dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 5903551 
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. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, 
and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
1 We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 
(AAO 2010). 
(]) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We construe the term "degree" to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal 
Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in a 
specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular 
position"). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner described the duties of the proffered "technical analyst" position, and the percentage of 
the Beneficiary's time required to perform them, as follows: 
• Troubleshoot and [r]esolve [h]ighly [c]omplex [t]echno [sic] [f]unctional issues 
which involves [sic] [c]loud [m]iddleware and [f]unctional issues on [the 
Petitioner's] product via service requests with strict SLAs and assure highest level 
of customer satisfaction on each issues [sic] [ 45%]; 
• Serve as a [ s ]pecialist POC on the [Petitioner's] product and conduct regular 
meetings with customers on their implementation progress [ 10%]; 
• Conduct regular knowledge sharing sessions on the new features introduced as part 
of product upgrades and collect the feedback and triage the same with the respective 
[Petitioner] development team [ 10%]; 
• Provide regular updates on the questions posted by [ the Petitioner's] community 
members [5%]; 
• Assist management team in the escalation call back by [ c ]loud [ c ]ustomers and be 
on the call to answer the questions on technical issues posted [ 10%]; 
• Mentor new hires and existing team members to get certified on [the Petitioner's 
diagnostic methodology] - a defined process thru [sic] which [s]ervice [r]equests 
are to be documented [ 10%]; and 
2 
• Design and create documents on new processes and tools which are part of day to 
day troubleshooting to assist [ c ]loud [ c ]ustomer [sic] and fellow engineers to be 
more efficient in collecting diagnostics to reduce time to resolve issues [ 10%]. 2 
According to the Petitioner, the position requires "a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science, Computer 
Engineering or a related field, or equivalent." 
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)(]) 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). 
2 The Petitioner provided expanded duty descriptions. Although we omit the expanded duty descriptions for brevity, we 
have reviewed them in their entirety. 
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 
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. 
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 if we considered the logic underlying Next Generation Tech, Inc., 
we find that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
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-, 
4 
First, the court in Next Generation Tech., Inc. addressed our reading of the Handbook's discussion of 
the entry requirements for positions located within a different and separate occupational category, 
"Computer Programmers," rather than the "Computer Systems Analysts" category designated by the 
Petitioner in the LCA relating to this case. As noted above, the Handbook specifically states, in part, 
that "[s]ome firms hire analysts with business or liberal arts degrees who have skills in information 
technology or computer programming. . . . Many [ computer systems] analysts have liberal arts 
degrees and have gained programming or technical expertise elsewhere." Accordingly, workers with 
a bachelor's or higher degree in disparate fields such as business or liberal arts are qualified to become 
"technical analysts." 
Moreover, the court in Next Generation Tech., Inc. relied in part on a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
(USCIS) policy memorandum regarding "Computer Programmers" indicating generally preferential 
treatment toward computer programmers, and "especially" toward companies in that particular 
petitioner's industry. However, USCIS rescinded the policy memorandum cited by the court in Next 
Generation Tech. Inc. 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 Jany 
[ 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 
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. 
8 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0142, Rescission of the December 22, 2000 "Guidance memo on HI B 
computer related positions" (Mar. 31, 2017), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/nativedocuments/PM-6002-
0142-H-1 BComputerRelatedPositionsRecission.pdf 
5 
"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 b~--~----_.[, a professor 
of computer applications and information systems at the University of I I submitted on 
appeal, satisfies the first criterion. 9 
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. 
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 lopines 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 legree ii Computer Science, or a related area, or the equivalent." However, 
there is no indication that 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. 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 f 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'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. 
~9...JJ.L~LL!.l.!J~ to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted an opinion letter ~Titten bye=] 
~--~~a~r_ofi_,essor of computer science at the University of.__ ____ _. However, the Petitioner does not 
.__ __ _.s opinion letter on appeal. Therefore, we do not address the opinions provided therein. 
6 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy the first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
We generally consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there is such a common degree 
requirement: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the industry's 
professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether letters or 
affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry establish that such firms "routinely employ and 
recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 1999) 
(quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (considering these 
"factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
As noted above, the Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is a common requirement within the industry for parallel positions among 
similar organizations. Furthermore, the record does not establish that a professional association for 
computer systems analysts has made a qualifying degree a minimum entry requirement. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that four job postings submitted in response to the Director's RFE 
satisfy the first prong of the second criterion. The positions' titles, with the reported degree 
requirements, are as follows: 
• Sr technical support engineer; "Bachelor's Degree with a technical discipline; 
• Support engineer; "BS in Computer Science, Engineering or related technical 
discipline"; 
• Technical account manager (support engineer); "Bachelor's degree or equivalent 
practical experience preferred (Computer Science, Engineering, Mathematics or 
Digital Marketing)"; and 
• Technical implementation analyst; "Bachelor's degree in computer science or 
related field or equivalent experience." 
