dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Programming

MATTER OF B-B- LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 22, 2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a computer programming services company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "senior software engineer" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for 
specialty occupations. See section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act), 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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had 
not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies for treatment as a specialty occupation 
position. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the evidence submitted is 
sufficient to demonstrate eligibility. 
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 
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 of B-B- 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). We have consistently interpreted 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. 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-1B petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would serve as a senior software 
engineer. On the labor condition application (LCA) 1 submitted in support of the H-1B petition, the 
Petitioner designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Software Developers, 
Applications" corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 15-1132? 
In the H-1B petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would work in-house at its offices in 
Florida. In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted 
the following description ofthe duties of the proffered position: 
1 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA 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 experience and qualifications who are performing the same services. See 
Matter ofSimeio Solutions. LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 545-546 (AAO 2015). 
2The 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 perform "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_ II_ 2009.pdf A prevailing wage detennination 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 opp01tunity. 
!d. 
2 
Matter of B-B- LLC 
• Maintain modern web applications that are compatible with mobile and 
traditional devices, using a variety of technologies and programming 
languages including Ruby, Ruby on Rails, PostgreSQL, MySQL, Redis, 
apache, nginx, memcache and responsive design techniques on a linux 
platform. 
• Participate in all phases of software development life cycle including feature 
specification, time and cost estimate, design, development, testing, 
deployment, bug fixing and maintenance. 
• Be involved in front end and back end development leveraging Open Source 
frameworks and Technologies. 
• Develop user interface using HTML, CSS and JavaScript. 
• Implement performance enhancing techniques to ensure that applications do 
not become too slow. 
• Implement security protocols and safeguards to ensure possible hackers are 
not able to steal private information. This will require proper usage of 
techniques like HTTPS. He will also ensure that codes are not vulnerable to 
sql injection attacks, cross site scripting attacks, and· other common forms of 
attacks hackers employ to hack into web applications. 
• Ensure that proper event monitoring systems are in place in case server goes 
offline or user is experiencing an issue, our support staff is notified with full 
information so that a fix could be deployed as soon as possible. 
• Analyze user needs, research new technologies, and use appropriate solutions 
to build customs software solutions. 
• Perform profession assignments that reqmre managing, architecting, 
developing multiple projects, evaluating software applications, and related 
ISSUeS. 
• Develop and create the most appropriate design for an application/or 
application infrastructure to suit the business needs, satisfy client 
requirements, and achieve the desired results. 
• Develop data driven web applications to build highly scalable and SEO 
friendly fast web applications that reach millions of users. 
• Build API for mobile applications. 
• Develop rich AJAX applications and write complex data models and tune 
SQL for complex queries. 
• Collaborate on all stages of software development from design to 
implementations. 
• Other similar professional responsibilities as needed. 
According to the Petitioner, the proffered position requires at least a bachelor's degree in computer 
science or a related field. 
3 
.
Matter of B-B- LLC 
III. ANALYSIS 
We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N 
Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Specifically, a petitioner must establish that it meets each eligibility 
requirement of the benefit sought by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. In other words , a 
petitioner must show that what it claims is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. To determine 
whether a petitioner has met its burden under the preponderance standard , we consider not only the 
quantity, but also the quality (including relevance , probative value, and credibility) of the evidence. 
Jd. at 376; Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). 
For H-1B approval , the Petitioner must demonstrate a legitimate need for an employee exists and 
substantiate that it has H-1 B caliber work for the Beneficiary for the period of employment 
requested in the petition. 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 (1) does not describe the position ' s duties with 
sufficient detail; and (2) does not establish that the job duties require an educational background , or 
its equivalent , commensurate with a specialty occupation. 3 
The Petitioner claims tffat it specializes in building mobile applications for iPhones, iPads, and 
Android devices. It initially stated that it required the services of the Beneficiary to "complement 
[the Petitioner's] growing team and aid in the company's expansion plans." In response to the RFE, 
the Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary would be working in-house at its own offices on a project 
for client In support of this assertion , the Petitioner submitted a copy of its 
Master Services Agreement with as well as a letter from the client. 
The record lacks credible evidence that, when the petition was filed, the Petitioner had secured 
work 
of any type for the Beneficiary to perform during the requested period of employment. For example , 
the Beneficiary's employment agreement submitted in response to the RFE was not executed until 
September 2016, over five months after the filing of the petition . Moreover, as noted by the 
Director, the MSA and client letter were executed in September 2016 and October 2016, five to six 
months after the petition was filed. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) regulations 
affirmatively require a petitioner to establish eligibility for the benetit it is seeking at the time the 
petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l) . A visa petition may not be approved based on 
speculation of future eligibility or after the Petitioner or Beneficiary becomes eligible under a new 
set of facts. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248, 249 (Reg'l Comm 'r 1978). A 
petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition 
conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter of Jzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 16~ , 176 (Assoc. Comm 'r 
1998). 
3 
The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 B petition, includin g e vidence regarding the proffered 
position and its busin ess operations . While we may not discuss every document submitted , we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
4 
.
Matter of B-B- LLC 
On appeal, the Petitioner acknowledges that "[t]he Service was correct in stating that the Master 
Services Agreement between · and the Petitioner] was dated in September 2016, and signed 
thereafter." Nevertheless, the Petitioner asserts that "it was made clear in the petition that this was 
not the only project to which the Beneficiary was to be assigned, and USCIS has made clear that it 
will consider the totality of the evidence in the record." The Petitioner supplements the record with, 
inter alia, its tax returns, a Mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement executed in August 2015 between the 
Petitioner and (C-L-), and the Petitioner's invoices to C-L-. 
