dismissed H-1B Case: Software Quality Assurance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
InRe : 12035145 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB . 26, 2021 
The Petitioner , a golf course technology company , seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"quality assurance engineer" under the H-lB nonirmnigrant classification for specialty occupations . 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) . 
The H-1B program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a 
position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor ' s or higher degree in the specific specialty ( or its 
equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the record did not 
establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief 
and asserts that the Director erred by denying the petition . The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence .1 We review the questions in this matter de nova. 2 Upon de nova 
review , we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 184(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 Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofCh awathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
2 See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . 
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. 3 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will be employed as a "quality assurance engineer" and that 
the position requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree in computer science or a closely related field. 
The Petitioner initially provided a list of duties, which was updated with more detail with their request 
for evidence (RFE) response. 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. 4 
A. First Criterion 
We tum first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I), 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. We recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational 
Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements 
of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. The Petitioner designated the proffered position 
on the labor condition application (LCA) as a Standard Occupation Classification (SOC) code 15-1199 
3 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"). 
4 The Petitioner submitted documentation to suppmt the H-lB petition, including evidence regarding the proffered position 
and the Beneficiary's educational requirements. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed 
and considered each one. 
2 
"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. 5 
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. 6 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.7 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. 
Next, the Petitioner cites to RELX Inc. v. Baran 8 and argues O*NET can be used an authoritative 
resource when analyzing whether an occupation qualifies for a specialty occupation. The Petitioner, 
however, does not address the fact that the RELX 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 
specific specialty, which is the issue here. That court did not consider the requirement for 
specialization which, again, is the issue here, and it did not address the fact that neither the Handbook 
nor O*NET stated that the referenced bachelor's degree must be in a specific specialty. 
While we certainly agree that O*NET is relevant, we do not agree with that court's apparent treatment 
of O*NET as dis positive simply because the proffered position aligned with the occupational category 
because it does not appear to take into account the specific specialty analysis that underpins Royal 
Siam Corp. v. Chertoffand is required by the statutory and regulatory definitions. 10 Because O*NET 
does 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. Therefore, we do not find O*NET 
5 On Nov. 17, 2020, O*NET Online updated the occupation SOC 15-1199.01, Software Quality Assurance Engineers and 
Testers to SOC 15-1253.00, Software Quality Assurance Analysts and Testers. For the purposes of this decision, we will 
refer to the occupation to the code and name at the time of the Director's decision, SOC 15-1199 .01, Software Quality 
Assurance Engineers. See https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/15-1253.00?redir=l 5- l l 99.0 l (last visited on Feb. 
24, 2021). 
6 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 Feb. 24. 2021 ). Here. 
the Handbook does not provide specific information for various occupations which might be classified within the occupational 
category. 
7 The Handbook also indicates that this occupation does not require work experience in a related occupation or typical 
on-the-job training. Id. 
8 RELX, Inc. v. Baran, 397 F.Supp.3d 41 (D.D.C. 2019). 
9 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"). 
10 In the final rule setting forth the requirements for the revamped H-1 B program promulgated by the Immigration Act of 
1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649, 104 Stat. 4978, the agency, responding to commenters suggesting that the proposed "specific 
specialty" requirement "was too severe and would exclude certain occupations rrom classification as specialty 
occupations," stated that "[t]he definition of specialty occupation contained in the statute contains this requirement." 
Temporary Alien Workers Seeking Classification Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 56 Fed. Reg. 61111, 61112 
(Dec. 2, 1991). 
3 
an authoritative resource when determining whether a particular occupation requires a degree in a 
specific specialty. 
The O*NET Summary Report for SOC 15-1199.01, "Software Quality Assurance Engineers and 
Testers" includes general information about the occupation. For example, O*NET includes specialized 
vocational preparation (SVP), job zone, education, and the knowledge or skills generally associated with 
the occupation. However, O*NET does not specify particular fields of study when discussing the type of 
preparation or degrees that might be needed to perform a particular occupation. Accordingly, it does not 
assist in establishing that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, is normally 
required. 
