dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF B-, INC . 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 26, 2019 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner , an information technology consulting firm, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 
as a "business analysis consultant" under the H-lB nonirmnigrant 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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation . On appeal, the Petitioner 
provides a brief and additional evidence, and asserts that the Director erred in denying the petition. 
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. 
1 We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 
(AAO 2010). 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
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: 
(]) 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). 
As recognized by the court in Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88, where the work is to be performed for 
entities other than the petitioner, evidence of the client companies' job requirements is critical. The 
court held that the former Immigration and Naturalization Service had reasonably interpreted the 
statute and regulations as requiring the petitioner to produce evidence that a proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation on the basis of the requirements imposed by the entities using the 
beneficiary's services. Id. Such evidence must be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate the type and 
educational level of highly specialized knowledge in a specific discipline that is necessary to perform 
that particular work. 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner indicated that it will assign the Beneficiary to work as a "business analysis consultant" 
for an end-client for the duration of the validity period requested. 2 The Petitioner designated the 
proffered position under the occupational category "Management Analysts" corresponding to the 
Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 13-1111, at a Level II wage on the labor condition 
application (LCA)3 submitted in support of the H-lB petition. 
2 The Petitioner employed the Beneficiary through STEM-related post-completion optional practical training. and has 
provided copies of wage statements for her employment with the Petitioner. 8 C.F.R. §§ 274.a.12( c )(3)(i)(C). 
214.2(t)(1 O)(ii)(C). 
3 A petitioner submits the LCA to the U.S. Department of Labor to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B worker the higher of 
2 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
Within these proceedings the Petitioner has submitted varying descriptions of the duties of the 
proffered position. 4 For instance, the Petitioner provided a set of duties consisting of 9 items when it 
filed the petition, which were largely reiterated by intermediary vendors in their letters of support, as 
follows: 
• Responsible for maintaining partnership with vendor [] as well as business owners 
in sourcing. Risk and legal. Lead and own data integrations, system changes and 
enhancements and additionally support upgrades and other system support 
activities. 
• Deep understanding of best practices on how to integrate data between on premise 
to/from cloud applications, and Cloud to/from other cloud applications. 
• Apply newer technologies like bots, predictive analytics, mobile tools etc. to ensure 
automation, analytical reporting, and digitized usage of applications. 
• Liaison with business owners and technical teams. Perform and own functions like 
understanding business requirements, mapping business requirements to system 
functionality, designing and documenting functional requirements. Additionally, 
performing hands-on system configuration and data loads where needed. 
• Project manage implementation activities including integration of data from 
Metricstream to/from other applications like Oracle, Salesforce, Workday. 
• Provide ongoing Production Support - including problem management. Will 
include logging tickets, status communication and escalation ( as needed). 
• Partner with key business users and lead efforts on application training and change 
management specifically for Metricstream application and associated processes. 
• Perform act1v1t1es like creating/modifying reports, dashboards, 
implementing/updating workflows, data uploads etc. in Metricstream. 
• Ensure testing efforts are completed timely related to enhancements, integrations, 
system upgrades. 
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). 
4 We acknowledge that the Petitioner submitted additional information for the job duties, and have closely considered and 
reviewed this material, as with all evidence in the record. For example, the Petitioner submitted a more expansive listing 
of the duties of the proffered position in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE). It also included a listing 
of the Beneficiary's previous coursework for the purpose of correlating the need for the Beneficiary's education with the 
associated job duties of the position. However, we are required to follow long-standing legal standards and determine 
first, whether the proffered position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation, and second, whether the 
Beneficiary was qualified for the position at the time the nonimmigrant visa petition was filed. Cf Matter of Michael 
Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988) ("The facts of a beneficiary's background only come at issue after 
it is found that the position in which the petitioner intends to employ him falls within [a specialty occupation]."). 
3 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
III. ANALYSIS 
For the reasons set out below, we determine that the proffered position does not qualify as a specialty 
occupation. Specifically, the record provides inconsistent and insufficient information regarding the 
proffered position, which in tum precludes us from understanding the position's substantive nature 
and determining whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 5 
We conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently established the Beneficiary's offsite employment for 
the period of intended H-lB employment. The Petitioner initially provided an itinerary that indicated the 
Beneficiary would be assigned to the end-client through its contractual relationship with the mid-vendor 
and ultimately the end-client. In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner later indicated that it 
intended to assign the Beneficiary to the end-client through contractual relationships that include a mid­
vendor and a prime-vendor. The subsequently claimed contractual chain is as follows: 
Petitioner ➔ A-, LLC (mid-vendor) ➔ A-G-S- (prime-vendor) ➔ M- (end-client). 