We first note that the two employers who published the first three job postings are in the Petitioner's 
general industry. The record contains a report from I 1, noting that those two employers 
are among the Petitioner's "top 3 competitors." The employer for the fourth job posting raises 
questions regarding its industry, given that it describes its service as "innovative solutions for 
emergency and urgent care." However, even if the employer for the fourth job posting is in the 
Petitioner's industry, the record, and specifically the job postings, does not contain sufficient 
information to determine the extent to which the employers are similar to the Petitioner beyond all 
being in the same general industry. 
Additionally, the job postings contain information about the products or services for which the workers 
would provide support that differ from the Petitioner's description of its software, for which the 
Beneficiary would provide customer support, raising questions regarding the extent to which the 
positions are parallel to the proffered position. For example, the second job posting states that the 
worker would have "a primary focus on technically supporting paid search results that appear on 
7 
[worldwide web search engines]," whereas the Petitioner does not assert the Beneficiary would 
support a similar product. Similarly, the third job posting states that the worker would "help clients 
achieve success through [the worker's] deep technical expertise of the [employer's worldwide web 
search engine] platform and industry." Additionally, as noted above, the fourth job posting provides 
limited information about the employer and the product whose technical implementation the worker 
would analyze; however, the job posting indicates it would relate to "emergency and urgent care," 
which does not readily apply to the Petitioner's products referenced in the record. Furthermore, we 
note that the first job posting indicates that the position would be "sr" to other technical support 
engineers, with supervisory duties, raising questions regarding whether it is senior, not 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, one of the four job postings provided by the 
Petitioner does not establish that a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, is common among the sample. For the third job posting listed above, the inclusion 
of "digital marketing" as a qualifying degree field does not establish that the position requires a 
bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Furthermore, the third job posting 
indicates that the employer "prefer[ s ]" a bachelor's degree in the fields listed above, or its equivalent, 
not that the employer requires such a degree. 
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 thatl l's opinion letter, discussed above, satisfies the first 
prong of the second criterion. Specifically, the Petitioner quotesl ts 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, or a related area, 
or the equivalent." However, as noted above, there is no indication thatl I has conducted any 
research or studies pertinent to the educational requirements for such positions, and no indication of 
recognition by professional organizations that he is an authority on those specific requirements. 
Moreover, as noted above, the Handbook observes that degrees in disparate fields such as business 
and liberal arts may qualify applicants. 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'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. at 795. 
8 
In summation, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
The second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) is satisfied if the Petitioner shows 
that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with 
at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that it "does not offer off-the-shelf 'one size fits all' software"; 
instead, its "enterprise application software [is] designed to satisfy the very unique and specific needs 
of certain organizations of differing sizes and in a variety of industries." However, the Petitioner 
concedes that "[t]he common complaint about the enterprise software is that it lacks flexibility and 
agility." Accordingly, the Petitioner's statements that its software lacks flexibility and is designed to 
satisfy organizations of differing sizes undermines its statement that its software is not "one size fits 
all." The contradiction obscures our understanding of how complex the software for which a 
"technical analyst" 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: 
• Utilize [the Petitioner's] tool/software to run SQL queries; 
• Troubleshoot and resolve highly complex techno-functional problems with high 
[sic] level of techno-functional skills, [two groups of the Petitioner's products] 
knowledge, problem solving skills, and customer interaction/service expertise; 
• Use working knowledge in Linux and Unix commands; 
• Analyze A WR/Java Flight recording to troubleshoot performance issue; 
• Involves working on different HR core modules such as Working on Employment, 
Person Module, Core HR processes, Flex fields, Approval (SOA), Extracts & 
Customization; 
• [The Petitioner's software] used for pulling logs for analysis (UI cluster); 
• Test the new features in the [i]nternal [l]ab [m]achines; and 
• Serve as a [s]pecialist POC on the [Petitioner's] product and conduct regular 
meetings with customers on their implementation progress. 
