dismissed H-1B Case: Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9872372 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAY 19, 2020 
The Petitioner, a technology solution company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "data 
analyst" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations . See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S .C. § 1101(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 evidence of 
record does not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The matter is 
now before us on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the 
questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . 
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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a 
non-exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered 
position must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
( I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We construe the term "degree" to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal 
Siam Corp. v. Chertojf, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in a 
specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular 
position"). Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
As recognized by the court in Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88, where the work is to be performed for 
entities other than the petitioner, evidence of the client companies' job requirements is critical. 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. Id. 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. 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
In the H-1 B petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a "data analyst" for an 
end-client inl I California. The Petitioner submitted a letter from the end-client, which 
includes a list of the duties for the proffered position. 1 In addition, the letter states that the proffered 
position requires a "Bachelor's degree in Computer Science, Information Science, Engineering in 
technical field such as Compute[r] science or related technical field." According to the Petitioner, the 
contractual path is as follows: 
Petitioner - Vendor - End-client 
1 For the sake of brevity, we will not quote the duties listed in the end-client's letter; however, we have closely reviewed 
and considered them. We also note that these duties were provided in the vendor's and the Petitioner's letters. 
2 
III. ANALYSIS 
For the reasons set out below, we determine that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. Specifically, the record does not establish that the job 
duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty 
occupation." 2 
In support of the claimed contractual relationship, the Petitioner submitted a master services agreement 
(MSA) executed with the vendor on July 30, 2018. The version of the MSA submitted initially and in 
response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) comprises pages one through eight. However, 
on appeal, the Petitioner submitted only the first and the eighth page ( signature page) of the MSA. 
Notably, the Petitioner's signature on page eight is missing and it appears that the vendor re-signed 
the document, though the date is unchanged. The Petitioner does not provide an explanation for the 
variances in the signature page and the reason for not submitting the pages two through seven on 
appeal. 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. Moreover, the information contained 
in the MSA is limited in scope and does not establish the services to be provided by the Beneficiary 
such as duties or educational requirements for the position. However, we cannot determine whether 
the missing pages of the MSA, which are not submitted on appeal, are different than the ones previously 
submitted and whether these missing pages address the Beneficiary's duties and the educational 
requirements associated with them. 
The record contains a document titled "Schedule A" dated October 16, 2018, which was submitted with 
the Petitioner's RFE response. The document indicates that it is a purchase order "No: I I' 
"Pursuant to the agreement dated July 30, 2018." This purchase order is signed by the Petitioner and the 
vendor. It identifies the Beneficiary and the end-client by name, indicates the consulting start date as 
October 16, 2018. Notably, the purchase order also states that the Beneficiary "will be performing work 
from offshore location in India," which is inconsistent with the employment location provided on the 
petition and the labor condition application (LCA). 3 The inconsistency in the location where the 
Beneficiary will be performing her duties raise additional questions regarding the nature of the duties and 
whether the purchase order relates to the proffered position. Moreover, the purchase orders states, "this 
schedule is governed by all the terms and conditions of MOU signed between our companies." It is 
unclear whether "MOU" referenced in the purchase order is the master services agreement or whether 
there is a separate memorandum of understanding that was executed by the parties. The record does 
not contain a document titled memorandum of understanding or "MOU." Therefore, we are unable to 
determine whether all the terms and conditions associated with the purchase order were submitted into 
2 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. 
3 A petitioner submits the LCA to DOL to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B 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, expenence, and qualifications. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 
20 C.F.R. § 655.73l(a). 
3 
the record. The information contained in Schedule A is limited in scope and does not establish the 
services to be provided by the Beneficiary such as duties or educational requirements for the position. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submitted another version of "Schedule A," which is also dated October 16, 
2018, indicates that it is a purchase order "No: I I' and notates that it is "Pursuant to the 
agreement dated July 30, 2018." Notably, the purchase order submitted on apjeal was not signed by the 
Petitioner. Furthermore, the work location reflects the end-client' sl California location rather 
than India, and indicates the start date as October 1, 2019. This purchase order also states that it is 
governed by the terms and conditions of the MOU signed between the companies. The Petitioner does 
not explain why the purchase orders, with the same order number and the same order date, contain 
different information. Again, the Petitioner must resolve these inconsistencies with independent, 
objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92. Moreover, 
this purchase order is also limited in scope and does not establish the services to be provided by the 
Beneficiary such as duties or educational requirements for the position. 
