dismissed H-1B Case: Sales Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF E- CORP. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 18,2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a two-employee wireless technology sales company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "sales engineer" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ IIOI(a)(l5)(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 Director, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
evidence of record did not establish that the Petitioner would employ the Beneficiary in a specialty 
occupation position. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the additional 
evidence submitted on appeal clarifies "the specialized and complex nature" of the proffered 
• • 1 
positiOn. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal2 
I. LAW 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
1 On appeal, the Petitioner requests oral argument before us. We have the sole authority to grant or deny a request for 
oral argument and will grant argument only in cases involving unique factors or issues of law that cannot be adequately 
addressed in writing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(b). In this instance, the written record appears to fully represent the facts and 
issues in this matter, and the Petitioner has not identified any unique factors or issues of law to be resolved. 
Consequently, the request for oral argument is denied. 
2 This decision does not prejudice or otherwise prevent the Petitioner from filing a new petition on behalf of the Beneficiary 
or other individuals, especially if the facts and circumstances have since changed such that eligibility for the immigration 
benefit can be established. 
Matter of E- Corp. 
(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: 
(J) 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). USClS has consistently interpreted 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 proposed position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chert off, 
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. PROFFERED POSITION 
In the H-IB petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a "sales engineer." In 
addition, the Petitioner provided the Beneficiary's job duties for the proffered position. In response 
to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted the following description: 
o Analysis and Forecasting. The sales process begins with research and analysis of 
major competitive forces (products, channels, etc.) and target account profiles to 
develop a sales forecast and the related reports to management. The sales 
engineer also tracks industry trends through technical research and monitoring 
new products, services or technologies. The account plan and forecast are 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of E- Corp. 
reviewed periodically with management. The case study shows the benefits of 
this activity, which requires 5% of the sales engineer's time. 
o Interface with R+D/Management. In Switzerland [the Petitioner's] R+D 
engineers (12) develop and improve products based on new technologies and 
trend reports from the field, including important customer inquiries/requests. The 
sales engineer has the cross-functional charge of researching trends, engaging 
with test /development network engineers and gauging new products and markets. 
Traditional interaction (with channel distributors) was quite limited, but [the 
Petitioner's] California-based sales engineers are expected to provide meaningful 
reports on new technology, venture funding trends, .and more. We expect him to 
spend about I 0% of time on technical development issues, including specialized 
software development projects. 
o Pre-sales at Product Development Stages. In the wireless network industry, even 
early ideas for projects require some degree of protocol analysis. The case study 
describes how wireless product ideas are discussed and evaluated against known 
standards before development even begins. This critical "prospecting" stage 
allows sales engineers to demonstrate a deep knowledge of network hardware, 
software, and traffic (among other network issues) and thus become a trusted 
source of valuable information for the customer. Valid ideas generate prototypes 
that must be tested; the case study shows that bylaws require 
specialized protocol analysis equipment to comply with core specifications, and 
that [the Petitioner's] sales engineers attend technical events to meet developers, 
test prototypes, and analyze results. These technical Q+A sessions tend to 
solidify trust in sales engineer and leads to further engagement. All pre-sales 
efforts (including travel commitments) comprise about 40% of the sales 
engineers' time. 
o Engagement (Sales) Negotiations. Negotiating the terms and conditions of sales 
require an understanding of and compliance with [the Petitioner's] premium 
pricing strategy, analysis of the customer's specific situation, the volume of 
equipment involved, and other strategic factors. Major and/or volume discounts 
must be approved in accordance with management. The engagement negotiation 
process comprises about 10% of the sales engineers time. 
o Post-sales Engagement. After the sale, customers use the equipment for protocol 
development. At this stage, the technical support of our sales engineer can be 
critical and is budgeted into the negotiated sales price, typically comprising 30% 
of his time. Support includes training, troubleshooting, protocol analysis, and 
more, and it nurtures the relationship while providing insight for R+D and sales 
opportunities when new equipment is introduced. The case study cites new 
applications requiring protocol analysis across platforms and 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of E- Corp. 
development cycles, and how customers are targeted for [the Petitioner's] 
analyzers. [Footnote omitted]. 
o Administration and Training. The sales engineer must handle administrative 
duties (expense reports, budgeting, etc.) and conduct in-house testing and staff 
training up to 5% of time. 
Ill. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record of proceedings, we find that there are inconsistencies and discrepancies in 
the petition and supporting documents, which lead us to question the Petitioner's claim with regard 
to the services the Beneficiary will perform, as well as the actual nature and requirements of the 
proffered position. When a petition includes discrepancies, those inconsistencies will raise concerns 
about the veracity ofthe Petitioner's assertions. 3 
For example, the Petitioner has provided inconsistent information regarding the Beneficiary's work 
site. For instance, on the Form I-129 (page 5), the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would work 
off-site at another company or organization's location. However, on the Form I-129 (page 21), the 
Petitioner indicated the Beneficiary would not be assigned to work at an off-site location. 
