dismissed H-1B Case: Management Consulting

(b)(6)
DATE:FEB 2 3 '2015 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
OFFICE: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish 
agency policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law 
or policy to your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to 
reconsider or a motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or 
Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B 
instructions at http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and 
other requirements. See also 8 C.P.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
� Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director (hereinafter "director"), denied the nonimmigrant visa 
petition, and the matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will 
be dismissed. 
On the Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-12 9), the petitioner describes itself as a 
"Management Consulting" business. The petitioner states that it was established in and 
employs 960 persons in the United States. · It seeks to employ the beneficiary in a position to 
which it assigns the job title "Associate" on a full-time basis and to class ify him as a 
nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to section 101( a)(15)( H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 11 01 (a)(15)( H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition determining that the petitioner had not provided evidence 
sufficient to establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
The record of proceeding before this office contains: (1) the Form I-12 9 and supporting 
documentation; (2) the director's request for evidence (RFE); (3) the petitioner's response to the 
RFE; (4) the notice of decision; (5) the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, counsel's brief 
and a letter signed by the petitioner's principal; (6) this office's RFEs; and (7) the petitioner's 
responses to our RFEs. 
Upon review of the entire record of proceedin�, we find that the petitioner has failed to overcome 
the director's grounds for denying this petition. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed and the 
petition will remain denied. 
I. THE LAW 
The issue in this matter is whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. To 
meet its burden of proof in this regard, the petitioner must establish that the employment it is 
offering to the beneficiary meets the following statutory and regulatory requiremen ts. 
Section 21 4(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U. S.C. § 11 8 4(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occu pation" as an 
occupation that requires : 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United 
States. 
1 In a July 7, 2014 response to our request for evidence, the petitioner stated that it employed 886 persons 
in the United States. 
2 We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(ii) states, in pertinent part, the following: 
Specialty occupa tion means an occupation which [(1) ] requires theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in fields of human 
endeavor including, but not limited to, architecture, engineering, mathematics, 
physical sciences, social sciences, medicine and health, education, business 
specialties, accounting, law, theology, and the arts, and which [(2)] requires the 
attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
Pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 214.2( h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occu pation, a proposed position 
must also meet one of the following criteria: 
(1) 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 indu stry 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 usuall y associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. 
As a threshold issue, it is noted that 8 C.P.R. § 214 .2(h)(4)(iii )(A) must logically be read together 
with section 214( i)(1) of the Act and 8 C.P.R. § 214. 2(h)( 4)(ii). In other words, this regulator y 
language must be construed in harmony with the thrust of the related provisions and with the 
statute as a whole. SeeK Mart Corp. v. Ca rtier, Inc. , 486 U.S. 28 1, 29 1 (1 988) (holding that 
construction of language which takes into account the design of the statut e as a whole is 
preferred); see also COlT Independence Joint Venture v. Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp. , 489 
U.S. 561 (1 989); Matter of W-F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 19 96). As such, the criteria stated in 
8 C.P.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)( A) should logically be read as being necessary but not necessarily 
suffi cient to meet the statutor y and regulator y definition of specialty occupation. To otherwise 
interpret this section as stating the necessary and suf ficient conditions for meeting the definition 
of specialty occupation would result in particular positions meeting a condition under 8 C.P.R. 
§ 21 4. 2( h)(4)(iii)(A) but not the statutor y or regulator y definition. See Defensor v. Meiss ner, 201 
F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). To avoid this result, 8 C.P.R. § 21 4. 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 statutor y and regulator y definitions of specialty occu pation. 
As such and consonant with section 214( i)(1) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2 (h)(4)(ii), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) consistently interprets the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(ii i)(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 Ro ya l Siam Corp. v. Chertojf, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1s t Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree 
requirement in a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities 
of a particular position"). Applying this standard, USCIS regularly approves H-1B petitions for 
qualified aliens who are to be employed as engineers, computer scientists, certified public 
accountants, college professors, and other such occupations. These professions, for which 
petitioners have regularly been able to establish a minimum entry requirement in the United 
States of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent directly related 
to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position, fairly represent the types of specialty 
occupations that Congress contemplated when it created the H-1B visa category. 
To determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCIS does 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. USCIS must examine 
the ultimate employment of the alien, and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 38 4. The critical element is not the 
title of the position nor an employer's self-imposed standards, but whether the position actually 
requires the theoret ical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and 
the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty as the minimum for 
entry into the occupation, as required by the Act. 
II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
The petitioner identified the proffered position as an "Associate" on the Form I-12 9, and attested 
on the required Labor Condition Application (LCA) that the occupational classification for the 
position is "O perations Research Analysts," SOC (ONET/OES) Code 15-203 1, at a Level I 
(entry-level) wage.3 The LCA was certified on March 6, 20 13, for a validity period from August 
2, 20 13 to August 1, 20 16. 
The petitioner identified its indus try according to the North American Indust ry Classification 
System (NAICS) Code as 541613, "Marketing Consulting Services." See U.S. Dep't of 
Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, North American Indus try Classification System, 20 12 NAICS 
Definition, "541613 Marketing Consulting Services," http://www . census. gov/cgi­
bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch (last visited February 10, 2015). 4 
3 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/pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _11_ 2009 .pdf. 
