dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9096095 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 30, 2020 
The Petitioner, an information technology solutions provider, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "sales engineer" under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-1B 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 that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The matter is now before us 
on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate el igibi I ity 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. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(I) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(I), 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) 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"). 
11. THE PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a sales engineer. In response to the Director's request 
for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided a list of job duties for the proffered position, as follows: 
Respond to functional and technical elements of RFls/RFPs 5% 
Convey customer requirements to Product Management teams to ensure 5% 
Product Management Team makes the correct upgrades/feature improvements 
and satisfies customer needs more efficiently 
Prepare cost estimates by evaluating processes, plans, and related customer 5% 
documents 
Consult with architects, other professional and technical personnel 5% 
Design solutions utilizing [the Petitioner's] best practices and maintain 55% 
technical responsibility for project delivery as the sole technical resource on a 
project or the leader of a delivery team 
Consult with clients and partners to provide functional and technical expertise 15% 
in areas including, solution design, project management, business process 
improvement and risk identification/mitigation 
Develop and document configuration best practices and contribute to team 10% 
training and professional development efforts 
The Petitioner also included tasks the Beneficiary would perform in carrying out each duty. 
The Petitioner indicated that the minimum entry requirement for the proffered position is a bachelor's 
degree, or equivalent, in computer engineering or a related field. 
2 
Ill. ANALYSIS 
For the reasons set out below, we have determined that the proffered position does not qualify as a 
specialty occupation. Specifically, the record does not: (1) describe the proffered position in sufficient 
detail; and (2) establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, 
commensurate with a specialty occupation.1 
A. First Criterion 
We turn first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(1), which requires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. We recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational 
Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements 
of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 2 
On the labor condition application (LCA) 3 submitted in support of the H-1B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Sales Engineers" corresponding to 
the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 41-9031. Thus, we reviewed the Handbook's 
subchapter entitled "How to Become a Sales Engineer," which states, in pertinent part, that sales 
engineers typically need a bachelor's degree in engineering or a related field but that a worker without 
a degree, but with previous sales experience as well as technical experience or training, may qualify 
for the position of sales engineer.4 The Handbook also states that "workers who have a degree in 
science, such as chemistry, or in business with little or no previous sales experience, also may become 
sales engineers."5 To prove that a job requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of 
highly specialized knowledge as required by section 214(i)(1) 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. The Handbook's report does not establish this standard. 
For example, the Handbook indicates that baccalaureate degrees in various fields (engineering, 
science, or business) may be adequate for entry into this occupation. In general, provided the 
specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry and biochemistry, a minimum of a bachelor's of higher 
degree in more than one specialty is recognized as satisfying the "degree in the specific specialty (or 
1 The Petitioner submitted documentation in support of 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. 
2 We do not maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. That is, the occupational category 
designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered 
position, and we regularly review the Handbook on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of 
occupations that it addresses. To satisfy the first criterion, however, the burden 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. 
3 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). 
4 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Sales Engineers, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/sales/sales-engineers.htm (last visited Sept. 15, 2020). 
5 Id. 
3 
its equivalent)" requirement of section 214(i)(1)(B) of the Act.6 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 disparate fields, such as engineering, science, and business, would 
not meet the statutory requirement 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. Section 214(i)(1)(b). 
The Handbook, therefore, does not support a conclusion that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular 
position. 
The Petitioner also references DOL's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) summary report 
for "Sales Engineers," listed as SOC code 41-9031.00 for our consideration under this criterion. 
Though relevant, the information the Petitioner submits from O*NET does not establish the 
Petitioner's eligibility under the first criterion, as it does not establish that a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or the equivalent, is normally required. The summary report provides general 
information regarding the occupation; however, it does not support the Petitioner's assertion regarding 
the educational requirements for these positions. For example, the Specific Vocational Preparation 
(SVP) rating, which is defined as "the amount of lapsed time required by a typical worker to learn the 
techniques, acquire the information, and develop the facility needed for average performance in a 
specific job-worker situation," cited within O*NET's Job Zone designates this position as having an 
SVP 7 < 8. This indicates that the occupation requires "over 2 years up to and including 4 years" of 
training. 7 While the SVP rating provides 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.8 The O*NET summary report for this occupation also 
does not specify that a degree is required, but instead states, "most of these occupations require a four­
year bachelor's degree, but some do not." Similar to the SVP rating, the Job Zone Four designation 
does not indicate that any academic credentials for Job Zone Four occupations must be directly related 
to the duties performed. 
