dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Programming

MATTER OF S-S-USA, LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 22,2017 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a technology and service company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"computer programmer" under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that it has and continues to have specialty occupation work available for the Beneficiary and 
that it is the Beneficiary's employer. 
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 ofS-S-USA, LLC 
(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. 
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 3 84, 3 87 (5th Cir. 2000). 
We note that, as recognized by the court in Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88, where the work is to be 
performed for entities other than the petitioner, evidence of the client companies' job requirements is 
critical. The court held that the former Immigration and Naturalization Service had reasonably 
interpreted the statute and regulations as requiring the petitioner to produce evidence that a proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation on the basis of the requirements imposed by the entities 
using the beneficiary's services. !d. Such evidence must be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate the 
type and educational level of highly specialized knowledge in a specific discipline that is necessary 
to perform that particular work. 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner identified the proffered position as a "computer programmer'' on the H-1 B petition. 
In a statement submitted with the petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's specific duties 
included the following: 
• Involve in conceptual and logical data modeling. 
• Generate scripts from ER Win data modeler tool and create database. Give 
permissions on the database objects like Tables, Views by creating users for 
logins and create roles and attach this role to users. 
• Develop Stored procedures, Functions, and Triggers which are used by the front 
end developers. 
2 
.
Matter ofS-S- USA, LLC 
• Generate adhoc [sic] reports based on particular requirement and writing SSIS 
packages for DFE's (data fix engineering) and performance tuning of the 
queries[.] 
• Install, configure and maintenance of SQL Server. 
• Query optimization & performance tuning. 
• Create SQL objects like Tables, Stored Procedures , Views, Indexes, Triggers , 
Rules, Defaults , user defined data types and functions . 
• Interpret application-specific deployment processes. 
• Configure and maintain reports in SQL Server 2005 & 2008 SSIS (SQL Server 
Integration Services) and SSRS (Reporting Services). 
• Configure and maintain report manager and report 
Server for SSRS. 
• Design and develop matrix, tabular and parametric in the SQL Server Reporting 
Services. 
• Develop sub reports , drill down reports , and drill through reports using SSRS. 
• Perform Data Conversions , Data Extraction /Transformation /Loading (ETL) using 
DTS, SSIS. 
The Petitioner stated that the minimum requirement for this position is a U.S. baccalaureate degree 
or its equivalent in computer science, information technology, information systems, engineering or a 
closely related field. 
The Petitioner intends to place the Beneficiary at an end-client location for the duration of the 
requested employment. The Petitioner claimed that "there is only one proposed job site for the 
entire requested duration of H-1 B status," which it identified as the location of 
(end-client), located in Florida. The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would work 
solely at this end-client 's location. 
The Petitioner also submitted a letter from the end-client, which stated that the Beneficiary would 
work on a warranty management system project known as " " The end-client 
explained that is "an online web portal which will provide a platform for 
individual user group to maintain their products warranty online and all at one place." 
The Petitioner 
also submitted a copy of a master service agreement (MSA) outlining its relationship 
with the end-client , as well as a purchase order indicating that Beneficiar y was assigned to work on 
the project through October 1, 2018. 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the entire record and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that the proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. 1 Specifically , 
the Petitioner has not established that (I) it has secured definite , non-speculative specialt y 
1 
While we may not discuss every document submitted , we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 
.
Matter ofS-S-USA, LLC 
occupation work for the Beneficiary for the entire validity period requested; and (2) the job duties 
require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 
For example, the documents submitted to substantiate the Beneficiary's placement at the end-client's 
location contain inconsistencies that undermine the Petitioner's claims regarding the Beneficiary's 
assignment. Specifically, the documents do not establish that the Beneficiary will be placed at the 
end-client location for the duration of the requested validity period, which in this case is from 
October 2016 to August 2019. 
The purchase order submitted in support of the relationship between the parties indicates that the 
Beneficiary will work on the project until October 1, 2018. However, the 
completion schedule for this project, set forth in Section E of the MSA, indicates that the project's 
duration is "about 2 years," from March 2016 to mid-February 2018. There is no explanation 
provided regarding the discrepancies in dates regarding the project duration and the anticipated need 
for the Beneficiary's services. The Petitioner must resolve this discrepancy 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). 
