dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Programming

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8350691 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 27, 2020 
The Petitioner , a healthcare quality improvement business , seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "web applications programmer" under the H-lB 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)(l5)(H)(i)(b). 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
established that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred and that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation . 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 1 
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: 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
1 We apply the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in Matter of Chawathe, 25 I& N Dec. 369, 375-76 
(AAO 2010). 
(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. 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"). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
In the H-lB petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a "web applications 
programmer." 2 The Petitioner designated the position on the certified labor condition application (LCA)3 
as a Standard Occupation Classification (SOC) code 15-1121 "Computer Programmers" occupation and 
provided a list of duties that correspond generally to positions located within this occupational category. 
In order to perform the duties of the position, the Petitioner requires a "bachelor's degree in Computer & 
Information Science or equivalent." 
III. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational 
background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 4 
2 We note that the Petitioner's initial support letter also references the Beneficiary's position as an "Application Support 
Programmer." The Petitioner fails to articulate whether or not these two differently titled positions encompass the same 
or similar duties or whether the Petitioner uses the titles interchangeably and if so, why. At minimum, this raises questions 
as to whether the support letter was prepared for a different person and whether it contains accurate information regarding 
the proffered position. 
3 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to demonstrate that it will pay an H-lB 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 who are performing the same services. See Section 
212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.73l(a). 
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. 
2 
A. First Criterion 
We tum 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 DOL's Occupational 
Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements 
of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 5 
As noted above, the Petitioner designated the proffered position under the SOC code and title 15-1131, 
"Computer Programmers." The subchapter of the Handbook entitled "How to Become a Computer 
Programmer" 6 states, in relevant part: 
Most computer programmers have a bachelor's degree in computer science or a related 
subject; however, some employers hire workers with an associate's degree ... 
Most computer programmers have a bachelor's degree; however, some employers hire 
workers who have other degrees or experience in specific programming languages. 
The Handbook does not state that positions located within the computer programmer occupational 
category normally require a bachelor's degree in a specific field, or the equivalent, for entry. Instead, 
it states that the degree requirements for jobs in this occupation vary by employer, and that some 
employers will hire workers with an associate's degree. Moreover, the Handbook's statement that 
"some employers hire workers who have other degrees" undermines the Petitioner's assertion that a 
degree in a particular specialty is a normal minimum requirement for entry into the occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director has mischaracterized the Handbook and drawn 
incorrect conclusions with regard to the normal minimum requirements for entry into the occupation. 
The Petitioner cites to Next Generation Tech., Inc. v. Johnson to assert that the Director's conclusion 
concerning the "normal" minimum entry requirements for the computer programmer occupation 
ignores the statement that "[m]ost computer programmers have a bachelor's degree in computer 
science or a related field," as stated in the Handbook. 7 
In considering the logic underlying the matter, we nevertheless 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, 8 many 
5 We do not maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source ofrelevant information. That is, the occupational category 
designated by the Petitioner is considered 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 it addresses. Nevertheless, to satisfy the first criterion, the burden ofproofremains 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 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Computer Programmers, 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-programmers.htm (last visited Jan. 24, 2020). 
7 Next Generation Tech., Inc. v. Johnson, 328 F. Supp. 3d 252, 267 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) 
8 Such professions would include surgeons or attorneys, which indisputably require at least a bachelor's degree for entry 
3 
occupations are not described in such a categorical manner. 9 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." 10 In such a circumstance, "[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." 11 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. Inc. 12 
As previously stated, the Handbook does not describe the normal minimum educational requirement 
for the occupation in a categorical manner, as some employers accept less than a bachelor's degree. 
The Petitioner submits alternative evidence for our consideration under this criterion, including 
information from DOL's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) and citations to additional 
caselaw. We find these arguments unpersuasive as well. 
The Petitioner argues on appeal that since the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) report 
about "Computer Programmers" states that 88% of such workers have a bachelor's degree, the 
occupation therefore meets the requirements of this criterion. 13 However, the O*NET does not 
indicate that these workers have a degree in any particular field. 