Additionally, the Petitioner argues this petition should not be denied solely based on the Handbook not 
having an entry for "Software Quality Assurance Engineers and Testers." 11 We agree. Even though 
the Handbook's report is insufficient to establish that that positions located within this occupation 
categorically qualify as specialty occupation positions, that fact certainly does not preclude the 
Petitioner from establishing its particular position is a specialty occupation via other evidence, or under 
one of the other three regulatory criteria. However, the Petitioner has not provided other authoritative 
sources that might establish eligibility under this criterion. We certainly do not maintain that the 
Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant infonnation . 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. To satisfy the first 
criterion, however, the burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to submit sufficient evidence to 
support a finding that its particular position would normally have a minimum, specialty degree 
requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. The Petitioner has not provided that evidence here. 
The Petitioner also cites Next Generation Tech., Inc. v. Johnson 12 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 ." Moreover, while the Handbook may 
establish the fust regulatory criterion for certain professions, 13 many occupations are not described in 
such a categorical manner. As just discussed, neither the Handbook nor O*NET include information 
regarding this occupation to conclude that the occupation is categorically a specialty occupation. 
As the foregoing demonstrates, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation from a 
probative source to substantiate its assertion regarding the normal minimum requirement for entry into 
11 The Petitioner further refers to a non-precedent decision in which we determined that the position of a management analyst 
proffered in that matter was dismissed. The Petitioner has furnished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition 
are analogous to those in the unpublished decision. While 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c) provides that our precedent decisions are binding 
on all USCIS employees in the administration of the Act, unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. 
12 Next Generation Tech., Inc. v. Johnson , 328 F. Supp . 3d 252 (S.D .N.Y. Sept. 29, 2017) . 
13 Such professions would include surgeons or attorneys , which indisputably require at least a bachelor 's degree for entry 
into the occupation . 
4 
this particular position. 14 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 contemplates 
common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific 
position. 15 
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." 16 
The Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which the Handbook ( or other 
independent, authoritative sources) reports an industry-wide 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner refers to job postings submitted in response to the Director's RFE as confirming 
that the Petitioner's degree requirements are similar to those normally required in their industry. 17 
Specifically, the Petitioner argues they should not just be evaluated as only a golf course technology 
company, but should be evaluated against the companies in these job postings because they compete in 
cloud services or lesson booking technologies. Further, the Petitioner states these companies require 
quality assurance engineers, or similar professionals, that have a degree "with a significant correlation 
and relation" to the proffered position. 
To be relevant for consideration under this prong, the descriptions on the job postings must describe 
positions that are parallel to the proffered position and the job postings must have been placed by 
organizations that (1) conduct business in the Petitioner's industry and (2) are also "similar" to the 
Petitioner. Absent such evidence, job postings submitted by the Petitioner are generally outside the 
14 We will discuss the Petitioner's job duties in section D below. 
15 We will discuss the second prong of the second criterion in section D below. 
16 See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 1999) (quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 
1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (considering these "factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
17 With their RFE Response, the Petitioner submitted seven job postings from five different companies: Bridge Athletic, 
Club Prophet Systems. GameChanger, Jonas Fitness, and Stats. On appeal, the Petitioner discusses all these companies 
except Bridge Athletic. For this discussion, we will discuss all job postings and companies. 
5 
scope of consideration for this prong, which encompasses only organizations that are similar to the 
Petitioner. 
Although the Petitioner and the companies may perform some similar services, they do not appear 
similar to the Petitioner. According to the appeal, the Petitioner currently has twenty-seven employees 
and has $3.5 million in approximate revenue. However, the Petitioner's research shows three of the 
companies have an approximate workforce of fifty-one to two-hundred individuals, and another 
company having over one-thousand employees. Further, the appeal shows that three of companies 
have an annual revenue at least six times over the Petitioner's current annual revenue. 18 However, 
even if these companies were similar organizations within the same industry, we would still conclude 
the Petitioner has not established that the positions on the job postings are parallel to the proffered 
position. 