The record contains a services agreement (SA) that was executed by the vendor and the end-client on 
January 1, 2018. The SA states that"[ c ]onsultant will be solely responsible for determining the means 
and methods for performing the services described in the Scope of Services attached as Schedule I 
(the "Scope of Services)." However, the "Schedule I - Scope of Services" page the Petitioner 
submitted is blank. The information contained in the SA is limited in scope and does not adequately 
establish the terms and conditions of the services to be provided by the Petitioner. Nor do they 
establish the services to be provided by the Beneficiary such as duties or educational requirements for 
the position. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that "[t]he contracts between [the vendor] and [the end-client] are the 
confidential documents of the parties and are not available" to it ( emphasis omitted). It is unclear to 
which confidential contracts the Petitioner is referring and whether other relevant contracts exist 
between the parties. For the reasons discussed above, without additional documents, the MSA, 
purchase orders, and the SA have little probative weight towards establishing the actual work to be 
performed by the Beneficiary for the end-client. 
On appeal, the Petitioner also states that the "contract between the two parties [(the vendor and the 
end-client)] and the SOW issued as a result of the same have been provided in complete. The missing 
information from the client SOW is being supplemented with the letters from the client and the 
vendor." 4 However, the end-client provided insufficient information regarding the proffered position 
in its letter. The end-client stated that the Beneficiary will be providing services for its "ongoing IT 
projects and initiatives." While the end-client provided a list of duties, it did not provide a sufficiently 
detailed information of its projects, nor did it provide information regarding its operations, products, 
or customers. The end-client provided very little context to demonstrate that the duties would require 
the services of a person with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. Furthermore, the 
end-client did not state the project's start-date nor did it indicate the stage of the project and the 
remaining work, if any, to be performed to complete the project. Similarly, the vendor's letter does 
not identify a specific project on which the Beneficiary will work and provides insufficient information 
regarding the end-client's business operations and any of its existing projects. The vendor briefly 
4 It is uncertain whether by "SOW" the Petitioner is referring to "Schedule I - Scope of Services" or to another document. 
4 
states that the Beneficiary "shall be providing services as Data Analyst" and lists the same general 
duties listed by the end-client but provides no context for the duties. The letters from the end-client 
and the vendor do not sufficiently establish the Beneficiary's day-to-day work in relation to a specific 
project. Therefore, these letters have little probative weight towards establishing the actual work to 
be performed by the Beneficiary for the end-client. 
We will now review the evidence of record to determine whether the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 5 
A. First Criterion 
We tum first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which requires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. To inform this inquiry, we will consider the information contained 
in the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) regarding the 
duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations it addresses. 6 
On the LCA submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner designated the proffered position 
under the occupational category "Computer Systems Analysts" corresponding to the Standard 
Occupational Classification code 15-1121. Thus, we reviewed the Handbook's subchapter entitled 
"How to Become a Computer Systems Analyst," which states, in relevant part, that a bachelor's degree 
in a computer or information science field is common, although not always a requirement. 7 
According to the Handbook, some firms hire analysts with business or liberal arts degrees. As 
discussed, we interpret the term "degree" to mean a degree in a spec[fic specialty that is directly related 
to the proposed position. See Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. Since there must be a close 
correlation between the required specialized studies and the position, this requirement for general and 
wide-ranging degrees in business and liberal arts strongly suggests that a computer systems analyst 
position is not categorically a specialty occupation. See id. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 
19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). The Handbook continues by stating that although many 
analysts have technical degrees, such a degree is not always a requirement - and that, in fact, many 
analysts have liberal arts degrees and gain programming or technical expertise elsewhere. It does not 
specify a degree level (e.g., associate's degree) for these business, technical, and liberal arts degrees. 
The Handbook therefore does not support the assertion that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for these positions. See also 
Altimetrik Corp. v. Cissna, No. 18-10116, 2018, WL 6604258, at *6 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 17, 2018) (also 
noting that because the Handbook "makes it clear that a degree in a computer-related field is not 
5 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
6 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. Nevertheless, to satisfy the first criterion, 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. 
7 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Computer Systems Analysts 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-systems-analysts.htm#tab-4 (last visited May 
18, 2020). 
5 
required" for these positions, "USCIS [was] entitled to deference in its finding that systems analysts 
are not required to have a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty"). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that because the "very role of a Systems Analyst is to assist the 
organizations in reviewing their various IT systems in order to improve their efficiency ... it is only 
befitting that the candidate for the position is able to understand a fairly wide group of courses, some 
highly specialized and others more interdisciplinary .... " Citing to Next Generation Tech., Inc. v. 
Johnson, 328 F. Supp. 3d 252, 267 (S.D.N.Y. 2017), the Petitioner concludes that "if 'most' computer 
systems analysts have a bachelor's degree in the appropriate field, as is provided in the [Handbook], 
then it follows that the degree is 'normally' required for the position, and thus the position qualifies 
as a specialty occupation." 
