dismissed H-1B Case: Payments Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8537441 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 17, 2020 
The Petitioner, a provider of alternative payments technology, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "credit operations analyst" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations. 1 The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified foreign 
worker in a position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly 
specialized knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty 
(or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The matter is now before us 
on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 2 
We review the questions in this matter de novo.3 Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
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.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
1 Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § I I0l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) . 
2 Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofCha wathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010) . 
3 See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . 
(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. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 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. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in a 
specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular 
position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner initially provided a seven-bullet list of duties and it expanded upon those duties in 
response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE). For the sake of brevity, we will not quote the 
most recent version; however, we note that we have closely reviewed and considered the duties. The 
Petitioner stated that the position requires a bachelor's degree in computer science, information 
systems, operations research, or a closely related field or its equivalent. 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 4 
Specifically, the record (1) does not describe the position's duties with sufficient detail; and (2) does 
not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate 
with a specialty occupation. 5 
A. First Criterion 
We tum 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 normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. To inf mm this inqui1y, we will consider the information contained 
in the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational OutlookHandbook(Handbook) regarding the 
duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations it addresses. 6 
4 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
5 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the petition, including evidence regarding the position and its business 
operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
6 We do not maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source ofrelevant information. That is, the occupational category 
2 
On the labor condition application (LCA) 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. 7 The subchapter of the 
Handbook titled "How to Become an Operations Research Analyst" states, in relevant part, "[m]any 
entry-level positions are available for those with a bachelor's degree." 8 The Handbook further states, 
that while "some schools offer 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." 
The Handbook indicates further 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." Because the Handbook recognizes this 
occupation as multidisciplinary, and does not identify a specific discipline required to perform the 
duties of the occupation, the Handbook does not support a conclusion that these positions comprise an 
occupational group for which the normal minimum requirement for entry is at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
In its RFE response and on appeal, the Petitioner cited the Occupational Information Network 
(O*NET) Summary Report for Operations Research Analysts, but does not add anything to rebut the 
Director's determination that the O*NET only reflects that this occupation requires a bachelor's degree 
without speaking to a concentration within a specific specialty.9 As a result, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that the O*NET adds any weight to its arguments under this criterion. 
The Petitioner further cites to several district court cases 10 to support the position that the statute and 
the regulation allow a finding of a specialty occupation even when more than one single field of study 
qualifies a candidate to perfmm in the position. Provided the specialties are closely related, 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 2 l 4(i)( 1 )(B) of the Act. In 
such a case, the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" would essentially be the same. We 
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. N eve1theless, to satisfy the first criterion, the burden of proofremains 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. 
7 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to USCIS to demonstrate that it will pay the Beneficiary 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). 
8 Bureau of Labor Statistics, DOL, Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook), Operations Research Analysts, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/math/operations-research-analysts.htm#tab-4 (last visited July 16, 2020). 
9 The Petitioner's arguments concerning Job Zone 5 are similarly unpersuasive as the zone does not specify any specific 
specialty. 
10 In contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case law of a United States circuit court, we are not bound to follow 
the published decision of a United States district court in matters aiising even within the same district. See Matter of K-S, 
20 l&N Dec. 715, 719-20 (BIA 1993). Although the reasoning underlying a district judge's decision will be given due 
consideration when it is properly before us, the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of law. Id. 
3 
do not take issue with this interpretation. However, if the fields are not sufficiently similar, the 
Petitioner must explain how those various fields relate to the duties to form together the numerous 
acceptable disciplines as a body of highly specialized knowledge. On appeal, the Petitioner argues 
the meaning of"equivalent" when reading section 214(i)(l) and (2) and states that the structure of the 
section allows for "equivalent field(s) in lieu of the specific specialty." If we were to use the 
Petitioner's reasoning, the Petitioner would be required to demonstrate that each of the various fields 
are equivalent to each other, which would be applying the incmrect standard. Rather, a petitioner must 
demonstrate that the various fields comprise a body of highly specialized knowledge and that each 
field closely relates to the duties. 
