dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Networking

FILE: LIN 04 037 52503 Off 
, IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: I 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
ice: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: Qpp fi 9 gQflbq 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonirnmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101(a)(1 5)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
LIN 04 037 52503 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director denied the nonirnrnigrant visa petition and the matter is now before 
the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. The petition will be denied. 
The petitioner is a full-service computer networking business that seeks to employ the beneficiary as a part- 
time network systems analyst. The petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a nonimrnigrant worker in 
a specialty occupation pursuant to 9 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. 9 1 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition because the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. On appeal, 
counsel submits a brief and additional evidence including copies of the petitioner's federal income tax return 
for 1999 through 2003, and a letter from the petitioner's CEO. 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 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. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, the position must meet one of 
the following criteria: 
(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. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) interprets the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
9 214.2(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. 
The record of proceeding before the AAO contains: (1) Form 1-129 and supporting documentation; (2) the 
director's request for additional evidence; (3) the petitioner's response to the director's request; (4) the 
director's denial letter; and (5) Form I-290B and supporting documentation. The AAO reviewed the record in 
its entirety before issuing its decision. 
LIN 04 037 52503 
Page 3 
The petitioner is seeking the beneficiary's services as a part-time network systems analyst. Evidence of the 
beneficiary's duties includes: the 1-129 petition; the petitioner's September 4, 2003 letter in support of the 
petition; and the petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence. According to this evidence, the 
beneficiary would perform duties that entail: analyzing, testing, and evaluating clients' existing LANrWAN 
systems; developing, expanding, and modifying existing LANrWAN systems as needed; designing and 
installing new LANNAN systems based on clients' needs; researching, administering, supporting, and 
maintaining computer network hardware, software, e-mail systems, Internet and Intranet access, and network 
security; and installing and supporting clients' business software over the computer network. The petitioner 
indicated that a qualified candidate for the job would possess a bachelor's degree in business with a major in 
computer information systems. 
The director found that the proffered position was not a specialty occupation because the petitioner had not 
established that it had sufficient work at an H-1B level at the location listed on the labor condition 
application. The director also found that, based on the beneficiary's 2003 project log, the proffered position is 
not a network systems analyst job; it is primarily a technical support specialist and computer repairer job. 
Citing to the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook), 2002-2003 edition, the 
director noted that the minimum requirement for entry into the position was not a baccalaureate degree or its 
equivalent in a specific specialty. The director found further that the petitioner failed to establish any of the 
criteria found at 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
On appeal, counsel states, in part, that CIS clearly abused its discretion by requiring contracts, related work 
orders, and appendices. Counsel states further that the proposed duties, which entail network systems analysis 
and design, are so specialized and complex as to require a related baccalaureate degree. 
Upon review of the record, the petitioner has established none of the four criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. 
5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Therefore, the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 
The AAO turns first to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l) and (2): a baccalaureate or higher 
degree or its equivalent is the normal minimum requirement for entry into the particular position; a degree 
requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations; or a particular 
position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree. 
Factors often considered by CIS when determining these criteria 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 fm or individuals in the industry attest that such finns 
"routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Znc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. 
Minn. 1999)(quoting HirdBlaker COT. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095,1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
The AAO routinely consults the Handbook for its information about the duties and educational requirements 
of particular occupations. The AAO does not concur with counsel that the proffered position, which is similar 
to a network systems and data communications analyst, is a specialty occupation. A review of the Computer 
Systems Analysts, Database Administrators, and Computer Scientists training requirements, at pages 107-108 of 
the Handbook, 2004-2005 edition, finds that "[m]ost community colleges and many independent technical 
institutes and proprietary schools offer an associate's degree in computer science or a related information 
technology field. Many of these programs may be more geared toward meeting the needs of local businesses and 
are more occupation specific than are 4-year programs." In this case, information in the record indicates that the 
LIN 04 037 52503 
Page 4 
petitioner is a full-service computer networking company with nine employees and an approximate gross annual 
income of $1 million. No evidence in the Handbook indicates that a baccalaureate or higher degree, or its 
equivalent, is required for a systems analyst of the nature described in the instant petition. 
Regarding parallel positions in the petitioner's industry, the petitioner submitted Internet job postings for 
various computer positions. There is no evidence, however, to show that the employers issuing those postings 
are similar to the petitioner, or that the advertised positions are parallel to the instant position. One of the 
positions is that of a network administrator for an international, high technology defense contractor that 
operates in commercial and defense electronics and aircraft manufacturing. Other positions are those of a 
network security analyst and a network engineer. The petitioner has not demonstrated that the proposed duties 
of the proffered position are as complex as the duties described for the advertised positions. Thus, the 
advertisements have no relevance. 
The record also does not include any evidence from professional associations regarding an industry standard, 
or documentation to support the complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position. The petitioner, therefore, 
has not established the criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l) or (2). 
The AAO now turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3) - the employer normally requires a 
degree or its equivalent for the position. As counsel does not address this issue on appeal, it will not be discussed 
further. 
Finally, the AAO turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(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. 
To the extent that they are depicted in the record, the duties do not appear so specialized and complex as to 
require the highly specialized knowledge associated with a baccalaureate or higher degree, or its equivalent, 
in a specific specialty. Therefore, the evidence does not establish that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation under 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
As related in the discussion above, the petitioner has failed to establish that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation. Accordingly, the AAO shall not disturb the director's denial of the petition. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.