Our review of the job postings confirms that these positions are different and are not "parallel" to the 
Petitioner's position." For example, the proffered position's duties are for a software quality assurance 
engineer who focuses strictly on testing software. However, four of the job postings are for a software 
engineer or developer which includes software design duties. Another job posting indicates a 
technician whose duties include troubleshooting hardware. We also note some of these positions have 
entry requirements that from those of the Petitioner's position. The proffered position requires no 
experience; however, one job posting requires at least six years and another posting requires over two 
years of experience. Also, two job postings appear to require experience in addition to a bachelor's 
degree. 19 As such, these job postings do not demonstrate a "parallel position" to the proffered position. 
Even if all of the job descriptions and requirements on 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), we would still be compelled to observe that 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. 20 
Moreover, given that there is no indication that the advertisements were randomly selected, the validity 
of any such inferences could not be accurately determined even if the sampling unit were sufficiently 
large. 21 
As such, it cannot be found that such limited information that appears to have been consciously 
selected could credibly refute the conclusions of the Handbook published by the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics that such a position does not normally require at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
18 According to the Petitioner's appeal, the approximate annual revenue for Club Prophet Systems is $35 million, Jonas 
Fitness is $21.9 million. and ST A TS is $400 million. 
19 The Petitioner submitted two job postings from Club Prophet. Both state that a minimum qualification is a bachelor's 
degree "in Computer Science. Software Engineering, Information Systems or other technical degree and/or equivalent 
experience prefened." The statement "and/or equivalent experience prefened" seems to suggest that experience may be 
required with a bachelor's degree in some instances, or that experience could be substituted in lieu of a degree 
20 See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 (7th ed. 1995). 
21 See id. at 195-96 (explaining that "[r]andom selection is the key to [the] process [of probability sampling]" and that 
"random selection offers access to the body of probability the01y, which provides the basis for estimates of population 
parameters and estimates of enor"). 
6 
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). 
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. Evidence 
provided in this criterion may include, but is not limited to, an organizational chart showing the 
Petitioner's hierarchy and staffing levels with corresponding and experience requirements for this 
position, as well as documentary evidence of past employment practices for the position. 
The RFE response states that the Beneficiary will be the first person to hold the position of quality 
assurance engineer, or QA Engineer. As this is the first time the Petitioner has hired for the proffered 
position, it could not submit evidence of previous or current employees who have served in the 
proffered position. Contrary to the Director's decision, we agree the Petitioner would not be able to 
submit such documents as no individual has held or currently holds the proffered position. While a 
first-time hiring for a position is certainly not a basis for precluding a position from recognition as a 
specialty occupation, it is unclear how an employer that has not previously recruited and hired for the 
position would be able to satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
The Petitioner asserts their requirement of at least a bachelor's degree in computer science or a related 
field is normal to the industry and provides the "baseline knowledge" to perform the proffered position. 
Also, the Petitioner states they have demonstrated this degree requirement is necessary by providing 
detailed requirements and duties of the proffered role and examples of the Beneficiary's work product. 
Although these documents provide more in-depth understanding of the proffered position, they do not 
demonstrate why a bachelor's degree in computer science or related is necessary for the position. 22 
Even if the Petitioner always requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty to perform the duties 
of the proffered position, the record must still 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. 23 The Petitioner in this matter has not persuasively established that it 
normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position 
proffered here. Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
D. Second Prong of the Second Criterion and Fourth Criterion 
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 
22 These proffered position's job duties and requirements, and the Beneficiary's work samples will be discussed further in 
the next section. 
23 Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. 
7 
at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 24 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. 
Upon review of the totality of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained 
or documented why the duties are so complex and specialized 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. The 
Petitioner's initial list of job duties were expanded in their RFE response by providing more details 
with the percentage of time the Beneficiary would devote to certain tasks, along with the tools and 
technologies needed to complete each duty. Although the Petitioner provided a more detailed 
description of the duties, the Petitioner fails to sufficiently establish how these duties require 
specialized knowledge. 
