dismissed H-1B Case: Business Systems Analysis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF H-V-0-W-, INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 28,2016 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a hotel/motel,-seeks to extend the Beneficiary's temporary employment as a "business 
systems analyst" under the H-IB 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-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, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish that the job offered qualifies as a specialty occupation.' 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
<;>ccupation 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 of H- V-0- W-, Inc. 
(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. Cherto.ff, 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 -1 B petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a business systems 
analyst and provided the following job duties for the position: 
• Apply technical e?<.pertise for the implementation, monitoring, and maintenance of IT 
business systems, which includes the computer network, database, and systems 
administration function. 
• Install and implement software services and maintain all those services to ensure the 
business process are running smoothly. 
• Maintain IT network/database/application architectures and ensure that system is 
online daily[.] 
• Troubleshoot issues for the hotel that includes bugs, network issues, outages, and all 
IT related issues for hotel patrons, etc. 
• Monitor performance levels of IT · business software services and provide 
recommendations for all hardware and software technologies. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided the following 
percentage breakdown of time to be spent on specific duties: 
• Train and drive the technical integration discussions within multiple departments such 
as: online marketing, front desk operations, inventory, loss control and revenue 
2 
Matter of H- V-0- W-, Inc. 
management of the hotel from a high-level concept design to operational delivery and 
beyond (approximately 30% of work time); 
• Conduct technical investigations and deep-dives with a focus on trouble-shooting 
discrepancies within various departments (approximately 15% of work time); 
• Responsible for analyzing and evaluating the full spectrum of the current affiliate 
tracking and payment processes, business challenges, request and opportunities. And 
then setting about recommending, prioritizing, and implementing the new . 
approaches; (approximately 20% of work time); 
• Gather the current market needs both current and future related to the hotel business, 
analyze them, and then determine an IT -solution to meet those needs and propose it 
accordingly (approximately 20% ofwork time); 
• Create the funptional specifications and report documentation to define how our 
system interfaces with guests during functional specification, testing, and initial 
implementation phases as necessary (approximately 15% of work time)[.] 
According to the Petitioner, the position requires a minimum requirement of a "Bachelor's degree in 
Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, Engineering or other closely reiated fields." 
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. 1 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or 
its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation? 
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 
1 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 B 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 All of our references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not, however, 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 
3 
Matter of H- V-0- W-, Inc. 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-1B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Computer Systems Analysts" 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 15-1121.4 The subchapter of the 
Handbook entitled "How to Become a Computer Systems Analyst" states the following about this 
occupational category: 
A bachelor's degree in a computer or information science field is common, although 
not always a requirement. Some firms hire analysts with business or liberal arts 
degrees who have skills in information technology or computer programming. 
Education 
Most computer systems analysts have a bachelor's degree in a computer-related field. 
Because these analysts also are heavily involved in the business side of a company, it 
may be helpful to take business courses or major in management information 
systems. 
Some employers prefer applicants who have a master's · degree in business 
administration (MBA) with a concentration in information systems. For more 
technically complex jobs, a master's degree in computer science may be more 
appropriate. 
Although many computer systems analysts have technical degrees, such a degree is 
not always a requirement. Many analysts have liberal arts degrees and have gained 
programming or technical expertise elsewhere. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., 
"Computer Systems Analysts," http :I lwww. bls. gov I oohl computer -and-information-techno logy I 
computer-systems-analysts.htm#tab-4 (last visited Nov. 28, 2016). 
The Handbook does not support the assertion that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for these positions. As noted above, this 
general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered position, and USCIS regularly reviews the Handbook on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. To satisfy the first criterion, however, the 
burden of proof remains 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. 
4 The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level II wage (the second-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 II wage rate is generally appropriate for positions 
for which the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to moderately complex tasks that require limited judgment. 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/NPWHC_Guidance_Revised_ll_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 ofthe Petitioner's job opportunity. /d. 
4 
Matter of H- V-0- W-, Inc. 
section of the Handbook begins by stating that a bachelor's degree in a related field is not a 
requirement. The Handbook continues by stating that there is a wide-range of degrees that are 
acceptable for positions in this occupation, including general-purpose degrees such as business and 
liberal arts. While the Handbook indicates that a bachelor's degree in a computer or information 
~cience field is common, it does not report that such a degree is normally a minimum requirement 
for entry. 
