remanded H-1B Case: Business Intelligence

MATTER OF N-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 29,2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an online retailer, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "business 
intelligence analyst, PM" under the H-1 B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section l01(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
The H-1B program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a 
position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish that the Beneficiary is qualified to serve in a specialty occupation position in 
accordance with the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. 
In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Beneficiary is qualified 
to serve in a specialty occupation position. 
Upon review, the Director's decision will be withdrawn and the petition will be remanded for entry 
of a new decision. 
I. BENEFICIARY'S QUALIFICATIONS 
We are required to follow long-standing legal standards and determine first, whether the proffered 
position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation, and second, whether the Beneficiary 
was qualified for the position at the time the nonimmigrant visa petition was tiled. L.'l Matter (?f 
Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988) ("The facts of a beneficiary's 
background only come at issue after it is found that the position in which the petitioner intends to 
employ him falls within [a specialty occupation]."). 
In the instant case, the record of proceedings does not establish that the proffered position qualifies 
as a specialty occupation. Thus, the matter will be remanded to the Director for review and issuance 
of a new decision. 
Matter of N-, Inc. 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
In its letter of support, the Petitioner stated that the business intelligence analyst, PM will be 
responsible for generating business, product management, and market intelligence by querying data 
repositories. The Petitioner provided the following job duties for the proffered position: 
• Analyze competitive market strategies in the e-commerce industry through 
analysis of related product, market, and share trends utilizing [the Petitioner's] 
online Enterprise Incentives Management System, Web Price Comparison 
System, and Internal Process Portal System; 
• Synthesize current business intelligence trend data to support recommendations to 
management for introducing new products for [the Petitioner]; 
• Collect business requirements and conduct research analysis, planning, and 
timeline control; 
• Perform in depth research of [the Petitioner's] customer demographics and 
purchase behaviors and devise methods for identifying data patterns and trends 
utilizing [the Petitioner's] internal BI systems; 
• Collecting, process, and analyze marketing related performance data to help [the 
Petitioner] determine a targeted customer base, identify potential product 
opportunities, and recommend areas of improvement using [the Petitioner's] 
Search Engine Optimization, paid search, and shopping comparison engine; 
• Analyze specific product category's sales data via [the Petitioner's] internally 
designed Business Intelligence (BI) system to provide proper sales forecasts to the 
Product Manager and upper management; 
• Communicate with customers, competitors, vendors, and others to stay abreast of 
the e-commerce industry; 
• Provide product demand forecasts by coordinating with [the Petitioner's] 
Category Manager and Category Merchandising Manager to devise procurement 
plans to maximize [the Petitioner's] profit margin; 
• Design and implement database solutions to warehouse lead, sales and operational 
data from multiple sources and create macros and automated processes for rapid 
data query and extraction; 
• Responsible for the attainment of [the Petitioner's] sales and revenue margin 
goals set for unique products as well as reducing the return merchandise 
authorization (RMA) rate; 
• Assist in identifying potential customers using internal IT systems, such as 
Enterprise Incentive Management System, Electronic Data Interchange, and 
Business Intelligence system; and 
• Collect and analyze sales related data from multiple channels to provide [the 
Petitioner's] Category Managers with data background necessary to determine 
business strategies. 
2 
Matter of N-, Inc. 
According to the Petitioner, the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree, or equivalent, in 
management information systems, business analysis/administration, computer science, economics, or 
a related field. 
III. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
Although not addressed in the Director's decision, we conclude that the record, as presently 
constituted, does not establish that the proffered position qualifies for classification as a specialty 
occupation. 1 Accordingly, the Director should review this issue on remand. 
A. 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; 
(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 have consistently interpreted the term "degree" to mean not just 
any baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the 
1 
The Petitioner submitted documentation in support of 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 
Matter of N-, Inc. 
proposed position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chert4J.ff, 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). 
B. Analysis 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation.
2 
1. 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. 
On the labor condition application (LCA), 3 the Petitioner designated the proffered position under the 
occupational category "Computer Occupations, All Other" corresponding to the SOC code 15-1199. 
We often look to the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook 
(Handbook), which is an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of the wide 
variety of occupations that it addresses. 4 However, there are some occupations for which detailed 
profiles have not been developed, such as for the occupational category "Computer Occupations, All 
Other." 5 
When the Handbook does not support the proposition that a proffered position is one that meets the 
statutory and regulatory provisions of a specialty occupation, it is the Petitioner's responsibility to 
provide probative evidence (e.g., documentation from other objective, authoritative sources) that 
supports a finding that the particular position qualifies as a specialty occupation. For our 
determination, we will consider and weigh all of the evidence provided. However, the Petitioner did 
not submit evidence from another source establishing that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the position, 
as 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l) requires. 
2. 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 
2 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
3 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA 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 experience and qualifications who are performing the same services. See 
Matter ofSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 545-546 (AAO 20 15). 
4 We do not, however, maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. All of our references 
are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. 
5 For additional information, see https://www. b ls.gov /ooh/about/data- for-occupations-not -covered- in-detai I.htm. 
4 
Matter of N-, Inc. 
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 
casts its gaze upon the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
a. 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. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors we often consider 
include: 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 attest 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)). 
The Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which the Handbook (or other 
independent, authoritative source) reports an industry-wide requirement for at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, we incorporate by reference the previous discussion on 
the matter. Also, 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." 
The present record does not establish that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
b. 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 posttton qualities as a specialty occupation, the 
Petitioner submitted a job description for the proffered position and information regarding its 
business operations. However, 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. 
5 
Matter of N-, Inc. 
Moreover, the Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position located 
within the "Computer Occupations, All Other" occupational category does not support its claim that 
the position is particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the 
same occupation. Nevertheless, a Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position 
from classification as a specialty occupation, just as a Level IV wage-designation does not 
definitively establish such a classification. In certain occupations (e.g., doctors or lawyers), a Level 
I, entry-level position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent, for entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designation would not reflect that an 
occupation qualifies as a specialty occupation if that higher-level position does not have an entry 
requirement of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. That is, a 
position's wage level designation may be a relevant factor but is not itself conclusive evidence that a 
proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well qualified for the position, 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 present record does not meet the second 
alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
3. 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 did not submit any evidence of previous or current employees in the same position as the 
Beneficiary's proffered position. Thus, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to 
establish that it normally requires at least a bachelor's degree, or the equivalent, in a specific 
specialty for the proffered position. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
4. 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. 
The job description submitted by the Petitioner does not establish that the duties are more specialized 
and complex than positions that are not usually associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. We refer to our earlier comments and findings with regard to the 
implication of the Petitioner's designation of the proffered position in the LCA as a Level I wage, and 
hence one not likely distinguishable by relatively specialized and complex duties. We have also 
reviewed the Petitioner's list of job duties for the proffered position. The Petitioner has not sufficiently 
explained how these duties 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 
Matter of N-, Inc. 
its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 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). 
The present record does not satisfy at least one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Director's decision will be withdrawn as the present record does not establish that the Petitioner 
has met the threshold requirement that the proffered position is a specialty occupation, as section 
214(i)(l) of the Act requires. Because the Director did not address this deficiency, we will remand 
this matter to the Director for further action and entry of a new decision. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for further 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision. 
Cite as Matter o.fN-. Inc., ID# 485905 (AAO June 29, 2017)