4 The NAICS code "541613" identifies this U.S. industry as an industry that comprises establishments 
primarily engaged in providing operating advice and assistance to businesses and other organizations on 
marketing issues, such as developing marketing objectives and policies, sales forecasting, new product 
developing and pricing, licensing and franchise planning, and marketing planning and strategy. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
In the petitioner's March 29, 20 13 letter in support of the petition, the petitioner stated that it "is a 
global management consulting firm focused on marketing and sales effectiveness." The 
petitioner indicated that its "clients typically are large and mid-sized companies whose success 
depends on the effectiveness of their sales and marketing." The petitioner stated fu rther that it 
"help[ s] [its clients] gather and analyze data to create the best strategies, orchestrate sales and 
marketing activities to increase demand efficiently, and change quickly to become more 
competitive." 
The petitioner also described the proffered position as an "Associate in the Business Operations" 
group and indicated "the beneficiary will use advanced business logic concepts, theories and 
mathematical models to develop statistically based business processes, business rules, logistical 
strategies and workflow sequences and paradigms." The petitioner explained that an associate in 
the business operations group is "responsible for analytically researching and quant ifying 
customers ' existing policies and hierarchies; and assisting in the development of customized, 
comprehensive business rules management systems." 
The petitioner stated that the beneficiary's specific day-to-day duties will include: 
• Statistical and business logic analysis of customers ' operations; 
• Will create mathematical models that simulate the impact of various process 
changes, based on the results of the analytical work; 
• Assist in the development of, from scratch, customized models that customers 
can use to predict the impact changes in a multitude of variables will have on 
revenue, costs and logistical shortfalls; and 
• Integrate these models into specific, well-articulated workflows, which will 
include various action plans that specifically address fluctuations in the 
variables identified during the initial analysis. 
[Paraphrased and bullet points added for clarity.] 
The petitioner claimed: "[ i]n order to effectively execute the mathematical, statistical and 
analytical duties of the position, Associates in the Business Operations group must have at least a 
U.S. bachelor's degree in Engineering, Computer Science, or related, or its foreign equivalent ." 
The petitioner asserted that the "coursework in these degree programs are essential because they 
not only cover advanced mathematics, such as calculus, and complex statistics, such as 
regression analysis, but require students to apply this knowledge in the analysis and resolution of 
technical or business scenarios." The petitioner indicated that "the stated degree requirement is 
[the petitioner's] global standard, and is applied to all Business Operations Associate[ s]." 
Upon review of the initial record, the director requested additional evidence to establish that the 
proffered position qualif ies for classification as a specialty occupation. The director outlined the 
specific evidence to be submitt ed. 
In response, the petitioner asserted: "[ a]s is clear from the position's specific, technical duties, 
Associates must be fluent in advanced mathematics and complex statistics, as well as possess 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
formal training in applying their theoretic knowledge in the analysis and resolution of technical 
or business scenarios." The petitioner asserted further: 
At [the petitioner], Associates are required to understand and use advanced 
mathematical modeling and complex statistical methods to analyze customers' 
industries, develop strategies designed to dramatically improve the efficiency and 
effectiveness of customers' sales and marketing efforts, and design and develop 
customized technology solutions that fu rther the goals of these strategies. 
(The petitioner] strives to provide cutting edge, mathematically based sales and 
marketing solutions that are more advanced, both mathematically and statistically, 
than all of their competitors. Increasing business efficiency through technological 
advancements requires employees with more than a basic understanding of 
business principles. Because our products rely on the application of cutting -edge 
mathematical and statistical theories, it is critical to employ personnel whose 
education is congruent with these requirements. 
The petitioner provided a copy of its position announcement for the proffered position which 
described the Business Operations Associate's duties as: 
• Understand client business issues, operation business rules, data and standard 
operation procedures 
• Incorporate process changes in response to evolving business needs 
• Operate business processes for clients on a periodic basis, to include 
configuring business rules, synthesizing data and performing quality checks 
• Use [the petitioner's] proprietary software and enterprise applications to create 
error-free deliverables 
• Interact with internal and client teams 
• Respond to ad hoc requests from the clients 
The announcement listed the academic qual ifications for the proffered position as a bachelor's or 
master's degree in engineering, computer science or related. 
The petitioner also submitted a list of ten of its 960 claimed employees who held the title 
"Business Operations Associate" and their degrees. The list includes degrees identified as: 
engineering electronics and telecommunications; engineering electronics and communication (3 
persons); civil engineering electronics and communication; engineering information technology; 
engineering computer science; engineering electrical; electronics engineering; and mechanical 
engineering. 5 
The petitioner fu rther submitted a photocopy of a brochure introducing the company and 
indicating it is "Bringing Science to the Art of Sales and Marketing." 
5 As the list is not in a table format, it is difficult to decipher which employee names are associated with 
which degrees and the schools that issued the degrees. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
Upon review of the record, the director denied the petition. The director determined that the 
petitioner had not established that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the petitioner, referring to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(h)( 4)(ii) , stated: 
"Engineering" unlike "business specialties," "social sciences," and "the arts," 
appears in the singular in the reg ulations' definition of specialty occupation, 
meaning a position that requires a degree in Engineering falls within the very 
definition of a specialty occupation. The adjudicating officers [sic] thoughts on 
the fact that sub specialties exist within the field of engineering have no basis in 
the law. 
[Emphasis in the original.] 
The petitioner asserted that "because the regulations specifically state that a position that requir es 
a degree in Engineering is a specialty occupation, and the officer concedes that [the petitioner] 
normally requires a degree in Engineering, the denial should be overturned and the petition 
should be approved." 
