dismissed H-1B Case: Software Technologies

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6983122 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 22, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-IB nonimmigrant 
classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to 
temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a position that requires both: (a) the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge; and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's 
or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into 
the position . 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had 
not established that the proffered position was a specialty occupation. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 1 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, defines the term "specialty occupation" as an occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, 
and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a 
non-exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered 
position must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
1 We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard. Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010) . 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We construe the term "degree" to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal 
Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in a 
specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular 
position"). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner, a software, services, and Internet technologies company, seeks to employ the 
Beneficiary as a "Business Operations Program Manager." In response to the Director's request for 
evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided a job description for the proffered position which identified 
the primary duties and responsibilities of the Beneficiary, along with the approximate percentage of 
time the Beneficiary will spend on each duty. 2 According to the Petitioner, the proffered position 
requires at least a bachelor's degree in computer science, engineering, mathematics, information 
systems, physics, or a related technical field. 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 3 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its 
equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 4 
A. Degree Requirements 
Preliminarily, we note that the Petitioner's degree requirements are insufficient to qualify under the 
H-1 B program. In general, provided the specialties are closely related, a minimum of a bachelor's or 
2 The record contains multiple descriptions of the duties of the position, including a sworn declaration of 20 duties with 
the corresponding percentage of time devoted to each stated duty. For the sake of brevity, we will not quote the job 
description; however, we have closely reviewed and considered it. 
3 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
4 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 B 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 
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. A minimum entry requirement of degrees 
in disparate fields, however, 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. 5 In such a case, the organization must establish that 
the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" is essentially an amalgamation of these different 
specialties. 6 The Petitioner has not made this showing. 
We observe other issues within the Petitioner's degree requirements. In its initial letter of support, the 
Petitioner stated the position required either a bachelor's degree or a master's degree in a "relevant 
field," depending on the specific project to which the Beneficiary would be assigned. Within the RFE 
response, the Petitioner stated that the position required "at least a bachelor's degree in Computer 
Science, Engineering, Mathematics, Information Systems, Physics, or a related technical field." In 
addition to the problem created by the wide range of degrees that the Petitioner would accept, it submitted 
an opinion letter froml I who concluded that the proffered position required a degree 
in industrial engineering. No explanation regarding these discrepancies was provided. 
These requirements do not satisfy the statutory and regulatory framework of the H-lB program. The 
requirement is not just a bachelor's or higher degree, but a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty 
that directly relates to the position duties. 7 A lack of a specific degree requirement-which we have 
in this case-precludes the Petitioner from demonstrating that the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. 
B. First Criterion 
We tum next 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. To inform this inquiry, we generally recognize the Handbook as an 
authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that 
it addresses. 8 
5 Section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). 
6 While the statutory "the" and the regulatory "a" both denote a singular "specialty," we do not so narrowly interpret these 
provisions to exclude positions from qualifying as specialty occupations if they permit, as a minimum entry requirement 
degrees in more than one closely related specialty. See section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). This 
also includes even seemingly disparate specialties providing, again, the evidence ofrecord establishes how each acceptable, 
specific field of study is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position. 
7 See section 214(i)(l)(b) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
8 We do not maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. That is, the occupational category 
designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered 
position, and we regularly review the Handbook on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of 
occupations that it addresses. To satisfy the first criterion, however, the burden ofproofremains 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. 
3 
On the labor condition application (LCA) 9 submitted in support of the pet1t10n, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Management Analysts" 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 13-1111. Although the 
Handbook states that "[a] bachelor's degree is the typical entry-level requirement for management 
analysts," it also states that "common fields of study include business, management, economics, 
accounting, finance, marketing, psychology, and computer and information science." 10 Based on the 
wide range of degrees the Handbook indicates is acceptable for entry into this occupation, the 
Handbook does not establish that a bachelor's or higher degree in a spec[fic specialty, or its equivalent, 
is normally the minimum requirement for entry into a management analyst position. 
