dismissed H-1B Case: Software Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8908798 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 17, 2020 
The Petitioner, a software, information systems, and database development company, seeks to 
temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "consultant" 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 California Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the record did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The matter is now before us 
on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 2 
We review the questions in this matter de novo.3 Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge , 
and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States . 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
1 Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § I I0l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) 
2 Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369,375 (AAO 2010) . 
3 See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
(4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We construe the term "degree" to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal 
Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in a 
specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular 
position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will be employed as a "consultant." In response to the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner stated that a bachelor's degree in computer 
science, computer information systems, management information systems, or a closely related field is 
required for entry into the position. In other parts of the RFE response, the Petitioner changed its 
requirements to a bachelor's degree in in computer science, computer information science, 
electronics/electrical engineering, or a closely related field. The Petitioner did not acknowledge or 
explain the change. While we will not list each duty here, we have considered all of the duties in each 
of the various lists and charts submitted by the Petitioner. Upon review of the record in its totality and 
for the reasons set out below, we determine that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. Specifically, the record (1) does not describe the position's 
duties with sufficient detail; and (2) does not establish that the job duties require an educational 
background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 4 
A. First Criterion 
We tum 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 normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. To inform this inquiry, we normally consider the information 
contained in the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) 
4 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 
regarding the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations it addresses. 5 
The Petitioner designated the proffered position on the labor condition application (LCA) as a 
Standard Occupation Classification (SOC) code 15-1199 "Computer Occupations, All Other" 
occupation. In its RFE response, the Petitioner asserted that the duties of the proffered position are 
consistent with the duties of the "Computer Systems Engineers/Architects" corresponding to SOC 
code 15-1199.02. 6 
The Handbook is a career resource offering information on hundreds of occupations. However, there are 
occupational categories which the Handbook does not cover in detail, and instead provides only summary 
data. 7 The subchapter of the Handbook titled "Data for Occupations Not Covered in Detail" states, in 
relevant part, that the "[t]ypical entry-level education" for a variety of occupations within the category of 
"[ c ]omputer and mathematical occupations" is a "Bachelor's degree," without indicating that the 
bachelor's degree must be in a specific specialty. 8 Thus, the Handbook is not probative in establishing 
that these positions comprise an occupational group for which the nmmal minimum requirement for entry 
is at least a bachelor's degree in a specffic specialty, or its equivalent. 
The Petitioner also references the DOL's O*NET summary report for '·Computer Systems 
Engineers/Architects." The O*NET Summary Report does not establish that a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or the equivalent, is normally required. It provides general information regarding the 
occupation, but it does not support a conclusion that the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or the equivalent. 
O*NET assigns these positions a "Job Zone Four" rating, which states "most of these occupations require 
a four-year bachelor's degree, but some do not." Moreover, the Job Zone Four designation does not 
indicate that any academic credentials for Job Zone Four occupations must be directly related to the duties 
performed. In addition, the specialized vocational preparation (SVP) rating designates this occupation as 
7 < 8. An SVP rating of 7 to less than ("<") 8 indicates that the occupation requires "over 2 years up to 
and including 4 years" of training. While the SVP rating indicates the total number of years of vocational 
preparation required for a particular position, it is important to note that it does not describe how those 
years are to be divided among training, experience, and formal education. The SVP rating also does not 
5 We do not maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source ofrelevant information. That is, the occupational category 
designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered 
position, and we regularly review the Handbook on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of 
occupations that it addresses. Nevertheless, to satisfy the first criterion, the burden of proofremains on the Petitioner to 
submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its patiicular position would normally have a minimum, specialty 
degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
6 The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level II wage. A wage determination staiis with an entry-level wage 
(Level I) and progresses to a higher wage level (up to Level IV) after considering the experience, education, and skill 
requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp 't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage 
Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http:/ /t1cdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised_ I I_ 2009 .pdf 
7 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Data for Occupations Not Covered in 
Detail, https://www.bls.gov/ooh/about/data-for-occupations-not-covered-in-detail.htm (last visited July 16, 2020). Here, 
the Handbook does not provide specific infotmation for various occupations which might be classified within the occupational 
category. 
