dismissed H-1B Case: Business Intelligence

MATTER OF C-C-, LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 2, 2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a business consulting and technology solutions firm, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "consultant - business intelligence architect" under the H -1 B 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, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence 
asserts that the Director erred in concluding that the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), 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. 
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: 
Matter ofC-C-, LLC 
(1) 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). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has consistently 
interpreted the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) 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. Chertoff, 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 
In the H-1B petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a "consultant- business 
intelligence architect." In its support letter, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will perform the 
following duties: 
• Design development, testing, and implementation of new software and upgrades; 
• Have a mastery of the Microsoft BI stack, including SSIS; 
• Understand the technical concepts involved in ETL development; and 
• Use requirements to extract, transform, and load data using a variety of tools[.] 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-IB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Software Developers, 
Applications" corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 15-1132.1 
1 The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Levell wage (the lowest of four assignable wage levels). We will 
consider this selection in our analysis of the position. The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" issued by 
the DOL provides a description of the wage levels. A Level I wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which 
the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the occupation. This wage rate indicates: (I) that 
the Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that he 
will be closely supervised and his work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that he will receive 
specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing 
Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
2 
Matter ojC-C-, LLC 
0 
According to the Petitioner, the position requires a bachelor's degree or its equivalent in computer 
science, business, or'a related field. 
III. ANALYSIS 
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. Lack of a Requirement for a Bachelor's Degree in a Specific Specialty, or the Equivalent 
The Petitioner's claimed entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree in "computer science or 
business" for the proffered position, without more, is inadequate to establish that the proposed 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. A petitioner must demonstrate that the prqffered 
position requires a precise and specific course of study that relates directly to the position in 
question. Since there must be a close correlation between the required specialized studies and the 
position, the requirement of a degree with a generalized title, such as business, without further 
specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz 
Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). 
To prove that a job requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge as required by section 214(i)(1) of the Act, a petitioner must establish that the position 
requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specialized field of study or its 
equivalent. As explained above, USCIS interprets the degree requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) to require a degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed 
position. USCIS has consistently stated that, although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as 
a degree in business administration, may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, 
requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify a finding that a particular position qualifies 
for classification as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st 
Cir. 2007). For this reason alone, the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner's acceptability of degrees from two apparently unrelated fields - computer science 
and business - constitutes additional evidence that the proffered position is not a specialty 
occupation. In general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry and biochemistry, 
http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _II_ 2009.pdf A prevailing wage determination starts 
with an entry level wage and progresses to a higher wage level after considering the experience, education, and skill 
requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. !d. 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 8 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 
Matter of C-C-, LLC 
a minimum of a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty is recognized as satisfying 
the "degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)" requirement of section 214(i)(l )(B) of the 
Act. In such a case, the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" would essentially be the 
same. Since there must be a close correlation between the required "body of highly specialized 
knowledge" and the position, however, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in two disparate 
fields, such as philosophy and engineering, would not meet the statutory requirement that the degree 
be "in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)," unless the Petitioner establishes how each field is 
directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position such that the required 
"body ofhighly specialized knowledge" is essentially an amalgamation of these different specialties. 
Section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act (emphasis added). 
In other words, while the statutory "the" and the regulatory "a" both denote a singular "specialty," 
we do ~ot so narrowly interpret these provisions to exclude positions from qualifying as specialty 
occupations if they permit, as a minimum entry requirement, degrees in more than one closely 
related specialty. See section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act;, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). This also includes 
even seemingly disparate specialties providing, again, the evidence of record establishes how each 
acceptable, specific field of study is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular 
position. 
Again, the Petitioner claims that the duties of the proffered position can be performed by an 
individual with a bachelor's degree in computer science or business. The issue here is that it is not 
readily apparent that these two fields of study are closely related or that the field of business is 
directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position proffered in this matter. 
Here and as indicated above, the Petitioner, who bears the burden of proof in this proceeding, has not 
established either (1) that computer science and business are closely-related fields or (2) that the 
field of business is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the proffered position. Absent 
this evidence, it cannot be found that the particular position proffered in this matter has a normal 
minimum entry requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, 
under the Petitioner's own standards. 
