dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8911329 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-18) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG . 27, 2020 
The Petitioner, a testing laboratory, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an "IT development 
senior specialist" under the H-18 nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations.1 The H-18 
program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a position that 
requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge 
and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a 
minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The matter is now before us 
on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 2 
We review the questions in this matter de novo.3 Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(I) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(I), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, 
and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
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 Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) , 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) 
2 Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
3 See Matter of Chri sta's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
(4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We construe the term "degree" to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal 
Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in a 
specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular 
position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Specifically, the record (1) does not describe the position's duties with sufficient detail; and (2) does 
not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate 
with a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner designated the proffered position on the labor condition application (LCA) as a 
Standard Occupation Classification (SOC) code 15-1199 "Computer Occupations, All Other" 
occupation. It further specified that the proffered position is consistent with the duties of the "Software 
Quality Assurance Engineers and Testers," corresponding to SOC code 15-1199.01.4 
The Petitioner provided a list of twelve duties with the approximate percentage of time spent on each 
duty. While we will not list each duty here, we have reviewed and considered each one. According 
to the Petitioner, the position requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree in computer science, 
computer information systems, or a combination of a degree and experience which equates to a 
bachelor's degree in one of these majors.5 
4 The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level 11 wage. A wage determination starts with an entry-level wage 
(Level I) and progresses to a higher wage level (up to Level IV) after considering the experience, education, and skill 
requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage 
Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC_Guidance_Revised_11_2009.pdf. 
5 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1B 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. 
2 
A. First Criterion 
The criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(1), 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 generally consider the information contained in the U.S. 
Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) regarding the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations it addresses. The Handbook is a career 
resource offering information on hundreds of occupations; however, there are occupational categories 
which the Handbook does not cover in detail and instead provides only summary data.6 The subchapter 
of the Handbook titled "Data for Occupations Not Covered in Detail" states, in relevant part, that the 
"[t]ypical entry-level education" for a variety of occupations within the category of "[c]omputer and 
mathematical occupations" is a "Bachelor's degree," without indicating that the bachelor's degree must 
be in a specific specialty.7 Thus, the Handbook is not probative in establishing that these positions 
comprise an occupational group for which the normal minimum requirement for entry is at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
The Petitioner argues on appeal that the Di rector placed "unreserved reliance" on the Handbook and made 
this the "singular basis for denying" the petition. 8 As the Handbook does not contain specific or probative 
information for this occupational category, it is illogical to state that it could be relied upon unreservedly 
as the sole basis for a denial.9 While the Handbook may establish the first regulatory criterion for 
certain professions, many occupations are not described in such a categorical manner, and as in the 
case of the occupational category selected by the Petitioner, the Handbook contains less information 
than it normally contains for other occupational categories. To meet this criterion in the absence of 
assistance from the Handbook, the burden remains on the Petitioner to establish that its particular 
position is one in which a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the 
minimum requirement for entry into the occupational category. 
6 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Data for Occupations Not Covered in 
Detail, https://www.bls.gov/ooh/about/data-for-occupations-not-covered-in-detail.htm (last visited Aug. 27, 2020). Here, 
the Handbook does not provide specific information for various occupations which might be classified within the occupational 
category. 
7 The Handbook also indicates that this occupation does not require work experience in a related occupation or typical 
on-the-job training. Id. 
8 The Petitioner cites to the Handbook's disclaimer to claim that the Handbook should not be used for any legal purpose. 
The pertinent disclaimer provides instructions on unintended uses of the Handbook, which are: (1) using the Handbook 
as a guide for determining (a) wages, (b) hours of work, (c) the right of a particular union to represent workers, (d) 
appropriate bargaining units, or (e) formal job evaluation systems; and (2) using the Handbook's data to compute future 
loss of earnings in adjudication proceedings involving work injuries or accidental deaths. In light of the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics' own endorsement of the Handbook as a reliable source of information on occupational categories and their entry 
requirements, and in light of the examples of unintended uses cited in the Handbook, we conclude that, if in fact it is the 
Petitioner's intent to so argue, the argument against the use of the Handbook in U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) adjudications is without merit. However, we concur with the Petitioner to the extent that it may be asserting that 
it would be erroneous to accord to the Handbook the weight or directive power of statute, regulation, or any legally binding 
document or directive. 
9 Though not argued, the Petitioner may mean that the absence of information in the Handbook is too heavily relied upon. 
However, this argument also lacks merit because a petitioner always bears the burden of affirmatively providing 
information to support its petition. The absence of information in the Handbook does not change a petitioner's burden, 
but simply forecloses upon a particular method or source of evidence for meeting that burden. 