Further, we note that the summary report provides the educational requirements of "respondents," but 
does not account for 100% of the "respondents." The respondents' positions within the occupation 
are not distinguished by career level (e.g., entry-level, mid-level, senior-level). Additionally, the graph 
6 Whether read with the statutory "the" or the regulatory "a," both readings denote a singular "specialty." Section 
214(i){l){B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). Still, we do not so narrowly interpret these provisions to exclude 
positions from qualifying as specialty occupations if they permit, as a minimum entry requirement, degrees in more than 
one closely related specialty. This includes even seemingly disparate specialties provided the evidence of record 
establishes how each acceptable, specific field of study is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular 
position. The Petitioner has not provided this evidence here. 
7 This training may be acquired in a school, work, military, institutional, or vocational environment. Specific vocational 
training includes: vocational education, apprenticeship training, in-plant training, on-the-job training, and essential 
experience in other jobs. 
8 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/help/ 
online/svp. 
4 
in the summary report does not indicate that the "education level" for the respondents must be in a 
specific specialty. 9 A requirement for a bachelor's degree alone is not sufficient. Instead, 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., 484 F.3d at 147 (describing "a 
degree requirement in a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities 
of a particular position"). 
O*NET, therefore, also does not support the assertion that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for these positions. 
Nor is the case law the Petitioner cites sufficient to satisfy the first criterion. The Petitioner contends 
that in concluding a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, is not normally the 
minimum requirement for the proffered position, the Director mischaracterized the Handbook and 
cites to Next Generation Tech., Inc. v. Johnson, 328 F. Supp. 3d 252 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) to claim that her 
conclusion bore no "rational connection" to the Handbook. 
First, we are not bound to follow the published decision of a United States district court. See Matter 
of K-S-, 20 l&N Dec. 715, 719-20 (BIA 1993). However, even if we were to consider the logic 
underlying Next Generation Tech., Inc., we would still conclude that the Petitioner had not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
As recognized by another court, while the Handbook may satisfy the first regulatory criterion for some 
professions, it does not other occupations in such a categorical manner.10 See lnnova 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's] 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 lnnova 
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 positions 
located within that occupational category, and "especially" toward companies in that particular 
petitioner's industry. However, USCIS rescinded the policy memorandum cited in Next Generation 
Tech., lnc.11 
The Handbook does not describe the normal minimum educational requirement for positions located 
within the "Sales Engineers" occupational category in a categorical manner since it states that "a 
9 Nor is it apparent whether these credentials were prerequisites to these individuals' hiring. 
10 Such categorically-described professions would include, for example, surgeons or attorneys, which indisputably require 
at least a bachelor's degree for entry into the occupation. 
11 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0142, Rescission of the December 22, 2000 "Guidance memo on HlB 
computer related positions" (Mar. 31, 2017), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/nativedocuments/PM-6002-
0142-H-1 BComputerRelatedPositionsRecission. pdf. 
5 
worker without a degree, but with previous sales experience as well as technical experience or training, 
may qualify for the position of sales engineer" and that "workers who have a degree in science, such 
as chemistry, or in business with little or no previous sales experience, also may become sales 
engineers." Further, 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. 
The Petitioner also cites Residential Finance Corp. v. USCIS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012). 
We agree that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is what is important." However, in 
general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry and biochemistry, a minimum of 
a bachelor'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)(1)(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 English and 
business, would not meet the statutory requirement 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. Section 214(i)(1)(B) of the Act (emphasis added).12 For the 
aforementioned reasons, however, the Petitioner has not met its burden to establish that the particular 
position offered in this matter requires a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, directly related to its duties in order to perform those tasks. 
In any event, the Petitioner has furnished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition 
are analogous to those in Residential Finance.13 Again, we are not bound to follow the published 
decision of a United States district court in matters arising even within the same district. See K-S-, 20 
l&N Dec. at 719-20. It is also important to note that in a subsequent case reviewed in the same 
jurisdiction, the court agreed with our analysis of Residential Finance. See Health Carousel, LLC v. 
