dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7281680 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 7, 2020 
The Petitioner, an information technology company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"technical analyst" 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-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. The Director also concluded that the Beneficiary 
is not qualified for the proffered position. 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: 
• Deliver post-sales technical support and solutions to the [Petitioner's] customer 
base while serving as an advocate for customer needs [ 45%]; 
• Develop solutions through research, collaboration, and problem replication [ 45%]; 
• Resolving post-sales non-technical customer inquiries via phone and electronic 
means, as well as technical questions regarding the use of and troubleshooting for 
our Electronic Support Services [2%]; 
• Serve as a primary point of contact for customers, responsible for facilitating 
customer relationships with [ s ]upport and providing technical advice and assistance 
to internal [Petitioner] employees on diverse customer situations and escalated 
issues [3%]; 
• Serve as technical interface to customers, Original Equipment Manufacturers 
(OEMs) and Value-Added Resellers (VARs) for resolution of problems related to 
the installation, recommended maintenance, and use of [the Petitioner's] products 
[2%]; and 
• Provide technical support to customers who contact [the Petitioner] and maintain a 
high level of customer satisfaction while meeting guidelines 3 % ] . 2 
2 The Petitioner provided expanded duty descriptions. Although we omit the expanded duty descriptions for brevity, we 
have reviewed them in their entirety. 
2 
According to the Petitioner, the position requires "a bachelor's degree, or equivalent, in Computer 
Science, Computer Engineering, Management Information Systems, or a related field." 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 3 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its 
equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 4 
A. First Criterion 
The criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I) requires that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular 
position. To inform this inquiry, we recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational 
Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of 
the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 5 
On the labor condition application (LCA)6 submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Computer Systems Analysts," 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 15-1121. The subchapter of the 
Handbook titled "How to Become a Computer Systems Analyst" states, in relevant part, that "[a] 
bachelor's degree in computer or information science is common, although not always a requirement. 
Some firms hire analysts with business or liberal arts degrees who have skills in information 
technology or computer programming. . . . Many [ computer systems] analysts have liberal arts 
degrees and have gained programming or technical expertise elsewhere." Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Computer Systems Analysts, 
https://www.bls.ov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-systems-analysts.htm#tab-
4 (last visited Feb. 6, 2020). 
The Handbook's observation that degrees in disparate fields of computer science, business, and liberal 
arts may qualify a worker for computer systems analyst positions does not establish that a bachelor's 
or higher degree in a spec[fic specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. Furthermore, the Handbook does not establish whether the 
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 
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 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. 
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 Jome 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 
7 In contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case law of a United States circuit court, we are not bound to follow 
the published decision of a United States district court in matters arising even within the same district. See Matter of K-S-, 
20 T&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 of law. Id. 
4 
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 Feb. 6, 2020). The Petitioner states that the Handbook's observation "directly 
addresses why the requirements for the position may vary be employer." However, the Handbook 
does not observe that a healthcare provider requires its computer systems analysts to have a bachelor's 
or higher degree in medicine in order to understand health plans-the Handbook observes that"[ m ]any 
[ computer systems] analysts have liberal arts degrees and have gained programming or technical 
expertise elsewhere." Id. Neither the Handbook nor the Petitioner explain how a bachelor's or higher 
degree in liberal arts helps computer systems analysts to "understand the business field they are 
working in," particularly when, as in this case, the business field in which the Beneficiary would work 
is information technology. Moreover, even if the Handbook established how a bachelor's or higher 
degree in business or liberal arts would help computer systems analysts understand health plans in the 
hospital example, as noted above the Handbook does not establish that the unspecified level of 
"programming or technical expertise" combined with such a degree would be equivalent to a 
bachelor's or higher degree in computer science. 
Next, the Petitioner asserts on appeal that an opinion le~ritten by ~--------~ a 
professor of electrical engineering and computer science atl__J University satisfies the first criterion. 
As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter 
o_f 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 o_f 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."'). 
8 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0142, Rescission of the December 22, 2000 ''Guidance memo on HJB 
computer related positions" (Mar. 31, 2017), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/nativedocuments/PM-6002-
0142-H- l BComputerRelatedPositionsRecission.pdf. 