The Petitioner further concludes that the information in the Handbook may be paraphrased as follows: 
"since a degree program in Operations Research is not available in many schools, the specialty 
occupation of Operations Research Analysts typically (i.e. normally) requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in other technical or quantitative fields, which are closely related to the field of Operations 
Research and directly related to the duties of Operations Research Analysts." Pertaining to the 
Handbook, we already noted that even though it includes quantitative fields as a portion of this 
occupation's degree requirements, it also includes other multidisciplinary fields that the Petitioner did 
not demonstrate were sufficiently related. The simple fact that multiple disciplines may incorporate a 
particular concept should not be interpreted as inherently, or automatically qualifying a broad set of 
degree programs under the H-IB classification. Numerous disciplines incorporate some form of 
quantitative analysis into the curriculum, such as anthropology, sociology, social psychology, political 
science, economics, as well as the physical sciences. For instance, political science programs often 
include empirical theory and quantitative methodology concentrations, but a political science degree 
does not appear to relate to the duties of this position. 
Further, a bachelor's degree program in finance or economics also includes quantitative elements that 
would not seemingly apply to the proffered position's duties under the Operations Research Analysts 
category. Were we to rely on the Petitioner's broad approach-as long as quantitative analysis serves 
as an underpinning within a particular discipline, that this would sufficiently tie a degree program to 
a set of quantitative-related duties-any degree program that includes quantitative reasoning within 
the curriculum could serve to qualify. This would allow the Petitioner to rely on obviously unrelated 
and disparate degree fields, which appears antithetical to the statutory definition of at least a bachelor's 
degree "in the specific specialty ( or its equivalent)." 11 Even setting this issue aside, the Petitioner still 
must establish that the duties of the position require the theoretical and practical application of 
specialized knowledge. As we discuss more fully in the following sections, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that its position meets these requirements. 
The Petitioner submitted information from study.com, eammydegree.com, and the U.S. Department 
of Education's Office of Federal Student Aid as corroboration of the information in the Handbook and 
O*NET. Similar to the generic information provided in O*NET and the Handbook, these sources 
provide a range of knowledge that may be helpful, but do not relate this knowledge to the specifics of 
a position. Study.com states that the preparation for a career in the occupation may be different 
depending on the particular sector or industty of a position, and uses finance, insurance, or technology 
as examples. It also notes that the occupational category is interdisciplinary. Eammydegree.com 
11 Section 214(i)(l) of the Act ( emphasis added). 
4 
directly cites to the Handbook and does not appear to provide independent information or research on 
this matter. While, citing to the Handbook may lend credibility to the information in the Handbook, 
the earnmydegree.com site does not offer corroborative support to the Petitioner's interpretation of the 
information. We question the applicability of the Federal Student Aid information, as the purpose of 
the site is to assist students in budgeting for education, not in defining an occupational category. The 
website lists general knowledge, skill, and ability areas, but it does not state that these are required 
areas of study, that a particular level of proficiency in the areas is required, or that the areas are 
specialized. In its RFE response, the Petitioner mentioned certain knowledge areas favorable to its 
argument but did not acknowledge that the site lists knowledge in arts and humanities as appropriate 
for the operations research analyst category as well. Further, the website does not rank any category 
of knowledge, skill, or ability as being more relevant than any other. As such, this information may 
serve to cmroborate that the occupational categmy is multidisciplinary, but it does not suppmi the 
Petitioner's interpretation of the information in the Handbook and O*NET. 
The Petitioner refers to language from non-precedent AAO decisions in support for its assertion that 
the requisite knowledge to perform the duties of a specialty occupation position can be imparted 
through studies in a variety of academic areas. These decisions were not published as a precedent and 
therefore do not bind USCIS officers in future adjudications. 12 Non-precedent decisions apply existing 
law and policy to the specific facts of the individual case, and may be distinguishable based on the 
evidence in the record of proceedings, the issues considered, and applicable law and policy. 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation from a probative source to substantiate its 
assertion regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. Thus, the 
Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
B. 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 contemplates 
common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific 
position. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
We generally consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there is such a common degree 
requirement: 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 
12 See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c). 
5 
affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry establish that such firms "routinely employ and 
recruit only degreed individuals." 13 
As noted, the Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is a common 
requirement within the industry for parallel positions among similar organizations, rather it indicates 
that the occupational category is multidisciplinary. Also, the Petitioner did not submit evidence from 
an industry professional association or from firms or individuals in the industry indicating such a 
degree is a minimum requirement for entry into the position. 
