dismissed H-1B Case: It Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 17201991 
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: MAY 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 ofChaw athe, 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 IT services and software development 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,I I throu h contractual agreements with I l<first 
mid-vendor) andL------~......--------.--____.(second mid-vendor). The Petitioner identified 
the Beneficiary's work location as.__ __ ___, Kentucky, at the end-client's facility. The Petitioner 
designated the position on the LCA as a standard occupational classification (SOC) code 15-1199.01, 
"Software Quality Assurance Engineers and Testers." The Petitioner claims the position requires a 
bachelor's degree in computer science or related. 
A Job Description 
On appeal the Petitioner asserts the Director did not properly consider the lengthy description it provided 
in support of the petition and in response to the Director's RFE. 1 1 We have reviewed the position 
description in full along with the Petitioner's notes on the requirements of the position. The Petitioner 
generally describes a software quality assurance tester position indicating the Beneficiary will join team 
members to design and develop a software test plan, prioritize test cases, execute test plans, validate test 
results, and automate test cases. The Petitioner notes that these tasks require understanding the 
end-client's architecture, workfiow, and software systems, Java and C#, as well as other software tools. 
In a more expansive chart, the Petitioner breaks down the Beneficiary's duties, allocates time spent on 
the duties, and identifies skills and experience that help the successful candidate perform the position. 
Generally, the Petitioner provides the following regarding the proposed position: 
• Requirements Analysis - I 0% - Understands the overall software system/application, analytical 
skills, Microsoft tools such as visual studio, excel, as well as Sharepoint. The Petitioner also lists 
the Beneficiary's coursework as preparing her to perform the duties. 
• Test Plan Development- 25% - Understand various software applications, databases, and testing 
methodologies. The Petitioner notes that a degree in computer science would qualify the 
Beneficiary to perform the duties. 
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 operations. Although we may not discuss every document submitted, we 
have reviewed and considered each one. 
11 The Petitioner includes the same description on appeal. 
3 
• Perform test case execution and validation and report bugs - 25% - Knowledge of Java and C# 
programming languages, Windows and Linux operating systems, and software applications. The 
Petitioner again lists the Beneficiary's coursework as preparing her to perform the duties. The 
Petitioner adds that the Beneficiary's prior work experience at other companies provides her with 
knowledge to handle the STLC process. 
• Develop and Execute Automated Test Cases Using C# and Java - 30% - Knowledge as 
previously described including the Beneficiary's coursework and experience. 
• Document test results and communicate with team members - 10% - Knowledge as previously 
described including the Beneficiary's coursework and experience. 
The Petitioner also listed the technical tools and skills required for the position. The end-client and the 
first mid-vendor each provided the same bullet-point list of duties for the proffered position. 12 The 
end-client stated "[t]he performance of these duties requires a qualified candidate who has attained, either 
through education or experience, a good understanding of the technical occupation (emphasis in 
original)." In the same paragraph, the end-client added that a bachelor's degree in computer science is 
required as well as knowledge and skillsets in various third-party technology. The first mid-vendor D I I provided the exact same language when describing the requirements to perform the duties. 
However, the work order between the Petitioner and the first mid-vendor which identifies the Beneficiary, 
the role, and project, listed the skill set as "Selenium Automation" and does not indicate that a degree or 
other particular skillsets are required. 13 The Petitioner does not explain this inconsistency in the record. 14 
The second mid-vendor did not list the duties or the requirements of the position it identified as a "business 
associate" position. 
Upon review of the lengthy description, the Petitioner offers conclusory statements regarding the 
requirements to perform the position and relies primarily on the Beneficiary's qualifications to perform 
the duties to establish the position is a specialty occupation. The description does not include sufficient 
information regarding the duties to establish that the duties require a bachelor's degree in computer 
science, or a related field, or the equivalent. That the Beneficiary took courses and gained experience at 
other companies that would prepare her to perform the duties described does not establish the position as 
a specialty occupation. 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). 
The Petitioner also does not include sufficient information regarding the context of the work to be 
performed. We understand that the Beneficiary will work offsite at the end-client's facility and the 
12 The Petitioner does not include this bullet-point list in its descriptions of the proposed duties. The various descriptions 
all appear to include generic tasks that would fall within a "Software Quality Assurance Engineers and Testers" occupation. 
