dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 5845555 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 30, 2020 
The Petitioner, an information technology company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"technical analyst" under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
The H-1B program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a 
position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty ( or its 
equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the 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. § l 184(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" position, and the percentage of 
the Beneficiary's time required to perform them, as follows: 
• Deliver post-sales assistance and solutions to the [Petitioner's] customer base while 
serving as an advocate for customer needs [20%]; 
• Resolve post-sales technical questions regarding the use of and troubleshooting for 
our Electronic Support Services [20%]; 
• Facilitate customer relationships with [s]upport and provide advice and assistance 
to internal [Petitioner] employees on diverse customer situations and issues [ 10%]; 
• Offer strategic technical support to assure the highest level of customer satisfaction 
[20%]; 
• Create and utilize automated technology and instrumentation to diagnose, 
document, and resolve/avoid customer issues [10%]; and 
• Be an expert member of the technical problem solving/avoidance team, routinely 
sought after to address extremely complex, critical customer issues [20%].2 
According to the Petitioner, the position requires "a bachelor's degree, or equivalent, in the specialty 
of Computer Science, Computer Engineering, or related fields." 
2 The Petitioner provided expanded duty descriptions. Although we omit the expanded duty descriptions for brevity, we 
have reviewed them in their entirety. 
2 
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. 3 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its 
equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 4 
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. 5 
On the labor condition application (LCA)6 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 Jan. 29, 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. 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. 
3 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
4 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. 
5 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. 
6 A petitioner submits the LCA to DOL to demonstrate that it will pay an H-lB worker the higher of either the prevailing 
wage for the occupational classification in the area of employment or the actual wage paid by the employer to other 
employees with similar duties, experience, and qualifications. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.73l(a). 
3 
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 farther 
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 
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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner characterizes the information from the Handbook quoted above as 
"conveniently ignoring and deemphasizing the aspects that favor the [P]etitioner." Instead, the 
Petitioner urges us to consider the Handbook's observation that "[a] bachelor's degree in a computer 
or information science field is common." 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 Jan. 29, 2020). 
However, as discussed, while the Handbook states that a degree in computer science or information 
science is common, it also states that those with business or liberal arts degree with information 
technology or computer science skills may also be hired. As noted, the Handbook does not state that 
business or liberal arts degree with information technology or computer science skills must be 
equivalent to a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. Therefore, the Handbook does not 
persuasively establish that a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty is normally the 
minimum requirement for entry into computer systems analyst positions. 
The Petitioner also 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.7 Nevertheless, even ifwe 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 
7 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 l&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 oflaw. Id. 
4 
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. 8 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: 
[ 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 Jan. 29, 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 an opinion letter written by ~I~----~~[ a professor 
of computer applications and information systems at the University ofl !submitted for the 
first time on appeal, satisfies the first criterion. 
As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter 
of Caron Int'l, 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. 
8 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. 
5 
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 of 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.'"). 
In his opinion letter, I I quotes verbatim the Petitioner's duty description, provided above, 
including the expanded description we omit for brevity. I !opines that "a Technical Analyst 
with the specific duties [provided by the Petitioner] ... would normally be filled by a graduate with a 
minimum of a Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science, Com]uter Engineering, or a related area, or 
the equivalent." However, there is no indication thatl 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 !discusses his "research[] [into] the specific labor market and commerce 
standards for California, in which [the Petitioner] is incorporated." As a result! !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 Utah, not in California. Therefore, his research into 
trends in California is misplaced. Furthermore,! I did not report that he conducted research 
pertinent to the normal educational requirements for such positions throughout the United States. 
Additionally, as noted above, the Handbook observes that disparate fields such as business and liberal 
arts may qualify applicants, contrary to I Is opinion. Given thatl Is opinion is not 
substantiated by objective research or studies, and the extent to which his opinion 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. 
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. 