3 
The Petitioner also references the DOL's O*NET summary report for "Software Quality Assurance 
Engineers and Testers." The O*NET Summary Report does not establish that a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or the equivalent, is normally required. It provides general information regarding the 
occupation, but it does not support a conclusion that the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or the equivalent. 
Instead, O*NET assigns these positions a "Job Zone Four" rating, which states "most of these occupations 
require a four-year bachelor's degree, but some do not." Moreover, the Job Zone Four designation does 
not indicate that any academic credentials for Job Zone Four occupations must be directly related to the 
duties performed. In addition, the specialized vocational preparation (SVP) rating designates this 
occupation as 7 < 8. An SVP rating of 7 to less than("<") 8 indicates that the occupation requires "over 
2 years up to and including 4 years" of training. While the SVP rating indicates the total number of years 
of vocational preparation required for a particular position, it is important to note that it does not describe 
how those years are to be divided among training, experience, and formal education. The SVP rating also 
does not specify the particular type of degree, if any, that a position would require.1° Further, although 
the summary reports provide the educational requirements of "respondents," it does not account for 100% 
of the "respondents." Moreover, the respondents' positions within the occupation are not distinguished 
by career level (e.g., entry-level, mid-level, senior-level). Furthermore, the graph in the summary report 
does not indicate that the "education level" for the respondents must be in a specific specialty. For all of 
these reasons, O*NET does not establish the proffered position as a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation from a probative source to substantiate its 
assertion regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. Thus, the 
Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(1). 
B. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs: "The degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show 
that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with 
a degree[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong contemplates 
common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific 
position. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
We generally consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there is such a common degree 
requirement: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the industry's 
professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether letters or 
1° For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/ 
help/online/svp. 
4 
affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry establish that such firms "routinely employ and 
recruit only degreed individuals."11 
As noted, the Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is a common 
requirement among positions within the occupational category, nor does the Handbook identify an 
industry standard for parallel positions among similar organizations. Also, the Petitioner did not 
submit evidence from an industry professional association or from firms or individuals in the industry 
indicating such a degree is a minimum requirement for entry into the position. 
The Petitioner submitted job vacancy announcements for our consideration under this prong. To be 
relevant for consideration, the job vacancy announcements must advertise "parallel positions," and the 
announcements must have been placed by organizations that (1) conduct business in the Petitioner's 
industry and (2) are also "similar" to the Petitioner. These job vacancy announcements do not satisfy that 
threshold. Upon review of the documents, we conclude that the Petitioner's reliance on the job 
announcements is misplaced. 
We will first consider whether the advertised job opportunities could be considered "parallel positions." 
We examined the postings submitted with the initial filing and those which were submitted in response 
to the Director's request for evidence (RFE). Many of the postings contain very little information 
concerning the duties of the position. For instance, some postings only include four short bullet points or 
three sentences of information concerning the position. In examining the descriptions themselves, duties 
such as "[s]ome travel involved," "[l]ead projects as assigned," [t]roubleshoots issues," and "[p]rovides 
in-person training as well as SOPs" do not assist us in determining whether these positions parallel the 
proffered position. Moreover, most of the positions require significant experience beyond a bachelor's 
degree, including three to five years, five to seven years, ten years, and even fourteen plus years. The 
Petitioner has not stated that its position requires additional experience beyond a bachelor's degree in one 
of the qualifying fields. As such, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the primary duties 
and responsibilities of the advertised positions parallel those of the proffered position, particularly in 
terms of seniority, responsibility, and substance. 
Nor does the record contain documentary evidence sufficient to establish that all of these job vacancy 
announcements were placed by companies that (1) conduct business in the Petitioner's industry and (2) 
are also "similar" to the Petitioner. When determining whether the employer posting a job listing and the 
Petitioner share the same general characteristics, factors to be considered may include information 
regarding the nature or type of organization and, when pertinent, the particular scope of operations, as 
well as the level of revenue and staffing. The Petitioner submitted postings from employers such as the 
Supreme Court of the United States and Boeing. These employers bear little similarity to the Petitioner, 
a laboratory testing company. In its RFE response, the Petitioner submitted additional postings, a few of 
which are from employers that appear more closely related to the lab industry, while others relate to 
healthcare. However, as stated above, the information provided concerning the positions themselves is 
insufficient to determine whether these positions parallel the proffered position.12 
11 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)). 
