dismissed H-1B Case: Operations Research

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 8768814 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAY 29, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "senior analyst, tools and reporting" 
under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations . See Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S .C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-lB program allows a 
U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a position that requires both (a) the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and (b) the attainment of 
a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for 
entry into the position. 
The California Service Center Director denied the petition , concluding that the Petitioner had not 
established that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
The petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence .1 
The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) reviews the questions in this matter de nova. 2 Upon de 
nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Act defines an H-lB nonimmigrant as a foreign national "who is 
coming temporarily to the United States to perform services ... in a specialty occupation described in 
section 214(i)(l) . .. "(emphasis added) . Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 184(i)(l), defines 
the term "specialty occupation" as an occupation that requires "theoretical and practical application of 
a body of highly specialized knowledge, and attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific 
specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States." The 
regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(ii) largely restates section 2 l 4(i)(l) of the Act but adds a 
non-exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) provides that the 
1 Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofCha wathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
2 See Matter of Christo 's Inc ., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . 
proffered position must also meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation 
position: 
( I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). As this regulation must be read with the statutory and regulatory 
definitions of a specialty occupation under section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii), 
we construe the term "degree" to mean not just any baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific 
specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertojf, 484 F.3d 
13 9, 14 7 (1st Cir. 2007) ( describing "a degree requirement in a specific specialty" as "one that relates 
directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular position"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the totality of the record, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require 
an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 
A. First Criterion 
The criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I) requires that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular 
position. To inform this inquiry, we consider the information contained in the U.S. Department of 
Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) regarding the duties and educational 
requirements of the wide variety of occupations it addresses. 3 
3 We do not maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. That is, the occupational category 
designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered 
position, and we regularly review the Handbook on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of 
occupations that it addresses. Nevertheless, to satisfy the first criterion, the burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to 
submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position would normally have a minimum, specialty 
degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
2 
On the labor condition application (LCA) 4 submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Operations Research Analysts" 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 15-2031. The record includes a 
description of the proposed duties and the time allocated to those duties. The Petitioner states that the 
Beneficiary in the proposed position will perform data modeling, data imputation, statistical analysis, 
ANOVA, hypothesis testing, time series forecasting, data mining, spread sheet modeling, regression 
analysis, and logistic regression. 
The subchapter of the Handbook titled "What Operations Research Analysts Do" summarizes this 
occupation by stating that "[ o ]perations research analysts use advanced mathematical and analytical 
methods to help organizations solve problems and make better decisions." 5 The Handbook continues 
by indicating that individuals in this occupation "[ u] se statistical analysis, simulations, predictive 
modeling, or other methods to analyze information and develop practical solutions to business 
problems." 6 
The subchapter of the Handbook titled "How to Become an Operations Research Analyst" states, that 
while "some schools off er bachelor's and advanced degree programs in operations research, some 
analysts have degrees in other technical or quantitative fields, such as engineering, computer science, 
analytics, or mathematics." 7 The Handbook indicates farther that courses in various fields such as 
engineering, mathematics, computer science, economics, and political science are useful because 
"operations research is a multidisciplinary field with a wide variety of applications." 8 Because the 
Handbook recognizes this occupation as multidisciplinary and can be performed by persons with 
degrees in a number of disciplines, it does not support a conclusion that these positions comprise an 
occupational group for which normally the minimum requirement for entry is at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
On appeal, the Petitioner disagrees with this interpretation of the Handbook and asserts that the other 
areas of study noted in the Handbook as useful for this occupation "do[] not replace the fact that 
significant coursework in computer science and mathematics is required for a career in operations 
research ( emphasis in original)." Although mathematics and computer science coursework may 
underpin the "Operations Research Analysts" occupation, a few mathematical and computer science 
courses are not the equivalent of a body of highly specialized knowledge at the bachelor's level. That 
is, core concepts developed in a few foundational courses may be prerequisites in bachelor's degree 
programs that then require higher-level courses in an increasingly narrower body of knowledge to 
produce the specialized body of knowledge associated with a specific discipline. Here the Petitioner 
does not describe what it means by "significant coursework" and does not explain why or how 
4 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B worker the higher of either 
the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the "area of employment" or the actual wage paid by the employer 
to other employees with similar experience and qualifications who are performing the same services. Section 212(n)(l) 
ofthe Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.73l(a). 
5 See Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Operations Research Analyst, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/math/operations-research-analysts.htm (last visited May 22, 2020). 
