dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8909134 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-18) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG . 28, 2020 
The Petitioner, a company which inspects, tests, and certifies products and commodities, seeks to 
temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "global service delivery manager" under the H-18 
nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations.1 The H-18 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 Vermont 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 ig ibi I ity by a preponderance of the evidence. 2 
We review the questions in this matter de novo.3 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. 
1 Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) , 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) 
2 Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
3 See Matter of Chri sta's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
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"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
11. PROFFERED POSITION 
The labor condition application (LCA)4 was certified with the job title "global service delivery 
manager" for a position falling within the Standard Occupation Classification (SOC) code and 
category 15-1199, "Computer Occupations, All Other." The Petitioner clarified that the most 
appropriate occupational sub-classification is that of "Information Technology Project Managers" 
corresponding to the sub-code of 15-1199.09. The Petitioner provided a description of the proffered 
position in its initial letter of support and expanded on those duties in response to the Director's request 
for evidence (RFE). For the sake of brevity, we will not quote all of the duty descriptions; however, 
we have closely reviewed and considered each one. 
Regarding the position's educational requirements, the Petitioner initially stated that the position 
requires a bachelor's degree in business administration or computer science. The petition is not 
approvable because the Petitioner's claimed entry requirement for at least a bachelor's degree, or 
equivalent, in business administration, without more, is inadequate to establish that the proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation.5 A petitioner must demonstrate that the proffered position requires a 
4 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to demonstrate 
that it will pay the Beneficiary 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 experience and qualifications who 
are performing the same services. Section 212(n)(1) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(a). 
5 A general degree requirement does not necessarily preclude a proffered position from qualifying as a specialty 
2 
precise and specific course of study that relates directly and closely to the position in question. There 
must be a close correlation between the required specialized studies and the position. Thus, the mere 
requirement of a general degree, such as business administration, without further specification, does not 
establish the position as a specialty occupation.6 Without this specification, it cannot be concluded that 
the proffered position requires anything more than a general bachelor's degree, if that. 
The Director's RFE notified the Petitioner that a bachelor's degree in business administration is a 
generalized field and that the Petitioner bears the burden of establishing how each of the qualifying 
fields of study relate directly to the duties and responsibilities of the position. In its RFE response, the 
Petitioner argues that implied in the requirement for a bachelor's degree in business administration is a 
technology focus included in the coursework. From then on, the Petitioner articulated its requirements as 
a bachelor's degree in business administration with an information technology (IT) focus, computer 
science, or a closely related field. Rather than explain how a bachelor's degree in business administration 
directly relates to the duties of the position such that it forms a specific specialty, the Petitioner requests 
that we intuit unstated information into the record. However, to do so would constitute impermissible 
overreaching of our role in this matter. If the Petitioner has a specific education requirement of an IT 
focus, it is the Petitioner's burden to state this explicitly. 
In addition to the above, the Petitioner has not explained what constitutes an "IT focus." For example, 
the Petitioner does not clearly explain whether a specifically declared academic concentration or major 
constitutes an "IT focus" and if so, which precise concentrations or majors would be acceptable. 
Moreover, the Petitioner has not adequately defined whether the "IT focus" requirement could be met 
through specific courses even if such courses do not comprise a specific major or concentration. Further, 
we do not know how many credit hours would be required to meet the "IT focus" requirement. As such, 
even if we accept the Petitioner's addition of an "IT focus" as further specification of the business 
administration degree, this would not absolve the Petitioner from clearly defining its requirements. 
To the extent that the Petitioner provided the additional specification such that the requirements would be 
considered to be in a specific specialty, we note that it is well established that a petitioner may not make 
material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS 
requirements. 7 Because a petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration 
benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing through adjudication, 8 a visa 
petition may not be approved at a future date after a petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under 
a new set of facts. 9 As such, eligibility for the benefit sought must be assessed and weighed based on 
the facts as they existed at the time the instant petition was filed. In order for a petitioner to comply 
occupation. For example, an entry requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in business with a concentration in a 
specific field, or a bachelor's or higher degree in business combined with relevant education, training, and/or experience 
could, in certain instances, qualify the proffered position as a specialty occupation. In either case, it must be demonstrated 
that the entry requirement is equivalent to a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the 
proffered position. The Petitioner has not done so here. 