In particular, many of the Petitioner's job duties and descriptions are general and appear similar to the 
generically described tasks under O*NET Online for SOC 15-1199.01, Software Quality Assurance 
Engineers and Testers. For instance, the position's duties include "designing, developing, and 
executing automation scripts using open source tools," "[ d]evelop test scripts to validate database 
records created and modified by automation test scripts to ensure complete testing of the designed 
software," "identifying, recording, documenting, and tracking bugs," and "performing thorough 
regression testing when bugs are resolved." Similarly, the SOC 15-1199.01 O*NET tasks include 
"[ d]esign test plans, scenarios, scripts, or procedures" and "[ d]evelop testing programs that address 
areas such as database impacts, software scenarios, regression testing, negative testing, error or bug 
retests, or usability." As most of the duties appear general and consistent with the baseline O*NET 
descriptions, the proffered position's duties do not demonstrate how they are more specialized and 
complex or unique than those in the O*NET. As discussed above, the O*NET does not describe the 
job requirements for the SOC 15-1199.01 occupation as requiring a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner does not establish that the job duties it describes requires 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge. 
The duties and description also feature significant use of tools and languages for which the Petitioner 
has not explained why skills using such technologies could not be gained through certifications in 
these technologies, through a vocational (associate's) degree, or a computer bootcamp. 25 For example, 
the Beneficiary's work is performed using tools, such as, Jira, Selenium, Cucumber Framework, Java, 
Appium, and Maven, but the Petitioner makes little effort to explain how use of these technologies 
makes the position "specialized and complex" or "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 and specialized or unique that they can be performed only by an individual with at least a 
24 Although the Petitioner does not challenge the second prong of the second criterion on appeal, we have briefly addressed 
elements of that criterion in this section. 
25 In the RFE response and appeal letter, the Petitioner indicates the Beneficiary's use of additional tools, such as Slack, 
Zoom, UberConference, Atlassian, Github, and Confluence, which were not mentioned in the initial job duties. 
8 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner also provides a list of courses 
the Beneficiary completed and asserts these courses provided her the requisite knowledge to perform 
the duties of the proffered position. However, whether or not a particular beneficiary has completed a 
specialized course of study directly related to the proffered position is irrelevant to the issue of whether a 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, i.e., whether the duties of the proffered position 
require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and the 
attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Although the 
Petitioner claims the Beneficiary's coursework will prepare her for the duties of the proffered position, 
the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education or experience of a particular 
beneficiary, but whether the position itselfrequires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent. 26 
With their RFE response, the Petitioner also provided documents detailing their business. 27 Although 
these documents provide information about the Petitioner's services, it does not demonstrate or 
provide an explanation how the specific work is so specialized and complex or unique that a bachelor's 
degree in a specific field is necessary to perform them. 
We also reviewed the sample work product which includes (1) a test execution report, (2) an example 
of automation scripting using the Behavior Driven Development framework, (3) an example of 
identifying and reporting a bug with the software, and (4) an example of the Beneficiary using the 
Confluence software tool. The Petitioner states the work product demonstrates the position is complex 
and requires at least a bachelor's in computer science or closely related field. Although the documents 
demonstrate the position will be involved in software testing, the work product is without specific 
context and reveals few details about the duties involved in each task. For example, the test execution 
report just appears to be a list of "pass" and "fail" outcomes without any explanation on how the result 
was achieved. Likewise, the bug report and Confluence sample appear to be an itinerary or series of 
steps with no further context. Further, automation scripting sample may demonstrate the position 
requires software testing knowledge, but by itself does not demonstrate that a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty is necessary to perform the duties. Without any substantive explanation, the sample 
work product does not convey an understanding of the specialization and complexity or uniqueness of 
the creation of the work product or why a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is required. 
In light of all the above, the Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative specialization and 
complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position, and it did not identify any tasks 
that are so specialized and complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform 
them. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) or 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
26 We are required to follow long-standing legal standards and determine first, whether the proffered position qualifies for 
classification as a specialty occupation, and second, whether the Beneficiary was qualified for the position at the time the 
nonimmigrant visa petition was filed. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 T&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]."). 
27 The Petitioner provided printouts from their "Frequently Asked Questions," .__ _____ _." and j 
section of their website, printed on October 1, 2019. ~---~ 
9 
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. Moreover, the record 
does not establish that the Petitioner satisfied the statutory and regulatory definitions of specialty 
occupation. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As set forth above, we conclude that the evidence of record does not establish, more likely than not, 
that the proffered position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. Accordingly, the 
appeal will be 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. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
10