According to the Handbook, many systems analysts have liberal arts degrees and have gained 
programming or technical expertise elsewhere. It further reports that many analysts have technical 
degrees. We observe that the Handbook does not specify a degree level (e.g., associate's degree, 
baccalaureate) for these technical degrees. Moreover, it specifically states that such a degree is not 
always a requirement. Thus, the Handbook does not support the claim that the occupational 
category of computer systems analyst is one for which normally the minimum requirement for entry 
is a baccalaureate degree (or higher) in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
In addition, the Handbook indicates that degrees in various fields (computer, business, or liberal arts) 
may be adequate for entry into this occupation. We note that, in general, provided the specialties are 
closely related, e.g., chemistry and biochemistry, 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)(1)(B) of the Act. In such a case, the required "body of 
~ 
highly specialized knowledge" would essentially be the sanie. 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 disparate fields, such as computer science and liberal 
arts, 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 of highly specialized 
knowledge is essentially an amalgamation of these different specialties. Section 214(i)( 1 )(b). 
As such and consonant with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4 )(ii), USCIS consistently interprets 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 proffered position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Cherto,ff, 484 
F .3d at 14 7 (describing "a degree requirement in a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to 
the duties and responsibilities of a particular position"). 
Finally, when comparing the duties of the proffered position to the types of positions located within 
this occupational category it is important to consider the wage-level the Petitioner designated on the 
LCA. Again, the Petitioner has stated that it will pay the Beneficiary a Level II wage, which is 
appropriate for positions involving moderately complex tasks that require limited judgment. Given 
I 
the Handbook's implication that typical positions located within this occupational category do not 
require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, it appears unlikely that a position with these 
characteristics would have such a requirement. 
5 
Matter of H- V-0- W-, Inc. 
For all the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
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 a!) 
individual with a degree[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong 
casts its gaze upon the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
I. 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. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by 
USCIS include: 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 attest 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 Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook, or another authoritative source, reports a requirement for at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. Also, there are no submissions from professional associations, 
individuals, or similar firms in the Petitioner's industry attesting that individuals employed in positions 
parallel to the proffered position are routinely required to have a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty or its equivalent for entry into those positions. 
The Petitioner submitted several job vacancy announcements for our consideration under this prong 
of the second criterion. While two of these companies do appear to conduct business within its 
industry, the Petitioner has riot submitted evidence sufficient to establish that these other companies 
are also "similar" to it.5 For the Petitioner to establish that an organization in its industry is similar, 
it must demonstrate that it shares the same general characteristics with the advertising organization, 
which may be demonstrated by factors such as the nature or type of organization, 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 in 
the same industry without providing a legitimate basis for such an assertion. A petitioner's 
5 For example, both of these are from full-service hotels with business models that appear to differ from the Petitioner's. 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of H- V-0- W:--, Inc. 
unsupported statements are of very limited weight and normally will be insufficient to carry its 
burden of proof. See Matter of So.ffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft ofCal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)); see also Matter o.fChawathe , 25 
I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 201 0). The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, 
and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
Further, there is insufficient information in the record to establish that the duties of the advertised 
positions parallel those of the proffered position. That is, there is a lack of information regarding the 
specific knowledge and skills required for the positions, the complexity of the job duties, the amount 
of independent judgment required, and the amount of supervision received. For example, the 
position at involves work at its Financial Services Center and requires experience in a "large 
transactional, multi-application environment." Thus, given the Petitioner's indication on the LCA 
that the proffered position involves only moderately comple~ tasks requiring limited judgment, the 
two positions do not appear to parallel one another. 
The position at would require a successful candidate to "manage contracts, 
acquisitions, and new developments" and requires a degree in Hotel Administration or Real Estate. 
Thus, the position appears to involve land development and acquisition rather than working with 
computer systems. Finally, the position with involves working on helpdesk 
tickets and reviewing and resolving errors, rather than maintaining a system such as would be 
required in the proffered position. Accordingly, it is unclear whether the advertised positions are 
parallel to the proffered position. Thus, the petitioner has not sufficiently established that the 
primary duties and responsibilities of the advertised positions are parallel to the proffered position. 
Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first of the two alternative prongs of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
We will next 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. 
We discussed the Handbook's findings regarding the occupational category into which the Petitioner 
placed the proffered position above. As noted, the Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, 
or the equivalent, is normally required. While , the Petitioner's 
generalized claims regarding the complexity of the position are acknowledged, the Petitioner's Level 
II wage designation significantly undermines those assertions and evidence. 6 In other words, if 
6 The Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level II position undermines its claim that the position is particularly 
complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation. Nevertheless , a Level II wage­
designation does not preclude a proffered position fi'om classification as a specialty occupation , just as a Level IV wage-
Matter of H- V-0- W-, Inc. 
typical positions located within the occupational category do not require a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or the equivalent, then it is unclear how a position with the Level II characteristics 
described above would, regardless ofthe Petitioner's assertions. 
