dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10743069 
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: OCT. 23, 2020 
The Petitioner, an information technology company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"sr. software engineer" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. 
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-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 record did not 
establish the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The Director also concluded that the record 
did not establish the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the services of the proffered position. The 
matter is now before us on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the 
questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of Christa's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. SERVICES IN A SPECIAL TY OCCUPATION 
A. Legal Framework 
Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Act defines an H-lB nonimmigrant as a foreign national "who is 
coming temporarily to the United States to perform services .. . in a specialty occupation described in 
section 214(i)(l) . . . " (emphasis added). Section 214(i)(I) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(I), defines the 
term "specialty occupation" as an occupation that requires "theoretical and practical application of a 
body of highly specialized knowledge, and 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 section 214(i)(I) of the Act, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) provides that the 
proffered position must meet one of four criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation position.1 Lastly, 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(1) states that an H-lB classification may be granted to a foreign national 
who "will perform services in a specialty occupation ... "(emphasis added). 
Accordingly, to determine whether the Beneficiary will be employed in a specialty occupation, we 
review the record to ascertain the services the Beneficiary will perform and whether such services 
require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge attained 
through at least a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty or its equivalent. Without 
sufficient evidence regarding the duties the Beneficiary will perform, we are unable to determine whether 
the Beneficiary will be employed in an occupation that meets the statutory and regulatory definitions of 
a specialty occupation and a position that also satisfies at least one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). The services the Beneficiary will perform in the position determine: (1) the normal 
minimum educational requirement for entry into the particular position, which is the focus of criterion 
1; (2) industry positions which are parallel to the proffered position and thus appropriate for review 
for a common degree requirement, under the first alternate prong of criterion 2; (3) the level of 
complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position, which is the focus of the second alternate prong 
of criterion 2; (4) the factual justification for a petitioner normally requiring a degree or its equivalent, 
when that is an issue under criterion 3; and (5) the degree of specialization and complexity of the 
specific duties, which is the focus of criterion 4. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii){A). 
By regulation, the Director is charged with determining whether the petition involves a specialty 
occupation as defined in section 214(i)(1) of the Act. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(2). The Director 
may request additional evidence in the course of making this determination. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8). 
In addition, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the petition and must continue to 
be eligible through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). 
B. Analysis 
Upon review of the record in its totality, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently established 
the services in a specialty occupation that the Beneficiary would perform during the requested period 
of employment, which precludes a determination of whether the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation under sections 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 214(i)(1) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(1), 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) and (iii)(A). 2 
The Petitioner indicated that it "specializes in developing technology and ERP solutions for the public 
and private sectors," and "also provides technology products consulting and training and development 
1 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must be read with the statutory and regulatory definitions of a specialty 
occupation under section 214(i)(1) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 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"). 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered position 
and its business operations. Although we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered 
each one. 
2 
services." The Petitioner describes the proffered "sr. software engineer's"3 position's duties, and the 
percentage of the Beneficiary's time required to perform them, as follows: 
I Customize and manage large projects for MS Dynamics AX 2012 R2, R3 and AX 
2009 (15%); 
I Configure Dynamics X 2012, AIF, C#, .NET framework, Web Forms/Win Forms, 
WCF and Web Services (5%); 
I Interpret and create functional/technical specifications (15%); 
I Enable integration with third party applications using AIF and .Net Business 
Connector (10%); 
I Install and configure Dynamics AX 2012 environments (5%); 
I Participate in design and code review (15%); 
I Provide estimations of development time requirements for new customizations or 
enhancements (10%); 
I Upgrade Dynamics AX from version 4.0, 2009 to 2012 and or [sic] D365 (10%); 
I Work on task management and planning by breaking down functional 
specifications into technical designs, development tasks, estimates, and executing 
to completion (10%); 
I Troubleshoot and resolve software bugs, data, and system configuration issues 
(5%); and 
I Work on Microsoft Dynamics AX core version for configuration and 
implementation (5%).4 
The record does not contain sufficient information regarding the Petitioner's business and the 
Beneficiary's duties in the proffered position. For example, the record contains printouts from the 
Petitioner's website that list available solutions and products but the printouts do not contain 
instructive information regarding system capabilities or functionalities. Similarly, the duty description 
consists of generalized language that does not sufficiently describe the services to be performed, in 
order to determine whether they require a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. For example, for one of the most time-consuming (15%) duties, the Petitioner asserted 
that the Beneficiary would "[c]ustomize and manage large projects" for various Microsoft 
applications. The extent of the expanded description for that task is as follows: "[The Petitioner] has 
built c=Jproprietary software product solution [identifying three products by name] on top of 
Dynamics AX. These □products need to be continuously updated. [The BenJficiar~] has the 
understanding of all versions of AX and will help design and customize proprietar products." 
