dismissed H-1B Case: Management Consulting

(b)(6)
DATE: FEB 2 6 2015 OFFICE: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and l.mmigration Service 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(1 5)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(1 5)(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.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
M� 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 Nonimmig rant 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 classify 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 established that the 
beneficiary qualifies to perform services in a specialty occupation. 
The record of proceeding before this office includes the following: (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; and (5) the Form I-290B , Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, counsel's brief and a letter signed by the petitioner's principal. 
As a preliminary matter, we will discuss whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is required to follow 
long-standing legal standards and determine first, whether the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation, and second, whether an alien beneficiary is qualified for the position at the time the 
nonimmigrant visa petition is filed. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assoc., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 56 0 
(Comm'r 19 88) ("The facts of a beneficiary's background only come at issue after it is found that 
the position in which the petitioner intends to employ him falls within [a specialty 
occupation]."). As will be discussed in detail below, we find that the petitioner has failed to 
establish that the position proffered here qualifies as a specialty occupation. 1 As this 
requirement for H-1B classification has not been established, approval of the petition is 
precluded. 
I. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
A. The Law 
The primary issue in this matter is whether the proffered positiOn qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. To meet its burden of proof, the petitioner must initially establish that the 
1 An application or petition that fa ils to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied 
by this office even if the service center does not identif y all of the grounds fo r denial in the initial 
decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), 
affd, 345 F.3d 683 (91h Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 145 (noting that we conduct 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
employment it is offering to the beneficiary meets the following statutory and regulatory 
requirements. 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United 
States. 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) states, in pertinent part, the following: 
Specialty occu pation 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 occupation, 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 industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
(4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that 
knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. 
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 21 4(i)(1) of the Act and 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). In other words, this regulatory 
language must be construed in harmony with the thrust of the related provisions and with the 
statute as a whole. SeeK 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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
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. 50 3 (BIA 19 96). As such, the criteria stated in 
8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(h)(4)(iii)(A) should logically be read as being necessary but not necessari ly 
sufficient to meet the statutory and regulatory definition of specialty occupation. To otherwise 
interpret this section as stating the necessary and sufficient conditions for meeting the definition 
of specialty occupation would result in particular positions meeting a condition under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214 .2(h)(4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory or regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 
201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). To avoid this result, 8 C.F .R. § 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 statutory and regulatory definitions of specialty occupation. 
As such and consonant with section 21 4(i)(l) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214. 2(h)(4)(ii), USCrS consistently interprets the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214 .2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific 
specialty that is directly related to the proffered position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 
F.3d 13 9, 14 7 (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, USCrS 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 384. The critical element is not the 
title of the position nor an employer's self-imposed standards, but whether the position actually 
requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and 
the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty as the minimum for 
entry into the occupation, as required by the Act. 
B. Facts and Procedural History 
The petitioner identified the proffered position as an "Associa te" on the Form 1-129, and attested 
on the required Labor Condition Application (LCA) that the occupational classification for the 
position is "Operations Research Analysts, " SOC (ONET/OES) Code 15 -2031, at a Level I 
(b)(6)
------- ·-- - - ·-·-· . 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
(entry-level) wage.2 The LCA was certified on March 6, 2013, for a validity period from August 
2, 20 13 to August 1, 20 16 . 
The petitioner identified its industry according to the North American Industry Classification 
System (NAICS) Code as 5416 13 , "Marketing Consulting Services." See U.S. Dep't of 
Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, North American Industry Classification System, 2012 NAICS 
Definition, "5 41613 Marketing Consulting Services," http://www . census.gov/cgi­
bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch (last visited Feb. 25, 201 5) .3 
In the petitioner's Ma rch 29, 20 13 letter in support of the petition, the petitioner stated that it "i s 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 further 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 statisti cally 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 quantifying 
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 ofthe 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. 
2 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 .f oreignlaborcert.doleta. gov/pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _1 1_ 2009 .pdf. 
3 The NAICS code "541613" identif ies this U.S. industry as an industry that comprises establi shments 
primarily engaged in providing operating advice and assistance to businesses and other organizations on 
marketing issues, such as developing marketing objectives and policies, sales fo recasting, new product 
developing and pric ing, lic ensing and franchise planning, and marketing planning and strategy. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
[Paraphrased and bullet points added for clarity.] 
The petitioner claimed: "In 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 mathe!llatics, 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 qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation and that the beneficiary 
qualifies to perform the duties of a specialty occupation. 