8 The Handbook also indicates that this occupation does not require work experience in a related occupation or typical 
on-the-job training. Id. 
3 
specify the particular type of degree, if any, that a position would require. 9 Further, although the summary 
reports provide the educational requirements of "respondents," it does not account for 100% of the 
"respondents." Moreover, the respondents' positions within the occupation are not distinguished by 
career level ( e.g., entry-level, mid-level, senior-level). Furthermore, the graph in the summary report does 
not indicate that the "education level" for the respondents must be in a specific specialty. For all of these 
reasons, O*NET does not establish the proffered position as a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner cites to Study.com and argues that it is a probative source on the requirements 
of the computer systems engineer position. 10 We have reviewed the Study.com website and materials 
provided, but we do not agree that Study.com is a reliable source on this issue. Study.com appears to 
be a for-profit business that offers a flexible way to earn college credit through its in-house courses. 
Additionally, Study.com connects its customers to specific schools and programs that advertise on the 
Study.com website in order to assist customers in pursuing their education. As such, it is in the 
business interest of Study.com to characterize the educational requirements for entry into specific 
occupations in a manner that would encourage its customers to purchase courses with them or to apply 
to one of the schools that advertise on its site. While Study.com offers general information on a 
particular career path, its objectivity and credibility in this matter is undermined because it appears to 
have a profit interest in encouraging students to complete additional education and to complete it in 
specific programs. Moreover, the investigative reports, research studies, or data upon which 
Study.com bases its claims are not readily apparent nor available for our review. Therefore, we cannot 
independently ascertain the reliability of Study.corn's claims. 
The Petitioner further argues that because the degree fields listed by Study.com closely relate to the 
qualifying fields for the proffered position, it can be reasonably inferred that the Beneficiary's foreign 
degree also closely relates to the proffered position. Here, the Petitioner attempts to argue why the 
Beneficiary is qualified to perform in the proffered position, which is a separate and unrelated issue to 
the requirements of the position for purposes of a specialty occupation determination. 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. 12 
As the foregoing demonstrates, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation from a 
probative source to substantiate its assertion regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this 
particular position. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I). 
9 For additional infcnmation, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/ 
help/online/svp. 
10 Study.com states that "a 4-year degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering or informational technology will 
be needed to launch a career in computer systems engineering." (last visited July 16, 2020). 
11 We further note that Study.com does not discuss the duties of the proffered position, nor has Study.com determined that 
the proffered position falls within the computer systems engineer occupational category. 
12 Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs .. 19 I&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 
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 nan-ows 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." 13 As noted, the Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty is a common requirement within the industry for parallel positions among similar 
organizations. Also, the Petitioner did not submit evidence from an industry professional association 
or from firms or individuals in the industry indicating such a degree is a minimum requirement for 
entry into the position. 
The Petitioner submitted job vacancy announcements for our consideration under this prong. To be 
relevant for consideration, the job vacancy announcements must advertise "parallel positions," and the 
announcements must have been placed by organizations that (1) conduct business in the Petitioner's 
industry and (2) are also "similar" to the Petitioner. These job vacancy announcements do not satisfy that 
threshold. Upon review of the documents, we conclude that the Petitioner's reliance on the job 
announcements is misplaced. 
We will first consider whether the advertised job opportunities could be considered "parallel positions." 
Many of the employers do not provide sufficient information about the position duties, providing only 
four or five short bulleted duties in the advertisements. Other postings provide very general or vague 
duties such as, "Manage mass imports and exports of data." Some employers included personality traits 
like working well with others or enjoying technology as part of their position descriptions. Still others 
advertise positions with a specific focus, such as healthcare or aviation. We note that most of the positions 
require a bachelor's degree along with three, four, and five plus years of additional experience. As such, 
the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the primaiy duties and responsibilities of the advertised 
positions parallel those of the proffered position, particularly in terms of seniority, responsibility, and 
substance. 