USCIS, No. 1:13-CV-23, 2014 WL 29591 (S.D. Ohio 2014). 
The Petitioner also cites to a recent district court case, Raj and Co. v. USCIS, 85 F. Supp. 3d 1241 
(W.D. Wash. 2015), and claims that it is relevant here.14 We reviewed the decision; however, the 
Petitioner has not established that the duties and responsibilities, level of judgment, complexity, 
supervisory duties, independent judgment, or amount of supervision in that case are analogous to the 
position proffered here.15 There is little indication that the positions are similar. 
12 The court in Residential Finance did not eliminate the statutory "bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty" 
language imposed by Congress. Rather, it found that the petitioner in that case had satisfied the requirement. 
13 The district judge's decision appears to have been based largely on the many factual errors made by the Director in the 
decision denying the petition. We further note that the Director's decision was not appealed to us. Based on the district 
court's findings and description of the record, if that matter had first been appealed through the available administrative 
process, we may very well have remanded the matter to the service center for a new decision for many of the same reasons 
articulated by the district court if these errors could not have been remedied by us in our de novo review of the matter. 
14 In contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case law of a United States circuit court, we are not bound to follow 
the published decision of a United States district court in matters arising even within the same district. See Matter of K-S-, 
20 l&N Dec. 715 (BIA 1993). Although the reasoning underlying a district judge's decision will be given due consideration 
when it is properly before us, the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of law. Id. at 719. 
15 We note that the Director's decision was not appealed to our office. Based on the district court's findings and description 
of the record, if that matter had first been appealed through the available administrative process, we may very well have 
remanded the matter to the service center for a new decision in our de novo review of the matter. 
6 
Further, in Raj, the court stated that a specialty occupation requires the attainment of a bachelor's 
degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The court confirmed that this issue is well­
settled in case law and with the agency's reasonable interpretation of the regulatory framework. In 
the decision, the court noted that "permitting an occupation to qualify simply by requiring a 
generalized bachelor degree would run contrary to congressional intent to provide a visa program for 
specialized, as opposed to merely educated, workers." The court stated that the regulatory provisions 
do not restrict qualifying occupations to those for which there exists a single, specifically tailored and 
titled degree program; but rather, the statute and regulations contain an equivalency provision.16 
In Raj, the court concluded that the employer met the first criterion. We must note, however, that the 
court stated that "[t]he first regulatory criterion requires the agency to examine the generic position 
requirements of a market research analyst in order to determine whether a specific bachelor's degree 
or its equivalent is a minimum requirement for entry into the profession." Thus, the decision misstates 
the regulatory requirement. That is, the first criterion requires the petitioner to establish that a 
baccalaureate or higher degree (in a specific specialty) or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position. 
Consequently, if the court meant to suggest that any position classified under the occupational category 
"Market Research Analysts" would, as it stated, "come within the first qualifying criteria" - we must 
disagree.17 The occupational category designated by a petitioner is considered as an aspect in 
establishing the general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered position, and USCIS regularly reviews 
the Handbook on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it 
addresses. However, to satisfy 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. That is, to determine whether a 
particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCIS does not simply rely on a position's title or 
designated occupational category. The specific duties of the proffered position, combined with the 
nature of the petitioning entity's business operations, are factors to be considered. USCIS must 
examine the ultimate employment of the beneficiary and determine whether the position qualifies as 
a specialty occupation. See generally Defensor, 201 F.3d 384. 
Nevertheless, it is important to note that the court in Raj determined that the evidence in the record 
demonstrated that the particular position proffered required a bachelor's degree in market research or 
its equivalent as a minimum for entry. Further, the court noted that "[t]he patently specialized nature 
of the position sets it apart from those that merely require a generic degree." The position in Raj can, 
therefore, be distinguished from the instant position. Here, the duties and requirements of the position 
as described in the record of proceeding do not indicate that this particular position proffered by the 
16 We agree with the court that a specialty occupation is one that requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree 
in a specific specialty or its equivalent. We further note that a petitioner must also demonstrate that the position requires 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in accordance with section 214{i){1){B) 
of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii), and satisfy one of the four criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii){A). 