In response, the petitioner asserted: "As is clear from the position's specific, technical duties, 
Associates must be fluent in advanced mathematics and complex statistics, as well as possess 
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 further 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 statist ically, 
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 wit!! 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 p'etitioner's] proprietary software and enterprise applications to create 
error-free deliverables 
• Interact with internal and client teams 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
• Respond to ad hoc requests from the clients 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
The announcement listed the academic qualifications for the proffered position as a bachelor's or 
master's degree in enginee ring, 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 employees); civil engineering electronics and communication; engi neering information 
technology; enginee ring computer science; engineeri ng electrical; electronics engineering; and 
mechanical engineering. 4 
The petitioner further submitted a photocopy of a brochure introducing the company and 
indicating it is "Bringing Science to the Art of Sales and Marke ting." 
Upon review of the record, the director denied the petition. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that "a position qualifies as a specialty occupation if the 
employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position." The petitioner notes that 
in response to the RFE, it submitted a position announcement that confirms the petitioner's 
degree requirement of "at least a bachelor's degree in enginee ring, computer science or related 
degree." The petitioner contends that as the beneficiary has earned a foreign degree evaluated to 
be the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in chemical enginee ring, the beneficiary qu3'lifies 
for the proffered position. 
The petitioner also attaches a July 25, 20 13 letter signed by one of its principals, 
to explain why an engineering degree is directly related to the duties of the proffered position. 
explains that the petitioner works with companies to improve their sales and that in 
the past a business-related education may have been sufficient to accomplish this task. However, 
claims 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." contends that the petitioner is a company that 
"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, avers: 
(A]n Engineering degree program is ideal preparation for the position of 
Associate, which is why it is required. No 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. 
4 As the list is not in a table forma t, it is dif f icult to decipher which employee names are associated with 
which degrees and the schools that issued the degrees. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
The petitioner asserts that it has 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 and that the petitioner has 
established that it normally requires such a degree. The petitioner concludes that it has 
established the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
II. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION ANALYSIS 
A. Material Findings 
As observed above, the first issue here is whether the petitioner has provided suf ficient evidence 
to establish that it will employ the beneficiary in a specialty occupation 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-1 29 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.F.R. 
§ 214 .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 
adjudication. Further, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 21 4.2 (h)(4)(iv) provides that "[a]n H-l B 
petition involving a specialty occupation shall be accompanied by [ d]ocumentation .. . or any 
other required evidence sufficient 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 adequately described the duties 
of the proffered position, such that users 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 I-1 29 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 
example, the petitioner initially claims that the beneficiary will perform analysis of customers' 
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 and whether he will assist 
in the development of models or create mathematical models, and what actual duties will be 
included in the analysis of customers' 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. 
(b)(6)
---········· ·- ·- ·· 
NON-PRECEDENT DECJSJON 
Page 9 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner did not provide further 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 understand 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 sufficient 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 occupation. 
That is, to the extent that they are described, the proposed duties do not provide a sufficient 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 
responsibilities for the proffered position contain generalized functions without providing 
sufficient 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 equivalent.5 
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 benefic iary will perfor m the fu nctions and tasks it 
generally describes. Thus, the petitioner failed to specify which tasks were major functions of 
the proffered position and it did not establish the frequency with which each of the duties would 
be performed (e.g., regularly, periodically or at irregular 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 
5 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 
position. As noted above, the petitioner attested on the LCA that the occupational classification 
for the position is "Operations Research Analysts," SOC (ONET/OES) Code 15 -20 31, 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 Occupational 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 (fully 
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.6 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 commensu rate with the 
complexity of the tasks, independent judgment required, and amount of close supervision 
received. 
The wage levels are defined in DOL's "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance." A 
Level I wage rate, the attested wage level in this matter, is described as follows: 
Level I (entry) wage rates are assigned to job offers for beginning level 
employees who have only a basic understanding of the occupation. These 
employees perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercis e of judgment. 
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 instructions 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 
6 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 encl), 
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 acco unts 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 occupa tion. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
internship are indicators that a Level I wage should be considered. 
See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevail ing Wage Determi nation Policy 
Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://www .foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov /pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _1 1_ 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 occupation. 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 instructions 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 sufficient information regarding the petitioner's position to 
determine that the position proffered here is a specialty occupation position. The petitioner has 
failed to provide sufficient 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 sufficiently 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 perform; (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 lack 
of evidence precludes a determination that the petitioner's proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation under the pertinent statutory and regulatory provisions. 