The mid-vendor stated in its February 2018, July 2018, and January 2019 support letters, respectively 
submitted initially, with the RFE response, and on appeal, that: 
This letter will confirm that [the end-client] has engaged [the mid-vendor] for 
Information Systems-Consultant Business Analysis and [the mid-vendor] has sub­
contracted with [the Petitioner] to help fill up this requirement. 
[The end-client] has an ongoing contract with [the mid-vendor] through the executed 
Master Service Agreement [MSA] to fulfill this and various other projects for the client. 
Because of the confidential nature of this agreement, [the mid-vendor] will not share it 
with any third party. 
Notably, the mid-vendor's letters did not mention a contractual relationship with the prime-vendor to 
effectuate the Beneficiary's placement with the end-client, nor did the Petitioner provide 
documentation to substantiate the mid-vendor's claimed direct contractual relationship with the end­
client. 6 In contrast to the mid-vendor's assertions, the end-client provided a letter in which it 
"confirms" that it has entered into an MSA with the prime-vendor (not the mid-vendor), noting under 
the MSA the prime-vendor "is responsible for providing centralized staffing management services to 
5 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H- IB 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. 
6 The claim a document is confidential does not provide a blanket excuse for a petitioner not providing such a document if 
that document is material to the requested benefit. Although a petitioner may always refuse to submit confidential 
commercial information if it is deemed too sensitive, the Petitioner must also satisty the burden of proof and runs the risk 
of a denial. Cf Matter of Marques, 16 l&N Dec. 314 (BIA 1977) (holding the "respondent had every right to assert his 
claim under the Fifth Amendment[; however], in so doing he runs the risk that he may fail to carry his burden of persuasion 
with respect to his application."). Both the Freedom oflnformation Act and the Trade Secrets Act provide for the protection 
of a petitioner's confidential business information when it is submitted to USCTS. Sec 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4), 18 U.S.C. 
§ 1905. Additionally, the petitioner may request pre-disclosure notification pursuant to Executive Order No. 12,600, 
"Predisclosure Notification Procedures for Confidential Commercial Information." Exec. Order No. 12,600, 52 Fed. Reg. 
23,781 (June 23, 1987). 
4 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
the [end-client]." The end-client detailed the prime-vendor's staffing management role, which 
includes: 
Facilitat[ing] the filling of temporary [end-client] pos1t10ns by multiple staffing 
providers and executes agreements with each staffing provider to govern the scope of 
their obligations as sole employers providing temporary contract workers to the [ end­
client]. 
[] [The prime-vendor] has agreed to handle for [the end-client] all responsibilities 
related to verifying and administering all matters regarding the eligibility of temporary 
workers who provide services to the [end-client], including the provision of 
documentation to staffing providers for H-lB candidate petitions. Accordingly, 
necessary information for the consideration of any candidate, including the nature of 
the candidate's employment, assignment details, and durations will be confirmed solely 
by [ the prime-vendor]. 
However, the record does not contain copies of the end-client's MSA with the prime-vendor. 
Importantly, the Petitioner has also not clarified which of the competing contractual relationships 
alluded to in the petition are the basis for the Beneficiary's employment with the end-client. The 
Petitioner must resolve this inconsistency and ambiguity in the record with independent, objective 
evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
We acknowledge that the Petitioner has provided a partial copy of a supplier agreement (SA) between 
the prime-vendor and the mid-vendor, that consists of the first and last pages of a 14-page SA, which 
indicated, among other things that an assignment under the agreement "means a Job Posting that has 
been filled by a Contract Worker of [the mid-vendor] under which the Contract Worker will perform 
the Contract Services." However, this material did not farther describe the "Contract Services" to be 
provided by the mid-vendor to the end-client. 7 We conclude that the record lacks sufficient evidence 
of the end-client's project requirements, and the contractual relationships, if any, between the mid­
vendor, the prime-vendor, and the end-client for the Beneficiary's employment with the end-client. 