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 
6 
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 10 job postings submitted in response to the Director's request 
for evidence (RFE) satisfy the first prong of the second criterion. 9 The positions' titles, with the 
reported degree requirements, are as follows: 
• Support escalation engineer; "B.S. degree in C.S. or E.E. or equivalent"; 
• Sr support escal eng; "B.S. degree in Computer Science or equivalent experience"; 
• Senior support engineer; "Bachelor's degree in Computer Science, Engineering, 
Mathematics, or related"; 
• Support engineer; "Bachelor's degree in STEM (Science, Technology, 
Engineering, or Mathematics"; 
• Support engineer; "BS in Computer Science, Engineering or a related technical 
field, or relevant technical experience"; 
• Support engineer; "Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science, Engineering or a 
related field, or relevant work experience"; 
• Support engineer; "BS in Computer Science, Engineering or a related technical 
field, or relevant technical experience"; 
• Support engineer (ordering platform); "Bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent in 
Computer Science, Computer or Electrical Engineering or a related field"; 
• Cloud support engineer - analytics; "Bachelor's degree in Information Science / 
Information Technology, Computer Science, Engineering, Mathematics, Physics"; 
and 
• Support engineer - [employer's web-based streaming video service]; "BS in 
Computer Science, Engineering or a related technical field, or relevant technical 
expenence. 
We first note that the three employers who published the job postings are in the Petitioner's general 
industry. The record contains a report from I l noting that the two employers for the first 
four job postings listed above are among the Petitioner's "top 3 competitors." Common knowledge 
about the employer for the last six job postings also supports the conclusion that it is 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 three employers are similar to the Petitioner beyond 
all being in the same general industry. 
9 The Petitioner asserts on appeal that its RFE response contains nine job postings. However, the RFE response contains 
10 job postings. 
7 
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, two postings discuss the employer's 
electronic book tablet hardware for which the workers would provide support and another posting 
discusses the employer's web-based streaming video service for which the worker would provide 
support. Other job postings, such as the third and fourth, do not provide sufficient information 
regarding the products or services for which the workers would provide support, in order to determine 
the extent to which the positions are parallel to the proffered position. Furthermore, both the second 
and third job postings describe the positions as "sr" or "senior," indicating that they are advanced or 
supervisory in nature, raising questions regarding the extent to which they are parallel to the proffered 
position. 
Moreover, regardless of whether the employers are sufficiently similar to the Petitioner and whether 
the positions are parallel to the proffered position, half of the job postings provided by the Petitioner 
do not establish that a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, are common among the sample. For the fourth job posting listed above, the allowance of 
a bachelor's degree in any "science" field, which may include fields unrelated to computer science 
such as biology and zoology, does not establish that the position requires a bachelor's or higher degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The fifth, sixth, seventh, and tenth postings listed above allow 
either "relevant technical experience" or "relevant work experience" in lieu of a bachelor's or higher 
degree, without establishing whether the experience must be equivalent to a bachelor's or higher 
degree in computer science, or another related field. 
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 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 19 5-96 ( 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 I l's opinion letter, discussed above, satisfies the first 
prong of the second criterion. Specifically, the Petitioner quotd l's 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, or a related area, or the equivalent." However, as noted above, there is no indication that 
I 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 
8 
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! Is opinion 
is not substantiated by objective research or studies, and the extent to which his opinion is not in accord 
with other information in the record, it bears minimal probative value. See Matter o_f 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. 
§ 2 l 4.2(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" must provide support is, and the extent to which a "technical analyst" 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, 10 to assert that the 
proffered position is sufficiently complex or unique: 
• Review customer application requirements and design, guide them to the best 
practice, and educate the customer on existing and new systems and how they can 
implement it on their system; 
• Perform system review and reproduce issues in the customer environment using the 
[w]eb [c]onference tool; 
• Verify and review various product configurations and investigate various log files; 
• Perform POC (Proof of Concept) and create use cases as per the customer 
requirements, which helps in presenting very complex customer application 
requirement [sic] as a simplified technical requirement; 
• Verify the [ a ]pplication design and performance based on the customer 
requirement; 
• Perform automation on common issues and create work flow for such issues; 
• Maintain and enhance automation process time to improve the accuracy and evolve; 
and 
10 In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner provided 19 expanded duty descriptions, which as noted above we omit 
for brevity, although we have reviewed them in their entirety. 
9 
• Work closely with the customer's development and architect team to provide 
optimal solutions for [ six specific Petitioner products]. 
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, the record does not establish what is required for the Beneficiary to "review" 
customer application requirements, the nature of a "best practice" and what is required for the 
Beneficiary to "guide" customers to a best practice and "educate" customers on existing and new 
systems. Accordingly, our ability to determine the extent to which reviewing, guiding, and educating 
customers may be complex or unique is limited. As another example, the record does not establish 
the methodology the Beneficiary would use to "[ v ]erify and review various product configurations 
and investigate various log files," again limiting our ability to determine the complexity or uniqueness 
of verifying, reviewing, and investigating. 
