dismissed H-1B Case: It Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 17603420 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 25, 2021 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-lB nonirnrnigrant classification 
for specialty occupations. 1 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 California Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's 
burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a preponderance of the evidence. 2 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 3 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
According to the filing requirements for applications and petitions found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l) , 
... [ a ]n applicant or petitioner must establish that he or she is eligible for the requested 
benefit at the time of filing the benefit request and must continue to be eligible through 
adjudication. Each benefit request must be properly completed and filed with all initial 
evidence required by applicable regulations and other USCIS instructions . Any 
evidence submitted in connection with a benefit request is incorporated into and 
considered part of the request. 
The regulations require that before filing a Form 1-129, Petition for a N onimrnigrant Worker , a 
petitioner obtain a certified labor condition application (LCA) from the Department of Labor (DOL) 
in the occupational specialty in which the H-lB worker will be employed. 4 Additionally, a petitioner 
submits the LCA to the DOL to demonstrate that it will pay an H-lB worker the higher of either the 
1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) , 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). 
2 See section 291 of the Act; Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
3 See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
4 See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B). 
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. 5 
Section 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) of the Act defines an H-lB nonirnrnigrant as a foreign national "who is 
corning temporarily to the United States to perform services ... in a specialty occupation described in 
section 214(i)(l) ... "(emphasis added). Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the 
term "specialty occupation" as an occupation that requires "theoretical and practical application of a 
body of highly specialized knowledge, and 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 section 214(i)(l) of the Act but adds a 
non-exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) provides that the 
proffered position must meet one of four criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation position. 6 Lastly, 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(J) states that an H-IB classification may be granted to a foreign national 
who "will perform services in a specialty occupation ... " ( emphasis added). 
Accordingly, to determine whether the Beneficiary will be employed in a specialty occupation, we 
look to the record to ascertain the services the Beneficiary will perform and whether such services 
require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge attained 
through at least a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty or its equivalent. Without 
sufficient evidence regarding the duties the Beneficiary will perform, we are unable to determine whether 
the Beneficiary will be employed in an occupation that meets the statutory and regulatory definitions of 
a specialty occupation and is a position that also satisfies at least one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). The services the Beneficiary will perform in the position determine: (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. 7 
Further, as recognized by the court inDefensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 87-88 (5th Cir 2000), 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. 
5 See section 212(n)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 182(n)(l )(A); 20 C.F.R. § 655. 731 (a). 
6 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must be read with the statutory and regulatory definitions of a specialty occupation under 
section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 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 COip. 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"). 
7 See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
2 
By regulation, the Director is charged with determining whether the petition involves a specialty 
occupation as defined in section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 8 The Director may request additional evidence 
in the course of making this determination. 9 
II. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the 
services the Beneficiary will perform qualify as a specialty occupation under sections 
101 (a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b ), 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(i)(A)(l ), 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(ii) and 
(iii)(A). 10 
The Petitioner, an automotive and communication IT design and service company, indicated on the 
Form I-129 that the Beneficiary would be assigned to work offsite. The Petitioner noted that the 
Beneficiary would be placed with the end-client,~------~(end-client), inl I 
Michigan. The Petitioner designated the position on the LCA as a standard occupational classification 
(SOC) code 15-1199.01, "Software Quality Assurance Engineers and Testers." 11 The Petitioner 
claims the position requires a background in electronics engineering, or a closely related field and adds 
that only "a Bachelor's degree in one of these areas will qualify for this specialty occupation position." 
A. Job Description 
On appeal the Petitioner asserts the Director did not properly consider the lengthy description it provided 
in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) and that the Director distorted the description in 
the decision. We have compared the Petitioner's position matrix which is broken out into a table with 
four columns with the Director's version of the proposed duties in the decision which lists the duties 
outlined in the first two columns. The Petitioner provided headings for the four columns as: professional 
duties (this column includes 13 duties); 12 a description of duties (this column includes a further 
breakdown of each professional duty and adds the tools used); time dedicated to the duties (this column 
repeats the bullet points listed in the description of duties, not the professional duty column, and assigns 
percentages to the subtasks of each description which total 100% ); and, educational background in 
relation to duty (this column lists some of the Beneficiary's courses taken for his foreign degree). 