The Petitioner has also provided a November 2016 independent contract agreement (ICA) between 
the mid-vendor and the Petitioner. The document indicated that the Petitioner "will provide services 
through its personnel specified on the Purchase Order. .. " The mid-vendor's January 2018 purchase 
order identified the Beneficiary, and noted that she will "perform work for [the end-client] beginning 
January 16, 2018 and terminating on the end date of December 31, 2018." The purchase order alludes 
to possible extensions of the Beneficiary's assignment with the end-client "until such time as the above 
mentioned project is completed ... " However, the purchase order does not identify the project to 
7 We determine the Petitioner's submission of just the first and last pages of the prime-vendor's SA diminishes its 
evidentiary value, as it deprives us of the remaining portions that may reveal information either advantageous or 
detrimental to the petitioning organization's claims, and therefore, is of little probative value. It is the Petitioner's burden 
to prove by a preponderance of evidence that it is qualified for the benefit sought. Matter of Chawathe, 25 T&N Dec. at 
376. In evaluating the evidence, eligibility is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. Id. 
5 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
which the Beneficiary will be assigned at the end-client location, nor does it provide any further 
narrative regarding the specific tasks that she will perform when she "work[s] for the end-client." 
Overall, we determine there is insufficient evidence of an obligation on the part of the end-client to 
provide work for the Beneficiary, let alone work of specialty occupation caliber for the requested 
validity period. In other words, the evidence of record is currently insufficient to establish the terms 
and conditions of the proffered position at the end-client location. 8 
Moreover, a crucial aspect of this matter is whether the duties of the proffered position are described 
in such a way that we may discern the actual, substantive nature of the position. As noted, the record 
lacks sufficient evidence to substantiate the Beneficiary's assignment as represented by the Petitioner. 
Again, when a beneficiary will perform the work for entities other than the petitioner, evidence of the 
client companies' job requirements is critical. Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. When determining 
whether a position is a specialty occupation, we look at the nature of the business offering the 
employment and the description of the specific duties of the position as it relates to the performance 
of those duties within the context of that particular employer's business operations. 
On a fundamental level, we conclude that the Petitioner has not provided consistent and sufficient 
material about the end-client's projects that the Beneficiary will be engaged in. The Petitioner initially 
stated that the Beneficiary "will provide technical services on the project for the [end-client]," by 
"providing services on the Metricstream Integration project [MI project]." The Director requested an 
explanation of how the Beneficiary's specific job duties relate to the Petitioner's and the end-client's 
products and services in the RFE. In response to the RFE, the Petitioner provided a letter and copies 
of the Beneficiary's project status reports which collectively indicated: 
The [ MI project's] purpose is to enable[] a comprehensive process to identify, assess, 
mitigate, and monitor third-party risks, as well as to manage compliance. The app 
streamlines third-party information gathering, due diligence, onboarding, real-time 
monitoring, and risk and control assessments. It also helps in assigning tasks, and 
documenting interactions with third parties. Through the app, companies gain valuable 
intelligence and visibility into third-party relationships for greater risk awareness and 
informed business decisions. This application is integrating Coupa, Oracle, Workday, 
Salesforce. 
However, the record does not sufficiently substantiate this project. For example, the Petitioner 
provided letters from the end-client, the prime-vendor, and the mid-vendor in response to the 
Director's RFE. However, without more, these letters are insufficient to establish the terms and 
conditions of the Beneficiary's employment at the end-client location. As previously discussed, the 
end-client letter states that "the nature of the candidate's employment, assignment details, and 
durations will be confirmed solely by [the prime-vendor]." The prime-vendor's letter states "[t]he 
project is expected to last through December 31, 2018 and has an opportunity for an extension subject 
to continuing business necessity," but provides no information about the MI project. The mid-
8 A petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). The agency made 
clear long ago that speculative employment is not permitted in the H-lB program. See, e.g..63 Fed. Reg. 30,419. 30,419-
20 (June 4, 1998). 
6 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
vendor's letters each simply note that "[t]his is an ongoing, long term project and the services for this 
project will be substantiated through the terms of the Purchase order." We note again that the mid­
vendor's purchase order does not identify the end-client project to which the Beneficiary will be 
assigned. 
Here, the record contains insufficient supporting documentation that identifies the scope, duration, and 
magnitude of the MI project, to establish the substantive nature of the Beneficiary's role therein. 9 To 
illustrate, the Petitioner emphasized throughout the proceedings that the Beneficiary will liaise or 
interact with various end-client personnel and stakeholder groups, including: 
• Responsible for maintaining partnership with vendor [] as well as business owners 
. . 
m sourcmg. 