In support of this prong, the Petitioner submitted job advertisements from other organizations. The 
Petitioner asserts that the advertisements satisfy the three main elements that the degree requirement 
is common: (1) to the industry, (2) among similar organizations, and (3) in parallel positions. When 
determining whether the Petitioner and other organizations share the same general characteristics, such 
factors may include information regarding the nature or type of organization, and, when pertinent, the 
size, scope, or scale of operations, expenditures, as well as the level of revenue and staffing (to list 
just a few elements that may be considered). It is not sufficient for the Petitioner to claim that an 
organization is similar and in the same industry without providing a legitimate basis for such an 
assertion. Upon review of the documents, we conclude that the Petitioner's reliance on the job 
announcements is misplaced. 
We will first consider whether the advertised job opportunities could be considered "parallel positions." 
Many of the advertisements include only a few general bullet points which do not provide us with 
sufficient information with which to draw any conclusions as to similarity with the proffered position. 
Bulleted job duties such as, "Ordering Pools" and "Builds and manages lists," are too vague and general 
to be useful. Further, other position duties do not readily relate to the duties of the proffered position. 
Duties involving data warehousing and migration or managing relationships do not feature prominently 
in the Petitioner's description of the proffered position. Finally, some of the positions require a bachelor's 
degree and two to three years' experience or a master's degree. As such, the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
established that the primary duties and responsibilities of the advertised positions parallel those of the 
proffered position, particularly in terms of seniority, responsibility, and supervision. 
Nor does the record contain documentary evidence sufficient to establish that these job vacancy 
announcements were placed by companies that (1) conduct business in the Petitioner's industry and 
(2) are also "similar" to the Petitioner. Here, the Petitioner is a provider of alternative payments 
technology, whereas two of the featured employers are a credit union and an insurance company. On 
appeal, the Petitioner argues that it is difficult to find other employers that offer the same type and range 
of unique products and services that the Petitioner provides, in addition to being similar in size, and that 
this expectation is unrealistic. Though this may present a challenge for the Petitioner in establishing 
eligibility under this prong, we do not agree that the standard can be lowered to accommodate the 
Petitioner's circumstances. 
For all of these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that these job vacancy announcements are 
relevant. Even if that threshold had been met, we would still conclude that they did not satisfy this prong 
13 See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D.Minn. 1999) (quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 
1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (considering these "factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
6 
of the second criterion, as they do not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the 
equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. The 
announcements reflect that the employers accept a variety of degrees including a general-pmpose degree 
in business. As noted above, a requirement of a degree with a generalized title, such as business, without 
further specification, does not establish that the position qualifies as a specialty occupation.14 Other 
employers accept degrees in risk management, insurance, and marketing research. One employer accepts 
a bachelor's degree in a STEM field, which suggests that it would accept a wide range of degrees, as the 
STEM acronym itself implies it is multidisciplinary. As the documentation does not establish that the 
Petitioner has met this prong of the regulations, further analysis regarding the specific information 
contained in each of the job postings is not necessary. 15 That is, not every deficit of every piece of 
evidence has been addressed. 16 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient probative evidence to establish that a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the industJy in parallel positions among similar 
organizations. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
When determining whether a position is a specialty occupation, we look at whether the position 
actually requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge 
attained through at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific discipline. Upon review of the totality of 
the record, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained or documented why the proffered position is 
so complex or unique that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is required. 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 provided many 
vague and general descriptions including the following verbatim job duties: 
• Support CTO's management team with initiatives such as tools eco-system migration, 
reporting revamp etc. to transform the teams to a durable model. 
• Work with leadership to create the portfolios, outcomes and projects in Rally. Developers will 
contribute to those projects which will ensure alignment to the executive strategy. 
14 Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. 
15 The Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how representative the job postings are of the particular 
advertising employers' recruiting history for the type of job advertised. As the advertisements are only solicitations for 
hire, they are not evidence of the actual hi1ing practices of these employers. 
16 Even if all of the job postings indicated that a requirement of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is common to 
the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations (which they do not), the Petitioner does not demonstrate 
what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from the job postings with regard to the common educational 
requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. See general~v Earl Babbie. The Practice of Social 
Research 186-228 (7th ed. 1995). 
7 
• Working with Smartsheet data to create valuable time lines and Gantt views to effectively 
highlight future blockers. 