We first note that we are not bound to follow the published decision of a United States district 
court. SeeMatterofK-S-,20I&NDec. 715, 719-20(BIA 1993). Nevertheless,evenifweconsidered 
the logic underlying the matter, we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
As recognized by another court, while the Handbook may establish the first regulatory criterion for 
certain professions, many occupations are not described in such a categorical manner. 8 See Innova 
Sols., Inc. v. Baran, 2019 WL 3753334, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2019) (declining to follow Next 
Generation Tech., Inc.). For example, "[the Handbook's] description for the Computer Programmer 
occupation does not describe the normal minimum educational requirements of the occupation in a 
categorical fashion." Id.; see also Xiaotong Liu v. Baran, 2018 WL 7348851 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 
2018). "Accordingly, [the Petitioner] could not simply rely on [the Handbook] profile, and instead 
had the burden to show that the particular position offered to [the Beneficiary] was among the 
Computer Programmer positions for which a bachelor's degree was normally required." See Innova 
Sols., Inc. 2019 WL 3753334, at *8. 
Moreover, the court in Next Generation Tech., Inc. relied in part on a USCIS policy memorandum 
regarding "Computer Programmers" indicating generally preferential treatment toward computer 
programmers, and "especially" toward companies in that particular petitioner's industry. However, 
USCIS rescinded the policy memorandum cited by the court in Next Generation Tech. Inc. 9 
The Petitioner also mentions Residential Finance Corp. v. USCIS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 
2012), for the proposition that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is what is 
important. Diplomas rarely come bearing occupation-specific majors." We agree with the 
aforementioned proposition that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is what is 
important." In general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry and biochemistry, 
a minimum of a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty is recognized as satisfying the 
"degree in the specific specialty ( or its equivalent)" requirement of section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act. In 
such a case, the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" would essentially be the same. Since 
8 Such professions would include surgeons or attorneys, which indisputably require at least a bachelor's degree for entry 
into the occupation. 
9 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0142, Rescission of the December 22, 2000 "Guidance memo on HlB 
computer related positions" (Mar. 31, 2017), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/nativedocuments/PM-6002-
0142-H- l BComputerRelatedPositionsRecission.pdf. 
6 
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 two disparate fields 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. Section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). 
In any event, the Petitioner has famished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition 
are analogous to those in Residential Finance. 10 As we noted above, in contrast to the broad 
precedential authority of the case law of a United States circuit court, we are not bound to follow the 
published decision of a United States district court in matters arising even within the same district. See 
Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. at 719-20. Although the reasoning underlying a district judge's decision 
will be given due consideration when it is properly before us, the analysis does not have to be followed 
as a matter oflaw. Id. 
The Petitioner also refers to our non-precedent decisions and asserts that "both users and the courts have 
repeatedly held that where most employers in an occupation require a bachelor's degree in a narrow range 
of majors, or a related major, or its equivalent, it is a specialty occupation." 11 Non-precedent decisions 
apply existing law and policy to the specific facts of the individual case, and may be distinguishable based 
on the evidence in the record of proceedings, the issues considered, and applicable law and policy. The 
Petitioner has famished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition are analogous to 
those in the unpublished decisions. While 8 e.F .R. § 103 .3( c) provides that our precedent decisions 
are binding on all users employees in the administration of the Act, unpublished decisions are not 
similarly binding. 
Though relevant, the information the Petitioner submits from DOL's Occupational Information 
Network (O*NET) does not establish the Petitioner's eligibility under the first criterion, as it does not 
establish that a bachelor's degree in a spec[fic specialty, or the equivalent, is normally required. The 
O*NET Summary Report provides general information regarding the occupation, but it does not 
support a conclusion that the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
the equivalent. Instead, O*NET assigns these positions a "Job Zone Four" rating, which states "most 
of these occupations require a four-year bachelor's degree, but some do not." Moreover, the Job Zone 
Four designation does not indicate that any academic credentials for Job Zone Four occupations must 
be directly related to the duties performed. In addition, the specialized vocational preparation (SVP) 
rating designates this occupation as 7 < 8. An SVP rating of 7 to less than("<") 8 indicates that the 
10 It is noted that the district judge's decision in that case appears to have been based largely on the many factual errors 
made by the Director in the decision denying the petition. We further note that the Director's decision was not appealed 
to us. Based on the district court's conclusions and description of the record, if that matter had first been appealed through 
the available administrative process, we may very well have remanded the matter to the service center for a new decision 
for many of the same reasons articulated by the district court if these errors could not have been remedied by us in our de 
nova review of the matter. 
11 While the Petitioner provides the citation to only one of our non-precedent decision, it asse1is that "the AAO has 
explained in at least 2,415 unpublished decisions that USCIS regularly approves H-IB petitions for qualified aliens who 
are to be employed as engineers, computer scientists, certified public accountants, college professors, and other such 
occupations." The Petitioner did not indicate the source of this information and it is unclear how the Petitioner arrived at 
its conclusion. Moreover, the Petitioner has furnished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition are 
analogous to those in the unpublished decisions. 
