dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Programming

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9316741 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG . 24, 2020 
The Petitioner, a global payment processing provider, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 
under the H-1B 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-1B 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 record did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The matter is now before us 
on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate el igibi I ity 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 Christa's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(I) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(I), 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: 
(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 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. Chertoff, 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"). 
11. THE PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner is a "global payment processing provider covering six continents by connecting 
merchants and consumers via credit, debit, ATM, and alternative payment networks," and seeks to 
employ the Beneficiary as a "computer programmer." The Petitioner provided job descriptions for the 
proffered position which identified the duties and responsibilities of the Beneficiary, along with the 
approximate percentage of time the Beneficiary will spend on each duty.1 The Petitioner indicates 
that the minimum entry requirement for the proffered position is a bachelor's degree, or equivalent, in 
computer science, or a related field of study. 
Ill. ANALYSIS 
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: (1) describe the proffered position in sufficient 
detail; and (2) establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, 
commensurate with a specialty occupation. 2 
The Director concluded the evidence was insufficient to establish that the position qualified as a 
specialty occupation under at least one of the criteria in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). On appeal, the 
Petitioner asserts that the position meets criteria (1), (2), and (4) at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). It 
but does not challenge the Director's determination of ineligibility under criterion (3) at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A).3 Therefore, we will focus our discussion on whether the position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) in criterion (1), (2), and (4). 
1 For the sake of brevity, we will not quote the job descriptions; however, we have closely reviewed and considered them. 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation in support of the H-1B 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 Thus, further discussion regarding specialty occupation eligibility under criterion (3) of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) is 
unnecessary. The Petitioner has not satisfied the requirements of this criterion. 
2 
A. First Criterion 
We turn first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(1), 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-1B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Computer Programmers" 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 15-1131. 6 Thus, we reviewed the 
Handbook's subchapter entitled "How to Become a Computer Programmer," which states, in pertinent 
part, that most computer programmers have a bachelor's degree in computer science or a related 
subject. 7 According to the Handbook, some employers hire workers with an associate's degree and some 
employers hire workers who have other degrees or experience in specific programming languages.8 The 
Handbook does not specify a degree level (e.g., associate's degree) for these "other degrees." 
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. 
The Petitioner asserts that the Director has mischaracterized the Handbook to conclude that a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is not normally the minimum requirement for the proffered 
position. The Petitioner cites to Next Generation Tech., Inc. v. Johnson, 328 F. Supp. 3d 252 
(S.D.N.Y. 2017) to state that the Director's conclusion has no "rational connection" to the Handbook. 
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 variety 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 particular 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-1B 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, experience, and qualifications. Section 212(n)(1) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(a). 
6 The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level I wage (the 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 I wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which 
the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the occupation. This wage rate indicates: (1) that 
the Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that he will 
be closely supervised and his work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that he will receive specific 
instructions on required tasks and expected results. See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin. Prevailing Wage 
Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009); 
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC_Guidance_Revised_11_2009.pdf. A wage determination 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 opportunity. Id. 
7 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Computer Programmers 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-programmers.htm#tab-4 (last visited Aug. 
21, 2020). 
8 Id. 
3 
We first note that we are not bound to follow the published decision of a United States district 
court. See Matter of K-S-, 20 l&N Dec. 715, 719-20 (BIA 1993). Nevertheless, even if we considered 
the logic underlying the matter, we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. As recognized by another court, while the Handbook may 
establish the first regulatory criterion for certain professions, many occupations are not described in 
such a categorical manner.9 See lnnova Sols., Inc. v. Baran, 2019 WL 3753334, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 
8, 2019) (declining to follow Next Generation Tech., Inc.). Id. For example, "[the Handbook's] 
description for the Computer Programmer occupation does not describe the normal minimum 
educational requirements of the occupation in a categorical fashion." Id.; see also Xiaotong Liu v. 
Baran, 2018 WL 7348851 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2018). "Accordingly, [the Petitioner] could not simply 
rely on [the Handbook] profile, and instead had the burden to show that the particular position offered 
to [the Beneficiary] was among the Computer Programmer positions for which a bachelor's degree 
was normally required." See lnnova Sols., Inc. 2019 WL 3753334, at *8. 
