dismissed H-1B Case: Software Engineering

(b)(6)
DATE: JAN 0 8 2015 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
OFFICE: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
T
Tf
o"
� 
��· 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www. uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition, and the matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. The petition 
will be denied. 
I. PROCEDU RAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND 
On the Form I -129 visa petition, the petitioner describes itself as an "Applications software, 
computer, packaged" firm. To employ the beneficiary in a position it designates as a "Quality 
Assurance Engineer" position, the petitioner seeks to classify her as a nonimmigrant worker in a 
specialty occupation pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C . § 1101(a)(15)(H) (i)(b). 
Although the petitioner was previously represented, counsel, by letter dated July 29, 2014, withdrew 
his appearance in this matter after submitting the appeal. The petitioner is therefore considered to be 
self-represented and today's decision will be furnished only to the petitioner. References to counsel 
refer to the petitioner's former counsel. 
The director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary is 
qualified for the proffered position. On appeal, counsel asserted that the director's basis for denial 
was erroneous and contended that the petitioner satisfied all evidentiary requirements. In support of 
these contentions, counsel submitted a brief and additional evidence. 
We base our decision upon our review of the entire record of proceeding, which includes: (1) the 
petitioner's Form I-129 and the supporting documentation filed with it; (2) the service center's 
request for additional evidence (RFE) and the response to that RFE; (4) the director's denial letter; 
(5) the Form I-290B and counsel's submissions on appeal; and (6) the RFE we issued and the 
response to our RFE. 
II. THE LAW 
Section 214(i)(1) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(1), 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.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) states, in pertinent part, the following: 
Specialty occupation means an occupation which [(1)] requires theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in fields of human 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
endeavor including, but not limited to, architecture, engineering, mathematics, 
physical sciences, social sciences, medicine and health, education, business 
specialties, accounting, law, theology, and the arts, and which [(2)] requires the 
attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as 
a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, a proposed position must 
also meet one of the following criteria: 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent 1s normally the mm1mum 
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. 
The degree referenced by section 214(i)(1)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(1)(B), means one in a 
specific specialty that is characterized by a body of highly specialized knowledge that must be 
theoretically and practically applied in performing the duties of the proffered position. 
A bachelor's degree does not, per se, qualify a beneficiary for employment in a specialty 
occupation. Rather, the position must require a degree in a specific specialty. Cf Matter of Michael 
Hertz, Assoc., 19 I&N Dec. 558,560 (Comm'r 1988). Further, the beneficiary must have a degree in 
that specific specialty. See Matter of Ling, 13 I&N Dec. 35 (R.C. 1968). 
Section 214(i)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(2), states that an alien applying for classification as 
an H-1B nonimmigrant worker must possess: 
(A) full state licensure to practice in the occupation, if such licensure is required to 
practice in the occupation, 
(B) completion of the degree described in paragraph (1 )(B) for the occupation, or 
(C) (i) experience in the specialty equivalent to the completion of such degree, and 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(ii) recognition of expertise in the specialty through progressively responsible 
positions relating to the specialty. 
In implementing section 214(i)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C . § 1184(i)(2), the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C) states that an alien must also meet one of the following criteria in order to 
qualify to perform services in a specialty occupation: 
(1) Hold a United States baccalaureate or higher degree required by the specialty 
occupation from an accredited college or university; 
(2) Hold a foreign degree determined to be equivalent to a United States 
baccalaureate or higher degree required by the specialty occupation from an 
accredited college or university; 
(3) Hold an unrestricted state license, registration or certification which authorizes 
him or her to fully practice the specialty occupation and be immediately 
engaged in that specialty in the state of intended employment; or 
( 4) Have [a] education, specialized training, and/or progressively responsible 
experience that is equivalent to completion of a United States baccalaureate or 
higher degree in the specialty occupation, and [b] have recognition of expertise 
in the specialty through progressively responsible positions directly related to 
the specialty. 
In addition, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(v)(A) states: 
General. If an occupation requires a state or local license for an individual to fully 
perform the duties of the occupation, an alien (except an H-lC nurse) seeking 
H classification in that occupation must have that license prior to approval of the 
petition to be found qualified to enter the United States and immediately engage in 
employment in the occupation. 
