dismissed H-1B Case: Telecommunications

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9434689 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG . 04, 2020 
The Petitioner, a telecommunications company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the 
H-lB nonimrnigrant classification for specialty occupations. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) . The H-lB program allows a U.S . 
employer to temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a position that requires both (a) the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and (b) the attainment 
of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty ( or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite 
for entry into the position . 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did 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 l&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. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires : 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, 
and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
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. 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"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will be employed as an "engineer II" and that a minimum of 
a bachelor's degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a related field is required for entry 
into the position. The Petitioner provided multiple descriptions of duties and while we will not list 
each duty here, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
III. ANALYSIS 
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. 1 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its 
equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 
A. First Criterion 
The criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I) 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. 2 The Petitioner designated the proffered 
1 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-lB petition, including evidence regarding the proffered position 
and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each 
one. 
2 We do not maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. That is, the occupational category 
2 
position on the labor condition application (LCA) as a Standard Occupation Classification (SOC) code 
15-1199 "Computer Occupations, All Other" occupation. The Petitioner asserted that the duties of the 
proffered position are consistent with the duties of the "Computer Systems Engineers/ Architects" 
occupation corresponding to SOC code 15-ll99.02. 
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. 3 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.4 Thus, the Handbook is not probative in establishing 
that these positions comprise an occupational group for which the normal minimum requirement for entry 
is at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
The Petitioner references the DOL's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) summary report for 
"Computer Systems Engineers/ Architects" and emphasizes that the proffered position closely aligns 
with the duties listed in the report. The O*NET Summary Report, however, does not establish that a 
bachelor's degree in a spec[fic specialty, or the equivalent, is normally required. It provides general 
information regarding the occupation, but it does not support a conclusion that the proffered position 
requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent. 
O*NET assigns these positions a "Job Zone Four" rating, which states "most of these occupations require 
a four-year bachelor's degree, but some do not." Moreover, the Job Zone Four designation does not 
indicate that any academic credentials for Job Zone Four occupations must be directly related to the duties 
performed. In addition, the specialized vocational preparation (SVP) rating designates this occupation as 
7 < 8. An SVP rating of 7 to less than("<") 8 indicates that the occupation requires "over 2 years up to 
and including 4 years" of training. While the SVP rating indicates the total number of years of vocational 
preparation required for a particular position, it is important to note that it does not describe how those 
years are to be divided among training, experience, and formal education. The SVP rating also does not 
specify the particular type of degree, if any, that a position would require. 5 Further, although the summary 
reports provide the educational requirements of "respondents," it does not account for 100% of the 
"respondents." Moreover, the respondents' positions within the occupation are not distinguished by 
career level ( e.g., entry-level, mid-level, senior-level). Furthermore, the graph in the summary report does 
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. 
3 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 Jul. 16, 2020). Here, 
the Handbook does not provide specific information for various occupations which might be classified within the occupational 
category. 
4 The Handbook also indicates that this occupation does not require work experience in a related occupation or typical 
on-the-job training. Id. 
5 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/ 
help/online/svp. 
3 
not indicate that the "education level" for the respondents must be in a specific specialty. For all of these 
reasons, O*NET does not establish the proffered position as a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner submits a position evaluation prepared by.__ _______ ____.Adjunct Professor, 
The Graduate School - Cybersecurity & Information Assurance Department, University I I 
which concludes that a bachelor's degree in computer science, computer 
engineering, or a related area is a normal minimum requirement for entry into the proffered position. 