17 In Raj, the court quoted a brief excerpt from the Handbook; however, the quotation is from the 2012-2013 edition rather 
than the current 2014-2015 edition (which contains several revisions). Further, we observe that the court did not address 
the section of the Handbook indicating that there are no specific degree requirements to obtain the Professional Researcher 
Certification credential - and therefore to work as a market research analyst. 
7 
petitioner is one for which a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is 
normally the minimum requirement for entry. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(1). 
The record lacks sufficient probative evidence to support a finding that the proffered position is one 
for which a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the 
minimum requirement for entry. For the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner has not met its burden 
to establish that the particular position offered in this matter requires a bachelor's or higher degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent, directly related to its duties in order to perform those tasks. Thus, 
the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(1). 
B. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs: "The degree requirement is common to the industry 
in parallel positions among similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree[.]" 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong casts its gaze upon the common 
industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific position. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
We generally consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there is such a common degree 
requirement: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the industry's 
professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether letters or 
affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry 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, the Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is a common 
requirement within the industry for parallel positions among similar organizations. Also, the Petitioner 
did not submit evidence from an industry professional association or from firms or individuals in the 
industry indicating such a degree is a minimum requirement for entry into the position. Furthermore, 
the Petitioner did not submit any letters or affidavits from similar firms or individuals in the 
Petitioner's industry attesting that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." 
In response to the RFE, and on appeal, the Petitioner submitted job vacancy announcements for our 
consideration under this prong. To be relevant for this consideration, the job vacancy announcements 
must advertise "parallel positions," and the announcements must have been placed by organizations that 
(1) conduct business in the Petitioner's industry and (2) are also "similar" to the Petitioner. These job 
vacancy announcements do not satisfy that threshold. Upon review of the documents, we find that the 
Petitioner's reliance on the job announcements is misplaced. 
8 
While the advertising organizations appear to be within the Petitioner's industry, the advertised positions 
are not "parallel" to the position proffered here. As noted, the Petitioner attested to DOL that the proffered 
position is a Level 11 position. However, several of the advertised positions require significant work 
experience beyond the requirements for a Level 11 position. Here, four of the advertised positions (all for 
the same employer) require a bachelor's degree plus 10 years' experience supporting a solution sales team 
in the pre-sales technical role; another advertised position requires a bachelor's degree plus five years' 
experience; and three other advertised positions require a bachelor's degree plus three years' experience 
in a related position. Further, some of the advertisements do not include sufficient information about the 
duties and responsibilities for the advertised positions. Thus, it is not possible to determine important 
aspects of the jobs, such as the complexity of the job duties, supervisory duties (if any), and independent 
judgment required or the amount of supervision received. Therefore, the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
established that the primary duties and responsibilities of the advertised positions parallel those of the 
proffered position. 
Moreover, some of the postings do not indicate that at least a bachelor's degree in a directly related 
specific specialty (or its equivalent) is required. For instance, two of the advertised positions require a 
bachelor's degree but do not identify a specific field of study for the degree.18 Additionally, six of the 
advertised positions state that they would accept "equivalent experience" in place of a degree. While this 
may be acceptable, we do not know what formulation those employers would use to determine the 
equivalent of a bachelor's degree, and if the H-1B category would utilize the same standard to ensure that 
the advertisements represented the same "equivalent" standard.19 Further, one advertised position states 
that a bachelor's degree is required, "preferably in a STEM field." However, a preference is not an 
indication of a requirement for a degree in a specific specialty. Furthermore, one of the advertised 
positions states that a bachelor's degree in business, engineering, marketing, or a related field is 
acceptable. However, a degree in business, without further specialization, would not be considered a 
requirement for a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. Overall, the job postings suggest, at best, that 
although a bachelor's degree is sometimes required for these positions, a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty (or its equivalent) is not.2° For all these reasons, we find that the advertised positions do not 
satisfy this prong of the second criterion, as they do not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or the equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
18 As discussed, the degree requirement set by the statutory and regulatory framework of the H-lB program is not just a 
bachelor's or higher degree, but a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the duties of the 
position. Section 214(i){l){b) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). See Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. 