6 Id. 
7 Id. 
s Id. 
3 
coursework (significant or not) is the same as a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
Moreover, the Petitioner claims that bachelor's degrees in computer science, analytics, marketing, 
mathematics, or in a closely related or quantitative field (the degrees it finds acceptable to perform the 
proffered position) are closely related and thus sufficient to satisfy the "degree in the specific specialty 
(or its equivalent)" requirement of section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act. The Petitioner, however, does not 
provide evidence or analysis describing how a marketing degree is closely related to a computer 
science, mathematics, or analytics degree, such that they include the same "body of highly specialized 
knowledge." That is, the Petitioner does not address how a marketing degree, a degree it finds 
acceptable to perform the duties of the position, includes advanced coursework in computer science, 
mathematics, analytics, or other quantitative fields. 9 The Petitioner does not articulate why the subject 
matter knowledge in these disparate fields generates the same or similar "body of highly specialized 
knowledge" and how these different fields are all directly related to the proffered position. 
The Petitioner also asserts there is no legal or regulatory requirement for a position to require a 
bachelor's degree in one field only. The Petitioner cites to Residential Finance Corp. v. USCIS, 839 
F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012), for the proposition that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the 
degree is what is important. Diplomas rarely come bearing occupation-specific majors. What is 
required is an occupation that requires highly specialized knowledge and a prospective employee who 
has attained the credentialing indicating possession of that knowledge." As the Petitioner noted, we 
agree with the aforementioned proposition that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is what 
is important." 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 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act. In 
such a case, the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" would essentially be the 
same. However, as just discussed the Handbook does not discuss a requirement for a bachelor's or 
higher degree in a particular specialty but discusses degrees in technical or quantitative fields with a 
descriptor identifying a few of the many such fields and then adds that coursework in economics and 
political science are also useful. Neither the Handbook nor the Petitioner's own requirements 
sufficiently narrows the normal or acceptable fields of study to demonstrate that the position requires 
a "body of highly specialized knowledge" generated through bachelor's-level study in a specific 
discipline, or its equivalent. 
The Petitioner further cites to RELX, Inc. v. Baran, 397 F.Supp.3d 41 (D.D.C. Aug. 5, 2019), as 
agreeing that data analysts positions do not require applicants to have a bachelor's degree in any one 
specific field in order for it to be considered a specialty occupation position. As the foregoing 
discussion demonstrates, while we agree that the bachelor's degree does not have to be a degree in a 
single specific specialty, we do not agree with the analytical framework set forth by the RELX court. 
That is, the RELX court does not undertake the proper inquiry regarding the position's specific 
educational requirements and instead concludes that a requirement for a general bachelor's degree is 
9 We observe that the Petitioner claims on appeal that ·'a candidate will not be selected for the role without demonstrating 
they have completed such courses in computer science and mathematics." As will be discussed in section C below. the 
Petitioner's own normal requirements as demonstrated by the employees it claims work in this position, do not corroborate 
this claim. 
4 
sufficient to discharge the petitioner's burden. The court overlooks the statutory and regulatory 
provisions as they pertain to the requirement that the bachelor's degree, or its equivalent, be in a 
specific specialty. 10 In other words, though we agree with the RELX court that the bachelor's degree 
does not have to be a degree in a single specific specialty, this agreement is predicated upon the fields 
of study including a "body of specialized knowledge" attained through a bachelor's or higher degree 
in a specific specialty and that are directly related to the position. 11 When as here, support from the 
Handbook or other sources are absent, we must analyze whether the duties actually require 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. 12 The record here is deficient in this regard. 
The record does not satisfy the regulation 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
B. First Prong of the Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs: "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[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong concentrates upon 
the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific 
position. 13 
To establish the first prong of this criterion, the Petitioner submitted two job postings and asked that 
we consider these job postings on appeal. Both job postings provide a general overview for positions 
titled "Senior Data Analyst" and "Senior Marketing Data Analyst." It is not possible to conclude from 
the general information regarding the duties of the advertised positions that the job duties are parallel 
to the proffered position. Additionally, one job posting requires 4+ years of experience in various 
third-party technologies, and undefined experience in analysis, mapping, modeling, designing, and 
implementing data management solutions in addition to a four-year degree in computer science, IT 
engineering, or a related field. The second job posting lists what the candidate will bring to the 
10 In contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case law of a United States circuit comt, we are not bound to follow 
the published decision of a United States district court, even in matters arising within the same district. See Matter of K-S-, 
20 T&N Dec. 715. 719-20 (BIA 1993). Although the reasoning underlying a district judge's decision will be given due 
consideration when properly before us. the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of law. Id. Consistent with 
the Board's holding in K-S-, we decline to follow the RELX court's reasoning. 