Although the Director omits the first line of professional duty #4 and sometimes inserts unnecessary 
punctuation in the expanded descriptions of duties, the Director's shortened version is readable and does 
8 See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(2). 
9 See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8). 
10 The Petitioner submitted documentation in the underlying record to support the H-lB petition, including evidence 
regarding the proffered position and its business. Although we may not discuss every document submitted, we have 
reviewed and considered each one. 
11 The O*NET recently updated its occupational classifications. The "Software Quality Assurance Engineers and Testers" 
occupation is now identified as SOC code 15-1253. See Summary Rep01i for: 15-1199.01 - Software Quality Assurance 
Engineers and Testers, O*NET OnLine Archives (Nov. 17, 2020), https://www.onetonline.org/Archive_ONET­
SOC_2010_Taxonomy_09_2020/link/summary/15-ll99.01/. For the pmposes of this decision, we will refer to the 
occupation using the code and name at the time of the Director's decision, SOC 15-1199.01, Software Quality Assmance 
Engineers and Testers. 
12 The Petitioner did not allocate the amount of time the Beneficiary would spend working on each of the professional 
duties. 
3 
not distort the Petitioner's description. Rather, it is the Petitioner's use of jargon laden terms and language 
that fails to convey an understanding of the Beneficiary's role and responsibility in the proffered position. 
Generally, we understand that the Beneficiary will work in the HILS (hardware-in-the-loop) testing and 
simulation arena as it relates to electronic power steering and electronic control unit hardware and 
software. However, the Petitioner does not describe the Beneficiary's proposed duties in laymen terms, 
does not explain the HILS test bench technology, and does not provide sufficient detail regarding the 
actual tasks that will engage the Beneficiary while at the end-client. Rather, the Petitioner provides an 
overview of duties and lists the tools used in performing the generic tasks. While some of the subtasks 
may appear (in some instances) to comprise the duties of a software quality assurance tester, the 
Petitioner does not detail how the Beneficiary will implement these duties for the end-client. Thus, 
upon review of the totality of the descriptions, it is not possible to ascertain the difference between 
duties that could be performed by technicians and duties that might require an advanced degree. The 
nature, scope, and responsibility of the position are not sufficiently detailed. As HILS appears to be a 
technology using third party software, it appears that if an individual has some training and experience in 
the HILS test bench techniques and the tools/software used, the individual will be qualified to perform 
the duties of the position. 
For example, in the fourth column of the position matrix, the Petitioner lists some of the Beneficiary's 
courses taken to obtain his foreign bachelor's of technology degree in electronics and communication 
engineering as courses that provide a foundation or understanding of the technology. The Petitioner does 
not indicate that the courses referenced are required to perform specific duties, but rather indicates that a 
course provided a foundation to understanding the HILS technology, or that a course provided an 
advantage to understanding the technology, or that an academic project provided experience. While a 
few courses may be beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, ( or providing an advantage, 
experience, or a foundation) the Petitioner does not submit information relevant to a detailed course 
of study leading to a specialty degree and does not establish how such a curriculum is necessary to 
perform the duties it claims are so specialized and complex or unique. The Petitioner does not explain 
why vocational training, an associate's degree, or certifications in the HILS technology and tools 
would not provide a similarly sufficient knowledge set to perform the duties described. 
Moreover, we note that the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the skill set or 
education of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Thus, whether or not the Beneficiary in this case has completed a specialized course of study directly 
related to the proffered position is irrelevant to the issue of whether the proffered position qualifies as 
a specialty occupation, i.e., whether the duties of the proffered position require the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and the attainment of a bachelor's 
degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(ii). Here, the Petitioner has not established how the generic duties it describes, including 
the subtasks provided in response to the Director's RFE, require the theoretical and practical 
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge such that a bachelor's or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform them. 