The expanded description provides limited information about the nature of the projects. The narrative 
does not provide examples of features that need to be updated, or what is involved in customizing and 
3 To determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, we do not simply rely on a position's title. The 
specific duties of the proffered position, combined with the nature of the petitioning entity's business operations, are factors 
to be considered. We must examine the ultimate employment of the individual, and determine whether the position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384 (5th Cir. 2000). The critical element 
is not the title of the position or an employer's self-imposed standards, but whether the position actually requires the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment of a baccalaureate or 
higher degree in the specific specialty as the minimum for entry into the occupation, as required by the Act. 
4 The Petitioner submitted expanded duty descriptions. Although we omit the expanded descriptions for brevity, we have 
reviewed them in their entirety. Additionally, we note that the estimated time required for the Beneficiary to perform the 
duties exceeds 100%. 
3 
managing these proprietarOproducts, and whether preforming such duty requires a bachelor's or 
higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
As another example, the Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary would "[i]nterpret and create 
functional/technical specifications," without describing the specifications in order to determine their 
relative complexity, and what is required in interpreting and creating the specifications. The extent of 
the expanded description for that task is as follows: 
Product development goes through complete software development life cycle. Product 
owners and architects at [the Petitioner] drives [sic] the product development effort. 
Technical customization and development is done based on the design documents 
(functional and technical designs). Work with product architects to create architectural 
design and testing documents for software product enhancements. 
The expanded description does not convey what is involved in software development life cycle and 
does not adequately describe the Beneficiary's role in product development. The expanded description 
informs that the Petitioner's product owners and architects develop the Petitioner's products; however, 
it does not establish that the Beneficiary, as a "sr. software engineer," would be either a product owner 
or architect. Moreover, the description does not explain what "work with product architects" means 
and how that creation of architectural design requires a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. 
Using another duty as an example, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would "[p]articipate in 
design and code reviews." The extent of the expanded description for that task is as fol lows: 
[The Petitioner's] software solutions are very deep in functionality and has [sic] so 
much dependency on the base platform which is [Microsoft] Dynamics AX. Any 
changes to the software product requires [sic] approvals from product advisory team 
and solution architects. Conduct design reviews of the designs and new features as part 
of the approval to release the designs into development. 
Similar to the other expanded descriptions, the Petitioner does not explain what it means by the 
Petitioner's software solutions are "very deep in functionality." Further, this expanded description 
references a product advisory team and solution architects, but it does not clarify whether the 
Beneficiary's role, as a "sr. software engineer," would be on a product advisory team or as a solution 
architect, or as an outside party seeking "approvals from product advisory team and solution 
architects." Moreover, this expanded description does not clarify the types of designs and code that 
the Beneficiary would review, in order to determine whether performing such a duty would require a 
bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. The remainder of the duty 
description, and the expanded duties, consist of similarly vague language.5 
5 Although the Petitioner designated the proffered position in the "Software Developer, Applications," occupational category, 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 15-1132.00 from the Occupational Information 
Network (O*NET), on the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the petition, the duties bear similarities 
to typical tasks of other SOC codes, such as Computer Systems Analysts. See O*NET Online Summary Report for 
"15-1121.00 - Computer Systems Analysts," https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/15-1121.00 (last visited Oct. 20, 
4 
We note that the record contains twl opiniol letters from.___ _______ __. a professor of 
information systems management at University.6 As a matter of discretion, we may use 
opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron lnt'I, Inc., 19 l&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 l&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 rather is admissible only if 'it will assist 
the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue."') . 
