dismissed H-1B Case: Ip Licensing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6891374 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 21, 2020 
The Petitioner, a wireless communications business, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as 
an "Associate IP Licensing Analyst" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified 
foreign worker in a position that requires both: (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body 
of highly specialized knowledge; and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific 
specialty ( or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. On appeal, the Petitioner 
asserts that the Director erred and that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
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 of Chawathe, 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 
In the H-1 B petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as an "Associate IP Licensing 
Analyst" and provided a position description. In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), 
the Petitioner provided a percentage breakdown of the duties and additional details and examples 2 as 
follows: 
• Review licensees' certificate details and process into TMl database (5%) 
• Data validations to identify errors or discrepancies, resolve processing errors ( 10%) 
• Research market data, check contracts for licensed products, understand the 
company's business model (15%) 
• Data validation under licensees' current agreements (15%) 
• Evaluating data in system and conduct data mapping (5%) 
• Conduct data trend, and communicate highlights of findings to QTL teams (5%) 
• Perform market research, and products' specifications for entry in database (10%) 
• Conduct product, brand, and market research to improve data accuracy (5%) 
• Updating research findings into the system to maintain data accuracy (5%) 
• Using Excel and TMl to create and develop reports and extract data to support 
management decision making (15%) 
• Helps design and maintain the data structure within TMl (5%) 
• Work on improvement projects and initiatives (5%) 
2 While we will not quote the entire description for the sake of brevity, we have reviewed and considered it. 
2 
According to the Petitioner, the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree or foreign academic 
equivalent in accounting, finance, mathematics, international affairs, business administration, or a 
related field of study. 
III. ANALYSIS 
We conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. In particular, the Petitioner has not established adequate minimum requirements for the 
proffered position, or the substantive nature of the position, which precludes a determination that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation under at least one of the four regulatory specialty­
occupation criteria enumerated at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4). 3 
A. Minimum Requirements 
The Petitioner's minimum requirement of "a Bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent in Accounting, 
Finance, Mathematics, International Affairs, Business Administration, or [a] related field of study," is 
inadequate to establish that the proposed position qualifies as a specialty occupation. As mentioned 
above, 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii) does not require a 
"specific specialty," and that the Director "pulls the 'specific specialty' language from 8 C.F.R. 
214.2(h)(4)(ii) .... " The Petitioner asserts that "USCIS should look at the body of theoretical 
knowledge that is required for an occupation that qualifies an occupation as specialty" and also cites 
to the following from Tapis Int'! v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 94 F. Supp. 2d 172 
(D. Mass. 2000): 
It defies logical to read the bachelor's requirement of 'specialty occupation' to include 
only those positions where a specific bachelor's degree is offered. In fields where no 
specifically tailored baccalaureate program exists, the only possible way to achieve 
something equivalent is by studying a related field ( or fields) and then obtaining 
specialized experience. 
First, contrary to the Petitioner's argument, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must logically be read 
together with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). In other words, the regulatory 
language must be construed in harmony with the thrust of the related provisions and with the statute 
as a whole. See K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281,291 (1988) (holding that construction of 
language which takes into account the design of the statute as a whole is preferred); 
see also COIT Independence Joint Venture v. Fed. Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989); 
Matter of W-F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). As such, the criteria stated in 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) should logically be read as being necessary, but not necessarily sufficient to meet 
3 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. 
3 
the statutory and regulatory definition of specialty occupation. To otherwise interpret this section as 
stating the necessary and sufficient conditions for meeting the definition of specialty occupation would 
result in particular positions meeting a condition under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), but not the 
statutory or regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). To 
avoid this result, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must therefore be read as providing supplemental 
criteria that must be met in accordance with, and not as alternatives to, the statutory and regulatory 
definitions of specialty occupation. 
As such and consonant with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii), as mentioned, we construe the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty 
that is directly related to the proffered position. See Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147 (describing "a 
degree requirement in a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities 
of a particular position"). 
Second, we agree with the district court judge in Tapis, that in satisfying the specialty occupation 
requirements, both the Act and the regulations require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent, and that this language indicates that the degree does not have to be a degree in a single 
specific specialty. In general, provided that the specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry and 
biochemistry, a minimum of a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty is recognized as 
satisfying the "degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)" requirement of section 214(i)(l)(B) 
of the Act. In such a case, the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" would essentially be 
the same. Since there must be a close correlation between the required "body of highly specialized 
knowledge" and the position, however, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in disparate fields, 
such as accounting and international affairs, would not meet the statutory requirement that the degree 
be "in the specific specialty ( or its equivalent)," unless the Petitioner establishes how each field is 
directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position. Section 2 l 4(i)(l )(B) of the 
Act ( emphasis added). 