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.F.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 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. Thus, the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
petitioner has failed to establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation 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 "Engineering, Computer Science, or related, or its foreign 
equivalent." 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)(l)(B) of the Act. In such a case, the required "body of highly specialized 
knowledge" would essentially be the same. Since there must be a close correlation between the 
required "body of highly specialized knowledge" and the position, however, a minimum entry 
requirement of a degree in two disparate fields, such as philosophy and enginee ring, for example, 
would not meet the statutory requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent)," unless the petitioner establishes how each field is directly related to the duties and 
responsibilities of the particular position such that the required "body of high ly specialized 
knowledge" is essentially an amalgamation of these different specialties. Section 214 (i)(l)(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 qualifying 
as specialty occupations if they permit, as a minimum entry requirement, degrees in more than 
one closely related specialty. See section 21 4(i)(l)(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 
mathematics, e.g., nuclear engineering and aerospace engineering. 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 claims 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 July 25, 20 13 letter 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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECiSION 
Page 13 
position of Associate, which is why it is required. 11 noted further his understanding 
that 11[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 it has 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 sufficient evidence to 
establish a factual basis for its opinion that the analysis and resolution of technical or business 
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 mathemat ical 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. 11 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, we reviewed the petitioner's statement 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." We find this statement conclusory. That is the petitioner appears to 
acknowledge that coursework, not a bachelor's degree in a specific discipline, would be 
sufficient to qualify someone to perform the duties of the position proffered here. Moreover, as 
determined above, the petitioner does not provide a detailed description of the beneficiary's 
actual day-to-day tasks, thus it has not provided a basis to substantiate any specific 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, failed to provide sufficient 
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 engineer ing (including any 
and all engineering specialties) is directly related to the duties and responsibili ties 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 equivalent, under the petitioner's own standards. 7 According! y, as the 
7 Again, the requirement of a degree in engineering, without more, is not the equivalent of a bachelor 's 
degree in a specific specialty. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
evidence of record fails to establish a standard, minimum requirement of at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for entry into the particular position, it does not 
support the proffered position as being a specialty occupation 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 more than a 
general bachelor's degree. As explained above, USCrS interprets the degree requirement at 
8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to require a degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to 
the proposed position. users has consistently stated that, although a general-purpose bachelor's 
degree may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without 
more, will not justify a finding that a particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty 
occupation. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007). 
C. Application of the Criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
The material deficiencies in the evidentiary record are decisive in this matter and they 
conclusively 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. 
Assuming 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 them and the evidence of record to determine whether the proffered position as 
described would qualify 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 DOL's Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on 
the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses.8 As 
previously mentioned, the petitioner asserts in the LCA that the proffered position falls under the 
occupational category "Operation 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 equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement 
for entry. 
8 Our ref erences to the Handbook, are references to the 2014-2015 edition of the Handbook, which may 
be accessed at the Internet site http://www.bls.gov/OCO/. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
With 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 
research, many analysts typically have degrees in other technical or quantitative 
fields, such as engineering, computer science, mathematics, 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 useful 
because operations research is a multidisciplinary 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, Occu pational Outlook Handbook, 2014-2015 
ed., "Operations Research Analysts," http://www .bls.gov/ooh/math/operations-research­
analysts.htm#tab-4 (last visited Feb. 25, 201 5). 
The Handbook does not support the assertion that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into an operations 
research analyst occupation. Rather, although the Ha ndbook 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 useful because operations research is a 
multidisciplinary field with a wide variety of applications. According to the Ha ndbook, a range 
of programs can help people prepare for jobs in this occupation. 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 Ha ndbook 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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECiSiON 
Page 16 
primarily perform duties that require 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. 
In the instant case, the petitioner has not established that the proffered position falls under an 
occupational category for which the Handbook (or other objective, authoritative source) indicates 
that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum 
requirement 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 
the minimum requirement for entry. Thus, the petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 
8 C.P.R . § 21 4.2(h)(4)(iii) (A)(1 ). 
Next, we will review the record of proceeding regarding the first of the two alternative prongs of 
8 C.P.R. § 21 4.2(h)(4)(iii)(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 Handbook 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 individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 115 1, 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 mini mum 
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 simi lar to 
the petitioner. The petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)(2). 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.P.R. § 21 4.2(h)( 4)(ii i)(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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 17 
In support of its assertion that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, the 
petitioner submitted various documents, including evidence regarding its business operations. 
