dismissed H-1B Case: Software Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8493802 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 28, 2020 
The Petitioner, an online course development company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as 
a "quality engineer" 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 . § l 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). 
The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a 
position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty ( or its 
equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The California Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
established that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred and that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 1 
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. 
1 A petitioner must establish that it meets each eligibility requirement of the benefit sought by a preponderance of the 
evidence . Matter ofChawathe, 25 I& N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). 
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: 
(I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We construe the term "degree" to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal 
Siam Corp. v. Chertojf, 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 "quality engineer" and that a minimum 
of a bachelor's degree in computer science, computer engineering, information technology, or a 
closely related field is required for entry into the position. The Petitioner provided multiple lists of 
duties and while we will not list each duty here, we have reviewed and considered each one. Upon 
review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we conclude that the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. Specifically, the 
record does not include sufficient consistent, probative evidence establishing that the job duties require 
an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 2 
A. First Criterion 
The criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(]), requires that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular 
position. To inform this inquiry, we will consider the information contained in the U.S. Department 
of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) regarding the duties and educational 
requirements of the wide variety of occupations it addresses. The Petitioner designated the proffered 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation to suppmt the H-lB petition, including evidence regarding the proffered position 
and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each 
one. 
2 
position on the labor condition application (LCA) as a Standard Occupation Classification (SOC) code 
15-1199 "Computer Occupations, All Other" occupation. In response to the Director's request for 
evidence (RFE) the Petitioner asserted that the duties of the proffered position are consistent with the 
duties of the "Software Quality Assurance Engineers and Testers" corresponding to SOC code 15-
1199.01. 3 
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.4 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. 5 Thus, the Handbook is not probative in establishing 
that these positions comprise an occupational group for which the normal minimum requirement for entry 
is at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
The Petitioner also references the DOL's O*NET summary report for "Software Quality Assurance 
Engineers and Testers." The O*NET Summary Report does not establish that a bachelor's degree in a 
spec[fic 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. 
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 performed. In addition, the specialized vocational preparation (SVP) rating designates this 
occupation as 7 < 8. An SVP rating of 7 to less than("<") 8 indicates that the occupation requires "over 
2 years up to and including 4 years" of training. While the SVP rating indicates the total number of years 
of vocational preparation required for a particular position, it is important to note that it does not describe 
how those years are to be divided among training, experience, and formal education. The SVP rating also 
does not specify the particular type of degree, if any, that a position would require. 6 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 
3 The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level TT wage. A wage determination starts with an entry-level wage 
(Level I) and progresses to a higher wage level (up to Level TV) after considering the experience, education. and skill 
requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage 
Determination Policy Guidance. Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://flcdatacenter.com/ download/NPWH C _Guidance_ Revised_ 11 _ 2009 .pdf 
4 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 Apr. 27, 2020). Here. 
the Handbook does not provide specific information for various occupations which might be classified within the occupational 
category. 
5 The Handbook also indicates that this occupation does not require work experience in a related occupation or typical 
on-the-job training. Id. 
6 For additional information. see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/ 
help/online/svp. 
3 
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. 
Also in support of its arguments, the Petitioner cites to various court opinions. Initially, we 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 United States district courts in matters arising even within 
the same district. 7 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. 8 
The Petitioner cites to RELX Inc. v. Baran 9 to support its argument that a position may be specialized 
even when the position permits more than one specific specialty for entry into it. As the foregoing 
discussion demonstrates, while we agree that the bachelor's degree does not have to be a degree in a 
single specific specialty, we do not agree with the analytical framework set forth by the RELX court. 
In RELX, the court did not address the statutory and regulatory provisions as they pertain to the 
requirement that the bachelor's degree, or its equivalent, be in a spec[fic specialty. To avoid restricting 
the qualifying occupations to those for which a single, specific specialty exists, the court did not 
consider the requirement for specialization and overlooked that neither the Handbook nor O*NET 
stated that the referenced bachelor's degree must be in a specific specialty. In overlooking this relevant 
detail, the court disposed of the precedential authority created by Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertojf 0and 
continued to do so when it examined the evidence presented for the other criteria. 