The petitioner also took issue with the director's determination that the petitioner had failed to 
explain why the work to be performed requires the service of a person who has a college degree 
in electrical and electronics engineering. The petitioner referenced its letter in support of the 
petition which stated "coursework in these degree programs [referring to engineering, computer 
science or related] are essential because they not only cover advanced mathematics, such as 
calculus, and complex statistics, such as regression analysis, but require students to apply this 
knowledge in the analysis and resolution of technical or business scenar ios." The petitioner also 
noted that in response to the director's RFE, it had reiterated its initial statement that "[i]n order 
to effectively execute the mathematical, statistical and analytical duties of the position, 
Associates in the Business Operations group must have at least a U.S. bachelor's degree in 
Engineering, Computer Science, or related, or its foreign equivalent ." 
The record on ap eal included a letter, dated July 25, 20 13 , signed by one of the petitioner's 
principals, in order to explain why an engineering degree is directly related to the 
duties of the proffered position. explained that the petitioner works with 
companies to improve their sales. acknowledged that in the past a business-related 
education may have been suff icient to accomplish this task. However, claimed that 
the petitioner "survives as a company because we look past traditional business models by taking 
advantage of the dramatic improvements in methods to mathematically analyze data from a 
theoretical perspective, utilizing advanced capabilities of modern computer systems." 
contended that the petitioner is a company which "develop[s] and engineer[s] complex, 
computer-based data analysis systems that result in specialized analytical data monitoring and 
diagnostic solutions, which are rooted in a scientific approach." Finally, averred: 
[A]n Engineering degree program is ideal preparation for the position of 
Associate, which is why it is required. No other degree program, including 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
business related programs, requires the application of advanced mathematics and 
computer science to real world problems, such as creating a new chemical or 
building a software system. 
The petitioner asserted that the petitioner had clearly explained how its position of Associate 
requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge that 
can only be gained through a degree in Engineering or Computer Science. 
Upon our de novo review of the record, we determined that the record did not include suff icient 
information to overtur n the director's decision. In that regard, we provided the petitioner an 
opportunity to submit additional evidence demonstrating that it normally requires a degree or its 
equivalent in order to perform the duties of the position. We noted specific deficiencies in the 
record regarding the petitioner's claim that it had satisfied the criterion at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 21 4.2 (h)(4)(i ii)(A)(3) and requested evidence to overcome those deficiencies. We received the 
petitioner's response which will be reviewed later in this decision. 
III. ANALYSIS 
A Material Findings 
The issue here is whether the petitioner has provided sufficient evidence to establish that it will 
employ the beneficiary in a specialty occupat ion position. Based upon a complete review of the 
record of proceeding, we will make some preliminary findings that are material to the 
determination of the merits of this appeal. 
To ascertain the intent of a petitioner, USCIS must look to the Form I-12 9 and the documents 
filed in support of the petition. It is only in this manner that the agency can determine the exact 
position offered, the location of employment, the proffered wage, et cetera. Pursuant to 8 C.P.R. 
§ 21 4.2 (h)(9)(i), the director has the responsibility to consider all of the evidence submitted by a 
petitioner and such other evidence that he or she may independently require to assist his or her 
adjudica tion. Furt her, the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2 (h)(4)(iv) provides that "[a]n H-1B 
petition involving a specialty occupation shall be accompanied by [ d]ocumen tation ... or any 
other required evidence suf ficient to establish .. . that the services the beneficiary is to perform 
are in a specialty occupation." 
Thus, a crucial aspect of this matter is whether the petitioner has adequa tely described the duties 
of the proffered position, such that USCIS may discern the nature of the position and whether the 
position indeed requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty as the 
minimum for entry into the occupation, as required by the Act. The petitioner has not done so 
here. 
In the instant case, the duties of the proffered position, as described by the petitioner in support 
of the Form 1- 12 9 petition and in response to the director's RFE, have been stated in generic 
terms that fail to convey the actual tasks the beneficiary will perform on a day-to-day basis. For 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
example, the petitioner initially claims that the beneficiary will perform analysis of cu stomers' 
operations and will create mathematical models that simulate the impact of various process 
changes. The petitioner also indicates that the beneficiary "will assist in the development of" 
customized models that customers can use to predict the impact of various changes. It is not 
clear what specific duties the beneficiary will be required to perform. Will he assist in the 
development of models, will he create mathematical models, and what actual duties will be 
included in the analysis of cust omers' operations? The petitioner indicates, generally, that the 
models will be integrated into the customer's workflows but does not identify the beneficiary's 
specific duties regarding this integration. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner did not provide fur ther detail regarding the beneficiary's 
actual duties, instead submitting a position announcement which provided a general overview of 
the position's duties. The announcement described the duties in vague terms that fail to convey 
the specific tasks that the beneficiary will perform. For example, the petitioner represented that 
the beneficiary will und erstand client business issues, will incorporate process changes in 
response to evolving business needs and operate business processes for clients on a periodic 
basis. The petitioner does not describe what incorporating process changes and operating 
business processes will entail. Moreover, the petitioner now indicates that the beneficiary will 
use its proprietary software and enterprise applications to create error-free deliverables. The 
petitioner does not identify the software and appears to no longer require the incumbent to create 
mathematical models or assist in the development of customized models. The petitioner's claims 
regarding the duties of the proffered position do not provide suff icient insight into the actual 
work the beneficiary is expected to perform. 
Thus, upon review, it is not evident that the proposed duties as described, and the position that 
they comprise, merit recognition of the proffered position as qualifying as a specialty occupati on. 
