dismissed H-1B Case: Semiconductor Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 8770419 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : WL Y 1 7, 2020 
The Petitioner, a semiconductor development and sales company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "supply chain business systems analyst" under the H-lB nonimrnigrant 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 California 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 nova. 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 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) , 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) 
2 Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec . 369, 375 (AAO 2010) . 
3 See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 l&N Dec . 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . 
( 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). 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. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will be employed as a "supply chain business systems 
analyst" and that a minimum of a bachelor's degree in information systems, computer science, or a 
related technical field, and relevant experience is required for entry into the position. The Petitioner 
did not define what or how much relevant experience is required. In articulating its requirements in 
response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner added computer engineering to 
the named fields. On appeal, the Petitioner articulates its academic requirements as a bachelor's 
degree in computer information systems or management information systems. The Petitioner does not 
acknowledge these modifications and substitutions, which indicates that the Petitioner has not clearly 
defined what the position requires or what it considers to be a related field and why. 
The Petitioner provided multiple lists of duties and while we will not list each duty here, we have 
reviewed and considered each one. Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set 
out below, we conclude 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. 
4 The Petitioner submitted documentation to suppmt the H-lB 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. 
2 
III. ANALYSIS 
A. First Criterion 
The criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(]) 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 will 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. 5 The Petitioner designated the proffered 
position on the labor condition application (LCA) as a Standard Occupation Classification (SOC) code 
15-1199 "Computer Occupations, All Other" occupation. In its RFE response, the Petitioner asserted 
that the duties of the proffered position are consistent with the duties of the "Computer Systems 
Engineers/Architects" corresponding to SOC code 15-1199.02. 
The Handbook is a career resource offering information on hundreds of occupations. However, there are 
occupational categories which the Handbook does not cover in detail and instead provides only summary 
data. 6 The subchapter of the Handbook titled "Data for Occupations Not Covered in Detail" states, in 
relevant part, that the "[t]ypical entry-level education" for a variety of occupations within the category of 
"[ c ]omputer and mathematical occupations" is a "Bachelor's degree," without indicating that the 
bachelor's degree must be in a specific specialty. 7 Thus, the Handbook is not probative in establishing 
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. 
The Petitioner extensively references the DOL's O*NET summary report for "Computer Systems 
Engineers/ Architects" and emphasizes that the proflered position closely aligns with the duties listed in 
the report. We acknowledge the Petitioner's chart where each O*NET duty is matched with a proffered 
position duty. While the Petitioner's chart and the other comparisons it makes may be probative of what 
occupational category the proffered position falls within, it does not serve to establish that the position is 
a specialty occupation. The O*NET Summary Report does not establish that a bachelor's degree in a 
spectfic specialty, or the equivalent, is normally required. It provides general information regarding the 
occupation, but it does not support a conclusion that the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or the equivalent. 
O*NET assigns these positions a "Job Zone Four" rating, which states "most of these occupations require 
a four-year bachelor's degree, but some do not." Moreover, the Job Zone Four designation does not 
5 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. 
6 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Data for Occupations Not Covered in 
Detail, https://www.bls.gov/ooh/about/data-for-occupations-not-covered-in-detail.htm (last visited Jul. 16, 2020). Here, 
the Handbook does not provide specific information for various occupations which might be classified within the occupational 
category. 
7 The Handbook also indicates that this occupation does not require work experience in a related occupation or typical 
on-the-job training. Id. 
3 
indicate that any academic credentials for Job Zone Four occupations must be directly related to the duties 
performed. In addition, the specialized vocational preparation (SVP) rating 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. 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, experience, and formal education. The SVP rating also does not 
specify the particular type of degree, if any, that a position would require. 8 Further, although the summary 
reports provide the educational requirements of "respondents," it does not account for 100% of the 
"respondents." Moreover, the respondents' positions within the occupation are not distinguished by 
career level ( e.g., entry-level, mid-level, senior-level). Furthermore, the graph in the summary report does 
not indicate that the "education level" for the respondents must be in a specific specialty. For all of these 
reasons, O*NET does not establish the proffered position as a specialty occupation. 
