U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

MATTER OF C- CORP

APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION

Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office

DATE: SEPT. 30, 2019

PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER

The Petitioner, an information technology services and solutions company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "network engineer" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-IB 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 Petitioner had not established it will have an employer-employee relationship with the Beneficiary, there is sufficient specialty occupation work available for the requested H-IB validity period, and the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred and the evidence supports an approval of the petition

Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 1

I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(I), 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.

1 We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010).

Matter of C- Corp

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 proffered position must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation:

(]) 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 construe 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. Chertojf, 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

The Petitioner, which is located inl INew Jersey, indicated that the Beneficiary will work offsite forl I( end-client) in~ _____ .,..........Illinois. The contractual chain appears to be as follows:

Petitioner~ .... I ____ __.~vendor #1) ----4._ ______ _.rvendor #2) ~ end-client.

The Petitioner stated that the job duties include, but are not limited to:

• Switching L2/L3 and different platforms of Cisco switches including Nexus Platform, 6500, 4500, 3700, 3600 etc.; 20%

•

•

•

As my project deals with building [sic] new data center there are dependably upkeep issues. As the assemble [sic] goes on I basically need to manage observing those issues and continually keep their status active or standby. Layer 3 interfaces forward packets to another device utilizing static or dynamic routing protocols. You can utilize Layer 3 interfaces for IP and inter-VLAN routing of Layer 2 traffic. Nexus Platform, 6500, 4500 series switches support simultaneous, parallel connections between Layer 2 Ethernet segments last only for the duration of the packet. New connections can be made between different segments for

2

Matter of C- Corp

successive packets. The 6500, 4500 series solves congestion problems caused by high-bandwidth devices and a large number of users by assigning each devices to its own 10-, 100-, or 1000-Mpbs segment. Because each Ethernet interface on the switch represents a separate Ethernet segment, servers in a properly configured switched environment achieve foll access to the bandwidth.

• Comply with all change management procedures, knowledge of standard concepts, practices, and procedures; 20%

• This is an everyday assignment. As there will be several teams like Server team, Platform team, Application Team, everyone comes with a new requirement.

• I need to understand the prerequisites, develop the change scripts as per request, then checked by the Sr. Network Engineer[.] Once surveyed individuals involved pitch in the most ideal arrangements and once fixed on an answer.

• I have to create a ticket in the Service Request Portal (SRP), once the ticket is reviewed & approved by all, I will go ahead and perform the change. Everyone included is to be notified after the change implementation and then close the ticket.

• Deliver detailed design diagrams (Visio) and develop change scripts; Strong understanding of switching technologies; 20%

• All the work you do, should be evidently documented and securely uploaded to different internal portals based on their networking classifications.

• As a Network Engineer, I am in charge of designing the network environment and report everything that is requires. If you ever need to change anything, to include another switch or another link to a remote office, you need good documentation to understand how the traffic will flow through these new pieces of network. This will help ensure the new network is stable and efficient.

• These designs & documents are stored in the portals like SharePoint links and are available to different employees relying upon their access levels and are utilized as part of reference to the environment I made and to design anything they need to do in view of those designs and documents.

• Trunking, spanning-tree dotlq, Vlan etc.; 20% • Working on various switches requires [sic] capability with various switching

protocols. The switching protocols should be perfectly enabled on each and every networking device in the network for them pass any related traffic between them.

• When connecting [C]isco switches to the 802.1 q trunk, ensure the local VLAN for a 802. 1 q trunk is the same on the two both ends of the trunk link. If the local VLAN toward one side of the trunk is not the same as the local VLAN on the opposite end, spanning tree loops might result.

3

Matter of C- Corp

• Trunks carry traffic from all VLAN s to and from the switch by default but can be configured to carry only specified VLAN traffic. Trunk links must be configured to allow trunking on each end of the link. If two switches are connected together, for instance, both switch ports must be configured for trunking, and they must both be configured with the same tagging mechanism (ISL or 802.1.Q).

• Hands-on understanding of complex L2/L3 network topologies; 10% • As a network engineer it is my responsible [sic] for the care and feeding of

a network, it's vitally important that you have an extremely detailed understanding of your network topology. Without this information, even basic troubleshooting can be unnecessarily difficult.

• As my work involves with [sic] the data center I need to be sure with the data center architecture that is used, there are several architecture like leaf­spine, 3Layer[.]

• There are strengths and backdrops in each and every architecture you should have a better idea on when one device is having trouble communicating with another one, you need to know how the packets are supposed to get there, whether there are firewalls in the middle, or whether there are particular bottlenecks where you might be suffering from congestion problems.