That is, to the extent that they are described, the proposed duti es do not provide a suff icient factual 
basis for conveying the substantive matters that would engage the beneficiary in the performance of 
the proffered position for the entire period requested. The job descriptions do not persuasively 
support the claim that the position's day-to-day job responsibilities and duties would require the 
theoretical and practical application of a particular educational level of highly specialized 
knowledge in a specific specialty directly related to those duties and responsibilities. The overall 
responsibilitie s for t he proffered position contain generalized fu nctions without providing 
suff icient information regarding the particular work, and associated educational requirements, 
into which the duties would manifest themselves in their day-to-day performance within the 
petitioner's operations. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate how the performance of the 
duties of the proffered position, as described by the petitioner, would require the attainment of a 
bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalen t.6 
Moreover, upon review of the petitioner's description of the duties of the proffered position, we 
observe that the petitioner did not provide any information with regard to the order of importance 
and/or frequency of occurrence with which the beneficiary will perform the fu nctions and tasks it 
6 The petitioner's statements regarding its requirements to perform the duties of the proffered position will 
be discussed in detail below. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
. Page 10 
generally describes. Thus, the petitioner failed to specify which tasks were major fu nctions of 
the proffered position and it did not establish the freque ncy with which each of the duties would 
be performed (e.g., regul arly, periodically or at irregu lar intervals). As a result, the petitioner did 
not even establish the primary and essential functions of the proffered position. 
In addition, when attempting to understand the actual duties of the proffered position and the 
level of complexity they may require, we look to the LCA submitted with the petition. The LCA 
provides not only the classification the petitioner believes most closely corresponds to the duties 
of its proffered position but also provides the petitioner's attestation regarding the appropriate 
wage level attached to the level of responsibilities and complexity of tasks inherent in the 
position. As noted above, the petitioner attested on the LCA that the occupational classification 
for the position is "O perations Research Analysts," SOC (ON ET/O ES) Code 15 -203 1, at a Level 
I (entry-level) wage. 
We note, that wage levels attested to for submission of an LCA should be determined only after 
selecting the most relevant Occup ational Information Network (O*NET ) code classification. 
Then, a prevailing wage determination is made by selecting one of four wage levels for an 
occupation based on a comparison of the employer's job requirements to the occupational 
requirements, including tasks, knowledge, skills, and specific vocational preparation (education, 
training and experience) generally required for acceptable performance in that occupation. 
Prevailing wage determinations start with a Level I (entry) and progress to a wage that is 
commensurate with that of a Level II (qualified), Level III (experienced), or Level IV (f ully 
competent) after considering the job requirements, experience, education, special skills/other 
requirements and supervisory duties. Factors to be considered when determining the prevailing 
wage level for a position include the complexity of the job duties, the level of judgment, the 
amount and level of supervision, and the level of understanding required to perform the job 
duties. 7 U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) emphasizes that these guidelines should not be 
implemented in a mechanical fashion and that the wage level should be commensurate with the 
complexity of the tasks, independent judgm ent required, and amount of close supervision 
received. 
The wage levels are defined in DOL's "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidanc e." A 
Level I wage rate, the attested wage level in this matter, is described as follows: 
7 A point system is used to assess the complexity of the job and assign the wage level. Step 1 requires a 
"1" to represent the job's requirements. Step 2 addresses experience and must contain a "0" (for at or 
below the level of experience and SVP range), a "1" (low end of experience and SVP), a "2" (high end), 
or "3" (greater than range). Step 3 considers education required to perform the job duties, a "1" (more 
than the usual education by one category) or "2" (more than the usual education by more than one 
category). Step 4 accounts for Special Skills requirements that indicate a higher level of complexity or 
decision-making with a "1"or a "2" entered as appropriate. Finally, Step 5 addresses Supervisory Duties, 
with a "1" entered unless supervision is generally required by the occupation. 
(b)(6)
Page 11 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Level I (entry) wage rates are assigned to job offers for beginning level 
employees who have only a basic understanding of the occupat ion. These 
employees perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgme nt. 
The tasks provide experience and familiarization with the employer's methods, 
practices, and programs. The employees may perform higher level work for 
training and developmental purposes. These employees work . under close 
supervision and receive specific instruc tions on required tasks and results 
expected. Their work is closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy. 
Statements that the job offer is for a research fellow, a worker in training, or an 
internship are indicators that a Level I wage should be considered. 
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 /pdf/NPWHC _Guida nce_ Revised _11 _ 2009. pdf. 
Here, the petitioner's designation that the proffered position requires only a Level I, entry-level 
wage demonstrates the petitioner's belief that the proffered position is a comparatively low, 
entry-level position relative to others within the occupat ion. That is, in accordance with the 
relevant DOL explanatory information on wage levels, this wage rate indicates that the 
beneficiary is only required to have a basic understanding of the occupation and carries 
expectations that the beneficiary perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of 
judgment; that he would be closely supervised; that his work would be closely monitored and 
reviewed for accuracy; and that he would receive specific instruc tions on required tasks and 
expected results. Based upon the petitioner's designation of the proffered position as a Level I 
(entry) position, it does not appear that the beneficiary will be expected to serve in a senior or 
leadership role. As noted above, according to DOL guidance, a statement that the job offer is for 
a research fellow, worker in training or an internship is indicative that a Level I wage should be 
considered. 