Thereafter, in an unsigned letter submitted in response to the RFE, the Petitioner stated that the 
Beneficiary would work from his own home. 
In addition, there are additional discrepancies in the record of proceedings with regard to the 
requirements for the proffered position. Initially, in the letter of support, the Petitioner stated that 
the position requires a bachelor's degree in engineering or equivalent experience. Thereafter, the 
Petitioner claimed that the duties of the proffered position require a bachelor's degree in' computer 
science and two years of experience. The Petitioner also submitted a position description, which 
states that the job requires a bachelor's degree equivalent in computer engineering. No explanation 
for these variances was provided by the Petitioner. 
Further, in the letter of support, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's duties include "[l]iaison 
with other members of the sales team and other technical experts" and "[p]rovid[ing] training and 
produce support material for the sales team." In response to the RFE, the Petitioner stated that the 
Beneficiary "must handle administrative duties (expense reports, budgeting, etc.) and conduct in­
house testing and staff training." On the Form 1-129, the Petitioner states that its business consists of 
two employees. Thus, we must question the substantive nature of these claimed job duties. 
3 "[l]t is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve the inconsistencies by independent objective evidence." Matter of Ho, 
19 l&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the 
Petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. !d. at 591-92. 
4 
Matter of E- Corp. 
Nevertheless, we will continue our evaluation and analysis of the evidence provided by the 
Petitioner. 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 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)(J), 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 inform this inquiry, we recognize the U.S. Department of 
Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the 
duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses.6 
On the Labor Condition Application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-18 petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Sales Engineers," corresponding 
to the Standard Occupational Classification code 43-6014 at a Level I wage.7 
The Handbook subchapter entitled "How to Become a Sales Engineer" states, in pertinent part: 
"Sales engineers typically need a bachelor's degree in engineering or a related field. However, a 
worker without a degree, but with previous sales experience as well as technical experience or 
training, sometimes holds the title of sales engineer." The Handbook further reports that: "Workers 
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 H-1 B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
6 All of our references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not, however, 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 USCIS regularly reviews the Handbook on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. To satisfY the first criterion, however, 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. 
7 We will consider the Petitioner's classification of the proffered position at a Level I wage (the lowest of four assignable 
wage levels) in our analysis of the position. The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" issued by the DOL 
provides a description of the wage levels. A Level I wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which the 
Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the occupation. This wage rate indicates: (I) that the 
Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that he will be 
closely supervised and his work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that he will receive specific 
instructions on required tasks and expected results. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage 
Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised_ll_ 2009.pdf. A prevailing wage determination starts 
with an entry level wage and progresses to a higher wage level after considering the experience, education, and skill 
requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. !d. A Levell wage should be considered for research fellows, workers 
in training, or internships. !d. 
5 
Matter of E- Corp. 
who have a degree in a science, such as chemistry, or in business with little or no previous sales 
experience, also may be called sales engineers. "8 
This passage of the Handbook reports that a worker without a degree, but with some experience or 
training can serve as a sales engineer. In addition, the Handbook reports that baccalaureate degrees 
in various fields are acceptable for entry into the occupation. 9 Thus, it does not support the assertion 
an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation is required. 
Moreover, on appeal, the Petitioner acknowledges that not all sales engineer positions require a 
degree. 
The Petitioner also referenced the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) OnLine Summary 
Report for "Software Engineers." The summary report provides general information regarding the 
occupation; however, it does not support the Petitioner's assertion regarding the educational 
requirements for the occupation. For example, the Specialized Vocational Preparation (SVP) rating 
cited within O*NET's Job Zone designates this occupation as 7 < 8. An SVP rating of 7 to less than 
("<") 8 indicates that the occupation requires "over 2 years up to and including 4 years" of training. 
Further, while the SVP rating indicates the total number of years of vocational preparation required 
for a particular position, it is important to note that it does not describe how those years are to be 
divided among training, formal education, and experience - and it does not specify the particular 
type of degree, if any, that a position would require.10 
Further, the summary report provides the educational requirements of "respondents," but does not 
account for 100% of the "respondents." The respondents' positions within the occupation are not 
distinguished by career level (e.g., entry-level, mid-level, senior-level). Additionally, the graph in 
the summary report does not indicate that the "education level" for the respondents must be m a 
specific specialty. 
