dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 5192099 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 10, 2020 
The Petitioner, an information technology company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"associate sales consultant" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a 
position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty ( or its 
equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the proffered 
position does not qualify as a specialty occupation. On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional 
evidence and asserts that the Director erred. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 1 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, 
and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
1 We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 
(AAO 2010). 
(]) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We construe the term "degree" to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal 
Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in a 
specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular 
position"). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner describes the duties of the proffered "associate sales engineer" position, and the 
percentage of the Beneficiary's time required to perform them, as follows: 
• Provide presales technical/functional support to prospective clients and customers 
while ensuring customer satisfaction [25%]; 
• Measure solutions to help provide digital marketing recommendations [15%]; 
• Deliver high quality standard [the Petitioner] presentations and demonstrations 
[10%]; 
• Present and articulate [the Petitioner] product's strengths relative to competitors 
[5%]; 
• Participate in the design, validation, and presentation of [ the Petitioner's] software 
solutions [ 10%]; 
• Perform digital advertising and data driven marketing [ 10%]; and 
• Measure analytics and work with agencies, CPG advertisers, and digital media 
providers [25%].2 
According to the Petitioner, the position reqmres "a Bachelor's degree m Computer Science, 
Engineering, or equivalent." 
2 The Petitioner provides expanded descriptions of the bulleted duties. Although we omit the expanded 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 
The Petitioner does not assert on appeal, and the record does not support the conclusion, that the 
Petitioner normally requires a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for 
the proffered position, as provided at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). Accordingly, we limit our 
analysis to the first, second, and fourth criteria. 
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 "Sales Engineers," corresponding 
to the Standard Occupational Classification code 41-9031. 
The subchapter of the Handbook titled "How to Become a Sales Engineer" states, in relevant part: 
A bachelor's degree is typically required to become a sales engineer. . . . Sales 
engineers typically need a bachelor's degree in engineering or a related field. However, 
a worker without a degree, but with previous sales experience as well as technical 
experience or training, may become a sales engineer. Workers who have a degree in a 
science, such as chemistry, or in business with little or no previous sales experience, 
also may become sales engineers. 
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. § 655.731 (a). 
3 
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Sales Engineers, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/sales/sales-engineers.htm#tab-4 (last visited Jan. 10, 2020). 
The Handbook does not establish that a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent is normally the minimum requirement for entry into sales engineer positions. The 
Handbook reports that, in some circumstances, a degree-regardless of a specialty-is not required at 
all. Specifically, although the Handbook states that "[a] bachelor's degree is typically required to 
become a sales engineer," it then observes that "a worker without a degree, but with previous sales 
experience as well as technical experience or training, may become a sales engineer." Id. The 
Handbook does not establish that the "previous sales experience as well as technical experience or 
training" in lieu of a bachelor's or higher degree is equivalent to a qualifying degree. The Handbook 
does not elaborate on the circumstances when a bachelor's degree "is typically required" and when "a 
worker without a degree" with some unspecified level of sales experience and technical training "may 
become a sales engineer." 
Further, the Handbook's observation that workers with a bachelor's or higher degree in disparate fields 
such as chemistry or business are qualified to become sales engineers does not establish that a 
bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position's occupational category. In general, provided the 
specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry and biochemistry, a minimum of a bachelor's or higher 
degree in more than one specialty is recognized as satisfying the "degree in the specific specialty ( or 
its equivalent)" requirement of section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act. In such a case, the required "body of 
highly specialized knowledge" would essentially be the same. Since there must be a close correlation 
between the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" and the position, however, a minimum 
entry requirement of a degree in two disparate fields, such as philosophy and engineering, would not 
meet the statutory requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)," unless 
the Petitioner establishes how each field is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
particular position. 7 Section 2 l 4(i)(l )(B) of the Act ( emphasis added). 
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, without further specification, does 
not establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., l 9 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 
7 Whether read with the statutory "the" or the regulatory "a," both readings denote a singular "specialty." Section 
214(i)(l )(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. ~ 214.2(h)(4)(ii). Still, we do not so narrowly interpret these provisions to exclude 
positions from qualifying as specialty occupations if they permit, as a minimum entry requirement, degrees in more than 
one closely related specialty. As noted, this also includes even seemingly disparate specialties provided the evidence of 
record establishes how each acceptable, specific field of study is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
particular position. 