In svpport of the petition, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position, 
and references his qualifications. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation 
is not the education or experience of a proposed Beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires 
at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the duties of the position are complex and unique and refers to 
unpublished AAO decisions regarding systems analysts. The Petitioner states that the "Service has 
repeatedly held that positions that involve analysis, design, and development are considered 
specialty occupations, even for positions such as Programmer Analysts and Programmer." However, 
the job duties proposed for the Beneficiary do not appear to involve the design of computer systems. 
Moreover, when "any person makes application for a visa or any other document required for entry, 
or makes application for (!dmission, ... the burden of proof shall be upon such person to establish 
that he is eligible" for such benefit. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; see also Matter of 
Treasure Craft of Cal., 14 I&N Dec. 190. Furthermore, any suggestion that USCIS must review 
unpublished decisions and possibly request and review each case file relevant to those decisions, 
while being impractical and inefficient, would also be a shift in the evidentiary burden in these 
proceedings from the Petitioner to USCIS, which would be contrary to section 291 of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. § 1361. Accordingly, neither the Director nor our office was required to request and/or 
obtain a copy of the unpublished decisions cited by the Petitioner. The Petitioner did not provide 
sufficient evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition are analogous to those in the 
unpublished decision. While 8 C.F .R. § 103 .3( c) provides that our precedent decisions are binding 
on all USCIS employees in the administration of the Act, unpublished decisions are not similarly 
binding. 
In the instant case, the Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative complexity or uniqueness as an 
aspect of the proffered position. Specifically, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how the proffered 
position's duties as described in the record of proceeding comprise a position that requires the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge such that only a 
person who has attained a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent is 
required to perform them. 
Consequently, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
designation does not definitively establish such a classification. In certain occupations (e.g., doctors or lawyers), a Level 
II position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for 
entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designation would not reflect that an occupation qualifies as a specialty 
occupation if that higher-level position does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. That is, a position's wage-level designation may be a relevant factor but is not itself 
conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)( 1) of the Act. 
8 
Matter of H- V-0- W-, Inc. 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.P.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 
Petitioner's list of employees does not indicate that it currently employs anyone in the same position 
as the one proposed here. Nor does the record contain any evidence to establish that it employed 
anyone in the position prior to its employment of the Beneficiary. Thus, there is no evidence for our 
consideration under this criterion. 
The Petitioner claims repeatedly that the duties of the proffered position can only be employed by a 
degreed individual. While a petitioner may assert that a proffered position requires a degree in a 
specific specialty, that statement alone without corroborating evidence cannot establish the position 
as a specialty occupation. Were USCIS limited solely to reviewing a 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 employer artificially created a token degree 
requirement, whereby all individuals employed in a particular position possessed a baccalaureate or 
higher degree in the specific specialty, or its equivalent. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d at 
387. In other words, if a petitioner's degree requirement is only symbolic and the proffered position 
does not in fact require such a specialty degree, or its equivalent, to perform its duties, the 
occupation would not meet the statutory or regulatory definition of a specialty occupation. See 
section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty 
occupation"). Here, the Petitioner has not established the referenced criterion at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3) based on its normal hiring practices. 
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. 
As reflected in the descriptions of the position as quoted above, we find that the duties of the 
proffered position have been described in terms of generalized and generic functions that do not 
convey sufficient substantive information to establish the relative complexity, uniqueness and/or 
specialization of the proffered position or its duties. For example, the Petitioner stated that the 
Beneficiary will be responsible for "conducting technical investigations"; "analyzing and evaluating 
the full spectrum of the current affiliate tracking and payment process, business challenges, request 
and opportunities;" and, "gather the current market needs." The Petitioner's description does not 
convey the substantive nature of the work that the Beneficiary would actually perform, the actual 
systems utilized by the Petitioner, or any particular body of highly specialized knowledge that would 
have to be theoretically and practically applied to perform it. The responsibilities for the proffered 
position contain generalized functions without providing sufficient information regarding the 
9 
Matter of H- V-0- W-, Inc. 
particular work, and associated educational requirements, into which the duties would manifest 
themselves in their day-to-day performance. 
Finally, while we acknowledge the Petitioner's generalized assertions regarding the complexity of 
the position's duties, those claims are undermined by the Petitioner's Level II wage designation. 
Again, in classifying the proffered position at a Level II wage, the Petitioner effectively attested to 
DOL that the Beneficiary would perform only moderately complex tasks that requ1re limited 
judgment. 7 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated in the record that its proffered position is one with duties 
sufficiently specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
·IV. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one ofthe 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. 
The burden is on the Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden 
has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofH-V-0-W-, Inc., ID# 22872 (AAO Nov. 28, 2016) 
7 Again, the Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level II undermines its claim that the position is particularly 
complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation. 
10