13 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 infmm the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
5 
Nor does the record contain documentary evidence sufficient to establish that these job vacancy 
announcements were placed by companies that (1) conduct business in the Petitioner's industry and (2) 
are also "similar" to the Petitioner. When determining whether the employer posting a job listing and the 
Petitioner share the same general characteristics, factors to be considered may include information 
regarding the nature or type of organization and, when pertinent, the particular scope of operations, as 
well as the level of revenue and staffing. Here, the Petitioner has submitted only the general overview 
that the employers themselves included in their own announcements. It is not apparent whether these 
companies are primarily engaged in information technology consulting services for third parties or end 
clients, or whether they develop in-house technology unrelated to information technology outsourcing. 
Two employers advertise positions in healthcare or aviation industries, respectively, which are dissimilar 
industries to the Petitioner. It is unknown whether these employers are healthcare or aviation IT 
companies or whether only the specific positions advertised are related to those fields. Accordingly, the 
Petitioner has provided insufficient information with which to determine whether these employers are 
similar to or operating in the same industry as the Petitioner. 
For all of these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that these job vacancy announcements are 
relevant. Even if that threshold had been met, we would still conclude that they did not satisfy this prong 
of the second criterion, as they do not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the 
equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. We note some 
postings indicate that the employer would accept any bachelor's degree with no specific field of academic 
study at all, whereas another accepts a degree of physics. 14 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. 15 That is, not every deficit of every piece of 
evidence has been addressed. 16 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient probative evidence to establish that a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the industty 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 
14 We note one additional job posting submitted on appeal. This employer accepts a bachelor's degree in business 
administration for ently into its position. As noted above, a requirement of a degree with a generalized title, such as business, 
without further specification, does not establish that the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam Cmp., 484 
F.3d at 147. 
15 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. 
16 Even if all of the job postings indicated that a requirement of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is common to 
the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations (which they do not), the Petitioner does not demonstrate 
what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from the job postings with regard to the common educational 
requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. See generally Earl Babbie. The Practice of Social 
Research 186-228 (7th ed. 1995). 
6 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
Upon review of the totality of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained 
or documented why the proffered position is so complex or unique that a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty is required. A crucial aspect of this matter is whether the Petitioner has submitted sufficient 
and consistent evidence describing the proffered position such that we may discern the nature of the 
position. When determining whether a position is a specialty occupation, we also look at whether the 
position actually requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge attained through at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific discipline. 
Not only does the Petitioner fail to explain how its duties require specialized knowledge, many of the 
duties themselves are described in vague and general terms, not allowing us to understand what the 
Beneficiary will actually be doing when carrying out the undefined tasks. For example, the following 
two descriptions contain several undefined terms in addition to not conveying what level of 
responsibility the Beneficiary will have when carrying out the duty. 
• Business Value Benchmarking: Delivers Customer facing report that provides benchmarking 
data points. The report outlines available peer comparisons and available industry and 
functional benchmark comparison data points. 
• Customer Business Review: Customer Facing review and report delivered periodically to 
govern the project from a business value perspective. Includes final briefing, which highlights 
success against key performance metrics. 
The Petitioner does not explain the actions taken by the Beneficiaiy in completing the above duties. 
For instance, we do not know whether the Beneficiary will conduct a review, create the report, present 
the report, simply deliver the report, or any combination thereof We do not know what data points, 
performance metrics, or business value perspectives are defined as or how they are obtained in the 
context of the overall business or project. These descriptions in no way allow us to understand the 
Beneficiary's role or why it would involve specialized knowledge. 
Other vague and general job descriptions include the following verbatim tasks: 
• To undertake SIP and run till successful implementation. Ensure customer satisfaction by 
responding to the escalations regarding services offered; 
• Work on the Microsoft Social listening functional and workflow; 
• Ensuring smooth operations for all systems across the IT teams; and 
• Defining and maintaining the Standard Operating procedures. 