I I however, does not articulate or offer evidence to support his conclusion that "[i]t is 
apparent that an Engineer II with the specific duties listed below 6 would be considered a professional 
position and would normally be filled by a graduate with a minimum of a Bachelor's Degree in 
Computer Science, Computer Engineering, or a related rea, or the equivalent." Other than concluding 
that "[s]uch a requirement is necessary in that a college graduate obtains specific knowledge for the 
~x responsibilities of this position during a college program leading to such a degree,"O 
L__Jdoes not present an analysis or foundation for his opinion. He does not refer to other methods 
that do not include a specialty bachelor's degree that would also prepare an individual to enter this 
occupation or the Petitioner's particular position. He does not support his conclusion with the results 
of formal surveys, research, statistics, or other objective quantifying information to substantiate his 
opinion. We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. 7 
However, where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we 
are not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. 8 In this matter,I I does 
not address the Handbook or the O*NET reports that indicate that this particular occupation does not 
normally require a bachelor's degree in a specific discipline, or its equivalent. Based on the lack of 
analysis and lack of independent sources substantiatin~ I's conclusion, we do not assign any 
probative value to his opinion regarding this criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner cites to RELX Inc. v. Baran, 397 F. Supp. 3d 41 (D.D.C. Aug. 5, 2019), to 
support its argument that a position may be specialized even when the position permits more than one 
specific specialty for entry into it. As the foregoing discussion demonstrates, while we agree that the 
bachelor's degree does not have to be a degree in a single specific specialty, we do not agree with the 
analytical framework set forth by the RELX court. 
The RELX court concluded that "if the position requires the beneficiary to apply practical and 
theoretical specialized knowledge and a higher education degree[,] it meets the requirements" of the 
definition of the term "specialty occupation." RELX, 397 F. Supp. 3d at 55. However, while that 
interpretation encompasses the requirements of section 214(i)(l)(A) of the Act, it does not establish 
section 214(i)(l)(B)'s requirement that the higher education degree must be "in the specific 
specialty." 9 
6 1 !repeats the Petitioner's narrative of duties provided in its initial letter of suppmt and in response to the 
Director's RFE. 
7 MatterofCaronlnt'l, Jnc., 19 I&NDec. 791,795 (Comm'r 1988). 
8 Id. 
9 The USCIS regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition. Notably, when the agency 
promulgated the regulation in 1991, it reiterated the statutory requirement of the specific specialty, when multiple 
commenters asserted that the "specific specialty" language was too restrictive. The agency stated the following: 
4 
The RELX court then examined two district court decisions: 
Nowhere in the statute does it require the degree to come solely from one particular 
academic discipline. As other courts have explained "[ d]iplomas rarely come bearing 
occupation-specific majors. What is required is an occupation that requires highly 
specialized knowledge and a prospective employee who has attained the credentialing 
indicating possession of that knowledge." See Residential Finance Corp. v. US. 
Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 839 F. Supp. 2d 985, 997 (S.D. Ohio 2012) (stating 
that when determining whether a position is a specialized occupation "knowledge and 
not the title of the degree is what is important."); 10 see also Tapis Int'! v. INS., 94 F. 
Supp.2 d 172, 175-76 (D. Mass. 2000) (rejecting a similar agency interpretation 
because it would preclude any position from satisfying the "specialty occupation" 
requirements where a specific degree is not available in that field). 
RELX, 397 F. Supp. 3d at 55. 
While we may agree with these statements, the RELX court appears to have taken them out of their 
proper statutory context. For example, if the Director in this matter had stated that the requisite 
bachelor's degree was required to have come bearing an occupation-specific major, we would 
withdraw that finding because it would have been incorrect. We agree that the knowledge and not the 
title of the degree is what is important, and had the Director stated that an occupation for which a 
specific degree is not available was precluded from qualifying as a specialty occupation we would 
have withdrawn that statement. Neither the Residential Finance nor the Tapis Int'! court implied that 
the "specific specialty" requirement contained in section 214(i)(l)(B) was optional. To the contrary, 
both courts found that the plaintiffs had satisfied the requirement. 11 
While the statutory "the" and the regulatory "a" both mandate a requirement for a bachelor's degree 
in a singular "specific specialty," we do not so narrowly interpret these provisions to exclude positions 
Most of these commenters suggested that the definition should be expanded to include those occupations 
which did not require a bachelor's degree in the specific specialty. The definition of specialty occupation 
contained in the statute contains this requirement. 
56 Fed. Reg. 61111, 61112 (Dec. 2, 1991). 
This "specific specialty" requirement has been recognized repeatedly. For example, in Caremax Inc v. Holder, 40 F. Supp. 
1182, 1187-88 (N.D. Cal. 2014 ), the court stated that "a position that requires applicants to have any bachelor's degree, or 
a bachelor's degree in a large subset of fields, can hardly be considered specialized." 