6 Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147 (a general-purpose bachelor's degree in business may be a legitimate prerequisite for 
a particular position, but such a degree, without more, will not justify a finding that a particular position qualifies for 
classification as a specialty occupation). See also Irish Help at Home LLC v. Melville, No. 13-cv-00943-MEJ, 2015 WL 
848977 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 24, 2015), aff'd 679 Fed. App'x 634 (9th Cir. 2017). 
7 See Matter of lzummi, 22 l&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). 
8 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). 
9 See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 l&N Dec. 248 (Reg'I Comm'r 1978). 
3 
with 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(1) and USCIS to perform its regulatory duties under 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b), a petitioner 
must file an amended or new petition, along with a new LCA certified by DOL, in order to capture 
any material changes in terms or conditions of employment or the beneficiary's eligibility. 
Even setting aside the foregoing analysis, we still conclude that the proffered position is not a specialty 
occupation because the evidence of record does not satisfy any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(i i i)(A)(l)-( 4). 
Ill. 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. 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its 
equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation.10 
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. As stated, the Petitioner designated the proffered position under the 
occupational category "Computer Occupations, All Other" corresponding to the SOC code 15-1199. 
We often look to the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) 
regarding the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses.11 
However, there are some occupations for which detailed profiles have not been developed, such as for 
the occupational category "Computer Occupations, All Other."12 Therefore, it is the Petitioner's 
responsibility to provide probative evidence (e.g., documentation from other objective, authoritative 
sources) that supports a finding that the particular position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner referenced the O*NET summary report for "Information Technology Project 
Managers" - SOC code 15-1199.09. The O*NET Summary Report provides general information 
regarding the occupation, but it does not support the Petitioner's assertion regarding the educational 
requirements for the occupation. For example, the Job Zone Four designation indicates that most, but 
some do not, require a four-year bachelor's degree. It does not specify the specific field of study, if 
any, from which the degree must come. The occupation's Specialized Vocational Preparation (SVP) 
10 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support 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. 
11 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. 
12 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Data for Occupations Not Covered 
in Detail, on the Internet at https://www.bls.gov/ooh/abouUdata-for-occupations-not-covered-in-detail.htm (last visited 
Aug. 27, 2020). 
4 
rating of 7 < 8 is even less persuasive. An SVP rating of 7 to less than ("<") 8 indicates that the 
occupation requires "over 2 years up to and including 4 years" of training. While the SVP rating 
indicates the total number of years of vocational preparation required for a particular position, it is 
important to note that it does not describe how those years are to be divided among training, 
experience, and formal education which, by definition, includes high school education and commercial 
or shop training.13 The SVP rating also does not specify the particular type of degree, if any, that a 
position would require. For all of these reasons, we are not persuaded by the Petitioner's citations to 
O*NET. 14 
The Petitioner cites to several district court cases to support the position that the statute and the 
regulation allow a finding of a specialty occupation even when more than one single field of study 
qualifies a candidate to perform in the position.15 Provided the specialties are closely related, 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. We 
do not take issue with this interpretation. However, if the fields are not sufficiently similar, the 
Petitioner must explain how those various fields closely relate to the duties of the position and how 
they each form a body of highly specialized knowledge. 
The Petitioner also cites to Next Generation Tech., Inc. v. Johnson as relevant here and uses it to 
support a conclusion concerning the meaning of what is "normally" the minimum requirement for the 
position.16 We question the applicability of Next Generation Tech., Inc. in the instant matter, as it 
analyzed our reading of the Handbook concerning the entry requirements for positions located within 
the different and separate occupational category of "Computer Programmers," rather than the 
"Information Technology Project Managers" category designated by the Petitioner in this case. 
