sustained H-1B Case: Business Analysis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 4558440 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 01, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "business 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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish 
that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and 
contends that the petition should be approved. 
It is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a preponderance of the 
evidence.1 We review the questions in this matter de nova. 2 Upon de nova review, we will sustain 
the appeal. 
The record of proceeding establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the proffered position 
requires an individual with a bachelor's degree in industrial engineering, systems engineering, or a 
related field. In particular, we find compelling the advisory opinion dated August 2018 as well as the 
Petitioner's own October 2018 letter. Those letters explained persuasively what the Beneficiary would 
do while working for the Petitioner and its clients, and why a bachelor's degree in industrial 
engineering, systems engineering, or a related field is required to perform those duties. 3 When 
1 See Section 291 of the Act; see also Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
2 See Matter of Christa's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
3 Counsel seems to undermine this assertion on appeal by indicating that the Petitioner would actually accept a bachelor's 
degree from a much larger range of fields for this position, as long as the degree could be described as having come from 
a "quantitative and analytical" field. 
We agree with Counsel that it is possible for a petitioner to accept multiple degree-fields and still have a proffered position 
be classified as a specialty occupation, and that the knowledge imparted by a course of study is more important than the 
title of the degree conferred. However, this particular mass grouping of degree-fields would simply be too broad to support 
reviewed within the context of the Petitioner's business operations, we find the evidence of record 
sufficient to demonstrate that this Beneficiary's work would in fact involve a "body of highly 
specialized knowledge" attained through a precise and specific course of study that relates directly 
and closely to the proffered position. 
The evidence of record therefore establishes that the proffered position requires 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. It qualifies for classification as a specialty 
occupation as the term is defined at section 214(i)(1) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). It also 
establishes that the position is so complex or unique that it can only be performed by an individual with a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, and it therefore also satisfies 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). The record demonstrates that the Beneficiary possesses a U.S. bachelor's degree in 
industrial engineering, so he is qualified to perform the duties of this specialty occupation. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
a conclusion that the proffered position meets the definition of a "specialty occupation." Numerous unrelated specialties 
would appear to fall within Counsel's "quantitative and analytical" range: for example, it would appear as though a 
bachelor's degree in any non-humanities field might qualify an individual to perform the duties of the proffered position 
(and depending upon the specific coursework undertaken while obtaining the degree, certain fields within the humanities 
might also fall within that range). 
The record of proceeding does not establish how every course of study that could be vaguely described as having 
"quantitative and analytical" elements would relate to the duties of the proffered position, and if a degree in any of these 
disparate fields would in fact equally prepare an individual to perform the duties of a proffered position, then we would 
have to question whether the position actually involves a "highly specialized body of knowledge" or requires a bachelor's 
degree in a "specific specialty," or the equivalent. 
However, given the overall credibility of this petition, and the detailed manner in which the Petitioner and its expert 
described the proffered position's associated entry requirements, we conclude that it is unlikely that every course of study 
that could be vaguely described as having "quantitative and analytical" elements would actually prepare a beneficiary to 
perform its duties. 
The unsupported statements of an attorney on appeal or in a motion are not evidence. See INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 
183, 188 n.6 (1984); see also Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 l&N Dec. 503,506 (BIA 1980). Consistent with Phinpathya 
and Ramirez-Sanchez, we hereby disregard these statements. 
2