10 With regard to Residential Finance, it is worth noting that the judge's decision 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 findings and description of the record, if that matter had first 
been appealed through the available administrative process, we may very well have remanded the matter to the service 
center for a new decision for many of the same reasons articulated by the district court if these errors could not have been 
remedied by us in our de novo review of the matter. To that end, we observe that when another H-1 B petitioner challenged 
our reading of Residential Finance in the District Court for the Southern District of Ohio two years later, that court agreed 
with our interpretation of its earlier decision. See Health Carousel, LLC v. USCIS, No. 1: 13- CV-23, 2014 WL 29591 
(S.D. Ohio 2014). 
11 As the Petitioner also cites to Residential Finance and Tapis for reasons similar to that which it cites to RELX, we 
incorporate herein by reference our discussion of closely related specialties as it pertains to our analysis of the RELX case. 
5 
from qualifying as specialty occupations if they permit, as a minimum entry requirement, degrees in 
more than one closely related specialty. This also includes even seemingly disparate specialties 
providing, again, the evidence of record establishes how each acceptable, specific field of study is 
directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular 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, since there must be a close 
correlation between the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" and the position, a minimum 
entry requirement of a degree in two disparate fields, such as philosophy and engineering, would not 
meet the statutory requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)," unless 
the Petitioner establishes how each field is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
particular position. 
We also disagree with the court's statements regarding the Handbook and the O*NET. Specifically, 
the court stated that: 
The explicit O*NET cross reference to Business Intelligence Analyst (SOC Code 
15-1199.08) contained in the [Handbook] listing for "Computer Occupations, All 
Other" defines the technological and educational requirements for the position and 
explains that "[m]ost of these occupations require a four-year bachelor's degree, but 
some do not" with farther detail that more than 90% of Business Intelligence Analyst 
positions require at least a bachelor's degree. 
The [ Handbook]itself also explains that the typical entry level education for "Computer 
occupations, all other" is a "Bachelor's Degree." Since the [Handbook] indeed does 
provide specific detailed information regarding educational requirements for the 
computer operations category, and the detailed information states most of the 
occupations require a four-year bachelor's degree, the agency's rationale was both 
factually inaccurate and not supported by the record. 
The court did not acknowledge that neither the Handbook nor O*NET indicate that the bachelor's 
degree must be in a specific specialty, as mandated by section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act. Nor do we 
concur with the heavy weight the court assigned to the survey results contained in O*NET's summary 
report for the occupational category at issue in RELX As noted by the court, 90% of the respondents 
to that survey stated that their organizations required a bachelor's degree for these positions. However, 
those survey results were based on a relatively small sample size: according to O*NET, that statistic 
was compiled based on 24 responses to a survey. 12 
We therefore disagree with the court that the Handbook's entry for positions located within the 
"Computer Occupations, All Other" occupational category, and O*NET's entry for positions located 
within the "Business Intelligence Analysts" occupational category were sufficient (whether considered 
12 Employment & Training Administration, Dep't of Labor, Occupational Information Network, O*NET Resource Center, 
O*NET 24.2 Database, Education, Training, and Experience (click desired download format), available at 
https://www.onetcenter.org/dictionary/24.2/excel/education _training_ experience.html (last visited Jul. 16, 2020). 
6 
together or independently from one another) to satisfy the "specific specialty" requirement mandated 
by Congress in section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act. 13 
Because the Handbook and O*NET do not describe the normal minimum educational requirements 
with sufficient specificity to establish that the positions falling within the occupational category meet 
the statutory and regulatory definition of a specialty occupation, we disagree with the heavy weight 
the court assigned them. Instead, we believe that, absent support from either the Handbook and 
O*NET, the court should have analyzed whether the petitioner had sufficiently demonstrated that its 
particular position was one for which a bachelor's degree in a specific field would normally be required 
and whether the stated field(s) of study directly relate to the performance of the duties. 14 In other 
words, though we agree with the RELX court that the bachelor's degree does not have to be a degree 
in a single specialty, our agreement is predicated upon the fields of study being closely related to the 
duties of the position and the record reflecting evidence sufficient to establish such relation. 
