dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Network Support

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10065138 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 11, 2020 
The Petitioner, a medical imaging equipment services company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a computer network support specialist under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for 
specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) , 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a 
qualified foreign worker in a position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of 
a body of highly specialized know ledge 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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The matter is now before 
us on appeal. 1 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe , 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the 
questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S. C. § ll 84(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. 
1 The Petitioner submitted a brief statement in support of its appeal, and indicated that a supplemental brief would be 
forwarded to our office within 30 days. No further documentation has been received. Therefore, the record will be 
considered complete as currently constituted . 
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: 
( 1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entty into the paiiicular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industty 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. ChertoJJ; 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 seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a computer network support specialist. The 
Petitioner provided a description of the proffered position in its initial letter of support and expanded 
on those duties in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE). For the sake of brevity, we 
will not quote the duty descriptions; however, we have closely reviewed and considered the duties. 
Regarding the position's educational requirements, the Petitioner does not specifically outline its 
minimum requirements for the position. However, it maintains that the Beneficiary is qualified to 
perform the duties of the proffered position by virtue of his foreign degree in computer engineering. 2 
III. ANALYSIS 
2 The Petitioner implies in the record that a bachelor's degree is a sufficient minimum requirement for entry into the 
proffered position without specifically articulating its minimum entry requirements. A petitioner must demonstrate that 
the proffered position requires a precise and specific course of study that relates directly and closely to the position in 
question. There must be a close correlation between the required specialized studies and the position; thus, the mere 
requirement of a degree, 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) ("The mere requirement of a college degree for the sake 
of general education, or to obtain what an employer perceives to be a higher caliber employee, also does not establish 
eligibility."). Thus, while a general-purpose bachelor's degree may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, 
requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify a conclusion that a particular position qualifies for classification as 
a specialty occupation. Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. 
2 
For the reasons set out below, we have determined that the proffered position does not qualify as a 
specialty occupation. Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties reqmre an 
educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 3 
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 will consider the information contained 
in the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) regarding the 
duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations it addresses. 4 
On the labor condition application (LCA )5 submitted in support of the H-1 B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Computer Network Support 
Specialist" corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 15-1152. Thus, we 
reviewed the Handbook's subchapter entitled '"How to Become a Computer Support Specialist," which 
states, in pertinent part, that a bachelor's degree is required for some applicants applying to computer 
support specialist positions, but an associate' s degree or postsecondary classes may be enough for 
others. 6 According to the Handbook, "[p ]ositions that are more technical are likely to require a degree 
in a field such as computer science, engineering, or information science, but for others, the applicant's 
field of study is less important." 7 The Handbook therefore 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. 
We also reviewed DOL's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) summary report for computer 
network support specialists, but determined that the information in that report does not establish that 
a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, is normally required. The summary report 
provides general information regarding the occupation; however, it does not support the Petitioner's 
assertion regarding the educational requirements for these positions. For example, the Specific 
Vocational Preparation (SVP) rating, which is defined as "the amount of lapsed time required by a 
typical worker to learn the techniques, acquire the information, and develop the facility needed for 
3 While we may not discuss eve1y document submitted in support of the petition, we have reviewed and considered each 
one. 
4 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 vaiiety of 
occupations that it addresses. Nevertheless, to satisfy the first criterion, the burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to 
submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particulai· position would normally have a minimum, specialty 
degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
5 A petitioner submits the LCA to DOL to demonstrate that it will pay an H- lB 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, expe1ience, and qualifications. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655. 731 (a). 
6 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep 't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Computer Network Support 
Specialists https: / /v-vww. bls. gov/ ooh/computer-and-information-technology/ computer-support-specialists.htm#tab-4 (last 
visited Jul. 20, 2020). 
7 Id. 
3 
average performance in a specific job-worker situation," cited within O*NET' s Job Zone designates 
this position as having an SVP 7 < 8. This indicates that the occupation requires "over 2 years up to 
and including 4 years" of training. 8 While the SVP rating provides 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, formal education, and experience - and it does not 
specify the particular type of degree, if any, that a position would require. 9 The O*NET summaiy 
report for this occupation also does not specify that a degree is required, but instead states, "most of 
these occupations require a four-year bachelor's degree, but some do not." Similar to the SVP rating, 
the Job Zone Four designation does not indicate that any academic credentials for Job Zone Four 
occupations must be directly related to the duties performed. 