• Identifying, troubleshooting and resolving incidents related to VLAN access and trunk port configurations and provide independent judgment required; I 0%

•

•

•

Network troubleshooting is the collective measure and procedures used to identify, analyze and resolve issues. It is systematic procedures to determine issues and restore network operations within the network. One will easily blame it is [sic] network issue but many cases prove they are not. Once I am assigned to troubleshoot I will keenly take a look of the problems and get an idea on it, with the related commands I will analyze, if there is a need of adding the command on it, with the related commands I will analyze, if there is a need of a adding the command on it, with the related comments I will analyze, if there is a need adding the command will go ahead and create ticket. Sometimes with will be a Layer-I issues which are cleared by the help of cabling team. Best practices for successful network Ethernet troubleshooting include [i]dentify [sic] the exact issue or problem, recreate the problem if possible, localize and isolate the cause, formulate a network troubleshooting plan for solving the problem, Implement the network troubleshooting plan, Test to verify that the problem has been resolved, document the problem and solution, a solid network troubleshooting methodology approach brings faster LAN critical thinking - saving staff time, closing trouble tickets quicker, minimizing downtime, and getting network users back to productivity faster.

4

Matter of C- Corp

The Petitioner further stated that the position requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree in computer science, a directly related field, or the equivalent.

III. ANALYSIS

As a preliminary matter, we conclude that the record does not sufficiently substantiate the Petitioner's claims regarding the proffered position and establish the substantive nature of the position.

As recognized by the court in Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88, where the work is to be performed for entities other than the petitioner, evidence of the client companies' job requirements is critical. The court held that the former Immigration and Naturalization Service had reasonably interpreted the statute and regulations as requiring the petitioner to produce evidence that a proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation on the basis of the requirements imposed by the entities using the beneficiary's services. Id. Such evidence must be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate the type and educational level of highly specialized knowledge in a specific discipline that is necessary to perform that particular work. The record does not include any information directly from the end-client detailing the job duties or the minimum requirements for the position. Nevertheless, assuming for the sake of argument that the Beneficiary will be employed as described by the Petitioner, we will analyze the record to determine whether the proffered position as described would qualify for classification as a specialty occupation.

Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 2

A. First Criterion

We tum first to the criterion at 8 C.F.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. To inform this inquiry, we recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 3

2 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H- IB petition, including evidence regarding the proffered position and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 3 We do not maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. That is, the occupational category designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered position, and we regularly review the Handbook on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. To satisty the first criterion, however, the burden ofproofremains on the Petitioner to submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position would normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry.

5

Matter of C- Corp

On the labor condition application (LCA)4 submitted in support of the H-1B petition, the Petitioner designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Network and Computer Systems Administrators" corresponding to the Standard Occupation Classification (SOC) code 15-1142. The Handbook states, in pertinent part, about these occupations: "Most employers require network and computer systems administrators to have a bachelor's degree in a field related to computer or information science. Others may require only a postsecondary certificate or an associate's degree."5

Notably, the Handbook specifically states that "some employers require only a postsecondary certificate or an associate's degree" rather than a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. Although we do not maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information, to satisfy the first criterion, the burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position will normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry.

On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the O*NET's summary report for "Network and Computer Systems Administrators" establishes that the occupational category qualifies as a specialty occupation. The O*NET Summary Report provides general information regarding the occupation, but it does not support the Petitioner's assertion regarding the educational requirements for the occupation. For example, the Job Zone Four designation indicates that most, but some do not, require a four-year bachelor's degree. It does not specify the specific field of study, if any, from which the degree must come. The occupation's Specialized Vocational Preparation (SVP) rating of 7 < 8 is even less persuasive. 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, experience, and formal education. 6 For all of these reasons, we are not persuaded by the Petitioner's references to the O*NET.

On appeal, the Petitioner refers to the "Occupational Requirements Survey" and "BLS 's Table 1.11 Educational attainment for workers ... " to state that "a bachelor's degree as the normal entry requirement for the profession is statistically proven." However, these documents do not specify a specific specialty; therefore, they do not establish eligibility under the first criterion.

The record includes articles related to the education, knowledge, and skills of information technology professions. However, none of these articles specifically address the normal minimum requirement for entry into the proffered position.

The Petitioner submitted a letter from .__ ________ _. University ofi .__ __ _.I who offers his opinion on the requirements of the proffered position. InL-h-is_l_e-tt-er-,-rl------, (1) describes the credentials that he asserts qualify him to opine upon the nature of the proffered

4 A petitioner submits the LCA to U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B worker the higher of either the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the area of employment or the actual wage paid by the employer to other employees with similar duties, experience, and qualifications. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.73 l(a). 5 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Network and Computer Systems Administrators, https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/network-and-computer-systems -administrators.htm#tab-4 (last visited Sept. 27, 2019). 6 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/help/online/svp.

