dismissed H-1B Case: Software Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10377060 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 29, 2020 
The Petitioner, a software development and consulting company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "business consultant" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the evidence of record 
did not establish that (1) the proffered position is a specialty occupation; and (2) there was sufficient 
specialty occupation work available for the Beneficiary to perform for the requested period of 
employment. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the 
questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
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) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entty into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industty 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. ChertoJJ; 484 F .3d 13 9, 14 7 (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. THE PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a business consultant. The Petitioner provided 
multiple descriptions of the duties of the proffered position. For the sake of brevity, we will not quote 
the duties; however, we have closely reviewed and considered them. 
Regarding the educational requirements for the position, the Petitioner initially stated that it required 
a bachelor's degree or equivalent in business, computer science, or engineering. In response to the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE) and on appeal, however, the Petitioner claimed that the proffered 
position requires at least a bachelor's degree in management information systems (MIS). 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons discussed below, we have determined that 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 1 
Specifically, we conclude that the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational 
background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 
1 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1B 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 
Preliminarily, we note that as a result of the Petitioner's own stated requirements, the proffered 
position does not meet the statutory or regulatory definition of the term "specialty occupation." As 
noted, both definitions require the Petitioner to demonstrate that the proffered position requires: (1) 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge; and (2) the 
attainment of a bachelor's degree in the specific specialty. The record of proceedings satisfies neither. 
The Petitioner's initial requirements included a bachelor's degree in business. That the Petitioner 
would find acceptable a bachelor's degree in business, with no further specialization, alone precludes 
a determination that the position involves a "body of highly specialized knowledge" or that it requires 
the attainment of a bachelor's degree in a "specific specialty." The First Circuit Court of Appeals 
explained in Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147, that: 
The courts and the agency consistently have stated that, although a general-purpose 
bachelor's degree, such as a business administration degree , may be a legitimate 
prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not 
justify the granting of a petition for an H-lB specialty occupation visa. See, e.g., Tapis 
lnt'l v. INS, 94 F.Supp.2d 172, 175-76 (D. Mass. 2000); Shanti, 36 F. Supp. 2d at 1164-
66; cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I & &N Dec . 558, 560 ([Comm'r] 1988) 
(providing frequently cited analysis in connection with a conceptually similar 
provision). This is as it should be: elsewise, an employer could ensure the granting of 
a specialty occupation visa petition by the simple expedient of creating a generic ( and 
essentially artificial) degree requirement. 2 
2 Id. But see India House, Inc. v. McAleenan, --- F. Supp. ----, 2020 WL 1479519 (D.R.I. 2020). In India House the court 
distinguished Royal Siam on factual grounds but did not dispute its central reasoning: that a position whose duties can be 
fulfilled by an individual with a general-purpose bachelor's degree in business is not a specialty occupation. Instead, it 
distinguished Royal Siam on factual grounds . Here, the Petitioner specifically recognizes an unspecialized bachelor 's 
degree in business as being one of the many degrees it considers as providing an adequate preparation to perform the duties 
of the proffered position. 
The agency has longstanding concerns regarding general -purpo se bachelor's degrees in business with no additional 
specialization. For example , in Matter of Ling, 13 I. & N. Dec. 35 (Reg'I Comm 'r 1968), the agency stated that attainment 
of a bachelor 's degree in business alone was insufficient to qualify a foreign national as a member of the professions 
pursuant to section 10l(a)(32) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a) (32). Twenty years later, the agency looked to the nature of 
the position itself and clarified that a requirement for a degree with a generalized title, such as business, without further 
specification, was insufficient to qualify the position as one that is professional pursuant to section 10l(a)(32) of the Act. 
Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. at 560. See also Matter of Caron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988) (vice 
president for manufacturing in a textile company was not a professional position because individual holding general degree 
in business, engineering or science could perform its duties). 
Congress created the modern H-lB program as part of the Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649, I 04 Stat. 4978. 
In doing so, it pivoted away from the prior H-1 standard of whether a position was "professional." Instead, petitioners 
were now required to demonstrate that a proffered position qualified as a "specia lty occupation." Section 
101 (a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b) of the Act. In the final rule setting forth the requirements for the revamped H-lB program, the agency, 
responding to commenters suggesting that the proposed regulatory "specific specialty" requirement "was too severe and 
would exclude certain occupations from classifications as specialty occupations," stated that "[t]he definition of specialty 
occupation contained in the statute contains this requirement." Temporary Alien Workers Seeking Classification Under 
the Immigration and Nationality Act, 56 Fed . Reg. 61111, 61112 (Dec. 2, 1991 ). 