Moreover, we also agree that, if the requirements to perform the duties and job responsibilities of a 
proffered position are a combination of a general bachelor's degree and experience such that the 
standards at both section 214(i)(l)(A) and (B) of the Act have been satisfied, then the proffered 
position may qualify as a specialty occupation. We do not conclude, however, that the U.S. district 
court is stating that any position can qualify as a specialty occupation based solely on the claimed 
requirements of a petitioner. 
Instead, we must examine the actual employment requirements, and, on the basis of that examination, 
determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. See generally Defensor, 201 F. 3d 
at 384. In this pursuit, the critical element is not the title of the position, or the fact that an employer 
has routinely insisted on certain educational standards, but whether performance of the position 
actually requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge 
and the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty as the minimum for entry 
into the occupation as required by the Act. 
4 
Here, the Petitioner has not established how the proffered position of "Associate IP Licensing Analyst" 
requires a body of highly specialized knowledge and attainment of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent. For example, the Petitioner lists international affairs and business 
administration as acceptable degree fields and contends that: 
Business Administration and International Affairs trammg helps the analyst to 
undertake the required research and work with the cross functional teams as well as 
assisting with supporting management decision making, compliance testing and 
forecasting, driving improvement projects and contributing to design reviews .... 
International Affairs assist[ s] the analyst in, for example, conducting research, 
conducting data trend analysis and communicating highlights to the marketing strategy 
team, transforming data into information, recommending and contributing to 
improvement projects and contributing at design review meetings. 
The Petitioner's explanation of how a degree in international affairs would benefit an "Associate 
IP Licensing Analyst" does not establish that the proffered position requires highly specialized 
knowledge. 4 For instance, the Petitioner discusses foundational concepts, such as research, 
communication, and assisting with supporting management decision making. However, those 
concepts do not evidence a specific body of specialized knowledge, but, rather, are concepts that may 
be attained in a variety of degrees. 
Moreover, acceptance of a business administration degree, without more, is inadequate to establish 
that the proposed position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 5 A petitioner must demonstrate that the 
proffered position requires a precise and specific course of study that relates directly and closely to 
the position in question. 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 
administration, without further 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). As explained above, 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. The Petitioner's stated requirements do not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner also submitted an evaluatiof of the roffered position prepared b~ I CPA, 
Associate Professor of Accounting at College, for our consideration. In his letter, 
I I (I) describes the credentials that he asserts qualify him to opine upon the nature of 
the proffered position; (2) references the duties proposed for the Beneficiary; and (3) states that those 
duties require at least a bachelor's degree in accounting, finance, mathematics, international affairs, 
business administration, or a related specialized field. We carefully evaluated~------~'s 
4 We note that, in response to the Director's RFE and in addition to the duties specified above, the Petitioner also stated 
that "[t]he ideal candidate for the position must have the capacity to apply theoretical principles in engineering, particularly 
to the niche requirements of the telecommunications industry[;]" however, the Petitioner did not previously list engineering 
as an acceptable degree field. 
5 Here, the Petitioner does not provide probative evidence of how a business administration degree requires courses that 
teach data validation and trend mapping. 
5 
assertions in support of the instant petition but, for the following reasons, determined his letter is not 
persuasive . 
.__ _____ ____.I did not discuss the duties of the proffered position in substantive detail beyond that 
presented by the Petitioner. There is no indication that he possesses any knowledge of the Petitioner's 
proffered position beyond the job description that I I acknowledges was provided by 
the Petitioner, e.g., interviewed the Petitioner's employees about the nature of their work, or 
documented the knowledge that these workers apply on the job prior to documenting their opinions 
regarding the proffered position. In addition,! I wrote that "it would be impossible to 
handle the required job duties of the Associate IP Licensing Agent with [the Petitioner] without at 
least a bachelor's degree" in one of the specified fields, but the Petitioner's evidence in the record does 
not support that finding. Notably, as mentioned, the Petitioner referenced engineering as one of the 
accepted fields in response to the RFE. The Petitioner submitted external job postings that do not 
include international affairs or mathematics as acceptable degree fields. We are unable to determine 
if~------~was aware of inconsistencies in the Petitioner's requirements for the position or 
if he possessed the requisite information to adequately assess the proffered position. Even assuming 
I I possesses expertise on the degree requirements for the position, his letter does not 
substantiate the conclusions, such that we can conclude that the Petitioner has met its burden of proof. 
For example, he does not reference, cite, or discuss studies, surveys, industry publications, 
authoritative publications, or other sources of empirical information, which he may have consulted to 
~ his evaluation. For the reasons discussed, we conclude that the opinion letter from I I 
L___J is insufficient to establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. Matter of 
Caron Int'!, 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."). 
