be construed as a specific 
specialty. Absent additional explanation, the Petitioner's own requirements for the position appear 
to show that it is not a specialty occupation position. 
We cannot conclude that the Petitioner has satisfied the criterion at 8 , C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 9 
8 The field of engineering is a broad category that covers numerous and various specialties, some of which are only 
related through the basic principles of science and mathematics, e.g., nuclear engineering and aerospace 
engineering. Therefore, besides a degree in electrical engineering, it is not readily apparent that a general degree in 
engineering or one of its other sub-specialties, such as chemical engineering or nuclear engineering, is closely related to 
computer science or that engineering or any and all engineering specialties are directly related to the duties and 
responsibilities of the particular position proffered in this matter. 
9 While a petitioner may believe or otherwise assert that a proffered position requires a degree in a specific specialty, 
that opinion alone without corroborating evidence cannot establish the ~osition as a specialty occupation. Were USCIS 
limited solely to reviewing a 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 employer artificially created a 
token degree requirement, whereby all individuals employed in a particular position possessed a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in the specific specialty or its equivalent. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d at 387. In other words, if a 
petitioner's degree requirement is only symbolic and the proffered position does not in fact require such a specialty 
degree or its equivalent to perform its duties, the occupation would not meet the statutory or regulatory definition of a 
specialty occupation. See section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C. F. R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty 
occupation"). 
9 
Matter of A-S-, Inc. 
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. 
Again, relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by the Petitioner 
as an aspect of the proffered position. The duties of the proffered position, such as troubleshooting 
and debugging computer applications, contain insufficient indication of a nature so specialized and 
complex that they require knowledge usually associated with attainment of a minimum of a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
In other words, the proposed duties have not been described with sufficient specificity to show that 
they are more specialized and complex than those positions that are not usually associated with at 
least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
Further, as was noted above, the Petitioner filed the instant H -1 B petition for a wage Level 
position, a position for a beginning-level employee with only a basic understanding of the position. 
This does not support the proposition that the nature of the specific duties of the proffered position is 
so specialized and complex that their performance is usually associated with the attainment of a 
minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent, directly related to 
computers, especially as the Handbook indicates that some such positions require no such degree. In 
other words, if typical positions located within the occupational category do not require a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, then it is unclear how a position with the Level I 
characteristics deScribed above would, regardless ofthe Petitioner's asse1iions 
For the reasons discussed above, the evidence of record does not satisfy the fourth criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
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 burden is on the Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-S-, Inc., ID# 163417 (AAO Feb. 16, 20 17) 
10