We therefore cannot agree with the reasoning contained in the RELX decision and conclude that the 
Petitioner's reliance upon it does not support its eligibility. 15 
The Petitioner also cites to 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. What is required is an occupation that requires highly 
specialized knowledge and a prospective employee who has attained the credentialing indicating 
possession of that knowledge." 
As discussed briefly above, 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 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, such as philosophy and engineering, would not meet 
the statutory requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty ( or its equivalent)," unless the 
Petitioner establishes how each field is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
particular position. Section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). For the aforementioned 
reasons, however, the Petitioner has not met its burden to establish that the particular position offered 
13 See also Irish Help at Home LLC v. Melville, No. 13-cv-00943-MEJ, 2015 WL 848977 at *5 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 24, 2015), 
aff'd 679 Fed. App'x 634 (9th Cir. 2017) ("The AAO found that O*NET was not particularly useful in determining whether 
a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent is a minimum entry requirement because it makes no mention 
of the specific field of study from which a degree must come"). 
14 Though the RELX court briefly discusses the duties of the position, it did not engage in analysis of whether the duties 
actually required the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment 
of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty as the minimum for entry into the occupation. Rather, after 
disposing of the authority set forth in Royal Siam Corp., the court accepted the petitioner's stated standards concerning its 
position. Sec gcncranF Dcfcnsor, 201 F.3d 384,387. 
15 We further note that the Director's decision in RELXwas not appealed to us. Based on the district court's findings and 
description of the record, if that matter had first been appealed through the available administrative process, we may very 
well have remanded the matter to the service center for a new decision to address many of the concerns articulated by the 
district court if they could not have been remedied by us in our de nova review of the matter. 
7 
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. 
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. 16 We also note that, in contrast to the broad precedential 
authority of the case law of a United States circuit court, we are not bound to follow the published 
decision of a United States district court in matters arising even within the same district. See Matter 
of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715, 719-20 (BIA 1993). Although the reasoning underlying a district judge's 
decision will be given due consideration when it is properly before us, the analysis does not have to 
be followed as a matter of law. Id. It is also important to note that in a subsequent case reviewed in 
the same jurisdiction, the court agreed with our analysis of Residential Finance. See Health Carousel, 
LLC v. USCIS, No. 1: 13- CV-23, 2014 WL 29591 (S.D. Ohio 2014). 
Finally, we note the Petitioner's citation to several of our non-precedent decisions concerning this issue. 
These decisions were not published as precedents and therefore does not bind U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) officers in future adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c). 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. 
As the foregoing demonstrates, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation from a 
probative source to substantiate its assertion regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this 
particular position. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
B. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs: "The degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show 
that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with 
a degree[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong 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. 
16 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. 
8 
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." 17 
As noted, the Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is a common 
requirement within the industry for parallel positions among similar organizations. We have again 
reviewed I Is evaluation and note that he footnotes two sources to support his opinion that 
careers in information technology are among the fastest growing professional occupations in the 
country that typically require a bachelor's degree, and that educational preparation at the bachelor's 
degree level or higher is the norm, rather than exception, for most major career paths of IT 
professionals. The first cited source is to a career preparation resource - not a study of industry-wide 
recruiting and hiring standards. Moreover, this website lists a number of fast-growing careers which 
can be winnowed down to those that typically require bachelor's degrees. Although the website 
provides a list for some of the bachelor's programs that could prepare an individual for a particular 
occupation, it does not substantiate that there is a common industry requirement for a bachelor's degree 
in a specific discipline, or its equivalent, for the occupations it discusses. 
Similarly,! l's second source appears to undermine his claim that educational preparation at 
the bachelor's degree level or higher is the norm for most major IT career paths. Rather, this career 
preparation website notes that the IT job market is competitive and emphasizes the importance of 
identifying career objectives and developing a learning plan "with the necessary skills, computer 
training and IT certifications to build a competitive edge." Although the website lists some 
occupations, such as computer systems analyst, 18 IT project manager, 19 it does not list a "Computer 
Network Engineer" occupation. Further, it does not confirm that there is a norm or common industry 
standard for bachelor's degrees in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the occupations it 
discusses. 