The record does not include probative evidence that the variety of acceptable degrees to perform the 
duties of the Petitioner's "Associate IP Licensing Analyst" position qualify as a specialty occupation. 
Although a few similar prerequisite courses may appear within the course curriculum of several of the 
above-listed degrees, the Petitioner has not established how an established curriculum of such courses 
leading to and resulting in a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is 
required to perform the duties of the proffered position. 6 Absent this evidence, we cannot conclude 
that the particular position proffered in this matter requires the theoretical and practical application of 
a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the 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 Petitioner has not satisfied the definition of specialty occupation as set out in the Act. 
6 We observe that the Petitioner, in response to the Director's RFE, listed the Beneficiary's coursework as providing the 
skillsets and ability to perform the day-to-day duties of the position. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty 
occupation is not the skill set, experience, or education of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself qualifies 
as a specialty occupation. Here, the Petitioner has not sufficiently described the proposed position such that we may 
conclude that the position requires both the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge 
and the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as the minimum for entry 
into the occupation. See section 214(i)( I) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty occupation"). 
6 
B. Nature of the Position 
The Petitioner also has not sufficiently described the duties of the proffered position such that we may 
discern the nature of the position and 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. 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-1 B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Operations Research Analysts" 
(corresponding to the Standard Occupational Category code 15-2031). To understand the nature of a 
particular position, we recognize the 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. 7 
The subchapter of the Handbook titled "What Operations Research Analysts Do" summarizes this 
occupation by stating that "[ o ]perations research analysts use advanced mathematical and analytical 
methods to help organizations solve problems and make better decisions." 8 The Handbook continues 
by indicating that individuals in this occupation "[u]se statistical analysis, simulations, predictive 
modeling, or other methods to analyze information and develop practical solutions to business 
problems." 9 The Petitioner also references DOL's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) 
summary report for "Operations Research Analysts" listed under SOC 15-2031 for our 
consideration. 10 The O*NET explains that "Operations Research Analysts" "[ f]ormulate and apply 
mathematical modeling and other optimizing methods" and, more specifically, "[ f]ormulate 
mathematical or simulation models of problems, relating constants and variables, restrictions, 
alternatives, conflicting objectives, and their numerical parameters." However, although 
the Handbook and O*NET also list tasks that may correspond to some of the Petitioner's described 
duties involving data analytics and reporting, the record does not sufficiently establish that the duties 
of "Operations Research Analysts" correspond to the proffered position. Specifically, the O*NET 
explains that "Operations Research Analysts" "[f]ormulate and apply mathematical modeling and 
other optimizing methods" with an objective of identifying problems and solutions. Meanwhile, the 
duties of the proffered position contemplate, in large part, "[r]eview[ing,]" validating data "to identify 
errors or discrepancies[,]" "[r]esearch[ing,]" and "[u]pdating research findings[.]" 
Even if the proffered position corresponds to the "Operations Research Analyst" occupational 
category, the subchapter of the Handbook titled "How to Become an Operations Research Analyst" 
states, that while "some schools offer bachelor's and advanced degree programs in operations research, 
some analysts have degrees in other technical or quantitative fields, such as engineering, computer 
7 Our references to the Handbook may be accessed at http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not maintain that the Handbook is 
the exclusive source ofrelevant information. 
8 See Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Operations Research Analyst, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/math/operations-research-analysts.htm (last visited Feb. 21, 2020). 
9 Id. 
10 See Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Dep't of Labor, O*Net Summary Report for: I 5-2031. 00 Operations 
Research Analysts, https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/15-203 l .OO (last visited Feb. 21, 2020). 
7 
science, analytics, or mathematics." 11 The Handbook indicates further that courses in various fields 
such as engineering, mathematics, computer science, economics, and political science are useful 
because "operations research is a multidisciplinary field with a wide variety of applications." 12 
Because the Handbook recognizes this occupation as multidisciplinary and one that can be performed 
by people with various degrees, it does not support a conclusion that this is an occupational group for 
which normally the minimum requirement for entry is at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. Further, as discussed above, the Petitioner's requirements for the particular 
position do not qualify as a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner references two U.S. district court decisions as support for its argument that 
a petitioner may allow multiple specialized fields to demonstrate eligibility for a position without 
compromising the position's status as a specialty occupation. In contrast to the broad precedential 
authority of the case law of a U.S. circuit court, we are not bound to follow the published decision of 
a U.S. district court even in matters arising within the same district. See Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 
715, 719-20 (BIA 1993). Although the reasoning underlying a district judge's decision will be given 
due consideration when it is properly before us, the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter 
oflaw. Id. 
