sustained H-1B Case: Data Analysis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 8908956 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : OCT . 6, 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-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 petition, concluding that the record did not establish 
that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. On appeal, the Petitioner submits an appellate 
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 novo.2 Upon de nova review , we will sustain 
the appeal. 
The Petitioner has explained that it would employ the Beneficiary within its - ......... --------.--­
practice group, 3 and it has provided credible, detailed descriptions of the duties she would perform, 
and of the types of projects upon which she would work, as part of her employment in that practice 
area. The Petitioner has also stated consistently and credibly that the proffered position requires a 
bachelor's or higher degree in computer science , information systems, or a related field , or the 
equivalent. 4 When reviewed within the context of the Petitioner's business operations, we find the 
1 See Section 291 of the Act; see also Matter ofChawathe , 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 The Petitioner explained that c:::::J is an abbreviation for 1,----------,1 , 
4 Counsel seems to undermine these consistent assertions 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 coming 
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 
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 therefore 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, and therefore also satisfies 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). The 
record also demonstrates that the Beneficiary possesses a U.S. master's degree in information systems, so 
she is qualified to perform the duties of this specialty occupation. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
title of the degree confened. However, this mass grouping of degree-fields would simply be too broad to support a finding 
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 has described the 
nature of the proffered position and its 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