11 The RELX court does not address how a general bachelor's or higher degree is the equivalent of a bachelor's or higher 
degree in a specific specialty. 
12 Though the RELX court briefly discusses the duties of the position, it did not engage in analysis of whether the duties 
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. Instead it 
accepted the petitioner's stated standards concerning its position. However, the record must establish that a petitioner's 
stated degree requirement is not a matter of preference for high-caliber candidates but is necessitated instead by 
performance requirements of the position. See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. Were we limited solely to reviewing a 
petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, an organization could bring any individual with a bachelor's degree to the 
United States to perform any occupation as long as the petitioning entity created a token degree requirement. Id. 
13 The Petitioner does not challenge the Director's decision regarding the second prong of the second criterion; however. 
we will briefly discuss the second prong in section D below. 
5 
advertised role as including 3+ years of experience in a role that required advanced analytics, extensive 
reporting, and abstracting insights/recommendations from large datasets, as well as knowledge of 
various third party technologies as well as bachelor's degrees in multiple quantitative/technical but 
disparate disciplines ( computer science, statistics, economics, applied mathematics, operational 
research, business intelligence or similar quantitative disciplines). Both advertised positions require 
three or four years of experience in addition to the listed degrees. The Petitioner here does not require 
any experience which raises farther questions regarding whether these two advertised positions are in 
fact parallel positions to the position proffered here. Although both job postings seem to include a 
quantitative or technical component, the Petitioner has not established how the disparate degrees set 
out in the two job postings include the same or similar "body of highly specialized knowledge," such 
that the knowledge would be attained with a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty. 14 
Further, two advertisements are insufficient to establish that there is a common industry standard even 
for parallel positions among similar organizations. 15 The record is insufficient to satisfy the first prong 
of the second criterion. 
C. Third Criterion 
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. 
We agree with the Petitioner's assertion on appeal that it is not required to provide past job postings 
for the proffered position. However, it is the Petitioner's burden to provide evidence establishing this 
criterion. In this matter, the Petitioner provided a list of nine employees in the position of senior 
analyst, tools and reporting. The list included the employees' education and years of experience at the 
time of hiring. The education and experience of the employees varies widely. For example, the 
Petitioner hired individuals for this position with: ( 1) a foreign degree 16 in information technology 
with 2 years of experience; (2) a bachelor's degree in business administration and business forensics 
with 3 years of experience; (3) an associate's degree in home economics and 17 years of experience; 
(4) a bachelor's degree in education with a focus in sport management and a minor in general business 
with 3 years of experience; ( 5) 3 years of college in information technology and legal with two 
certifications and 2 years of experience; (6) a bachelor's degree in fine art and 2 years of experience; 
14 A requirement for degrees that include only a quantitative or technical component, without more, does not demonstrate 
that a position is a specialty occupation. We emphasize that degrees that appear related only through basic quantitative 
and technical components are insufficient to qualify as a specialty occupation under the statutory definition of specialty 
occupation, which requires a bachelor's degree in ·'the specific specialty." Section 214(i)(l) of the Act (emphasis added). 
That is, there are a number of disparate degrees that will include quantitative and technical components. 
15 The Petitioner has not demonstrated what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from two advertisements 
with regard to determining the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. 
See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 (1995). Moreover, given that there is no indication 
that the advertisements were randomly selected, the validity of any such inferences could not be accurately determined 
even if the sampling unit were sufficiently large. Sec id. at 195-196 ( explaining that"[ r ]andom selection is the key to [the] 
process [ of probability sampling]" and that "random selection offers access to the body of probability theory, which 
provides the basis for estimates of population parameters and estimates of error"). 
16 The record does not include evidence of an evaluation of the foreign degree establishing that it is comparable to a U.S 
bachelor's degree. Accordingly, we cannot compare this degree to the Petitioner's stated requirement of a bachelor's 
degree in computer science, analytics, marketing, math, or a closely related or quantitative field. 
6 
(7) a master's degree in mechanical engineering with certifications and 8 years of experience; (8) a 
master's degree in public administration, a bachelor's in business administration, and 3-5 years of 
experience; and (9) a bachelor's degree in psychology and 5+ years of experience. 