The Petitioner submitted articles from New Horizons Computer Leaming Centers, computerworld.com, 
and study.com which discuss the occupation of computer network engineer. The New Horizons article 
indicates that "[ c ]ompanies typically require a bachelor's degree in computer science, information 
systems, or computer engineering," and the article from computerworld.com states that"[ m Jost network 
engineering roles will require a minimum of a Bachelor's degree in computer science, engineering, or 
information systems." The Petitioner relies on these conclusions as evidence of an industry standard; 
however, we note that the article from study.com states that "companies generally prefer that applicants 
hold at least a bachelor's degree," without further specification. Based on these articles alone, we are not 
persuaded that an industry-wide standard for a degree in a specific specialty exists for the proffered 
position. 
17 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 infonn the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
18 The website noted that universities and computer schools offer a range of systems analyst training and degree programs 
and offered an additional source to compare "top-rated systems analyst training programs online and in the viewer's area. 
See https://www.itcareerfinder.com/it-careers.html. 
19 The website noted that private training centers offer specialized courses and ce1tificate programs in the latest project 
management tools and techniques, including prep for industry certifications. Id. 
9 
The Petitioner also submitted job vacancy announcements for our consideration under this prong. To be 
relevant for consideration, the job vacancy announcements must advertise "parallel positions," and the 
announcements must have been placed by organizations that (1) conduct business in the Petitioner's 
industry and (2) are also "similar" to the Petitioner. These job vacancy announcements do not satisfy that 
threshold. Upon review of the documents, we conclude that the Petitioner's reliance on the job 
announcements is misplaced. 
We will first consider whether the advertised job opportunities could be considered "parallel positions." 
The Petitioner attested to DOL that the proffered position is a Level II, qualified position. 20 However, 
nearly all of the advertised positions require work experience - some significant. For example, AT&T 
requires a minimum of six years of telecommunications engineer experience in addition to a bachelor's 
degree. The posting by SES requires "5+ years of technical support experience in a network operations 
environment," along with a bachelor's or master's degree. The position at All Copy Products requires 
a minimum of five years of industry experience and two years of experience in load balancing 
technologies, firewalls, and DNS, in addition to a bachelor's degree. These factors suggest that the 
duties of the advertised positions do not "parallel" those of the proffered position, as required. 
The Petitioner has not established that these job vacancy announcements are relevant for consideration 
under this prong. Even if that threshold had been met, we would still find that they did not satisfy this 
prong, as they do not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, is 
common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. For instance, one posting 
accepts a bachelor's degree in engineering, IT management, or computer science, another accepts a 
degree in telecommunications, information technology, or engineering, and the third accepts a degree 
in engineering, information technology, or a related field. In addition to each posting accepting a 
different range or degrees, they all indicate that a general engineering degree, without further 
specification, is acceptable for entry into the position. As noted above, a requirement of a degree with 
a generalized title, without further specification, does not establish that the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. We do not find that the acceptance of these broad ranges of degrees satisfy the requirement 
that the proffered position requires a degree ins specific specialty. 
As the documentation does not establish that the Petitioner has met this prong of the regulations, further 
analysis regarding the specific information contained in each of the job postings is not necessary.21 That 
is, not every deficit of every piece of evidence has been addressed. 22 The Petitioner does not establish 
that, more likely than not, there is a common industry requirement for a bachelor's degree in a specific 
20 A prevailing wage determination starts with an entry-level wage (Level I) and progresses to a higher wage level (up to 
Level IV) after considering the experience, education, and skill requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. U.S. 
Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration 
Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://t1cdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised_ 11 _ 2009.pdf 
21 The Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how representative the job postings are of the particular 
advertising employers' recruiting history for the type of job advertised. As the advertisements are only solicitations for 
hire, they are not evidence of the actual hiring practices of these employers. 
22 Even if all of the job postings indicated that a requirement of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is common to 
the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations (which they do not), the Petitioner does not demonstrate 
what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from the job postings with regard to the common educational 
requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. See generalZv Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social 
Research 186-228 (7th ed. 1995). 
10 
specialty, or its equivalent, for parallel positions among similar organizations. Thus, the Petitioner has 
not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
The second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) is satisfied if the Petitioner shows 
that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with 
at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner does not assert 
eligibility under this prong of this criterion, nor does it submit additional evidence to refute the 
Director's findings under this criterion. 