4 
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 is typically 
required to become a sales engineer. . . . Sales engineers typically need a bachelor's degree in 
engineering or a related field." Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook 
Handbook, Sales Engineers, https://www.bls.gov/ooh/sales/sales-engineers.htm#tab-4 (last visited 
Jan. 10, 2020). However, a review of the entire information observed in the Handbook regarding 
"How to Become a Sales Engineer" does not establish that a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific 
specialty is normally the minimum requirement for entry into sales engineer positions, for the reasons 
discussed above. 
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. 8 Nevertheless, even if we considered the logic underlying Next Generation Tech, Inc., 
we find that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
First, the court in Next Generation Tech., Inc. addressed our reading of the Handbook's discussion of 
the entry requirements for positions located within a different and separate occupational category, 
"Computer Programmers," rather than the "Sales Engineers" category designated by the Petitioner in 
the LCA relating to this case. As noted above, the Handbook specifically states, in part, that "a worker 
without a degree, but with previous sales experience as well as technical experience or training, may 
become a sales engineer. Workers who have a degree in a science, such as chemistry, or in business 
with little or no previous sales experience, also may become sales engineers." Accordingly, workers 
with a bachelor's or higher degree in disparate fields such as chemistry or business, or no degree at all 
but some unspecified level of technical training, are qualified to become sales engineers. 
Moreover, the court in Next Generation Tech., Inc. relied in part on a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
(USCIS) policy memorandum regarding "Computer Programmers" indicating generally preferential 
treatment toward computer programmers, and "especially" toward companies in that particular 
petitioner's industry. However, USCIS rescinded the policy memorandum cited by the court in Next 
Generation Tech. Inc. 9 Therefore, for the reasons discussed, we are unpersuaded that Next Generation 
Tech., Inc. requires us to conclude that the proffered position satisfies the first criterion. 
8 In contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case law ofa United States circuit court, we are not bound to follow 
the published decision of a United States district court in matters arising even within the same district. See Matter of K-S-, 
20 T&N Dec. 715, 719-20 (BIA 1993). Although 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. 
9 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0142, Rescission of the December 22, 2000 ''Guidance memo on HJB 
computer related positions" (Mar. 31, 2017), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/nativedocuments/PM-6002-
0142-H-1 BComputerRelatedPositionsRecission.pdf. 
5 
The Petitioner also asserts on appeal that an opinion letter written by I ~ a professor of 
management information systems atl !University, 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. 
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 states that he reviewed the Handbook, the Occupational Information 
Network, a description of the job duties provided by the Petitioner, and the Beneficiary's academic 
degree certificates and transcripts. I !opines that "the position of Associate Sales Consultant 
requires that the candidate have specialized knowledge through advanced post-secondary educational 
programs at the Bachelor's level and that Industrial Engineering is relevant to this position." However, 
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 
a bachelor's degree is not necessarily required for entry into the particular position and, even wh~ 
~rees in disparate fields such as chemistry and business may qualify applicants. Given thatLJ 
L__Js 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 
sales engineers has made a qualifying degree a minimum entry requirement. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that seven job postings submitted in response to the Director's request 
for evidence satisfy the first prong of the second criterion. The positions' locations and titles, with the 
reported degree requirements, are as follows: 
• I I Colorado; sales engineer; "Bachelor's degree in Computer Science, 
related field or equivalent practical experience"; 
• I I Illinois; sales engineer; "BA/BS degree in Computer Science or Electrical 
Engineering, or equivalent practical experience"; 
• I I California; field sales manager; "Bachelor's degree in Computer 
Science, Engineering, related field or equivalent practical experience"; 
• I I Australia; cloud sales specialist; "Bachelor degree: Required (Computer 
Science, similar information technology-related discipline or Business 
Administration); 
• I I Australia; solution sales manager; "Bachelor's degree in related fields 
~s I Engineering or Technology); 
• L_____,,___,JChina; senior solution sales executive; "Bachelor's degree in related fields 
(Business / Engineering or Technology); and 
• I I India; solution sales expert; "Bachelor's degree in related fields 
(Business/ Engineering or Technology). 