Therefore, to qualify an alien for classification as an H-lB nonimmigrant worker under the Act, the 
petitioner must establish that the beneficiary possesses the requisite license or, if none is required, 
that he or she has completed a degree in the specialty that the occupation requires. Alternatively, if a 
license is not required and if the beneficiary does not possess the required U.S. degree or its foreign 
degree equivalent, the petitioner must show that the beneficiary possesses both (1) education, 
specialized training, and/or progressively responsible experience in the specialty equivalent to the 
completion of such degree, and (2) recognition of expertise in the specialty through progressively 
responsible positions relating to the specialty. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
III. EVIDENCE 
The visa petition and the Labor Condition Application (LCA) state that the beneficiary would work 
at the petitioner's address at ��-� � ____ _____ 0 Colorado. The LCA states that the 
proffered position is a Quality Assurance Engineer position, and that it corresponds to Standard 
Occupational Classification Computer Occupations, All Other, from the Occupational Information 
Network (O*NET). Computer Applications, All Other, are classified at SOC code 15-1199. 1 The 
LCA further states that the proffered position is a Level II position. 
With the visa petition, counsel submitted evidence that the beneficiary has a bachelor of science 
degree from in India and a master's degree in mathematics from 
which is also in India. Counsel also submitted an evaluation of the beneficiary's 
education which states that the beneficiary's foreign education and degree are equivalent to at least a 
U.S. bachelor's degree in mathematics. 
Counsel also submitted a letter, dated March 28, 2013, from _ the petitioner's 
president, who noted that the beneficiary's Indian degrees have been found to be equivalent to a U.S. 
bachelor's degree in mathematics and that the beneficiary has related employment experience. The 
petitioner's president provided the following description of the duties of the proffered position: 
The Quality Assurance Engineer will primarily work with the Systems Analyst and 
the Solution Architect to create test scripts for the various storyboards, assist in 
creating data sets, and executing the test scripts. In this position, [the beneficiary] 
will be responsible for ensuring that the Prototype that is being built is in line with the 
high-level requirements identified by the Solution Architect. Further responsibilities 
include accountability for the release execution leveraging Waterfall and Agile 
Testing strategies; maintenance of the quality assurance and Integrated Test 
Environment, including coordination of re-paints across multiple Cross Line of 
Business Interfaces; conditioning test data for quality assurance, development and 
performance testers; testing in a Matrixed Cross-Line of Business Project requiring 
Integrated Interface Testing leveraging a Waterfall Strategy; creating estimates, test 
strategies, test plans, user stories, acceptance criteria and quality center test cases; and 
testing web services. 
As to the educational requirements of the proffered position, the petitioner's president stated: "The 
[proffered position] with our company requires the attainment of at least a Bachelor's degree in 
Computer Science, Engineering, Mathematics, or a closely related field." 
On June 6, 2013, the service center issued an RFE in this matter. The service center requested, inter 
alia, evidence that the petitioner would employ the beneficiary in a specialty occupation and 
evidence that the beneficiary is qualified to work in a specialty occupation position. The service 
1 The LCA mistakenly indicated that Computer Applications, All Other, are classified at 15-1799. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
center provided a non-exhaustive list of items that might be used to satisfy the specialty occupation 
requirements. 
In response, counsel provided (1) evidence pertinent to the beneficiary's employment experience; 
(2) 14 vacancy announcements; (3) a Consulting Agreement, dated April 18, 2012, between the 
petitioner and 
_ 
(4) an Attachment A appended to that agreement, headed 
Statement of Work and Rates; (5) a document headed Application Statement of Work; 
(6) an evaluation, dated August 27, 2013, of the proffered position and the beneficiary's 
qualifications; (7) a letter, dated August 28, 2013, from signing as the petitioner's 
managing principal; and (8) counsel's own letter, dated August 28, 2013. The vacancy 
announcements will be addressed below. 
The April 18, 2012 Consulting Agreement contains general terms pursuant to which may 
utilize the services of the petitioner's workers. It does not reveal the location where the workers thus 
utilized would work, and does not indicate that would utilize the beneficiary's services. The 
Attachment A appended to that document indicates that would utilize the services of 
who is not the beneficiary. It does not state when that work would begin, when it would 
end, or where the work would be performed, but does indicate that payments to the petitioner would 
include travel expenses, which suggests that the work would not be performed at the petitioner's 
location. For some of those details, it refers to an "IT Consulting SOW." 
