dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6059401 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 11, 2020 
The Petitioner, an information technology company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"technical analyst- support" 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 H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a 
position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty ( or its 
equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the proffered 
position does not qualify as a specialty occupation. On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional 
evidence and asserts that the Director erred. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 1 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, 
and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
1 We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 
(AAO 2010). 
(]) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We construe the term "degree" to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal 
Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in a 
specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular 
position"). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner described the duties of the proffered "technical analyst - support" position, and the 
percentage of the Beneficiary's time required to perform them, as follows: 
• Resolve technical and functional issues for our customers [ 60%]; 
• Contribute to [s]ervice [a]utomation and [p]roactive initiatives [20%]; and 
• Participate in the [t]eam building and knowledge sharing activities as part of the 
[ o ]rganizational [ r ]eadiness effort [20%]. 2 
According to the Petitioner, the position "requires, at a minimum, a Bachelor's degree in Computer 
Science, Management Information Systems, Science, Engineering, Math, Physics, Chemistry, or 
equivalent." 3 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 4 
2 The Petitioner provided expanded duty descriptions. Although we omit the expanded duty descriptions for brevity, we 
have reviewed them in their entirety. 
3 In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner modified its degree requirement to "a Bachelor's 
degree in Computer Science, a related Engineering field, Computer Information Systems, Information Technology, or 
equivalent." The record does not establish why the Petitioner modified its degree requirement atter filing the petition. 
4 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
2 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its 
equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 5 
A. First Criterion 
The criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I) requires that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular 
position. To inform this inquiry, we recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational 
Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of 
the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 6 
On the labor condition application (LCA)7 submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Computer Systems Analysts," 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 15-1121. The subchapter of the 
Handbook titled "How to Become a Computer Systems Analyst" states, in relevant part, that "[a] 
bachelor's degree in computer or information science is common, although not always a requirement. 
Some firms hire analysts with business or liberal arts degrees who have skills in information 
technology or computer programming. . . . Many [ computer systems] analysts have liberal arts 
degrees and have gained programming or technical expertise elsewhere." Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Computer Systems Analysts, 
https://www.bls.ov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-systems-analysts.htm#tab-
4 (last visited Feb. 10, 2020). 
The Handbook's observation that degrees in disparate fields of computer science, business, and liberal 
arts may qualify a worker for computer systems analyst positions does not establish that a bachelor's 
or higher degree in a spec[fic specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. Since there must be a close correlation between the required 
specialized studies and the position, the requirement of a degree with a generalized title, such as 
business or liberal arts, without 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). 
To prove that a job requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge as required by section 214(i)(l) of the Act, a petitioner must establish that the position 
requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specialized field of study or its equivalent. 
As discussed supra, we interpret the degree requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to require a 
5 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H- IB 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. 
6 We do not maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source ofrelevant information. That is, the occupational category 
designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered 
position, and we regularly review the Handbook on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of 
occupations that it addresses. Nevertheless, to 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. 
7 A petitioner submits the LCA to DOL to demonstrate that it will pay an H-IB worker the higher of either the prevailing 
wage for the occupational classification in the area of employment or the actual wage paid by the employer to other 
employees with similar duties, experience, and qualifications. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(a). 
3 
degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. Although a general­
purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business, may be a legitimate prerequisite for a 
particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify a conclusion that a particular 
position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 
147. Therefore, the Handbook's recognition that a general, non-specialty "background" in business is 
sufficient for entry into the occupation strongly suggests that a bachelor's degree in a spec[fic specialty 
is not a standard, minimum entry requirement for this occupation. 
Furthermore, the Handbook does not establish whether the combination of a liberal arts degree and 
generalized "programming or technical expertise," is equivalent to a bachelor's or higher degree in 
computer or information science, which is "not always a requirement" for entry. 
On appeal, the Petitioner cites a district court case, Next Generation Tech., Inc. v. Johnson, (S.D.N.Y. 
Sept. 29, 2017), as relevant here. Next Generation Tech, Inc. arises out of a different jurisdiction than 
the instant matter. 8 Nevertheless, even if we considered the logic underlying Next Generation Tech, 
Inc., we find that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation. 