For example, the petitioner submitted its corporate documents, a consolidated balance sheet for 
2011, a schedule from its 2011 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 insufficient preparation for 
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 
curriculum 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 position. Again, the petitioner's conclusory statements are 
insufficient to establish this criterion. Going on record wi thout supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. 
Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm'r 1972)) .. 
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.9 Consequently, it cannot be 
concluded that the petitioner has satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h) (4)(iii) (A)(2). 
The third criterion of 8 C.P.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. 
9 This is further evidenced by the LCA submitted by the petitioner in support of the instant petition. More 
specif ically, the LCA indicates a wage level at a Level I (entry level) wage. As previously mentioned, the 
wage-level of the prof fered position indicates that the beneficiary is only required to have a basic 
understanding of the occupa tion; 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 fo r accuracy; and that he will receive specific instructions on required tasks and expected 
results. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 18 
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 qualifies as a 
specialty occupation; See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. In this pursuit, the 
critical element is not the title of the position, or the fact that an employer has routinely insisted 
on certain educational standards, but whether performance of the position actually requires the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty as the minimum for entry 
into the occupation as required by the Act. According to the Court in Defensor, "To interpret the 
regulations any other way would lead to an absurd result." /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 perf orm 
non-specialty occupations, so long as the employer required all such employees to have 
baccalaureate or higher degrees. See id. 
In this matter, the petitioner submitted a report that it employed ten individuals in the proffered 
position of Associate in its Business Operations Group. The petitioner also indicated that it 
employs 960 persons. The petitioner does not provide evidence of the total number of 
individuals it employs or has employed in the proffered position. It appears that the petitioner 
has provided a sampling of its employees that hold or have held the proffered position. Thus, it 
is not possible to conclude that the petitioner normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the 
position, as there is insufficient data to determine the total number of individuals previously or 
currently employed in this occupation. 
Based on the evidence of record, we are unable to determine that the petitioner routinely requires 
a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position proffered here. 10 The 
record is simply deficient in this · regard. Therefore, the petitioner has not sati sfi ed the thir d 
criterion of 8 C.P.R . § 21 4.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.P. R. § 21 4.2(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 
10 
We also reiterate that even if the petitioner had proffered evidence that it only hired indi viduals with a 
specif ic engineering degree, or a degree in a closely related field, or its equivalent, we would still be 
required to fi nd that the position fo r which they were employed actually required the degree. Other wis e 
as noted above, the petitioner could require the degree only to establish the position as a speci alt y 
occupa tion. As discussed above, in this matter, the petitioner has not provided probative evi dence th at the 
prof fered position requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of hig hl y specia liz ed 
knowledge, and the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or it s equiv alent) 
as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 19 
perform them is usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
The petitioner claims 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, the financial statement, and the descriptions of the 
proffered position. 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 sufficient) y 
developed by the petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. 
Furthermore, we also reiterate our earlier comments and findings with regard to the implication 
of the petitioner's designation of the proffered position in the LCA as a Level I (the lowest of 
four assignable levels). That is, the Level I wage designation is indicative of a low, entry-level 
position relative to others within the occupational category, and hence one not like I y 
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. 
§ 21 4.2(h)(4)(iii )(A)(4). 
Accordingly, as the petitioner has not established that it has satisfied any of the criteria at 
8 C.P. 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. 
III. BENEFICIARY'S QUALIFICATIONS 
In the instant matter, the director found that the beneficiary would not be qualified to perform the 
duties of the proffered position. As observed above, we do not need to examine the issue of the 
beneficiary's qualifications, because the petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to 
demonstrate that the position is a specialty occupation. In other words, the beneficiary's 
credentials to perform a particular job are relevant only when the job is found to be a specialty 
occupation. As discussed in this decision, the petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence 
regarding the proffer'ed position to determine that it is a specialty occupation and, therefore, the 
issue of whether it will require a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, also cannot be determined. 
Nevertheless, we find that a degree in chemical engineering alone is insufficient to qualify the 
beneficiary to perform the services of a specialty occupation, unless the academic courses 
pursued and knowledge gained is a realistic prerequisite to a particular occupation in the field. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECED ENT DECISION 
Page 20 
The petitioner must demonstrate that the beneficiary obtained knowledge of the particular 
occupation in which he or she will be employed. See e.g., Matter of Li ng, 13 I&N Dec. 35 (Reg. 
