dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 12211773 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : NOV . 25, 2020 
The Petitioner, an information technology management company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "systems engineer II" under the H-1 B nonirnrnigrant 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 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 eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec . 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the 
questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec . 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires : 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge , 
and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States . 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
( I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We construe the term "degree" to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal 
Siam Corp. v. 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. THE PROFFERED POSITION 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would 
be employed in-house, working remotely from his home, as a systems engineer II "provid[ing] new 
development and Dynamics AX 2012 R3 support services both internally and to the end-user clients as 
he is assigned." The Petitioner then provided a list of job duties for the proffered position, indicating 
that the Beneficiary would devote 10% of his time to providing tier 3 support to develop standards and 
policies for the day-to-day operations for a wide range of storage systems for both internal and external 
customers across multiple data centers; 5% of his time to performing a monthly assessment of the storage 
systems and applying updates/patches, as well as fixing bugs for better security; 5% of this time to 
managing SAN fabric and providing support for Cisco MDS series FC switches; 5% of his time to 
managing and troubleshooting mission critical servers; 5% of his time to SME for Microsoft Windows 
services; 10% of his time to configuring, managing, and providing advanced support for a wide array of 
systems for both internal and external customers; 5% of his time to set up, install, and configure 
Microsoft ADCS and PK.I infrastructure to provide public key cryptography, digital certificates, and 
digital signature capabilities for the organization; 5% of the time to assisting operations teams with root 
cause analysis, problem management, and complex escalations; 5% of his time to setting up and 
configuring IBM Blade and Cisco UCS servers to boot from SAN and connect to the Cisco network 
using redundant paths along with multi-path for fabric network; 5% of his time to participating in a 24x7 
on-call support rotation; 10% of his time to researching and analyzing hardware and software issues to 
design solutions to meet customer needs; 15% of his time to handling escalations related to the 
maintenance, repair, and support of systems and storage arrays to ensure continued operation and 
functionality; 10% of his time to providing training to lower tier engineers and support personnel; and 
5% of this time to performing data center operations and hands-on data center infrastructure 
maintenance. The Petitioner also included additional tasks the Beneficiary would perform in carrying 
out some of the duties. 
2 
The Petitioner indicated that the minimum entry requirement for the proffered position is a bachelor's 
degree, or equivalent, in computer science, information technology, electrical engineering, or a 
directly related field. 
III. ANALYSIS 
For the reasons set out below, we have determined that the proffered position does not qualify as a 
specialty occupation. 1 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. 2 
A. First Criterion 
We turn first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which requires that a baccalaureate or 
higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry 
into the particular position. To inform this inquiry, we will consider the information contained in the U.S. 
Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) regarding the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations it addresses. 3 
On the labor condition application (LCA)4 submitted in support of the H-1B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Computer Systems Analysts" 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 15-1121. Thus, we reviewed the 
Handbook's subchapter entitled "How to Become a Computer Systems Analyst," which states, in 
pertinent part, that a bachelor's degree in a computer or information science field is common, although 
not always a requirement. 5 According to the Handbook, some firms hire analysts with business or liberal 
arts degrees. We interpret the term "degree" to mean a degree in a spec[fic specialty that is directly related 
to the proposed position. See Royal Siam Corp., 484 F .3d at 14 7. Since there must be a close correlation 
between the required specialized studies and the position, a requirement of general and wide-ranging 
degrees in business and liberal arts strongly suggests that a computer systems analyst position is not 
categorically a specialty occupation. See id. Cf Matter o_f Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 
(Comm'r 1988). The Handbook continues by stating that many analysts have technical degrees, but such 
1 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
2 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. 
3 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. 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. 
4 A petitioner submits the LCA to DOL to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B 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. § 655.73l(a). 
5 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Computer Systems Analysts 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-systems-analysts.htm#tab-4 (last visited 
Nov. 23, 2020). 
3 
a degree is not always a requirement - and that, in fact, many analysts have liberal arts degrees and gain 
programming or technical expertise elsewhere. 6 The Handbook does not specify a degree level ( e.g., 
associate's degree) for these business, technical, and liberal arts degrees. 
The Handbook, therefore, 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. See also Altimetrik 
Corp. v. Cissna, No. 18-10116, 2018 WL 6604258, at *6 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 17, 2018) (the Handbook 
"makes it clear that a degree in a computer-related field is not required" for these positions, and 
therefore "USCIS [was] entitled to deference in its finding that systems analysts are not required to 
have a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty"). 