Upon review of the totality of the record, we concur with the Director's determination that the 
Petitioner has not sufficiently explained or documented why the proffered position is so complex or 
unique that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is required. As noted by the Director, several 
of the stated duties appear to have been copied from various Internet sources. While this type of 
description may be appropriate when defining the range of duties that may be performed within an 
occupational category, it does not adequately convey the substantive work that the Beneficiary will 
perform. 23 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a broader overview of duties with includes more details regarding 
the sub-duties to be performed by the Beneficiary. While we have reviewed these descriptions, we 
are unable to determine the complexity of the tasks to be performed. For example, statements such as 
"Support a 'White Glove' custom Support Model for High Revenue clients" and "create Brown Bag" 
training sessions for Lower Level engineers" do little to describe the nature of the duties such that we 
can determine whether they are so complex or unique that they can only be performed by a 
specialty-degreed individual. In the present case, the job description does not sufficiently 
communicate: (1) the actual work that the Beneficiary would perform; (2) the complexity, uniqueness 
and/or specialization of the tasks; and/or (3) the correlation between that work and a need for a 
particular level of knowledge in a specific specialty. 
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). 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it normally 
requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. To satisfy this 
23 In addition, we observe that DOL guidance states that for a wage level determination, it is important that the job 
description include "sufficient information to determine the complexity of the job duties, the level ofjudgment, the amount 
and level of supervision, and the level of understanding required to perform the job duties." DOL, Emp't & Training 
Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available 
at http://www.foreignlaborce11.doleta.gov/pdfiNPWHC _Guidance_ Revised_ 11 _ 2009 .pdf 
11 
criterion, the record must establish that the specific performance requirements of the position 
generated the recruiting and hiring history. 
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. 24 
Were USCIS limited solely to reviewing the Petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, then any 
individual with a bachelor's degree could be brought to the United States to perform any occupation 
as long as the Petitioner created a token degree requirement. 25 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. 
We note the Petitioner's submission of a letter from its Technical Operations Manager,26 which states 
that it employs approximately 40 engineers in closely related positions. Although the Petitioner claims 
that all of these individuals hold at least a bachelor's degree in computer science, computer engineering, 
or a closely related field, and that such a degree is the Petitioner's minimum requirement for such 
positions, no documentation to support these claims was submitted. Moreover, the Petitioner claims to 
have 49,546 employees in the U.S. and that it has been operating its business since 1911. However, it 
has not provided the total number of people it has employed in the past to serve in the proffered position 
nor has it provided information about its past hiring history for the proffered position. We conclude that 
both the number of employees and the length of time that the Petitioner has been operating suggest that 
the Petitioner has an ample source from which to draw examples of its recruiting and hiring practices, but 
it declined to submit such evidence. 
We examined the job announcements that the Petitioner contends are for positions similar to the proffered 
position but disagree with the Petitioner's contention that they represent the hiring practices and degree 
requirements for the proffered position. Specifically, in addition to the fact that these announcements are 
for different positions than the one proffered here (i.e., Operations Engineer II and Local Network 
Engineer II), the job announcements require significantly more experience than the proffered position. 
( either three years or five years of experience in addition to a bachelor's degree). Aside from the 
requirements of these positions exceeding those of the proffered position, the announcements also state 
that the Petitioner accepts a general engineering degree, without further specification, and does not appear 
to require a degree in computer science or computer engineering as maintained throughout these 
proceedings. The variation in the acceptable degrees for entry into the position undermines the 
Petitioner's assertion that the position is a specialty occupation. Moreover, if the advertised positions are 
not parallel, but rather represent a different or more specialized position than the proffered position, 
then the postings have no relevance in establishing eligibility under this criterion. 
The Petitioner has not persuasively established that it normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the proffered position. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
24 See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. 
2s Id. 
26 On appeal, the Petitioner also references a new letter from its Senior Manager, Global Financial Desk and claims it is 
relevant to this criterion. Although this letter provides additional details regarding the duties of the proffered position. it 
does not address the Petitioner's hiring practice or history, and thus does not establish that the Petitioner routinely hires 
only specialty-degreed individuals for the position. 
