dismissed H-1B Case: Software Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 11793828 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 26, 2021 
The Petitioner, a software development and consulting company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "network and computer systems administrator" 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 el igibi I ity 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 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Act defines an H-lB nonimmigrant as a foreign national "who is 
coming temporarily to the United States to perform services ... in a specialty occupation described 
in section 214(i)(l) ... "(emphasis added). Section 214(i)(I) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(I), defines 
the term "specialty occupation" as an occupation that requires "theoretical and practical application of 
a body of highly specialized knowledge, and attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific 
specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States." The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates section 214(i)(I) of the Act, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) provides that the 
proffered position must meet one of four criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation position.4 Lastly, 
1 Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) , 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) 
2 Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
3 See Matter of Christa's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
4 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must be read with the statutory and regulatory definitions of a specialty occupation under 
section 214(i)(1) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). We construe the term "degree" to mean not just any 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(1) states that an H-1B classification may be granted to a foreign national 
who "will perform services in a specialty occupation ... "(emphasis added). 
Accordingly, to determine whether the Beneficiary will be employed in a specialty occupation, we 
look to the record to ascertain the services the Beneficiary will perform and whether such services 
require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge attained 
through at least a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty or its equivalent. Without 
sufficient evidence regarding the duties the Beneficiary will perform, we are unable to determine 
whether the Beneficiary will be employed in an occupation that meets the statutory and regulatory 
definitions of a specialty occupation and a position that also satisfies at least one of the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). The services the Beneficiary will perform in the position determine: 
(1) the normal minimum educational requirement for entry into the particular position, which is the 
focus of criterion 1; (2) industry positions which are parallel to the proffered position and thus 
appropriate for review for a common degree requirement, under the first alternate prong of criterion 
2; (3) the level of complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position, which is the focus of the second 
alternate prong of criterion 2; (4) the factual justification for a petitioner normally requiring a degree 
or its equivalent, when that is an issue under criterion 3; and (5) the degree of specialization and 
complexity of the specific duties, which is the focus of criterion 4. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
Further, as recognized by the court in Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387-88 (5th Cir. 2000), 
where the work is to be performed for entities other than the petitioner, evidence of the client 
companies' job requirements is critical. The court held that the former Immigration and Naturalization 
Service had reasonably interpreted the statute and regulations as requiring the petitioner to produce 
evidence that a proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation on the basis of the requirements 
imposed by the entities using the beneficiary's services. Id. Such evidence must be sufficiently 
detailed to demonstrate the type and educational level of highly specialized knowledge in a specific 
discipline that is necessary to perform that particular work. 
By regulation, the Director is charged with determining whether the petition involves a specialty 
occupation as defined in section 214(i)(1) of the Act. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(2). The Director 
may request additional evidence in the course of making this determination. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8). 
In addition, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the petition and must continue to 
be eligible through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). 
II. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently established 
the services in a specialty occupation that the Beneficiary would perform during the requested period 
of employment, which precludes a determination of whether the proffered position qualifies as a 
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"). 
2 
specialty occupation under sections 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 214(i)(1) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(1), 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) and (iii)(A). 5 
The Petitioner, located in Kansas states in the H-1B etition that it will deploy the Beneficiary to 
Florida in order to work for the'-----~---,-------___,... (end-client) pursuant to a 
contractual agreement between the Petitioner and'---------~· (vendor) and between the 
vendor and the end-client. However, the record does not contain sufficient evidence to establish the 
services the Beneficiary will perform. Specifically, the record (1) contains material inconsistencies; 
(2) does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, 
commensurate with a specialty occupation; and (3) does not describe the position's duties with 
sufficient detai I. 
A. Inconsistencies 
The record contains numerous inconsistencies that prevent us from ascertaining the substantive nature 
of the position. These inconsistencies relate to the minimum qualifications for entry into the position, 
the position's title, as well as the contractual entities and third-party worksites involved. 
Regarding these inconsistencies overall, it is well established that a petitioner may not make material 
changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) requirements. 6 Because a petitioner must establish that all eligibility 
requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing 
through adjudication, 7 a visa petition may not be approved at a future date after a petitioner or 
beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts.8 As such, eligibility for the benefit sought must 
be assessed and weighed based on the facts as they existed at the time the instant petition was filed. 