We also disagree with the court's statement that "[ the Petitioner] did not just make a general reference 
to O*NET. Rather, [the Petitioner] stated that the Data Analyst position is aligned with the DOL's 
"Business Intelligence Analyst" position for which there is a detailed description that is directly 
relevant to the inquiry of whether the position is specialized." 11 While we agree that O*NET is 
relevant, the court's treatment of O*NET as dispositive simply because the proffered position aligned 
with the occupational category disregards the spec[fic specialty analysis that underpins Royal Siam 
Corp. The RELX court further stated that "[s]ince the [Handbook] indeed does provide specific 
detailed information regarding educational requirements for the computer operations category, and the 
detailed information states most of the occupations require a four-year bachelor's degree, the agency's 
rationale was both factually inaccurate and not supported by the record." 12 Here, again the court did 
not undertake the proper inquiry regarding the specific educational requirements of the position and 
instead regards a general requirement for a bachelor's degree as sufficient to discharge the petitioner's 
burden. 
7 See Matter of K-S-, 20 l&N Dec. 715, 719-20 (BIA 1993). 
8 Id. 
9 RELX. Inc. v. Baran, 397 F.Supp.3d 41 (D.D.C. Aug. 5, 2020). 
10 Royal Siam Co1p. 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"). 
11 RELX, Inc., 397 F.Supp.3d at 54. 
12 Id. 
4 
Because the Handbook and O*NET do not describe the normal minimum educational requirements 
with sufficient specificity to establish that the positions falling within the occupational category are 
specialized, we disagree with the court's reliance on these sources as establishing the requisite 
eligibility. Instead, we believe that absent support from the Handbook and O*NET, the court should 
have analyzed whether the petitioner had sufficiently demonstrated that its particular position was one 
for which a bachelor's degree would normally be required and whether the stated field(s) of study 
directly related to the performance of the duties. 13 In other words, though we agree with the RELX 
court that the bachelor's degree does not have to be a degree in a single specific specialty, this 
agreement is predicated upon the fields of study being closely related to the duties of the position and 
the record reflecting evidence sufficient to establish such relation. 
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 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. 14 For the foregoing reasons, we cannot agree with the 
reasoning contained in the RELX decision 15 and therefore conclude that the Petitioner's reliance upon 
the case does not support its eligibility. 16 
The Petitioner also cites Next Generation Tech., Inc. v. Johnson 17 as relevant here and uses it to support 
a conclusion concerning the meaning of what is "normally" the minimum requirement for the position. 
We question the applicability of Next Generation Tech., Inc. in the instant matter, as it analyzed our 
reading of the Handbook concerning the entry requirements for positions located within a different 
and separate occupational category of "Computer Programmers." As recognized by another court, 
while the Handbook may establish the first regulatory criterion for certain professions, 18 many 
13 Though the RELX court briefly discusses the duties of the position, it did not engage in analysis of whether the duties 
actually required the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment 
of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty as the minimum for entry into the occupation. Rather. after 
disposing of the authority set forth in Royal Siam Co1p., the court accepted the petitioner's stated standards concerning its 
position. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384,387. 
14 Section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). 
15 The Petitioner also cited to Residential Finance Corp. v. USCIS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012) and Tapis Int 'l 
v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 94 F. Supp. 2d 172 (D. Mass. 2000) forthe proposition that "there is no apparent 
requirement that the specialized study needed be in a single academic discipline ... The knowledge and not the title of the 
degree is what is important. Diplomas rarely come bearing occupation specific majors." As the Petitioner cited these 
cases for reasons similar to that which it cites to RELX, we incorporate herein by reference our discussion of closely related 
specialties as it pe1iains to our analysis of the RELX case. 
16 We further note that the Director's decision in RELXwas not appealed to us. Based on the district court's findings and 
description of the record, if that matter had first been appealed through the available administrative process, we may very 
well have remanded the matter to the service center for a new decision to address many of the concerns articulated by the 
district court if they could not have been remedied by us in our de nova review of the matter. 