• Liaison with business owners and technical teams. 
• Partner with key business users and lead efforts on application training and change 
management specifically for Metricstream application and associated processes. 
• Project manage implementation activities including integration of data from 
Metricstream to/from other applications like Oracle, Salesforce, Workday. 
• Ensure testing efforts are completed timely related to enhancements, integrations, 
system upgrades. 
Though the Petitioner described the job duties of the position, the evidence does not show the 
operational structure within this initiative in a manner that would establish the Beneficiary's role. 
While the Director in the RFE requested organization charts that would delineate the Petitioner's and 
the end-client's organization, and staffing hierarchy (including the job titles of the positions that the 
Beneficiary will manage in the proffered position, and the job title of the individual she will report to), 
the Petitioner did not sufficiently address this aspect. In its RFE response, the Petitioner provided 
material which indicates that the Beneficiary reports to its vice president of training and development. 
The organization chart shows various positions, including this vice president's position with a 
downward arrow pointing to a box entitled "employees," which lends little insight into the proffered 
position's placement within the Petitioner's organizational hierarchy. Further, the Petitioner did not 
provide evidence of the end-client's project staffing hierarchy, and sufficient information about what 
the MI project actually entails in order to establish the substantive nature of the Beneficiary's role as 
a "business analysis consultant" within the context of this endeavor. Here, the documentation 
provided is not probative towards establishing the terms and conditions of the Beneficiary's 
assignment as imposed by the end-client. See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88 (where the work is to be 
performed for entities other than the petitioner, evidence of the client companies' job requirements is 
critical). 
Moreover, as noted, in determining the nature of a proffered position, the critical element is not the 
title of the position, but the duties of the underlying position. As part of our analysis, we review the 
duties of the proffered position to assess the duties and determine whether the described duties 
correspond to the duties and tasks listed in the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) Summary 
Report for the occupation designated in the LCA. 10 Here, the Petitioner submitted an LCA for the 
9 Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. 
10 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b) requires that USCIS ensure that an LCA supports the H-lB petition filed on behalf of the Beneficiary. 
7 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
"Management Analysts" occupational category corresponding to the Standard Occupational 
Classification (SOC) code 13-1111. 11 The U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook 
Handbook (Handbook) states that "Management Analysts" typically: 12 
• Gather and organize information about the problem to be solved or the procedure 
to be improved 
• Interview personnel and conduct onsite observations to determine the methods, 
equipment, and personnel that will be needed 
• Analyze financial and other data, including revenue, expenditure, and employment 
reports 
• Develop solutions or alternative practices 
• Recommend new systems, procedures, or organizational changes 
• Make recommendations to management through presentations or written reports 
• Confer with managers to ensure changes are working 
The Petitioner job descriptions for the proffered position may comport, in part, with the typical tasks 
performed by individuals employed in the "Management Analysts" occupational category. However, 
despite the Petitioner's categorization of the proffered position as a "Management Analyst," the 
petition also contains considerable narrative that references a position that substantially entails system 
design, development, and testing functions. For example, the material in the record indicates that the 
11 The O*NET Summary Report for positions located within the "Management Analysts" occupational category lists the 
following duties: 
• Document findings of study and prepare recommendations for implementation of new systems, 
procedures, or organizational changes. 
• Interview personnel and conduct on-site observation to ascertain unit functions, work performed, and 
methods, equipment, and personnel used. 
• Analyze data gathered and develop solutions or alternative methods of proceeding. 
• Plan study of work problems and procedures, such as organizational change, communications, 
information flow, integrated production methods, inventory control, or cost analysis. 
• Confer with personnel concerned to ensure successful functioning of newly implemented systems or 
procedures. 
• Gather and organize information on problems or procedures. 
• Prepare manuals and train workers in use of new forms, reports, procedures or equipment, according to 
organizational policy. 
• Review forms and reports and confer with management and users about format, distribution, and 
purpose, identifying problems and improvements. 
• Develop and implement records management program for filing, protection, and retrieval of records, and 
assure compliance with program. 
• Design, evaluate, recommend, and approve changes of forms and reports. 
The O*NET Summary Report for "Management Analysts," may be viewed at https://www.onetonline.org 
/link/summary/13-1111 (last visited Sept. 25, 2019). 
12 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Management Analysts, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/management-analysts.htm#tab-2 (last visited Sept. 25, 2019). All of our 
references to the Handbook may be accessed at the Internet site http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not maintain that the 
Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. 