As noted above, the Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, is normally required for entry into this occupation and in fact, the Handbook does not 
specifically address this occupational category at all. In general, while the Handbook may help to 
establish the first regulatory criterion for certain professions, 17 many occupations are not described in 
such a categorical manner.18 For example, "[the Handbook's] description for the Computer 
13 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at 
http://www.onetonline.org/help/online/svp. 
14 The O*NET summary report, printed August 2, 2019 and included in the petition for our consideration, contains survey 
respondents' educational qualifications for the occupational category of 15-1199.09 in significantly different percentages 
than the percentages in the most recent summary report (last accessed Aug. 27, 2020). This demonstrates that the 
educational requirements for positions falling within the occupational category fluctuate markedly even within a short 
period of time. This further demonstrates that the summary reports are insufficient to establish a normal minimum entry 
requirement for positions within the occupational category. 
15 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, 719-20 (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. 
16 Next Generation Tech., Inc. v. Johnson, 328 F. Supp. 3d 252 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). 
17 Such professions would include surgeons or attorneys, which indisputably require at least a bachelor's degree for entry 
into the occupation. 
18 See lnnova Sols., Inc. v. Baran, 2019 WL 3753334, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2019) (declining to follow Next Generation 
Tech., Inc.). 
5 
Programmer occupation does not describe the normal minimum educational requirements of the 
occupation in a categorical fashion."19 In such a case, "[the Petitioner] could not simply rely on [the 
Handbook] 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."20 
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., lnc.21 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation from a probative source to substantiate its 
assertion regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. 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 contemplates 
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."22 
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 
19 Id.; see also Xiaotong Liu v. Baran, 2018 WL 7348851 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2018). 
20 See lnnova Sols., Inc. 2019 WL 3753334, at *8. 
21 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0142, Rescission of the December 22, 2000 "Guidance memo on H1B 
computer related positions" (Mar. 31, 2017), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/nativedocuments/PM-6002-
0142-H-1 BComputerRelated PositionsRecission. pdf. 
22 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)). 
6 
did not submit evidence from an industry professional association indicating such a degree is a 
minimum requirement for entry into the position. 
In support of its assertion that the degree requirement is common to the Petitioner's industry, the Petitioner 
submitted an industry letter froml I Director of Information Technology at I I I 11 l's letter is just four sentences long and provides no analysis of the duties of the 
position. Thoughl I states that he is familiar with the proffered position and others like it, as 
well as the nature of the role within the industry, he does not demonstrate this knowledge in any 
meaningful way. lnstead,1 ..... uc .... o.~ appears to suggest that simply because he currently works as a 
director of information technology, he is familiar with the landscape of an entire indust]t, as well as 
individual positions and hiring patterns within the industry. The Petitioner and I have sin;ill.!Y, 
not substantiated this knowledge by submitting sufficient evidence to establish the qualifications ofLJ 
I Ito opine in such a broad manner. Moreover, without corroborating evidence to establish an 
actual industry routine in hiring, general sweeping statements submitted at the behest of the Petitioner 
offer little probative value. Even if such additional evidence were submitted, one letter from an 
employee at an organization that appears dissimilar to the Petitioner, would not establish an industry 
standard that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required as a minimum 
entry requirement for a global service delivery manager position. 23 
As alternative evidence for our consideration under this and the other criteria, the Petitioner submits a 
position evaluation opinion letter fr Professor of Mathematics, Computer 
Science, and Information Systems a University of ________ _, In addition to an analysis of 
the Beneficiary's qualifications, offers his o inion on the educational requirements of the 
position. On appeal, the Petitioner states that ________ __, determined the requirement for at least a 
bachelor's degree in business administration (with an IT focus), computer science, or a closely related 
field is in line and consistent with relevant industry standards and practices. However, this conclusion 
appears to misstate the information in I Is letter in that I I does not mention 
business administration as an industry standard or as a field related to the proffered position's duties. 