The Petitioner cites to Next Generation Tech., Inc., in which the court discussed 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 "Operations and Research 
Analysts" category designated by the Petitioner in the LCA relating to this case. Further, as recognized 
by another court, while the Handbook may establish the first regulatory criterion for certain 
professions, many occupations are not described in such a categorical manner. 13 See Innova Sols., 
Inc. v. Baran, 2019 WL 3753334, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2019) (declining to follow Next Generation 
Tech., Inc.). For example, "[the Handbook's] description for the Computer Programmer occupation 
does not describe the normal minimum educational requirements of the occupation in a categorical 
fashion." Id.; see also Xiaotong Liu v. Baran, 2018 WL 7348851 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2018). 
"Accordingly, [the Petitioner] could not simply rely on [the Handbook] profile, and instead had the 
burden to show that the particular position offered to [the Beneficiary] was among the Computer 
Programmer positions for which a bachelor's degree was normally required." See Innova Sols., Inc. 
2019 WL 3753334, at *8. 
Moreover, the court in Next Generation Tech., Inc. relied in part on a USCIS policy memorandum 
regarding "Computer Programmers" indicating generally preferential treatment toward computer 
programmers, and "especially" toward companies in that particular petitioner's industry. However, 
USCIS rescinded the policy memorandum cited by the court in Next Generation Tech. Inc. 14 Here, 
the Handbook does not describe the normal minimum educational requirement for the occupation in a 
11 Id. 
12 Id. 
13 Such professions would include surgeons or attorneys, which indisputably require at least a bachelor's degree for entry 
into the occupation. 
14 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 
8 
categorical manner. Further, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that a bachelor's degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular 
position. 
The Petitioner also cites to Residential Finance Corp. v. USCIS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012), 
for the proposition that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is what is important. Diplomas 
rarely come bearing occupation-specific majors. What is required is an occupation that requires highly 
specialized knowledge and a prospective employee who has attained the credentialing indicating 
possession of that knowledge." We agree with the aforementioned proposition that "[t]he knowledge 
and not the title of the degree is what is important." Here, as explained above, the Petitioner has not 
adequately explained that the proffered position requires highly specialized knowledge and attainment 
of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
We also have considered the job postings the Petitioner provided to determine whether there is a degree 
requirement that is common to the Petitioner's industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
On appeal, the Petitioner refers to the postings as "for parallel positions" and asserts that "the degree 
requirement is common in the industry" because "the duties of these positions can be adequately 
carried out by employees carrying a degree from a variety of closely related fields" and, in any event, 
"[i]t is not the degree itself that matters, but rather the body of specialized knowledge[.]" However, 
we reiterate that, even if a bachelor's degree of the sort permitted by the Petitioner is common to the 
Petitioner's industry for parallel positions, such a degree is a general bachelor's degree that does not 
satisfy the statutory definition of a specialty occupation. Therefore, such a requirement is insufficient 
to qualify a position as a specialty occupation. Moreover, the submitted job postings are for senior 
positions, which the Petitioner has not shown are parallel to the proffered position here, and none of 
the three postings list international affairs or mathematics as acceptable degree fields. Instead, the 
postings indicate that acceptable degree fields are in accounting, business administration, finance, 
marketing, or computer science, and that wide variety of acceptable degrees does not demonstrate that 
a precise and specific course of study is necessary to perform the duties of these positions. 
The Petitioner's job description does not establish relative specialization and complexity, or 
uniqueness, as an aspect of the duties of the position, and the tasks described provide little insight into 
the level of complexity or demands associated with the proposed duties or the specialized knowledge 
required to perform them. In its RFE response, the Petitioner provided "Additional Details & 
Examples" of the job duties, which specify that the Beneficiary would: use certain programs to enter 
data and validate it for errors; review and understand licensees' royalty reports; calculate revenue and 
average and net selling prices; create and maintain "calculation fields[,]" and "models, charts, [ and] 
process flow" using certain programs; and perform market research. While we acknowledge that 
the Petitioner references the Beneficiary's coursework in explaining how her experience enables her 
to perform the described duties, entering and validating data, conducting research, and using 
spreadsheets to generate reports does not appear to reflect a need for a theoretical and practical 
application of a highly specialized body of knowledge. We emphasize that~-----~'s 
opinion does not correspond to the Petitioner's described position and requirement, which does not 
assist in establishing the specialization and complexity, or uniqueness of the position. 
9 
Upon review of the totality of the record, it is insufficient to establish the substantive nature of the 
work to be performed by the Beneficiary, which precludes a conclusion that the proffered position 
satisfies any criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 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. The Petitioner has not presented 
evidence or an argument sufficient to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the proffered 
position is a specialty occupation as defined by the regulations and the statute. 
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. 
10