We reviewed the opinion prepared b~ I Professor o~ I Engineering 
at I I University. I !repeats the Petitioner's initial description of duties and 
implies that the importance of the position to the Petitioner's mission in its business requires the 
4 
position be filled by a candidate with an educational background in electronics engineering or a closely 
related field. However, neither the importance of the work, nor the proffered position's role in the 
business, can establish that a position is a specialty occupation . .__ ___ ~ _ __.does not discuss the 
particular technology (HILS) that appears central to the proffered position. While we appreciate his 
brief discussion of a few of the subtasks of the position, this discussion falls short of providing a 
meaningful discussion of the Beneficiary's work as it relates to work that would be performed at the 
end-client.I l's opinion reflects a broad generalization that an electronics engineering 
degree prepares an individual to perform the duties of the position. He does not, however, appear to 
consider other methods that could lead to a sufficiently similar knowledge-set. For example, through 
several years of experience building the necessary skills and knowledge to perform in the position. 13 
Consequently, the professor does not account for obvious alternative explanations. 14 A lack of 
sufficient consideration of alternatives is a basis that can adversely affect the evidentiary weight of 
such an opinion. 15 Although we understand that the position requires technical knowledgeJ I 
.__~____.I does not discuss or provide the necessary context for the generalized duties that would assist 
in establishing that the Petitioner's particular position requires the theoretical and practical application 
of a body of highly specialized knowledge such that a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform them. 16 
We note, for example, that the Petitioner does not allocate the Beneficiary's time amongst the 
13 professional duties.17 Thus, we cannot ascertain how much time the Beneficiary spends on each of 
the duties which include for example: supporting and coordinating the shipment of ECU Boards and 
Sensor modules offshore18; and final review of the work products developed by offshore team before 
delivering to customer.19 Further, the Petitioner does not include sufficient information regarding the 
context of the work to be performed. Thus, we cannot understand the Beneficiary's role and level of 
responsibility while working offsite. The Petitioner does not provide adequate information to 
delineate how the job description translates to how the duties will be conducted within the Petitioner's 
business operations and at the end-client. The record does not sufficiently explain the Beneficiary's 
role within any team and how much responsibility the Beneficiary will have for managing, 
supervising, and assigning work, if any. 
13 We note that according to the Beneficiary's resume, he has almost three years of experience with this technology at the 
Petitioner's overseas location. 
14 See Claar v. Burlington N.R.R., 29 F.3d 499,502 (9th Cir. 1994). 
15 See Ambrosini v. Labarraque, IOI F.3d 129, 140 (D.C. Cir. 1996). 
16 Where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we are not required to accept or 
may give less weight to that evidence. Matter of Caron Int'!. Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm 'r 1988). 
17 The Petitioner, when describing the subtasks of each of the "professional duties" assigns time to the subtasks equivalent 
to l 00% for each of the individual 13 professional duties. This does not provide the information necessary to understand 
which of the 13 "professional" duties require more or less of the Beneficiary's time. 
18 The Petitioner indicates for example that this task includes: develop wiring schematics for EPS ECU-30%; wiring EPS 
ECU as per offshore HILS configuration-20%; and documentation and shipment to India-SO%. These subtasks do not 
include sufficient information to differentiate tasks that require only administrative tasks or basic electrical technician 
duties and more advanced tasks that may require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
19 The subtasks for this duty include: reviewing automation scripts developed offshore-25%; reviewing anomalies 
identified during offshore test execution-25%; reviewing test designs developed offshore-25%; and reviewing test 
coverage planned offshore-25%. It is not clear from this brief description whether the Beneficiary's reviews are 
supervisory in nature, administrative, or are substantive. The Petitioner fails to provide the overall context of the 
Beneficiary's proposed role and level ofresponsibility in the proffered position. 
5 
We have reviewed the Petitioner's partial organizational chart which identifies the Beneficiary as 
reporting to a key account manager, who reports to the director and head automotive sales in North 
America. It is unclear how the Petitioner's test engineer fits within the sales department and whether 
his is an administrative and support role for the sales department. 20 We are unable to determine the 
level of complexity, specialization, or uniqueness of the work from either the descriptions the 
Petitioner provides or the context of the Beneficiary's role with the Petitioner's or the end-client's 
business. Here, the record is insufficient to corroborate the Petitioner's claims regarding the advanced 
nature of the work, if any. 
We have reviewed the samples of the Beneficiary's work product submitted by the Petitioner. 21 The 
work product consists oflines of computer code, reports, and what appears to be test results. The work 
product is without context or explanation and the Beneficiary's role and tasks associated with the work 
product is not clearly connected to specific duties. The work product does not assist in establishing 
that the described duties are specialized and complex, or unique. 
To determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, we do not simply rely on a 
position's title. The specific duties of the proffered position, combined with the nature of the 
petitioning entity's business operations, are factors to be considered. We must examine the ultimate 
employment of the individual and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. 22 Without information describing the HILS technique or technology and substantive 
details regarding the duties the Beneficiary will perform at the end-client, 23 we are unable to 
determine, for example, the type of work, much less the level of complexity of and responsibility for 
the work. 
B. Government Sources, Job Advertisements, and Recruiting Agency 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's reliance on the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) 
Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook), and the DOL's Occupational Information Network 
(O*NET) summary report for this occupation is flawed. The Petitioner contends that the Handbook's 
lack of a discussion of the occupation should not be used to establish that an occupation is not a 
specialty occupation. We agree. When the Handbook does not include a detailed report on an 
occupation, the Petitioner, who bears the burden of proof in establishing eligibility, must provide other 
evidence to establish eligibility. In that regard we have considered the Petitioner's reference to the 
O*NET, including the Petitioner's acknowledgement that the O*NET does not identify specific 
degrees when discussing occupations but only identifies the level of education that employers might 
require. We agree, in part. That is, the O*NET does not discuss the level of a specific academic 
requirement to perform occupations, but rather assigns occupations a Job Zone rating. In this matter, 
the Job Zone rating is "Four," which groups the occupation among occupations for which "most ... 
20 The Petitioner's description of duties includes coordinating client review meetings, meeting with clients to consolidate 
requirements that need to be validated, and supporting the customer onsite, among other duties. 
21 As noted above, it appears the Beneficiary was employed by the Petitioner at its offshore location when the petition was 
filed. 
22 See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384 (5th Cir. 2000). 
23 Although the record includes a master services agreement between the Petitioner and the end-client for professional 
services, the record does not include information from the end-client describing the professional services needed or its 
required qualifications, if any, for the individuals who will perform those services. 
6 
require a four-year bachelor's degree, but some do not." O*NET does not indicate that four-year 
bachelor's degrees that may be required by Job Zone Four occupations must be in a specific specialty 
directly related to the occupation. The O*NET's silence on whether the occupation requires a specific 
specialty bachelor's degree or a group ofrelated bachelor degree specialties requires a conclusion that 
O*NET is not definitive in establishing that this occupation is categorically a specialty occupation 
which meets the requirements of the statutory and regulatory definitions. This does not mean that the 
Petitioner is precluded from establishing a position is a specialty occupation. The Petitioner may still 
satisfy its burden of proof by providing probative evidence from other sources establishing the 
occupation is a specialty occupation under any one of the four criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) 
and demonstrating that the position also satisfies the statutory and regulatory definitions to satisfy its 
burden of proof However, the Petitioner has not done so here. 
The Petitioner also refers to job advertisements and recruitment agencies as "confirming that U.S. 
employers routinely require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a select group of fields as qualifying 
for the position of Specialist, or the equivalent, Software Quality Assurance Engineers and Testers." 
It is unclear from the exhibit referred to as from the recruitment agency that the recruitment agency 
requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Moreover, it is unclear if the 
general information in the article is anecdotal or was obtained through scientific surveys. The article 
does not discuss particular methodologies or sources used to support the Petitioner's claim that U.S. 
employers routinely require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, 
to perform the duties of "Software Quality Assurance Engineers and Testers." 
We also reviewed the job advertisements and do not find them persuasive in establishing a common 
degree requirement in the industry for parallel positions among similar companies. First, a comparison 
between the advertised positions and the Petitioner's generally described position does not establish 
the positions as parallel. Not only is the Petitioner's proffered position insufficiently detailed, the 
advertised positions are also generic and broad. Also, the Petitioner describes its position as dealing 
with one specific testing technique while the advertised positions, appear to require different 
technologies. We also note that the advertised positions appear to rely heavily on an individual's 
experience. Three of the four advertisements require between 3 and 8 years of experience to perform 
the advertised positions. The Petitioner here has designated the proposed position as requiring only a 
level II wage, and a wage level II for a Job Zone Four occupation, allows only three years of experience 
or less before requiring an increase in wage level. 24 Thus, the advertised positions appear more senior 
than the position proffered here. 
Additionally, the advertisements allow for a broad range of degree fields, including math, physics, or 
any engineering degree, degrees that might provide a foundation for a broad group of occupations. 