In order for a petitioner to comply with 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1) and USCIS to perform its regulatory 
duties under 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b), a petitioner must file an amended or new petition, along with a 
new labor condition application (LCA) certified by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), in order to 
capture any material changes in terms or conditions of employment or the beneficiary's eligibility. 9 
1. Minimum Qualifications 
On the Form 1-129, Petitioner for a Nonimmigrant Worker, the Petitioner stated that the minimum 
qualification for the proffered position is a bachelor's degree in sustainable energy. Here, the Petitioner 
mentioned no experience equivalencies or related degree fields as acceptable. Elsewhere within the initial 
petition filing, the vendor stated that the minimum qualifications for the position are a bachelor's degree 
in computer science, systems technology, engineering, or a directly related field or equivalent. Next, the 
5 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. 
6 See Matter of lzummi, 22 l&N Dec. 169, 176 {Assoc. Comm'r 1998). 
7 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b){1). 
8 See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 l&N Dec. 248 (Reg'I Comm'r 1978). 
9 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)(1) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(a). 
3 
end-client articulated the same degree requirements as the vendor, but also specifically mentioned in its 
letter that, along with the educational requirements, work experience was an important prerequisite for 
the position. Neither the vendor nor the end-client indicated that the position requires a bachelor's degree 
in sustainable energy. Moreover, only the end-client references the requirement for work experience in 
addition to education. 
The minimum qualifications for entry into the proffered position changed again when the Petitioner 
responded to the Director's request for evidence (RFE). On the first page of the Petitioner's RFE response 
letter, it stated that the position required a "computer science, systems technology, engineering or directly 
related background that can only be obtained through a bachelor's degree in a related field" (emphasis 
added). As articulated here, the Petitioner's minimum qualifications appear not to contemplate equivalent 
experience as acceptable. Additionally, the required fields of study markedly changed from the 
Petitioner's initial articulation of a bachelor's degree in sustainable energy, appearing more aligned with 
what the vendor and end-client had originally stated.10 However, on the second page of the same RFE 
letter, the Petitioner changed its requirements again, stating that its minimum qualifications for the 
position were a bachelor's degree in computer science, computer information systems, management 
information systems, or any related engineering field, along with a minimum of "four years of experience 
in LAN, WAN, networks analysis, support, and design." On the sixth page of the Petitioner's RFE letter, 
the Petitioner describes the required education for the position in terms of the Beneficiary's qualifications 
for the position. However, defining a position in terms of the Beneficiary's ability to perform in the duties 
misconstrues the statutory and regulatory requirements. Further, 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.11 
On appeal, the Petitioner repeats the required minimum qualifications in the same manner as they 
appeared in the RFE response, which does not resolve the above-described discrepancies. Additional 
confusion arises when examining the new end-client letter provided on appeal. A Senior Network 
Administrator with the end-client states that the position requires a bachelor's degree in computer science, 
electrical engineering, or the equivalent degree with relevant experience, along with "Cisco Certifications 
such as CCNA (Mandatory) and CCNP (preferred) and industry specific knowledge." Though the 
Petitioner mentioned engineering as a qualifying field, the end-client letter appears to narrow that 
qualification to electrical engineering specifically. Moreover, the Petitioner did not previously mention 
any certifications as a requirement for entry into the position. Overall, the continuous alterations to the 
minimum qualifications for the position raise questions about the reliability of the Petitioner's assertions 
and call into question the substantive nature of the position. 
2. Proffered Position Title 
10 In a letter provided in the RFE response, the end-client also changed its requirements to a bachelor's degree in 
"engineering, Information Technology or related field, or the equivalent thereof," with no apparent additional experience 
required. 
11 We are required to follow long-standing legal standards and determine first, whether the proffered position qualifies as 
a specialty occupation, and second, whether the beneficiary was qualified for the position at the time the nonimmigrant 
visa petition was filed. Cf. Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 l&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988) {"The facts of a 
beneficiary's background only come at issue after it is found that the position in which the petitioner intends to employ 
him falls within [a specialty occupation]."). 