12 
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. 
We return to the opinion ofl I wherein he opines that "[ c ]ompletion of a Bachelor's Degree 
program in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, or a related area provides the student with 
specialized knowledge that directly prepares the graduate for the challenging tasks of the position." 
I !repeats the Petitioner's description of duties, contends that these programs provide the 
student with the core competencies and skills 27 needed for an Engineer II position with the 
responsibilities listed, and concludes with no analysis that it is because the nature of the responsibilities 
and knowledge is so specialized and complex that the knowledge is usually associated with the 
attainment of a bachelor's degree in such a field. Whilel lmay draw inferences that the 
Beneficiary's coursework may be beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, we disagree 
with any inference that the Beneficiary's degree is required in order to perform the duties of the 
proffered position. Put simply, stating that a person with the Beneficiary's degree could perform the 
duties of the position is not the same as stating that such a degree is required to perform the duties . 
.___ __ ____.~lso contends that the duties of the proffered position are distinguishable from a lower-level 
non-specialty occupation position that performs technical tasks such as programming and writing 
code. I lclaims that this position which he states requires monitoring complex infrastructure 
environments to identify and resolve connectivity incidents establishes that this is a highly skilled role 
when compared to non-specialty occupation workers. I I also recites the tasks outlined in the 
O*NET, notes that the O*NET leaves open the possibility that a minority of "Computer Systems 
Engineers/Architects" positions may require less than a bachelor's degree, and then concludes that the 
proffered position "would clearly be among the majority of Computer Systems Engineers/ Architects 
which would absolutely require Bachelor's-level preparation at a minimum." First, requiring a general 
bachelor's degree, without more, is not the standard to establish a position is a specialty occupation. 
SecondJ I appears to base this conclusion on the importance of the position to the Petitioner's 
mission. However, neither the importance of the work, nor the proffered position's role in it, can 
substitute for specialization 
27 Service records show that I lused a template with conclusor findings and little or no analysis to support the 
Petitioner's particular position as a specialty occupation. For example I repeats the Petitioner's description of 
duties, repeats the duties listed in the O*NET for this occupation, lists a number of courses that may be part of a computer 
science or computer engineering degree, and identifies three courses that may prepare an individual to perform the duties 
of this position. Service records show that this same template with the same language, organization, and similar conclusory 
statements regarding different occupations and also without supporting analysis has been submitted on behalf of other 
petitioners. The similarity in conclusions, without cogent analysis, strongly suggests that the authors of the opinions were 
asked to confirm a preconceived notion as to the required degrees, not objectively assess the proffered position and opine 
on the minimum bachelor's degree required. Notably,! ldoes not address why the duties described require a 
detailed course of study leading to a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. While a few related courses may be beneficial 
in performing certain duties of the position, neither the Petitioner nor! I has 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. 
13 
~---~I concludes that the duties described are specialized and require the theoretical and practical 
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and the attainment of a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty. Again, however, he does not acknowledge or discuss other methods that appear to 
be readily available such as a general bachelor's degree, certifications, or experience, that lead to a 
sufficiently similar knowledge-set, to perform the duties described. Again, as a matter of discretion, 
we may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. However, we will reject an 
opinion or give it less weight if it is not in accord with other information in the record or if it is in any 
way questionable. For the reasons discussed, the position evaluation proffered here does little to assist 
in establishing that the proposed position is specialized and complex or unique and satisfies the 
statutory and regulatory definitions of a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner further refers to the letter from its Technical Operations Manager, noting that the 
assertions therein regarding the proffered position establish the proposed position is specialized and 
complex. In addition, we have also reviewed the newly submitted letter on appeal expanding on the 
description of duties. We determine, however, that the Beneficiary's tasks as described do not assist 
in establishing that the described duties are specialized and complex. 
The record does not establish that the nature of the proffered position's duties requires the theoretical 
and practical application of highly specialized knowledge and attainment of at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty or its equivalent. For the same reasons we discussed under the second prong of 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that its proffered 
position is one with duties sufficiently specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). We incorporate our earlier discussion and analysis on this matter. 
Consequently, the Petitioner has not satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reason. In visa petition proceedings, It IS a 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
14