3 
For this reason alone, the record satisfies neither the statutory nor the regulatory definitions of the term 
"specialty occupation ," and we could end our analysis here and dismiss the appeal on that basis. But 
we will not do so, because even if we were to set the issue of the "business" degree aside we would 
still find that the Petitioner ' s acceptance of a bachelor 's degree from a variety of fields, and the 
discrepancies with regard to its minimum requirements for the position, would similarly preclude it 
from satisfying both definitions. 
In response to the request for evidence and again on appeal, the Petitioner modifies its minimum 
educational requirements for the position from a bachelor's degree in business, computer science, or 
engineering to a bachelor ' s degree in MIS. Although the Petitioner does not explain this shift in 
educational requirement s, it appears that the requirement of a bachelor ' s degree in MIS is based 
1
pon
1 the conclusions ofl I Associate Professor of MIS atl I University . 
I I authored an opinion letter regarding the duties and requirements of the proffered position, and 
concluded that a bachelor's degree in computer science, MIS, or business administration is required 
to perform the duties of the position. On appeal, however, the petitioner abandons its prior 
requirements of a bachelor's degree in business, computer science, and engineering, focusing solely 
on the field of MIS. No explanation for this reasoning is provided. 
In general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry and biochemistry , a minimum 
of a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty is recognized as satisfying the "degree in 
the specific specialty (or its equivalent)" requirement of section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act. In such a 
case, the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" would essentially be the same. Since there 
must be a close correlation between the required "body of highly specialized knowledge " and the 
position, however, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in two disparate fields, such as 
philosophy and engineering, would not meet the statutory requirement that the degree be "in the 
specific specialty ( or its equivalent) ," unless the Petitioner establishes how each field is directly related 
to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position. Section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act (emphasis 
added). 
In other words, while the statutory "the" and the regulatory "a" both denote a singular "specialty," we 
do not so narrowly interpret these provisions to exclude positions from qualifying as specialty 
occupations if they permit, as a minimum entry requirement, degrees in more than one closely related 
specialty. See section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). This also includes even 
seemingly disparate specialties providing, again, the evidence of record establishes how each 
acceptable, specific field of study is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular 
position. 
Again, the Petitioner claims that the duties of the proffered position can be performed by an individual 
The agency 's concerns regarding a general-purpos e, non-speci fic degree in business, or business administration, continued 
under the revamped H-lB program . See, e.g., Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151 (D. Minn. 1999); Royal Siam , 484 
F.3d at 147; 2233 Paradise Road, LLC v. Cissna, No. l 7- cv- 01018- APG- VCF, 2018 WL 3312967 (D. Nev ., July 3, 
2018); XiaoTong Liu v. Baran , No. 18-00376-JVS , 2018 WL 7348851 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 21, 2018); Parzenn Partners v. 
Baran , No. 19-cv-11515 -ADB, 2019 WL 6130678 (D. Mass ., Nov. 19, 2019). 
To the extent the Petitioner is arguing that a bachelor's degree in business, with no further specialization (or the equivalent) , 
is a bachelor 's degree in a specific specialty , then consistent with agency history and federal case law, we must disagree. 
4 
with a bachelor's degree in business, computer science, engineering, or MIS. It is unclear how these 
fields are related. This grouping of degree fields does not support a finding that the proffered position 
meets the definition of a "specialty occupation." The Petitioner does not establish how each one relates 
to the duties of the proffered position, and if a degree in any of these disparate fields would equally 
prepare an individual to perform the duties of a proffered position, then we question how the position 
involves a "highly specialized body of knowledge" or requires a bachelor's degree, or the equivalent, 
in a "specific specialty." The cmTent record of proceeding does not establish how this divergent range 
of degrees could form either a body of highly specialized knowledge or a specific specialty. 3 We 
therefore cannot conclude that the proffered position requires anything more than a general bachelor's 
degree. The Petitioner therefore has satisfied neither the statutory definition of a "specialty 
occupation" at section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act nor the regulatory definition of a specialty occupation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
Nevertheless, we will review the Petitioner's submissions pertammg to the supplemental 
specialty-occupation criteria enumerated at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4). 