Again, the Petitioner uses terms such as "SIP" and "Microsoft Social," without explaining them, as 
well as nebulous concepts like "work on" and "to undertake." We do not have any information about 
how the Beneficiary will define and maintain the standard operating procedures, nor can we ascertain 
how he will ensure customer satisfaction or respond to escalations. As described, we cannot determine 
what the Beneficiary will be doing when performing these duties or why the duties are complex. 
7 
Additionally, the duty descriptions indicate that the Beneficiary will be involved in team meetings, 
customer relationship building, serving as a point of contact, and working :flexible hours. The 
Petitioner has not explained in detail how such responsibilities require the theoretical and practical 
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge. Nor has the Petitioner explained why the 
knowledge to perform such work would be learned in a bachelor's degree program in the qualifying 
fields. As described, it appears the Beneficiaiy will not be relieved of performing non-qualifying work. 
The Petitioner adds further confusion to the nature of the position by providing with the initial filing 
of the petition a chart that features percentages of time spent on several duty categories. The Petitioner 
then provided a similar chart in its RFE response featuring different percentages of time for several of 
the same duties. The Director's decision mentioned this discrepancy and the Petitioner has not 
addressed it on appeal. As such, the Petitioner has not clearly defined what percentage of time will be 
spent on these duties, nor has it explained why additional duties were added after the filing of the 
petition. 
The Petitioner claims that its products and services are unique in the industry and that this contributes 
to the unique and complex nature of the position. In support of its assertion, the Petitioner submitted 
general marketing and promotion materials as well as a few press releases about other companies that 
utilize the Petitioner's services. The promotional materials contain mostly graphics and the self­
proclaimed descriptions of being "cutting edge" or "world class" are simply not substantiated. The 
Petitioner broadly characterizes itself as unique but does not discuss how this is so by providing 
specific examples of products or services that support such a statement. Moreover, the Petitioner does 
not connect how its uniqueness within the industry has a direct impact on the duties of the proffered 
position. For instance, it is not apparent how the Beneficiary will use the Petitioner's products as 
opposed to Microsoft products. Accordingly, we conclude that the Petitioner's assertions as to the 
unique or complex nature of the position are not supported in the record. 
We next discuss the letter froml lofl I University School of Management, 
who offers his opinion on the requirements of the proffered position and also serves as a foreign degree 
equivalency evaluator. In his letter, I I (1) describes the credentials that he asserts qualify 
him to opine upon the nature of the proffered position; (2) lists verbatim information from sources 
such as O*NET and Study.com; (3) repeats the duties of the position as already provided by the 
Petitioner; ( 4) offers his professional opinion on the types of candidates qualified to perfmm the duties 
of the proffered position; and (5) evaluates the Beneficiaiy' s foreign degrees to be the equivalent of a 
U.S. bachelor's degree in computer information systems and a master's degree in computer 
information systems . 
.__ ____ _,lasse1is that the proffered position is a specialty occupation and that it shares many of 
the same duties under the "Computer Systems Engineers/ Architects" occupational category in 
O*NET. As discussed, we do not agree that the O*NET or Study.com establish that the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
In his letter, I fepeats the list of the Beneficiary's duties as submitted by the Petitioner 
and follows it with a discussion of the coursework involved in typical bachelor's deree programs in 
computer engineering, computer science, and information technology. I then links some 
of Beneficiary's duties in the proffered position to courses of study in these fields. While we 
8 
acknowledge tha~ I may be attempting to demonstrate how an established curriculum of 
courses leading to a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is required to perform the duties of the 
proffered position, we cannot agree with his analysis. 
First,I !focuses the bulk of his opinion on how the knowledge to perform the duties of the 
position are taught in bachelor's degree programs in the qualifying fields, rather than providing 
analysis of ( 1) why the education would be required to perform the duties and (2) why the duties would 
be considered specialized, unique or complex. His letter offers more of an analysis of education 
programs than it does a discussion of the nature of the duties or the proffered position. 