Whether the Application Statement of Work provided is the IT Consulting SOW referred to in the 
Attachment A to the Consulting Agreement is unclear. In any event, the Application Statement of 
Work is unsigned and does not indicate where the work to be performed pursuant to it, if any, would 
be performed. 
The August 28, 2013 letter from stated that the Consulting Agreement discussed 
above was provided to show that the petitioner has sufficient work to occupy the beneficiary, but did 
not indicate that the beneficiary would be employed pursuant to that agreement. He reiterated that a 
bachelor's degree in computer science, engineering, mathematics, or a closely related field would be 
a sufficient educational qualification for the proffered position. That letter attributes the following 
duties to the proffered position: 
Creates estimates, test strategies, test plans, user stories, acceptance criteria, and 
quality center test cases, and testing web services. 
Works with the Systems Analy�t and Solution Architect to create test scripts for the 
various storyboards, assist in creating data sets, and executing the test scripts. 
Responsible for ensuring that the Prototype that is being built is in line with the high­
level requirements identified by the Solution Architect. 
Evaluates and tests new or modified software programs and software development 
procedures used to verify that programs function according to user requirements and 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
conform to establishment guidelines: Writes, revises, and verifies quality standards 
and test procedures for program design and project evaluation to attain quality of 
software economically and efficient! y. 
Enters instructions into computer to test program for validity of results, accuracy, 
reliability, and conformance to establishment standards. 
Writes documentation to describe program evaluation, testing, and correction. 
Reviews new or modified program, including documentation, diagram, and flow 
chart, to determine if program will perform according to user request and conform to 
guidelines. 
Recommends program improvements or corrections to programmers. Reviews 
software logs to identify program processing errors. 
Observes computer monitor screen during program test to detect error codes or 
interruption of program and corrects errors. 
Responsible for the release execution leveraging Waterfall and Agile testing 
strategies; Identifies difference between establishment standards and user applications 
and suggests modifications to conform to standards. 
Sets up tests at request of user to locate and correct program operating error following 
installation of program; Conducts compatibility tests with vendor-provided programs. 
Monitors program development after implementation to prevent reoccurrence of 
program operating problems and ensure efficiency of operation. 
May use statistical packages to understand the data and perform analysis to identify 
the underlying distributions. 
Use statistical knowledge to generate data. May evaluate proposed software or 
software enhancement for feasibility; May develop utility program to test, track, and 
verify defects in software program; May write programs to create new procedures or 
modify existing procedures; May train software program users. 
As to the requisite knowledge of statistical data, the petitioner's managing partner stated: "Data in a 
database needs to be represented in mathematical terms (distributions, mean, median[,] etc[.,]) so that 
generating the data is easier." 
The August 27, 2013 evaluation contains that same duty description and states that, based on those 
duties, the proffered position would require "a minimum of a Bachelor's Degree in Computer 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
Information Systems or a related area, or the equivalent." The evaluator did not reveal whether he 
was aware that a previous evaluation had indicated that a degree in mathematics or an otherwise 
unspecified degree in engineering would be a sufficient educational qualification for the proffered 
position, and did not indicate, therefore, whether he disagreed or concurred. He did not reveal 
whether he was including those subjects among those that he deems sufficiently closely related to 
computer information systems such that a bachelor's degree in those subjects would be a sufficient 
educational qualification for the proffered position. He did not reveal what other subjects he would 
deem sufficiently closely related to computer information systems. As to the beneficiary's 
qualifications, the evaluator stated that the beneficiary's education and employment experience, 
considered together, are equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree in computer information systems. 
In his August 28, 2013 letter, counsel asserted that the evidence submitted demonstrates that the 
instant visa petition is approvable. 
The director denied the visa petition on October 11, 2013 finding, as was noted above, that the 
petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary is qualified to work in a specialty occupation 
position. 
On appeal, counsel provided additional evidence pertinent to the beneficiary's employment 
experience and a brief. In the brief, counsel stated: 
The requirements for the position as stated in the employer's support letter are the 
attainment of at least a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science, Engineering, 
Mathematics, or a closely related field. 