4 
In addition to changes in the minimum qualifications for the position, we observe inconsistencies in the 
title of the position. The title "network and computer systems administrator" appears on the H-lB petition 
and LCA. However, in its RFE response, the Petitioner refers to the proffered position as both a "network 
developer" and a "network administrator." It is not apparent whether the variously titled roles refer to 
the same position. The Petitioner has not acknowledged or explained the difference between the titles, 
and it is not apparent from the record whether these differently titled positions require the performance 
of the same or similar duties. At minimum, this job title inconsistency raises questions as to whether 
the LCA corresponds to and supports the H-lB petition, as required. 
3. Contractual Entities 
The Director's decision noted that the Petitioner had not sufficiently documented its employer­
~e relationship with the Beneficiary given the Petitioner's reference tol I 
L___Jas the entitf retaining the sole right to hire and fire the Beneficiary. On appeal, counsel states 
that the reference to lwas an error. However, we note an additional entity, 
I I referenced above the signature block of the Petitioner in the vendor work order. The 
Petitioner has not acknowledged or explained how this entity relates to the Petitioner, which raises 
questions concerning the accuracy of the contractual chain. Further compounding these concerns are 
the project descriptions from the end-client, which indicate that some work will be conducted at the 
end-client's undefined "client sites" and "remote sites," which suggests the location where the 
Beneficiary will perform work may change.12 The reference tol I as the entity with 
whom the vendor has a work order for the Beneficiary's services, along with references to other site 
locations in the third-party placement of the Beneficiary, combine to further obscure the substantive 
nature of the position and also undermine the overall credibility of the petition. 
B. Assertions on Appeal 
On appeal, the Petitioner contests the Director's determination under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(1) (criterion one) with specific reference to the district court case RELX, Inc. v. 
Baran, 397 F. Supp. 3d 41 (D.D.C. Aug. 5, 2019). The Petitioner also states that the proffered position 
duties are "complex" and "unique," which appears to collectively contest the Director's determination 
of eligibility under both the second prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) and under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h )( 4)(i i i)(A)( 4).13 Finally, the Petitioner asserts on appeal that it normally requires a degree 
or its equivalent, which contests the Director's conclusions of eligibility under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). However, as previously stated, due to material inconsistencies contained 
within the record of proceeding, as well as insufficient evidence and a lack of specificity in its 
12 The end-client documents provided also contain project end dates which suggest that many of the projects upon which 
the Beneficiary will work have already concluded. 
13 On appeal, the Petitioner does not specifically rebut the Director's conclusions under the first prong of the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) and therefore, the Petitioner has abandoned such eligibility claims on appeal. When an 
appellant fails to properly challenge one of the independent grounds upon which the Director based their overall 
determination, the filing party has abandoned any challenge of that ground. See Matter of Zhang, 27 l&N Dec. 569 n.2 
(BIA 2019) (finding that an issue not appealed is deemed as abandoned); Matter of Valdez, 27 l&N Dec. 496, 496 n.1 
(BIA 2018); Matter of R-A-M-, 25 l&N Dec. 657,658 n.2 (BIA 2012); Matter of J-Y-C-, 24 l&N Dec. 260,261 n.1 (BIA 
2007); Matter of Cervantes, 22 l&N Dec. 560, 561 n.1 (BIA 1999) Matter of Edwards, 20 l&N Dec. 191, 196-97 n.4 {BIA 
1990). See also Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005). 
5 
description of the duties to be performed, we cannot ascertain the substantive nature of the position, 
which precludes a specialty occupation determination.14 
1. Eligibility Under Criterion One 
On appeal, the Petitioner cites the RELX case to assert that a position may qualify as a specialty occupation 
even when the position permits more than one specific specialty for entry into it. We initially note that 
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 arising even 
within the same district.15 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.16 
The Petitioner emphasizes the RELX court's statement that "if the position requires the beneficiary to 
apply practical and theoretical specialized knowledge and a higher education degree[,] it meets the 
requirements. Nowhere in the statute does it require the degree to come solely from one particular 
academic discipline."17 Here, the Petitioner argues that the Director incorrectly determined that because 
the occupational category selected by the Petitioner permits individuals with a postsecondary certificate 
or associate's degree to enter into the occupation, that this is not evidence that the positions falling with 
the occupational category are required to hold at least a bachelor's degree in a specific field of study.18 
Although, the Petitioner states that the Director's determination in this regard contradicts the RELX case, 
the Petitioner provides little further detail or analysis to support its assertion. 