Even if we assume that the Beneficiary will be working for the end-client as claimed, the record does 
not establish non-speculative employment for the Beneficiary. The Petitioner submitted a copy of 
the end-client's business plan, which provides a project summary and outlines the timeline for 
deployment of its online web portal as well as its marketing plan. Again, the timelines contained in 
the business plan indicate that the project will be completed by mid-February 2018, thereby raising 
questions with regard to what, if anything, the Beneficiary would be doing after that time. The 
statement of duties provided by both the Petitioner and the end-client does not include ongoing 
maintenance of the portal or the provision of client support, thereby suggesting that once the portal is 
successfully developed, the need for the Beneficiary's services will no longer exist. 
At best, if the date discrepancies in the MSA and the purchase order were resolved, the Petitioner 
could establish available work for the Beneficiary until October of 2018. The Petitioner, however, 
has requested approval of this petition to employ the Beneficiary until August of 2019, but has not 
demonstrated the existence of any additional projects or other in-house assignments that she could 
perform once her work on the project is completed. 2 
2 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 
4 
Matter of S-S-USA, LLC 
Further, the duties submitted by the Petitioner and the end-client are vague and do not convey the 
specific work to be completed by the Beneficiary. For example, the Beneficiary's duties include 
"involve in conceptual and logical data modeling," "install, configure and maintenance of SQL 
server," and "query optimization & performance tuning." The overall responsibilities for the 
proffered position contain generalized functions without providing sufficient information regarding 
the particular work, and associated educational requirements, into which the duties would manifest 
themselves in their day-to-day performance within the end-client's project 
Moreover, the Petitioner has not established that the educational requirements for the position 
qualify the position as a specialty occupation. As noted, the court in Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88, 
requires a petitioner to produce evidence that a proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation 
on the basis of the requirements imposed by the entities using a beneficiary ·s services (emphasis 
added). Here, the letter from the end-client simply states that the duties of the position require "at 
least a bachelor's degree in a relevant concentration" without specifying a specific specialty. 
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. C.'f Matter of 
Michael Hertz Assoc~., 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 finding that a particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty 
occupation. Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. 
Overall, the deficiencies and inconsistencies in the record preclude us from understanding such 
aspects as (1) the actual work that the Beneficiary will perform on a daily basis; (2) the complexity, 
uniqueness or specialization of the tasks; and (3) the correlation between that work and a need for a 
particular level of education or highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
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 in intent through an amended or new petition in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(E). 
Matter ofS-S-USA, LLC 
Taken as a whole, the record of proceedings does not contain sufficient, reliable evidence 
demonstrating the substantive nature of the proffered position and its constituent duties.3 
Accordingly, we find the record insufficient to demonstrate that the proffered position satisfies 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 entry into 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; (3) the level of complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position, which is the focus of 
the 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. 
Nevertheless, we will review the Petitioner's general description of duties and the evidence of record 
to determine whether the proffered position as described would qualify for classification as a 
specialty occupation. 4 To that end and to make our determination as to whether the employment 
described above qualifies as a specialty occupation, we turn to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
A. First Criterion 
We turn 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 recognize the U.S. Department of 
Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties 
and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 5 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-1 B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Computer Programmers" 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 15-1131.6 
3 
Further, without full disclosure, we are unable to determine whether the requisite employer-employee relationship with 
exist between the Petitioner and Beneficiary. 
4 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 B 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. 
5 All of our references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not, however, 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. To satisfy the first criterion, however, 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. 
6 The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level I wage. 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 (entry) wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary 
Matter ofS-S-USA, LLC 
The subchapter of the Handbook entitled "How to Become a Computer Programmer'' states, in 
pertinent part: "Most computer programmers have a bachelor's degree; however, some employers 
hire workers with an associate's degree. Most programmers get a degree in computer science or a 
related subject." Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 
Computer Programmers (20 16-1 7 ed. ). 
According to the Handbook, the requirements to perform the duties of the computer programmer 
occupation incorporate a wide spectrum of educational credentials, including less than a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty. For example, the Handbook states that some employers hire workers 
who have an associate's degree. Furthermore, while the Handbook's narrative indicates that most 
computer programmers obtain a degree (either a bachelor's or associate's degree) in computer 
science or a related field, the Handbook does not report that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation. 