Therefore, absent evidence of a direct relationship between the claimed degrees required and the 
duties and responsibilities of the position, it cannot be found that the proffered position requires 
anything more than a general bachelor's degree. As explained above, USCIS interprets the degree 
requirement at8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to require a degree in a specific specialty that is directly 
related to the proposed position. USCIS has consistently stated that, although a general-purpose 
bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business administration, may be a legitimate prerequisite for a 
particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify a finding that a particular 
position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam Corp. v. Cherto.ff, 484 
F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007). 
The evidence of record does not establish how these two dissimilar fields of study form either a body 
of highly specialized knowledge or a specific specialty, or its equivalent, and the Petitioner asserts 
4 
Matter of C-C-, LLC 
that the job duties of this particular position can be performed by an individual with a bachelor's 
degree in either, unrelated field. Without more, the Petitioner's statement indicates further that the 
proffered position is not in fact a specialty occupation. 
B. Substantive Nature of Duties 
In addition, we cannot find that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation because the 
Petitioner has not satisfied any of the supplemental, additional criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Specifically, the Petitioner has not established the substantive nature of the 
actual duties that the Beneficiary would perform, which precludes an analysis of whether the 
Petitioner has satisfied any of the referenced criteria. 
For example, the Petitioner presented the duties comprising the proffered position in terms of relatively 
abstract and generalized functions. The job descriptions lack sufficient detail and concrete explanation 
to establish the substantive nature of the work that the Beneficiary would actually perform. For 
example, the stated job duty of "us[ing] requirements to extract, transform, and load data" explains 
neither the "requirements" nor the type of "data" with which the Beneficiary would work. Nor does the 
Petitioner explain the types of "new software" and "upgrades" that the Beneficiary would design, test, 
and implement. In any event, the job description submitted at the time of filing provides us with little 
idea of what the Beneficiary would actual be doing. Furthermore, more detailed, the additional job 
duties submitted in response to the request for evidence (RFE) and on appeal also do not sufficiently 
demonstrate the Beneficiary's duties. As will be explained below, the documentation of which they are 
a part contains numerous evidentiary deficiencies. 
Another problematic aspect of the Petitioner's job description is the fact that many of the Petitioner's 
assertions regarding the proffered duties appear inconsistent with the wage level designated in the 
LCA. Again, in designating the proffered position at a Level I wage, the Petitioner attested that it is 
an entry-level position in which: (1) that the Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks 
that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that he will be closely supervised and his work 
closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that he will receive specific instructions on 
required tasks and expected results. According to DOL, "[s]tatements that the job offer is for a 
research fellow, a worker in training, or an internship are indicators that a Level I wage should be 
considered." U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination 
Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http:/ /flcdatacenter .com/ download/NPWH C _Guidance_ Revised _11_ 2009. pdf 
For example, the Petitioner stated in an email that "most of [the Beneficiary's] work has been 
independent." The Petitioner describes the Beneficiary's job duties as "sophisticated," that his time 
"will be spent on high-level duties" and that no time would be spent performing "low-level duties," and 
refers to his duties as "sophisticated." The Petitioner also references the "specialized and complex" 
nature of the position and its duties repeatedly.3 Finally, the Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary has 
3 In addition, the record contains several job vacancy announcements advertising positions claimed by the Petitioner to 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of C-C-, LLC 
worked as a "lead developer" on an internal project. The Petitioner's designation of the proffered 
position as a Level I, entry-level position is inconsistent with these and other stated duties, and in 
addition to calling into question the reliability of the Petitioner's job description also raises 
additional questions regarding the actual, substantive nature ofthe proffered p~sition.