In so doing,I I confuses the ability of a degreed person to perform the duties of the 
proffered position with a degree requirement in order to perf mm the duties. While he may draw 
inferences that computer science related courses may be beneficial in performing certain duties of the 
position, we disagree with his inference that such a degree is required in order to perform the duties 
of the proffered position. Put simply, stating that a person with a computer science related bachelor's 
degree could perform the duties of the proffered position is not the same as stating that such a degree 
is required to perform those duties. As suchJ Is analysis misconstrues the statutory and 
regulatory requirements of a specialty occupation. 
As stated, I I provides little analysis of the duties of the proffered position. Rather, he 
offers presumptive conclusions that do not add to our understanding of the nature of the position. For 
instance, he states that the consultant might need to work flexible hours, operte according to the time 
zones of customers, and collaborate across teams to resolve escalated issues._ I concludes 
these duties involve "requirements gathering and analysis." He then states that because standard 
curriculum in the aforementioned fields involves "requirements gathering and analysis," this 
establishes that the duties of the proffered position are specialized. Without more specific and detailed 
information, we cannot agree that working specific hours or in teams inherently involves specialized 
knowledge, nor can we agree that this work relates to gathering and analyzing requirements. 
According ttj I the proffered position duties involve developing customer relationships 
and delivering value through meeting expectations, as well as providing advice on migration, 
architecture, development and deployment topics.I I characterizes these duties as "coding 
and unit/integrated testing." He declares that because standard cuni.culum in the aforementioned fields 
involves "coding and unit/integrated testing," the duties of the proffered position must be specialized. 
Once again, without more specific and detailed information, we cannot agree that customer service or 
providing advice on said topics requires specialized knowledge, nor can we agree that this work 
involves coding and testing duties. 
Based on his experience teaching in the qualifying fields at the collegiate level, as well as the job 
placement patterns of graduating students and employer recruitment, I I finds the 
Petitioner's educational requirements to be an industry standard. It is critical to note, however, that 
I I bases his conclusions on patterns of students already pursuing degrees in those fields and 
the recruiters that seek to employ them.I I does not appear to recognize that his conclusion 
inherently arises from the perspective of those already graduating with the claimed education. Without 
an acknowledgement or examination of those individuals who entered the occupational category 
without attending an academic program, or without attending a program in the qualifying fields, or of 
9 
those recruiters that found talent outside of academia, we cannot agree that._! ____ _.I's conclusion 
has merit. 
The lack of cogent analysis strongly suggests thatl I was asked to confirm a preconceived 
notion as to the required degrees, not objectively assess the proffered position and opine on the 
minimum bachelor's degree required, if any. While we will review the opinion presented, it has little 
probative value as it does not include specific analysis of the duties of the particular position that is 
the subject of this petition. 17 We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the 
Petitioner as advisory. 18 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. 19 
Accordingly, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown that the duties of the position are so 
complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner 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 particular beneficiary, but whether the position itself 
requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner did not 
sufficiently develop relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the position, and it did not 
identify any tasks that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could 
perfmm them. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it normally 
requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. To satisfy this 
criterion, the record must establish that the specific performance requirements of the position 
generated the recruiting and hiring histmy. 
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. 20 
Were U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) limited solely to reviewing the Petitioner's 
claimed self-imposed requirements, then any individual with a bachelor's degree could be brought to 
the United States to perform any occupation as long as the Petitioner created a token degree 
requirement. 21 Evidence provided in suppmi of this criterion may include, but is not limited to, 
documentation regarding the Petitioner's past recruitment and hiring practices, as well as information 
regarding employees who previously held the position. 
The Petitioner submitted a list of ten individuals that it claims all hold the same position of"consultant," 
along with copies of educational records and academic equivalency evaluations. We infer that the 
17 We hereby incorporate our discussion of I ts opinion into our discussion of the other 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) criteria. 