These descriptions, among others, demonstrate that the Petitioner has not explained in detail how the 
proffered position's duties require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly 
specialized knowledge. Specifically, we have no infmmation on what "reporting revamp" or a 
"durable model" is or why it requires specialized knowledge that can only be learned in a bachelor's 
degree program in the specifically identified fields. Moreover, the duties of supporting the 
management team or working with leadership do not sufficiently convey the Beneficiary's day-to-day 
activities with regard to each duty. Likewise, we have little information on what "future blockers" are 
or why highlighting them signifies specialty occupation work. 
The Petitioner also states that the Beneficiary will "[ m ]anage and create new contracts with rerrds to I 
technological implementations within thd !Credit team" and "[ e ]ngage with leaders in 
Credit team and facilitate negotiations for large contracts (including software licenses, contingent 
worker hiring, special events." The Petitioner does not explain how obtaining or facilitating new 
contracts would require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, nor has it connected why the knowledge needed to perform this duty would be gained in 
a bachelor's degree program for computer science, information systems, or operations research. 
After each section of duties, the Petitioner's states the education and training required to perform that 
section of duties and how the Beneficiary meets that requirement. This structure is repeated in a letter 
from! I the Beneficiary's manager, which confirms "the complexity of the offered role as 
well as COMPANY' s minimum qualification" of a bachelor's degree in computer science, information 
systems, operations research, or a closely related field. Neither this letter, nor the position descriptions 
appearing in other parts of the record, adequately connect the listed duties to the stated requirements. 
Vaguely describing the duty and then simply listing the educational requirements does not develop the 
specialization, complexity, or uniqueness of the position. Accordingly, we conclude that the Petitioner 
has not shown that the 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. 
As alternative evidence for our consideration under this and the other criteria, the Petitioner submits a 
position evaluation and opinion letter froml I a professor in the Department of Computer 
Science and Enginee1ing at the University of I I I I provides an overview of the 
qualifications he believes enable him to opine on this matter, a repetition of the Petitioner's list of position 
duties, and a conclusion that the position requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree in computer science, 
information systems, operations research, or a closely related field. In addition to this, I !provides 
a brief discussion of how bachelor's degree programs in computer science, inf mmation systems, and 
operations research relate to the perfmmance of the duties of the proffered position. 
Though the Director's RFE provided notice to the Petitioner that it must demonstrate how each of its 
qualifying fields of study relate to the duties of the proffered position, I Is letter lends little 
additional support to the Petitioner in this regard. First, we questio~ I's understanding of the 
position as he discusses many duties and responsibilities that the Petitioner does not state are part of the 
proffered position. For instance, it is not apparent from the Petitioner's description that implementing 
code for the client or end-user is part of its proffered position, yeti I cites the position's coding 
8 
duties as a reason that the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree in information systems. 
Similarly! !states that the position involves documenting code structure and then discusses tasks 
that this might require, such as the writing of technical documentation and instruction manuals. I I 
does not definitively explain whether the documentation of code structure does, in fact, involve writing 
technical documents and instruction manuals, nor is it readily apparent from the Petitioner's descriptions 
that the Beneficiaiy will perfmm such work. This suggests a limited understanding of the proffered 
position and undermines! Is overall credibility. 
Furthermore, in discussing duties that do appear to be the subject of this petition, I I fails to 
identify why they require specialized knowledge associated with a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent. For instance,! !mentions duties using Excel, but does not sufficiently 
explain why the duties require specialized knowledge. Rather, he confinns that because of the Excel 
duties, the Petitioner's requirement for a bachelor's degree in operations research is "highly appropriate." 
I I simply adopts the Petitioner's ~tatement without providing an explanation to substantiate the 
conclusion, which suggests tha~~--~Jwas requested to confirm preconceived notions of the position 
rather than objectively analyze it. 
~-----'I references how the Beneficiary will engage in scrum practices and declares that the underlying 
principles gained in a bachelor's program would be invaluable in performing such duties, but he does not 
state how or why a bachelor's level education in the specified fields would be required. Instead, he 
acknowledges that scrum practices are not necessarily the subject of bachelor-level coursework. In this 
way J !provides opinions on what the proffered position might include and a few courses that 
might teach knowledge relevant to performing such work, but his opinions do not support a conclusion 
that the position is a specialty occupation. 
In addition to the above.I I confuses the ability of a degreed individual to perform the duties 
of the proffered position with a degree requirement in order to perform the duties. While I I 
may draw inferences that certain courses or knowledge obtained through a bachelor's degree program 
in computer science, information systems, or operations research may be beneficial in performing 
certain duties of the position, we disagree with the conclusion that a specific degree is required in 
order to perform them. 