4 
Finally, the Petitioner has also not established the nature and scope of the Beneficiary's employment 
due to its inability to demonstrate knowledge of which projects to which the Beneficiary would be 
assigned, and the proffered duties that the Beneficiary would perform for each project, at the time 
the petition was filed. · 
For example, the Petitioner indicated in the Form I-129 and LCA that there would be only two 
possible work locations: (1) its own office in Ohio, and/or (2) at a client site in 
Ohio. The Petitioner also submitted a statement of work (SOW) issued for work to be performed for 
its client However, in response to the request for additional 
evidence (RFE), the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would no longer work on the project for 
and that he would instead "remain assigned to 
for the foreseeable future." T-he SOW naming the Beneficiary in conjunction with a 
project to' be performed for was executed after the H-lB petition was filed. On appeal, 
the Petitioner submits a letter from which states that the Beneficiary will provide 
services "from time-to-time at our offices" in Ohio. The Petitioner also claims on appeal 
that "[ w ]hen we staff a project, we assign a team that includes on-site mangers [sic] who supervise 
other [Petitioner] employees on-site." 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that changing the project after the petition was filed should not 
matter because, regardless of project, the Beneficiary "is a member of the Data & Analytics team 
focused on Business Intelligence" and the team "has current projects underway or in the bidding 
stage 
that are worth more than $8.6 million." However, while the Petitioner may have multiple 
projects available to which the Beneficiary could be assigned even if the current assignment were to 
end, it is not clear that each project would entail precisely the same duties and min.imum 
qualifications. For example, in response to the Director's concern that the Beneficiary may not still 
be employed in the same position proffered in the petition, the Petitioner stated regarding an internal 
project that the Beneficiary "was the lead developer on this project from May 2015 through August 
be "parallel" to the one proffered here. We note that every advertised position requires work experience~ some as much 
as five years. If these positions are in fact "parallel" to the one proffered here, then it is unclear how the proffered 
position could be an entry-level position in which the Beneficiary would perform routine tasks that require limited , if 
any, exercise of judgment. 
4 To the extent the Petitioner 's assertions are correct they raise the question of whether the LCA corresponds to and 
supports the H-IB petition. We will not discuss this issue further in our decision except to note that if the Petitioner is 
able to overcome our grounds for dismissing the appeal at soine point in the future, USCIS would have to explore the 
issue before approval of the petition could be considered. · 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of C-C-, LLC 
2015 .... "5 Therefore, although the Beneficiary may work in a position bearing same title and with 
the same team throughout the duration of the petition approval, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
that the Beneficiary would perform the proffered duties on every project to which he would be 
assigned. 6 . 
Additionally, the Beneficiary's role in the project with is expected to last 10 weeks, 
according to the SOW.7 However, the Petitioner requested a validity period from October 1, 2015, 
through August 31, 2018. On appeal, the Petitioner requests that the petition be approved for a 
period of one year, or through September 30, 2016 if it cannot approve for the entire period of 
requested employment. 8 However, the Beneficiary's 10-week assignment has passed, and the 
Petitioner has not submitted evidence that the project with would be extended beyond 
June 30, 2016. Even if the Petitioner could establish that the Beneficiary would be assigned to the 
project with through June 30, 2016, we would still find that the job description lacks 
sufficient detail and concrete explanation to establish the substantive nature of the work within the 
context of this project, and the associated applications of specialized knowledge that their actual 
performance would require. For example, the SOW states that the Beneficiary's tasks include 
"development work done during each iteration" and the Beneficiary would work "hand in hand with 
the BI Architect to implement artifacts that the Architect designs." There is no further explanation 
as to what particular tasks the Beneficiary will perform on a day-to-day basis (e.g., what specific 
development work and artifact implementation activities are involved), the complexity of such tasks, 
and the substantive application of knowledge involved. Additionally, the general description does 
not delineate the demands, level of responsibilities and requirements necessary for the performance 
of these duties. 
5 Again, this claim- that the Beneficiary worked as a lead developer (and implicitly, that he could possibly do so again 
at some point during the nearly three-year period of employment requested in the H-1 B petition - appears to conflict 
directly with the Petitioner's Levell wage-level designation in the LCA. 
6 To determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCJS does not simply rely on a position 's 
title. The specific duties of the proffered position , combined with the nature of the petitioning entity's business 
operations, are factors to be considered. USCIS must examine the ultimate employment of the individual, and determine 
whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation . See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. The critical 
element is not the title of the position or an employer's self-imposed standards , but whether the position actually requires 
the theoretical and practical application of a· body of highly specialized knowledge , and the attainment of a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in the specific specialty as the minimum for entry into the occupation , as required by the Act. 