As the foregoing demonstrates, 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 
affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry establish that such firms "routinely employ and 
recruit only degreed individuals." 9 
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. Also, the Petitioner 
8 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/ 
help/online/svp. 
9 See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno. 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D.Minn. 1999) (quoting Hird/Blaker COip. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 
1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (considering these "factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
4 
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. 
The Petitioner submitted job vacancy announcements for our consideration under this prong. To be 
relevant for consideration, the job vacancy announcements must advertise "parallel positions," and the 
announcements must have been placed by organizations that (1) conduct business in the Petitioner's 
industry and (2) are also "similar" to the Petitioner. These job vacancy announcements do not satisfy that 
threshold. 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." 
The Petitioner provided information on why it believes the proffered position and the positions featured 
in these announcements are parallel. However, the Petitioner's characterization of the positions only 
connects loose underpinnings of the positions, such as "developing technical solutions with proper test 
plans," "configuring Oracle systems," and "working with internal clients." These generalities do not form 
a sufficient basis for establishing that the positions parallel one another, as many positions that bear little 
relation to one another also involve these broad connections. In examining the position descriptions 
themselves, some do not contain sufficient information with which to draw conclusions as to similarity. 
For example, the Power Integrations announcement contains a two-sentence description only and no list 
of duties. Though other announcements provide a bit more, the work appears to be in a different area, 
such as finance and marketing, rather than in supply chain management, which is the subject of the 
proffered position. As such, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the primary duties and 
responsibilities of the advertised positions parallel those of the proffered position. 
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. When determining whether the employer posting a job listing and the 
Petitioner share the same general characteristics, factors to be considered 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. The job descriptions themselves do not contain sufficient 
information with which to draw conclusions as to similarity. The Petitioner provided its own assessment 
of why it believes the employers in the announcements are similar to it and operating in the same industry. 
For example, the Petitioner ~tit is similar to one employer due to the number of employees the 
Petitioner has at its office inL___J The Petitioner later uses the number of people it employs globally 
to draw comparisons to another, much larger employee. However, without providing evidence of the 
employers' operations or size, for example, we are unable to interpedently examine how the Petitioner 
arrived its conclusions. 
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 
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-purpose degree 
in business or business administration, a master's degree in management, and a bachelor's degree in the 
wide ranging and interdisciplinary fields of STEM. As noted above, a requirement of a degree with a 
5 
generalized title, such as business, without further specification, does not establish that the position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. 10 
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. 11 That 
is, not every deficit of every piece of evidence has been addressed.12 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 industry 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. 
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. 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. 
The position duties, as described, appear to feature work that can be categorized in a variety of 
occupational categories, including non-specialty occupations. For instance, duties listed for 
occupations falling within the "computer systems analyst" category include analyzing business 
requirements, system testing, configuring software, and adapting computer applications to users' 
needs. The Petitioner's descriptions of the proffered position feature these very duties as well. The 
"computer systems analyst" occupational category, however, is one that can be entered with a business 
or liberal arts degree and technical training. 13 As such, if the proffered position and other non­
specialty occupations share similar duties, the Petitioner must define why its particular position is so 
complex or unique that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is required. Though the Petitioner 
provided multiple lists and extensive descriptions of the duties, the Petitioner failed to sufficiently 
establish how these duties require specialized knowledge. 
10 Royal Siam COip., 484 F.3d at 147. 
11 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 hiring practices of these employers. 
12 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 generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social 
Research 186-228 (7th ed. 1995). 
13 See Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, "How to Become a Computer 
Systems Analyst," https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-systems-analysts.htm#tab-4 
(last visited Jul. 16, 2020) and DOL's Summary Report for ·'Computer Systems Analysts" at 
https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/15-l 121.00 (last visited Jul. 16, 2020). 
