remanded H-1B Case: Business Intelligence

MATTER OF C-C-C-, LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 5, 2017 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a telecommunications company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an 
"analys( 2, business intelligence" under the H-1B 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-1B program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified 
foreign worker in a position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body 
of highly specialized knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the 
specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant 
Worker, concluding that the record did not establish that the Beneficiary was qualified for the 
proffered position. On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the 
Director mischaracterized the duties of the position and that the Beneficiary possesses the minimum 
requirements to perform in a specialty occupation. 
We conduct de novo review on appeal, and we note that a beneficiary's credentials to perform a 
particular job are relevant only when we find the job to be a specialty occupation. As we will 
discuss below, the record does not establish that the proffered position requires a baccalaureate or 
higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Accordingly, we will remand the matter to 
the Director for further review of the record and to issue a new decision. 
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. 
Matter of C-C-C-, LLC 
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 proffereq 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 
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 
In the petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as ali "analyst 2, business 
intelligence" and in this role he will be responsible for the following duties: 
Analyzing data, covering a wide range of subject areas, including finance, sales, 
marketing, field operations, care, and customer valuation, with the goal of ensuring 
business decisions are in alignment with company goals. He will work 
cross-functionally to identify business opportunities, brainstorm approaches and 
analytical frameworks, develop roadmaps and collection requirements, acquire data, 
execute analyses, and present actionable recommendations. Specifically, he will 
perform all business intelligence analysis and data exploitation; extract signals and 
signatures from raw data, integrate that information with other data sources, and 
compile and distribute formatted reports to customers; recommend improvements to 
competitive business intelligence reports; interpret data produced by various 
departments, including sales, business development, product, and executive 
committees; plan and execute system testing; maintain awareness of each customer's 
mission, utilize this knowledge to ensure customer satisfaction; lead the analysis and 
reconciliation of data and project reports, and initiate the delivery of documentation; 
2 
Matter of C-C-C-, LLC 
develop, maintain, and report all relevant product, site, and customer metrics, and 
apply results to develop appropriate goals and projections; and train junior level 
analysts throughout the company in using key analytical and forecasting tools and 
statistical analysis. 
According to the Petitioner, the position requires (1) a bachelor's degree (or foreign equivalent) in 
computer science, engineering, or a related technical field; and (2) previous experience in business 
intelligence analysis. 1 
III. ANALYSIS 
We have reviewed the entire record of proceedings before us. While the Petitioner's appeal brief 
focuses on elements it believes were in error within the Directo:t;'s decision, we will discuss those 
elements that pertain to the position qualifying as a specialty occupation. 
For the reasons discussed below, we have determined that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that 
the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation? Specifically, we find that the record does 
not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate 
with a specialty occupation. 3 
A. First Criterion 
We tum first to the criterion at 8 C.P.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) the Petitioner presented in support of this petition, it 
classified the proffered position under the occupational title "Computer Occupations, All Other," 
corresponding to the SOC code 15-1199 at a Level I wage rate.4 We often look to the U.S. 
1 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided additional details and referenct;d the 
tasks in the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Information Network (O*NET) summary report for 
"Business Intelligence Analysts" listed as Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 15.1199.08. We reviewed 
the record in its entirety. 
2 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
3 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the petition, including evidence regarding the position and its 
business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level I wage (the lowest of four assignable wage levels). We will 
consider this selection in our analysis of the position. The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" issued by 
the DOL provides a description of the wage levels. A Levell wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which 
the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the occupation. This wage rate indicates: (I) that 
the Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that he 
will be closely supervised and his work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that he will receive 
specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing 
Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
3 
Matter of C-C-C-, LLC 
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. 5 However, there are some occupations for which detailed profiles have not been 
developed, such as for the occupational category "Computer Occupations, All Other. "6 
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 burden to provide 
probative evidence (e.g., documentation from other objective, authoritative sources) that supports a 
finding that the particular position in question qualifies as a specialty occupation. Whenever more 
than one authoritative source exists, an adjudicator will consider and weigh all of the evidence 
presented to determine whether the particular position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
In the instant case, the Petitioner submitted the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) 
Summary Report for "Business Intelligence Analysts." The printout provided general information 
regarding the occupation; however, it did not support the Petitioner's assertion regarding the 
educational requirements for this position. For example, the Specialized Vocational Preparation 
(SVP) rating cited within O*NET's Job Zone 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, formal education, and experience. Further, it does not 
specify the particular type of degree, if any, that a position wou~d require. 7 
further, the summary report provides the educational requirements of "respondents," but does not 
account for 100% of the "respondents." The respondents' positions within the occupation are not 
distinguished by career level (e.g., entry-level, mid-level, senior-level). Additionally, the graph in 
the summary report does not indicate that the "education level" for the respondents must be in a 
specific specialty. 
The Petitioner has not provided documentation from a probative source to substantiate its assertion 
regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. Therefore, it has not 
satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
http://flcdatacenter.com/download!NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _II_ 2009.pdf. A prevailing wage determination starts 
with an entry level wage and progresses to a higher wage level after considering the experience, education, and skill 
requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. !d. 
5 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/. 
6 For additional information, see https://www.bls.gov/ooh/about/data-for-occupations-not-covered-in-detail.htm. 
7 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/ 
help/online/svp. 