The Petitioner cited to DOL's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) summary report for 
"Computer Systems Analysts" listed as SOC code 15-1121.00 7 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. 8 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. 9 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 in the 
summary report does not indicate that the "education level" for the respondents must be in a specific 
specialty. The survey indicates that 33% of "respondents" claim to hold a bachelor's degree and 14% of 
"respondents" claim to hold a master's degree. However, the same survey indicates that, compared to 
bachelor's degree respondents, almost the same number of respondents, 29%, reported possessing at most 
6 Id. 
7 We note that O*NET has recently updated its SOC code for Computer Systems Analysts, which may now be found at 
SOC code 15-1211.00. 
8 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. 
9 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/help/ 
online/svp. 
4 
an associate's degree, and further, 24% are unaccounted for. Regardless, 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.10 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner cites RELX, Inc. v. Baran, 397 F. Supp. 3d 41 (D.D.C. Aug. 5, 2019) to 
support its argument that the proffered position meets the definition of a specialty occupation. 
However, in contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case law of a U. S. circuit court, we are 
not bound to follow the published decision of a U. S. district court, even in matters arising within the 
same district. See Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715, 719-20 (BIA 1993). Although the reasoning 
underlying a district judge's decision will be given due consideration when properly before us, the 
analysis does not have to be followed as a matter oflaw. Id. Consistent with the Board's holding in 
K-S- and as discussed below, we decline to follow the court's reasoning. 
The RELX court concluded that "if the position requires the beneficiary to apply practical and 
theoretical specialized knowledge and a higher education degree it meets the requirements" of the 
definition of the term "specialty occupation." RELX, 397 F. Supp. 3d at 55. However, while that 
interpretation encompasses the requirements of section 214(i)(l)(A) of the Act, it ignores entirely 
section 214(i)(l)(B)'s requirement that the higher education degree must be "in the specific 
specialty." 11 
The RELX court then examined two district court decisions: 
Nowhere in the statute does it require the degree to come solely from one particular 
academic discipline. As other courts have explained "[ d]iplomas rarely come bearing 
occupation-specific majors. What is required is an occupation that requires highly 
specialized knowledge and a prospective employee who has attained the credentialing 
indicating possession of that knowledge." See Residential Finance Corp. v. US. 
Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 839 F. Supp. 2d 985, 997 (S.D. Ohio 2012) (stating 
10 Nor is it apparent whether these credentials were prerequisites to these individuals' hiring. 
11 The USCIS regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition. When the agency 
promulgated the regulation in 199 L it found unconvincing the assertions made by multiple commenters that the "specific 
specialty" language was too restrictive. The agency stated the following: 
Most of these commenters suggested that the definition should be expanded to include those occupations 
which did not require a bachelor's degree in the specific specialty. The definition of specialty occupation 
contained in the statute contains this requirement. 
56 Fed. Reg. 61111, 61112 (Dec. 2, 1991). 
This "specific specialty" requirement has been recognized repeatedly. For example, in Caremax Inc v. Holder, 40 F. Supp. 
1182, 1187-88 (N.D. Cal. 2014 ), the court stated that "a position that requires applicants to have any bachelor's degree, or 
a bachelor's degree in a large subset of fields, can hardly be considered specialized." 
5 
that when determining whether a position is a specialized occupation "knowledge and 
not the title of the degree is what is important."); 12 see also Tapis Int'! v. INS., 94 F. 
Supp.2 d 172, 175-76 (D. Mass. 2000) (rejecting a similar agency interpretation 
because it would preclude any position from satisfying the "specialty occupation" 
requirements where a specific degree is not available in that field). 
RELX, 397 F. Supp. 3d at 55. 
While we may agree with these statements, the RELX court appears to have taken them out of their 
proper statutory context. For example, if the Director in this matter had stated that the requisite 
bachelor's degree was required to have come bearing an occupation-specific major, we would 
withdraw that finding as it would have been incorrect. We agree that the knowledge, and not the title 
of the degree, is what is important, and had the Director stated that an occupation for which a specific 
degree is not available was precluded from qualifying as a specialty occupation, we would have 
withdrawn that statement. Neither the Residential Finance nor the Tapis Int'! court implied that the 
"specific specialty" requirement contained in section 214(i)(l)(B) was optional. To the contrary, both 
courts found that the plaintiffs had satisfied the requirement. 