19 See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5). 
20 Again, even if all of the job postings indicated that a requirement of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is common 
to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations (which they do not), the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from the advertisements with regard to determining the common 
educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice 
of Social Research 186-228 (1995). Moreover, given that there is no indication that the advertisements were randomly 
selected, the validity of any such inferences could not be accurately determined even if the sampling unit were sufficiently 
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"). 
9 
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.21 That 
is, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
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. 
We reviewed the Petitioner's statements regarding the proffered position; however, while the 
Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary "will show how [the Petitioner's] products simplify automation 
and integration of complex systems for customers worldwide" and "will also work closely with [the 
Petitioner's] partner and sales teams to bridge the gap between value and technical capabilities," it has 
not sufficiently developed relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the proffered position. 
That is, the Petitioner has not explained in detail how tasks such as, analyze technical requirements of 
RFP; coordinate internally with the product engineering, sales engineering, and sales teams to 
effectively fulfill RFP; provide answers to technical questions utilizing [the Petitioner's] product 
knowledge and general software infrastructure knowledge; note customer feedback through 
communication via e-mail, web meetings, or in-person meetings; interpret technical customer 
feedback and consolidate in a report; sort feedback from customers by priority; pass on the report to 
product management; assist product management with internal testing and feedback of new 
product/feature releases to track feature improvements and bugs; assist product management by 
providing feedback for current product/feature releases to track feature improvements and bugs; 
interpret and understand detailed technical RFI/RFP requests from customer and provide appropriate 
answers; communicate internally with the sales engineering team as well as product management 
team; consult with customers on processes; help customers understand hardware/software components 
and requirements; provide guidance on software sizing, cloud based deployment versus on-premise 
deployment; assist the sales team to formulate a technical proposal; understand customer requests and 
provide appropriate documentation of the product including installations, architecture, user manuals, 
etc.; understand the product architecture and future product roadmaps through frequent 
interactions/meetings; help build external libraries of commands; consult with architects and technical 
personnel to gain knowledge of product platform built; frequent calls with product management team 
to understand detailed technical features of all products offered; interact with UI/UX team to provide 
opinions and feedback on new product releases; conduct Technical Proof of Concepts for 
prospective/strategic customers; conduct demos for prospective/strategic customers; ensure successful 
delivery of project as the sole technical resource; facilitate product installation at customer site; 
21 The Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how representative the job postings are of the particular 
advertising employers' recruiting history for the type of job advertised. As the advertisements are only solicitations for 
hire, they are not evidence of the actual hiring practices of these employers. 
10 
provide technical support throughout the project for all technical activities including product 
installations, development support, best practice guidance, Request for Information documents, etc.; 
assist and train customers with technical aspects of software installation; attend customer calls for 
troubleshooting technical issues during the sales cycle; effectively manage project timelines and 
logistics; meet with key channel partners, system integrators, customers and prospects to review and 
contribute to revenue opportunities; review use-cases/processes with customer to identify areas for 
implementing [Petitioner's] products; help prepare visual diagrams/charts depicting areas of 
implementation; attend customer calls to answer any and all technical questions as part of the sales 
cycle; consult with implementation partners; assist implementation partners with Proof of Concepts 
and Technical Demos; propose and lead the optimization of technical training, collaboration tools, and 
productivity tools to drive efficiency and effectiveness of the pre-sales organization; and train new 
employees with the product and standard practices require the theoretical and practical application of 
a body of highly specialized knowledge. While the Petitioner submitted an extensive list of tasks, 
these listed tasks and duties, when read in combination with the evidence found in record of 
proceedings, suggest that this particular position is not so complex or unique relative to other sales 
engineers that the duties can only be performed by an individual with a bachelor's degree or higher in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
Further, the Petitioner included a list of computer software, skills, and "corresponding coursework" 
related to each duty. 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. Simply providing a long list of the 
Beneficiary's coursework, or courses available in a degree program, does not sufficiently develop 
relative complexity or uniqueness of the particular position. 