Furthermore, we note that the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary would spend 20% of his time 
"[being] an expert member of the technical problem solving/avoidance team." The language of this 
duty is confusing. We cannot determine whether the Beneficiary would be a member of the technical 
problem solving/avoidance team only 20% of the time, or whether the Beneficiary would be a member 
of the team at all times but be an expert only 20% of the time. Regardless of that confusion, the record 
does not establish the other individuals in the technical problem solving/avoidance team; however, 
considering that the Beneficiary's duties overlap with a team of other workers, the record raises 
questions regarding how unique the Beneficiary's duties within the Petitioner's organization are. 
As other examples, the record does not establish how two of the most time-consuming duties (20% 
each) satisfy the second prong of the second criterion. For the second duty, the record does not 
establish what is required for the Beneficiary to "[ r] esolve post-sales technical questions regarding the 
use of and troubleshooting for our Electronic Support Services" and how resolving those generalized 
questions 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 expanded duty descriptions for that primary duty 
state that the Beneficiary would "[p ]rovide solutions and assistance for runtime application and 
product issues," "[ u ]se [i]ntemal [ s ]upport [t]ools to facilitate and assist the customer in resolving 
product related issues," and " [ v ]erify and review various product configurations and investigate 
various log files." However, again, the record does not establish the work the Beneficiary would 
perform to provide solutions and assistance, or review and investigate log files, and how using the 
Petitioner's generalized tools is sufficiently complex or unique. As another example, the record does 
not establish what is required for the Beneficiary to "[ o ]ffer strategic technical support to assure the 
highest level of customer satisfaction"-or, moreover, how offering technical support is distinct from 
the other duties, which seem to describe offering technical support in order to satisfy customers. The 
record does not substantiate how the remainder of the duty description is sufficiently complex or 
umque. 
The Petitioner also asserts on appeal thatl Is opinion letter, discussed above, satisfies the 
second prong of the second criterion. The Petitioner specifically emphasizes! ~s opinion that 
"a candidate must have completed course work [sic] and training in Computer Science, Computer 
Engineering, 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 
10 
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, 
there is no indication that I I has conducted any research or studies pertinent to educational 
requirements for such positions, and no indication of reco~nition by rofessional organizations that he 
is an authority on those specific requirements. Given tha ~--~ s 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). 
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 five job announcements for "Technical Analyst positions similar 
or parallel to the proffered position" satisfy the third criterion. However, all five job announcements 
state verbatim in sections titled "Detailed Description and Job Requirements" that the positions require 
a "BS Computer [sic] Science / Management Information Systems / Science / Engineering / Math / 
Physics / Chemistry." As noted above, the allowance of a bachelor's degree in any "science" field, 
which may include fields unrelated to computer science such as biology and zoology, and moreover 
the specific inclusion of a bachelor's degree in chemistry, which does not appear to be related to the 
field of computer science, does not establish that the Petitioner normally requires a bachelor's or higher 
degree in a spec[fic specialty, or its equivalent. 
Additionally, the five job announcements are undated, ra1smg questions regarding whether they 
establish the Petitioner's hiring history 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 
either "18" or "19," possibly indicating that they are for job announcements posted in 2018 and 2019, 
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)(l). 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). 
The Petitioner also submits for the first time on appeal a table with three columns, listing 25 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 
11 
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 
degrees in general fields of science, and specifically in the field of chemistry, which, without additional 
explanation, does not appear to be related to the field of computer science, for "Technical Analyst 
positions similar or parallel to the proffered position." 
The Petitioner again asserts on appeal thatl Is opinion letter satisfies the third criterion. 
Specifically, the Petitioner emphasizes! ts 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." 11 However, contrary tol l's opinion, the job announcements discussed above 
establish that the Petitioner does not seek out only workers with a bachelor's or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, for 'Technical Analyst positions similar or parallel to the proffered 
position." Again, given the extent to whichl ts opinion is not in accord with other information 
in the record, it bears 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. 12 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 thatl l's opinion is not substantiated by objective research or studies, 
and the extent to which his opinion is not in accord with other information in the record, it bears 
minimal probative value. See Matter of Caron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. at 795. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated in the record that its proffered position 1s one with duties 
sufficiently specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
11 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/15-1121.00 
(last visited Jan. 29, 2020). The summary report does not indicate that the bachelor's or higher degree must be in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. 
12 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. 
12 
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. 
13