Moreover, the court in Next Generation Tech., Inc. relied in part on a USCIS policy memorandum 
regarding "Computer Programmers" indicating generally preferential treatment toward computer 
programmers, and "especially" toward companies in that particular petitioner's industry. However, 
USCIS rescinded the policy memorandum cited by the court in Next Generation Tech. lnc.10 
Here, the Handbook does not describe the normal minimum educational requirement for the 
occupation in a categorical manner since some employers accept less than a bachelor's degree. 
Further, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position. 
The Petitioner also cited to DOL's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) summary report for 
"Computer Programmers" I isted as SOC code 15-1131 for our consideration under this criterion. Though 
relevant, the information the Petitioner submits from O*NET does not establish the Petitioner's eligibility 
under the first criterion, as it does not establish that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the 
equivalent, is normally required. 
The O*NET 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 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.11 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 
9 Such professions would include surgeons or attorneys, which indisputably require at least a bachelor's degree for entry 
into the occupation. 
10 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0142, Rescission of the December 22, 2000 "Guidance memo on HlB 
computer related positions" (Mar. 31, 2017), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/nativedocuments/PM-6002-
0142-H-1BComputerRelatedPositionsRecission.pdf. 
11 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. 
4 
specify the particular type of degree, if any, that a position would require.12 The O*NET summary 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." 
However, 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 summary report does not indicate 
that the "education level" for the respondents must be in a specific specialty.13 Thus, the Petitioner's 
reliance on the 88% of "respondents" claiming to hold at least a bachelor's degree as a demonstration 
that a bachelor's degree is the normal requirement for the occupation is misguided. A requirement for 
a bachelor's degree alone is not sufficient. Instead, 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., 484 F.3d at 147 (describing "a degree requirement in a 
specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular 
position"). O*NET, therefore, also 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. 
The record lacks sufficient probative evidence to support a conclusion that the proffered position is one 
for which a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the 
minimum requirement for entry. For the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner has not met its burden to 
establish that the particular position offered in this matter requires a bachelor's or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, directly related to its duties in order to perform those tasks. Thus, the 
Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(1). 
B. First Prong of the Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs. To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion 
of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), 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. 
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 industry's 
professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether letters or 
affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry establish 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)). 
12 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/help/ 
online/svp. 
13 Nor is it apparent whether these credentials were prerequisites to these individuals' hiring. 
5 
As noted, the Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is a common 
requirement within the industry for parallel positions among similar organizations. Thus, we 
incorporate by reference the previous discussion on the matter.14 Also, the Petitioner did not submit 
evidence from an industry professional association or from firms or individuals in the industry 
indicating such a degree is a minimum requirement for entry into the position. Furthermore, 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." 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner provided copies of job announcements placed by other 
employers. However, upon review of the documents, we find that the Petitioner's reliance on the job 
announcements is misplaced. First, we note that some of the job postings do not appear to involve 
organizations similar to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has provided material that suggests it is engaged 
in the processing of electronic payments between and amongst consumers and merchants, employs 30 
people, with gross receipts of $15.27 million. The brief synopses about the employers who posted 
these job announcements, suggests that one of the companies operates an e-commerce platform and 
provides other digital services, another is a semiconductor product provider, while another 
organization offers e-learning products to its customers. The Petitioner further asserts on appeal that 
"the common thread connecting these companies" to the Petitioner's industry "is the high-tech 
software reliant nature of each of their businesses." However, the Petitioner did not supplement the 
record of proceedings with evidence sufficient to establish that these advertising organizations are 
similar to it. 
When determining whether the Petitioner and the organization share the same general characteristics, 
such factors may include information regarding the nature or type of organization, and, when pertinent, 
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 basis for such an assertion. 