In addition, the Beneficiary's proposed job duties include collaborations with "customers," a "product 
engineering team," a "product management team," a "sales engineering team," a "sales team," a 
"U 1/UX team," "architects and technical personnel," and "implementation partners." However, the 
Petitioner has not identified the individuals the Beneficiary would work with, 22 or any "customers" 
the Beneficiary would support in the proffered position. 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides additional details about the specific products and services the 
Beneficiary would sell to customers. However, most of this new information pertains to the 
knowledge or skills required for carrying out the duties of the proffered position and does not explain 
how the job duties require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge. For example, the Petitioner adds information about~---------~· a 
proprietary platform of the Petitioner. The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary will personally 
provide training to educate customers and team members on the technical architecture of I I I I and will develop scripts for customer organizations. The Petitioner then identifies 
knowledge and skills required in order to perform the duties associated with developing scripts and 
providing training on I I, but does not further identify how the job duties 
or the position itself requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge. 
22 While the Petitioner submitted a partial organizational chart listing other "sales engineers," it did not specifically identify 
any teams or individuals the Beneficiary would work with in the proffered position. 
11 
Furthermore, on appeal, the Petitioner submits sample scripts the Beneficiary has completed for 
customers. We have reviewed the work samples submitted by the Petitioner. However, the Petitioner 
does not explain why the production of these documents would require a bachelor's degree, or the 
equivalent, in a specific specialty. 
The Petitioner also submitted an expert opinion letter authore,Q....QY..l;------~---===1 
Professor of Computer Science and Information Systems at L_J University. In his letter, 
I 1(1) describes the credentials that he asserts qualify him to opine upon the nature of the 
proffered position; (2) lists the duties and tasks proposed for the Beneficiary; and (3) states that these 
duties require at least a bachelor's degree, or its equivalent, in computer science or a related field. We 
carefully evaluated I Is assertions in support of the instant petition but find them 
insufficient. 
In his letterl lstates that his assessment is based upon "the support letter and the detailed 
job description" provided by the Petitioner. While! !provides a brief, general description 
of the Petitioner's business activities, he does not demonstrate in-depth knowledge of its operations. 
Furthe~ ts opinion letter does not substantiate his conclusions, such that we can conclude 
that the Petitioner has met its burden of proof. First.I I repeats the Petitioner's description 
of the proposed duties and lists 12 major "knowledge areas" used to model bachelor degree programs 
in engineering science as set out in the 2016 Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree 
Programs in Computer Engineering, published by the Association for Computing Machinery 
(ACM). 23 Although! I attempts to correlate a few of the knowledge areas to the generally 
described duties, he does not offer a clear and comprehensive analysis explaining why the duties 
require a full curriculum of bachelor's-level courses resulting in a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty. For example! lstates "[i]n my opinion, any of the duties listed for the position 
could be matched to a corresponding knowledge area, suggesting a high degree of competence 
necessary to perform them" and that "if any of the job duties require competence in a major knowledge 
area, it stands to reason that the whole of the job's responsibilities could not be performed satisfact~ 
without Bachelor-level competence in Computer Engineering or a related technical field." 24 L_J 
I I concludes further that because "there is significant overlap between the prescribed duties 
for the position, and the general knowledge areas covered in Bachelor-level Computer Science 
program, ... any individual lacking a Bachelor's degree (or its equivalent) in these fields would not 
be able to perform these duties to the deGree [the Petitioner] requires for the continuous execution of 
its business operations." I again however, does not offer a persuasive analysis of why 
matching any of the duties of the particular position to the broadly described corresponding knowledge 
areas for a potential curriculum is the same as establishing that the Petitioner's generally described 
23 The curriculum guideline identifies broad concepts of knowledge areas which are not sufficiently concise to correlate to 
particular courses in an established curriculum of such courses which leads to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. The relevance of these guidelines in establishing this position is a specialty occupation is not 
evident. 
24 Service records show tha~ I used a template with similar organization and these verbatim conclusory 
statements as has been submitted on behalf of other petitioners regarding different occupations. The similarity in 
conclusions, without clear analysis, strongly suggests that the authors of the opinions were asked to confirm a preconceived 
notion as to the required degrees, not objectively assess the proffered position and opine on the minimum bachelor's degree 
required to perform the duties described. 
