sustained H-1B Case: Data Analysis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8977354 
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. 3, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "senior data 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 position qualified as a specialty occupation under any of the criteria in 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) . The matter is now before us on appeal. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that 
the Director's decision was in error. In these proceedings, 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. 
Though the Petitioner did not provide the practice group within which the Beneficiary would work, it 
credibly explained how he would work with its clients to engineer, design, and deploy holistic 
computer data marts and enterprise-wide data warehouses, and it also provided credible, detailed 
descriptions of the duties he would perform, and of the types of projects upon which he would work, 
as part of his employment. The Petitioner submitted an expert opinion letter stating that the Petitioner 
requires an individual with a bachelor's degree in computer science, information systems, or a related 
field, and we find the evidence of record sufficient to support that assertion by a preponderance of the 
evidence. 3 When reviewed within the context of the Petitioner's business operations, we find the 
1 Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofChawath e, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
2 See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&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 
evidence ofrecord 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 the foreign equivalent of a 
U.S. bachelor's degree in computer science and 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 quality 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's 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 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). Consistent with Phinpathya 
and Ramirez-Sanchez, we hereby disregard these statements. 
2