First, the court in Next Generation Tech., Inc. addressed our reading of the Handbook's discussion of 
the entry requirements for positions located within a different and separate occupational category, 
"Computer Programmers," rather than the "Computer Systems Analysts" category designated by the 
Petitioner in the LCA relating to this case. As noted above, the Handbook specifically states, in part, 
that "[s]ome firms hire analysts with business or liberal arts degrees who have skills in information 
technology or computer programming. . . . Many [ computer systems] analysts have liberal arts 
degrees and have gained programming or technical expertise elsewhere." Accordingly, workers with 
a bachelor's or higher degree in disparate fields such as business or liberal arts are qualified to become 
"technical analysts." 
Moreover, the court in Next Generation Tech., Inc. relied in part on a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
(USCIS) policy memorandum regarding "Computer Programmers" indicating generally preferential 
treatment toward computer programmers, and "especially" toward companies in that particular 
petitioner's industry. However, USCIS rescinded the policy memorandum cited by the court in Next 
Generation Tech. Inc. 9 Therefore, for the reasons discussed, we are unpersuaded that Next Generation 
Tech., Inc. requires us to conclude that the proffered position satisfies the first criterion. 
The Petitioner also asserts on appeal that the Handbook's observations regarding the disparate degree 
fields that may qualify a worker for computer system analyst positions nevertheless satisfy the first 
criterion because: 
8 In contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case law ofa 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 T&N Dec. 715, 719-20 (BIA 1993). Although we will give the reasoning underlying a district judge's decision due 
consideration when it is properly before us, we need not follow the analysis as a matter of law. Id. 
9 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0142, Rescission of the December 22, 2000 ''Guidance memo on HJB 
computer related positions" (Mar. 31, 2017), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/nativedocuments/PM-6002-
0142-H- l BComputerRelatedPositionsRecission.pdf. 
4 
[ computer s ]ystems analysts must understand the business field they are working in. 
For example, a hospital may want an analyst with a thorough understanding of health 
plans . . . . Having knowledge of their industry helps [computer] systems analysts 
communicate with managers to determine the role of the information technology (IT) 
systems in an organization. 
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Computer Systems 
Analysts, https://www.bls.ov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-systems-analysts 
.htm#tab-4 (last visited Feb. 10, 2020). The Petitioner states that the Handbook's observation "directly 
addresses why the requirements for the position may vary be employer." However, the Handbook 
does not observe that a healthcare provider requires its computer systems analysts to have a bachelor's 
or higher degree in medicine in order to understand health plans-the Handbook observes that"[ m ]any 
[ computer systems] analysts have liberal arts degrees and have gained programming or technical 
expertise elsewhere." Id. Neither the Handbook nor the Petitioner explain how a bachelor's or higher 
degree in liberal arts helps computer systems analysts to "understand the business field they are 
working in," particularly when, as in this case, the business field in which the Beneficiary would work 
is information technology. Moreover, even if the Handbook established how a bachelor's or higher 
degree in business or liberal arts would help computer systems analysts understand health plans in the 
hospital example, as noted above the Handbook does not establish that the unspecified level of 
"programming or technical expertise" combined with such a degree would be equivalent to a 
bachelor's or higher degree in computer science. 
Next, the Petitioner asserts on appeal that opinion letters in the record written byl I 
a orolessor of co,uter applicatioru; and information ~s at the University of! I anU 
I a professor of computer science atl__J_Jniversity, satisfy the first criterion. 
As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter 
o_f Caron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, we may give an opinion less 
weight if it is not in accord with other information in the record or if it is in any way questionable. 
Id. We are ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an individual's 
eligibility for the benefit sought; the submission of expert opinion letters is not presumptive evidence 
of eligibility. Id.; see also Matter o_f V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, 502 n.2 (BIA 2008) ("[E]xpert opinion 
testimony, while undoubtedly a form of evidence, does not purport to be evidence as to 'fact' but 
rather is admissible only if 'it will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a 
fact in issue."') . 