With regard to the Specific Vocational Preparation (SVP) rating, the DOL assigns the occupation 
"Computer Programmers" an SVP 7 < 8. This indicates that the occupation requires "over 2 years up 
to and including 4 years" of training. 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 
specify the particular type of degree, if any, that a position would require. 14 In its summary report, 
DOL designates the occupation as a Job Zone Four. Similar to the SVP rating, the summary report 
does not indicate that any academic credentials for Job Zone Four occupations must be directly related 
to the duties performed. Finally, we note that the summary report provides the educational 
requirements of"respondents," but does not account for 100% of the "respondents." The respondents' 
positions within the occupation are not distinguished by career level (e.g., entry-level, mid-level, 
into the occupation. 
9 See Innova Sols., Inc. v. Baran, 2019 WL 3753334, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2019) (declining to follow Next Generation 
Tech., Inc.). 
10 Id.; See also Xiaotong Liu v. Baran, 2018 WL 7348851 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2018). 
11 See lnnova Sols., Inc. 2019 WL 3753334, at *8. 
12 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0142, Rescission of the December 22, 2000 ''Guidance memo on HJB 
computer related positions" (Mar. 31, 2017), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/nativedocuments/PM-6002-
0142-H-1 BComputerRelatedPositionsRecission.pdf. 
13 To clarify, this figure refers to responses from survey respondents, not from a comprehensively researched industry­
wide study as the Petitioner implies in its use of this information. 
14 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/help/ 
online/svp. 
4 
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. 15 
Also on appeal, the Petitioner cites to Tapis Int'! v. Immigration and Naturalization Service to assert 
that the requirement of a specialty occupation encompasses "various combinations of academic and 
experience based training." 16 We acknowledge that in Tapis, the U.S. district court found that while 
the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) was reasonable in requiring a bachelor's 
degree in a specific field, it abused its discretion by ignoring the portion of the regulations that allows 
for the equivalent of a specialized baccalaureate degree. According to the U.S. district court, INS's 
interpretation was not reasonable because then H-1B visas would only be available in fields where a 
specific degree was offered, ignoring the statutory definition allowing for "various combinations of 
academic and experience based training." 17 The court elaborated that"[ i ]n fields where no specifically 
tailored baccalaureate program exists, the only possible way to achieve something equivalent is by 
studying a related field ( or fields) and then obtaining specialized experience." 18 
We agree with the district court judge in Tap is, that in satisfying the specialty occupation requirements, 
both the Act and the regulations require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, 
and that this language indicates that the degree does not have to be a degree in a single specific 
specialty. In general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry and biochemistry, a 
minimum of a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty is recognized as satisfying the 
"degree in the specific specialty ( or its equivalent)" requirement of section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act. In 
such a case, the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" would essentially be the same. Since 
there must be a close correlation between the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" and 
the position, however, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in disparate fields, such as philosophy 
and engineering, would not meet the statutory requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty 
( or its equivalent)," unless the Petitioner establishes how each field is directly related to the duties and 
responsibilities of the particular position. 19 
Moreover, we also agree that, if the requirements to perform the duties and job responsibilities of a 
proffered position are a combination of a general bachelor's degree and experience such that the 
standards at both section 214(i)(l)(A) and (B) of the Act have been satisfied, then the proffered 
position may qualify as a specialty occupation. We do not conclude, however, that the U.S. district 
court is stating that any position can qualify as a specialty occupation based solely on the claimed 
requirements of a petitioner. 
Instead, we must examine the actual employment requirements, and, on the basis of that examination, 
determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 20 In this pursuit, the critical 
element is not the title of the position, or the fact that an employer has routinely insisted on certain 
educational standards, but whether performance of the position actually requires the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and the attainment of a baccalaureate 
15 Nor is it apparent that these individuals' credentials were hiring prerequisites. 
16 Tapis Tnt'l v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 94 F. Supp. 2d 172 (D. Mass. 2000) at 176. 
11 Id. 
18 Id. at 177. 
19 Section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). 
20 See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384 (5th Cir. 2000). 
5 
or higher degree in a specific specialty as the minimum for entry into the occupation as required by 
the Act. 
In addition, the district court judge does not state in Tapis that, simply because there is no specialty 
degree requirement for entry into a particular position in a given occupational category, we must 
recognize such a position as a specialty occupation if the beneficiary has the equivalent of a bachelor's 
degree in that field. In other words, we do not conclude that Tapis stands for either (1) that a specialty 
occupation is determined by the qualifications of a beneficiary being petitioned to perform it; or (2) 
that a position may qualify as a specialty occupation even when there is no specialty degree 
requirement, or its equivalent, for entry into a particular position in a given occupational category. 