17 Next Generation Tech., Inc. v. Johnson, 328 F. Supp. 3d 252 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2017). 
18 Such professions would include surgeons or attorneys, which indisputably require at least a bachelor's degree for entry 
into the occupation. 
5 
occupations are not described in such a categorical manner. 19 For example, "[ the Handbook's] 
description for the Computer Programmer occupation does not describe the normal minimum 
educational requirements of the occupation in a categorical fashion." 20 In such a case, "[the Petitioner] 
could not simply rely on [the Handbook] profile, and instead had the burden to show that the particular 
position offered to [the Beneficiary] was among the Computer Programmer positions for which a 
bachelor's degree was normally required." 21 Similarly, the Petitioner in the instant matter may not 
solely rely on the Handbook to establish its eligibility. 
Moreover, the court in Next Generation Tech., Inc. relied in part on a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
(USCIS) policy memorandum regarding "Computer Programmers" indicating generally preferential 
treatment toward computer programmers, and "especially" toward companies in that particular 
petitioner's industry. However, USCIS rescinded the policy memorandum cited by the court in Next 
Generation Tech. Inc. 22 
As the foregoing demonstrates, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation from a 
probative source to substantiate its assertion regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this 
particular position. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
B. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs: "The degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show 
that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with 
a degree[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong concentrates upon 
the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific 
position. 
1. First Prong 
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." 23 
Here and as already discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for 
which the Handbook ( or other independent, authoritative sources) reports an industry-wide 
19 See Innova Sols., Inc. v. Baran, 2019 WL 3753334, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2019) (declining to follow Next Generation 
Tech., Inc.). 
20 Id.; see also Xiaotong Liu v. Baran, 2018 WL 7348851 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2018). 
21 See Innova Sols., Inc., 2019 WL 3753334 at *8. 
22 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0142, Rescission of the December 22, 2000 "Guidance memo on HI B 
computer related positions" (Mar. 31, 2017), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/nativedocuments/PM-6002-
0142-H-1 BComputerRelatedPositionsRecission.pdf. 
23 See Shanti. Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D.Minn. 1999) (quoting Hird/Blaker Co1p. v. Sava. 712 F. Supp. 
1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) ( considering these "factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
6 
requirement for at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, we 
incorporate by reference the previous discussion on the matter. Also, there are no submissions from 
the industry's professional association indicating that it has made a degree a minimum entry 
requirement. 
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 job advertisements do not describe the duties with sufficient detail so that we might make a 
meaningful comparison of them to the duties of the proffered position. A few general bullet points, such 
as those found in the Scholastic, iStreamPlanet, and HarperCollins positions, do not sufficiently establish 
that the primary duties and responsibilities of the advertised positions are the same or similar to the 
proffered position. In fact, the Callisto Media position contains only a single incomplete sentence to 
describe its position. In examining the duties available for our review, some of the employers describe 
positions that appear different from the proffered position, including those of a developer and a software 
engmeer. 
Furthermore, we note that in addition to a degree, all of the employers require significant additional 
experience, including three to five years, three to seven, and even ten years of experience. 24 The Petitioner 
has identified its particular position as a wage Level II position on the certified LCA. A Level II wage 
for a Job Zone Four occupation with an SVP 7 < 8 rating is for a position that may require more than two 
years and up to three years of experience. Any required additional experience would require a 
corresponding increase in the wage level. 25 As such, either many of the advertised positions are for more 
senior-level positions than the position proffered here, and thus are not parallel to the proffered position, 
or if they are parallel as the Petitioner contends, then the Petitioner has not submitted an LCA that 
corresponds to and supports the petition as required. In either case, the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
established that the primary duties and responsibilities of the advertised positions parallel those of the 
proffered position. 