The Petitioner appears to believe that the Director doubted the credibility of its chart listing the 
education and experience of the individuals it hired and employed in a similar position as the proffered 
position. We do not question the credibility of the information offered. However, the Petitioner's 
employment of individuals who are in the same position as the proffered position, who have bachelor's 
degrees in business administration, education, fine art, and psychology, as well as employees without 
bachelor's degrees undermines its claim that the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner offers no analysis or evidence that all the degrees 
it finds acceptable to perform the position, as demonstrated by its employment of these individuals, 
are closely related to a computer science, analytics, marketing, math degree, or are quantitative 
degrees. The Petitioner does not specify its standards for determining equivalency and the amount of 
professional experience it would consider equivalent to a bachelor's degree in a specific discipline. 
The wide variety of degrees and experience, 17 the Petitioner finds acceptable to perform the position 
demonstrates that it does not normally require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
D. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.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 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 18 
The Petitioner divides the proposed duties into four categories 19 and allocates the time to those 
categories as follows: 
• Reviewing data requests and returning summarized findings to business partners ( 60%) 
• Acting as the initial contact point for business requests (20%) 
• Owning and developing relationship with business partners (10%) 
• Maintaining data sources ( 10%) 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not properly analyze the evidence provided, 
including the duties of the proposed position, the Beneficiary's coursework that prepared her to 
perform the duties of the position, and the work product created by the Beneficiary. 
17 Additionally, as the record does not include the type of experience these employees possessed when hired, we cannot 
conclude that the experience is directly related to the proffered position. That is, the amount of experience specified, 
without more, cannot substitute for missing years of bachelor's-level study in a specific specialty. 
18 The second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), 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. The Petitioner does not claim that its proffered position is unique, and the record does 
not demonstrate that the proposed position is unique. To the contrary, the Petitioner's description of the position is generic 
with duties that are routine and without particular uniqueness or complexity. 
19 The Petitioner added narrative to each of the topics listed which we have reviewed in full and will not be repeated here. 
7 
We have carefully reviewed the Petitioner's description of duties and allocation of time provided in 
response to the Director's RFE. A crucial aspect of this matter is whether the Petitioner has submitted 
sufficient and consistent evidence describing the proffered position such that we may discern the 
nature of the position. The Petitioner here provided many vague and general job duties. For example, 
the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary will extract data from the data warehouse using SQL and will 
collaborate data from different data sources, such as SQL server or Netezza. However, this delineation 
of tasks does not sufficiently convey the Beneficiary's day-to-day activities with regard to these duties 
and does not address how these duties require the theoretical and practical application of highly 
specialized knowledge and attainment of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its 
equivalent. The Petitioner also states that the Beneficiary is responsible for preparing, analyzing, and 
managing data using research tools such as Structured Query Language (SQL), Python, Plotly R, and 
Caret SAS. The Petitioner, however, does not explain why knowledge of these third-party developed 
programming languages must be gained in a specific bachelor's degree program. It is not readily 
apparent why knowledge of the third-party programs could not be obtained, for instance, through 
certifications in these readily available third-party technologies. Stated another way, it is not clear 
why these responsibilities are so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them 
is usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. 
The Petitioner also indicates that the Beneficiary will act as a point of contact for business requests, 
will gather details on the requests, prioritize and make recommendations on team resourcing, and assist 
in the daily prioritization call to determine resources and timelines. The Petitioner does not discuss 
why the performance of these duties signifies specialty occupation work. Again, the Petitioner does 
not include sufficient information to assess the Beneficiary's tasks regarding these duties. 
Specifically, there is no information on why acting as a point of contact, gathering details, making 
recommendations on team resourcing, and determining resources and timelines require specialized 
knowledge that can only be learned in a bachelor's degree program in the Petitioner's identified fields 
of study. 
The Petitioner's description of the Beneficiary's day-to-day responsibilities does not readily appear to 
fit within its broad statement that the Beneficiary will perform data modeling, data imputation, 
statistical analysis, ANOV A, hypothesis testing, time series forecasting, data mining, spread sheet 
modeling, regression analysis, and logistic regression. We understand the Petitioner's claim that the 
Beneficiary's responsibilities will include importing, validating and manipulating data and 
summarizing results based on a customer's request, as well as maintaining documentation of data 
sources in the coding library, documenting the code used to create a solution, and working within the 
team to ensure data accuracy and efficiency, however, the majority of her time appears allocated to 
interactions with customers and business partners. Without farther detail and clarification, the 
descriptions of duties do not offer enough consistent and logical information to understand the 
substantive nature of the proffered position. 