12 
duties and tasks require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Other than 
referring to the "wide adoption of the ACM's Curriculum Guidelines," he does not discuss their 
relevance in establishing that the particular position offered here requires a specific bachelor's degree. 
Moreover, he does not discuss other relevant research, studies, or authoritative publications he utilized 
as part of his review and foundation for his opinion. For example, he does not refer to the Handbook's 
more recent information on this occupation or attempt to distinguish the Handbook's report that 
several paths, including less than a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, are available as a 
minimum to enter this occupation. 
Upon review ofl l's position evaluation, the evaluation is insufficient to support a claim 
that the Petitioner's proffered position is complex and specialized. The record does not include 
probative evidence corroborating his conclusion regarding the minimum entry requirements for this 
occupation. Without a more thorough analysis of the proffered position that is consistent with the 
record and with a relevant foundation for his conclusions, his opinion has little probative value. 
We may, in our discretion, 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, where an opinion is not in accord 
with other information or is in any way questionable, we are not required to accept or may give less 
weight to that evidence. Id. Consistent with Caron lnt'I, we find that this evaluation does not satisfy 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(1) and, for the sake of efficiency, hereby incorporate this finding into 
our analysis of the remaining specialty-occupation criteria. 25 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well qualified for the position and references his 
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 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)(i i i){A)(2). 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it normally 
requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted a letter from VP Global Talent 
Acquisition for the Petitioner, for consideration under this criterion. In his letter,.___ __ _. states that 
he has 25 years of experience as a recruiter and talent acquisition specialist, and specifically two years 
of experience in the robotic software development industry. In regard to the Petitioner's hiring 
practices.I I states: 
25 We hereby incorporate our discussion of ~I ---~l·s letter into our discussion of the other 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) criteria. 
13 
... I regularly communicate with hiring managers regarding the educational and 
experience requirements for positions we are recruiting for. I am regularly asked that 
for the specialty occupation of Sales Engineer and similar positions to look only for 
candidates that have at least a Bachelor's degree or equivalent in Computer 
Engineering or a related field. This is standard company practice for Sales Engineer 
and similar positions. 
In addition, based on my understanding of and experience in talent acquisition in the 
robotic software development industry, it is also my professional opinion that a degree 
requirement of at least a Bachelor's degree or equivalent in Computer Engineering or 
related field is common to the industry for Sales Engineer and similar positions. 
While I I states that a bachelor's degree in a related specialty, which includes computer 
engineering, is routinely required for this position, his letter is not supported by evidence or the 
necessary information to determine that the Petitioner routinely employs or recruits only specifically 
degreed individuals for computer programmer positions (or parallel positions). As such, we find that 
,__ ___ __.I letter is not sufficient to satisfy this criterion. 
The Petitioner submitted resumes for four employees in sales engineer positions. 26 While each of the 
resumes state that the employees have at least a bachelor's degree in a related field, these self­
generated documents are not sufficient to establish the education credentials of these individuals. 
Further, it is important to note that these resumes do not include any information about the duties and 
responsibilities performed by each individual in their positions at the Petitioner's organization. Thus, 
it is not possible to determine important aspects of the jobs, such as the responsibilities, complexity of 
the job duties, supervisory duties (if any), and independent judgment required or the amount of 
supervision received. Accordingly, it is unclear whether the duties and responsibilities of these 
individuals are the same or similar to the proffered position. Nor does the record establish that these 
individuals' credentials were prerequisites to their hiring. 
We conclude that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient documentary evidence to support the assertion 
that it normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, directly 
related to the duties of the position. The Petitioner has not satisfied the third criterion of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
D. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature of 
the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is usually 
associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
26 Notably, the Petitioner did not submit the academic credentials of these individuals, e.g. copies of diplomas and 
transcripts. The Petitioner should note that the evidentiary weight of a resume is generally insignificant as it represents a 
claim by an individual, rather than evidence to support that claim. In the instant case, no further documentation was 
submitted of the individuals' asserted credentials. 
14 
For reasons similar to those discussed under the second prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), we 
find that the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one with duties sufficiently 
specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). We incorporate our earlier 
discussion and analysis on this matter. 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
15