One advertisement lists the basic qualification as a bachelor's degree in computer science, engineering, 
or a related field and 4+ years of experience but in the next paragraph also labeled basic qualification 
lists only a general bachelor's degree with no specific specialty listed and one year of experience as 
the requirement for the position. There is no information explaining the actual minimum requirement. 
The lack of detail within the advertisements and the general requirements referenced do not provide 
24 See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. 
Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdfiNPWHC _Guidance_ Revised_ 11 _ 2009 .pdf A requirement for more than 
three years of experience would require a Level III or IV wage. 
7 
persuasive support that there is a general industry standard regarding the requirements to perform a 
software quality assurance position. 25 We also note that the Petitioner does not provide any 
independent evidence of how representative the job postings are of the particular advertising 
employers' recruiting history for the type of job advertised. 
C. Petitioner's Requirements 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not consider the evidence submitted regarding its 
other employees in this position and inappropriately considered its recent advertisement for the proffered 
position. Upon review of the information provided for two of its other employees, we do not find the 
information persuasive. 
For one of the employees, the Petitioner provided its 2018 offer letter and appointment as a "Technical 
Lead", as well as this individual's foreign mark sheets and provisional certificates. The Petitioner does 
not describe the duties of a technical lead and thus we cannot determine if the position is comparable to 
the position proffered here. Additionally, the provisional certificates appear to have been issued in April 
2004 and April 2008. We note that the provisional certificates appear to have been printed and the dates 
added later. The record does not include an evaluation of the foreign mark sheets and provisional 
certificates by a reliable credentials evaluation service which specializes in evaluating foreign 
educational credentials. Accordingly, the record does not support the Petitioner's claim regarding this 
individual's academic qualifications. 
Similarly, the information regarding the second employee consists of a foreign diploma and a 2016 
employment offer appointing the individual as an engineer - transportation. Again, the Petitioner 
provides no evidence that an engineer - transportation will perform duties similar to the duties described 
for the proffered position. Additionally, the record does not include a transcript or marks sheet supporting 
the photocopied diploma and does not include an evaluation of the diploma by a reliable credentials 
evaluation service which specializes in evaluating foreign educational credentials. 
Not only does the record lack evidence that these two other employees were or are employed in a position 
performing software quality assurance tester duties, the record also does not include probative evidence 
of these individuals' academic, experience, or training qualifications, if any. Moreover, there is no 
evidence that these individuals have been placed at the same end-client or have performed similar tasks 
as the proffered position. The information regarding these two individuals does not establish the 
Petitioner's normal hiring requirements for the position proffered here. 
We also reviewed the Petitioner's advertisement for applicants for the position of test engineer. The 
advertisement itself is confusing as the banner at the top of the advertisement includes the following 
language "Exp 4-15 years[,] B.E., B. Tech, MS, M.E., M. Tech" and the body of the advertisement begins 
25 The Petitioner also has not demonstrated what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from the advertisements 
with regard to determining the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar 
organizations. See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 (1995). 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 19 5-196 ( 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 en-or"). 
8 
by stating "Bachelor's degree in computer science or related field. Master's preferred." The description 
of the duties for the advertised position is also broad and does not refer to the HILS technology/technique 
as an integral part of the position. The ambiguity of this advertisement undermines the claim that the 
Petitioner has a specific or normal hiring requirement for a test engineer. The record does not include 
probative evidence demonstrating the Petitioner's normal hiring requirements for the proffered position. 
Upon review of the totality of the record, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient substantive detail 
regarding the duties the Beneficiary will perform or established the minimum degree requirements of the 
position. Therefore, we are unable to determine the substantive nature of the work and whether the 
Beneficiary will be employed in a position that satisfies at least one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) and that the position also meets the statutory and regulatory definitions of a specialty 
occupation as defined by section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii), and 
(iii)(A). 
III. CONCLUSION 
Without sufficient evidence regarding the duties the Beneficiary will perform or the minimum degree 
required for entry into the occupation, we are unable to conclude that the Beneficiary will be employed 
in an occupation that meets the statutory and regulatory definitions of a specialty occupation and that the 
position also satisfies at least one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). In visa petition 
proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. 26 
The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
26 See Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 
9