While the statutory "the" and the regulatory "a" both mandate a requirement for a bachelor's degree 
in a singular "specific specialty," 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 also includes even seemingly disparate specialties 
providing, again, the evidence of record establishes how each acceptable, specific field of study is 
directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position. 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)(l)(B) of the Act. In such a case, the required "body of 
highly specialized knowledge" would essentially be the same. However, since there must be a close 
correlation between the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" and the position, a minimum 
entry requirement of a degree in two disparate fields, such as philosophy and engineering, 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. 
We also disagree with the court's statements regarding the Occupational Outlook Handbook 
(Handbook) and the Occupational Information Network (O*NET). Specifically, the court stated that: 
12 With regard to Residential Finance. it is worth noting that the 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. To that end, we observe that when another H-1 B petitioner challenged 
our reading of Residential Finance in the District Court for the Southern District of Ohio two years later, that court agreed 
with our interpretation of its earlier decision. See Health Carousel, LLC v. USCIS, No. 1 :13-CV-23, 2014 WL 29591 (S.D. 
Ohio 2014). 
6 
The explicit O*NET cross reference to Business Intelligence Analyst (SOC Code 
15-1199.08) contained in the [Handbook] listing for "Computer Occupations, All 
Other" defines the technological and educational requirements for the position and 
explains that "[m]ost of these occupations require a four-year bachelor's degree, but 
some do not" with further detail that more than 90% of Business Intelligence Analyst 
positions require at least a bachelor's degree. 
The [Handbook] itself also explains that the typical entry level education for 
"Computer occupations , all other" is a "Bachelor's Degree." Since the [Handbook] 
indeed does provide specific detailed information regarding educational requirements 
for the computer operations category, and the detailed information states most of the 
occupations require a four-year bachelor's degree, the agency's rationale was both 
factually inaccurate and not supported by the record. 
The court did not acknowledge that neither the Handbook nor O*NET indicate that the bachelor's 
degree must be in a specific specialty, as mandated by section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act. Nor do we 
concur with the heavy weight the court assigned to the survey results contained in O*NET' s summary 
report for the occupational category at issue in RELX. As noted by the court, 90% of the respondents 
to that survey stated that their organizations required a bachelor's degree for these positions . However, 
those survey results were based on a relatively small sample size: according to O*NET, that statistic 
was compiled based on 24 responses to a survey. 13 
We therefore disagree with the court that the Handbook 's entry for positions located within the 
"Computer Occupations, All Other" occupational category, and O*NET's entry for positions located 
within the "Business Intelligence Analysts" occupational category were sufficient (whether considered 
together or independently from one another) to satisfy the "specific specialty" requirement mandated 
by Congress in section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act. 14 
Because the Handbook and O*NET do not describe the normal minimum educational requirements 
with sufficient specificity to establish that the positions falling within the occupational category meet 
the statutory and regulatory definition of a specialty occupation, we disagree with the heavy weight 
the court assigned them. Instead, we believe that, absent support from either the Handbook and 
O*NET, the court should have analyzed whether the petitioner had sufficiently demonstrated that its 
particular position was one for which a bachelor's degree in a specific field would normally be required 
and whether the stated field(s) of study directly relate to the performance of the duties. 15 In other 
13 Employm ent & Training Administration , Dep't of Labor, Occupational Information Network , O*NET Resource Center, 
O*NET 24.2 Database, Education , Training, and Experience (click desired download format), available at 
https :/ /www .onetcenter.org /dictionary /24.2/excel/education _ training_ experience .html (last visited Nov. 23, 2020). 
14 See also Irish Help at Home LLC v. Melville, No. 13-cv-00943-MEJ , 2015 WL 848977 at *5 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 24, 2015), 
ajf'd 679 Fed. App'x 634 (9th Cir.2017) ("The AAO found that O*NET was not particularly useful in determining whether 
a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent is a minimum entry requirement because it makes no mention 
of the specific field of study from which a degree must come"). 
15 Though the RELX court briefly discusses the duties of the position , it did not engage in analysis of whether the duties 
actually required the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge , and the attainment 
of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty as the minimum for entry into the occupation. Rather, after 
disposing of the authority set forth in Royal Siam Co,p ., the court accepted the petitioner's stated standards concerning its 
position . See generally Defensor, 201 F.3d 384, 387. 