Further, we note that the summary report provides the educational requirements of "respondents," but 
does not account for 100% of the "respondents." Further, the respondents' positions within the 
occupation are not distinguished by career level (e.g., entry-level, mid-level, senior-level). 
Additionally, the graph in the summaiy report does not indicate that the "education level" for the 
respondents must be in a specific specialty. More importantly, the same survey indicates than only 
4 7% of respondents reported having a bachelor's degree, 22% reported possessing an associate' s 
degree, 14% have "some college, no degree" and 17% are unaccounted for. 
Further, a bachelor's degree alone is not sufficient. We note the Petitioner's assertions in response to 
the Director's RFE, where it points out that various related occupations have a minimum requirement 
of a bachelor's degree. However, 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. 10 See 
Royal Siam Corp., 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"). 
For the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I). 
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 casts its gaze upon 
the common industry practice, while the alternative prong nanows its focus to the Petitioner's specific 
position. 
Although the Petitioner neither contests nor provides evidence to overcome the Director's adverse 
findings under this criterion, we will nevertheless briefly address the evidentiary deficiencies. 
8 This training may be acquired in a school, work, military, institutional, or vocational environment. Specific vocational 
training includes: vocational education, apprenticeship training, in-plant training, on-the-job training, and essential 
experience in other jobs. 
9 For additional inf01mation, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/help/ 
online/svp. 
10 Nor is it apparent whether these credentials were prerequisites to these individuals' hiring. 
4 
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 industty 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 industty'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) (considering these 
"factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
The Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which the Handbook (or other 
independent, authoritative sources) reports an industry-wide requirement for at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, we incorporate by reference the previous 
discussion on the matter. Also, there are no submissions from the industry's professional association 
indicating that it has made a degree a minimum entty requirement. Fmihermore, the Petitioner did 
not submit any letters or affidavits from similar firms or individuals in the Petitioner's industry 
attesting that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." 
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 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 
perfmmed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
As previously discussed, the Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or the equivalent, is typically required for positions such as the one proffered by the 
Petitioner, and the Petitioner has not established that the knowledge and affiliated entty requirements 
associated with the proffered position exceed those of other positions located within the occupational 
category. The duties as described also do not provide the information necessary to demonstrate that 
they are more highly specialized or complex than the typical duties of computer network support 
specialists that do not require a specialty degree. 
As constituted, the record does not sufficiently demonstrate that the necessary knowledge for the 
proffered position is attained through an established curriculum of particular courses leading to a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. While a few related courses 
5 
and subjects may be beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated how an established curriculum of such courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the duties of the proffered 
position. The Petitioner did not adequately develop relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of 
the position. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not 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 v. Meissner, 201 F.3d at 387-88. Were 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. 
We reviewed the Petitioner's statements regarding the proffered position. However, it does not assert 
that it previously hired anyone for the proffered position, and it has not provided any other evidence 
in support of this criterion. Therefore, it has not satisfied the third criterion at 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. The Petitioner does not assert eligibility under this criterion, nor does it submit additional 
evidence to refute the Director's findings under this criterion, 
For reasons similar to those discussed under the second prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), the 
Petitioner has not sufficiently established that its proffered position is one with specialized and complex 
duties, such 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. We, therefore, incorporate our 
earlier discussion and analysis on this matter. 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied any 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. 
IV. BENEFICIARY'S QUALIFICATIONS 
6 
A beneficiary's credentials to perform a particular job are relevant only when the job is found to be a 
specialty occupation. As discussed in this decision, the Petitioner has not established that the proffered 
position requires a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
Nevertheless, we note that the Petitioner did not submit an evaluation of the Beneficiary's foreign 
degree or sufficient evidence to establish that his degree is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty. As such, since evidence was not presented that the Beneficiary has at least a U.S. 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, the petition could not be approved even if 
eligibility for the benefit sought had been otherwise established. 
V. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established the proffered position is a specialty occupation. In visa petition 
proceedings, it is a 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. 
7