.___ __ _.Is opinion letter does not appear to correspond to the proffered position I l<loes not 
specifically refer to the Beneficiary and, although he lists duties for a position on which he based his 
opinion, they do not match the Petitioner's description of the proffered position's duties, quoted 
above. 10 Doubt cast on any aspect of a petitioner's proof may undermine the reliability and sufficiency 
of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582,591 
(BIA 1988). 
10 Although! I asserts that he copied the Petitioner's duty descriptions "verbatim," neither the number of duties, nor 
the language of the duty description, nor the percentage of the Beneficiary's time to perform any of the duties match the 
information in the record submitted by the Petitioner. 
5 
Additionally, there is no evidence thatl I has conducted any research or studies pertinent to the 
educational requirements for such positions, and no indication of recognition by professional 
organizations that he is an authority on those specific requirements. We note that, in a single 
paragraph,I ldiscusses his "research[] [into] the specific labor market and commerce standards 
for California, in which [the Petitioner] is incorporated." As a result,! I concludes that "the 
Technical Analyst position with [the Petitioner] as a Computer Systems Analyst occupation is typical 
and increasingly common." However, the Beneficiary, whoml I does not address specifically 
in his opinion letter, would work in Florida, not in California. Therefore, his research into trends in 
California is misplaced. Furthermore, I I did not report that he conducted research pertinent to 
the normal educational requirements for such positions throughout the United States. 
In contrast tol I's opinion letter, I ~ s letter specifically identifies the Beneficiary 
and asserts that he reviewed "copies of a letter from the [Petitioner] outlining the job duties of the 
position"; however, I I does not state or paraphrase the duties on which he based his 
opinion. Based on the extent to whichl Is opinion focuses on duties that do not appear to 
correspond to the proffered position, I ~' s omission of specific duties raises questions 
regarding whether he had sufficient knowledge of the proffered position. As noted, doubt cast on any 
aspect of a petitioner's evidence may undermine the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining 
evidence. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. Similar to l Is opinion letter,I l's 
letter asserts that it is "based on research regarding the issues discussed herein."I lopines, 
"it is my experience-based on my teaching in this field and on the job placement patterns of our 
graduating students and recruitment trends of employers nationwide-that such companies will only 
hire bachelor's graduates for Tech Analyst - Support positions" and "the subject position ... cannot 
be properly performed without bachelor's-level training in Comrmter Science, MIS, a related 
Engineering field, or [an] other closely related field." However, likel I there is no evidence 
thatl lhas conducted any research or studies pertinent to the educational requirements for 
such positions, and no indication of recognition by professional organizations that he is an authority 
on those specific requirements. Additionally, as noted above, the Handbook observes that disparate 
fields such as business and liberal arts may qualify applicants, contrary to the opinions ofl I 
and I I 
Given that the opinions ot1 landl I are not substantiated by objective research or 
studies, and the extent to which their opinions are not in accord with other information in the record, 
they bear minimal probative value. See Matter of Caron Int 'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. at 79 5. 
In summation, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
B. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two alternative prongs: "The degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show 
that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with 
a degree[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). The first prong contemplates common industry 
practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific position. 
6 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy the first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
We generally consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there is such a common degree 
requirement: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the industry's 
professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether letters or 
affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry establish that such firms "routinely employ and 
recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 1999) 
(quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (considering these 
"factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
As noted above, the Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is a common requirement within the industry for parallel positions among 
similar organizations. Furthermore, the record does not establish that a professional association for 
computer systems analysts has made a qualifying degree a minimum entry requirement. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that seven job postings submitted in response to the Director's RFE 
satisfy the first prong of the second criterion. The positions' titles, with the reported degree 
requirements, are as follows: 
• Support engineer; "Bachelor's degree in Computer Science, Engineering, Math, 
Physics, Information Systems or a related field"; 
• Support escalation engineer; "B.S. degree in Computer Science"; 
• Customer success - functional specialist; "University undergraduate degree ( or 
higher) in computer science, engineering, or comparable educational background"; 
• Cloud support associate; "Bachelor's degree in Information Science/ Information 
Technology, Computer Science, Engineering, Mathematics, Physics, or a related 
field"; 
• Support engineer; "BS in Computer Science, Engineering or a related technical 
field, or relevant technical experience"; 
• Solutions architect; "Bachelor's degree in Computer Science [or] related 
engineering field"; and 
• Solutions architect, DevOps; "BA/BS degree in Computer Science or a related 
engineering field." 