5 
In his opinion letterj lquotes verbatim the Petitioner's duty description, provided above, 
including the expanded description we omit for brevity. I I opines that "the Technical 
Analyst role is clearly a specialty position, and requires the services of someone with advanced training 
through a Bachelor's program in Computer Science, Computer Information Systems, or closely related 
fields." 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. Instead,! I 
asserts: 
In forming my opinion, I reviewed the following materials to determine whether the 
position of Technical Analyst qualifies as a specialty occupation: 
• The Request for Evidence [(RFE)] issued by USCIS dated January 24, 2019. 
• [The Handbook]. 
• The Occupational Information Network (O*NET), https://www.onetonline.org. 
• Support letter from [the Petitioner] dated March 30, 2018. 
• [The Beneficiary's] academic degree certificates and transcripts. 
• [The Beneficiary's] detailed position description. 
As discussed above, the observation in the Handbook, on which I I based his opinion, 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. 
Similarly, the 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-l 121.00 (last visited Feb. 6, 2020). The summary report 
does not indicate that the bachelor's or higher degree must be in a spec[fic specialty, or its equivalent. 
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'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. 
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 nine 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: 
• Technical solutions engineer; "Bachelor's degree in Computer Science or a related 
technical field or equivalent practical experience"; 
• Cloud solutions architect, enterprise; "BA/BS degree in Computer Science or a 
related engineering field or equivalent practical experience"; 
• Support escalation engineer - SCCM; "B.S[.] degree in C.S. or EE or equivalent 
industry experience with Windows and Systems Center on-premise products"; 
• Escalation engineer; "B.S. degree in Computer Science or equivalent experience"; 
• Support engineer - cloud integration; "Bachelor Degree or above in IT/Computer 
Science/Physics/Mathematics/Engineering or related discipline"; 
• Support engineer; "Bachelor Degree or above in IT /Computer 
Science/Physics/Mathematics/Engineering or related discipline"; 
• Support engineer; "Bachelor's degree in a technical field ( computer science, math, 
engineering (any discipline) or related subject matter)"; 
• Cloud support engineer - analytics; "Bachelor's degree in Information 
Science/Information Technology, Computer Science, Engineering, Mathematics, 
[or] Physics; or relevant work experience"; and 
• Cloud support associate - analytics; "Bachelor's degree in Information 
Science/Information Technology, Data Science, Computer Science, Engineering, 
Mathematics, Physics, or a related field or equivalent experience in a technical 
position." 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits five additional job postings. The positions' titles, with the reported 
degree requirements, are as follows: 
7 
• Support engineer; "BS in Computer Science, Engineering or related technical 
discipline"; 
• Support escalation engineer; "BS in computer science or engineering"; 
• Support engineer; "Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science, CIS, MIS or STEM 
courses"; 
• Support engineer; "Bachelor's degree in a technical field ( computer science, math, 
engineering (any discipline) or related subject matter)"; and 
• Support engineer; "Bachelor's degree in computer science, engineering, or a related 
technical discipline." 
We first note that the four employers who published the job postings are in the Petitioner's general 
industry. The record contains a report from D&B Hoovers, noting that the two employers for the third 
through sixth job postings listed above from the RFE response, and the first three job postings 
submitted on appeal, are among the Petitioner's "top 3 competitors." Common knowledge about the 
two employers for the remaining job postings also supports the conclusion that they are in the 
Petitioner's general industry. However, the record, and specifically the job postings, does not contain 
sufficient information to determine the extent to which the four 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, two postings discuss working with a 
team "obsessed with customer metadata" in "a start-up environment." Another posting addresses the 
employer's internet search engine for which the worker would provide support. Another job posting 
summarizes the position as "own[ing] technical troubleshooting across a broad range of ad 
technology" developed by the employer. Another posting asserts that the worker would "[ d]iagnose 
and resolve complex customer challenges for [the employer's web browser]." Other job postings do 
not provide sufficient information regarding the products or services for which the workers would 
provide support, in order to determine the extent to which the positions are parallel to the proffered 
position. 
Moreover, regardless of whether the employers are sufficiently similar to the Petitioner and whether 
the positions are parallel to the proffered position, several job postings provided by the Petitioner do 
not establish that a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, are common among the sample. For example, at least one posting listed above allows 
"relevant work experience" in lieu of a bachelor's or higher degree, without establishing whether the 
experience must be equivalent to a bachelor's or higher degree in computer science, or another related 
field. At least one other job posting includes the broad category of"STEM" among possible qualifying 
degree fields, which may include fields unrelated to computer science such as biology and zoology. 