Nor does the record contain documentary evidence sufficient to establish that these job vacancy 
announcements were placed by companies that (1) conduct business in the Petitioner's industry and (2) 
are also "similar" to the Petitioner. When determining whether the employer posting a job listing and the 
Petitioner share the same general characteristics, factors to be considered may include information 
regarding the nature or type of organization and, when pertinent, the particular scope of operations, as 
24 Even assuming that the range of required experience could be gained concurrently so that, for example, 3-5 years of 
experience using one technology can be gained at the same time as one gains 1-2 years of experience in another technology, 
the aggregate experience required for these positions exceeds that which has been stated by the Petitioner as a requirement 
for its proffered position. 
25 A requirement of more than three years and up to four years of experience requires a corresponding two-level increase 
in wage level and a requirement for more than four years of experience requires a corresponding three-level increase in 
wage level. 
7 
well as the level ofrevenue and staffing. Though the Petitioner contends that these employers are similar 
to it, the brief overviews in the announcements themselves do not sufficiently establish that they operate 
in the same industry and are similar to the Petitioner. On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates that these 
employers are similar and notes that the Petitioner has even acquired some of the referenced employers, 
yet it did not submit sufficient evidence to support similarity nor did it indicate which employers it 
acquired. 
For all of these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that these job vacancy announcements are 
relevant. 26 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, 
articles, and reports is not necessary.27 That is, not every deficit of every piece of evidence has been 
addressed. 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient probative evidence to establish that a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 2 l 4.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
The second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) is satisfied if the Petitioner shows that 
its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with at least 
a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
As a preliminary matter, we note that the Petitioner conflates the Beneficiary's suitability or 
qualifications for the position with the minimum entry requirements for the position. The Petitioner 
stated on several occasions that a bachelor's degree program in computer science, computer 
engineering, information technology, or a related field "allows one to perform" the job duties and that 
the academic preparation in such a program "speaks to the sophisticated responsibilities that the role 
demands." These statements evidence that the Petitioner confuses the ability of a specialty degreed 
individual to perform the duties of the proffered position with a degree requirement in order to perform 
the duties. 
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. 28 Put simply, the duties dictate the required program of study rather than the program of 
26 The Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how representative the job postings are of the particular 
advertising employers' recruiting history for the type of job advertised. As the advertisements are only solicitations for 
hire, they are not evidence of the actual hiring practices of these employers. 
27 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 generalZv Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social 
Research 186-228 (7th ed. 1995). 
28 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 
8 
study speaking to the nature of the duties. Stating that a person with a bachelor's degree in computer 
science 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 such, the Petitioner misconstrues the statutory and regulatory 
requirements of a specialty occupation. 
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. When determining whether a position is a specialty occupation, we look at 
whether the position actually requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly 
specialized knowledge attained through at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific discipline. Though 
the Petitioner provided multiple lists and descriptions of the duties, the Petitioner fails to sufficiently 
establish how these duties require specialized knowledge. 
Many of the duties are described vague and general terms, not allowing us to understand what the 
Beneficiary will actually do when carrying out the undefined tasks. For instance, we have no 
information on what the Beneficiary will do to: 
• Participat[ e] in sprint meetings; 
• Work closely with scrum master and product owners to identify the backlog; 
• Develop standards to ensure that quality levels and customer specifications are met without 
compromise; 
• Provide timely and accurate status, defect information and appropriate metrics to facilitate QA 
reporting; and 
• Interact with the technical team to resolve the defect for the custom solution. 
Though these duties provide a general overview of work that a quality engineer might perform, the 
actual day-to-day tasks involved in these duties remains unclear. For instance, "interacting with" a 
team is too nebulous a description to enable us to understand what it will involve and as stated, we 
cannot ascertain why it requires specialized knowledge. 
Without farther explanation, we might expect that the duty of"[v]alidate and raise alerts ahead of time 
on story validation or release delivery" would require the Beneficiary to send out a company-wide 
email reminding employees of computer-related updates, newer software versions, or possible 
outages. If so, the Petitioner fails to establish how the Beneficiary will be relieved of performing non­
qualifying work. Similarly, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary will collaborate with various 
teams and team members to create innovative testing solutions, but provides little information on what 
"collaborate" entails or how the testing solutions are different from the myriad of other tests the 
Petitioner describes as part of the proffered position's duties. 