We first note that the employers appear to be in the Petitioner's general industry. The record contains 
a report from D&B Hoovers, noting that those two employers are among the Petitioner's "top 3 
competitors." Common knowledge regarding the employers for the remaining job posting also 
indicates that they are also in the Petitioner's general industry. However, the record, and specifically 
the job postings, does not contain sufficient information to determine the extent to which the employers 
are similar to the Petitioner beyond all being in the same general industry. 
7 
We next note that the third job posting, for the "customer success - functional specialist" position 
indicates that the "preferred" work location would be in Ireland, not in the United States. Although 
the job posting includes an "additional locations" section, it is blank. Therefore, this job posting bears 
minimal probative value. 
Additionally, the job postings contain information about the products or services for which the workers 
would provide support that differ from the Petitioner's description of its software, for which the 
Beneficiary would provide customer support, raising questions regarding the extent to which the 
positions are parallel to the proffered position. For example, the fifth job posting discuss the 
employer's electronic book tablet hardware for which the workers would provide support. As another 
example, the sixth job posting specifically addresses "helping U.S. [i]ntelligence [c]ommunity 
agencies implement innovative cloud computing solutions and solve technical problems," raising 
questions regarding the extent to which the proffered position and the Petitioner's clients-and their 
technical problems and computing solutions-are parallel to the position in that job posting. 11 
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 in the United States among similar organizations (which 
they do not), the Petitioner does not demonstrate what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be 
drawn from the job postings with regard to the common educational requirements for entry into 
parallel positions in similar organizations. See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 
186-228 (7th ed. 1995). Moreover, given that there is no indication that the advertisements were 
randomly selected, the validity of any such inferences could not be accurately determined even if the 
sampling unit were sufficiently large. See id. at 195-96 ( explaining that"[ r ]andom selection is the key 
to [the] process [of probability sampling]" and that "random selection offers access to the body of 
probability theory, which provides the basis for estimates of population parameters and estimates of 
error"). 
In summation, the job postings do not establish that a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations. 
The Petitioner also asserts on appeal that the opinion letters from I I and I I 
discussed above, satisfy the first prong of the second criterion. Specifically, the Petitioner quotes LJ. 
I Is opinion that "the industry standard for a position such as Technical Analyst for [the Petitioner] 
is to be filled through recruiting a college graduate with the minimum of a Bachelor's Degree in 
Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Computer Information Systems, Information Technology, 
or a related area, or the equivalent." The Petitioner also quotes I ls' s opinion that "it is my 
experience-based on my teaching in this field and on the job placement patterns of our graduating 
students and recruitment trends of employers nationwide-that such companies will only hire 
bachelor's graduates for Tech Analyst - Support positions." However, as noted above,I ~ 
□. · n does not appear to correspond to the petition and, even if it did, there is no evidence that 
and I I have conducted any research or studies pertinent to the educational 
requirements for such positions, and no indication of recognition by professional organizations that 
11 The record generally refers to the Petitioner's accounting software, which does not appear to be the type of "cloud 
computing solutions" and "technical problems" particular to the "U.S. [i]ntelligence [c]ommunity." 
8 
they are authorities on those specific requirements. Moreover, as noted above, the Handbook observes 
that degrees in disparate fields such as business and liberal arts may qualify applicants. Given that the 
opinions ofl I and I I are not substantiated by objective research or studies, and the 
extent to which their opinions are not in accord with other information in the record, they bear minimal 
probative value. See Matter of Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. at 795. 
In summation, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
The second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) is satisfied if the Petitioner shows 
that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with 
at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that it "does not offer off-the-shelf 'one size fits all' software"; 
instead, its "enterprise application software [is] designed to satisfy the very unique and specific needs 
of certain organizations of differing sizes and in a variety of industries." However, the Petitioner 
concedes that "[t]he common complaint about the enterprise software is that it lacks flexibility and 
agility." Accordingly, the Petitioner's statements that its software lacks flexibility and is designed to 
satisfy organizations of differing sizes undermines its statement that its software is not "one size fits 
all." The contradiction obscures our understanding of how complex the software for which a 
"technical analyst - support" must provide support is, and the extent to which a "technical analyst -
support" must understand how the enterprise software that "lacks flexibility" could be customized to 
"satisfy the very unique and specific needs of certain organizations of differing sizes in a variety of 
industries." 