13 Selenium is an open source framework used for automating tests and apparently can be learned through tutorials or 
books widely available online. 
14 The Petitioner must resolve this inconsistency 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). 
4 
record includes the name of the project to which the Beneficiary will be assigned. However, although 
the Petitioner indicates the Beneficiary will join team members to perform testing tasks, it does not 
provide sufficient information regarding the team, the Beneficiary's role within that team, or her role 
within the particular context of the project, to understand the nature of the particular position. For 
example, the Petitioner provides what appears to be a partial organizational chart identifying the 
Beneficiary in a group with Java developers, a QA analyst, and a Cognos developer. It does not show 
that she reports to the Projects and Business Development Manager as the Petitioner claims. 15 We are 
unable to determine the level of complexity of the work from either the descriptions the Petitioner 
provides or the context of her role within the team. Here, the record is insufficient to corroborate the 
Petitioner's claims regarding the advanced nature of the work, if any. 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides a letter authored by a projects and business development manager 
who asserts that the knowledge required of the position "is not something that anyone can pick up 
without substantial preparation in the field through education and experience." We do not dispute that 
the proffered position requires knowledge in testing technologies and tools and that knowledge can be 
gained through education or experience. However, the record does not include sufficient evidence to 
demonstrate that the duties as described require a bachelor's degree in computer science rather than 
certifications in the testing technology and tools and some amount of experience in the software testing 
field. The advertisements submitted by the Petitioner and discussed in the next section demonstrate 
that there are multiple paths to attain the knowledge and skill required to perform the position, not just 
through a bachelor's degree in computer science. The letter writer also notes that "proficiencies and 
skills in multiple technologies is central to performing this job." Again, we agree. However, the 
Petitioner here has not sufficiently detailed why this particular position requires a bachelor's degree 
in computer science or related, rather than certifications in the technologies and experience utilizing 
those technologies. 
The Petitioner's conclusory statements to the contrary are not persuasive and are not sufficiently 
supported in the record. 
B. Job Advertisements 
The Petitioner asserts, on appeal, that the Director did not properly evaluate the six advertisements it 
submitted to establish an industry standard for this occupation. Specifically, the Petitioner contends 
that the job advertisements that refer to equivalent experience "means that these particular listings will 
only accept someone with a bachelor's degree in Computer Science or related field OR its equivalent 
in experience." The Petitioner does not explain how it gained the information regarding the 
methodologies and standards used by the advertising companies to establish equivalency. 
Additionally, the advertisements do not otherwise demonstrate a common industry standard among 
similar companies for parallel positions. 
The Kinetik IT job posting listed skill/requirements as proficiency in object-oriented programming 
language, writing queries in SQL, and 3+ years of experience in software QA testing and automated 
testing tools, among other technology knowledge. It also provided a list under the heading "Nice to 
15 The organizational chart does not identity a projects and business development manager and does not include the name 
or tier level of the "projects and business development manager," the individual who authored the Petitioner's letters. 
5 
Have" which included 5+ years of experience in a related field such as programming, technical 
customer support and troubleshooting, a bachelor's degree in computer science, IT, IS, MIS, or similar 
degree or possess equivalent experience, among other knowledge. This advertisement demonstrates 
that a bachelor's degree in computer science is not required to perform a position the Petitioner claims 
is parallel to the position proffered here. Even if the advertisement required a bachelor's degree in 
computer science, which it does not, it is also one of the advertisements that accepts some unidentified 
form of "equivalent experience" as substituting for the academic requirement. Again, we do not have 
the advertising company's standard for evaluating equivalent experience. Accordingly, the 
advertisement lacks persuasive evidence that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is required and 
confirms that this occupation can be performed without a bachelor's degree but rather with experience 
and knowledge gained through undefined experience alone. Similarly, Softcom Systems' job posting 
for a quality assurance position accepts a bachelor's degree in computer science, or a related discipline, 
or equivalent work experience, but does not identify its standard or methodology in assessing what 
constitutes equivalent experience. Likewise, Prosoft's advertisement for a QA engineer requires a 
bachelor's degree in computer science or other related field or equivalent experience in a QA role. 