Four of the seven job postings submitted by the Petitioner are for positions outside the United States: 
two in Australia, one in China, and one in India. Accordingly, most of the job postings bear no 
probative value regarding whether a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations in the United 
States. Even if the four job postings for positions in Australia, China, and India were probative, they 
indicate that a bachelor's or higher degree in disparate fields of business and engineering qualify 
workers for entry. Accordingly, for those positions, a bachelor's or higher degree in a spec[fic 
specialty, or its equivalent is not a requirement for entry. 10 
Focusing on the three positions in the United States, one bears a position title indicating an advanced, 
supervisory nature: "field sales manager." In addition to the degree requirement, indicated above, the 
job posting requires "8 years of experience in an Infrastructure-as-a-Service (Iaas) and/or Platform-
10 We note that this information is consistent with the Handbook's observation that disparate degree fields of business and 
engineering-when a bachelor's or higher degree, or its equivalent, is even required-may qualify an applicant to become 
a sales engineer, as discussed above. 
7 
as-a-Service (Paas) sales role," and would involve leadership duties such as "[l]ead and implement 
Go-to-Market propositions in a given business sector, pulling together Marketing, Demand 
Management, Solutions and Product and Engineering teams to produce a focused proposition." That 
information indicates that at least one of the positions among the three postings in the United States is 
advanced and supervisory, not parallel to the proffered "associate sales consultant" position, limiting 
its probative value. Moreover, the two remaining job postings for "sales engineer" positions do not 
establish the extent to which that employer is similar to the Petitioner. 11 
Even if all of the job postings indicated that a requirement of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty 
is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations in the United States (which 
they do not), the Petitioner does not demonstrate what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be 
drawn from the job postings with regard to the common educational requirements for entry into 
parallel positions in similar organizations. See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 
186-228 (7th ed. 1995). Moreover, given that there is no indication that the advertisements were 
randomly selected, the validity of any such inferences could not be accurately determined even if the 
sampling unit were sufficiently large. See id. at 195-96 ( explaining that"[ r ]andom selection is the key 
to [the] process [ of probability sampling]" and that "random selection offers access to the body of 
probability theory, which provides the basis for estimates of population parameters and estimates of 
error"). 
In summation, the job postings do not establish that a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations. 
On appeal, the Petitioner also asserts that "there is no legal requirement that the field of study is limited 
to a singular discipline." As noted, in general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., 
chemistry and biochemistry, a minimum of a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty 
is recognized as satisfying the "degree in the specific specialty ( or its equivalent)" requirement of 
section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act. In such a case, the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" 
would essentially be the same. Since there must be a close correlation between the required "body of 
highly specialized knowledge" and the position, however, a minimum entry requirement of a degree 
in disparate fields, such as business, chemistry, and engineering, would not meet the statutory 
requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty ( or its equivalent)," unless the Petitioner 
establishes how each field is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position. 
Section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). In this matter, the Petitioner does not establish how 
the other employers' stated degree requirements including the fields of business and engineering 
directly relate to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position, in order to establish whether 
11 We acknowledge that the employer of the "sales engineer" positions and the Petitioner are information technology 
companies. The Petitioner states that it "specializes in the niche area of enterprise application software designed to satisfy 
the very unique and specific needs of ceitain organizations." However, it describes the employer of the "sales engineer" 
positions-a recognizable information technology company-as "internet-related services and projects." The record does 
not establish that the "enterprise application software" Petitioner and the "internet-related services and projects" employer 
are sufficiently similar organizations. Although the record contains a summary from D&B Hoovers indicating that the 
two other employers-for the four positions outside the United States-are among the Petitioner's top "competitors." the 
summary does not refer to the employer for the "sales engineer" positions as similar to the Petitioner, or even one of its 
"competitors." 
8 
a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the industry among 
organizations similar to the Petitioner for positions parallel to the proffered position. 
The Petitioner also asserts on appeal that I ts opinion letter, discussed above, satisfies the first 
prong of the second criterion. Specifically, the Petitioner quotes I ts opinion that "[ o ]n an 
industry-wide level, it is quite common to hire graduates of Engineering degrees in positions such as 
Associate Sales Consultant and provide them with little or no additional training." However, as noted 
above, there is no indication that I lhas conducted any research or studies pertinent to the 
educational requirements for such positions, and no indication of recognition by professional 
organizations that he is an authority on those specific requirements. Moreover, as noted above, the 
Handbook observes that a bachelor's degree is not necessarily required for entry into the particular 
position and, even when it is, deyees in disparate fields such as chemistry and business may qualify 
applicants. Given thatl _ 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. 