6

Matter of C- Corp

position; (2) lists the duties proposed for the Beneficiary; and (3) states that these duties require at least a bachelor's degree in information technology, electrical engineering, or a related area, or the equivalent.

~---~I asserts that the position should be classified under the Handbook as a "Network and Computer Systems Administrator" and also refers to the O*NET and states that the proffered position shares many of the same duties and falls under the "Network and Computer Systems Administrators" category. However, as discussed, we do not find that the Handbook and O*NET establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. Moreover,! I asserts that the proffered position is a "highly skilled leadership role." However, the record does not sufficiently establish the Beneficiary's role within the end-client's organization to substantiate such a critical role and it is not clear ho¥.A I came to such conclusion. In addition, while he claims his past opinions have been accepted as authoritative, the record does not substantiate his claims. Therefore, I ts assertions in support of the instant petition are not persuasive. 7 We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we are not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Id.

The Petitioner asserts that the Director has mischaracterized the Handbook to conclude that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is not normally the minimum requirement for the proffered position. The Petitioner cites to Next Generation Tech., Inc. v. Johnson, 328 F. Supp. 3d 252, 267 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) to state that the Director's conclusion has no "rational connection" to the Handbook.

We first note that we are not bound to follow the published decision of a United States district court. SeeMatterofK-S-,20l&NDec. 715, 719-20(BIA 1993). Nevertheless,evenifweconsidered the logic underlying the matter, we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation.

As recognized by another court, while the Handbook may establish the first regulatory criterion for certain professions, many occupations are not described in such a categorical manner. 8 See In nova Sols., Inc. v. Baran, 2019 WL 3753334, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2019) (declining to follow Next Generation Tech., Inc.). For example, "[the Handbook's] description for the Computer Programmer occupation does not describe the normal minimum educational requirements of the occupation in a categorical fashion." Id.; see also Xiaotong Liu v. Baran, 2018 WL 7348851 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2018). "Accordingly, [the Petitioner] could not simply rely on [the Handbook] profile, and instead had the burden to show that the particular position offered to [ the Beneficiary] was among the Computer Programmer positions for which a bachelor's degree was normally required." See Innova Sols., Inc. 2019 WL 3753334, at *8.

7 For efficiency's sake, we hereby incorporate the above discussion regarding the letter into our analysis of each criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 8 Such professions would include surgeons or attorneys, which indisputably require at least a bachelor's degree for entry into the occupation.

7

Matter of C- Corp

Moreover, the court in Next Generation Tech., Inc. relied in part on a users policy memorandum regarding "Computer Programmers" indicating generally preferential treatment toward computer programmers, and "especially" toward companies in that particular petitioner's industry. However, users rescinded the policy memorandum cited by the court in Next Generation Tech. Inc. 9

Here, the Handbook does not describe the normal minimum educational requirement for the occupation in a categorical manner since some employers accept less than a bachelor's degree. Further, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position.

We also note that the Petitioner cites to Residential Finance Corp. v. USCIS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012), for the proposition that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is what is important. Diplomas rarely come bearing occupation-specific majors. What is required is an occupation that requires highly specialized knowledge and a prospective employee who has attained the credentialing indicating possession of that knowledge."

The Petitioner asserts that "more than one specific specialty that could qualify someone for a specialty occupation," but the issue here is whether a bachelor's degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position.

The Petitioner has famished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition are analogous to those in Residential Finance. 10

We conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the proffered position is located within an occupational category for which a relevant, authoritative source indicates that the normal minimum entry requirement is at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent. Moreover, the Petitioner has not provided documentation from a probative source to substantiate its assertion regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. The Petitioner therefore has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l).

9 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0142, Rescission of the December 22, 2000 "Guidance memo on HlB computer related positions" (Mar. 31, 2017), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/nativedocuments/PM-6002-0142-H-1 BComputerRelatedPositionsRecission.pdf.

10 It is noted that the district judge's decision in that case appears to have been based largely on the many factual errors made by the Director in the decision denying the petition. We further note that the Director's decision was not appealed to us. Based on the district court's conclusions and description of the record, if that matter had first been appealed through the available administrative process, we may very well have remanded the matter to the service center for a new decision for many of the same reasons articulated by the district court if these errors could not have been remedied by us in our de novo review of the matter.

We also note that, in contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case law ofa United States circuit court, we are not bound to follow the published decision ofa United States district court in matters arising even within the same district. See Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715, 719-20 (BIA 1993). Although the reasoning underlying a district judge's decision will be given due consideration when it is properly before us, the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of law. Id.