First, we cannot determine if a particular job is a specialty occupation based on the qualifications of a 
beneficiary. A beneficiary's credentials to perform a particular job are relevant only when the job is 
first found to qualify as a specialty occupation. We are required instead to follow long-standing legal 
standards and determine first, whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, and 
second, whether the beneficiary was qualified for the position at the time the nonimmigrant visa 
petition was filed. 21 
Second, in promulgating the H-1 B regulations, the former INS made clear that the definition of the 
term "specialty occupation" could not be expanded "to include those occupations which did not require 
a bachelor's degree in the specific specialty." 22 More specifically, in responding to comments that 
"the definition of specialty occupation was too severe and would exclude certain occupations from 
classification as specialty occupations," the former INS stated that "[t]he definition of specialty 
occupation contained in the statute contains this requirement [ for a bachelor's degree in the specific 
specialty, or its equivalent]" and, therefore, "may not be amended in the final rule." 23 
In any event, with regard to both Next Generation Tech., Inc. and Tapis, we note that, in contrast to 
the broad precedential authority of the case law of a United States circuit court, we are not bound to 
follow the published decision of a United States district court in matters arising even within the same 
district. 24 Although the reasoning underlying a district judge's decision will be given due 
consideration when it is properly before us, the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of 
law. 25 
As is apparent from the foregoing discussion of the first criterion, we conclude that the Petitioner has 
not established that the proffered position requires a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, as the normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular 
position. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(]). 
21 Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 T&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988) ("The facts of a beneficiary's background 
only come at issue after it is found that the position in which the petitioner intends to employ him falls within [a specialty 
occupation]."). 
22 Temporary Alien Workers Seeking Classification Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 56 Fed. Reg. 6Ll 11, 
61,112 (Dec. 2, 1991) (to be codified at 8 C.F.R. pt. 214). 
23 Id. 
24 See Matter of K-S-, 20 l&N Dec. 715, 719-20 (BIA 1993). 
2s Id. 
6 
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 addresses the common industry 
practice, while the second prong addresses the Petitioner's specific employment practices. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy the first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" ( e.g., a requirement of a bachelor's degree or higher 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." 26 
As previously discussed, the Handbook does not establish that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty 
is a common requirement within the industry for parallel positions among similar organizations. 
Additionally, the petition does not include any submissions from the industry's professional association 
indicating that it has made a degree in a specific specialty a minimum entry requirement. 
To establish eligibility under this criterion, the Petitioner submitted multiple job advertisements in its RFE 
response and on appeal. However, the advertisements and the table summarizing them do not provide 
sufficient information to demonstrate that they are relevant. To be relevant for this criterion, the job 
listings must advertise "parallel positions" and the announcements must have been placed by 
organizations that ( 1) conduct business in the Petitioner's industry and (2) are also "similar" to the 
Petitioner. 
We first consider whether the advertising organizations conduct business in the Petitioner's industry and 
are similar to the Petitioner. When determining whether the employer posting a job listing and the 
Petitioner share the same general characteristics, factors to be considered 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. With regard to the postings submitted in response to the RFE, 
some of the postings state that the employers operate in the healthcare industry, but others contain no 
information about the industry or designate an industry different than the Petitioner's. The Petitioner also 
created a table listing the number of employees that each of the various employers has, however, even if 
all of the employers operated in the same industry, this data point alone would be insufficient to establish 
similarity. In examining the job advertisements submitted on appeal, we note that while each 
advertisement states that the employer operates in the healthcare or hospital industry, the general 
26 See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 1999) (quoting Hird/Blaker Co1p. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 
1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (considering these "factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
7 
descriptions of the employers offer no additional relevant detail that would permit us to draw any 
conclusions as to the similarity between these employers and the Petitioner. Overall, the Petitioner 
provided insufficient evidence to determine whether the employers featured in any of the postings are 
similar to the Petitioner. 
Next, we consider whether the advertised positions are "parallel" to the proffered position. When 
determining the nature of a position, USCIS considers the duties of that position, not only the job title. 
Although we note that these advertisements generally describe a computer programming position, 
some of the advertisements only provide a broad overview of the advertised position. Further, most 
of the advertisements appear to advertise more senior, 27 experienced employment than the proffered 
position. 28 Therefore, these advertisements do not establish that the positions are parallel to the 
proffered position. 