18 Matter of Caron Int 'l, Inc., 19 l&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). 
19 Id. 
20 See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. 
21 Id. 
10 
Petitioner wishes to demonstrate that its employees have specialized degrees. The Petitioner submitted 
offer letters for those individuals, which contain an overview of the "consultant" positions they occupy. 
As noted in the Director's decision, the record does not contain the job advertisements for their positions. 
Therefore, we do not know what the recruitment process for hiring these individuals involved or whether 
specialized degrees were prerequisites. When examining the offer letters for these individuals, we note 
that many of the duties of the various "consultant" positions differ from the proffered position or are so 
sparsely and vaguely described that no comparison can be made as to whether these "consultant" positions 
are the same as or similar to the proffered position. To illustrate, a sampling of the offer letter duty 
descriptions includes, "understand different application architecture," "prepare technical documents" 
"framework finalization," and "test execution." Moreover, the offer letters do not indicate that the other 
consultants will work with the same Microsoft products as the Beneficiary. 
Though the Petitioner claims that it normally requires a bachelor's degree in one of the qualifying fields 
for entry into the position, the evidence of record leads to a different conclusion. The evidence instead 
suggests a recruitment practice of petitioning for work visas for individuals educated in the same foreign 
country, for which one particular academic credential evaluation service provides a perfunctory and 
templated evaluation that declares equivalency of the foreign degree to a U.S. degree. The evidence 
further suggests a practice of hiring these individuals for a generalized position labeled "consultant," 
which covers a broad range of information technology duties too vaguely described to be determined to 
be specialized or similar to the proffered position. 
As such, the record contains insufficient evidence that these individuals have or had the same or similar 
substantive responsibilities, duties, and performance requirements as the proffered position. Though 
it has been in business since 1992, the Petitioner has not provided the total number of people it has 
employed in the past to serve in the proffered position nor has it provided infmmation about its past hiring 
history for the proffered position. 
Consequently, no determination can be made about the Petitioner's normal recruiting and hiring practices 
for the proffered position when the submitted employment evidence covers only current employees who 
occupy positions different than the proffered one. The Petitioner has not persuasively established that it 
normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the proffered 
position. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
D. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature 
of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
To the extent that we understand the nature of the position, it appears to involve IT service desk support 
with an emphasis on diagnosing and resolving customer issues involving Microsoft products. Further, 
some of these duties appear to overlap with positions falling under the "computer support specialists" 
occupational category, a category which the Handbook indicates may be entered into with less than a 
11 
high school education. 22 The Petitioner has not explained why Microsoft: products and customer 
relationship development would be knowledge areas taught in a bachelor's degree program in any of 
the qualifying fields, nor has it adequately explained why the duties of the position are complex and 
special. 
Although some tasks may connote a requirement of familiarity with general information technology 
principles, including customer service knowledge, the record is insufficient to establish that the duties 
require anything more than a few basic courses on the discrete Microsoft: products and a broad educational 
background. While a few such courses may be beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, 
the Petitioner, who bears the burden of proof, 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 perform the duties of the proffered position. 
For the same reasons we discussed under the second prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one with duties 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). 23 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, 1t 1s a 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
22 For more information, visit "What Computer Suppmt Specialists Do" at https://www.bls.gov/OOH/computer-and­
information-technology/computer-support-specialists.htm#tab-2 and "How to Become a Computer Support Specialist" at 
https :/ /v-.ww.bls.gov /00 HI computer-and-information-technology/ computer-support-specialists.htm#tab-4 (last visited 
July 16, 2020). 
23 Though not relevant to the discussion of whether the proffered position is a specialty occupation, we further note 
shortcomings inl l's discussion of the Beneficiary's qualifications, as well as thel ~ Evaluations 
academic equivalency evaluation. As the Petitioner has not established the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
we need not discuss these evidentia1y shortcomings to the Beneficiary's qualifications except to ale1t the Petitioner that it 
should be prepared to address such issues in future filings. 
12