A. First Criterion 
We turn first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which requires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is nmmally 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. 4 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Computer Systems Analysts" 
c01Tesponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 15-1121. 5 
The Handbook states, in relevant part, that a bachelor's degree in a computer or information science field 
is common, although not always a requirement. 6 According to the Handbook, some firms hire analysts 
with business or liberal arts degrees. As discussed, we interpret the term "degree" to mean a degree 
3 "A position that requires applicants to have any bachelor's degree, or a bachelor's degree in a large subset of fields, can 
hardly be considered specialized." Caremax, Inc. v. Holder, 40 F.Supp.3d 1182, 1187-88 (N.D. Cal. 2014) 
4 All of our references to the Handbook may be accessed at the Internet site http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We consider the 
information in the Handbook regarding the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it 
addresses. 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 we regularly review the Handbook on the duties and educational requirements 
of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. However, the burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to submit 
sufficient evidence to establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
5 A petitioner submits the LCA to the Department of Labor (DOL) to demonstrate that it will pay an H-lB worker 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 duties, expe1ience, and qualifications. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 
20 C.F.R. § 655.731(a). 
6 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Computer Systems Analysts 
https://www.bls.gov/ ooh/computer-and-information-technology/ computer-systems-analysts.htm#tab-4 (last visited Sept. 
21, 2020). 
5 
in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d 
at 14 7. Since there must be a close correlation between the required specialized studies and the 
position, this requirement for general and wide-ranging degrees in business and liberal arts strongly 
suggests that a computer systems analyst position is not categorically a specialty occupation. See id. 
Cf MatterofMichaelHertzAssocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558,560 (Comm'r 1988). The Handbook continues 
by stating that although many analysts have technical degrees, such a degree is not always a 
requirement - and that, in fact, many analysts have liberal arts degrees and gain programming or 
technical expertise elsewhere. It does not specify a degree level (e.g., associate's degree) for these 
business, technical, and liberal arts degrees. The Handbook therefore does not support the assertion 
that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum 
requirement for these positions. See also Altimetrik Corp. v. Cissna, No. 18-10116, 2018, WL 
6604258, at *6 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 17, 2018) (also noting that because the Handbook "makes it clear 
that a degree in a computer-related field is not required" for these positions, "USCIS [was] entitled to 
deference in its finding that systems analysts are not required to have a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty"). 
Though relevant, the information the Petitioner submits from O*NET does not establish the 
Petitioner's eligibility under the first criterion, as it does not establish that a bachelor's degree in a 
spec[fic specialty, or the equivalent, is normally required. The O*NET Summary Report provides 
general inf mmation 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. Instead, 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 indicate that 
any academic credentials for Job Zone Four occupations must be directly related to the duties 
perfmmed. 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. 7 For all of 
these reasons, O*NET does not establish the proffered position as a specialty occupation. 
As previously noted, the Petitioner submitted an opinion letter authored by I I In his letter, 
.__ __ _.I described the credentials that he asserts qualify him to opine upon the nature of the proffered 
position and stated that "the Business Consultant role is clearly a specialty position and requires the 
services of someone with advanced training through a bachelor's program in Computer Science, 
Management Information Systems, Business Administration or closely related fields." Notably, he 
did not discuss the duties of the proffered position in substantial detail. 
While I I suggests that certain baccalaureate-level courses may be beneficial in performing 
various duties of the position, we disagree with his inference that degrees such fields are required in 
order to perform the duties of the proffered position. In other words, his suggestion that a person 
without the knowledge and concepts of certain computer science, MIS, and business administration 
7 For additional info1mation, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/ 
help/online/svp. 
6 
courses cannot be successful in this field is not the same as stating that a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty is required to perform the duties. As such, his analysis misconstrues the statutory and 
regulatory requirements of a specialty occupation. While a few related courses and skills may be 
beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, he has not demonstrated how an established 
curriculum of such courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, is required to perfmm the duties of the proffered position. 
Moreover, his suggestion that a degree in "Business Administration" is an acceptable degree to 
perform the duties of the proffered position is insufficient to demonstrate that the proffered position is 
a specialty occupation. As we discussed, the requirement of a bachelor's degree in business 
administration is inadequate to establish that a position qualifies as a specialty occupation. Since there 
must be a close cmrelation between the required specialized studies and the position, the requirement 
of a degree with a generalized title, such as "Business Administration," without further specification, 
does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N 
at 560. 