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. However, 
because there must be a close correlation between the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" 
and the position, a minimum entry requirement of degrees in disparate fields, such as accounting and 
psychology, 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. 11 Section 2 l 4(i)(l )(B) of the Act ( emphasis added). The 
Petitioner has not done so here. 
In its response to the RFE, the Petitioner also referenced the DOL's Occupational Information 
Network (O*NET) summary report for "Management Analysts," listed as SOC code 13-1111. The 
summary report provides general information regarding the occupation; however, it does not support 
the Petitioner's assertion that the position is a specialty occupation. Specifically, the O*NET does not 
establish that the degree must be in any specific specialty. 12 
In the absence of support from the Handbook, the Petitioner submitted a letter froml I an 
associate professor of industrial engineering atl I University. In her letter, I I (1) 
describes the credentials that she asserts qualify her to opine upon the nature of the proffered position; 
(2) mentions some of the duties proposed for the Beneficiary; and (3) states that these duties require 
at least a bachelor's degree in industrial engineering or a related field. We carefully evaluated □ 
I I's assertions in support of the instant petition but, for the following reasons, determined her 
letter is not persuasive. 
9 A petitioner submits the LCA to DOL to demonstrate that it will pay an H-lB worker the higher of either the prevailing 
wage for the occupational classification in the area of employment or the actual wage paid by the employer to other 
employees with similar duties, experience, and qualifications. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.73l(a). 
10 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Management Analysts, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/management-analysts.htm#tab-4 (last visited Jan. 22, 2020). 
11 In other words, while the statutory "the" and the regulatory "a" both denote a singular "specialty," we do not so narrowly 
interpret these provisions to exclude positions from qualifying as specialty occupations if they permit, as a minimum entry 
requirement, degrees in more than one closely related specialty. See section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 2 l 4.2(h)(4)(ii). This also includes even seemingly disparate specialties if the Petitioner establishes how each acceptable, 
specific field of study is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position. 
12 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/help/ 
online/svp. 
4 
In her letter, I I states that her assessment is based upon "the support letter and detailed 
description provided by [the Petitioner]." I I provides no discussion of the Petitioner's 
business activities and does not demonstrate in-depth knowledge of its operations or how the duties of 
the position would actually be performed in the context of its business enterprise. 
FurtherJ Is opinion letter does not substantiate her conclusions, such that we can conclude 
that the Petitioner has met its burden of proof First, I ldoes not reference, cite, or discuss any 
studies, surveys, industry publications, authoritative publications, or other sources of empirical 
information which she may have consulted to complete her evaluation. 
In addition, whilel I states that she reviewed the duties of the proffered position provided by 
the Petitioner and concluded that the "nature of the specific duties are so specialized and complex that 
the position requires a candidate with no less than the equivalent of a Bachelor's Degree in Industrial 
Engineering or a related field." However,! I does not reference the specifics of the particular 
projects or tasks upon which the Beneficiary would work in meaningful detail. For example, while 
we appreciate her comparison of several of the job duties provided by the Petitioner with the 
coursework she deems relevant to such duties, that description still falls short of providing a 
meaningful discussion of what the Beneficiary would actually do in the proffered position and how 
those duties actually require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge. Finally, the fact that I I concludes that a degree in industrial engineering is 
required to perform the duties of the position contradicts the statements of the Petitioner in the RFE 
response, as the Petitioner does not identify the field of industrial engineering as one of its acceptable 
prerequisites. Such inconsistencies diminish the evidentiary value of this opinion. As a result, we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated tha~ !possessed the requisite information 
to adequately assess the nature of the position and appropriately determine the minimum education 
necessary for entry into the particular position based upon its likely job duties and responsibilities. 
For the reasons discussed, we conclude that the opinion letter from I hs insufficient to satisfy 
the first criterion. Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (The service is not 
required to accept or may give less weight to an advisory opinion when it is "not in accord with other 
information or is in any way questionable."). 13 
Here, the Petitioner has not provided information from a probative source to substantiate its assertion 
regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. The record is insufficient 
to satisfy the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(]). 