6 
In its RFE response, the Petitioner includes headings of why each duty is unique or complex, however 
the information contained under these headings does not adequately substantiate the Petitioner's 
claims. To illustrate, the Petitioner writes that the duty to "maintain, support and enhancec==] 
supply chain planning module, Agile Product Life Cycle Management System, as well as otheLJ 
supply chain and manufacturing systems" is complex and unique. In its explanation of why this is so, 
the Petitioner states that Beneficiary "needs to ensure these events and process extensions run properly, 
as well as makes necessary additions or updates when new automation is needed." Generally ensuring 
that applications are updated and run smoothly does not convey why the duty requires the theoretical 
and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge attained through at least a 
baccalaureate degree in a specific discipline. Under other duties, the Petitioner provides similar 
headings followed by explanations of why the duty is complex or unique. A non-exhaustive verbatim 
sampling of these explanations include: 
• [A]bility to meet the b□·n ss users' demands is to provide issue resolution and provide 
guidance and training to user community. 
• Documenting these requirements in the form of word documents, power-point slides or Visio 
flow diagrams to present the as-is and to-be systems in clear presentable manner to upper 
management and business stake-holders. 
• [W]orking continuously with the cross functional teams and the development teams to keep up 
to date with the requirements of the users and the timelines and facilitate the Application 
development. 
We do not agree that having an ability to meet demands; providing training; documenting business 
requirements in a readily consumable form by using Microsoft Word or Excel; or working with other 
teams to develop and adhere to timelines readily feature the application of specialized knowledge. In 
fact, these explanations do not convey how the work requires any academic degree, let alone how it is 
complex or unique. Though the Petitioner attempts to provide an explanation for why the work is 
specialized, the actual content of the Petitioner's explanation does not sufficiently convey why the 
work is complex or unique. The Petitioner labels various supply chain applications and systems as 
"complex" and "unique," but simply labeling them as such does not establish actual specialization. 
The Petitioner also provides explanations for complexity or uniqueness by discussing the 
Beneficiary's qualifications for the position. Under the explanation for duty two's complexity, the 
Petitioner discusses the Beneficiary's strong academic background. 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 degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
Under other duties, the Petitioner includes definitions of what, for example, is a "system upgrade" or 
what "unit testing" means, rather than providing explanations of why the work is complex. While 
helpful, defining such concepts does not establish the proffered position as a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner provides many duties and descriptions, followed by lists of the Beneficiary's bachelor's 
and master's degree courses that the Petitioner claims enable him to perform such duties. By simply 
listing the duties and listing the courses, the Petitioner bypasses the connection of why the duties 
require such education or why such knowledge cannot be obtained apart form a degree in one of the 
qualifying fields. For instance, the Petitioner describes work involving significant usage of third-party 
7 
methods or technologies, like Agile, but does not explain why the knowledge required to implement 
it in furtherance of the position duties could not be gained through certifications and trainings in the 
product or method, as opposed to a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 
The Petitioner stated that it will pay the Beneficiary a wage consistent with a prevailing wage survey, and 
provided a figure which falls between a Level I and Level II wage. 14 Payment of a Level II wage indicates 
a position for which an employee has a good understanding of the occupation but who will only 
perform moderately complex tasks that require limited judgment. 15 On several occasions, the 
Petitioner states that the duties require expert knowledge in areas such as business processes, 
application components, and application interdependencies. It seems that a position requiring expert 
knowledge would require a significantly higher prevailing wage. The Petitioner's payment of a wage 
between a Level I and Level II undermines its assertion that the proffered position has a high level of 
complexity compared to others located within the occupational category. 
Moreover, the Petitioner extensively discusses its in-house technologies and systems, stating that the 
Beneficiary's duties require in-depth understanding of the Petitioner's own proprietary technologies. 
This appears to imply that much of the Beneficiary's knowledge and skills were obtained through on­
the-job training and not necessarily through a bachelor's degree program in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. To the extent that Petitioner-specific or supply chain-specific duties are construed as 
comprising a complex or unique position, we once again question whether such a high-level position 
requires a higher wage. 16 
We reviewed the extensive work product printouts, which include explanations of proprietary 
products, business operations, and processes. There is little indication that these operational 
documents were created by the Beneficiary and the Petitioner in fact states that at least some of the 
work product documents were created by others. Even if the documents were representative of the 
type of work performed in the proffered position, they provide general information that cannot 
substitute for credible explanations from the Petitioner as to why the work is specialized. 