Finally, aside from his misplaced reliance on the Handbook and O*NET J ldid not include 
any relevant research, studies, surveys, or other authoritative publications as part of his review and/or 
as a foundation for his opinion to substantiate his statement. In summary, for the reasons discussed 
above, we conclude that the opinion letter rendered byl lis not sufficient to establish the 
proffered position as a specialty occupation. The conclusion reached by him lacks the requisite 
specificity and detail and is not supported by independent, objective evidence demonstrating the 
manner in which he reached such conclusion. There is an inadequate factual foundation established 
to support the opinion and the opinion is not in accord with other information in the record. Therefore, 
the letter from! ldoes not establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of 
Caron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&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. For the sake of brevity, we will not address other deficiencies within his 
analysis of the proffered position. 
The record also contains an excerpt from the usnews.com website, indicating that the position of 
computer systems analyst is one of the "best jobs" in the United States. While noted, this overview 
of the occupation provides only a general synopsis of the occupation, and provides little to no insight 
in the minimal educational requirements, if any, to enter the occupation. 
The record lacks sufficient evidence to support a finding that the proffered position is one for which a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is nmmally the minimum 
requirement for entry. For the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner has not met its burden to 
establish that the particular position offered in this matter requires a bachelor's or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, directly related to its duties in order to perform those tasks. Thus, 
the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I). 
7 
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." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 1999) 
(quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (considering these 
"factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
As noted, the Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is a common 
requirement within the industty for parallel positions among similar organizations. In support of this 
criterion, the Petitioner submitted job announcements placed by other employers. 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." We note that the Petitioner did not state that the proffered position requires any experience 
in addition to a bachelor's degree, other than a preference for a "strong background in ERP." However, 
many of the advertised positions appear to be for more senior positions than the proffered position as 
they list specific experience requirements in addition to a degree requirement. For example, the 
posting for the position identified as "Solution Architect, Principal - Manufacturing" requires 1 0+ 
years of experience in ERP or the manufacturing industries and 5+ years of sales experience, in 
addition to a bachelor's degree. The posting by Crown Linen Service requires 3-5 of experience in 
data warehousing, data modeling, and/or data analysis tools and 1-3 years ofIT experience in addition 
to a bachelor's degree. 
Further, the advertisements do not include sufficient information about the duties and responsibilities 
for the announced positions. For example, two of the four postings solicit for a solutions architect and 
a DevOps engineer, positions which appear unrelated to the one proffered here. The remaining two 
postings, though for a business analyst, do not provide sufficient information regarding the nature of 
the advertised positions and their requirements. Thus, it is not possible to determine important aspects 
of the jobs, such as the specific responsibilities, complexity of the job duties, supervisory duties (if 
any), and independent judgment required or the amount of supervision received. Therefore, the 
8 
Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the primary duties and responsibilities of the advertised 
positions parallel those of the proffered position. 
Finally, we note that Crown Linen Services accepts business administration as a qualifying degree for 
their position. As previously stated, the requirement of a bachelor's degree in business administration 
is inadequate to establish that a position qualifies as a specialty occupation. As discussed, since there 
must be a close correlation between the required specialized studies and the position, the requirement 
of a degree with a generalized title, such as business administration, without further specification, does 
not establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf Afatter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 l&N Dec. 
at 560. As explained above, 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. We have 
consistently stated that, although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business 
administration, may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, 
without more, will not justify a conclusion that a particular position qualifies for classification as a 
specialty occupation. Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. 
In addition, another posting simply states that a bachelor's degree is "mandatory," without specifying 
a degree field. While a general-purpose bachelor's degree may be a legitimate prerequisite for a 
particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify a conclusion that a particular 
position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. 
Overall, the job postings suggest, at best, that although a bachelor's degree is sometimes required for 
these positions, a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty ( or its equivalent) is not. 8 
Finally, the record does not contain documentary evidence sufficient to establish that these job vacancy 
announcements were placed by companies that (1) conduct business in the Petitioner's industty and 
(2) are also "similar" to the Petitioner. Only Crown Linen Service provides such information, and 
identifies itself as a linen and textile services company, and thus is distinguishable from the Petitioner's 
software development and consulting services. None of the other advertisements provide sufficient 
information regarding the hiring employers and the Petitioner did not supplement the record of 
proceedings to establish that these advertising organizations are similar to it. The language of the 
regulation is clear and when determining whether the job vacancy announcements are relevant for 
consideration, the Petitioner must show that they are "similar" organizations. When determining 
whether the Petitioner and another 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). 
8 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 dra~n 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 enor"). 