8 For additional information regarding this occupational category, see U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-2017 ed., Sales Engineers, http://www.bls.gov/ooh/sales/print/sales­
engineers.htm (last visited July 13, 2016). When the Handbook does not support the proposition that a proffered position 
is one that meets the statutory and regulatory provisions of a specialty occupation, it is incumbent upon the Petitioner to 
provide persuasive evidence that the proffered position more likely than not satisfies this or one of the other three 
criteria, notwithstanding the absence of the Handbook's support on the issue. It is the Petitioner's responsibility to 
provide probative evidence that supports a finding that the particular position in question qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. Whenever more than one authoritative source exists, an adjudicator will consider and weigh all of the 
evidence presented to determine whether the particular position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
9 In addition to recognizing degrees in disparate fields (i.e., engineering, chemistty, and/or business), the Handbook 
states that a degree in business is acceptable. Although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in 
business, 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. 
Chertojf, 484 F.3d at 147. Therefore, the Handbook's recognition that a general, non-specialty degree in business is 
sufficient for entry into the occupation strongly suggests that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is not normally 
the minimum requirement for entry into this occupation. 
1° For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at 
http://www.onetonline.org/help/online/svp. 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of E- Corp. 
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 the 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. 
ln 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 ass~~iation 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 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 
1999) (quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook, or other authoritative source, reports a requirement for 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 industry's professional association indicating 
that it has made a degree a minimum entry requirement. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not submit 
any letters or affidavits from similar firms or individuals in the Petitioner's industry attesting that 
such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner submitted copies of job announcements placed by other 
employers. However, upon review of the documents, we find that the Petitioner's reliance on the job 
announcements is misplaced. First, we note that some of the job postings do not appear to involve 
organizations similar to the Petitioner. For example, the Petitioner is a two-person wireless 
technology sales company, whereas the advertising organizations include: 
• -an electronic measurement company with 9,500 employees; 
• -
a company that automates the clinical trial process; 
• -a technology company with 71,000 associates; and 
7 
(b)(6)
Matter of E- Corp. 
• - a manufacturer of commercial kitchen ventilation with over 
850 employees. 
Furthermore, one of the postings appears to be for a staffing agency and provides no information 
regarding the hiring employer. 
When determining whether the Petitioner and the organization share the same general 
characteristics, such factors may include information regarding the nature or type of organization, 
and, when pertinent, the particular scope of operations, 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. The Petitioner did not supplement the record of proceeding to establish that the 
advertising organizations are similar to it. 
Moreover, many of the advertisements do not appear to be for parallel positions. For example, some 
of the positions appear to be for more senior positions than the proffered position. Moreover, some 
of the postings do not include the duties and responsibilities for the advertised positions. Thus, it is 
not possible to determine important aspects of the jobs, such as the day-to-day responsibilities, 
complexity of the job duties, supervisory duties (if any), independent judgment required or the 
amount of supervision received. Therefore, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the 
primary duties and responsibilities of the advertised positions are parallel to the proffered position. 
In addition, some of the postings do not indicate that at least a bachelor's degree in a directly related 
specific specialty (or its equivalent) is required. 
11 
The job postings suggest, at best, that although a 
bachelor's degree is sometimes required for budget analyst positions, a bachelor's degree m a 
spec(fic specialty (or its equivalent) is not. 12 
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. 13 That is, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. 
11 As discussed, the degree requirement set by the statutory and regulatory framework of the H-1 B program is .not just a 
bachelor's or higher degree, but a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the duties of the 
position. See section 214(i)(l)(b) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). Further, a preference for a degree in a field 
is not necessarily an indication of a minimum requirement. 
12 It must be noted that even if all of the job postings indicated that a requirement of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations (which they do not), the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from the advertisements with regard to 
determining the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. See 
generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 ( 1995). Moreover, given that there is no indication that 
the advertisements were randomly selected, the validity of any such inferences could not be accurately determined even 
if the sampling unit were sufficiently large. See id. at 195-196 (explaining that "[r]andom selection is the key to [the] 
process [of probability sampling]" and that "random selection offers access to the body of probability theory, which 
provides the basis for estimates of population parameters and estimates of error"). 
13 The Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how representative the job postings are of the particular 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter of E- Corp. 
The Petitioner also submitted an opinion letter from ln the letter, states 
that the requirement of a bachelor's degree in computer engineering for the sales engineer position is 
common in the industry among organizations that are similar to the Petitioner. Upon review, we 
note that did not discuss the duties of the proffered position in any substantive detail. 
Rather, he paraphrased the duties listed in the Petitioner's RFE response letter. Thus, there is no 
indication that he possesses any knowledge of the Petitioner's proffered position beyond this job 
description, e.g., visited the Petitioner's business, observed the Petitioner's employees, interviewed 
them about the nature of their work, or documented the knowledge that these workers apply on the 
job prior to documenting his opinion regarding the proffered position. In fact, stated that 
he formed his opinion "based on the assumption" that the information provided by the Petitioner is 
accurate. His level of familiarity with the actual job duties as they would be performed in the 
context of the Petitioner's business has therefore not been substantiated. 