Again, there is no analysis regarding the amount of experience Prosoft would conclude is equivalent 
to a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 
The Evolvinc advertisement requirements also do not assist in establishing an industry standard for a 
position the Petitioner claims is parallel to the proffered position. This advertisement includes 3+ 
years of Java, Selenium, and mentoring experience and 5+ years of broad quality assurance experience, 
as well as a bachelor's degree in computer science or equivalent experience as requirements. Again, 
the advertiser does not provide its methodology for evaluating equivalent experience or specify 
whether the experience previously referenced would be sufficient. It: however, the advertising 
company requires a computer science bachelor's degree and 3+ and 5+ experience in different 
technologies the position is more senior than the position offered here. 16 Similarly, the Global IT 
Solutions job posting requires a bachelor's degree in computer science and/or information technology 
AND at least I 0-12 years of QA testing, 5 years of testing using a particular technology, 3-5 years of 
strong experience in another technical tool, etc., for its senior QA automation engineer. The Index 
Engines Inc job posting lists the job requirements as a bachelor's degree in computer science or a 
related field and adds that experience is also required. It does not define the amount of additional 
experience required that would qualify the successful applicant to perform the advertised position. 
The advertisements submitted by the Petitioner do not show that a bachelor's degree in computer science 
or related is an industry standard for this occupation. 17 They do not provide persuasive support for the 
16 The Petitioner identified the wage level as a Level II on the certified LCA. The occupation is identified as a Job Zone 
Four occupation. A wage Level II position may require three years or less experience without an increase in wage level. 
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 However, a requirement for 
more than three years of experience would require a Level III wage. 
17 Even if all of the job postings indicated that a requirement of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is common to 
the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations (which they do not), the Petitioner 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). Moreover, given that there is no indication that the advertisements were randomly 
6 
Petitioner's claim that a bachelor's degree in computer science is required for positions it deems similar 
to its proffered position. We also reviewed the letter submitted by the president of Astral Technologies 
Inc who listed the five headings of the Petitioner's description of the duties of the proffered position and 
opined that a bachelor's degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a related field would be 
required to perform the duties in its organization. The letter writer does not provide an analysis of what 
makes the briefly described duties require a bachelor's degree and what makes them different than other 
quality assurance engineers tasks within the industry that do not require such degrees. Overall, the letter 
lacks sufficient specificity and detail which limits our ability to evaluate its credibility. Moreover, 
while the letter-writer may have limited anecdotal information regarding requirements for this 
occupation, he does not refer to additional authoritative sources to support the opinion or otherwise 
provide a foundational basis for his claim. The letter is not persuasive in establishing an industry 
standard for a parallel position within companies similar to the Petitioner. 
C. Other Employees 
The Petitioner also provides information submitted to USCIS for H-1 B classification of four of its 
employees, including LCAs certified for the same SOC category. Some of the descriptions for the duties 
of these other positions appeal to focus on different aspects of QA automation testing. Additionally, the 
other employees were assigned to different projects for different end-clients than the project and 
end-client to which the Beneficiary would be assigned. Further, of the three individuals listed on the same 
organizational chart as the Beneficiary, two are identified as QA analysts (not a QA engineer) and the 
third is identified as a Java developer. Finally, the record does not denote the level ofresponsibility or 
the specific duties these individuals perform or performed for the Petitioner's clients. Thus, it is not 
possible to conclude that the H-lB approvals were based on the same or similar information as in this 
matter. 
We also note that even if the Petitioner always requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty to 
perform the duties of the proffered position, 18 which it has not corroborated in this record, this could 
possibly satisfy the regulatory requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). However, the 
Petitioner must still satisfy the statutory requirement that the position itself 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, or its equivalent, as the minimum for entry into the 
occupation. See section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty 
occupation). As discussed, the Petitioner has not provided probative evidence that the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation under the statutory requirements. 
selected, the validity of any such inferences could not be accurately determined even if the sampling unit were sufficiently 
large. See id. at 195-196 (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 error"). 
18 On appeal, the Petitioner submits that a bachelor's degree or its equivalent in computer science or a related field would 
generally be appropriate for a position with this SOC code. Again, whether such a degree is appropriate is not the question, 
rather the question is whether the position with the duties described requires such a degree. 