In addition, the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) Summary Reports, referenced by the 
Petitioner, are also insufficient to establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation normally requiring at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. O*NET OnLine does not state a requirement for a bachelor's degree for this 
occupation. Rather, it assigns this occupation a Job Zone "Four" rating, which groups it among 
occupations for which "most ... require a four-year bachelor's degree, but some do not.'' O*NET 
OnLine Summary Report for "15-1131.00- Computer Programmers,'' http://www.onetonline.org/ 
link/summary/15-1131.00 (last visited June 21, 20 17); O*NET OnLine Help - Job Zones, 
http://www.onetonline.org/help/online/zones (last visited June 21, 20 17). Further, O*NET OnLine 
does not indicate that four-year bachelor's degrees required by Job Zone Four occupations must be 
in a specific specialty directly related to the occupation. Therefore, O*NET OnLine information is 
not probative of the proffered position being a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation to substantiate its assertion regarding the 
minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. 7 The Petitioner has not satisfied the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
to have a basic understanding of the occupation. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage 
Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://tlcdatacenter.com/download/ NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _II_ 2009.pdf A prevailing 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. !d. 
7 We note the Petitioner's assertions on appeal that the Director made contradictory statements regarding whether the 
occupation of computer programmer is a specialty occupation. We hereby withdraw the Director's statement that the 
position of programmer is traditionally considered a specialty occupation, as the Director does not cite to any 
authoritative or objective source to support this statement. 
Matter ofS-S-USA, LLC 
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 
concentrates upon the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
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 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 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)). 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook, or another authoritative source, reports a requirement for at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. We incorporate by reference the previous discussion on the 
matter. 
As the record does not include probative evidence that a "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, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative 
prong of8 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 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
In this matter, the evidence of record does not distinguish the proffered position as unique from or 
more complex than other computer programmer positions that can be performed by persons without 
at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
Matter ofS-S-USA, LLC 
In support of its assertion that the proffered positiOn qualifies as a specialty occupation, the 
Petitioner submitted a description of the proffered position and information regarding its business 
operations. While the Petitioner may believe that the position meets this prong of the regulations, 
we note, however, the record lacks evidence supporting the Petitioner's claim. For example, the 
Petitioner designated the proffered position as an entry-level position within the occupational 
category by selecting a Level I wage. 8 This designation, when read in combination with the 
evidence presented and the Handbook's account of the requirements for this occupation. suggests 
that the particular position is not so complex or unique that the duties can only be performed an 
individual with bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent.
9 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position, and references her 
qualifications. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education 
or experience of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative 
complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position, and it did not identify tasks that 
are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. 
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. 
Here, the Petitioner did not provide any information or evidence of other individuals employed in the 
position of computer programmer. Although it provided a resume for its IT manager, this document 
does not establish that the Petitioner normally requires a specialty-degreed individual for the 
proffered position. Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
8 The Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position undermines its claim that the position is 
particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation. Nevertheless, a 
Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty occupation, just as a 
Level IV wage-designation does not definitively establish such a classification. In certain occupations (e.g., doctors or 
lawyers), a Level I, entry-level position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent, for entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designation would not reflect that an occupation qualifies 
as a specialty occupation if that higher-level position does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. That is, a position's 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)( I) of the Act. 
9 
The evidence of record does not establish that this position is significantly different from other positions within the 
occupational category such that it refutes the Handbook's information to the effect that some courses are advantageous to 
obtaining such a position, but not specifying that the degree must be in a specific specialty. 
9 
Matter ofS-S-USA, LLC 
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 has not sufficiently developed relative specialization and complexity as an aspect of 
the proffered position. The Petitioner only provides a generic description of duties and 
responsibilities, including familiarity and experience with different technological platforms and 
applications it expects from the Beneficiary. The proposed duties have not been described with 
sufficient specificity to show that they are more specialized and complex than other computer 
programmer positions that are not usually associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. We also incorporate our earlier discussion and analysis regarding the 
duties of the proffered position, and the designation of the position in the LCA as a Level I position, 
and not as the higher Level III (referring to "special skills or knowledge'') or Level IV (referring to 
"complex or unusual problems") wage levels. 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence that the duties, as generally described, require 
more than technical proficiency in the information technology field. The Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that its proffered position is one with duties sufficiently specialized and complex to 
satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one ofthe 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 
We do not need to examine the issue of the Beneficiary's qualifications because the Petitioner has 
not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
In other words, 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 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 her 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. 
10 
Matter ofS-S-U')A, LLC 
V. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that it has non-speculative, specialty occupation work for the 
Beneficiary, or that the Beneficiary is otherwise qualified to perform the duties of a specialty 
occupation position. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofS-S-USA, LLC, ID# 298763 (AAO June 22, 2017) 
II