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 an "associate sales 
consultant" must sell and consult about is, and the extent to which an "associate sales consultant" 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 five specific expanded duty descriptions on appeal, to assert that the 
proffered position is sufficiently complex or unique: 
• Utilize internal tools (i.e.~-------------------~ to 
build the custom audiences for clients to target during their CPG campaigns; 
• Build audiences by determining the highest quality seed of households and use the 
seed to yield a group of people that best fit some specified criteria; 
• Provide consulting services in the marketing industry using data to uncover 
challenges and opportunities for CPG business growth using data and statistics such 
as purchase based, behavioral, and demographic; 
9 
• Work with Client Analytics team to run Return on Investment (ROI) studies for 
clients, which determine if a digital advertising campaign was successful or not; 
and 
• Run basket analysis reports to help clients decode which other CPG products over-
index in a buyer's purchase. 
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 internal software~--------------------~, and how that 
software is so complex or unique that only an individual with a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, can understand the software. As another example, the record does not 
establish the methodology the Beneficiary would use to "determin[ e] the highest quality seed of 
households" in order to "build audiences" for clients to target and how the process of "determining 
the highest quality seed of households" is so complex or unique that only an individual with a 
bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, can make that determination. 
Furthermore, at least one of the expanded duties quoted above-in addition to other expanded duties 
we omit for brevity-states that the Beneficiary would "[w]ork with [a] Client Analytics team." The 
record does not establish the other individuals in the client analytics team, or include details about 
what is involved in "running" return-on-investment studies and how the tasks of "running" the studies 
would be shared among the Beneficiary and the members of the client analytics team. 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. Furthermore, the record 
does not establish how the duty of running return-on-investment studies for clients is so complex or 
unique that only an individual with a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, can conduct the study. 
As other examples, we further note that the record does not establish how the two most time­
consuming duties (25% each, totaling 50%) satisfies the second prong of the second criterion. For the 
first duty, the record does not establish what is required for the Beneficiary to "[p ]rovide presales 
technical/functional support to prospective clients" and how providing that support is so complex or 
unique that only an individual with a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, can provide it.12 For the other duty, the record also does not establish the "agencies, CPG 
advertisers, and digital media providers" with which the Beneficiary would work, how the Beneficiary 
would "work with" those entities, the analytics the Beneficiary would measure, and how she would 
measure those analytics. 13 Accordingly, the record does not establish how measuring analytics and 
working with various entities is so complex and unique that only an individual with a bachelor's or 
higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, can perform those measurements and "work 
12 The expanded duty description for the main duty generally lists tasks such as "[r]un product penetration reports," "[r]un 
Share of Wallet (SOW) reports," "[ r Jun basket analysis reports," "[p ]rovide product demos" and "[ s ]upport leadership 
team on efficiency projects." However, the record does not elaborate on how the Beneficiary would run the various reports, 
provide the demonstrations, and support the leadership team. 
13 The expanded duty description for the main duty states that the Beneficiary would "[i]nteract on a daily basis with 
stakeholders via e-mail, phone, or in-person to provide data consulting services" and "[ c ]ommunicate to clients while 
explaining technical terms in a simple manner." However, the record does not elaborate on the substance of the generalized 
interactions and communication in order to establish how the Beneficiary would "work with" the various entities. 
10 
with" those entities. The record does not substantiate how the remainder of the duty description is 
sufficiently complex or unique. 
The Petitioner also asserts on appeal that I Is opinion letter, discussed above, satisfies the 
second prong of the second criterion. The Petitioner specifically emphasizes I I's opinion that 
"degree holders in Industrial Engineering and related fields are often highly sought after for sales 
Engineer [sic] positions ... [b ]ecause of their quantitative analysis and project management." The 
Petitioner also emphasizes I Is opinion that the proffered position "benefits from the 
theoretical and practical application of an advanced, highly specialized body of knowledge in the field 
of Industrial Engineering" and "the skills required for the Losition are developed throughout an 
undergraduate program in Industrial Engineering." However,_ Is opinion regarding the type 
of degree holders sought after for positions similar to the proffered position is not an opinion regarding 
whether 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. Similarly, I l's 
opinion regarding whether a sales engineer would benefit from a particular type of degree and whether 
a particular field of study develops "the skills required for the position" also is not an opinion regarding 
whether the proffered position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual 
with a qualifying degree. 
Moreover, 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 those specific requirements. Moreover, as noted 
above, the Handbook observes that a bachelor's degree is not necessarily required for entry into the 
particular position and, even when it is, degrees in disparate fields such as chemistry and business 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'!, 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. 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. 14 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 
14 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. 
11 
specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is usually 
associated with the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
Again, we note that, given that I Is opinion 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. 
In summation, the Petitioner has not demonstrated in the record 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). 
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. 
12