---------~I discusses three main proffered position duties: manage various groups of strategic 
managed service providers; ensure functionality of monitoring applications and infrastructure; and 
analyze requests to determine root causes. Thoughl J introduces how various computer 
science related courses would provide the skills needed to perform such duties, his letter does not provide 
an analysis of why these duties require specialized knowledge. 
To illustrate, for the duty to ensure functionality of monitoring applications and infrastructure, ..... ! __ __, 
~only loosely discusses what he believes would be involved in carrying it out: issues with legacy 
systems, difficulties with implementation, bug fixes, and revising and improving software architecture. 
I I provides little detail on why this work requires specialized knowledge and we cannot 
ascertain from his opinion letter what the Beneficiary would do to carry out these abstract tasks. 
Furthermore, while it seems possible that an individual would learn how to manage various woups of 
managed service providers in a computer science related degree program.I J has not 
23 On appeal, the Petitioner submitted a similar letter from a laterally situated colleague of the Beneficiary. We conclude 
that this letter offers little probative value for reasons similar to those articulated in the discussion ofl l's letter. 
7 
explained why this work is specialized or why knowledge to perform this duty must be obtained through 
such a program. 
Overall, we conclude thatl l's opinion contains a significant underlying assumption: that 
the position requires specialized knowledge. Thoughl I identifies where the knowledge 
to perform the duties could be obtained, he does not engage in a discussion of why the knowledge is 
required or why the knowledge cannot be obtained apart from a degree in one of the qualifying fields. 
To add any value to this matter.I I must flesh out his fundamental presupposition that 
the position requires specialized knowledge before discussing which areas of knowledge or explaining 
where the knowledge could be obtained. 
In addition to the above.I I confuses the ability of a degreed computer science person to 
perform the duties of the proffered position with a degree requirement in order to perform the duties. 
Put simply, stating that a person with a bachelor's degree in computer science could perform the duties 
of the proffered position is not the same as stating that such a degree is required to perform those 
duties. As such,I I misconstrues the statutory and regulatory requirements of a specialty 
occupation. 
While I I may draw inferences that certain courses or knowledge obtained through a 
bachelor's degree in computer science may be beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, 
we disagree with the inference that a specific degree is required in order to perform the duties of the 
proffered position. We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as 
advisory.24 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. 25 Here, the 
opinion presented does not offer a cogent analysis of the duties and why the duties require a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty.26 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient probative 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)(i i i)(A)(2). 27 
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 
24 Matter of Caron lnt'I, Inc., 19 l&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). 
25 Id. 
26 We hereby incorporate our discussion of I Is opinion into our discussion of the other 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(h)( 4)(i i i)(A) criteria. 
27 We acknowledge the job postings submitted for the first time on appeal. The employers advertise positions requiring a 
bachelor's degree in various fields including software engineering, computer science, business, information technology, 
and computer information systems. Each employer requires between five to eight to sixteen years of additional experience, 
depending on whether the experience can be obtained concurrently. The Petitioner has not provided information as to why 
positions with a requirement for this level of additional experience would parallel the proffered position. Nor has the 
Petitioner explained how these employers, such as McDonald's and Equifax, are similar companies operating in the same 
industry as the Petitioner. Therefore, these job postings appear irrelevant. 
8 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
Upon review of the totality of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained 
or documented why the proffered position is so complex or unique that a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty is required. A crucial aspect of this matter is whether the Petitioner has submitted sufficient 
and consistent evidence describing the proffered position such that we may discern the nature of the 
position. 