The Petitioner focuses on eight specific expanded duty descriptions on appeal, 12 to assert that the 
proffered position is sufficiently complex or unique: 
• Investigate and resolve issues by conducting internal research of [the Petitioner's] 
knowledge base, working with [the Petitioner's] with [sic] development team and 
peer senior members and own specialized knowledge and experience of the 
product(s); When needed, setup [sic] internal test cases with these technologies to 
reproduce the problem internally; 
• Create single and multi org setup with security profiles, primary ledger, secondary 
ledger, MRC ledger, inter and intra company, and cross currency balancing setup's 
[sic]; 
• Resolve issues or open up bugs and [ the Petitioner's] internal forum question using 
a functional format, which product managers / developers can easily understand so 
the issue is resolved in a timely fashion; and develop a complex understanding of 
[the Petitioner's] products; 
12 In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner provided 29 expanded duty descriptions, which as noted above we omit 
for brevity, although we have reviewed them in their entirety. 
9 
• Set up lab environments for test cases to reproduce customers' functional setup 
issues to enable the [Petitioner's] [d]evelopment team to fix bugs. While working 
through customers [sic] issues, there is often a need to test and reproduce issues in­
house in our [l]ab environment. These tests can involve setting up an end-to-end 
replica of the customer's environment, including the version, database setup and all 
the relevant orchestration needed to reproduce the issues; utilize in-depth 
knowledge of finance modules; 
• Capture new technical and functional content and improve existing content based 
on the troubleshooting and resolution of customers' technical and functional issues; 
• Create new technical SQL signatures for automation when relevant; 
• Participate in [b ]eta programs and product/platform testing; and 
• Author and maintain technical documents as part of the [k ]now ledge [b] ase used 
by [the Petitioner's] customers and internal employees. This task includes creating, 
modifying, and reviewing content within the Knowledge Management System 
( consultative articles, case studies, and white papers) as part of a constant and 
ongoing effort to have re-use value of the information that is derived on working 
each and every [s]ervice [r]equest. It includes authoring [d]ocuments/[n]otes and 
adding them to the [k]nowledge [b]ase for the benefit of [the Petitioner's] 
customers, with the aim of having them self-service the solution and thus 
potentially avoid the need to log a [s]ervice [r]equest. These [d]ocuments are 
extremely technical in nature and very specific and elaborate as to troubleshooting 
steps that can be followed by customers to resolve a problem at hand. 
The record does not establish how the proffered position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. For example, for the first expanded duty, the record does not establish the issues the 
Beneficiary would "investigate and resolve," the methodology the Beneficiary would use to 
"investigate" those issues and "research" the Petitioner's knowledge base, and how the Beneficiary 
would "work[] with" the Petitioner's development team. The record also does not establish the steps 
the Beneficiary would take in order to "setup [sic] internal test cases." Accordingly, our ability to 
determine the extent to which investigating and resolving issues, researching the knowledge base, 
working with the Petitioner's development team, and setting up test cases are complex or unique is 
limited. As another example, the expanded duties are unclear whether the Beneficiary would perform 
the test cases she would set up, referred to in the first and fourth expanded duties quoted above, or 
rather whether the Petitioner's development team would conduct tests after the Beneficiary has "[s]et 
up lab environments." In either event, similar to the first expanded duty, the fourth expanded duty 
does not elaborate on how the Beneficiary would set up the lab environments, which limits our ability 
to understand the extent to which the task may be complex or unique. As another example, the record 
does not elaborate on what the Beneficiary would do to "[p]articipate in [b]eta programs," as stated in 
the seventh expanded duty, which limits our ability to determine whether that participation is 
sufficiently complex or unique. Additionally, we note that the task of"[ creating] SQL signatures" 
does not require a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
Furthermore, we note that the Petitioner asserts that expanded duties for each of the Beneficiary's 
primary duties-totaling 100% of her time to perform-involve "working with [the Petitioner's] 
development team," "[ serving] as a key member" for "[ s ]ervice [ a ]utomation and [p ]roactive 
10 
[i]nitiatives, and "[serving] as a key member" in "team building and knowledge sharing activities." 