4 
Matter of C-C-C-, LLC 
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 
concentrates on the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the ':degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty,. or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) generally considers the following factors to 
determine if there is such a common degree requirement: whether the Handbook reports that the 
industry requires a degree; whether the industry's professional association has made a degree a 
minimum entry requirement; and whether letters or affidavits from firms or individuals in the 
industry establish that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." See 
Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 1999) (quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 
712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position i~ one for which 
the Handbook, or other authoritative source, reports a 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." 
Throughout the proceedings, the Petitioner has not claimed to qualify under this prong of the second 
criterion, nor has it offered evidence to apply to this provision. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied 
the first prong. 
2. Second Prong 
The second alternative prong 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 has not asserted, nor has it provided evidence in 
support of this prong of the second criterion. 
5 
.
Matter of C-C-C-, LLC 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.P.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 record must establish that a petitioner's stated degree requirement is not a matter of preference 
for high-caliber candidates but is necessitated' instead by performance requirements of the position. 
See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d at 387-88. 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. Id. Evidence provided in support of this criterion may include, but is not 
limited to, documentation regarding the Petitioner's past recruitment and hiring practices, as well as 
information regarding employees who previously held the position. 
We reviewed the Petitioner's statements 
regarding the proffered position. However, it does not 
assert, and has not provided evidence in support of this criterion. Therefore, it has not satisfied the 
third criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
D. Fourth.Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.P.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. 
According to the Petitioner, the duties of the proffered position are so specialized and complex, the 
knowledge required to perform these duties is normally associated with the attainment of a minimum 
of a bachelor's degree, or an equivalent in computer science, engineering, or a related technical field. 
In support of this statement, the Petitioner's appeal contains an October 2016 opinion letter from 
a marketing professor at 
In his letter, describes the credentials that he asserts qualify him to opine about the 
nature of the proffered position; and states that the duties listed in the proffered position's job 
description, and in the Petitioner's H-lB support letter require at least a bachelor's degree in 
technical fields such as engineering, information science, or analytics as a minimum for entry into 
the occupation. We carefully evaluated assertions in support of the petition but, 
for the following reasons, determined his opinions lent little probative value. 
First, does not provide sufficient information to establish his expertise on the 
practices of organizations seeking to hire "analyst 2, business intelligence." Without further 
clarification, it is unclear how his education, training, skills, or experience would translate to 
expertise regarding the current recruiting and hiring practices of an enterprise engaged in 
telecommunications (as designated by the Petitioner in the petition) or similar organizations for an 
6 
.
Matter of C-C-C-, LLC 
analyst 2, business intelligence (or parallel positions). does not describe how his 
background qualifies him to determine emplo~ers' minimum entry requirements for jobs such as the 
proffered position. 
Although states that he based his assessment on the Petitioner's description of the 
company and its characterization of the offered position, his letter lacks sufficient information on the 
petitioning organization's business activities. That is, he does not demonstrate an in-depth 
knowledge of the Petitioner's operations, or how the Beneficiary would perform the position's duties 
in the context of its business enterprise. Accordingly, we find the record does not demonstrate that 
is a qualified authority to opine on the current requirements for analyst 2, business 
intelligence positions. 
J::urther, opinion letter does not cite specific instances in which his past opinions 
have been accepted or recognized as authoritative on this particular issue. There is no indication that 
he has conducted any research or studies pertinent to the educational requirements for such positions 
(or parallel positions) in the Petitioner's industry for similar organizations, and no indication of 
recognition by professional organizations that he is an authority on those specific requirements. His 
opinion letter does not reflect that he has published any works on the academic or expenence 
requirements for analyst 2, business intelligence (or related issues).8 
Even assuming was an expert on degree requirements for an analyst 2, business 
intelligence, his letter testimony does not ;substantiate his conclusions, such that we can conclude 
that the Petitioner has shouldered its burden of proof. First, does not reference, 
cite, or discuss any studies, surveys, industry publications, authoritative publications, or other 
sources of empirical information which he may have consulted to complete his evaluation. Second, 
he does not discuss the duties of the proffered position in any substantive detail. To the contrary, he 
only stated that he reviewed the material the Petitioner provided. 
Finally, the record does not indicate whether was aware that, as indicated by the 
Level I wage on the LCA, the Petitioner considered the proffered position to be an entry-level 
analyst 2, business intelligence position for a beginning employee who has only a basic 
understanding "of the occupation. In other words, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that 
possessed the requisite information to adequately assess the nature of the position and 
appropriately determine parallel positions based upon the job duties and level of responsibilities. As 
such, we find that opinion letter lends little probative value, and thus .the 
Petitioner has not satisfied the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
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. 
states that he has authored several articles and books; however, neither he nor the Petitioner presented 
evidence of such publications or explained how his published material is related to the i~sue here. 
7 
Matter of C-C-C-, LLC 
IV. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner was not previously accorded the opportunity to address the deficiencies in the 
record regarding the specialty occupation nature of the proffered position, we will remand the record 
for further review of this issue. The Director may request any additional evidence considered 
pertinent to the new determination. 
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 ofC-C-C-, LLC, ID# 321042 (AAO June 5, 2017) 
8