Overall, we observe that the Petitioner uses volume, quantity, or length of documentation rather than 
submitting quality evidence that is probative of the specialization, complexity, or uniqueness of the 
position. As previously stated, though the Petitioner attempts to provide an explanation for why the 
duty is complex or unique, the actual content of the Petitioner's explanations does not sufficiently 
convey why the work is complex or unique. Simply submitting lengthy descriptions of supply chain 
processes, general definitions of information technology concepts, along with work product 
documents from others does not establish why the duties require a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty. Accordingly, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown that the position is so complex 
14 A wage determination starts with an entry-level wage (Level I) and progresses to a higher wage level (up to Level TV) 
after considering the experience, education, and skill requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 
Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 
2009), available at http:/ /t1cdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised_ I I_ 2009 .pdf 
15 See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. 
Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/ 
pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised_ 11 _ 2009 .pdf 
16 Further questions arise in this regard when we read that many of the courses the Petitioner lists as impa11ing the required 
knowledge to perform the work are master's degree courses. 
8 
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 tum to the opinion letters from I I Professor of Electrical and Computer Engilneering I 
at University and I I of the Computer Science Department at 
University .__ __ ___.. We address the letters collectively as their content is substantially similar. 
Both professors spend significant portions of their letters repeating in either list or paragraph form the 
position duties that were already provided to us by the Petitioner, along with information copied 
directly from O*NET, and redundant general information about the Petitioner's business operations. 
In addition to this, the authors provide information about the Petitioner's representatives with whom 
the authors claim to have spoken with over the phone. Though bearing no apparent relation to the 
nature of the proffered position, the authors provide an overview of the educational background of 
those representatives. When factoring in the paragraphs concerning the qualifications of each 
professor and their signature blocks, very little content is devoted to an actual discussion of the 
proffered position. 
In turning to the content that is relevant, both authors list the duties and then declare the duties to be 
specialized, rather than providing analysis of why the work is specialized. Simply listing what the 
position involves, such as "leadership" or "testing and validation" does not explain the complexity or 
uniqueness of the position. Notably, the authors identify where the knowledge to perform the duties 
could be obtained, but not why the knowledge is required. For example, the letter from I I 
contains a heading rhetorically asking why the proffered position is a specialty occupation. In 
answering his question, the first sentence under the heading states that the "position of Supply Chain 
Business Systems Analyst requires specialized knowledge of [various areas]." However, this 
statement contains a significant underlyinl assumption: that the position requires specialized 
knowledge. To add any value to this matter~---~t analysis must flesh out his fundamental 
presupposition that the position requires specialized knowledge before discussing which areas of 
knowledge or explaining where the knowledge could be obtained. 
Similarly, after repeating the verbatim duties from the Petitioner and discussing the Petitioner's supply 
chain management operations generally, I I concludes that it "becomes apparent" that a 
minimum of a bachelor's degree in information systems, computer science or a related field is required 
"because the nature of these specific responsibilities and knowledge is specialized." Here again, we 
read a conclusion that the nature of the knowledge and duties is specialized, but lacking from the letter 
is an explanation of how that conclusion was reached. 
Distilling the reasoning of both authors down to its essence, the underlying assumption between both 
is that the knowledge is specialized because it can be obtained in a bachelor's degree program in the 
qualifying fields. Absent from the authors' letters is a cogent explanation of why the knowledge is 
required in the first place. Simply declaring that the duties are specialized and require specialized 
knowledge does not add to our understanding of why. While the authors may draw inferences that 
certain courses or knowledge obtained through a bachelor's degree in one of the qualifying fields may 
be beneficial, the authors do not provide a sufficient basis for their collective inference that a specific 
degree is required in order to perform the duties of the proffered position. Moreover, neither the 
Petitioner nor the authors have sufficiently substantiated their claims that this knowledge must be 
9 
obtained in a bachelor's degree program in one of the qualifying fields, as opposed to a few computer 
courses and on-the-job training. 
