dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 1617241 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 31, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an "engagement manager" under the H-lB 
nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
The California Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish 
that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. Upon 
de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
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: 
(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. Chertojf, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in a 
specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular 
position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner, an analytics consulting company, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as an "engagement 
manager." In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided a detailed 
job description for the proffered position which identified the primary duties and responsibilities of 
the Beneficiary, along with the approximate percentage of time the Beneficiary will spend on each 
duty. 1 According to the Petitioner, the proffered position requires at least a bachelor's degree in 
engineering or a related field. 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. Specifically, the record 
does not include sufficient consistent, probative evidence establishing that the job duties require an 
educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 
A. Lack of a Requirement for a Bachelor's Degree in a Specific Specialty, or the Equivalent 
The Petitioner stated that its minimum educational requirement for the proffered position is a bachelor's 
degree in the general field of engineering. A petitioner must demonstrate that the proffered position 
requires a precise and specific course of study that relates directly and closely to the position in question. 
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 science and engineering, without further 
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) (a general college degree is not sufficient for specialty 
occupation purposes). 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 
1 The record contains multiple descriptions of the duties of the position, including the corresponding percentage of time 
devoted to each stated duty. For the sake of brevity, we will not quote the job descriptions; however, we have closely 
reviewed and considered them. 
2 
the position requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specialized field of study or its 
equivalent. As explained above, 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. We have 
consistently stated that, although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business 
administration, 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. 
The field of engineering 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. The Petitioner has not explained how a general degree in engineering or one of its 
specialties, such as chemical engineering or biomechanical engineering, is directly related to the duties 
and responsibilities of the position of engagement manager. 
Moreover, despite the Petitioner's requirement of a degree in engineering or a related field, the record 
indicates that the Beneficiary holds the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in information technology 
management, and that the Petitioner deems the Beneficiary's qualifications acceptable. The Petitioner, 
who bears the burden of proof in this proceeding, has not established that (1) information technology 
management and engineering in general are closely related fields or (2) that either of these fields is 
directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the proffered position. Absent this evidence, it 
cannot be found that the particular position proffered in this matter has a normal minimum entry 
requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent under the 
Petitioner's own standards. 
Even if we set that issue aside we would still conclude that the proffered position is not a specialty 
occupation because the evidence of record does not satisfy at least one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(ii)(l)-( 4). 2 
B. First Criterion 
The criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), 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 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 The Petitioner designated the proffered position on the labor 
condition application (LCA)4 as a Standard Occupation Classification (SOC) code 15-1199 "Computer 
Occupations, All Other" occupation. In response to the Director's RFE the Petitioner asserted that the 
duties of the proffered position are consistent with the duties of the "Information Technology Project 
Managers" occupation, SOC code 15-1199.09. 
2 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
3 The Handbook may be accessed at https://www.bls.gov/ooh. 
4 A petitioner is required to submit an LCA to the Depaitment of Labor 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 2 l 2(n)( I) of the Act; 
20 C.F.R. § 655.73 l(a). 
3 
The Handbook is a career resource offering information on hundreds of occupations. However, there are 
occupational categories which the Handbook does not cover in detail, and instead provides only summary 
data. 5 The subchapter of the Handbook titled "Data for Occupations Not Covered in Detail" states, in 
relevant part, that the "[t]ypical entry-level education" for "Information Technology Project Managers" 
is a "Bachelor's degree," without indicating that the bachelor's degree must be in a specific specialty. 6 
Thus, the Handbook is not probative in establishing that these positions comprise an occupational group 
for which normally the minimum requirement for entry is at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. 
We have also reviewed the DOL's O*NET summary report for "Information Technology Project 
Managers."7 The summary report provides general information regarding the occupation. For example, 
the Specialized Vocational Preparation (SVP) rating cited within O*NET's Job Zone Four rating 
designates this occupation as 7 < 8. An SVP rating of 7 to less than("<") 8 indicates that the occupation 
requires "over 2 years up to and including 4 years" of training. 8 While the SVP rating indicates the total 
number of years of vocational preparation required for a particular position, it is important to note that it 
does not describe how those years are to be divided among training, formal education, and experience -
and it does not specify the particular type of degree, if any, that a position would require. 9 We have 
considered the Petitioner's reference to the O*NET's summary report of the educational requirements of 
"respondents" and its claim that 100 percent of respondents report a bachelor's degree is required. 10 
However, the respondents' positions within this occupation are not distinguished by career level ( e.g., 
entry-level, mid-level, senior-level). Additionally, the graph in the summary report does not indicate that 
the "education level" for the respondents must be in a specific specialty. The O*NET summary report 
for this occupation does not establish the duties of the Petitioner's particular position would normally 
require a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
The record does not include sufficient documentation from a probative source to establish the normal 
minimum requirement for entry into this particular occupation. The Petitioner has not satisfied the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
C. 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 concentrates on 
5 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook. Data for Occupations Not Covered in 
Detail, https://www.bls.gov/ooh/about/data-for-occupations-not-covered-in-detail.htm (last visited Jan.29.2020). 