The record does not establish the other individuals in the development team, or the other generalized 
teams of which the Beneficiary would "[s]erve as a key member"; however, considering that the 
Beneficiary's duties overlap with teams of other workers, the record raises questions regarding how 
unique the Beneficiary's duties within the Petitioner's organization are. 
As another example, the record does not establish how the most time-consuming primary duty ( 60%) 
satisfies the second prong of the second criterion. As noted above, the record does not establish the 
issues the Beneficiary would investigate and resolve, how she would do so, and how the Beneficiary 
would set up lab environments for test cases. 13 Other examples of the expanded duties provided for 
the first primary duty of "[ resolving] technical and functional issues for our customers" are 
"[r]ecommend [and] provide fixes related to account receivables [sic] performance bottlenecks" and 
"[a]ssist customers to resolve AR to GL reconciliation issues during month end and year end 
accounting book closure"; however, the record does not describe the performance bottlenecks or issues 
or establish how providing the fixes and resolutions is so complex or unique that only an individual 
with a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, can do so. The record does 
not substantiate how the remainder of the duty description is sufficiently complex or unique. 
The Petitioner also asserts on appeal thatl Is opinion letter, discussed above, satisfies the 
second prong of the second criterion. 14 The Petitioner specifically emphasizes! l's opinion 
that "a candidate must have completed course work [sic] and training in Computer Science, Computer 
Engineering, Computer Information Systems, Information Technology, or a related area at the 
undergraduate level at a minimum to competently handle the duties required by the Technical Analyst 
position." However, as discussed above, the Handbook observes that a candidate need not have a 
bachelor's or higher degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a related field, or its 
equivalent, for entry into the particular position; rather, degrees in disparate fields such as business or 
liberal arts may qualify applicants. Moreover, as noted above, even if I I's opinion 
corresponded to the petition-which does not appear to be the case-there is no evidence thatD 
C7iias conducted any research or studies pertinent to educational requirements for such positions, 
and no indication of recognition by professional organizations that he is an authority on those specific 
requirements. Given thatl ts opinion is not substantiated by objective research or studies, and 
the extent to which it is not in accord with other information in the record, it bears minimal probative 
value. See Matter of Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. at 795. 
The Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties 
of the position, and it did not identify any tasks that are so complex or unique that only a specifically 
degreed individual could perform them. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second 
alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
13 The first four of the eight expanded duties emphasized on appeal conespond to the most time-consuming (60%) duty. 
14 Unlike other criteria, the Petitioner does not specifically assert on appeal, and the record does not support the conclusion. 
that! ts opinion letter satisfies the second prong of the second criterion. 
11 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it normally 
requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that six job announcements for "Technical Analyst positions similar 
or parallel to the proffered position" satisfy the third criterion. However, all six job announcements 
state verbatim in sections titled "Detailed Description and Job Requirements" that the positions require 
a "BS Computer [sic] Science I Management Information Systems/ Science I Engineering I Math/ 
Physics / Chemistry." The allowance of a bachelor's degree in any "science" field, including fields 
unrelated to computer science such as biology and zoology, and moreover the specific inclusion of a 
bachelor's degree in chemistry, which, without explanation, appears to be unrelated to the field of 
computer science, does not establish that the Petitioner normally requires a bachelor's or higher degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
Additionally, the six job announcements are undated, raising questions regarding whether they inform 
what the Petitioner normally required at the time of filing the petition. Although the job 
announcements are undated, we note that they all bear a string of numbers and letters beginning with 
"18," possibly indicating that they are for job announcements posted in 2018 after the petition filing 
date, in which case they would not bear probative value for the third criterion. A petitioner must 
establish eligibility for the benefit it is seeking at the time the petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103 .2(b )( 1 ). A visa petition may not be approved based on speculation of future eligibility or after 
the Petitioner or Beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Michelin Tire 
Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248, 249 (Reg'l Comm'r 1978). Even if the Petitioner posted the job 
announcements beginning with "18" in 2018 as of the petition filing date, they would not establish 
what the Petitioner normally requires-throughout its history since it was founded four decades ago­
prior to 2018 for the position. 