Comm'r 19 68). However, the petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence regarding the nature 
of the proffered position to make an assessment of whether the beneficiary obtained knowledge 
equivalent to at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty required by the particular 
occupation in which he will be employed. 
The petitioner is seeking the beneficiary's services as an Associate in its Business Operations 
Group. As previously discussed, the petitioner asserts in the LCA that the proffered position 
falls under the occupational category "Operations Research Analyst." However, the petitioner 
fails to demonstrate how the beneficiary, by virtue of holding the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's 
degree in chemical engineering, is qualified to perform the duties of the proffered position as 
described. For the reasons discussed above regarding the petitioner's requirement for the degree, 
we find that the petitioner has failed to satisfy any of the criteria outlined in 8 C.F .R. 
§ 21 4.2(h)(4) (iii)(D)( J)-(4). 
We also observe that in support of its assertion that the beneficiary's degree in chemical 
engineering qualifies him to perform duties in the proffered IJOSition, the petitioner provided the 
above referenced letter from one of its principals, However, also as previously 
discussed in detail, makes a general claim regarding engineering degree programs 
but did not provide a sufficiently substantive and analytical basis for his opinion. Furthermore, 
he did not provide probative evidence to support his assertion. 
To emphasize our discussion above, we again find that if a variety of engineering skills, and a 
familiarity with engineering concepts are the only requirements to perform the duties of the 
proffered position, the position is not a specialty occupation. The record must demonstrate that 
the duties of the position can only be performed by an individual with a bachelor's or higher 
degree in a specific discipline, or its equivalent. Here, the petitioner does not establish that the 
proffered position requires a degree in chemical engineering or that such a degree is directly 
related to the duties of the proffered position. Rather, the petitioner accepts a general 
engineering degree, apparently because such a degree includes mathematical coursework and 
analysis. Thus, a variety of engineering disciplines or other disciplines that include basic courses 
in the standard science, technology, and engineering fields are sufficient to perform the duties of 
the position. As noted above, it is not readily apparent that a general degree in engine ering or 
one of its other sub-specialties, such as chemical engineering, is closely related to computer 
science or software engineering 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. While chemical engineering, computer science, software engineering, and mathematics 
disciplines may all contain some similar basic STEM courses, the record does not establish that a 
bachelor's degree in chemical engineering is the same as a bachelor's degree in computer science 
or software engineering or other sub-specialties within the general field of engineering. 
Upon review, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary's education evaluated to be 
the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in chemical engineering is a foreign degree equivalent to a 
specific United States baccalaureate or higher degree that is specifically related and required by 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 21 
an operations research analyst position. See 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)( iii )(C)(2). The record is 
simply deficient in this regard. The credentials evaluation, counsel's assertions, and the 
petitioner's conclusory opinion do not establish that a degree in chemical engineering, without 
more, is a degree directly related to the duties of an operations research analyst. 
The record does not establish that the beneficiary possesses (1) a U.S. bachelor's or higher degree 
from an accredited college or university, (2) a foreign degree determined to be equivalent to a 
U.S. baccalaureate or higher degree required by the specialty occupation from an accredited 
college or university, or (3) a pertinent license. Thus, the only remaining avenue for the 
beneficiary to qualify for the proffered position is pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C )(4). 
Under 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4), the petitioner must establish both (1) that the 
beneficiary's combined education, specialized training, and/or progressively responsible 
experience are equivalent to completion of a United States baccalaureate or higher degree in the 
specialty occupation, and (2) that the beneficiary has recognition of expertise in the specialty 
through progressively responsible positions directly related to the specialty. 
The provisions at 8 C.P.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(D) require one or more of the following to 
determine whether a beneficiary has achieved a level of knowledge, competence, and practice in 
the specialty occupation that is equal to that of an individual who has a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in the specialty: 
(1) An evaluation from an official who has authority to grant college-level 
credit for training and/or experience in the specialty at an accredited 
college or university which has a program for granting such credit based 
on an individual's training and/or work experience; 
(2) The results of recognized college-level equivalency examinations or 
special credit programs, such as the College Level Examination Program 
(CLEP), or Program on Noncollegiate Sponsored Instruction (PONSI); 
(3) An evaluation of education by a reliable credentials evaluation service 
which specializes in evaluating foreign educational cre dential s; 11 
(4) Evidence of certification or registration from a nationally-recogn ized 
professional association or society for the specialty that is known to grant 
certification or registration to persons in the occupational specialty who 
have achieved a certain level of competence in the specialty; 
(5) A determination by the Service that the equivalent of the degree required 
by the specialty occupation has been acquired through a combination of 
education, specialized training, and/or work experience in areas related to 
11 
The petitioner should note that, in accordance with this provision, we will accept a credentials 
evaluation service's evaluation of education only, not experience. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 22 
the specialty and that the alien has achieved recognition of expertise in the 
specialty occupation as a result of such training and experience .... 