Even if we were to accept the employers as both operating in the same industry and similar to the 
Petitioner, as well as that the positions are parallel, the advertisements indicate that the employers have 
no common degree requirement. The postings provide a range of qualifications to perform the duties, 
including candidates with any type of bachelor's degree, as well as degrees in mathematics, business 
administration, business, applied sciences, and health services. Moreover, some of the employees 
accept experience in lieu of a degree in whole or in part. 
Without more, 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. 29 Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 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. 
27 For instance, most of the postings list anywhere rrom one to four years' of experience is required in addition to a 
bachelor's degree. 
28 The Petitioner has designated the proffered position as requiring a Level TT wage on the LCA. If the position requires 
additional experience beyond three years, it would necessitate a higher wage level. 
29 It must be noted that even if all of the job postings stated that a requirement of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty 
is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations (which they do not), the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from the advertisements with regard to determining 
the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. See generally Earl Babbie, 
The Practice of Social Research 186-228 (1995). Moreover, given that there is no indication that the advertisements were 
randomly selected, the validity of any such inferences could not be accurately determined even if the sampling unit were 
sufficiently large. See id. at 195-196 (explaining that "[r]andom selection is the key to [the] process [of probability 
sampling]" and that "random selection offers access to the body of probability theory, which provides the basis for 
estimates of population parameters and estimates of error"). 
8 
As explained above, the Handbook indicates that the occupation of computer programmer does not 
require a degree in a specific field for entry, instead stating that some positions require less than a 
bachelor's level of education, and that some employers accept workers with various academic 
backgrounds who have obtained programming skills elsewhere. The evidence of record is insufficient to 
establish how the proffered position is complex or unique in comparison to the rest of the occupation, as 
the coding duties listed in the petition are typical of positions located within the computer programmer 
occupation. 
It is further noted that the Petitioner designated the proffered position as a Level II position on the LCA, 
indicating that that it is a position for an employee who has a good understanding of the occupation 
but who will only perform moderately complex tasks that require limited judgment. 30 As discussed 
above, the Petitioner has not established that a typical position located within the computer 
programmer occupational category requires at least a bachelor's degree, or the equivalent, in a specific 
field. Thus, to establish that the position proffered here is one with complex or unique duties, and 
distinguishable from such positions, it would seem that such a high-level position would be classified 
at a higher wage level, requiring a significantly higher prevailing wage. The Petitioner's attestation 
of a lower level wage on the certified LCA undermines its assertion that the proffered position has a 
high level of complexity compared to others located within the occupational category and thus is a 
specialty occupation. 31 
Moreover, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary will use various software applications provided by 
Microsoft, including Visio and PowerShell, and that the Beneficiary took courses that involved SQL, 
Java, CSS, and XML, all of which are technology skills listed in the O*NET as being typical for computer 
programmers. We reviewed the screenshots of coding, report running, and folder creation which were 
submitted as work product examples, however it is not apparent from the information provided how the 
proffered position is distinguishable from other positions located within the computer programmer 
occupational category. Moreover, while the job duties do not demonstrate that the position is particularly 
complex or unique, the work product examples demonstrate that much of the Beneficiary's work is client­
and health industry-specific. 32 This appears to imply that much of the Beneficiary's knowledge and skills 
were obtained through on-the-job training, and not necessarily through a bachelor's degree program in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
The duties of the proffered position also require significant usage of third-party technologies including 
Deltek Costpoint, Salesforce, SmartSheet, Power BI, and Sharepoint. The Beneficiary's work product 
evidences this usage, examples of which include screenshots of site maintenance and customization, as 
30 See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. 
Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/ 
pdfi'NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised_ 11 _ 2009 .pdf 
31 As the proffered position is not a specialty occupation we will not fully address the additional deficiencies we have 
observed in the record of proceedings, other than to advise the Petitioner of the following. The prevailing wage for a Level 
TT "Computer Programmer" position in the designated geographic region is listed incorrectly on the LCA. Further, the 
Petitioner's employment offer letter dated March 21, 2018 and signed by the Beneficiary on March 22, 2018 references a 
yearly salary that does not meet the prevailing wage. The LCA therefore does not correspond to and support the H-1 B 
petition, which would appear to mandate this petition's denial. 
32 To the extent that client- or health industry-specific duties are construed as comprising a complex or unique position, 
we incorporate our prior discussion concerning high-level positions that appear to require a classification at a higher wage 
level. 