The abstract level of information provided regarding the duties of the proffered position and the 
wage level on the LCA fail to provide suf ficient information regarding the petitioner's position to 
determine that the position proffered here is a specialty occupation position. The petitioner has 
failed to provide suff icient details regarding the nature and scope of the beneficiary's 
employment or substantive evidence regarding the actual work that the beneficiary would 
perform. Without a meaningful job description, the record lacks evidence suf ficiently concrete 
and informative to demonstrate that the proffered position requires a specialty occupation's level 
of knowledge in a specific specialty. The tasks as described fail to communicate (1) the 
substantive nature and scope of the beneficiary's employment; (2) the actual work that the 
beneficiary would pe rform; (3) the complexity, uniqueness and/or specialization of the tasks; 
and/or (4) the correlation between that work and a need for a particular educational level of 
highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty (or its equivalent). Consequently, this 
precludes a determination that the petitioner's proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation under the pertinent statutory and regulator y provisions. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
That is, the petitioner's failure to establish the substantive nature of the work to be performed by 
the beneficiary precludes a finding that the proffered position is a specialty occupation under any 
criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 21 4.2(h)(4)( iii)(A), because it is the substantive nature of that work that 
determines (1) the normal minimum educational requirement for entry into the particular position, 
which is the focu s 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 focu s of criterion 4. Thus, the 
petitioner has failed to establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupat ion under the 
applicable provisions. As will next be discussed, the petitioner's assertions with regard to the 
position's educational requirement are conclusory and unpersuasive, as they are not credibly 
supported by the job descriptions or substantive evidence. 
B. The Petitioner's Requirements for the Position 
As noted above, the petitioner claims that the required educational requirement for the proffered 
position is a bachelor's degree in "Computer Science, Engineering, or its foreign equivale nt. " In 
general, provided 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 21 4(i)(1)(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 requ irement of a degree in 
two disparate fields, such as philosophy and engineering, for example, would not meet the 
statutory requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty (or its equivalen t)," unless the 
petitioner establishes how each field is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
particular position such that the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" is essentially 
an amalgamation of these different specialties. Section 21 4( i)(1)( B) of the Act (emphasis 
added). 
In other words, while the statutory "the " and the regulatory "a" both denote a singular 
"specialty," we do not so narrowly interpret these provisions to exclude positions from qual ifying 
as specialty occupations if they permit, as a minimum entry requirement , degrees in more than 
one closely related specialty. See section 21 4(i)(1 )(B) of the Act; 8 C.P.R. § 21 4 .2(h)(4) (ii). 
This also includes even seemingly disparate specialties providing, again, the evidence of record 
establishes how each acceptable, specific field of study is directly related to the duties and 
responsibilities of the particular position. 
The issue here is that the field of engineering is a broad category that covers numerous and 
various specialties, some of which are only related through the basic principles of science and 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
mathematics, e.g., nuclear engineering and aerospace engineering.8 Therefore, it is not readily 
apparent that a general degree in engineering or one of its other sub-specialties, such as chemical 
engineering or mechanical engineering, is closely related to computer science or that engineering 
or any and all engineering specialties are directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
particular position proffered in this matter. 
On appeal, the petitioner rasserted its claim that "coursework in these degree programs [referring 
to engineering, computer science or related] are essential because they not only cover advanced 
mathematics, such as calculus, and complex statistics, such as regression analysis, but require 
students to apply this knowledge in the analysis and resolution of technical or business 
scenarios." The petitioner also refers to the letter, dated July 25, 20 13 , signed by 
submitted on appeal. As noted above, in that letter described the petitioner's 
business operations and claimed that "an engineering degree program is ideal preparation for the 
position of Associate, which is why it is requir ed." further noted his und erstanding 
that " [ n ]o other degree program, including business related programs, requires the application of 
advanced mathematics and computer science to real world problems, such as creating a new 
chemical or building a software system." 
Based on the above, the petitioner contends that the petitioner clearly explained how its position 
of Associate requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge that can only be gained through a degree in Engineering or Computer Science. 
Upon review, however, we find that the petitioner has not provided su fficient evidence to 
establish a factu al basis for its opinion that the analysis and resolution of technical or business 
8 We acknowledge the petitioner's reference to the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(ii), which includes 
"engineering" as one of the fields of human endeavor which requires the theoretical and practical 
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in the first prong of this regulatory definition of 
specialty occupation. Upon review, if the definition included only the first prong of 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii), the reference to engineering could include an engineering technician or any field of 
human endeavor that required the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, but did not necessarily require the attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. Accordingly, 
if the petitioner's assertion that the reference to the field of engineering in the first prong of the regulatory 
definition categorically required a determination that a listed occupation is a specialty occupation, the 
second prong of the definition which requires a bachelor's degree in a specific field of study, or its 
equivalent, would not be required. As noted above, we are to construe the language in question in 
harmony with the thrust of related provisions and with the statute as a whole. 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 COlT Independence Joint Venture v. Federal Sav. and 
Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989); Matter of W-F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). Accordingly, when 
determining whether a position is a specialty occupation, not only must the general engineering field 
require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, it must also be 
established that the engineering field requires the attainment of a bachelor's degree in a specific field of 
engineering study. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
scenarios is a fundamental component of an engineering or computer science or related degree. 
The petitioner asserts a general educational standard, without referencing any supporting 
authority or any empirical basis for the pronouncement. The proffered opinion does not provide 
a substantive, analytical basis for the opinion and ultimate conclusion. 