When determining whether a position is a specialty occupation, we also look at whether the position 
actually requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge 
attained through at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific discipline. Not only does the Petitioner 
fail to sufficiently explain how the duties require specialized knowledge, many of the duties 
themselves are described in vague and general terms, not allowing us to understand what the 
Beneficiary will actually be doing when carrying out the undefined tasks. Verbatim examples include: 
I Collaborate with teams of employees, including Cyber Security, Regional IT, and 
Application teams, globally regarding Information Technology Infrastructure 
Library ("ITIL") processes; 
I Comprehend and instruct team members on operation requirements and execute 
delivery of same; 
I Ensure functionality of monitoring applications and infrastructure; and analyze 
requests to determine root causes 
I Demonstrate operational excellence, IT best practice compliance and continuous 
improvement to team and clients; 
I Develop work culture fostering service excellence, business process, competency, 
cost effectiveness and efficient service delivery to better serve clients; 
I Establish, document, maintain and enforce the service Desk and all process aligned 
with [the Petitioner's] Global IT; 
I Serve as single point of contact between [the Petitioner] and offshore 3rd party vendor; 
I Hold daily meetings with technical leads to identify challenges and document service 
improvement plans as needed, detail process compliance issues to ensure the service 
provider is delivering solutions within contractual SLAs; and 
I Provide leadership for Service Desk to ensure [the Petitioner] end-to-end support 
procedures are continually applied and followed. 
The Petitioner does not sufficiently explain why the knowledge needed to collaborate with other 
individuals or teams can only be obtained through a bachelor's degree or higher in one of the 
qualifying fields, nor do we have sufficient information on what level of involvement the Beneficiary 
will have when he collaborates with others. Thought it appears the proffered position is an oversight 
role, we have little detail on how the oversight will take place. For instance, we do not have sufficient 
information concerning how the Beneficiary will enforce service desk processes or ensure best practice 
compliance. The Petitioner has not explained with sufficient specificity what tasks the Beneficiary 
will carry out to accomplish such duties. 
9 
We do not know how demonstrating operational excellence or fostering a work culture of service will 
be achieved and the Petitioner has not adequately defined these concepts. It is not apparent how 
knowledge to complete such duties could be taught in a bachelor's degree program, particularly when 
such duties appear to be driven by the specific nature of the Petitioner's business. The Petitioner does 
not provide sufficient information on how continuous improvement or leadership is measured in the 
context of its business, nor has it explained why knowledge taught in a bachelor's degree program in 
a specific specialty would be required to serve as a point of contact for others or to hold meetings. 
The Petitioner mentions its parent company's size and the number of offices it has globally as a factor 
contributing to the complexity and sophistication of the proffered position. However, the Petitioner 
does not meaningfully connect the proffered position to the parent company's scope to substantiate 
this assertion. For instance, though the Petitioner includes an organizational chart featuring the 
Beneficiary's team of twenty-two people, it is not apparent from this organizational chart why "over 
1,000 labs and offices in over 100 countries" are captured in the Beneficiary's work. The Petitioner's 
duty descriptions also do not convey how the scope of the parent company is a relevant factor, as the 
Beneficiary's work appears to serve the Petitioner and not the parent company as a whole. Without 
more, the Petitioner has not substantiated its arguments that the parent company's size and scope add 
complexity or sophistication to the proffered position. 
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 particular 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 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. To satisfy this 
criterion, the record must establish that the specific performance requirements of the position 
generated the recruiting and hiring history. 
We acknowledge the Petitioner's assertions that the position requires a minimum of a bachelor's 
degree in business administration, computer science, or a closely related field for entry. The record, 
however, must establish that a petitioner's stated degree requirement is not a matter of preference for 
high-caliber candidates but is necessitated instead by performance requirements of the position.28 
Were USCIS limited solely to reviewing a petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, then any 
individual with a bachelor's degree could be brought to the United States to perform any occupation 
as long as the petitioner created a token degree requirement. 29 Evidence provided in support of this 
criterion may include, but is not limited to, documentation regarding the Petitioner's past recruitment 
and hiring practices, as well as information regarding employees who previously held the position. 