12 We acknowledge the posting from what the Petitioner describes as its "sister company." This employer advertises a 
position with the same title as the proffered position and lists four bullet points of duties, none of which appear to parallel 
5 
For all of these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that these job vacancy announcements are 
relevant. Even if that threshold had been met, we would still conclude that they did not satisfy this prong 
of the second criterion, as they do not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the 
equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. The 
announcements reflect that the employers accept a variety of degrees including degrees in math, 
operations research, and a "technical" bachelor's degree. At least two employers stated in their postings 
that they would accept any bachelor's degree but preferred a degree in computer science. We note that a 
preference for a degree in a specific specialty is not the same as a requirement. This type of minimum 
qualification does not establish that the position qualifies as a specialty occupation such that it would 
establish an industry standard for the occupational category. 
As the documentation does not establish that the Petitioner has met this prong of the regulations, further 
analysis regarding the specific information contained in each of the job postings is not necessary.13 That 
is, not every deficit of every piece of evidence has been addressed.14 The Petitioner has not provided 
sufficient probative evidence to establish that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, 
is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. Thus, the Petitioner has not 
satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
Upon review of the totality of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained 
or documented why the proffered position is so complex or unique that a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty is required. A crucial aspect of this matter is whether the Petitioner has submitted sufficient 
and consistent evidence describing the proffered position such that we may discern the nature of the 
position. The Director issued an RFE that alerted the Petitioner that its list of twelve job duties, as 
described, did not establish complexity, uniqueness, or specialization. The Petitioner offered no 
further detail concerning its job duties in either in its RFE response or on appeal. 
When determining whether a position is a specialty occupation, we also look at whether the position 
actually requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge 
attained through at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific discipline. However, the Petitioner has 
the proffered position's duties. Even if the positions were parallel, one job posting from an employer that shares the same 
parent company with the Petitioner would not establish an industry standard for the occupational category. 
13 The Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how representative the job postings are of the particular 
advertising employers' recruiting history for the type of job advertised. As the advertisements are only solicitations for 
hire, they are not evidence of the actual hiring practices of these employers. 
14 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). 
6 
not explained in detail how, for example, the duty of "coordinating with offshore team in India" would 
require any specialized knowledge or skill. Without further context, such a duty appears 
administrative or clerical in nature, which raises questions as to whether the Beneficiary will be 
relieved of performing non-qualifying duties. 
Further, the Petitioner described several job duties in vague and general terms including: 
I [P]articipating in Scrum Team Meetings; 
I [P]articipating in and contributing to sprint team commitments; and 
I [P]articipating in and contributing to sprint tasking with respect to QA tasks 
ensuring all tasks are clearly identified and accurately estimated. 
Nebulous terms such as "participating in" and "contributing to" do not convey the Beneficiary's level 
of involvement with the task nor what the Beneficiary's activities will be in completing the duty. We 
do not have detailed information regarding what the Petitioner means by "QA tasks" or how the 
Beneficiary will ensure such tasks are clearly identified and accurately estimated. Furthermore, the 
Petitioner has not identified how scrum and sprint team meetings involve specialized knowledge. 
Similarly, though the Petitioner provides information on what certain types of testing is, such as API 
testing, the Petitioner does not explain why the testing itself would require specialized knowledge to 
perform. The Petitioner also does not explain why using a tool called Fiddler to conduct this testing 
would require the theoretical and practical application of specialized knowledge. 
As described, these duties do not allow us to understand what the Beneficiary will actually be doing 
when carrying out the undefined tasks. Accordingly, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown 
that the duties of the position are so complex, unique, or special that they 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 specifically states that: 
There are many job titles, especially in the Information Technology area, which, based 
on the job duties, could readily be classified under more than one OES Code[.] For 
example[,] Computer and Information Analysts (15-1120), Computer Systems Analyst 
(15-1121), Software Developers and Programmers (15-1130), Software Developers, 
Applications (15-1132) all share job duties which make their designation [a]nd 
categorization with the OES more or less arbitrary. 
Initially, we note that neither the Handbook nor O*NET contain the occupational categories of 
"Computer and Information Analysts (15-1120)" or "Software Developers and Programmers (15-
1130)". To the extent that we have sufficient information concerning the duties of the proffered 
position, we agree with the Petitioner that the duties of the proffered position appear to overlap with 
the duties listed in the occupational category of "Software Developers, Applications," corresponding 
to SOC code 15-1132.15 For example, the Petitioner summarized the proffered position as involving 
a transformation of the Petitioner's technology infrastructure platform and the "testing and roll-out of 
the system." This summary appears similar to the general O*NET duty of "[d]evelop and direct 
15 For more information, visit https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/15-1132.00 (last visited Aug 27, 2020). 