Notably, the RELX court used a conditional "if" when referring to what type of position meets the 
requirements. As discussed throughout this decision, the Petitioner has not established the substantive 
nature of its position such that it can be determined whether it requires the application of specialized 
knowledge or whether the duties require an educational background commensurate with a higher 
education degree. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established the first part of the RELX court's 
14 On appeal, the Petitioner mentions a Fraud Detection and National Security site visit conducted after the Director denied 
the petition. Though the Petitioner does not identify where the visit occurred, such as the end-client, vendor, or the 
Petitioner's locations, it asserts the visit was without notice to the Petitioner's counsel. While we acknowledge this 
concern, the Petitioner has not cited to any legal authority preventing USCIS from conducting compliance reviews through 
unannounced site visits. For more information about USCIS site visits generally, please refer to 
https://www.uscis.gov/about-us/directorates-and-program-offices/fraud-detection-and-national-security/administrative-
site-visit-and-verification-program and for H-1B specific site visit information, please refer to 
https://www. usc is. gov /scams-fraud-and-mi sco nd u ct/report-fraud/combating-fraud-and-abuse-i n-the-h-1 b-visa-prog ram 
(last visited Feb. 25, 2021). 
15 See Matter of K-S-, 20 l&N Dec. 715, 719-20 (BIA 1993). 
16 Id. 
17 RELX, 397 F. Supp. 3d at 55. The RELX court also referenced Residential Finance Corp. v. U.S. Citizenship & 
Immigration Servs., 839 F. Supp. 2d 985, 997 (S.D. Ohio 2012) to state that "[d]iplomas rarely come bearing occupation­
specific majors. What is required is an occupation that requires highly specialized knowledge and a prospective employee 
who has attained the credentialing indicating possession of that knowledge." Additionally, the court cited to Tapis lnt'I v. 
Immigration and Naturalization Service, 94 F. Supp. 2d 172 (D. Mass. 2000) (rejecting a similar agency interpretation 
because it would preclude any position from satisfying the "specialty occupation" requirements where a specific degree is 
not available in that field). 
18 The Petitioner designated the proffered position under the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code and title 
15-1142, "Network and Computer Systems Administrators." 
6 
conditional "if" statement. Therefore, even if we followed the RELX court's analysis, this would still 
not establish that the proffered position "meets the requirements."19 The Petitioner has not provided 
consistent documentation concerning the minimum requirement for entry into its particular position, 
nor, as the following discussion addresses, has the Petitioner provided sufficiently detailed duties such 
that we can ascertain the substantive nature of the particular position. 
2. Complex and Unique Duties 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the proffered position's duties are complex and unique and refers 
our attention to an appeal "Exhibit A." 20 The appeal brief contains no "Exhibit A," but only sections 
labeled "[p]reviously submitted evidence" and "[n]ew evidence." In examining the Petitioner's claim 
of complex and unique duties, including the evidence submitted on appeal, we find insufficient support 
for the Petitioner's assertions. The Petitioner claimed initially that the position required the 
Beneficiary to utilize "sustainable energy principles" however, the Petitioner has not defined this term, 
nor do the duties, as articulated, appear to involve such principles, to the extent that we understand 
them. Further, we cannot ascertain how such principles fit within the overall occupational category 
of "Network and Computer Systems Administrators" and question whether a different occupational 
category might be more appropriate to capture responsibilities following such principles. Moreover, 
the Petitioner claimed to have "specific business polices" that make it "unique in the consulting 
business market," however it has not explained what these policies are, why they make the Petitioner 
unique, or how this affects the proffered position, particularly when the Beneficiary is to perform 
services for a third-party. While we acknowledge these claims, the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
substantiated them such that it adds to our understanding of the substantive nature of the position. 