We further note that, before the Petitioner modified its degree requirement in response to the Director's 
RFE, the Petitioner initially stated that the position "requires, at a minimum, a Bachelor's degree in 
Computer Science, Management Information Systems, Science, Engineering, Math, Physics, 
Chemistry, or equivalent," which is essentially identical to its requirements stated in the six job 
announcements. Again, a visa petition may not be approved at a future date after a petitioner or 
beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N at 
249. 
The Petitioner also submits for the first time on appeal a table with three columns, listing 26 six-digit 
"Employee IDs"; with a corresponding "Degree" level of either "Bachelor," "Bachelor (equiv.)," 
"Master," or "Master ( equiv.)"; and a "Subject/Major," respectively. The Petitioner describes this 
table as "a list of a representative sampling of current employees holding this exact position, as well 
as their respective degrees." However, the record does not establish whether or when the Petitioner 
hired the represented individuals and the duties of the individuals' positions, in order to determine the 
extent to which they are similar to the proffered position and whether the positions require the 
individuals to possess a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. On the 
contrary, as discussed above, the job announcements in the record establish that the Petitioner does 
not require a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, but rather permits 
12 
degrees in general fields of science, and specifically in the field of chemistry, which is unrelated to 
the field of computer science, for "Technical Analyst positions similar or parallel to the proffered 
position." 
The Petitioner again asserts on appeal that opinion letters froml landl I satisfy the 
third criterion. Specifically, the Petitioner emphasizes I ~s conclusion that "[the Petitioner] 
would naturally seek out only a Computer Systems Analyst for a position such as Technical Analyst 
among the majority of such professionals as described by [the Handbook] and O*NET who hold a 
Bachelor's Degree." 15 The Petitioner also quotesl l's opinion that "it is my experience­
based on my teaching in this field and on the job placement patterns of our graduating students and 
recruitment trends of employers nationwide-that such companies will only hire bachelor's graduates 
for Tech Analyst - Support positions." However, contrary to the opinion letters, the job 
announcements discussed above establish that the Petitioner does not seek out only workers with a 
bachelor's or higher degree in a spec[fic specialty, or its equivalent, for 'Technical Analyst positions 
similar or parallel to the proffered position." Instead, the Petitioner permits degrees in general fields 
of science, and specifically in the field of chemistry, which is unrelated to the field of computer 
science, for entry in to such positions. Again, given the extent to which the opinion letters are not in 
accord with other information in the record, they bear minimal probative value. See Matter of Caron 
Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. at 795. 
In summation, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
D. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature 
of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
The Petitioner's assertions on appeal regarding the fourth criterion are identical to its assertions 
regarding the second prong of the second criterion. 16 However, for the reasons stated above in the 
analysis regarding the second prong of the second criterion, we are unpersuaded that the nature of the 
specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is usually 
associated with the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
Again we note that, given that I Is opinion letter does not appear to correspond to the petition, 
it is not substantiated by objective research or studies, and the extent to which his opinion is not in 
15 The Occupational Information Network (O*NET) summary report for "Computer Systems Analysts" does not state a 
requirement for a bachelor's degree for this occupation. Rather, it assigns this occupation a Job Zone "Four" rating, which 
groups it among occupations for which "most ... require a four-year bachelor's degree, but some do not." O*NET OnLine 
Summary Report for "15-1121.00 - Computer Systems Analysts," http://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/15-l 121.00 
(last visited Feb. 10, 2020). The summary report does not indicate that the bachelor's or higher degree must be in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. 
16 The Petitioner addresses both criteria in the same section under a heading that addressed both the second prong of the 
second criterion and the fourth criterion. Although the two criteria are similar, they are distinct. 
13 
accord with other information in the record, it bears minimal probative value. 17 See Matter of Caron 
Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. at 795. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated in the record that its proffered pos1t10n 1s one with duties 
sufficiently specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
17 Similar to the second prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner does not specifically asse1i on appeal, and the record 
does not supp011 the conclusion, thatl Is opinion letter satisfies the fourth criterion. 
14