Additionally, many of the advertisements do not appear to be for parallel positions. For instance, some 
postings appear to be for more senior, experienced positions than the proffered position. For example, 
A- requires a bachelor's or master's degree in computer science or a related field and 2+ years of 
specific experience, A- requires a bachelor's or master's degree in computer science or a related field 
and 8-10+ years of specific experience, while S- requires a bachelor's degree in computer science or 
information systems and 3+ years of specific experience. 
Further, another posting indicates a requirement of a master's degree in information technology or 
equivalent, 2-5 years of work experience and specific certifications and courses, such as "Tableau 
Desktop Qualified Associate, SAS Certified Statistical Analyst: Regression and Modeling, and SAS­
UTD Graduate Certificate in Data Mining & Business Intelligence." Notably, the Petitioner does not 
require prior experience and indicated that the proffered position is an entry level (Level I) position 
on the LCA.15 
14 We also incorporate our previous discussion regarding why we find O*NET unpersuasive to demonstrate the claimed 
specialty occupation nature of the position in this matter. 
15 Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, supra. 
6 
Moreover, the postings do not include sufficient information about the duties and responsibilities for 
the advertised positions. Thus, the Petitioner has not substantiated important aspects of the jobs, such 
as the positions' predominant responsibilities, complexity of the job duties, supervisory duties (if any), 
and the independent judgment required, or the amount of supervision received. Here, the Petitioner 
has not sufficiently established that the primary duties and responsibilities of the advertised positions 
are parallel to the proffered position.16 As the documentation does not establish that the Petitioner has 
met this prong of the regulations, further analysis regarding the specific information contained in each 
of the job postings is not necessary.17 That is, not every deficit of every job posting has been 
addressed. 
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)(i i i)(A)(2). 
C. Second Prong of the Second Criterion and Fourth Criterion 
The second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) 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. 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. 
To make such determinations, we must review the actual duties the Beneficiary will be expected to 
perform to ascertain whether those duties require at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, due to their complexity, uniqueness, or specialization. To accomplish this task in 
this matter, we review the duties in conjunction with the specific project(s) or work assignments to 
which the Beneficiary will be assigned. To allow otherwise, results in generic descriptions of duties 
that, while they may appear (in some instances) to comprise the duties of a specialty occupation, are 
not related to any actual services the Beneficiary is expected to provide. 
On a fundamental level, we conclude that the Petitioner has not provided sufficient material about the 
information technology projects or initiatives that will require the Beneficiary's services. When the 
petition was filed, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will be employed as a computer 
programmer, and provided a description of the duties that he would perform, but did not explain the 
16 On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that wage level I does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty 
occupation. We agree that the 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. In this case, we considered the wage level 
designation in relation to the postings in the record to conclude that the positions included in the advertisements do not 
appear to be parallel positions since they require prior experience in addition to a degree. While the wage level was a 
relevant factor, it was one of other factors we considered under this criterion including whether the record contains 
sufficient information regarding advertising employers, duties of the position, and whether the postings require at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 
17 The Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how representative the job postings are of the particular 
advertising employers' recruiting history for the type of job advertised. As the advertisements are only solicitations for 
hire, they are not evidence of the actual hiring practices of these employers. 
7 
nature of the information technology project(s) to which he would be assigned.18 The Director 
requested an explanation of how the Beneficiary's specific job duties relate to the Petitioner's 
products and services in her RFE. In response, the Petitioner has provided letters and material from 
its website to illustrate its reliance on a proprietary "technology platform" to facilitate the payment 
processing functions that are part of the Petitioner's business endeavors. For instance, the Petitioner 
submitted a letter from its CEO, who indicates that he will directly supervise the Beneficiary, and 
discussed the nature of the proffered position, as follows: 
[The proffered position] is a critical role at our company, as we are a global payment 
provider covering six continents by connecting merchants and consumers via credit debit, 
ATM and alternative payment networks. The technology needed to run these multi­
country operations involving all aspects of the secure flow of monetary funds is very 
complex. 