9 
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. 9 That is, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. 
We also incorporate by reference the previous discussion regarding the letter submitted by._l ___ _. 
Again, which he opines that a bachelor's degree in computer science, MIS, or business administration is 
standard within the industty for the occupation, his conclusions are not supported by objective evidence. 
Therefore, for the reasons noted previously, we decline to accept the reasoning set forth therein. 
Without more, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient 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 
perfmmed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
In support of its assertion that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, the Petitioner 
described the proffered position and its business operations. However, the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently developed relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the proffered position. In 
other words, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the duties of the proffered position require the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge such that a bachelor's 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform them. For example, 
the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary will "[a]rchitect Infor M3 solutions to meet client business 
needs" and "coordinate and direct daily project operation," but does not specify what these duties 
entail. The Petitioner does not illuminate the substantive application of knowledge involved or any 
particular educational requirement associated with such duties. The Petitioner does not sufficiently 
explain why such duties require the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific 
specialty. 
The duties as described do not clarify the substantive application of knowledge involved or any 
particular educational requirement associated with such duties. With the broadly described duties, the 
record lacks sufficient information to understand the nature of the actual proffered position and to 
determine that the duties require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly 
specialized know ledge attained by a bachelor's degree, or higher, in a specific discipline. 
On appeal, the Petitioner relies on the letter froml ko demonstt·ate that the proffered position 
is complex and requires specialized knowledge to perform its duties. Here, we incorporate our earlier 
9 The Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how representative the job postings are of the particular 
advertising employers' recruiting history for the type of job advertised. As the advertisements are only solicitations for 
hire, they are not evidence of the actual hi1ing practices of these employers. 
10 
discussion regarding why the letter froml I is insufficient to demonstrate that the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. As discussed, his letter did not discuss the duties of the 
proffered position in detail, nor did the author substantiate his opinion with relevant research, studies, 
surveys, or other authoritative publications. I lprovided insufficient analysis in explailingl 
how he arrived at his conclusions. For the reasons discussed earlier, we fmd that the letter from 
I kends little probative value to the matter here. 
The Petitioner repeatedly claims that the Beneficiary is well qualified for the 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. We are required to follow long-standing 
legal standards and dete1mine first, whether the proffered position qualifies for classification 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 I&N Dec. at 560 
("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]."). 
The Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the 
position. 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. 
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. 
See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d at 387-88. Were 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. Id. 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 copies of educational credentials and paystubs for several employees it 
claims occupy the same or similar positions in its organization as the one proffered here. However, 
the Petitioner did not submit job descriptions or position overviews for these individuals, such that we 
may dete1mine that they occupy the same position as the one proffered to the Beneficia1y. The 
Petitioner also did not submit any information regarding the complexity of the job duties, supervisory 
duties (if any), independent judgment required, or the amount of supervision received. Accordingly, 
it is unclear whether the duties and responsibilities of these individuals were the same or similar to the 
proffered position. 
The Petitioner also submitted a copy of its job solicitation for the proffered position, which requires a 
bachelor's degree in business, computer science, or engineering. Although the Petitioner maintained 
11 
in response to the RFE, and again on appeal, that it requires at least a bachelor's degree in MIS, no 
requirement for such a degree is set forth in this advertisement. 10 Moreover, it appears that the 
advertisement, dated November 26, 2019, was created after the Director's RFE and does not pre-date 
the filing of the petition. The Petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the nonirnrnigrant 
visa petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). Again, evidence that the Petitioner creates after the Director 
issues an RFE is not considered independent and objective evidence. Necessarily, independent and 
objective evidence would be evidence that is contemporaneous with the event to be proven and existent 
at the time of the Director's notice. Therefore, this posting also holds little probative value. 
For the reasons set forth above, the Petitioner has not satisfied the third criterion at 8 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. On appeal, the Petitioner does not assert, nor does the record demonstrate, eligibility under 
this criterion. 
For 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 demonstrated in the record that its proffered position is one with duties sufficiently 
specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). We incorporate our earlier 
discussion and analysis on this matter. 
Consequently, the Petitioner has not satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 11 
IV. CONCLUSION 
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. 
10 The Petitioner must resolve these inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the tmth lies. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Unresolved material inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the 
reliability and sufficiency of other evidence submitted in support of the requested immigration benefit. Id. 
11 Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the 
Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the availability of specialty occupation work for the Beneficiary. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of 
which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&NDec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA2015) (declining 
to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
12