dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Programming

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent CIL*,~-F.-\ unw amted 
bvasion of personal privacy 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC COPY 
FILE: WAC 05 003 50601 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: AUG 0 7 2mkr 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimrnigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(l S)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1 10 1 (a)(l S)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 05 003 50601 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director denied the nonimmigrant 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. 
Information on the petition indicates that the petitioner manages retirement homes. It seeks to employ the 
beneficiary as a part-time computer programmer. The petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a 
nonimmigrant 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. § 1 10 1 (a)(l S)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition because the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. On appeal, the 
petitioner submits a brief. 
The record contains a G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative, signed by= 
of the Law Offices A review of the website for The State Bar of California, 
dated June 22. 2006. of the National .Or~anization of Bar Counsel, at 
with charges pending. Accordingly, the AAO shall treat the petitioner as self-represented and a copy of this 
decision shall not be forwarded to - 
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. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, the position must meet one of 
the following criteria: 
(I) 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. § 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. 
WAC 05 003 50601 
Page 3 
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. 
The petitioner is seeking the beneficiary's services as a part-time computer programmer. Evidence of the 
beneficiary's duties includes: the 1-129 petition; the petitioner's September 24, 2004 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: developing data formats, project qualifications, and statements 
of problems and procedures to create and modify computer programs; preparing detailed workflow charts and 
diagrams for illustration purposes; analyzing workflow chart and diagram and conferring with staff; 
converting detailed logical flow chart into language processable by the petitioner's existing and future 
computer systems; entering program codes and parameters into the computer system; inputting test data into 
the computer; conducting thorough and extensive testing to ensure proper program operation; correcting 
program errors and writing instructions; analyzing, reviewing, and rewriting existing programs; documenting 
program development and revisions; training the staff to use the programs; and directing and coordinating the 
work of the contract programmers. The petitioner indicated that the beneficiary is a qualified candidate for the 
job because she possesses a bachelor's degree in computer engineering. 
The director found that the proffered position was not a specialty occupation because the petitioner had not 
demonstrated that a bona fide position exists for the beneficiary. The director also found inconsistencies in the 
record, namely that, although the petitioner claims to manage three residential care facilities, the record 
contains only one facility license. Further, the number of employees claimed on the petitioner's organizational 
chart does not coincide with the number of employees reflected on the petitioner's DE-6 forms. 
On appeal, the petitioner cites to a court decision to state that the petitioner's size bears no rational 
relationship to the need for a professional. The petitioner also states that the petitioner operates several 
licensed residential care facilities. The petitioner states further that the petitioner's organizational chart and 
list of employees are accurate, that the organizational chart reflects the petitioner's owners, who do not 
receive paychecks at the advice from their accountant. 
Upon review of the record, the petitioner has established none of the four criteria outlined in 
8 C.F.R. !j 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. 8 214.2(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 Department of Labor's 
Occupational Outlook Handbook (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 firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." 
See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1 1 5 1, 1 165 (D. Minn. 1999)(quoting Hird/Blaker COT. v. Suva, 71 2 F. 
Supp. 1095,1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
WAC 05 003 50601 
Page 4 
The AAO routinely consults the Handbook for its information about the duties and educational requirements of 
particular occupations. The AAO does not concur with the petitioner that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation. A review of the Computer Programmers job qualifications in the Handbook, 2006-2007 edition, 
finds that there are many training paths available for computer programmers, and the associate degree is a 
widely used entry-level credential. No evidence in the Handbook indicates that a baccalaureate or higher degree, 
or its equivalent, is required for a computer programmer job. Further, although the petitioner asserts on appeal 
that the petitioner "operates several Licensed Residential Care Facilities," the record contains no evidence in 
support of this assertion. Simply going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient 
for the purpose of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sof$ci, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 
(Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). Doubt 
cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and 
sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. It is incumbent upon the 
petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence, and attempts to 
explain or reconcile such inconsistencies, absent competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth, in 
fact, lies, will not suffice. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582,591 -92 (BIA 1988). 
The record also contains an evaluation from an evaluator of the International Education Council, a company 
that specializes in evaluating academic credentials, who is also a university professor of finance. The 
evaluator asserts, in part: "[Tlhe alien's specialty occupation requires the skills and knowledge with respect to 
which colleges and universities in the United States . . . commonly offer specialized courses leading to a 
degree in the field." The opinion rendered by the evaluator is not probative. Despite his experience in 
preparing credential evaluation reports, neither his advisory opinion report nor any other evidence of record 
substantiates that he is qualified as an expert on the hiring practices and recruitment of computer 
programmers. The record does not indicate that the evaluator has adequate knowledge of the particular issue 
here. He does not address or demonstrate knowledge of the petitioner's particular business operations. He 
does not relate any personal observatiohs of those operations or of the work that the beneficiary would 
perform, nor does he state that he has reviewed any projects or work products related to the proffered 
position. CIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. 
However, where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, CIS is not 
required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791 
(Cornrn. 1988). 
The record does not include any evidence regarding parallel positions in the petitioner's industry. The record 
also does not include any evidence from firms, individuals, or professional associations regarding an industry 
standard, or documentation to support the complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position. Further, the 
record of proceeding contains no information about the proffered position that distinguishes it as unique from 
or more complex than the general occupational category of computer programmer, for which the Handbook 
does not report a normal requirement for at least a bachelor's degree, or the equivalent, in a specific specialty. 
The petitioner, therefore, has not established the criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l) or (2). 
The AAO now turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3) - the employer normally requires a 
degree or its equivalent for the position. As the petitioner does not address this issue on appeal, it will not be 
discussed further. The evidence of record does not establish this criterion. 
WAC 05 003 50601 
Page 5 
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. The proposed duties are described in exclusively generic terms that do not provide 
details of specific work that the beneficiary would perform; and, as described, those duties appear no more 
specialized and complex than those general duties which the Handbook attributes to the general occupational 
category of computer programmers, for which the Handbook does not indicate a normal requirement for or a 
usual association with at least a bachelor's degree 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 not persuasively demonstrated that the proffered position 
is a specialty occupation, or that the petitioner will employ the beneficiary in 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.