Moreover, the Petitioner contends that the duties of the proffered position require knowledge of 
statistical analysis and data modeling concepts that are usually taught in connection with the 
coursework of a bachelor's degree in computer science, analytics, marketing, mathematics, or in a 
closely related or quantitative field. The Petitioner adds that the proposed position is a specialist within 
8 
the data modeling and data mining fields. Other than noting the broad concepts of data modeling and 
statistical analysis, the Petitioner does not discuss core quantitative and analytical bachelor's-level 
courses that would be required to perform the duties in relation to the Petitioner's particular business 
operations. It appears that many of the skills listed in the Petitioner's description could reasonably be 
gained through a general education and certifications in a few software programs. A broad educational 
background which includes some quantitative and analytical knowledge does not establish the position 
as a specialty occupation. Again, the Petitioner must establish that the position requires the theoretical 
and practical application of a body of specialized knowledge attained through a bachelor's or higher 
degree in the specific specialty, or its equivalent, as a minimum for entry into the occupation. 
Although the Petitioner asserts that the duties are specialized and complex, the Petitioner does not 
include analysis of why the basic duties it describes should be considered specialized and complex. 
Instead the Petitioner conflates the educational requirements in order to perform the duties of the 
position with the types of candidates who might be qualified to perform them. The Petitioner lists 
some of the Beneficiary's master's degree level courses as the knowledge that prepared her to perform 
the duties of this position. The Petitioner's reliance on the Beneficiary's master's degree to establish 
the proffered position is specialized and complex is misplaced. The test to establish a position as a 
specialty occupation is not the skill set or education of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position 
itself qualifies as a specialty occupation. 20 While a few related courses may be beneficial in 
performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner has not established that a foll curriculum of 
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. 
We also reviewed the work product submitted to establish that the duties are specialized and complex. 
We note that the work product consists of a power point presentation including a couple of tables with 
particular data, and recommendations. This document and the explanations are abstract and without 
sufficient context to demonstrate the knowledge required to create the work product. The 
Beneficiary's role and tasks associated with creating the work product is not clearly defined. The 
power point does not include information that appears associated with any specialized and complex 
tasks or indicate that any such tasks would require bachelor's-level study in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. The work product does not assist in establishing that the described duties are specialized 
and complex, or unique. Although we understand the importance of the Petitioner's tools and 
reporting team to the Petitioner's business operations, the Petitioner does not provide any comparative 
discussion that indicates how the duties of the proffered position would be more specialized and 
complex, or unique than other similar positions that are not usually associated with at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty. 21 The Petitioner has not provided the necessary information to 
demonstrate what precise and specific course of study culminating in a bachelor's degree in a specific 
discipline is required to perform the position. 
20We are required to follow long-standing legal standards and determine first, whether the proffered position qualifies for 
classification as a specialty occupation, and second, whether the Beneficiary was qualified for the position at the time the 
nonimmigrant visa petition was filed. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988) ("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]."). 
21 Again, the majority of the Petitioner's own employees in similar positions demonstrates that it does not require a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, to perform the duties of the position. 
9 
We agree that the designation of the proposed position as requiring only a Level I wage does not 
preclude the position from being considered a specialty occupation. 22 However, as discussed, the 
general description of duties is insufficient to establish how the Petitioner's particular position is 
specialized and complex or unique. We also observe that the Petitioner's implication that the 
importance of the position to the Petitioner's mission establishes the specialized nature of the position is 
also misplaced. Neither the importance of the work, nor the proffered position's role in it, can substitute 
for specialization. The Petitioner must still establish that the position requires the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of specialized knowledge attained through a bachelor's or higher degree 
in the specific specialty, or its equivalent, as a minimum for entry into the occupation. The Petitioner 
has not done so here. 
The Petitioner has not established that the position meets any of the requirements for a specialty 
occupation set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). The Petitioner also has not established that the 
proffered position satisfies the statutory and regulatory definitions of a specialty occupation. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
22 Although the Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position undermines its claim that the 
position is particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation, a Level I 
wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty occupation, just as a Level TV 
wage-designation does not definitively establish such a classification. In certain occupations (e.g., doctors or lawyers), a 
Level I, entry-level position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, 
for entry. Similarly, however, a Level TV wage-designation would not reflect that an occupation qualifies as a specialty 
occupation if that higher-level position does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. That is, a position's wage level designation may be a relevant factor but is not itself conclusive 
evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 
10