7 
software system testing and validation procedures, programming, and documentation," found within 
"Software Developers, Applications," SOC code 15-1132. Moreover, the O*NET duty to collaborate 
with others in order to "obtain information on project limitations and capabilities, performance 
requirements and interfaces" may be similar to the proffered position duty of collaborating with others 
to "ensure a complete understanding of the product and testing to be performed and to identify possible 
gaps in functionality and areas of improvement for usability and performance." 
We further note that if the proffered position has requirements described in a combination of O*NET 
occupations, the Petitioner should have selected the occupational category with the highest prevailing 
wage, which in this case, is 15-1132, "Software Developers, Applications."16 Accordingly, this raises 
questions as to whether the LCA corresponds to the petition.17 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position and references his 
qualifications. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education 
or experience of a particular beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative 
complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the position, and it did not identify any tasks that are so 
complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. Accordingly, the 
Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it normally 
requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. To satisfy this 
criterion, the record must establish that the specific performance requirements of the position 
generated the recruiting and hiring history. 
The record must establish that a petitioner's stated degree requirement is not a matter of preference 
for high-caliber candidates but is necessitated instead by performance requirements of the position.18 
Were U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) limited solely to reviewing the Petitioner's 
claimed self-imposed requirements, then any individual with a bachelor's degree could be brought to 
the United States to perform any occupation as long as the Petitioner created a token degree 
requirement.19 Evidence provided in support of this criterion may include, but is not limited to, 
documentation regarding the Petitioner's past recruitment and hiring practices, as well as information 
regarding employees who previously held the position. 
The Petitioner submitted the resume, educational records, and pay stub information for one employee 
occupying a "senior software quality tester" position. Aside from the self-reported resume, the record 
does not include a position description for this role, nor did the Petitioner include the job advertisement 
for this position. Therefore, we do not know what the recruitment process for hiring this individual 
involved or whether a specialized degree was a prerequisite. 
16 See https://www.flcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResults.aspx?code=15-1132&areac==]&year=19&source=1 
(last visited Aug. 27, 2020). 
17 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b). 
18 See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. 
19 Id. 
8 
In its RFE response, the Petitioner claims that this individual's internal job title is the same as the proffered 
position, however, we have insufficient information concerning how or why the Petitioner confers internal 
and external titles. Moreover, the individual's resume contains a significant number of additional duties 
not articulated by the Petitioner as responsibilities in the proffered position. Though the Petitioner argues 
that this individual worked with the Beneficiary on the Petitioner's platform in India and followed a 
similar employment trajectory as the Beneficiary does now, this does not establish that the Petitioner 
normally requires a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty for this position. The Petitioner 
claims, "nearly every individual who has been employed in this role or in a similar role has had at least 
a minimum of a Bachelor's degree in one of these information technology fields," however the 
Petitioner has not substantiated this claim. Though it has been in business since 2000 and currently has 
318 employees, the Petitioner has not provided the total number of people it has employed in the past to 
serve in the proffered position nor has it provided information about its past hiring history for the proffered 
position. 
Consequently, no determination can be made about the Petitioner's normal recruiting and hiring practices 
for the proffered position when the submitted employment evidence covers only one current employee 
who occupies a position that appears to be different than the proffered one. The Petitioner has not 
persuasively established that it normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, for the proffered position. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h )( 4)(i i i)(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. 
As alternative evidence for our consideration under this and the other criteria, the Petitioner submits a 
position evaluation froml I a Professor in the Department of Computer Science and 
Engineering at the University! 11 I provides an overview of the qualifications 
he believes enable him to opine on this matter, a repetition of the Petitioner's list of position duties, and 
a conclusion that the position requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree in computer science, information 
systems, or a closely related field. 
,__ __ ___,I provides an overview of the knowledge an individual might gain in a computer science 
bachelor's degree program and identifies several courses which relate to and would enable an individual 
to perform the duties of the proffered position. He then ties the knowledge gained in these courses to 
three specific duties quoted from the Petitioner's position description. We conclude that merely 
identifying software knowledge areas adds little to our understanding of why the proffered position's 
duties require a bachelor's degree in computer science or computer information systems. 