We recognize that the petitioner desires an employee with a strong mathematical and analytical 
background who generally "will use advanced business logic concepts, theories and 
mathematical models to develop statistically based business processes, business rules, logistical 
strategies and workflow sequences and paradigms." However, the petitioner does not 
substantiate that only a bachelor's degree in "engineering, computer science, or related" would 
provide the specialized knowledge to perform the general duties it ascribes to the proffered 
position. For example, the petitioner stated in its letter in support of the petition that 
"coursework in these degree programs [referring to engineering, computer science or related] are 
essential because they not only cover advanced mathematics, such as calculus, and complex 
statistics, such as regression analysis, but require students to apply this knowledge in the analysis 
and resolution of technical or business scenarios." Thus, coursework, not a bachelor's degree in 
a specific discipline, would be suff icient to qualif y to perform the duties of the position proffered 
here. Moreover, as the petitioner does not provide a detailed description of the beneficiary's 
actual day-to-day tasks, it has not provided a basis to substantiate any specif ic coursework that 
would be necessary to perform the duties of the position. That is, other than the petitioner's 
conclusory statements, the record does not include evidence of specific bachelor's level 
coursework that is directly related to particular duties. 
The petitioner, who bears the burden of proof in this proceeding, fails to provide suf ficient 
evidence to establish that either (1) computer science and engineering (including any and all 
engineering specialties) are closely related fields, or (2) a degree in engineering (including any 
and all engineering specialties) is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
proffered position. Absent this evidence, it cannot be found that the particular position proffered 
in this matter has a normal minimum entry requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equival ent, under the petitioner's own standards.9 Accordingly, as the 
evidence of record fails to establish a standard, minimum requirement of at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalen t, for entry into the particular position, it does not 
support the proffered position as being a specialty occupati on and, in fact, supports the opposite 
conclusion. 
Absent evidence of a direct relationship between the claimed degrees required and the duties and 
responsibilities of the position, it cannot be found that the proffered position requires anything 
more than a general bachelor's degree. As explained above, USCIS interprets the degree 
requirement at 8 C.P.R. § 21 4. 2(h )(4)( iii)(A) to require a degree in a specific specialty that is 
directly related to the proposed position. USCIS has consistently stated that, although a 
9 Again, the requirement of a degree in engineering, without more, is not the equivalent of a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty. Thus, even if the director conceded that the petitioner required a degree in 
engineering for the position, such a concession does not require approval of the petition. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
general-purpose bachelor's degree may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, 
requiring such a degree, without more, will not just ify a finding that a particular position 
qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. See Royal Siam Cor p. v. Ch ertoff, 484 F.3d 
139 , 14 7 (1s t Cir. 2007). 
C. Application of the Criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 21 4.2 (h)(4)(iii)(A). 
The material deficiencies in the evidentiary record are decisive in this matter and they require 
that the appeal be dismissed. However, we will continue our analysis in order to apprise the 
petitioner of additional deficiencies in the record that would also require dismissal of the appeal 
on the issue of specialty occupation. Assumin g for the sake of argument that the proffered duties 
as generally described by the petitioner in its initial letter would in fact be the duties to be 
performed by the beneficiary, we will analyze the evidence of record to determine whether the 
proffered position as generally described would qualif y as a specialty occupation. 
To make its determination as to whether the employment described above qualifies as a specialty 
occupation, we turn first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(h)(4)(iii)(A)( l ), which requires that 
a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent is the normal minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position. 
We recognize the DOL's Oc cupational Ou tlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source 
on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses.10 As 
previously mentioned, the petitioner asserts in the LCA that the proffered position falls under the 
occupational category "O peration Research Analysts." We reviewed the chapter of the 
Handbook entitled "Operations Research Analysts" including the sections regarding the typical 
duties and requirements for this occupational category. However, the Handbook does not 
indicate that "Operations Research Analysts" comprise an occupational group for which at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalen t, is normally the minimum requirement 
for entry. 
In regard to the education and training for an operations research analyst, the Handbook reports: 
Applicants need a master's degree for most operations research positions, but a 
bachelor's degree is enough for many entry-level positions. Since few schools 
offer bachelor's and advanced degree programs in operations research, analysts 
typically have degrees in other related fields. 
Although some employers prefer to hire applicants with a master's degree, many 
entry-level positions are available for those with a bachelor's degree. Although 
some schools offer bachelor's and advanced degree programs in operations 
10 
Our references to the Handbook, are references to the 20 14-2015 edition of the Handbook, which may 
be accessed at the Internet site http://www.bls.gov/OCO/. 
(b)(6)
Page 16 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
research, many analysts typically have degrees in other technical or quantitative 
fields, such as engineering, computer science, mathematic s, or physics. 
Because operations research is based on quantitative analysis, students need 
extensive coursework in mathematics. Courses include statistics, calculus, and 
linear algebra. Coursework in computer science is important because analysts rely 
on advanced statistical and database software to analyze and model data. Courses 
in other areas, such as engineering, economics, and political science, are usef ul 
because operations research is a multidi sciplinary field with a wide variety of 
applications. 
Continuing education is important for operations research analysts. Keeping up 
with advances in technology, software tools, and improved analytical methods is 
vital. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Oc cupational Ou tlook Handbook, 201 4-2015 
ed., "Operations Research Analysts," http://www .bls.gov/ooh/math/operations-research­
analysts.htm#tab-4 (last visited February 10, 20 15 ). 
The Handbook does not support the assertion that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equival ent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into an operations 
research analyst occupat ion. Rather, although the Handbook recognizes that students need 
coursework in mathematics and computer science, it also reports that courses in other areas, such 
as engineering, economics, and political science, are usef ul because operations research is a 
multidis ciplinary field with a wide variety of applications. According to the Handbook, a range 
of programs can help people prepare for jobs in this occupat ion. The Handbook does not 
conclude that normally the minimum requirement for entry into these positions is at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
The information in the Handbook regarding this occupation, emphasizes the need for the duties 
of the position to be described in detail, that any directly related coursework necessary to 
perform the duties of the position be delineated with specificity, and that these elements relate to 
the petitioner's actual business operations. In this matter, the generic descriptions submitted fail 
to provide the necessary information to readily assess whether the beneficiary will be required to 
primarily perform duties that require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly 
specialized knowledge an d the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. 