As the petitioner has failed to satisfy any of the criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. 
§ 21 4.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(l)-(4), we will evaluate the beneficiary's credentials pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2( h)(4)(iii)(D)(5). By its very terms, 8 C.F.R . § 214.2(h)(4) (iii) (D)(5) is a matter strictly 
for USCIS application and determination. By the clear terms of the rule, experience will me rit a 
positive determination only to the extent that the record of proceeding establishes all of the 
qualifying elements at 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(h)(4) (iii)(D)( 5) - including, but not limited to, a type of 
recognition of expertise in the specialty occupation. 
In accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(h)(4) (iii)(D)( 5): 
For purposes of determining equivalency to a baccalaureate degree in the 
specialty, three years of specialized training and/or work experience must be 
demonstrated for each year of college-level training the alien lacks .. .. It must be 
clearly demonstrated that the alien's training and/or work experience included the 
theoretical and practical application of specialized knowledge required by the 
specialty occupation; that the alien's experience was gained while working with 
peers, supervisors, or subordinates who have a degree or its equivalent in the 
specialty occupation; and that the alien has recognition of expertise in the 
specialty evidenced by at least one type of documentation such as: 
(i) Recognition of expertise in the specialty occupation by at least two 
recognized authorities in the same specialty occupation12 ; 
(ii) Membership in a recognized foreign or United States association or 
society in the specialty occupation; 
(iii) Published material by or about the alien in professional publications, 
trade journals, books, or major newspapers; 
(iv) Licensure or registration to practice the specialty occupation m a 
foreign country; or 
(v) Achievements which a recognized authority has determined to be 
significant contributions to the field of the specialty occupation. 
12 Recognized authority means a person or organization with expertise in a particular fi eld, special skill s 
or knowledge in that field, and the expertise to render the type of opinion requested. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2 (h)(4)(ii). A recognized authority's opinion must state: (1) the writer's qualif ica tions as an expert; 
(2) the writer's experience giving such opinions, citing specific instances where past opinions have been 
accepted as authoritative and by whom; (3) how the conclusions were reac hed; and ( 4) the bas is for the 
conclusions supported by copies or citations of any research material used. !d. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECIS/ON 
Page 23 
The record contains the beneficiaFy's foreign academic credentials and an academic credentials 
evaluation. Upon review of the record, the petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence as 
outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(D )(5 ). Thus, we cannot conclude that the beneficiary's 
training and/or work experience included the theoretical and practical application of a body of 
highly specialized knowledge in a field related to the proffered position; that the alien's 
experience was gained while working with peers, supervisors, or subordinates who have a degree in 
the specific occupation, or its equivalent; or that the beneficiary has recognition of expertise in the 
industry. 
As such, since evidence was not presented that the beneficiary has at least a bachelor's degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent, directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
proffered position, the petition could not be approved even if eligibility for the benefit sought 
had been otherwise established. 
For the reasons related in the preceding discussion, we affirm the director's decision that the 
beneficiary is not qualified to perform the duties of a specialty occupation. Thus, the appeal 
must be dismissed and the petition denied for this reason. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
When we deny a petition on multiple alternative grounds, a plaintiff can succeed on a challenge 
only if it shows that we abused our discretion with respect to all of the enumerated grounds. See 
Spencer Enterpris es, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 10 43, affd. 345 F.3d 683. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by this office even if the service center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in 
the initial decision. See Spencer Enterpris es, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 10 25 , 10 43 
(E.D. Cal. 20 01) , aff'd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOl, 38 1 F.3d 14 3, 14 5 
(3d Cir. 2004) (noting that we conduct appellate review on a de novo basis). 
The petition must be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petition er' s burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 29 1 of the Act; see e. g. , Matter 
of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. at 128. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.