7 
D. Opinion 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits an opinion authore~ hvl I a professor in 
the Commller and Iofonnaton Science Department o I university ot-c:::::J 
I 11 otes that he reviewed the Petitioner's description of duties, the Beneficiary's 
transcripts, and various articles, and conducted a phone interview with the Beneficiary's manager 
(identified as the project and business development manager) and the Beneficiary "to gain a first-hand 
account of how the position of Software Quality Engineer at [the Petitioner] qualifies as a specialty 
occupation." He opines that the proffered position "requires that the candidate have specialized 
knowledge through advanced postsecondary educational programs or through progressively responsible 
work experience in the field of Computer Science, Computer Information Systems, or a closely related 
field ( emphasis added)." He does not define the amount of progressively responsible work experience 
that would substitute for advanced postsecondary educational programs in a particular field. 
We also note that there are several errors in the letter and thus question the independence and probative 
value of the opinion. For example, when describing the Petitioner,~ ______ .,,... states "[t]hey 
have consultants with good functional knowledge and strong technology expertise that enable us to 
provide end-to-end implementation services for their customers ( emphasis added)." It is the use of "us" 
in this sentence that suggests I I copied the sentence and surrounding sentences from 
the Petitioner's letter, rather than independently researching the Petitioner and its services. c====J 
llin one paragraph, uses the wrong initials when identifying the Petitioner. Lastly,L__J 
l___Jindicates that he "reviewed extensive documentation provided by Morningside Evaluations on 
the position and [the Beneficiary's] qualifications." The record does not include an evaluation by 
Morningside Evaluations and thus, it is unclear what the professor is referring to and why this is helpful 
to an analysis of the proffered position. 
~------~ also mentions six courses the Beneficiary indicated helped her prepare for the 
proffered position, three earned in her bachelor's studies and three earned in her master's program. 19 
Whilel lmay infer that these courses are beneficial in performing certain duties of the 
position, we disagree with any inference that such courses resulting in a specific degree is required in 
order to perform the duties of the proffered position. Put simply, stating that a person with a bachelor's 
degree in computer science could perform the duties of the proffered position is not the same as stating 
that such a degree is required to perform those duties. ~------____.does not offer a cogent 
analysis of the duties and describe why this particular position requires a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty. He does not discuss why other methods would not 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. Consequently, the professor does not account for obvious 
19 The professor's identification of the six courses do not match the Beneficiary's transcripts exactly. For example, 
~ _____ _.refers to a course in database applications and the Beneficiary's bachelor's transcript lists a course in 
database management systems. As the record does not include information regarding the specific courses, it is not possible 
to conclude that these two courses would convey the same or similar knowledge. The professor later refers to the 
Beneficiary's actual course - database management systems - as one of the courses that would provide a candidate with 
the knowledge to perform a few of the duties of the proffered position. He later mentions other of the Beneficiary's courses 
but does not offer analysis of why the position would require these courses in order to perform the duties of the position. 
8 
alternative explanations. 20 A lack of sufficient consideration of alternatives 1s a basis that can 
adversely affect the evidentiary weight of such an opinion. 21 
Similarly,! I does not provide a convincing argument that there is an industry 
standard for this occupation. He refers to the market trend for digital skills and the need for STEM 
courses and cites articles that support the trends. However, the articles do not indicate that there is 
only one path to gain digital skills or that STEM courses must be at the postsecondary educational 
level. Although he provides his opinion that the requirement of a bachelor's degree in computer 
science, computer information systems, or a closely related field is an industry standard for software 
quality assurance engineer occupations, he does not provide a persuasive analysis as a foundation for 
his opinion. As noted above, he does not discuss other methods, some set out in the advertisements 
submitted by the Petitioner, as common paths to perform the tasks of this occupation. 22 I I I ts opinion within the context of the totality of the record does not assist in establishing the 
proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Upon review of the totality of the evidence submitted, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient 
information to establish that the duties the Beneficiary will perform require a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. We are unable to conclude that 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 is an occupation 
that meets the statutory and regulatory definitions of a specialty occupation as defined by section 2 l 4(i)( I) 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l l 84(i)(l ), 8 C.F.R. § 2 l 4.2(h)( 4)(ii), and (iii)(A). In visa petition proceedings, it 
is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. 23 The Petitioner 
has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
20 See Claar v. Burlington N.R.R., 29 F.3d 499,502 (9th Cir. 1994). 
21 See Ambrosini v. Labarraque, IOI F.3d 129, 140 (D.C. Cir. 1996). 
22 We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron Int'/, Inc., 
19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any 
way questionable, we are not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Id. 
23 See Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 
9