6 The Handbook also indicates that this occupation does not require work experience in a related occupation or typical 
on-the-job training. Id. 
7 See https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/l 5-l l 99.09 (last visited Jan. 29, 2020). 
8 See id. 
9 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/help/online/svp. 
10 The O*NET summary report indicates that 38 percent of the respondents had a bachelor's degree, 24 percent an 
associate's degree, and 19 percent a post-baccalaureate certificate. The wide variance in the type of degree, within the 
same year, undermines any reliance on these types of surveys to establish a normal minimum requirement of even a general 
bachelor's degree. See https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/15- l l 99 .09 (last visited Jan. 29, 2020). 
4 
the 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. 
Here and as already discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook ( or other independent, authoritative sources) reports an industry-wide requirement for at 
least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, we incorporate by reference the 
previous discussion on the matter. Also, there are no submissions from the industry's professional 
association indicating that it has made a degree a minimum entry requirement. 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted several job postings to demonstrate that a 
degree in a specific specialty is a common requirement of the industry for parallel positions among similar 
organizations. Even if we assume that the job postings submitted include similar duties and 
responsibilities as the duties listed for the proffered position, and are from similar organizations, these job 
postings raise significant concern that the Petitioner has not submitted a certified LCA that supports the 
petition. All of the job advertisements require experience in addition to the stated bachelor's degree. 
Specifically, the posting by Fractal Analytics requires 7-10 years of analytical experience and "5+ years 
of CPG-Retail experience" in addition to a bachelor's or master's degree. The three postings submitted 
by MU Sigma require varying amounts of experience ranging from 3 years, 5 years, and 4-10 years, 
respectively. The Petitioner has identified its particular position as a wage Level II position on the 
certified LCA. A Level II wage for a Job Zone Four occupation with an SVP 7 < 8 rating is for a position 
that may require more than two years and up to three years of experience. Any required additional 
experience would require a corresponding increase in the wage level. 11 Either the advertised positions 
are for more senior-level positions than the position proffered here, and thus are not parallel to the 
proffered position, or the Petitioner has not submitted an LCA that corresponds to and supports the 
petition. 12 In either case, the advertisements do not establish that there is a common requirement of the 
industry for parallel positions among similar organizations. 13 
11 A requirement of more than three years and up to four years of experience requires a conesponding two-level increase 
in wage level and a requirement for more than four years of experience requires a conesponding three-level increase in 
wage level. 
12 As the documentation does not establish that the Petitioner has met this prong of the regulations, further analysis 
regarding the specific information contained in each of the job postings is not necessary. That is not every deficit of every 
job posting has been addressed. For example, the Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how 
representative the job postings are of the particular adve1iising employers' recruiting history for the type of job 
advertised. As the advertisements are only solicitations for hire, they are not evidence of the actual hiring practices of 
these employers. 
13 Even if all of the job postings indicated that a requirement of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is common to 
the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations (which they do not), the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from the advertisements with regard to determining the common 
educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice 
of Social Research 186-228 ( 1995). We note that all of the advertisements accept degrees in multiple, disparate fields such 
5 
Without more, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first 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 least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
In support of its assertion that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, the Petitioner 
described the proffered position and its business operations. Although the Petitioner described the 
duties of the position in detail, it has not demonstrated how the duties of the proffered position require 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge such that a 
bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform them. 
Specifically, the record contains varying requirements for the proffered position. In its support letter, 
the Petitioner initially stated that the position requires a bachelor's degree in engineering or a related 
field depending. In response to the RFE, the Petitioner identified numerous fields it deemed related 
and acceptable, stating that "the best degree programs are those in Engineering, Statistics, 
Mathematics, Computer Science, or related degrees that require the specific coursework to obtain the 
specific knowledge we need." 14 In addition, it submitted job advertisements accepting general 
business degrees as prerequisites, and the record indicates that the Beneficiary holds the equivalent of 
a U.S. bachelor's degree in information technology management, a field not identified by the Petitioner 
as an acceptable prerequisite. The record contains no explanation for varying degree and experience 
requirements. The Petitioner must resolve these inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Unresolved 
material inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of other evidence 
submitted in support of the requested immigration benefit. Id. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well qualified for the pos1t10n, and references her 
qualifications. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education 
or experience of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner did not submit information relevant to 
a detailed course of study leading to a specialty degree and establish how such a curriculum would be 
necessary to perform the duties it believes are so complex and unique. While some related courses 
may be beneficial, or even required, in performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner has not 
as engineering, business, economics, statistics, computer science, operations research, and "pharma." Moreover, given 
that there is no indication that the advertisements were randomly selected, the validity of any such inferences could not be 
accurately determined even if the sampling unit were sufficiently large. See id. at 195-196 (explaining that "[r]andom 
selection is the key to [the] process [of probability sampling]" and that "random selection offers access to the body of 
probability theory, which provides the basis for estimates of population parameters and estimates of error"). 