While the CEO's letter alludes to the "technology needed to run [the Petitioner's] multi-country 
operations," the Petitioner has not sufficiently described how the proffered position's role is "critical" to 
its business operations within the context of its information technology initiatives. For instance, the 
Petitioner emphasized throughout the proceeding that the Beneficiary wi II coordinate, I iaise or interact 
with various personnel and stakeholder groups, including: 
I Responds promptly and professionally to bug reports; 
I Conducts system analysis and development with limited support from professional staff; 
I Analyzes, designs, coordinates and supervises the development of software systems; 
I Analyzes system specifications and translates system requirements to task specifications 
for junior programmers; 
I Searches, summarizes and keeps the team abreast of strategic information from all 
sources; 
I Provides feedback to analysis/training staff about performance considerations/usability 
issues concerning software specifications and implementation; 
I Communicates with engineers and manufacturer's technical support staff regarding 
programming needs and performance, and; 
I Researches and recommends software tools to management. 
Though the Petitioner describes the job duties of the position, the evidence does not show the 
operational structure within its information technology initiatives in a manner that would establish the 
Beneficiary's role. The Director in her RFE requested organization charts that would delineate the 
Petitioner's organization, and staffing hierarchy, but the Petitioner did not sufficiently address this 
aspect.19 The Petitioner did not provide evidence of the Petitioner's staffing hierarchy, and sufficient 
information about what its information technology projects actually entail in order to establish the 
substantive nature of the Beneficiary's role as a "computer programmer" within the context of these 
18 The Petitioner also noted that the Beneficiary provided services for the Petitioner abroad relating to the implementation 
of a "payment processing system," but it did not discuss the specific projects that the Beneficiary would be assigned to 
while working at its offices in New Jersey, the employment location designated in the LCA. 
19 "Failure to submit requested evidence which precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the 
[petition]." 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14). 
8 
endeavors. For example, the record does not include sufficient information about the Petitioner's 
information technology projects, such as, the projects' objectives, the stage of the projects, the 
composition of the project teams, or the scope of work to be performed. The Petitioner has not 
submitted evidence sufficient to ascertain the level of responsibility required to perform the position's 
duties as generally described, outside of the context of any particular information technology initiative. 
Here, the record lacks evidence that adequately conveys an understanding of what the Beneficiary wi II 
be required to do, and establishes his level of responsibility within the organization generally, or within 
any information project teams, specifically. 
Moreover, we agree with the Director, who noted within her denial that the descriptions of the 
position's job duties presented in the record are generic in nature. For example, duties such as 
"[d]evelops new programs and proves the program to develop needed changes," "writes, edits, and 
debugs new computer programs for assigned projects," "provides analysis of current programs which 
includes performance, diagnosis, and troubleshooting of problem programs, and designing solutions 
to problematic programming," do not illuminate the substantive application of knowledge involved or 
any particular educational requirement associated with such duties. As a result, the Petitioner has not 
distinguished the duties of its proposed position from the duties of a general "computer programmer" 
position. 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that the Beneficiary will need "to be adept in a variety [of] 
computer software systems and platforms, including C/C++, Php, Java, Cloud Computing, Encryption, 
Secure Hashing Algorithms, API creation (RestFUL, GraphQL, XML) IS08538, [and] Mobile 
development." The Petitioner has not explained why skills using such technologies could not be 
gained through certifications in these technologies or a computer bootcamp. The Petitioner also makes 
little effort to explain how the Beneficiary will utilize these tools and technologies, and how their use 
is unique, specialized or complex, or requires a bachelor's degree in computer science or a related 
field. 
Accordingly, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown that the duties of the position are so 
specialized, unique or complex that they can be performed only by an individual with at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner has not described a position 
that requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in 
order to perform it. Upon review, the record lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish the 
proffered position as more specialized and complex or unique from other positions that can be 
performed by persons without at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that its proffered position is one with duties sufficiently 
specialized and complex or unique to satisfy the second prong of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) or the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
Upon review of the totality of the evidence submitted, the Petitioner has not established that more 
likely than not, the proffered position is a specialty occupation under any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii){A). Moreover, the record does not establish that the Petitioner satisfied the statutory 
and regulatory definitions of specialty occupation. 
9 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
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. 
10