8 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
Beneficiary will "[l]ead and own data integrations, system changes and enhancements and additionally 
support upgrades and other system support activities," "[p ]erform and own functions like 
understanding business requirements, mapping business requirements to system functionality, 
designing and documenting functional requirements," "perform[] hands-on system configuration and 
data loads where needed," and "[p ]rovide ongoing Production Support - including problem 
management" which "will include logging tickets, status communication and escalation." 
Additionally, the Petitioner provided copies of the Beneficiary's project status reports, which indicate 
that she routinely performed duties such as "[resolving] [c]onnectivity issue with the MSI on IE 
browser," "[performing] [ e ]nd to end testing of Unique Identifier need to be completed before moving 
the patch into production," and "[performing] Single Sign On Setup [for] the SSO implementation in 
Production." While the Petitioner submitted an LCA designating the "Management Analysts" 
occupational category for the proffered position, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that 
these position duties and responsibilities are consistent with the occupational category. In other words, 
the Petitioner has not adequately explained how the design, development and testing of system 
software are closely related to the O*NET tasks and the Handbook's duties for the "Management 
Analysts" occupation. 13 Therefore, we are unable to determine whether the proffered position 
properly falls within the "Management Analyst" occupational category corresponding to SOC code 
13-1111, which raises additional questions regarding the substantive nature of the proffered position. 14 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner also submitted an opinion letter authored byD 
~------~!Adjunct Professor, the Graduate School - Cybersecurity & Information Assurance 
Department, University of.__ ________ ~ In his letter, the professor (1) describes the 
credentials that he asserts qualify him to opine upon the nature of the proffered position; (2) describes 
the previously discussed job duties; and (3) states that these duties require at least a bachelor's degree 
in information technology, or a related area, or the equivalent. We carefully evaluated the professor's 
assertions in support of the instant petition but find them insufficient. The professor states: 
I have had the opportunity to review several documents that give me a greater 
understanding of both [the Petitioner] itself and the Consultant, Business Analyst 
position that it now seeks to fill. Amongst them are a company brochure, an 
organizational chart, and printouts from the company's website. The company 
brochure gave me broad knowledge of the company itself: its services, and some of the 
clients served by the company. The organizational chart in tum gave me an in-depth 
knowledge of the inner workings of the company and where the Consultant, Business 
Analyst position fits in the company's hierarchy. Lastly, the website printouts gave me 
in-depth information about the specific services offered by the company, their inherent 
complexity, and how they can best be utilized to serve potential clients. 
First, while the professor references the Petitioner's business operations in analyzing the duties of the 
position, he does not mention or discuss the end-client generally, or the MI project specifically, within 
his analysis of the position. Importantly, he does not explain how the duties of the position would 
13 The Petitioner must also resolve this inconsistency in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the 
truth lies. Matter of Ho, Dec. 591-92. 
14 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b). 
9 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
actually be performed in the context of the end-client's business enterprise. While we appreciate the 
professor's discussion of the duties provided by the Petitioner, his analysis falls short of providing a 
meaningful discussion of what the Beneficiary will actually do in the proffered position at the end­
client location, and how those duties require the theoretical and practical application of a body of 
highly specialized knowledge. 15 
Further, the Professor's reference to the Petitioner's organization chart, for the proposition that the 
document "gave [him] an in-depth knowledge of the inner workings of the company and where the 
Consultant, Business Analyst position fits in the company's hierarchy," seems incongruent with the 
information provided. As previously discussed, the record contains an organization chart which 
identifies a vice president's position (the Beneficiary's claimed supervisor) with a downward arrow 
pointing to a box entitled "employees" as the illustration of the proffered position's placement within 
the Petitioner's organizational hierarchy. In contrast to the professor's statements, the organization 
chart does not specifically identify the business analyst consultant position within the Petitioner's 
staffing structure. While we recognize that the professor may have relied on documents not included 
in the record, given the vague material that we have reviewed, we conclude that the basis for his 
analysis in this regard has not been substantiated. 
In light of the above, we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the professor possessed 
the requisite information to adequately assess the nature of the position and appropriately determine 
the educational requirements of the position, based upon the job duties and level ofresponsibilities. 