Furthermore, description of the position upon which he opines does not indicate that he 
considered, or was even aware of, the fact that the Petitioner submitted an LCA certified for a wage­
level that is only appropriate for a comparatively low, entry-level position relative to others within 
its occupation, which signifies that the Beneficiary is only expected to possess a basic understanding 
of the occupation. In any event, he does not discuss this aspect of the proffered position. We 
consider this a significant omission, in that it suggests an incomplete review of the position in 
question and a faulty factual basis for his ultimate conclusion as to the educational requirements of 
the position upon which he opines. 
' 
The Petitioner also submits letters from and 14 The writers assert that sales 
engineers require certain credentials; however, they not provide documentary evidence to 
corroborate their claims. Their testimony does not substantiate their conclusions, such that we can 
conclude that the Petitioner has shouldered its burden of proof. For example, they do not reference, 
cite, or discuss probative studies, surveys, industry publications, authoritative publications, or other 
sources of empirical information which they may have consulted to complete the evaluations. They 
also do not distinguish the position from those jobs that do not require the application of at least a 
bachelor's degree level of a body of highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty 
For the reasons discussed, we find that the opinion letters lend little probative value to the matter 
here. Matter a_( Caron lnt'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (The service is not required to 
accept or may give less weight to an advisory opinion when it is "not in accord with other 
information or is in any way questionable."). 
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 hiring practices of these employers. 
14 Moreover, has not demonstrated how the requirements for positions in China are relevant for determining 
whether the proffered position satisfies the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions for a specialty occupation in 
the United States. 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter of E- Corp. 
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. 
We reviewed the Petitioner's statements regarding the proffered position; however, in the appeal 
brief, the Petitioner does not assert that it satisfies this prong of the second criterion. Further, the 
Petitioner has not sufficiently developed relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the 
proffered position. Thus, 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. 
The Petitioner stated in the H-1 B petition that it has two employees and was established in 2008 
(approximately seven years prior to the filing of the H-1 B petition). 15 According to the Petitioner, it 
employs one sales engineer, Importantly, the Petitioner did not provide the total 
number of people it has employed to serve in the proffered position. Consequently, it cannot be 
determined how representative the Petitioner's statement regarding this individual is of the its 
normal recruiting and hiring practices. 16 
In support of its claim that it requires a specific degree, the Petitioner submitted 
resume, which indicates that he possesses a degree in electrical engineering. 17 However, on appeal 
the Petitioner claims that it requires a bachelor's degree in computer science, which does not appear 
to be in align with credentials. 18 Moreover, the Petitioner's website states that it is 
"seeking brilliant people, who are highly analytical, capable of thinking 'out-of-the-box', and who 
are motivated to learn from the best." It does not indicate any particular academic requirements for 
employment. 
15 Notably, the Petitioner did not submit the academic credentials of this individual, e.g. copies of diplomas and 
transcripts. The Petitioner should note that the evidentiary weight of a resume is generally insignificant as it represents a 
claim by an individual, rather than evidence to support that claim. In the instant case, no further documentation was 
submitted of the individual's asserted credentials. 
16 See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 (7th ed. 1995). 
17 The Petitioner did not submit evidence establishing that it employs this individual (e.g., pay statements, tax 
documents). 
18 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the individual's degree and a chart of academic coursework was enclosed; 
however, upon review of the record, no degree or chart was included. 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter of E- Corp. 
Without more, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that it normally 
requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the proffered 
position. Therefore, it has not satisfied the third criterion of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
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. 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner provided descriptions of the proffered positiOn and 
information regarding its business operations, including copies of its 2013 and 20 12 income tax 
returns, product brochures, case studies, an organizational chart, a list of its customers, and printouts 
regarding The Petitioner asserts that the proffered position 
is s pecialized and 
complex. 
While the Petitioner may believe that the proffered position meets this criterion of the regulations, it 
has not sufficiently demonstrated how the position as described requires the theoretical and practical 
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and the attainment of a bachelor 's or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 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 tasks. While a few related courses may be 
beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how an 
established curriculum of such courses is required. The evidence in the record does not refute the 
Handbook's information to the effect that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent 
is not required for entry into the occupation. Without more, the record lacks sufficiently detailed 
information to distinguish the level of judgment and understanding necessary to perform the duties 
as specialized and complex. 
Further, the Petitioner designated the proffered posttlon as an entry-level position within the 
occupational category (by selecting a Level I wage). This designation, when read in combination 
with the Petitioner's job descriptions and the evidence, further suggests that the particular position is 
not so specialized and complex that the duties can only be performed an individual with bachelor's 
degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for th
e position, and references his 
qualifications. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education 
or experience of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor' s 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner has not demonstrated in the record 
that its proffered position is one with duties sufficiently specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. 
§ 2 14.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)( 4). 
II 
Matter of E- Corp. 
IV. 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. The burden is on the 
Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofE- Corp., ID# 17110 (AAO July 18, 2016) 
12