Upon review, however, we find this evidence insufficient to demonstrate that specialty occupation 
work was available for the Beneficiary at the time of filing. The Petitioner's tax returns reflect upon 
the company's general business operations, but do not illustrate the specific work that the 
Beneficiary would perform. The non-disclosure agreement with C-L- merely outlines the 
procedures for the management and treatment of confidential information, and does not identify any 
specific project or assignment for which the Beneficiary's services would be required. The invoices 
do not establish the nature of the claimed work available for the Beneficiary, either; they merely 
represent past services provided to a client by other employees of the Petitioner. While the invoices 
establish that the Petitioner and C-L- previously had a relationship where the Petitioner provided 
computer-related services, these invoices are not specific to the Beneficiary and do not establish that 
specific project(s) or assignment(s) were available for him at the time of filing, and what those 
project(s) or assignment(s) would entail. 
Moreover, although the Petitioner designates the position as a senior software engineer, and 
repeatedly asserts that Beneficiary's job duties are "highly technical" and "complex in nature," we 
recall the Petitioner's designation of the proffered position as a Level II position, which suggests that 
the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to perform "moderately complex tasks that require limited 
judgment." 4 The Petitioner must resolve this inconsistency in the record with independent, objective 
evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
It appears that the Beneficiary's work would be dictated by the needs of various end-clients who 
require various levels of software development services. Specifically, it appears that the Petitioner's 
clients are seeking custom application development, which the Beneficiary and other employees of 
the Petitioner would perform pursuant to each individual client's specifications. Although the 
Petitioner provided a lengthy list of duties the Beneficiary would perform, its overview of the 
Beneficiary's responsibilities, the duties are presented in abstract and generalized terms such as 
"analyze user needs," "research new technologies," and "use appropriate solutions to build customs 
software solutions" that do not communicate what the Beneficiary would do on day-to-day basis or 
what bodies of knowledge are required to perform these duties. Given that the duties of the position 
appear to be client-driven, absent evidence of the existence of a specific project or assignment, and 
4 U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin. 1 Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. 
Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _ 
Guidance_ Revised _II_ 2009.pdf Again, a Level II wage is the second-lowest of four assignable wage levels. 
5 
Matter of B-B- LLC 
the requirements of such a project or assignment, we are unable to determine the true nature of the 
Beneficiary's duties and the skills required to perform them. 
As recognized in Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-8, it is necessary for the end-client to provide sufficient 
information regarding the proposed job duties to be performed at its locati9n in order to properly 
ascertain the minimum educational requirements necessary to perform those duties. In other words, 
as the nurses in that case would provide services to the end-client hospitals and not to the petitioning 
staffing company, the Petitioner-provided job duties and alleged requirements to perform those 
duties were irrelevant to a specialty occupation determination. See id. 
The Petitioner has provided insufficient evidence to corroborate the existence of any project for the 
Beneficiary, and likewise has provided insufficient evidence of the substantive nature of the 
particular duties that such projects would require. 5 
That the Petitioner did not establish the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the 
Beneficiary precludes a finding that the proffered position is a specialty occupation under 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;6 (3) the level of complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position, which is the focus of the 
5 The agency made clear long ago that speculative employment is not permitted in the H-1 B program. For example, a 
1998 proposed rule documented this position as follows: 
Historically, the Service has not granted H-1 B classification on the basis of speculative, or 
undetermined, prospective employment. The H-1 B classification is not intended as a vehicle for an 
alien to engage in a job search within the United States, or for employers to bring in temporary foreign 
workers to meet possible workforce needs arising from potential business expansions or the 
expectation of potential new customers or contracts. To determine whether an alien is properly 
classifiable as an H-1 B nonimmigrant under the statute, the Service must first examine the duties of the 
position to be occupied to ascertain whether the duties of the position require the attainment of a 
specific bachelor's degree. See section 214(i) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act (the ''Act"). The 
Service must then determine whether the alien has the appropriate degree for the occupation. In the 
case of speculative employment, the Service is unable to perform either part of this two-prong analysis 
and, therefore, is unable to adjudicate properly a request for H-1 B classification. Moreover, there is no 
assurance that the alien will engage in a specialty occupation upon arrival in this country. 
Petitioning Requirements for the H Nonimmigrant Classification, 63 Fed. Reg. 30,419, 30,419-20 (proposed June 4, 
1998) (to be codified at 8 C.F.R. pt. 214). While a petitioner is certainly permitted to change its intent with regard to 
non-speculative employment, e.g., a change in duties or job location, it must nonetheless document such a material 
change jn intent through an amended or new petition in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(E). 
6 The Beneficiary provided evidence that might ordinarily be relevant to various criteria of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). 
For instance, the Petitioner provided vacancy announcements placed by other companies for software engineers and 
software developers. These might ordinarily be relevant to the first prong of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). In this case, however, because the Petitioner has not demonstrated the substantive nature of the 
duties the Beneficiary would perform, it has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary would work as a software engineer or 
Matter of B-B- LLC 
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. 
For the reasons related in the preceding discussion, the Petitioner has not established that it has 
satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) and, therefore, that the proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
IV. BENEFICIARY'S QUALIFICATIONS 
As· discussed in this decision, the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence regarding the 
proffered position to determine whether it will require a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent. Absent this determination that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty or its equivalent is required to perform the duties of the proffered position, it also 
cannot be determined whether the Beneficiary possesses that degree or its equivalent. Therefore, we 
need not and will not address the Beneficiary's qualifications further, except to note that, in any 
event, 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 that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of B-B- LLC, ID# 467345 (AAO Aug. 22, 20 17) 
a software developer, and that those vacancy announcements are relevant.