.___ ___ ____.!recites the duties listed above and opines that "it is apparent that a minimum of a 
Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science, a related area, or the equivalent provides the student with the 
core competencies and skills needed for a Sr. Software Engineer position.''! I informs that 
"[a] student completing a Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science or a related area studies the theories 
and methods that are necessary for performing these daily tasks of a Sr. Software Engineer for [the 
Petitioner]." I !further asserts that "duties such as configuring Dynamics AX 2012, AIF, 
C#, .NET framework, Web Forms/Win Forms, WCF and Web Services' creating architectural design 
and testing documents for software product enhancements could only be performed competently by a 
candidate with at least a Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science or a related area." However, □ 
I I does not assist us in understanding what a task such as "[customizing] and manag[ing] large 
projects for MS Dynamics AX 2012 R2, R3 and AX 2009" entails, or what any of the other services 
involve, and why the performance of those services requires a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. 
In other wordsl ts opinion is not supported by sufficient facts and data.I Is 
opinion does not "assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue." 
Matter of V-K-, 24 l&N Dec. at 502 n.2. Specifically, the substance of the services the Beneficiary 
would perform are threshold facts in issue we cannot determine. Because I l's opinion does 
not assist us to understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue, it bears minimal probative value. 
See Matter of Caron lnt'I, Inc., 19 l&N Dec. at 795; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 l&N Dec. at 502 n.2. 
In summation, we conclude that the record does not establish the substantive nature of the proffered 
position, which therefore precludes a determination of whether the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. 
2020). 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)(1) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(a). 
The similarities between the position's duties and those of other occupational categories, in addition to the concerns 
regarding the actual seniority of the proffered position, raise questions regarding whether the LCA corresponds to the 
petition. 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b). 
6 The second letter, submitted in support of the appeal, generally restates verbatim the prior letter, but introduces new 
information not in the record at the time of the decision, such as "a telephone conference call" with the Petitioner's 
corporate vice president in March 2020 "in order to obtain a detailed understanding of the company's operations, key client 
offerings, major clients, and IT staffing requirements." 
5 
11. BENEFICIARY QUALIFICATIONS 
A. Legal Framework 
Section 214(i)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(2), states that an individual applying for classification 
as an H-1B nonimmigrant worker must possess: 
{A) full state licensure to practice in the occupation, if such licensure is required to 
practice in the occupation, 
(B) completion of the degree described in paragraph (1)(8) for the occupation, or 
(C) (i) experience in the specialty equivalent to the completion of such degree, and 
(ii) recognition of expertise in the specialty through progressively responsible 
positions relating to the specialty. 
In implementing section 214(i)(2) of the Act, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C) states that 
a beneficiary must also meet one of the following criteria in order to qualify to perform services in a 
specialty occupation: 
(1) Hold a United States baccalaureate or higher degree required by the specialty 
occupation from an accredited college or university; 
(2) Hold a foreign degree determined to be equivalent to a United States 
baccalaureate or higher degree required by the specialty occupation from an 
accredited college or university; 
(3) Hold an unrestricted State license, registration or certification which authorizes 
him or her to fully practice the specialty occupation and be immediately 
engaged in that specialty in the state of intended employment; or 
(4) Have education, specialized training, and/or progressively responsible 
experience that is equivalent to completion of a United States baccalaureate or 
higher degree in the specialty occupation, and have recognition of expertise in 
the specialty through progressively responsible positions directly related to the 
specialty. 