7 
words, though we agree with the RELX court that the bachelor's degree does not have to be a degree 
in a single specialty, our agreement is predicated upon the fields of study being closely related to the 
duties of the position and the record reflecting evidence sufficient to establish such relation. 
We therefore cannot agree with the reasoning contained in the RELX decision and conclude that the 
Petitioner's reliance upon it does not support its eligibility. 16 
The record lacks sufficient probative evidence to support a conclusion 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)(]). 
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." 
16 We further note that the Director's decision in RELXwas 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 to address many of the concerns articulated by the 
district court if they could not have been remedied by us in our de nova review of the matter. 
8 
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 conclude that the Petitioner's reliance 
on the job announcements is misplaced. 
We will first consider whether the advertised job opportumt1es could be considered "parallel 
positions." As noted, the Petitioner attested to DOL that the proffered position is a Level III position. 
However, three of the advertised positions require a bachelor's degree and at least five years of 
relevant experience, which is work experience beyond the requirements for a Level III position. 
Further, most 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 routine responsibilities, 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. 
Nor does the record contain documentary evidence sufficient to establish that these job vacancy 
announcements were placed by companies that (1) conduct business in the Petitioner's industry and 
(2) are also "similar" to the Petitioner. On appeal, the Petitioner addresses the job vacancy 
announcements and states that the Petitioner's principal reason for selecting these organizations is that 
they are companies specializing in Microsoft Dynamics Ax development. The Petitioner states that 
"the position of Systems Engineer for a Microsoft Dynamics Ax company is extremely rare-less than 
on percent of all systems engineer positions [- and] companies that specialize in such a unique and 
niche software development field are, by definition, similar organizations." However, the language 
of the regulation is clear and when determining whether the job vacancy announcements are relevant 
for consideration, the Petitioner must show that they are "similar" organizations. When determining 
whether the Petitioner and another organization share the same general characteristics, such factors 
may include information regarding the nature or type of organization, and, when pertinent, the 
particular scope of operations, as well as the level ofrevenue and staffing (to list just a few elements 
that may be considered). It is not sufficient for the Petitioner to claim that an organization is similar 
and in the same industry without providing a basis for the assertion. 
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, one of the advertised positions requires a 
bachelor's degree but does not identify a specific field of study for the degree. 17 Additionally, two 
advertised positions require a bachelor's degree or "equivalent experience." We do not know, however, 
what formulation those employers would use to determine the equivalent of a bachelor's degree, and if 
the H-lB category would utilize the same standard to ensure that the advertisements represented the same 
"equivalent" standard.18 Further, one advertised position states that a bachelor's degree is required 
17 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 COip., 484 F.3d at 147. 
18 See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5). 
9 
"preferably in an organizational, engineering, or other technical subject." However, a preference is not 
an indication of a requirement. 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 spec[fic specialty ( or its equivalent) is 
not.19 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. 
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. 20 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 
briefly stated that the Beneficiary "will provide high level development and support services to 
multiple clients on projects as assigned, as well as internally," 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 major duties such as: 
• provide tier 3 support to develop standards and policies for the day-to-day operations for a 
wide range of storage systems for both internal and external customers across multiple data 
centers; 
• configure, manage, and provide advanced support for a wide array of systems for both internal 
and external customers; 
• research and analyze hardware and software issues to design solutions to meet customer needs; 
• handle escalations related to the maintenance, repair, and support of systems and storage arrays 
to ensure continued operation and functionality; and 
19 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"). 
20 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 training to lower tier engineers and support personnel 
require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge. These 
listed duties, 21 when read in combination with the evidence found in record of proceedings, suggests 
that this particular position is not so complex or unique relative to other computer systems analysts22 
that the duties can only be performed by an individual with a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. 
Other duty descriptions use general, abstract, or undefined terms. Duties to "assist," "provide 
support," and "work with" are nebulous terms because they do not clearly convey the level of 
involvement the Beneficiary will have in any particular task. Absent further information, we cannot 
determine whether the following duties require specialized knowledge: 
• Assist operations teams with root cause analysis, problem management, and complex escalations. 