In addition to the above, the Petitioner provides three different bullet points to describe the same duty 
including, "[ d]efine, develop, and implement ... test plans," "[ d]evelop test management plans," and 
"[c]reate test plans and document test cases." We do not know, and the Petitioner does not explain, 
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]."). 
9 
whether these three apparently similar test plan duties are the same or different and how. Described 
in such vague and general terms, without further explanation, we cannot conclude that these tasks 
require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge. 
The duties also feature significant use of third-party technology, for which the Petitioner has not 
explained why skills using such technologies could not be gained through certifications in these 
technologies or a computer bootcamp. Much of the Beneficiary's work is performed using JIRA, PHP 
Behat, and Selenium Web, but the Petitioner makes little effort to explain how use of these 
technologies is complex or unique or requires a bachelor's degree in computer science, computer 
engineering, information technology, or a related field. 
Accordingly, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown that the duties of the position are so 
complex or unique that they can be performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
We now tum to the position evaluation provided by I I Professor of Computer and 
Information Sciences at I !University. I f lists the Petitioner's description of 
duties, rephrases the duties listed in O*NET for this occupational category, and then declares that the 
position is specialized and requires a bachelor's degree in computer science, computer engineering, 
information technology, or a related technical field. His evaluation includes little to no analysis of 
how he reached these conclusions, but in place of analysis, we note the frequency with whichl I I I labels the duties and the educational requirements as "highly technical," "complex," or 
"advanced." 29 
After providing several extensive lists of computer-related duties in paragraph form, some of which 
do not appear in the Petitioner's lists of duties and others of which are copied verbatim from the 
Petitioner's lists,I l then states that "[c]learly, a bachelor's-level educational foundation 
in a highly technical field is required to handle the varied and complex job duties of the proposed 
position." Following this conclusory statement is a continuation of duties listed in a rote fashion. 
Merely listing duties and declaring them to be specialized and complex does not add to our 
understanding of the substantive nature of the position. We read, for example, that the Beneficiary 
will use programming languages and various third-party technologies, which do not readily feature 
specialized or complex work. Absent an explanation to establish the complexity or sfecialized nature 
of the duties, we cannot accept I Is conclusions. We conclude that ] 
classifies the duties and the educational requirements with numerous adjectives to suggest the 
specialized nature of the work, rather than providing actual analysis of why the work is specialized. 
It is important to note that it appears as though .... I _____ _.I used a template with conclusory 
findings and little or no analysis to support the Petitioner's particular position as a specialty 
occupation. The lack of cogent analysis strongly suggests that I lwas asked to confirm 
29 The Petitioner similarly describes the duties of the proffered position and its academic requirements with adjectives such 
as "tremendously complex," "sophisticated," "deep," "critical," and "rigorous" without analysis to sufficiently corroborate 
such assertions. In these descriptions, the Petitioner refers to the Beneficiary using a personal pronoun that does not match 
the gender of the Beneficiary as stated in the petition. This calls into question whether the letter was prepared for another 
beneficiary and whether it reflects accurate information concerning this particular proffered position. 
10 
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.30 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. 31 
In addition to the above, the Petitioner and I lboth imply that the importance of the 
position to the Petitioner's mission establishes the specialized nature of the position. The Petitioner 
states that the Beneficiary will "serve as a vital component to our organization, and will have a direct 
impact on our ability to meet business goals and maximize profits." I I similarly states 
that the position "lies at the heart of [the Petitioner's] ... efforts" and therefore a properly trained, 
professional-level quality engineer "would be essential to [the Petitioner's] functioning and success." 
However, neither the importance of the work, nor the proffered position's role in it, can substitute for 
specialization. 
The Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties 
of the position, and it did not identify any tasks that are so complex or unique that only a specifically 
degreed individual could perform them. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the Petitioner has satisfied 
the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it normally 
requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. To satisfy this 
criterion, the record must establish that the specific performance requirements of the position 
generated the recruiting and hiring history. 