7 
occupation requires "over 2 years up to and including 4 years" of training. While the SVP rating 
indicates the total number of years of vocational preparation required for a particular position, it is 
important to note that it does not describe how those years are to be divided among training, 
experience, and formal education. The SVP rating also does not specify the particular type of degree, 
if any, that a position would require. 12 For all of these reasons, O*NET does not establish the proffered 
position as a specialty occupation. 
The record lacks sufficient evidence to support a finding that the proffered position is one for which a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry. For the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner has not met its burden to 
establish that the particular position offered in this matter requires a bachelor's or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, directly related to its duties in order to perform those tasks. Thus, 
the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(]). 
A. 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. 
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. The Petitioner 
does not assert, nor does the record demonstrate, eligibility under this prong. Therefore, the Petitioner 
has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
As noted previously, the end-client provided very little context to demonstrate that the duties would 
require the services of a person with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. The end-client 
stated that the Beneficiary will be providing services for its "ongoing IT projects and initiatives" but 
did not provide a sufficiently detailed information of its projects, nor did it provide information 
regarding its operations, products, or customers. Furthermore, the record does not contain a 
12 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/ 
help/online/svp. 
8 
sufficiently detailed description of the Beneficiary's duties to establish that the position requires the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment of 
a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty, or its equivalent. The duties such as "[d]ata 
migration from existing client systems to the target environment," "[f]acilitate data validation 
activities for migrated data," "[ d]ata modeling and [p ]reparing," and "[g]o live of the deliverables" 
do not illuminate the substantive application of knowledge involved or any particular educational 
requirement associated with such duties. 
Moreover, the proffered duties suggest that the Beneficiary will be interacting with a team in India in 
performance of her duties. The end-client stated that the Beneficiary will "[ a ]ssist the Tableau team 
in India." However, the record does not contain sufficient information regarding the end-client's 
business operations, or an organizational chart showing the operational structure within the 
end-client's project in a manner that would establish the Beneficiary's relative role therein. The 
Petitioner has not adequately evidenced the scope of the Beneficiary's responsibilities within the 
context of the end-client's stated collaborative efforts with off-shore staff 
We also question the proposed tasks such as "[t]rain, process explanation and other support activities 
for the users" and "[p ]erform admin activities for the Tableau server." The Petitioner did not establish 
how these duties require an individual with a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. While 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the project "needs immense knowledge of Data Structure and IT 
implementation, Algorithms analysis and design, Database Management Systems, Networking and 
Architecture, Middleware concepts, and Software Engineering knowledge (Software Development 
Life Cycle)," and also requires "technical expertise" in "data models, database design development, 
data mining and segmentation techniques." However, the general description of the duties without a 
framework of a specific project does not demonstrate that an established curriculum of particular 
courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent is required 
for the proffered position. 
Therefore, the description of the duties does not provide sufficient basis to conclude that the position 
requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty, or its equivalent. Furthermore, 
the record must establish that the 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 v. Meissner, 201 F.3d at 387. With the broadly described duties, and insufficient evidence 
regarding work specific to a particular project, the record lacks evidence to demonstrate that the 
proffered position requires a bachelor's degree level of knowledge in a specific specialty. That is, the 
record does not adequately communicate (1) the actual day-to-day work that the Beneficiary will 
perform; (2) the complexity, uniqueness, or specialization of the tasks; and (3) the correlation between 
that work and a need for a particular level of education and knowledge. 
9 
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 particular beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative 
complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position, and it did not identify any tasks 
that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
B. 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. The Petitioner 
does not assert, nor does the record demonstrate, eligibility under this criterion. Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
D. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature 
of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
As discussed above, relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by 
the Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position because the substantive nature of the position has 
not been developed. 13 In other words, the proposed duties have not been described with sufficient 
specificity to show that they are more specialized and complex than computer systems analyst 
positions that are not usually associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. Nor has the Petitioner explained how the Beneficiary's 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. 
That is, the Petitioner did not submit information relevant to a detailed course of study leading to a 
specialty degree and did not establish how such a curriculum is necessary to perform the duties it 
claims are so specialized and complex. While a few related courses may be beneficial 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 duties of the proffered position. 
The evidence of record does not establish that this position is significantly different from other 
computer systems analyst positions such that it refutes the Handbook's information to the effect that 
there is a spectrum of degrees acceptable for computer systems analyst positions, including degrees of 
general applicability. In other words, the record lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish 
the proffered position as more complex and specialized than computer systems analyst or other closely 
13 We also incorporate by reference the previous discussion on the matter under the second prong of criterion (2). 
10 
related positions that can be performed by persons without at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that its proffered position is one with duties sufficiently 
specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
Consequently, the Petitioner has not satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
11