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 "utilize" 
the Petitioner's software to run SQL queries and the complexity of the queries. Accordingly, our 
ability to determine the extent to which utilizing that software and running those queries is complex 
10 In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner provided 28 expanded duty descriptions, which as noted above we omit 
for brevity, although we have reviewed them in their entirety. 
9 
or unique is limited. As another example, the record does not establish the methodology the 
Beneficiary would use to "troubleshoot and resolve ... techno-functional problems" or an example of 
the substance of a "techno-functional problem[]," again limiting our ability to determine the 
complexity or uniqueness of the problems and the task of troubleshooting and resolving them. 
Similarly, the record does not elaborate on "the new features" and what the Beneficiary would do to 
"test" them, which limits our ability to understand how the expanded duty of "[ testing] the new 
features in the [i]nternal [l]ab [m]achines" is so complex or unique that only an individual with a 
bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, can test those features. 
Additionally, we note that the task of "[using a] working knowledge in Linux and Unix [c]ommands" 
( emphasis added) does not require a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
Furthermore, we note that the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary would spend 20% of her time 
(10% respectively) "[conducting] regular knowledge sharing sessions ... with [the Petitioner's] 
development team" and "[assisting the] management team." The record does not establish the other 
individuals in the development and management teams; however, considering that the Beneficiary's 
duties overlap with teams of other workers, the record raises questions regarding how unique the 
Beneficiary's duties within the Petitioner's organization are. 
As another example, the record does not establish how the most time-consuming duty (45%) satisfies 
the second prong of the second criterion. The first six of the eight expanded duties emphasized on 
appeal, and discussed as examples above, correspond to the most time-consuming (45%) duty, 
including the expanded duty that reiterates the main duty of "troubleshoot[ing] and resolv[ing] ... 
techno-functional issues." Another example of the expanded duties for the most time-consuming 
primary duty, not specifically discussed by the Petitioner on appeal, is "[ making] use of internal 
forums to discuss the complex issue"; however, the record does not describe the issue or establish how 
using an internal forum is so complex or unique that only an individual with a bachelor's or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, can do so. The record does not substantiate how the 
remainder of the duty description, with similarly generalized language, is sufficiently complex or 
unique. 
The Petitioner also asserts on appeal thatl Is opinion letter, discussed above, satisfies the 
second prong of the second criterion. The Petitioner specifically emphasizes! Is opinion that 
"a candidate must have completed course work [sic] and training in Computer Science, or a related 
area at the undergraduate level at a minimum to competently handle the duties required by the 
Technical Analyst position." However, as discussed above, the Handbook observes that a candidate 
need not have a bachelor's or higher degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a related 
field, or its equivalent, for entry into the particular position; rather, degrees in disparate fields such as 
business or liberal arts may qualify applicants. Moreover, as noted above, there is no indication that 
I I has conducted any research or studies pertinent to educational requirements for such 
positions, and no indication of recognition by professional organizations that he is an authority on 
those specific requirements. Given thatl ~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. 
10 
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 six job announcements for 'Technical Analyst positions similar 
or parallel to the proffered position" satisfy the third criterion. However, all six job announcements 
state verbatim in sections titled "Detailed Description and Job Requirements" that the positions require 
a "BS Computer [sic] Science I Management Information Systems / Science I Engineering I Math / 
Physics/ Chemistry." The allowance of a bachelor's degree in any "science" field, 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 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
Additionally, the six 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 26 six-digit 
"Employee IDs"; with a corresponding "Degree" level of either "Bachelor," "Bachelor (equiv.)," 
"Master," or "Master ( equiv.)"; and a "Subject/Major," respectively. The Petitioner describes this 
table as "a list of a representative sampling of current employees holding this exact position, as well 
as their respective degrees." However, the record does not establish whether or when the Petitioner 
hired the represented individuals, and the duties of the individuals' positions, in order to determine the 
extent to which they are similar to the proffered position and whether the positions require the 
individuals to possess a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. On the 
contrary, as discussed above, the job announcements in the record establish that the Petitioner does 
not require a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, but rather permits 
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 appea~J ...,..th .... a .... t.._l -...---~f s opinion letter satisfies the third criterion. 
Specifically, the Petitioner emphasizes! Is conclusion that "[the Petitioner] would naturally 
11 
seek out only a Computer Systems Analyst for a position such as Technical Analyst among the 
majority of such professionals as described b} [the Handbook] and O*NET who hold a Bachelor's 
Degree." 11 However, contrary to I 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 whic~~---~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 that I 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). 
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. 
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