To illustrate, one of the three duties he identifies is "participating in Scrum Team Meetings," whichO 
I I states involves "key ideas of agile scrum." He explains that these ideas underlie principles of 
software development, but that such "practices are not necessarily the subject matter of Bachelor-level 
9 
coursework." I ldoes not explain why specialized knowledge would be required in order to 
perform this duty, nor do his statements substantiate a claim that a bachelor's degree in a computer science 
or computer information systems would be required in order to gain this knowledgf' Another example is 
the duty of "performing API testing using Fiddler," the necessary skills for which_ I claims are 
taught in courses that cover software engineering and software verification and validation. Neither the 
Petitioner noj I explain why the knowledge required to perform this duty is specialized. 
Thoughl !states in his conclusion that he has provided "overwhelming evidence" and has 
demonstrated "significant overlap between the prescribed duties of the proffered position" with the 
general knowledge areas covered in the relevant bachelor's degree programs, we do not agree. To 
summarize, I I identified three courses in the software engineering and development rowledgel I 
area and three proffered position duties that relate to those areas. 2° For one of the three duties, 
acknowledges that the specific duty would not be the subject of bachelor-level study. As such, 
provides insufficient analysis and detail to support a conclusion that a bachelor's degree, while helpful, 
would be required. 
Further.I I states that the proffered position's duties are so complex and unique to computer 
science and computer information systems that a high degree of specialization in the field is required. At 
the same time, he states that the proffered position duties overlap with the general knowledge areas of 
computer science and computer information systems. This seemingly paradoxical statement does not 
clarify whether general knowledge is sufficient or whether a high degree of specialization in the fields is 
required. 
In viewing I ts opinion as a whole, we conclude that he does not sufficiently explain or analyze 
why the duties, though labeled complex and unique, would require specialized knowledge to perform. 
Whilel lmay draw inferences that certain courses or knowledge obtained through a bachelor's 
degree program in computer science or computer information systems may be beneficial in performing 
certain duties of the position, we disagree with the conclusion that a specific degree is required in 
order to perform them. While we have reviewed the opinion letter presented, it has little probative 
value as it does not include sufficient specific analysis of the duties of the particular position nor does 
it sufficiently relate those duties to the stated educational qualifications required to perform them. 21 
For the same reasons we discussed under the second prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one with duties sufficiently 
specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). We incorporate our earlier 
discussion and analysis on this matter. 
Consequently, the Petitioner has not satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
20 The information contained in I l·s opinion also suggests that the proffered position overlaps with "Software 
Developers, Applications," SOC code 15-1132, adding further concern as to whether the LCA corresponds to and supports 
the petition as required. 
21 We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron lnt'I, Inc., 
19 l&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any 
way questionable, we are not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Id. Here, the opinion presented 
does not offer a cogent analysis of the duties and why the duties require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. We 
incorporate our discussion ofl ts opinion into our discussion of the other 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) criteria. 
10 
Ill. BENEFICIARY QUALIFICATIONS 
Though not a stated basis for the Director's decision, we conclude that the evidence of record does not 
establish that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform services in a specialty occupation. The Petitioner 
submitted documentation evidencing that the Beneficiary earned a three-year foreign academic degree 
in commerce. 
We question how the Beneficiary's academic credential meets the Petitioner's stated qualifications for 
a bachelor's degree in computer science or computer information systems. Specifically, the 
Beneficiary's transcripts feature business courses, not computer science or computer information 
systems courses. The record does not establish how the knowledge gained in the Beneficiary's 
commerce degree would form the basis of a bachelor's degree in one of the qualifying fields, 
particularly in view of I ~ opinion concerning the software engineering and development 
knowledge areas involved. 
Accompanying these documents is an academic and experience evaluation from I I 
Evaluations. 22 The evaluation states that the three-year commerce degree combined with five years 
of work experience is the equivalent of U.S. bachelor's degree in computer information systems. The 
record contains insufficient information with which to conclude that any of the Beneficiary's 
experience is equivalent to any level or amount of academic study, let alone in a specific specialty. 
Even if we were to accept five years of experience under USCIS' three for one standard, a conclusion 
which is not supported by the record, the number of years of experience would equate to less than two 
years of academic study. Even if this experience were in a specialized field, the Petitioner has not 
established how combining this experience with an unrelated commerce degree would equate to a U.S. 
bachelor's degree in computer information systems. 
From even the most generous of perspectives, the Beneficiary's academic record and experience does 
not appear to be the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in computer science or information systems, or 
a closely related field. We conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary is 
qualified to perform the duties of a specialty occupation. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and 
alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is a petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner 
has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
22 USCIS does not accept a credentialing services' evaluation of experience. 
11