Counsel cited the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) for the 
proposition that the proffered position requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent. Specifically, counsel stated: 
[T]he [Handbook] notes that "Software Developers" which are very closely related to 
Quality Assurance Engineers/Analysts (for which there is no entry in the 
[Handbook]), "usually have a bachelor's degree, typically in computer science, 
software engineering, or a related field. A degree in mathematics is also acceptable. 
Counsel asserted that, even if the beneficiary's degree in mathematics were found to be insufficient 
to qualify her for the proffered position, the petitioner has also demonstrated that her education and 
her experience, considered together, are equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree in computer 
information systems. 
IV. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
USCIS is required to follow long-standing legal standards and determine first, whether the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation, and second, whether an alien beneficiary was qualified 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
for the position at the time the nonimmigrant visa petition was filed. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz 
Assoc., 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]."). 
As a threshold issue, it is noted that 8 C.P.R . § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) must logically be read together 
with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). In other words, this regulatory 
language must be construed in harmony with the thrust of the related provisions and with the statute 
as a whole. SeeK Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) (holding that construction of 
language which takes into account the design of the statute as a whole is preferred); see also COlT 
Independence Joint Venture v. Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989); Matter ofW­
F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). As such, the criteria stated in 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4) (iii)(A) 
should logically be read as being necessary but not necessarily sufficient to meet the statutory and 
regulatory definition of specialty occupation. To otherwise interpret this section as stating the 
necessary and sufficient conditions for meeting the definition of specialty occupation would result in 
particular positions meeting a condition under 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory or 
regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 P.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). To avoid this 
result, 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must therefore be read as providing supplemental criteria that 
must be met in accordance with, and not as alternatives to, the statutory and regulatory definitions of 
specialty occupation. 
As such and consonant with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) consistently interprets the term 
"degree" in the criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any baccalaureate or higher 
degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered 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"). Applying this standard, USCIS regularly approves H-lB petitions for qualified aliens 
who are to be employed as engineers, computer scientists, certified public accountants, college 
professors, and other such occupations. These professions, for which petitioners have regularly been 
able to establish a minimum entry requirement in the United States of a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
particular position, fairly represent the types of specialty occupations that Congress contemplated 
when it created the H-lB visa category. 
We note that, as recognized by the court in Defensor, supra, where the work is to be performed for 
entities other than the petitioner, evidence of the client companies' job requirements is critical. See 
Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d at 387-388. The court held that the former Immigration and 
Naturalization Service had reasonably interpreted the statute and regulations as requiring the 
petitioner to produce evidence that a proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation on the 
basis of the requirements imposed by the entities using the beneficiary's services. !d. at 384. Such 
evidence must be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate the type and educational level of highly 
specialized knowledge in a specific discipline that is necessary to perform that particular work. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
Absent a determination that the proffered position is in fact a specialty occupation, there is no basis 
on which the director could have determined whether the beneficiary is qualified or unqualified to 
perform the duties of the claimed specialty occupation. 
The petitioner's president and its managing principal both asserted that the educational requirement 
of the proffered position can be satisfied by a bachelor's degree in computer science, engineering, 
mathematics, or a closely related field. On appeal, counsel reiterated that assertion. 
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" 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 any one of three disparate fields, such as computer 
science, engineering, and mathematics, would not meet the statutory requirement that the degree be 
"in the specific specialty." Section 214(i)(l)(B) (emphasis added). 
Absent evidence to the contrary, computer science, engineering, and mathematics, and any field that 
may be deemed "closely related" to one or more of them do not, when considered together, delineate 
a specific specialty. Absent such additional evidence, the petitioner's claim that a degree in any of 
those subjects, or in any subject related to them, would be a sufficient educational qualification for 
the proffered position does not demonstrate that the petitioner requires a minimum of a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for the position. 
In fact, even the assertion that an otherwise unspecified bachelor's degree in engineering is a 
sufficient educational qualification for the proffered position, absent evidence that a degree in any 
field of engineering would be closely related to the duties of the proffered position, raises the issue of 
whether the proffered position requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its 
equivalent. 2 The asser tions of the petitioner's pres ident and the peti tioner's managing principal 
suggest that the proffered position does not require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent and does not, therefore, qualify as a specialty occupation. 