In order to equate a beneficiary's credentials to a U.S. baccalaureate or higher degree, the provisions 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D) require one or more of the following: 
(1) An evaluation from an official who has authority to grant college-level credit 
for training and/or experience in the specialty at an accredited college or 
university which has a program for granting such credit based on an individual's 
training and/or work experience; 
6 
(2) The results of recognized college-level equivalency examinations or special 
credit programs, such as the College Level Examination Program (CLEP), or 
Program on Noncollegiate Sponsored Instruction (PONSI); 
(3) An evaluation of education by a reliable credentials evaluation service which 
specializes in evaluating foreign educational credentials; 
(4) Evidence of certification or registration from a nationally-recognized 
professional association or society for the specialty that is known to grant 
certification or registration to persons in the occupational specialty who have 
achieved a certain level of competence in the specialty; 
(5) A determination by the Service that the equivalent of the degree required by the 
specialty occupation has been acquired through a combination of education, 
specialized training, and/or work experience in areas related to the specialty and 
that the alien has achieved recognition of expertise in the specialty occupation 
as a result of such training and experience .... 
B. Analysis 
Separate from the issue of whether the record establishes the substantive nature of the proffered 
position and furthermore whether the position qualified as a specialty occupation, the record does not 
establish that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the services of the proffered position, based on 
the Petitioner's stated academic requirements of "a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science, a directly 
related field, or the equivalent." On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary "qualifies for 
the proffered specialty occupation based on the criteria in 8 CFR §§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4) and (D)(l)," 
referencing "experience letters" and an opinion letter froml I a professor of 
computer science and information systems ac=]University. The Petitioner does not assert, and the 
record does not support the conclusion, that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the services of the 
proffered position, based on the Petitioner's stated academic requirements, under any other criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C), (D). 7 
.___ ___ __.I opines that "[the Beneficiary] has completed at least eleven years of specialized training 
and work experience in Com uter Science and related areas." asserts that "[the 
Beneficiary] worked for.___ _______________ __.[,] in the role of Senior 
Business Analyst from January 2004 January [sic] 2007, in the role of Lead - Industry Vertical 
7 For example, the record contains a Final Examination Certificate from The Institute of Cost and Works Accountants of 
India (ICWAI); however, it does not contain an evaluation of education by a reliable credentials evaluation service which 
specializes in evaluating foreign educational credentials, to establish whether the accounting certificate is equivalent to a 
U.S. bachelor's or higher degree in "Computer Science, a directly related field, or the equivalent," as required by the 
Petitioner. The certificate does not indicate whether the final examination the Beneficiary passed was in a specific 
academic specialty. Furthermore, the record also does not contain evidence of the coursework the Beneficiary completed 
at ICWAI, in order to determine whether the Beneficiary's actual instruction is sufficiently similar to a particular U.S. 
bachelor's degree program. I I remarks that the Beneficiary "fulfilled the requirements in his area of 
concentration, Accounting"; however, he does not identify information in the record to support that statement, such as an 
evaluation of education by a reliable credentials evaluation service which specializes in evaluating foreign educational 
credentials. 
7 
Solutions Team from January 2007 to January 2009, and in the role of Lead - Vertical Solutions from 
January 2009 to April 2011"; and "[f]rom July 2011 to at least October 2015, [the Beneficiary] worked 
to .__ ______________ ~in the role of Project Manager/Team Lead." 
The record contains a brief, half-page letter from'-------------~· dated May 
2012, accepting the Beneficiary's resignation and appreciating "all of the fine contributions [the 
Beneficiary] made as Lead - Industry Vertical Solution [sic] during the tenure of our engagement 
period of 3rd January 2005 to 30th April 2012." Contrary tol I opinion, the c=]letter 
does not establish that the Beneficiary worked tolLJprior to January 2005. Furthermore, the D 
letter indicates that the Beneficiary continued working forD past April 2011, until April 2012. 
