dismissed H-1B Case: Software Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
InRe : 8150173 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 26, 2020 
The Petitioner, a software development and consulting company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "business analyst" 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. 
§ l 10l(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 of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, and did not establish the 
Beneficiary will perform services in a specialty occupation for the requested period of employment. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Director erred in denying 
the petition. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 1 
I. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the entire record, for the reasons set out below, we have determined that the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 2 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. In her decision, the Director thoroughly discussed the Petitioner's failure to 
meet any of the four regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l) - (4). Upon consideration 
of the entire record, including the evidence submitted and arguments made on appeal, we adopt and 
affirm the Director's decision with the comments below. See Matter of P. Singh, Attorney, 
26 I&N Dec. 623 (BIA 2015) ( citing Matter of Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994)); see also 
1 We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 
(AAO 2010). 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-lB petition , including evidence regarding the proffered position 
and its business operations . Although we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered 
each one. 
Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 7-8 (1st Cir. 1996) ("[I]f a reviewing tribunal decides that the facts and 
evaluative judgments prescinding from them have been adequately confronted and correctly resolved 
by a trial judge or hearing officer, then the tribunal is free simply to adopt those findings" provided 
the tribunal's order reflects individualized attention to the case). 
On appeal, the Petitioner repeatedly asserts that a bachelor's degree is required to fill the proffered 
position. A petitioner must demonstrate that the proffered position requires a precise and specific 
course of study that relates directly to the position in question. Since there must be a close correlation 
between the required specialized studies and the position, the requirement of a bachelor's degree 
without further specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of 
Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). To prove that a job requires the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge as required by section 
214(i)(l) of the Act, a petitioner must establish that the position requires the attainment of a bachelor's 
or higher degree in a specialized field of study or its equivalent. We interpret the degree requirement 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to require a degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the 
proposed position. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submitted a printout from a website, study.com that states that the position 
of business analysts "require candidates to have a bachelor's degree in business administration or 
related degree for entry-level positions." The document does not explain how a general degree in 
business administration is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the business analyst 
position. Moreover, the document does not provide any information regarding the source of the 
information on this particular issue. That is, there is no information to support the conclusions, such 
as references/citations to statistical surveys, authoritative industry publications, or professional 
studies. Thus, the printout cannot be found to be probative evidence to establish the proffered position 
as qualifying as a specialty occupation. 
Finally, the Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary will work in-house but on projects for clients. 
The Petitioner submitted projects and agreements to "prove the availability of the work for the 
requested period." However, while these documents show that the Petitioner has agreements in place 
with clients, they are not sufficient to demonstrate that the duties of the proffered position require 
knowledge usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. In addition, it is not clear if the Beneficiary will work on these projects as 
the Beneficiary is not listed in any of the documentation. Accordingly, these agreements are not 
evidence of work that would require knowledge usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, and, as such, are not sufficient 
to establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
II. CONCLUSION 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the 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 here, 
and the petition will remain denied. 3 
3 Because this is dispositive of the appeal, we need not discuss additional deficiencies we observe in the record such as the 
2 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
record does not establish that the Beneficiary is qualified for the proffered position. The Beneficiary was awarded a degree 
from a University located outside of the United States, and the Petitioner did not submit a credential evaluation to dete1mine 
if the Beneficiary obtained the equivalent of a U.S. Bachelor's degree. 
3