7 Although the Petitioner submits an email from indicating that the project will likely continue through June 
30, 2016, the emai I does not specifically reference the Beneficiary or his role on the project. The letter from 
dated August 27, 2015, states only that the Beneficiary would be providing services from time-to-time on the project 
through the end of2015, with the possibility of an extension . However, no other evidence was provided to establish that 
the extension of the Beneficiary's assignment to project through June 30, 2016, had been confirmed. 
8 In support of its request for a validity period of one year, the Petitioner cites to a 20 I 0 statement made by the Vermont 
Service Center (VSC) at a stakeholder engagement that "to accommodate third party work assignments that are 
documented for less than one year, USCJS will provide a one-year approval." However, the Petitioner in this case has 
not made the initial demonstration that the proffered position is a specialty occupation . Moreover , the statement to 
which the Petitioner cites was made in reference to extension petitions, which is not the case here: 
Matter of C-C-, LLC 
The Petitioner claims on appeal that it is not a token employer and that when one of its employees 
works at a client site, the individual is assigned to a team supervised by the Petitioner. However, 
even if we did not question this assertion, we would still be compelled to find that the Petitioner had 
not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that such work would constitute a specialty occupation 
requiring at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. As discussed previously, because the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate that it normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty for the proffered position, and because the job description lacks sufficient detail, the 
Petitioner has not established that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. Further, while the 
Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary's position and duties will not change for the duration of the 
petition is noted, its prior assignment of the Beneficiary as a project lead undermines it. 
For all of these reasons, we cannot determine the nature and scope of the Beneficiary's employment. 
The record lacks evidence sufficiently concrete and informative to demonstrate: (1) the actual work 
that the Beneficiary would perform; (2) the complexity, uniqueness and/or specialization of the 
tasks; and/or (3) the correlation between that work and a need for a particular level education of 
highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. 
The inability to establish the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the Beneficiary 
consequently precludes a finding that the proffered position satisfies any criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), because it is the substantive nature of that work that determines: (1) the normal 
minimum educational requirement for the particular position, which is the focus of criterion 1; 
(2) industry positions which are parallel to the proffered position and thus appropriate for review for 
a common degree requirement, under the first alternate prong of criterion 2; (3) the level of 
complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position, which is the focus of the second alternate prong 
of criterion 2; (4) the factual justification for a petitioner normally requiring a degree or its 
equivalent, when that is an issue under criterion 3; and (5) the degree of specialization and 
complexity of the specific duties, which is the focus of criterion 4. Accordingly, as the Petitioner 
has not established that it has satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A), it cannot 
be found that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation for this additional reason. 
IV. DUE PROCESS 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director did not afford it an opportunity to address the 
concerns stated in the denial by issuing an RFE, and that its rights to procedural due process were 
therefore violated. However, there is no requirement that USCIS issue an RFE, or to issue an RFE 
pertinent to a ground later identified in the decision denying the visa petition. The regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8) permits the Director to deny a petition over a Petitioner's inability to establish. 
eligibility without having to request evidence regarding the ground or grounds of ineligibility 
identified by the Director. Further, even if the Director had erred as a procedural matter in not 
issuing an RFE relative to the Petitioner's lack of evidence to establish the proffered position as a 
specialty occupation, it is not clear what remedy would be appropriate beyond the appeal process 
itself. The Petitioner has, in fact, supplemented the record on appeal. Therefore, it would serve no 
8 
Matter of C-C-, LLC 
useful purpose to remand the case simply to afford the Petitioner yet another opportunity to 
supplement the record with new evidence. We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. 
We further note that with respect to a constitutional due process challenge, we have no authority to 
entertain constitutional challenges to a USCIS action. Cf Matter of Salazar-Regino, 23 I'&N Dec. 
223, 231 (BIA 2002) (BIA lacks authority to rule on constitutionality of statutes it administers). 
Even if we had the authority to entertain constitutional challenges, the Petitioner has not shown that 
any violation of the regulations resulted in "substantial prejudice" to the petitioning company or the 
Beneficiary. See De Zavala v. Ashcroft, 385 F.3d 879, 883 (5th Cir. 2004) (holding that a foreign 
national "must make an initial showing of substantial prejudice" to prevail on a due process 
challenge). 
V. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 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; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). 
Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofC-C-, LLC, ID# 17541 (AAO Aug. 2, 2016) 
9