8

Matter of C- Corp

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 contemplates common industry practice with regard to positions that are "parallel" to the one under consideration, 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.

We generally consider the following sources of evidence 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 Herd/Blacker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (considering these "factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement) (S.D.N.Y. 1989)).

As noted above, the Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is a common requirement within the industry for parallel positions among similar organizations. Also, the Petitioner did not submit evidence from an industry professional association or from firms or individuals in the industry indicating such a degree is a minimum requirement for entry into the position.

In support of this criterion, the Petitioner submitted copies of nine job announcements placed by other employers. However, upon review of the documents, we find that the Petitioner's reliance on the job announcements is misplaced. First, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that these organizations are similar. When determining whether the Petitioner and the organization share the same general characteristics, such factors may include information regarding the nature or type of organization, and, when pertinent, the particular scope of operations, as well as the level of revenue and staffing (to list just a few elements that may be considered). It is not sufficient for the Petitioner to claim that an organization is similar and conducts business in the same industry without providing a legitimate basis for such an assertion. The record shows that only four of the companies are in the information technology field, two are in the business field, and three are not clear. Furthermore, while the record includes a size range for six of the companies, the actual number of employees is not clear. The record includes evidence that one of the companies has similar revenue as the Petitioner.

In addition, five of the advertisements include experience requirements ranging from 3-10 years, therefore indicating that they are not parallel positions. Further, the record does not establish that the duties of the advertised positions are similar to the proffered position. As the documentation does not

9

Matter of C- Corp

establish that the Petitioner has met this prong of the regulations, further analysis regarding the specific information contained in each of the job postings is not necessary. 11

Without more, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2).

2. Second Prong

We will now consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which 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.

Upon review of the totality of the record, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained or documented why the position proffered here is so complex or unique that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is required. When determining whether a position is a specialty occupation, we look at the nature of the business offering the employment and the position as it relates to the particular employer. A crucial aspect of this matter is whether the Petitioner has submitted sufficient and consistent evidence describing the proffered position such that we may discern the nature of the position and whether the position actually requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge attained through at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific discipline. The Petitioner has not done so here.

The Petitioner provided many vague, general job duties such as "upkeep issues," "manage observing those issues," and "[ c ]omply with all change management procedures, knowledge of standard concepts, practices, and procedures." Such generic descriptions do not provide sufficient information regarding the particular work and associated educational requirements, into which the duties would manifest themselves in the day-to-day performance. In addition, the Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the position. The evidence of record does not establish that this position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree.

The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the pos1t10n, and references the Beneficiary's qualifications as evidence that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education or experience

11 It must be noted that even if all of the job postings indicated that a requirement of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations (which they do not), the Petitioner has not demonstrated what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from the adve1iisements with regard to determining the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 ( 1995). Moreover, given that there is no indication that the advertisements were randomly selected, the validity of any such inferences could not be accurately determined even if the sampling unit were sufficiently large. See id. at 195-196 (explaining that "[r]andom selection is the key to [the] process [ of probability sampling]" and that "random selection offers access to the body of probability theory, which provides the basis for estimates of population parameters and estimates of error").

10

Matter of C- Corp

of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Here, the Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the Petitioner has satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2).

C. Third Criterion

The third criterion of 8 C.F.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, 201 F.3d at 387-88. Were U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (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.

The Petitioner submitted a list of network engineer employees along with copies of educational records for them. However, the record does not include a list of their job duties, or the job advertisements for their positions. The record contains insufficient evidence that these individuals have or had the same or similar substantive responsibilities, duties, and performance requirements as the proffered position.

Moreover, the Petitioner did not provide the total number of people it has employed to serve in the proffered position. Consequently, it cannot be determined how representative the Petitioner's claim regarding the limited number of individuals it submitted is of the Petitioner's normal recruiting and hiring practices. The Petitioner has not persuasively established that it normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position.

Without more, the Petitioner has not satisfied the third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A).

D. Fourth Criterion

The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.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.

Here, the Petitioner claims that the position's nature and the specific duties are 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. However, as mentioned, the Petitioner provided vague, general job duties. While some skills and knowledge in computer science may be required to perform these duties, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how these tasks require the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty ( or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation.

11

Matter of C- Corp

The Petitioner has not established that the nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The record does not satisfy the fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A).

IV. CONCLUSION

The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation.

We decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding employer-employee relationship and sufficient specialty occupation work available for the requested H-lB validity period. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (finding it unnecessary to analyze additional grounds when another independent issue is dispositive of the appeal); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible).

In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden.

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

Cite as Matter of C- Corp, ID# 4838851 (AAO Sept. 30, 2019)

12