14 Despite this statement the Petitioner maintained its minimum requirement of a bachelor's degree in engineering, or a 
related field, for entry into the proffered position. 
6 
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 proffered position's duties. 
The Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties 
of the position. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
D. 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. 15 Evidence provided 
in support of this criterion may include, but is not limited to, documentation regarding the Petitioner's 
past recruitment and hiring practices, as well as information regarding employees who previously held 
the position. 
The record must establish that a petitioner's stated degree requirement is not a matter of preference 
for high-caliber candidates but is necessitated instead by performance requirements of the position. 
See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. Were we limited solely to reviewing a petitioner's claimed 
self-imposed requirements, an organization could bring any individual with a bachelor's degree to the 
United States to perform any occupation as long as the petitioning entity created a token degree 
requirement. Id. Evidence provided in support of this criterion may include, but is not limited to, 
documentation regarding the Petitioner's past recruitment and hiring practices, as well as information 
regarding employees who previously held the position. 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted the names, degrees, resumes, and paystubs for 
several of its employees. 16 The Petitioner asserts that these individuals are employed in roles parallel to 
the proffered position. The Petitioner, however, did not describe the duties for each of these employees 
or the level of responsibility demanded for their particular role. Without knowing what duties the 
employees are actually required to perform, other specifics about the project(s) they will actually service, 
and their level of responsibility, we cannot determine the relevance of these submissions. 
The Petitioner has not established that the performance of 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, or its equivalent, as the minimum for entry into the occupation 
as required by section 214(i)(l) of the Act. The Petitioner, therefore, has not established the third criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
15 To satisfy this criterion, the record must establish that the specific performance requirements of the position generated 
the Petitioner's recruiting and hiring history. In this pursuit, the critical element is not the title of the position, or the fact 
that an employer has routinely insisted on ceitain educational standards, but whether performance of 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, or its equivalent, as the minimum for entry into the occupation as 
required by section 2 l 4(i)(l) of the Act. 
16 The employee records do not all include credential evaluations for a foreign degree. 
7 
E. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature of 
the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is usually 
associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
We have again reviewed the duties of the proffered position and the allocation of time that the Petitioner 
provided in response to the Director's RFE. However, the duties as described are insufficient to establish 
that such duties require a bachelor's level degree in a specific discipline, rather than a few foundational 
technical courses. That is, the Petitioner does not expand upon which of the particular duties of this 
position are so specialized and complex or unique as to require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty 
in order to perform them. We do not find that the Petitioner has sufficiently developed the duties of its 
particular position to establish which of the duties, ifany, of the proffered position would be so specialized 
and complex or unique as to be distinguishable from those of similar but non-degreed or non-specialty 
degreed employment. We understand that the individual in the proffered position will manage particular 
software development projects. The Petitioner, however, has not provided sufficient probative evidence 
to demonstrate that such a manager requires a bachelor's-level degree in an engineering-related discipline 
to manage such projects, rather than general knowledge of third party technology, experience in project 
management, and some technical skills and knowledge. The proposed duties do not include meaningful 
discussion of what the Beneficiary will actually be required to do in the proffered position and how those 
duties require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge. 
We have also reviewed the Petitioner's business operations and the proposed contracts wherein the 
Beneficiary may perform as engagement manager. These documents, however, provide little insight into 
the level of complexity or demands associated with the proposed duties or the specialized knowledge 
required to perform them. The Petitioner does not adequately develop relative specialization and 
complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position. In other words, the proposed duties 
have not been described with sufficient specificity to show that they are more specialized and complex or 
unique than an information technology project managers' position that is not usually associated with at 
least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner's designation of the 
proffered position as requiring only a Level II wage is especially troubling. This designation 
undermines any claim that the proffered position satisfies these criteria. As discussed above, typical 
positions located within the occupational category do not require a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or the equivalent, thus it is unclear how a position with only Level II characteristics would 
require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 17 
The record does not include probative consistent evidence establishing that the proposed position is so 
specialized and complex or unique such that only an individual with a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, can perform the position. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that its 
17 The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level TT wage on the certified LCA, indicating that it is a position 
for an employee who has a good understanding of the occupation but who will only perform moderately complex tasks 
that require limited judgment. See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy 
Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdt1/N 
PWHC _Guidance_ Revised_ 11 _ 2009 .pdf Therefore, it does not appear that the position is one with specialized and 
complex or unique duties. as such a higher-level position would be classified as a Level III ( experienced) or Level IV 
(fully competent) position. requiring a significantly higher prevailing wage. 
8 
proffered position is one with duties sufficiently specialized and complex or unique to satisfy the second 
prong of the second criterion or the fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that the proffered position satisfies any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). The Petitioner has not presented probative evidence or argument sufficient to 
establish that, more likely than not, the proffered position is a specialty occupation as defined by the 
regulations and the statute. We do not reach the deficiencies regarding the Beneficiary's qualifications 
to perform the duties of the proffered position as the specialty occupation issue is dispositive of the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
9