In viewing Is opinion as a whole, we conclude that he does not sufficiently explain or analyze 
why the duties, though labeled complex and unique, would actually require specialized knowledge. His 
letter offers little probative value as it does not include sufficient specific analysis of the duties of the 
particular position nor does it sufficiently relate those duties to the stated educational qualifications 
required to perform them. 1 7 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the pos1t10n and references his 
qualifications. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education 
or experience of a particular beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's 
17 We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. ~\fatter of Caron Int'!, Inc., 
19 l&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any 
way questionable, we are not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Id. Here, the opinion presented 
does not offer a cogent analyris of the duties and why the duties require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. We 
incorporate our discussion of Is opinion into our discussion of the other 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) criteria. 
9 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative 
complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position, and it did not identify any tasks 
that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
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. To satisfy this 
criterion, the record must establish that the specific performance requirements of the position 
generated the recruiting and hiring histmy. 
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. 18 
Were U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) limited solely to reviewing the Petitioner's 
claimed self-imposed requirements, then any individual with a bachelor's degree could be brought to 
the United States to perform any occupation as long as the Petitioner created a token degree 
requirement. 19 Evidence provided in support of this criterion may include, but is not limited to, 
documentation regarding the Petitioner's past recruitment and hiring practices, as well as information 
regarding employees who previously held the position. 
We return to the letter froml I and acknowledge the minimum qualifications information 
contained in it. Nevertheless, we conclude that the record does not substantiate the hiring practices 
claimed in the letter. Further, we question whether I I has the requisite knowledge of the 
Petitioner's overall hiring and recruitment practices for the proffered position when s/he manages a 
team of three individuals out of an entire 2, 965-employee organization. 
The Petitioner submitted resumes for the other two employees managed by I The record 
does not include copies of these individuals' degrees, any job duties performed by these individuals, or 
the job advertisements for their positions. Therefore, we do not know what the recruitment process for 
hiring these individuals involved or whether specialized degrees were prerequisites. We note that their 
title is "business analyst," which is different from the proffered position. 20 As such, the record contains 
insufficient evidence that these individuals have or had the same or similar substantive responsibilities, 
duties, and performance requirements as the proffered position. Though it has been in business since 
2000, the Petitioner has not provided the total number of people it has employed in the past to serve in 
the proffered position, nor has it provided information about its past hiring history for the proffered 
position. Consequently, no determination can be made about the Petitioner's normal recruiting and hiring 
practices for the proffered position when the submitted employment evidence covers only two current 
employees who occupy positions that have not been established to be the same as or similar to the 
proffered one. 
18 See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. 
19 Id. 
20 The Petitioner also lists the Beneficia1y's title in its organizational chart as "business analyst," but does not provide 
information to establish whether this position is the same as or similar to the proffered position of "credit operations 
analyst." 
10 
We acknowledge the job postings for internal positions within the Petitioner's company. These postings 
do not advertise similar positions, but rather are for more senior positions than the proffered one. In 
addition to the titles of the positions being different, the positions respectively require, for example, a 
bachelor's degree plus five years' experience, a master's degree, or a master's degree plus two to three 
years' experience. As such, even if it could be established that these positions require specialized 
knowledge associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, the postings would not 
establish that the proffered position is one such position. 
The Petitioner has not persuasively established that it normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the proffered position. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
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. 
Though the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary plays an instrumental role in delivering the 
Petitioner's unique product lines and services to the customer, the Petitioner has not substantiated 
these claims. We acknowledge the work product printouts which feature charts, graphs, and Excel 
spreadsheet screenshots. The Petitioner has not sufficiently explained why this work is specialized or 
complex. 
Although some tasks may connote a requirement of familiarity with general operations research 
principles, including resource planning and Excel knowledge, the record is insufficient to establish that 
the duties require anything more than a few basic courses and a broad educational background. While a 
few such courses may be beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner, who 
bears the burden of proot has not demonstrated 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. 
For the same reasons we discussed under the second prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one with duties sufficiently 
specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). We incorporate our earlier 
discussion and analysis on this matter. 
Consequently, the Petitioner has not satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
11 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reason. In visa petition proceedings, it is a 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
12