In examining the duties themselves, we note many vague and general descriptions that do not assist in 
our understanding of the position. The Petitioner describes various duties in terms such as, "work 
with," "worked on," or "involved in," which do not clearly explain what the Beneficiary will do 
regarding the duty. For instance, the duty "[i]nvolved in the design using the best practices for the 
layout of rack, switch, and [end-client's] cabling infrastructure," does not sufficiently describe what 
the Beneficiary actually does with the design nor does it explain what best practices he utilizes. 
Another example is, "[i]nvolved in the [end-client's] domain and monitored networks to ensure 
security and availability to [end-client's] customers and users," which neither explains what the 
19 While we agree that the degree does not have to be in a single specific specialty, we disagree with the RELX court's 
interpretation of the statutory and regulatory definitions of the term "specialty occupation." The court did not address the 
statutory and regulatory provisions as they pertain to the requirement that the knowledge be highly specialized and that the 
bachelor's degree, or its equivalent, be in a specific specialty. In overlooking this relevant detail, the court disposed of the 
precedential authority created by Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147 (describing "a degree requirement in a specific 
specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular position"). Moreover, the RELX 
court misinterpreted the information contained in DOL's Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) and the 
Occupational Information Network (O*NET) by inserting a finding of specialization into its reading of the information 
contained in these sources. As such, even if the Petitioner satisfied the first part of the "if" statement, we would 
nevertheless conclude that the Petitioner's reliance upon the RELX case does not support its eligibility. 
20 While the second prong of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) addresses a particular position so 
complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4), contemplates duties so specialized and complex that knowledge required to perform the duties is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. We address these two criteria collectively, as 
our analysis concerning them is similar. 
7 
Beneficiary actually does to carry out the duty nor how the duty fits into the overall operations of the 
end-client. Many duties, particularly those concerning user support, as well as LAN, WAN, and other 
network issues, appear similar to duties described in the "Computer Support Specialists" occupational 
category. Due to the general and vague descriptions of the proffered position duties, it cannot readily 
be determined whether the Petitioner selected the correct occupational category for the proffered 
position. 21 
As described, many of the duties appear passive, requiring the Beneficiary to "check on," "monitor," 
or "review" work already performed. In describing the duties as such, it is not apparent whether the 
Beneficiary already performed the work that he passively checks on, monitors, and reviews, or whether 
others performed the work. Therefore, the descriptions do not adequately convey the nature of the 
position. Some duties appear to be administrative or clerical in nature, such as reviewing logs and 
maintaining inventory. It is not apparent from the Petitioner's descriptions how the Beneficiary will 
be relieved of non-qualifying work and this raises questions as to the position's substantive nature. 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides a new end-client letter, which includes a list of duties the 
Beneficiary currently performs as a "Network Administrator." Here, once again, it cannot be 
determined whether the end-client refers to the proffered position or another role when it uses this 
title. Nevertheless, we note that in this role, the Beneficiary provides project management functions. 
It does not appear as though the Petitioner previously articulated project management functions in its 
various duty descriptions for the proffered position, and we therefore question whether this is a new 
duty as well as whether the proffered position involves work falling within a combination of 
occupational categories, including "Information Technology Project Managers.22 
On appeal, the Petitioner resubmits the opinion letter provided b~ ,I the owner of 
I I a global career coaching firm. The Petitioner's appellate claims do not 
specifically contest any aspect of the Director's analysis concerning the opinion letter offered byO 
I J and we discuss it here onl} insofar as it affects the Petitioner's assertions of unique and 
complex duties. Here, I _ s opinion letter offers little to clarify the substantive nature of 
the position. Although she repeats the previously provided business overviews of the Petitioner and 
end-client, she offers little additional analysis or explanation to substantiate claims of the Petitioner's 
unique business policies and how that affects the work performed by the Beneficiary. She repeats the 
duties as previously articulated by the Petitioner, then adds information from the Beneficiary's resume, 
an expanded set of duties already provided by the Petitioner, and information from the Handbook. 
I I then appears to have copied and pasted two job vacancy announcements from two 
websites into her letter, neither of which she discusses.23 She then provides two paragraphs 
21 The Handbook categorizes the "Computer Support Specialists" occupation under SOC 15-1231, while O*NET separates 
"Computer Network Support Specialists, under SOC code 15-1231," from "Computer User Support Specialists, under 
SOC code 15-1232." For further information, visit https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information­
technology/computer-support-specialists.htm#tab-2, as well as https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/15-1231.00 and 
https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/15-1232.00 (last visited Feb. 25, 2021). 
