sustained H-1B Case: Business Analysis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 23475042 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 18, 2023 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a business analyst (management 
consultant) under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations . See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S .C. § l 10l(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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, and that the Beneficiary is 
qualified to perform services in a specialty occupation. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and 
contends that the petition should be approved. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010) . We review the 
questions in this matter de novo. See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
Upon de novo 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 biology or a related field. In particular , we find 
compelling the advisory opinion dated February 2022, as well as the Petitioner's own March 2022 
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 biology or a related field is required to 
perform those duties. 1 When reviewed within the context of the Petitioner's business operations, we 
1 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 "quantit ative 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 
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)(l) 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 
biology, so she 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 find it 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 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). Consistent with Phinpathya 
and Ramirez-Sanchez, we hereby disregard these statements. 
2