C. 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 on 
13 We hereby incorporate our discussion of._l __ __.L, letter into our discussion of the other 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A) 
criteria. 
5 
the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific 
position. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. We generally 
consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there is such a common degree requirement: 
whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the industry's professional 
association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether letters or affidavits from 
firms or individuals in the industry establish that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed 
individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 1999) (quoting 
Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (considering these "factors" to 
inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that an authoritative source reports at least 
a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent is required for the proffered position, and 
we incorporate our previous discussion on this matter. In addition, there are no submissions from the 
industry's professional association indicating that it has made a degree a minimum entry requirement. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner did not submit any letters or affidavits from similar firms or individuals in 
the Petitioner's industry attesting that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed 
individuals." 
In support of this prong, the Petitioner submitted job advertisements from other organizations in its 
industry. The Petitioner asserts that all the advertisements satisfy the three main elements that the 
degree requirement is common: (1) to the industry, (2) among similar organizations, and (3) in parallel 
positions. When determining whether the Petitioner and other organizations share the same general 
characteristics, such factors may include information regarding the nature or type of organization, and, 
when pertinent, the size, scope, or scale of operations, expenditures, as well as the level of revenue 
and staffing (to list just a few elements that may be considered). It is not sufficient for the Petitioner 
to claim that an organization is similar and in the same industry without providing a legitimate basis 
for such an assertion. 
The Director noted deficiencies with most of the job postings. For example, the Director found that 
while some of the postings did not identify a specific specialty, they likewise did not limit the field of 
study to a particular field but rather allowed for a wide variety of fields. In addition, the Director 
found that the acceptance of any engineering degree in at least three of the submitted postings was too 
broad to demonstrate the degree requirements were in a specific specialty. 14 On appeal the Petitioner 
argues several points contesting the Director's determination. 
14 We note the Petitioner's submission of documentation, such as excerpts from the Engineering Accreditation Commission 
of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), a technical professional association, and the Accreditation 
Board of Engineering and Technology (ABET), an organization that accredits post-secondary educational programs. The 
Petitioner provides such documentation to demonstrate the relationship of computer science and various engineering fields 
to the business aspect of the proffered position and of the jobs identified in the submitted job postings. While noted, we 
6 
We find it is unnecessary to weigh in on all the Petitioner's appellate claims under this criterion as 
none of the job postings are for positions that are sufficiently similar to the one offered in the petition. 
The job postings are general and vague, and therefore it is unclear whether the duties identified in the 
advertised position equate to the duties and functions of the offered position. Additionally, each of 
the job postings appear to be for more senior-level positions than the proffered position as each 
required work experience varying from more than five years to more than six years; the Petitioner did 
not express any such experiential requirement for the proffered position. Finally, some postings accept 
a general degree in business/business management, which is a broad field and one not identified as a 
field of study accepted by the Petitioner, thus farther undermining the claim that the proffered position 
is a specialty occupation. 15 
Moreover, the Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence as to how representative these 
particular job advertisements are of the particular advertising employers' recruiting history for the 
types of job advertised. As the advertisements are only solicitations for hire, they are not evidence of 
the employers' actual hiring practices. 16 
Without more, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
In support of its assertion that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, the Petitioner 
described the proffered position and its business operations. However, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated how the duties of the proffered position require the theoretical and practical application 
of a body of highly specialized knowledge such that a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform them. 
nevertheless find that the wide range of fields deemed acceptable by both the Petitioner and the advertising entities 
precludes a finding that the evidence submitted establishes the proffered position as a specialty occupation. 