In the instant case, the petitioner has not established that the proffered position falls under an 
occupat ional category for which the Handbook (or other objective, authoritative source) indicates 
that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equival ent, is normally the minimum 
requiremen t for entry into the occupation. Furthermore, the duties and requirements of the 
proffered position as described in the record of proceeding do not indicate that the position is one 
for which a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 17 
the minimum requirement for entry. Thus, the petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 
8 C.P.R. § 214.2 (h)(4)(iii)( A)(l ). 
Next, we will review the record of proceeding regarding the first of the two alternative prongs of 
8 C.P.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(ii i)(A)(2 ). This prong alternatively calls for a petitioner to establish that a 
requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common 
(1) to the petitioner's industry; and (2) for positions within that industry that are both: (a) parallel 
to the proffered position, and (b) located in organizations that are similar to the petitioner. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by 
USCIS include: whether the Ha ndbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the 
industry's professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether 
letters or affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms "routinely 
employ and recruit only degreed individua ls." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 11 51, 11 65 
(D.Minn. 19 99) (quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 10 95, 11 02 (S.D. N.Y. 19 89)). 
As previously discussed, the petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for 
which the Ha ndbook, or other authoritative source, reports a standard, industry-wide requirement 
of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, we incorporate by 
reference the previous discussion on the matter. Also, there are no submissions from the 
petitioner's industry's professional association indicating that it has made a degree a minimum 
entry requirement. 
Based upon a complete review of the record of proceeding, the petitioner has not established that 
a requirement for at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is (1) 
common to the petitioner's industry (2) in parallel positions (3) among organizations similar to 
the petitioner. The petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214. 2(h)( 4 )(iii)( A)(2). 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.P.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)( A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
In support of its assertion that the proffered position qualif ies as a specialty occupation, the 
petitioner submitted various documents, including evidence regarding its business operations. 
For example, the petitioner submitted a consolidated balance sheet for 201 1, a schedule from its 
20 11 Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax return, an excerpt regarding careers at the petitioner, 
and a copy of a brochure introducing the petitioner's products and services. 
However, a review of the record of proceeding indicates that the petitioner has failed to credibly 
demonstrate the duties the beneficiary will be responsible for or perform on a day-to-day basis 
constitute a position so complex or unique that it can only be performed by a person with at least 
a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Furthermore, the petitioner has not 
established why a few related courses or industry experience alone is insuf ficient preparation for 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 18 
the proffered position. For instance, the petitioner did not submit information relevant to a 
detailed course of study leading to a specialty degree and did not establish how such a 
curric ulum is necessary to perform the duties it may believe are so complex and unique. While a 
few related courses may be beneficial, or even required, in performing certain duties of the 
position, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate how an established curriculum of such courses 
leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to 
perform the duties of the proffered po.sition. The petitioner's conclusory statements are 
insuff icient to establish this criterion. Going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not suff icient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. 
Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 16 5 (Comm'r 19 98) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
Ca lifornia, 14 I&N Dec. 19 0 (Reg. Comm'r 19 72)). The description of duties does not 
specifically identify any tasks that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed 
individual could perform them. The record lacks suff iciently detailed information to distinguish 
the proffered position as more complex or unique from other positions that can be Rerformed by 
persons without at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 1 
In the instant case, the petitioner does not establish which of the duties, if any, of the proffered 
position would be so complex or unique as to be distinguishable from those of similar but 
non-degreed or non-specialty degreed employment. The petitioner fails to demonstrate that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with at 
least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Consequently, it cannot be 
concluded that the petitioner has satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2 (h)( 4 )(i ii)(A)( 2). 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(h)(4)(iii)( A) entails an employer demonstrating that it 
normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. 
To this end, USCIS reviews the petitioner's past recruiting and hiring practices, information 
regarding employees who previously held the position, as well as any other documentation 
submitted by a petitioner in support of this criterion of the regulations. 
To merit approval of the petition under this criterion, the record must establish that a petitioner's 
imposition of a degree requirement is not merely a matter of preference for high-caliber 
candidates but is necessitated by performance requirements of the position. A petitioner's 
perfunctory declaration of a particular educational requirement will not mask the fact that the 
position is not a specialty occupation. USCIS must examine the actual employment 
requirements, and, on the basis of that examination, determine whether the position qualif ies as a 
specialty occu pation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. In this pursuit, the 
11 
This is further evidenced by the LCA submitted by the petitioner in support of the instant petition. 
More specifically, the LCA indicates a wage level at a Level I (entry level) wage. As previously 
mentioned, the wage-level of the proffered position indicates that the beneficiary is only required to have 
a basic understanding of the occupation; that he will be expected to perform routine tasks that require 
limited, if any, exercise of judgment; that he will be closely supervised and his work closely monitored 
and reviewed for accuracy; and that he will receive specific instructions on required tasks and expected 
results. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 19 
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 actu ally requires the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty as the minimum for entry 
into the occup ation as required by the Act. According to the Court in Defensor, "To interpret the 
regulations any other way would lead to an absurd res ult. " !d. at 388. If USCIS were 
constrained to recognize a specialty occupation merely because the petitioner has an established 
practice of demanding certain educational requirements for the proffered position - and without 
consideration of how a beneficiary is to be specifically employed - then any alien with a 
bachelor's degree in specific specialty could be brought into the United States to perform 
non-specialty occu pations, so long as the employer required all such employees to have 
baccalaureate or higher degrees. See id. 