• Work with monitoring tools to validate data gathering, performance metrics, and to setup 
alerting about possible errors on customer systems. 
• Work with vendors and manage field replaceable unit component swapping on remote systems. 
• Provide support for enterprise backups solution products. 
• Work with other teams to ensure proper transition of support. 
The above-bulleted duties do not sufficiently convey the work performed. The Petitioner does not 
provide sufficient detail on the analysis, problem management, or complex escalations that the 
Beneficiary will "assist with," how he would "work with monitoring tools," or how he would "ensure 
proper transition of support." Furthermore, the Petitioner has not stated how any of these duties are 
important to the Petitioner's business. 
In addition, the Beneficiary's proposed job duties include collaborations with "internal customers," 
"external customers," "operations teams," "vendor resources," "lower tier engineers," "support 
personnel," "other teams," and "clients." However, the Petitioner has not identified the individuals 
the Beneficiary would work with within its organization, or any "customers" or "clients" the 
Beneficiary would support in the proffered position. 23 
Furthermore, the list of duties includes several references to the Beneficiary being responsible for or 
having subject matter expertise in specifically identified systems or hardware. For example, the 
Petitioner lists the following responsibilities: 
21 While the Petitioner provided numerous duties and tasks for the proffered position, we will not list each one. We note 
that this is not an exhaustive list of all tasks for which the Petitioner has not explained the requirement for the theoretical 
and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge. The Petitioner should not assume that any duties or 
tasks not listed here are otherwise persuasive. 
22 In comparison to those computer systems analyst position where employers only require a general bachelor's degree in 
business or liberal arts. 
23 While the Petitioner submitted samples of contracts with clients, it specifically states that these are a representation of 
the contractual obligations which require the Beneficiary's services, not specific representations of contracts he would be 
assigned to. 
11 
• Responsible for designing and maintaining core storage infrastructure backed by diverse 
storage platforms such as: 
o Dell Compellent SC 5000/8000/9000 series 
o EMC VNX 5500/7500/7600 
o Isilon IQ 72NL 
o NetApp FAS series 
o Dell EqualLogics 
• Manage and troubleshoot mission-critical servers: 
o Windows server 2008, 2012, 2016 
o Linux systems (Redhat and CentOS) 
• SME for Microsoft windows services: 
o Administration ofDNS (Domain Name System) 
o Active Directory 
o DHCP (Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol) 
o IIS (Internet Information Services) technologies 
• Provide SME oversight for: 
o VMware vSphere, ESXi (5.x, 6) 
o vCloud Director 
o Microsoft Hyper-V 
o Azure virtual environments 
However, as it is unclear what the Beneficiary will do with these systems or when he carries out the 
tasks associated with them, it cannot be determined whether the work involves specialized knowledge. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that each of the listed duties, including sub-tasks, is highly technical and 
not generic. The Petitioner further states that all of the "cherry-picked" duties outlined in the Director's 
decision "point to one of the main tasks that the [B]eneficiary is meant to perform in his position: 
[t]roubleshooting complex and internal IT issues." The Petitioner then quotes two of the listed duties 
and states that it is "beyond belief that USCIS can claim that duties such as "[ a ]nalyze servers and 
network systems to identify and initiate repair of firmware issues" or "[s]etup and configur[e] ... IBM 
Blade and Cisco USC [sic] severs to boon [sic] from SAN and connect to the Sisco [sic] network using 
redundant paths along with multi-path for fabric network" are generic and do not include information 
regarding the specific tasks that the [B]eneficiary will perform." However, the Petitioner does not 
provide any clarification or explanation regarding how these listed duties are complex or unique or 
specialized and complex. For example, the Petitioner has not defined what "analyze servers and network 
systems" or "identify and initiate repair" involves. Further, the Petitioner has not explained the term 
"boot from SAN and connect to the Cisco network" or how any of these duties require the theoretical 
and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge. Furthermore, on appeal, the 
Petitioner states that the proffered position "has supervisory and managerial duties involved as well;" 
however, the Petitioner does not provide information on those supervisory and managerial duties, which 
are not identified in the list of duties and tasks in the record. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well qualified for the pos1t10n 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 
12 
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). 
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 does not assert eligibility under this criterion and did not submit evidence of its previous or 
current employees who have served in the proffered position. Thus, 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. 
For reasons similar to those discussed under the second prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), we 
conclude 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. 
13