Though the Petitioner states on appeal that it "normally seeks to recruit and retain candidates ... who 
have a similarly specialized background," 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 the 
performance requirements of the position. 32 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. 33 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. 
30 Service records show that this same template with the same language, organization, and similar conclusory statements 
regarding different occupations and also without supporting analysis has been submitted on behalf of other petitioners. 
These similarities lend further support to the suggestion that the author of the opinion was asked to confirm preconceived 
notions. 
31 We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron Int'/, Inc., 
19 T&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 why the duties require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. We 
hereby incorporate our discussion of I k opinion into our discussion of the other 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) criteria. 
32 See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. 
33 Id. 
11 
The Petitioner submitted two job postings of positions it contends are similar to the proffered one. The 
positions have different titles and the descriptions contain very little information about the duties of the 
respective positions. As described, we are unable to draw conclusions as to similarity with the proffered 
position. The positions also require five years' experience in addition to a bachelor's degree in computer 
science. The academic and experience requirements for these positions do not correspond to a Level 
II Job Zone Four occupation. Again, if the Petitioner requires the academic education and experience 
listed for these positions, which it claims parallel the proffered position, the Petitioner has not 
submitted a valid LCA that has been certified for the proper occupational wage classification. 
Also submitted for our consideration under this criterion are Linkedln printouts for two individuals whose 
profiles reflect that they occupy engineering positions with the Petitioner and have bachelor's degrees in 
electrical and electronics engineering and computer science, respectively. The Petitioner also submitted 
a resume of an individual who, according to the organizational chart provided, occupies the positon of 
"quality assurance test engineer." The resume states that this individual holds a U.S. bachelor's degree 
in computer science. We infer that the Petitioner wishes to demonstrate that its employees have 
specialized degrees, however, none of the referenced individuals holds the proffered position and the 
Petitioner provided no position duties or job descriptions to substantiate its claims that these differently 
titled positions are similar or the same as the proffered position. Additionally, there are no copies of the 
individuals' degrees, nor did the Petitioner submit tax documents or payroll information to evidence 
recruitment and hiring of these individuals. Further, the record lacks information concerning whether a 
specialized degree was a perquisite to their hiring. Lastly, one of the individuals' Linkedln profiles 
indicates that s/he holds a foreign bachelor's degree, which has not been determined to be the equivalent 
of a U.S. bachelor's degree as it is unaccompanied by a foreign degree evaluation. 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, or that a U.S. 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty (or its equivalent) was a prerequisite to their hiring. 
The Petitioner did not provide the total number of people it has employed in the past to serve in the 
proffered position. Though it has been in business since 2004, the Petitioner has provided no information 
about its past hiring history for the quality engineer 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 three individuals who occupy positions different than the 
proffered one and two job postings for jobs requiring significantly more experience 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. 
The Petitioner states that the "Object Oriented Application [D]evelopment" course undertaken by the 
Beneficiary provides the Beneficiary with the requisite knowledge to perform the duties it lists, with the 
12 
addition of the "Rich Internet Architecture" course for performance of the duties grouped under the 
heading of "[t]est automation and support." As described, it appears that had the Beneficiary taken only 
these two courses, he would have all the requisite knowledge to perform the duties of the position. Ifjust 
two classes are required in order to have sufficient knowledge to perform the duties of the position, then 
the Petitioner has insufficiently tied the need for a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty to the 
requirements of the position. While this information alone undermines the Petitioner's claims as to the 
educational requirements of the position, we also note that the Beneficiary took the two referenced classes 
in his master's degree program. This further calls into question the reliability of the Petitioner's 
assertions as to the minimum educational requirement for the proffered position. If the Petitioner 
requires a master's-level education then this once again could indicate that the Level II wage is 
inappropriate. 
Although some tasks may connote a requirement of familiarity with general computer science principles, 
including software knowledge, the record is insufficient to establish that the duties require anything more 
than a few basic courses 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. 
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. 
13