22 The Handbook categorizes this occupation under SOC 15-1199.09 and is an occupation not covered in detail, while 
O*NET recently catalogued "Information Technology Project Managers" under SOC code 15-1299.09. For more 
information, please visit https://www.bls.gov/ooh/abouUdata-for-occupations-not-covered-in-detail.htm and 
https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/15-1299.09 (last visited Feb. 25, 2021). 
23 To the extent that these postings can be construed as an assertion that the degree requirement is common to the 
Petitioner's industry, we conclude that the neither I I nor the Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence 
8 
summarizing the educational requirements for the occupational category, as described in the 
collegemouse.com website, and before concluding, she provides DOL's predictions for the future of 
the occupational category.24 As it appearsl l•c; letter contains little to no independent 
analysis of the specific duties of the position, her opinion is of limited value in this matter.25 
Overall, the Petitioner has provided vague and general duty descriptions which appear to overlap with 
other occupational categories, and do not readily feature complex, specialized, or unique work. While 
we acknowledge the Petitioner's claims that it has unique policies and that the position involves 
sustainable energy principles, these claims have not been substantiated, which further confuses the 
substantive nature of the position. Accordingly, we are unable to determine whether the Beneficiary 
will be employed in an occupation that meets the statutory and regulatory definitions of a specialty 
occupation and in a position that also satisfies at least one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). While we acknowledge the Petitioner's arguments of eligibility, the 
inconsistencies and lack of detail in the record are a foundational deficiency that preclude a 
determination of eligibility under the four criteria. 
3. The Petitioner's Normal Requirements 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that it "normally requires a degree or its equivalent as indicated herein. 
Exhibit A" As previously stated, the appeal brief does not contain an "Exhibit A" and the Petitioner 
does not offer specific evidence or analysis concerning its normal requirements. In general, the third 
criterion at 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. 
Though the Petitioner stated that "[w]e require that our Computer Network System Administrators be 
degreed," 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. 26 Were USCIS limited solely to reviewing a 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. 27 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 
concerning whether the positions parallel the proffered position or are within organizations similar to the Petitioner. 
Moreover, as previously stated, the Petitioner has not contested the Director's findings concerning the first prong of the 
regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2j ts letter does not contain the reference material collegemouse.com uses in its analysis of the occupational 
category and therefore, we are unable to determine the reliability of the information provided from this source. 
25 We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron lnt'I, 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 analysis of the duties and wh~ the duties require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. We 
hereby incorporate our discussion otl._ ____ _.s opinion into our overall discussion of the substantive nature of the 
position. 
26 See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. 
21 Id. 
9 
the position. Here, the Petitioner does not offer evidence of its past recruiting and hiring history for 
the proffered position, but rather submitted several letters claiming the requirement for various 
combinations of education and experience. As we cannot ascertain which of the numerous variations 
is accurate, nor do we have other evidence concerning the Petitioner's past recruiting and hiring 
practices for the proffered position, no determination can be made about the Petitioner's normal 
practices. Without more, 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. Even if the 
Petitioner had provided sufficient evidence for this criterion, this would not resolve the inconsistencies 
and lack of detail in the record, which preclude a determination of eligibility. 
Ill. BENEFICIARY QUALIFICATIONS 
As we cannot ascertain the services the Beneficiary will perform and whether such services require 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge attained through at 
least a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty or its equivalent, we need not fully address 
other issues evident in the record. That said, we wish to identify these additional issues to inform the 
Petitioner that these matters should be addressed in any future proceedings. 
Though the Director's decision did not address the Beneficiary's qualifications, we conclude that the 
record does not sufficiently demonstrate how the Beneficiary's combined education and work 
experience meets any of the various minimum qualifications required by the Petitioner. The record 
indicates the Beneficiary holds a foreign four-year degree in civil engineering and a U.S. graduate 
degree in sustainable energy. The Petitioner provides al , I evaluation, 
which contains an assessment of the Beneficiary's foreign degree along with the Beneficiary's work 
experience. However, the evaluation contains insufficient evidence to corroborate how it reached its 
conclusions. The evaluator states that the Beneficiary's foreign four-year civil engineering degree is 
the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in the same field, but provides little analysis of how the 
foreign education is actually the equivalent to a U.S. education, particularly in terms of quality, credits, 
and content. 