Notably, the professor also does not address the variances between the minimum requirements for the 
position as stipulated by the Petitioner, mid-vendor, and prime-vendor relative to his own conclusions 
regarding the position requirements. The Petitioner initially stated that a candidate for the proffered 
position must simply possess a "bachelor's degree." It also provided a March 2018 mid-vendor letter 
which specified that "in order to complete this project, [the mid-vendor] must provide IT services, 
requiring resources, possessing specialized education in information technology field, experience and 
skills in computer science, information systems, or equivalent." 16 Contemporaneous with the 
submission of the professor's opinion letter, the Petitioner submitted other material that provided a 
diverse and inconsistent range of requirements for the proffered position, including: 
• The Petitioner's new requirement that the position required a "Bachelor's degree or its 
equivalent in Information Technology or a closely related discipline." 
• The July 2018 mid-vendor letter which presented its initially stated requirements, then 
presented alternative requirements of "a Bachelor's or higher degree in Information 
Systems, Procurement, Sourcing, Finance - or equivalent work experience." 
• The prime-vendor letter which specified requirements of "a Bachelor's or higher degree 
in Information Systems, Procurement, Sourcing, Finance - or equivalent work 
experience," as well as expertise in "key Project Management methodologies & tools," 
the "Metricstream [and] ERP application[s]," "procurement, supplier on-boarding, 
sourcing and risk management, etc.," and "Strong Global Knowledge with in-depth 
15 Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. 
16 On appeal, the Petitioner presented the mid-vendor's January 2019 letter which reiterated its initial requirements, then 
alternatively indicated that "a Bachelor's degree in Information Technology or a related field was required." 
10 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
understanding of regional regulatory requirements especially from Latin America, 
Asia-Pacific, etc. regions." 
• The Petitioner's undated IT Business Analyst job announcement which required "a 
minimum of a Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, 
Computer Information Systems, or a closely related field ... or its equivalent." The job 
notice farther indicated extensive experience requirements, to include "4+ years' 
project management experience," "4+ years' experience gathering requirements for 
large scale applications," "3+ years' of software delivery," and "1 + years of experience 
working on agriculture related software applications. 
• The Petitioner's December 2017 Business Analyst job announcement which required 
"a minimum of a Bachelor's Degree in Finance, Statistics or a closely related field ... 
or its equivalent, and two years of experience as a Business Analyst. The job 
announcement farther stated that "the ideal candidate will possess [a] Bachelor's 
Degree in technology, finance, business, or equivalent. .. [ and minimum] 5 years of 
related financial services experience ... " 
On appeal, the Petitioner restated the professor's requirements (e.g., a bachelor's degree in information 
technology or a related area) and asserted "[t]he record of this proceeding does not include anything to 
contradict I I's position requirements] to successfully perform the duties [ of the proffered 
position]." However, the Petitioner does not explain wh~ l's position requirements differ from 
the wide array of position requirements that the Petitioner, mid-vendor, and prime-vendor 
contemporaneously put forth, nor does it otherwise discuss the reasons for the variances in the position 
requirements within the material in the record. 17 
For the reasons discussed, we find that the professor's opinion letter lends little probative value to the 
matter here. Matter of Caron Int 'I, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (The service is not required to 
accept or may give less weight to an advisory opinion when it is "not in accord with other information or 
is in any way questionable."). For the sake of brevity, we will not address other deficiencies within his 
analyses of the proffered position. 
Due to inconsistencies and lack of sufficient information in the record, we conclude that the Petitioner 
has not established the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the Beneficiary. This 
precludes a conclusion that the proffered position satisfies any criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), because it is the substantive nature of that work that determines (1) the normal 
minimum educational requirement for entry into the particular position, which is the focus of criterion 1; 
(2) industry positions which are parallel to the proffered position and thus appropriate for review for a 
common degree requirement, under the first alternate prong of criterion 2; (3) the level of complexity or 
uniqueness of the proffered position, which is the focus of the second alternate prong of criterion 2; (4) the 
factual justification for a petitioner normally requiring a degree or its equivalent, when that is an issue 
under criterion 3; and (5) the degree of specialization and complexity of the specific duties, which is the 
focus of criterion 4. 18 
17 Matter of Ho, Dec. 591-92. 
18 As the lack of probative and consistent evidence in the record precludes a conclusion that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation and is dispositive of the appeal, we will not fiuiher discuss the Petitioner's assertions on appeal 
regarding the criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
11 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
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. 
Cite as Matter of B-, Inc., ID# 4662372 (AAO Sept. 26, 2019) 
12