15 Even if all of the job postings indicated that a requirement of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is common to 
the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations (which they do not), the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from the advertisements with regard to determining the common 
educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice 
of Social Research 186-228 (1995). Moreover, given that there is no indication that the advertisements were randomly 
selected, the validity of any such inferences could not be accurately determined even if the sampling unit were sufficiently 
large. See id. at 195-196 (explaining that "[r]andom selection is the key to [the] process [of probability sampling]" and 
that "random selection offers access to the body of probability theory, which provides the basis for estimates of population 
parameters and estimates of error"). 
16 As the documentation does not establish that the Petitioner has met this prong of the regulations, farther analysis 
regarding the specific information contained in each of the job postings is not necessary. That is, not every deficit of every 
job posting has been addressed. 
7 
Specifically, the record contains varying requirements for the proffered position. In its support letter, 
the Petitioner initially stated that the position requires either a bachelor's degree or a master's degree 
"in a relevant field" depending on the specific project. No further discussion of a "specific project" 
was provided. In response to the RFE, the Petitioner identified numerous fields it deemed acceptable, 
such as engineering, computer science, mathematics, information systems, and physics. However, it 
submitted job advertisements accepting general business degrees as prerequisites, and its expert 
opinion letter stated that a degree in industrial engineering was required to perform the duties of the 
position. The record contains no explanation for varying degree and experience requirements. The 
Petitioner must resolve these inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to where 
the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Unresolved material 
inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of other evidence submitted 
in support of the requested immigration benefit. Id. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well qualified for the pos1t10n, and references her 
qualifications. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education 
or experience of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner did not submit information relevant to 
a detailed course of study leading to a specialty degree and establish how such a curriculum would be 
necessary to perform the duties it believes are so complex and unique. While some related courses 
may be beneficial, or even required, in performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner 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 proffered position's duties. 
The Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties 
of the position. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
D. 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 support of this criterion may include, but is not limited to, documentation regarding the 
Petitioner's past recruitment and hiring practices, as well as information regarding employees who 
previously held the position. 
The record must establish that a petitioner's stated degree requirement is not a matter of preference 
for high-caliber candidates but is necessitated instead by performance requirements of the position. 
See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. Were we limited solely to reviewing a petitioner's claimed self-­
imposed requirements, an organization could bring any individual with a bachelor's degree to the 
United States to perform any occupation as long as the petitioning entity created a token degree 
requirement. Id. Evidence provided in support of this criterion may include, but is not limited to, 
documentation regarding the Petitioner's past recruitment and hiring practices, as well as information 
regarding employees who previously held the position. 
On motion, the Petitioner submitted numerous Linkedln profiles for individuals it claims are employed 
in the same or similar positions. As noted by the Director, the profiles are not supported by additional 
8 
documentary evidence such as evidence of their employment or their academic credentials. 
Nevertheless, it is unclear from the profiles whether each individual is employed in the same position 
as that proffered to the Beneficiary, as the job titles of the individuals differ from that of the proffered 
position, and the overview of their duties is vague. The Petitioner did not provide the job duties and 
day-to-day responsibilities of the employees that it claims serves in positions that are the same as the 
proffered position. The Petitioner did not provide any information regarding the complexity of the 
job duties, supervisory duties (if any), independent judgment required or the amount of supervision 
received. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that the duties and responsibilities of these 
individuals are the same as the Beneficiary's in the proffered position. 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not address or contest the Director's finding under this criterion and 
does not make any farther assertions regarding its past recruitment and hiring practices. Without more, 
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 position. Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
E. 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. 
Upon review, we conclude that relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently 
developed by the Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. We note the Petitioner's submission 
of a detailed overview of the proffered position, as well as evidence of patented technologies the 
Beneficiary will routinely utilize in the course of her duties. However, while the evidence submitted 
demonstrates that the position may require that the Beneficiary possess some skills and technical 
knowledge in order to perform these duties, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how these 
tasks require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and 
the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a 
minimum for entry into the occupation. The record does not include sufficient probative evidence that 
the duties require more than technical proficiency in the field. 
Although the Petitioner asserts that the nature of the specific duties is specialized and complex, the 
record lacks sufficient evidence to support this claim. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
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. 
9