While we will review the opinions presented, they have little probative value as they do not include 
specific analysis of the duties of the particular position. The authors offer conclusory findings that do 
not feature cogent analysis of the position duties or a sufficient explanatory foundation. 17 
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 history. 
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. 
The Petitioner submitted a list of three position titles that represent the positions held by three current 
employees, along with the level of education associated with the person holding the position. We infer 
that the Petitioner wishes to demonstrate that its employees have specialized degrees. However, the 
Petitioner did not submit supporting documentation such as the hiring or tax documents of these 
individuals, copies of their degrees, or even their names. None of the three position titles is the same as 
the proffered position title and the record does not include any job duties performed by these employees 
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. 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. 
17 We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron Int'/, Inc., 
19 T&N Dec. 79L 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. We incorporate by reference 
our discussion ofl I and I I opinions into our discussion of the other 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) 
criteria. 
18 See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. 
19 Id. 
10 
Though the Petitioner claims 724 employees in the U.S. and that it has been operating its business since 
1980, 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. We conclude that both the number of employees and the length of time that the Petitioner has 
been operating suggest that the Petitioner has an ample source from which to draw examples of its 
recruiting and hiring practices but declined to submit such evidence. 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 three current employees who occupy positions different than 
the proffered one. 
We examined the job announcements that the Petitioner contends are for positions similar to the proffered 
position but disagree with the Petitioner's contention that they represent the hiring practices and degree 
requirements for the proffered position. Specifically, the job announcements require significantly more 
experience than the proffered position. Even assuming the various areas of experience could be obtained 
concurrently, the positions require a bachelor's degree along with five years of experience. If the 
experience could not be gained concurrently, the positions would require upwards of ten, and in one 
position, as much as nineteen years of experience on top of a bachelor's degree. Another listing requires 
a master's degree and two years' experience. Aside from the requirements of these positions far 
exceeding those of the proffered position, the announcements also state that the Petitioner accepts a 
variety of degrees, including management, business administration, manufacturing, finance, and 
economics. In one instance, the degree and experience appear to be a preference rather than a 
requirement. The variation in the acceptable degrees for entry into the position undermines the 
Petitioner's assertion that the position is a specialty occupation. 
Finally, if these positions are representative of the proffered position, as claimed, then the Petitioner 
has not resolved how payment of a wage to the Beneficiary, which falls in between a Level I and Level 
II, correlates to the experience the position requires. If alternatively, the positions are not parallel, but 
rather represent a different or more specialized position than the proffered position, then the postings 
have no relevance in establishing eligibility under this criterion. 
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. 
We return to the opinion of I I as both he and the Petitioner state that the duties are complex 
due to the geographic dispersion of the stakeholders across the globe and the Petitioner's recent merger 
withl I We have few concrete examples of how the global nature of the work affects the supply 
chain such that the proffered position would require specialized knowledge. Simply conducting 
business across time zones or cultures, for example, does not establish why the proffered position's 
11 
duties are complex or special. Furthermore, neithetj I nor the Petitioner offer concrete 
examples of how the proffered position's duties will change or become more complex as a result of 
the merger. The Petitioner claims that the business has experienced beyond normal growth but has 
not provided a basis for what normal growth is or sufficiently substantiated the impact that the 
increased growth has on the proffered position. 
Though systems and processes must be migrated or standardized to accommodate the merger, which 
may indicate an increased volume of work, we have little information as to why this additional work 
would be complex or specialized. Finally, even ifwe accept that the merger causes the work to become 
more complex, we question whether the work would remain so after the completion of the merger 
process. We conclude that the documentation of record does not substantiate a finding that the 
proffered position or its duties are more complex or special because of the global nature of the 
Petitioner's supply chain, the company's growth, or its recent merger. 
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 sufiiciently 
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). 
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 appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reason. In visa petition proceedings, 1t 1s 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