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. 
8 
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 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 five specific expanded duty descriptions on appeal, 9 to assert that the 
proffered position is sufficiently complex or unique: 
• Conduct all aspects of [the Petitioner's product's] system administration, including 
configuration, upgrades, patching, and installation of [the Petitioner's] products 
(Release 1 li [sic] and 12), including [the Petitioner's] databases (Release 10g [sic] 
and above); 
• Perform patching of customer issues with [the Petitioner's product] utilities ... ; 
• Create test cases to replicate customer reported issues within the product in order 
to allow the [ d]evelopment team to fix the core issue; 
• Test and debug applications in order to improve software quality; and 
• Create technical documents that identify the symptoms of problems, map the cause 
back to [ the Petitioner's] source code, application configuration, or specific 
environment issue, and include detailed actions needed for customers and other 
[Petitioner's] engineers to correct or workaround [sic] given problem. 
9 In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner provided 26 expanded duty descriptions, which as noted above we omit 
for brevity, although we have reviewed them in their entirety. 
9 
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, for the first expanded duty emphasized on appeal, the record does not 
establish what is required for the Beneficiary to "conduct" system administration or the examples of 
such administration such as "configuration, upgrades, patching, and installation." Accordingly, our 
ability to determine the extent to which administering configuration, upgrades, patching, and 
installation may be complex or unique is limited. As other examples, the record does not establish the 
type of "customer reported issues" for which the Beneficiary would "[ c ]reate test cases," or the 
methodology the Beneficiary would use to create those test cases or "[t]est and debug applications," 
again limiting our ability to determine the complexity or uniqueness of verifying, reviewing, and 
investigating. The record also does not contain examples of the "technical documents" the Beneficiary 
would "create," or elaborate on the steps involved in creating those documents. 
Furthermore, we note that the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary would spend 45% of his time 
"[developing] solutions through research, collaboration, and problem replication." The record does 
not establish the other individuals with whom the Beneficiary would "collaborat[ e ]" in order to 
"[d]evelop solutions"; however, considering that the Beneficiary's expanded duties emphasized on 
appeal address a "[ d]evelopment team" that would "fix the core issue," the record raises questions 
regarding how unique the Beneficiary's duties within the Petitioner's organization are. 
The Petitioner also asserts on appeal that I I's opinion letter, discussed above, satisfies the 
second prong of the second criterion. The Petitioner specifically emphasizes I ts opinion 
that "the position of Technical Analyst requires the theoretical and practical application of an 
advanced, highly specialized body of knowledge in the field of Computer Science, Computer 
Information Systems, or closely related fields." 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 thatl 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 I'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'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. at 795. 
The Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties 
of the position, and it did not identify any tasks that are so complex or unique that only a specifically 
degreed individual could perform them. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second 
alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it normally 
requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that six job announcements for "Technical Analyst positions [at the 
Petitioner] that are similar or parallel to the proffered position" satisfy the third criterion. However, 
10 
all six job announcements state verbatim in sections titled "Detailed Description and Job 
Requirements" that the positions require a "BS Computer [sic] Science / Management Information 
Systems/ Science/ Engineering/ Math/ Physics/ Chemistry." The allowance of a bachelor's degree 
in any "science" field, which may include fields unrelated to computer science such as biology and 
zoology, and moreover the specific inclusion of a bachelor's degree in chemistry, which does not 
appear to be related to the field of computer science, does not establish that the Petitioner normally 
requires a bachelor's or higher degree in a spec[fic specialty, or its equivalent. 
Additionally, the six job announcements are undated, raising 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. 10 
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 24 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." 
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. 
10 Most of the job announcements begin with "19," which if it indicates an announcement made during 2019, would be 
after the petition filing date. 
11 
The Petitioner's assertions on appeal regarding the fourth criterion are identical to its assertions 
regarding the second prong of the second criterion. 11 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). 
Because our conclusion that the proffered position does not qualify as a specialty occupation is 
dispositive, we reserve our opinion regarding whether the Beneficiary is qualified for the position. 12 
IV. CONCLUSION 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
11 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 Furthermore, we note that even if the Petitioner overcame both grounds identified in the Director's denial, the record 
raises questions regarding whether the Petitioner would pay the Beneficiary a wage not less than the prevailing wage for 
the level designated in the LCA. See Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(a). 
12