28 See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. 
29 Id. 
10 
The Petitioner submitted an organizational chart that lists the names, titles, and education levels of seven 
people. The record does not include any job duties performed by these employees, or the job 
advertisements for their positions. Therefore, we do not know what the recruitment process for hiring 
these individuals involved or whether specialized degrees were prerequisites. None of the other seven 
people on the team have the same title as the Beneficiary, nor do we have printouts of payroll or tax 
documentation evidencing actual hiring. Finally, we do not have copies of the individuals' educational 
credentials and as such, we do not know if such degrees were earned in the U.S. or could be considered a 
U.S. equivalent. 
The Petitioner submitted a Linked In profile and resume printout for an employee that it characterizes as 
having a bachelor's degree in business administration and fifteen years of experience. We note that this 
individual's position with the Petitioner is not featured on his resume, his title differs from the title of the 
proffered position, and we have no list of duties to relate or compare his position duties to those of the 
proffered position. We further question the accuracy of the information because his resume appears to 
conflict with the information provided in his Linked In profile. Moreover, the Petitioner has not explained 
whether the bachelor's degree in business administration or a certain level of experience were 
prerequisites to this individual's hiring. 
As such, the record contains insufficient evidence that these individuals have or had the same or similar 
substantive responsibilities, duties, and performance requirements as the proffered position. Though 
it has been in business since 1928, the Petitioner has not provided the total number of people it has 
employed in the past to serve in the proffered position, nor has it provided information about its past 
hiring history for the proffered position. 
Consequently, no determination can be made about the Petitioner's normal recruiting and hiring practices 
for the proffered position when the submitted employment evidence covers only current employees who 
occupy positions different than the proffered one. The Petitioner has not persuasively established that it 
normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director did not adequately consider! ~s 
analysis of the Beneficiary's academic courses when issuing her decision. The Petitioner states that 
the Director "failed to acknowledge the significant relevancy of the beneficiary's graduate-level 
coursework" and that these courses "provide the background knowledge to perform the core 
responsibility of the proffered position." For our consideration under this criterion, the Petitioner also 
submitted information concerning the Beneficiary's ITIL certifications and general information on 
how to become certified in ITIL at various levels. Rather than demonstrate how the educational 
requirements directly relate to the duties of the position, the Petitioner repeatedly relates how the 
11 
Beneficiary's experience and coursework meet the Petitioners requirements. As such, the Petitioner 
appears to define its position in terms of the Beneficiary's qualifications. As previously stated, we are 
required to follow long-standing legal standards and determine first, whether the proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation, and second, whether the beneficiary was qualified for the position 
at the time the nonimmigrant visa petition was filed.30 
Furthermore, though ITSM and ITIL may be important for structuring workflow in the proffered 
position, we note that these are opensource frameworks and methodologies. The Petitioner has not 
explained why knowledge of how to use them must be learned in a bachelor's degree in business 
administration or computer science. In fact, it is not apparent why any degree would be required to 
perform the duties of the position if a certification were obtained instead. 
Although some tasks may connote a requirement of familiarity with general management principles, 
including information technology knowledge, the record is insufficient to establish that the duties require 
anything more than a few basic courses and a broad educational background. While a few such courses 
may be beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner, who bears the burden of 
proof, has not demonstrated how an established curriculum of such courses leading to a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the duties of the 
proffered position. 
For the same reasons we 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. 
Consequently, the Petitioner has not satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A).31 
IV. CONCLUSION 
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. The appeal will be 
dismissed for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is a 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. 
3° Cf. Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 l&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988) ("The facts of a beneficiary's background 
only come at issue after it is found that the position in which the petitioner intends to employ him falls within [a specialty 
occupation]."). 
31 Though not r['evant to the r,iscussion of whether the proffered position is a specialty occupation, we further note 
shortcomings in ,....__ __ ___.'s discussion of the Beneficiary's qualifications. As the Petitioner has not established the 
proffered position is a specialty occupation, we need not discuss these evidentiary shortcomings except to alert the 
Petitioner that it should be prepared to address beneficiary qualification issues in future filings. 
12