Also contrary td I opinion, thec=Jletter also does not indicate that the Beneficiary held 
any position title other than "Lead - Industry Vertical Solution" during his employment there. 
Moreover, the letter does not elaborate on the responsibilities of a "Lead - Industry Vertical Solution" 
or any other position, in order to determine whether the position(s) was (or were) "directly related to 
the specialty," and whether his responsibilities progressed.8 See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4). 
Additionally, regardless of whether the Beneficiary's responsibilities progressed, thel I letter 
expresses appreciation for the Beneficiary's contributions, but it does not recognize the Beneficiary's 
expertise in any particular specialty, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4). 
The record also contains a two-page letter from . .__----------------.--....--------' 
dated February 2015, addressed to "Sir/Madam," certifying that the Beneficiary worked to since 
July 2011. The record does not reconcile whether the Beneficiary worked for both Dand 17 
between July 2011 and April 2012, when thee=] letter indicates the Beneficiary resigned fromc=f 
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 l&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 
1988). In this case, thel7andc=J letters' statements cast doubt regarding whether the Beneficiary 
worked for D orc=J during a 
1
a-maotb oeriod, and regarding the general reliabilitY. and 
sufficiency of the letters. Furthermore I· statements that are inconsistent with thee=] 
letter, addressed above, cast doubt on the reliability and sufficiency of his opinion and the extent to 
which he is familiar with the information on which he opined. See id. Furthermore, the factual 
inconsistencies minimize the probative value of his opinion regarding those facts. See Matter of Caron 
lnt'I, Inc., 19 l&N Dec. at 795; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 l&N Dec. at 502 n.2. 
Although the D letter lists the Beneficiary's duties, as noted, the~ letter does not elaborate on 
his responsibilities ate=] therefore, we are unable to determine whether his responsibilities as a 
"Project Manager/Team Lead" for c=]proress
1
d from his responsibilities as a "Lead - Industry 
Vertical Solution" fore=] We note that the letter states that its managing director "believe[s] 
[the Beneficiary] was consistently assigned duties of an increasingly complex nature and acquired 
more and more responsibility as time progressed" during his employment ate=] however, it does 
not establish that the Beneficiary's responsibilities actually progressed. Instead, the letter recites one 
list of duties for the Beneficiary's entire employment period. Furthermore, regardless of whether the 
~ I does not address prior employer letters in the record, indicating the Beneficiary worked as a "finance 
executive" for a dry 
1
arm, as a "business analyst (ERP implementation)," and as a showroom "inventory controller" 
before working for . 
8 
Beneficiary's responsibilities progressed, similar to the01etter, thec=Jletter does not establish 
recognition of the Beneficiary's expertise in the "Software Developers, Applications," occupational 
category, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4). 9 
In summation, regardless of the extent to whichl I opinion is consistent with the letters 
from the Beneficiary's prior employers in the record, the letters do not contain sufficient information 
to support the conclusion-or opinion-that the Beneficiary holds recognition of expertise in the 
specialty through progressively responsible positions directly related to the SrJecialty, which is an 
essential element of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4). Furthermore, we note thatl !opined 
twice in his opinion letters, addressed above, that "[c]learly, a candidate must have competed course 
work and training in Computer Science or a related area at the undergraduate level at a minimum to 
competently handle the duties required by the Sr. Software Engineer position," and the record does 
not establish that the Beneficiary completed any such course work. Therefore, the record does not 
support the conclusion that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the services of the proffered 
position, based on the Petitioner's stated academic requirements.10 
111. 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. 
9 The duties in thec=]letter generally match the typical duties of a "Computer Systems Analyst." See O*NET Online 
Summary Report for "15-1121.00 - Computer Systems Analysts," https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/15-1121.00 
(last visited Oct. 20, 2020). 
10 Both of our conclusions regarding the substantive nature of the proffered position and whether the Beneficiary would 
be qualified to perform the services, based on the Petitioner's stated academic requirements, are dispositive. 
9