Regarding the Beneficiary's U.S. degree, the record contains a letter from the department chair at the 
Beneficiary's U.S. graduate school, in which he describes the sustainable energy degree as a "multi­
disciplinary degree" with a "focus on information or computer technology management." However, 
the department chair's overview of the Beneficiary's four courses in the sustainable energy degree 
program do not provide a sufficient foundation for the claim that they involve a "focus on information 
or computer technology management." For instance, the department chair notes quality management, 
leadership theories, audience-centered communication in organizational settings, and an unidentified 
student-led research project, none of which readily lend themselves to a claimed focus on information 
or computer technology management. Though the department chair provides overviews of the 
courses, he does not adequately substantiate his claims that the overall degree has a focus on 
information or computer technology management. 
Returning to the~---------~ evaluation, we note that it contains an experience 
evaluation section. While the record contains the Beneficiary's training certificates and various work 
experience reference letters, not all claimed positions have a corresponding letter of reference and 
10 
therefore, we have insufficient documentation concerning the Beneficiary's work experience. 28 Even 
with work reference letters spanning all of the Beneficiary's prior positions, the I I I I evaluator offers little to no analysis of the work performed in these positions. Namely, 
the evaluation does not contain an analysis of how the work experience in these positions constitutes 
specialized training and/or progressively responsible experience in a specific specialty. Rather, the 
evaluator relies upon various lists of duties provided to him to conclude that the Beneficiary's 
experience demonstrates broad and professional knowledge of computer information systems. 
Although the evaluator concludes that the Beneficiary possesses the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's 
degree in Computer Information Systems, the evaluator does not clearly explain how he arrived at his 
conclusions. Here, the evaluator draws upon USCIS's "three for one rule" as the basis for his 
conclusions. However, we cannot determine whether the evaluator construes the four years' 
experience as an educational equivalent in a particular field or whether the evaluator considers the 
claimed four years' experience in combination with one or both of the Beneficiary's educational 
degrees. Even if we assumed that all of the Beneficiary's work experience qualifies, four years of 
relevant work experience would amount to just over one year of educational equivalency. The 
evaluator has not addressed how this contributes to his overall conclusion that the Beneficiary 
possesses the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in Computer Information Systems. Even when 
combining the claimed experience with the Beneficiary's foreign and U.S. degrees, the equivalency is 
not clearly explained. As previously stated, the evaluator equates a foreign civil engineering degree 
with a U.S. bachelor's degree in civil engineering without delving into a sufficient analysis of either 
degree's features, or relating either of them to a bachelor's degree in Computer Information Systems. 
Moreover, the department chair's overview also does not adequately explain the relationship of a 
sustainable energy degree to a bachelor's degree in Computer Information Systems. Therefore, if the 
evaluator means to collectively assess the U.S. sustainable energy graduate degree in conjunction with 
the foreign civil engineering degree, along with the claimed work experience, he has not sufficiently 
explained how each would individually relate to an overall equivalency of a bachelor's degree in 
Computer Information Systems. 
We may, in our discretion, discount or give less weight to an evaluation of a person's foreign education 
where that opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable.29 For all of 
these reasons, we conclude that this evaluation insufficiently establishes the Beneficiary's 
qualifications and the Petitioner should be prepared to address this issue in any future H-1B filings. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Upon review of the record in its totality, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently established 
the services in a specialty occupation that the Beneficiary would perform during the requested period 
of employment, which precludes a determination of whether the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation under sections 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 214(i)(1) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(1), 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) and (iii)(A). 
28 The work experience evaluation discusses a position at Varunavi IT Consultants, Inc.; however, other than the 
evaluator's assertions concerning this position, which appear to come from the Beneficiary's resume, we have little other 
corroborating evidence of this work experience. 
29 Matter of Sea, Inc., 19 l&N Dec. 817,820 (Comm'r 1988). 
11 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 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