9 
well as correspondence on training others on the technology. What is not apparent from the record is why 
proficiency with these technologies must be obtained through coursework leading to a bachelor's degree, 
or the equivalent, in a specific field, rather than proficiency otherwise obtained, for instance, through a 
certification course in these technologies or a computer science bootcamp. The Petitioner claims that 
the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position, and references her qualifications repeatedly. 
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 any 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. Evidence 
provided in support of this criterion may include, but is not limited to, documentation regarding the 
Petitioner's past recruitment and hiring practices, as well as information regarding employees who 
previously held the position. The Petitioner has not submitted evidence to support eligibility under 
this criterion and therefore has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
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. 
As previously stated, we reviewed the duties of the proffered position in foll. The Petitioner's 
description of the proffered position includes the routine duties of positions located within the 
computer programmer occupation and do not detail the specialized and complex or unique nature of 
specific duties the Beneficiary will perform. The Petitioner describes a position that involves 
knowledge of third-party software, servers, and platforms and states that the Beneficiary will use the 
third-party technology, however, it does not develop relative specialization and complexity, or 
uniqueness as an aspect of the proffered position. 
We now tum to the position evaluation provided byl I Professor of Computer and 
Information Sciences atl IUniversity. I I lists the Petitioner's description of 
duties, rephrases the duties listed in the Handbook and the O*NET for this occupation, lists a number 
of courses that may be part of a computer science or information technology degree, and identifies 
courses that my prepare an individual to perform the duties of this position. After stating the duties, 
I . concludes that the position is specialized and requires a bachelor's degree in computer 
science or a related field. His evaluation includes little to no analysis of how he reached these 
10 
conclusions, but in place of analysis, we note the frequency with which I I labels the 
duties and the educational requirements as "highly technical," "complex," or "advanced." 
For instance, he writes that the Beneficiary will "architect and develop custom solutions to fill gaps 
between standard functionalities and business needs" which appears similar in substance to the duty 
listed in O*NET of "[p ]erform or direct revision, repair, or expansion of existing programs to increase 
operating efficiency or adapt to new requirements." I lthen declares that the duty 
requires the Beneficiary "to conduct high-performance computing" with no analysis as to why the 
duty is "high-performance" or otherwise so specialized and complex. Likewise,! I states 
that the Beneficiary's duties will involve "highly-technical processes of solution design and systems 
development," which appears similar in substance to the duties described in O*NET of "analyz[ e] user 
needs and design[] software solutions" and "[p]erform systems analysis and programming tasks to 
maintain and control the use of computer systems software as a systems programmer." I I D then declares that performance of the duty requires a degree in a "highly technical" field with a 
background in "advanced computer programming languages." However, he provides no analysis to 
support his conclusion that a duty similar in substance to a generic duty listed in O*NET is highly 
technical or why the performance of it requires such a highly technical and advanced education. 
We conclude thatl lclassifies the duties and the educational requirements with numerous 
adjectives to suggest the specialized nature of the work, rather than providing actual analysis of why 
the work is specialized. As described, the duties of the proffered position do not appear to be any 
more specialized or complex than the typical duties of all computer programmers. 
It is important to note that it appears as though I I used a template with conclusory 
findings and little or no analysis to support the Petitioner's particular position as a specialty 
occupation. The lack of cogent analysis strongly suggests thatl lwas asked to confirm 
a preconceived notion as to the required degrees, not objectively assess the proffered position and 
opine on the minimum bachelor's degree required, if any.33 While we will review the opinion 
presented, it has little probative value as it does not include specific analysis of the duties of the 
particular position that is the subject of this petition. 34 
In sum, while the evidence submitted demonstrates that the position may require that the Beneficiary 
possess some skills and technical knowledge in order to perform these duties, the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently explained how these tasks require the theoretical and practical application of a body of 
highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific 
specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation. The record does not include 
sufficient probative evidence that the duties require more than technical proficiency in the field. Thus, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated that its proffered position is one with duties sufficiently specialized 
and complex so as to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
33 Service records show that this same template with the same language, organization, and similar conclusory statements 
regarding different occupations and also without supporting analysis has been submitted on behalf of other petitioners. 
These similarities lend farther support to the suggestion that the authors of the opinions were asked to confirm preconceived 
notions. 
34 We hereby incorporate our discussion of._l ____ __.~s opinion into our discussion of the other 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) criteria. 
11 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied any of the 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. The appeal will be 
dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and alternative basis for 
the decision. 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. 
12