Although the petitioner did not describe the duties of the pos1t1on proffered here with the 
requisite specificity or otherwise explain why the proffered position required a specific 
bachelor's degree, or its equivalent, we issued an RFE to ascertain if in practice the petitioner 
actu ally required a specific engineering degree or closely related discipline in order to perform 
the duties of the position.12 The issuance of the RFE in this instance was to better understand the 
petitioner's normal hiring practices and ascertain: (1) whether the petitioner, in fact, routinely 
insisted on certain educational standards to perform the duties of the position; and (2) whether 
the performance of the position actually required the theoretical and practical application of a 
body of highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in 
the specific specialty as the minimum for entry into the occupation as required by the Act 
Here we note that the petitioner's July 8, 2014 response to our RFE was incomplete. For 
example, we specifically requested documentary evidence establishing the petitioner's current 
number of employees and the total number of individuals employed as Associates in the 
Business Operations Group. The petitioner responded by indicating that its total number of 
employees working in the United States was 886 employees at the time of the response. 
However, the petitioner did not identify the total number of individuals employed as Associates 
in its Business Operations Group. 
In addition, although we provided the petitioner with copies of two charts it had previously 
submitted identifying the petitioner's "Associates" by name, academic credentials, and date of 
hire, the petitioner identified only one individual from those two lists in its July 7, 20 14 chart in 
response to our RFEP Accordingly, it appears that the petitioner continues to provide only a 
sampling of the individuals it employs as Associates. 
12 
If the petitioner had proffered evidence that it only hired individuals with a specific engineering degree, 
or a degree in a closely related field, or its equivalent, we are still required to find that the position 
actually 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 position in the United States. Otherwise as noted above, the petitioner could require 
such a degree only for the immigration purpose of establishing the position as a specialty occupation. 
13 The charts (labeled Enclosure 1 and Enclosure 2) in our RFE were part of the record of proceeding in 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 20 
Further, we observe that the petitioner submitted an addendum to the certified LeA 
accompanying this petition which identified eight individuals, including the beneficiary, as 
potential H-lB employees. Of those eight names, USers records show that three of the 
individuals on the same LeA were approved for H-lB classification. These three individuals 
also were not identified on the petitioner's chart submitted in response to our RFE. At this time, 
users electronic records do not indicate that the petitioner has withdrawn the petitions 
requesting H-lB employment as an Operations Research Analyst for these three individuals. 
Moreover, we observe that the petitioner's initial charts submitted in response to the director's 
RFE, included primarily individuals with foreign degrees. In response to our RFE, the petitioner 
submitted a chart that included only individuals with degrees awarded by U.S. universities. 
Based on the evidence of record, including the petitioner's response to this office's RFE, we are 
unable to determine from the sampling provided that the petitioner routinely requires a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position proffered here. The record is 
simply deficient in this regard. Therefore, the petitioner has not satisfied the third criterion of 
8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)( A). 
The fourth criterion at 8 e.F.R. § 214 .2(h)(4)(iii )(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the 
nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to 
perform them is usual ly associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
The petitioner and counsel claim that the nature of the specific duties of the position in the 
context of its business operations requires advanced and complex knowledge and that this 
knowledge is usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. We reviewed all of the evidence in the record, including the 
petitioner's brochures, the tax and corporate documents, and the financial statement. We 
carefully considered the petitioner's statements regarding the proffered position and its business 
operations. However, upon review of the evidence, the record does not support the assertion that 
the proffered position satisfies this criterion of the regulations. More specifically, in the instant 
case, relative specialization and complexity have not been suff iciently developed by the 
petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. 
Further more, we also reiterate our earlier comments and findings with regard to the implication 
of the petitioner's designation of the proffered position in the LeA as a Level I (the lowest of 
four assignable levels). That is, the Level I wage designation is indicative of a low, entry-level 
this matter as well as a separate matter, Form I-129 receipt number which is now 
also before us on appeal. We note that the chart included in the petition packet for 
identified the "Associates" listed as part of the petitioner's Business Technology Group. However, the 
petitioner does not explain or clarify the differences, if any, of the individuals included in these different 
groups. We also note that the only individual listed on both the petitioner's initial chart and the chart 
submitted in response to our RFE is No explanation regarding the failure to include the 
names of the other previously identified "Associates" in the Business Operation Group is provided. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 21 
position relative to others within the occupational category, and hence one not likely 
distinguishable by relatively specialized and complex duties. 
The petitioner has not established that the nature of the specific duties is so specialized and 
complex that the knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. We, 
therefore, conclude that the petitioner failed to satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
Accordingly, as the petitioner has not established that it has satisfied any of the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it cannot be found that the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. The appeal will be dismissed and the petition denied for this reason. 
Based upon a complete review of the record of proceeding, we agree with the director and find 
that the evidence fails to establish that the position as described more likely than not constitutes a 
specialty occupa tion. The petitioner has not established that it has satisfied any of the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(ii i)(A) and, therefore, it cannot be found that the proffered position 
qualif ies as a specialty occupation. Accordingly the director's decision must be affirmed and the 
petition denied on this basis. 
IV. CO NCLUSION 
In visa petitiOn proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the 
immigration benefit sought. Section 29 1 of the Act, 8 U .S.C. § 1361; Matter of Ot iende, 26 I&N 
Dec. 12 7, 12 8 (BIA 20 13). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.