2 The field of engineering is a broad category that covers numerous and various specialties, some of which 
are only related through the basic principles of science and mathematics, e.g., nuclear engineering and 
aerospace engineering. Therefore, besides a degree in electrical engineering, it is not readily apparent that a 
general degree in engineering or one of its other sub-specialties, such as chemical engineering or nuclear 
engineering, is closely related to computer science or that engineering or any and all engineering specialties 
are directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position proffered in this matter. As 
such, an educational requirement that may be satisfied by an otherwise unspecified bachelor's degree in 
engineering is not a requirement of a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
Further, although USCIS does not simply rely on a position's title to determine whether a particular 
job qualifies as a specialty occupation, we observe that the LCA is certified for a position categorized 
under SOC code and title 15-1199, Computer Occupations, All Other, from O*NET. On appeal, 
however, counsel asserted that the proffered position is "very closely related" to a software developer 
position, so closely, in fact, that he implied that the educational requirements of the proffered 
position must be identical to those of a software developer position. This would only be true if the 
duties of the proffered position and the duties of a software developer are essentially identical. 
O*NET describes the duties of software developer position at SOC 15-1132. Positions included in 
the Computer Occupations, All Other, category are described at 15-1199, which states: 
"All Other" titles represent occupations with a wide range of characteristics which do 
not fit into one of the detailed O*NET-SOC occupations. O*NET data is not available 
for this type of title. For more detailed occupations under this title, see below. 
As was noted above, one of the titles described in detail elsewhere in O*NET is Software Developers 
at SOC 15-1132 � As such, software developer positions are explicitly excluded from the positions 
described by SOC 15-1199, Computer Occupations, All Other. 
Counsel's assertion that the position of software developer position is very similar to the proffered 
position suggests that the duties of the proffered position are software developer duties. This 
inference is strengthened by counsel's implication that the educational requirements of the two 
positions are identical. The classification of the proffered position as a Computer Occupations, All 
Other, position, however, indicates that the duties of the proffered position are not software 
developer duties. As such, the substantive nature of the duties that the beneficiary would actually 
perform if the visa petition were approved has not been established. 
The petitioner's failure to establish the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the 
beneficiary precludes a finding that the proffered position is a specialty occupation under any 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 21 4.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), because it is the substantive nature of that work that 
determines (1) the normal minimum educational requirement for the particular position, which is the 
focus of criterion 1; (2) industry positions which are parallel to the proffered position and thus 
appropriate for review for a common degree requirement, under the first alternate prong of criterion 
2; (3) the level of complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position, which is the focus of the 
second alternate prong of criterion 2; ( 4) the factual justification for a petitioner normally requiring a 
degree or its equivalent, when that is an issue under criterion 3; and (5) the degree of specialization 
and complexity of the specific duties, which is the focus of criterion 4. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that it has satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) and, therefore, it cannot be found that the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. The appeal will be dismissed and the petition denied for this reason. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
V. BENEFICIARY QUALIFICATIONS 
The basis for the director's decision of denial is her finding that the petitioner has not demonstrated 
that the beneficiary is qualified for the proffered position. 
As was observed above, the petitioner provided an evaluation stating that the beneficiary's foreign 
education is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree in mathematics. The petitioner submitted another 
evaluation that stated that the beneficiary's education and experience, considered together, are 
equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree in computer information systems. 
We observe that if the petitioner had demonstrated that the proffered position required a minimum of 
a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent, the petitioner would be obliged, in order 
for the visa petition to be approvable, to demonstrate, not only that the beneficiary has a bachelor's 
degree or its equivalent, but that the beneficiary has a minimum of a bachelor's degree or its 
equivalent in that specific specialty. See Matter of Matter of Ling, 13 I&N Dec. 35 (R.C. 1968). 
Pursuant to the instant visa category, however, a beneficiary's credentials to perform a particular job 
are relevant only when the job is found to qualify as a specialty occupation. As discussed in this 
decision, the proffered position has not been shown to require a baccalaureate or higher degree, or its 
equivalent, in a specific specialty and has not, therefore, been shown to qualify as a position in a 
specialty occupation. Because the finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation position is dispositive, we need not further address the 
issue of the beneficiary's qualifications. 
VI. CONCLUSION 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons. In visa petition 
proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). 
Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.