dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-S-S- INC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 27, 2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a computer firm, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "programmer 
analyst" under the H-18 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 H-18 
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 evidence of 
record does not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Director erred in the 
decision. 
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 tenl} "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a. body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
.
Matter of C-S-S- Inc 
(I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the mm1mum 
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.fj; 484 F.3d 139, 147 (lst Cir. 2007) (describing 
"a degree requirement in a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and 
responsibilities of a particular position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED 
POSITION 
In the H-lB petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a "programmer analyst."' 
The Petitioner provided an itinerary, which states that the Beneficiary will work in-house on its 
project. In response to the Director ' s 
request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided the following job duties for the position: 
• Develop enhancements and provide support for Oracle BRM systems for various 
clients around the globe. 
• Engage with clients to help gather application enhancement requirements. 
• Assist in the assurance of completeness of user requirements and design 
specitications. 
• Assist in the development of logical and physical specifications. 
• Communicate in writing and verbally technical solutions and processes. 
• Analyze, design, write technical specs, and develop software components. 
• Create and conduct unit testing to ensure quality of code. 
• Document changes and Unit Test results. 
1 On the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, the Petitioner did not provide its current number of 
employees, gross annual income, or net annual income. The Petitioner submitted an organizational chart that shows that 
it has 24 employees. However, the Petitioner's Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return, does not indicate that 
the Petitioner paid wages or salaries to employees in 2015. Further, the document shows that the Petitioner has a loss of 
$3,601. 
2 
Matter of C-S-S- Inc 
• Assist QA' and Production Support in troubleshooting technical issues and 
develop code fixes. . 
• Prepare reports, 111anuals, and other documentation on the status, operation and 
maintenance of software. 
• Research and evaluate a variety of software development approaches. 
• Write, modify, integrate and test billing system components. 
• Maintain existing BRM implementations by making necessary modifications and 
enhancements . 
. • Identify and communicate technical problems, processes and solutions. 
• Develop logical and physical specifications for enhancements and critical fixes. 
• Interact with clients to help gather requirements for enhancements and to 
investigate/resolve production issues. 
The percentage of time to be spent on each dutl 
Analyze software requirements/user problems to determine feasibility of application 
or design within time and cost constraints. Formulate and define scope and objectives 
through fact-finding to develop or modify complex software programming 
applications or information systems. Effort approx. 10% 
Consult with hardware engineers and other engineering staff to evaluate interface 
between hardware and software and operational and performance requirements of the 
overall system. Effort approx. 5% 
Formulate and design software system, using scientific analysis and mathematical 
models to predict and measure outcome and consequences of design. Includes 
preparation of functional specifications and designing of software programs. Builds 
detailed design specs., and programs for scientific, engineering, and business 
application. Design data conversion software programs. Effort approx. 25% 
Develop and direct software systems testing procedures, programming and 
documentation. Also, include testing units and computer software systems. Effort 
approx. 55% · 
Coordinate installation of software system. Effort approx. 5% 
Consult with customer concerning maintenance of software system. Effort approx. 
5% 
2 We find that these job duties are recited virtually verbatim from job postings found on the Internet for programmer 
analyst positions. 
3 
.
Matter ofC-S-S- Inc 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional job duties as it pertains to the phases of the 
project. 
III. ANALYSIS 
For the reasons set out below, we have determined that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 3 Specifically , the record does not establish 
that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a 
specialty occupation. 4 
As a preliminary matter, the Petitioner has provided inconsistent information regarding the minimum 
requirements for the proffered position. The Petitioner initially stated that the proffered position 
requires a bachelor's degree in computer science, 
science, technology, or a relevant field of 
engineering. However, in response to the RFE, the Petitioner stated that the position requires a 
bachelor's degree in electronics , computer science, or engineering. The Petitioner did not provide an 
explanation for the variances in the requirements . 
Moreover, the Petitioner's claim that a bachelor ' s degree in computer science, 
science, technology, 
electronics, or engineering is a sufficient minimum requirement for entry into the proffered position 
is inadequate to establish that' the proposed position qualifies as a specialty occupation. In general, 
provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., sales and marketing, 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 degrees in disparate fields, such as 
science 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 such that the required "body of highly 
specialized knowledge" is essentially an amalgamation of these different specialties. 5 Section 
214(i)( 1 )(B) of the Act (emphasis added). The Petitioner has not made this showing. On the basis 
3 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
4 The Petitioner submitted documentation in support of 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 While the statutory "the" and the regulatory "a" both denote a singular "specialty, " we do not so narrowly interpret 
these provisions to exclude positions from qualifying as specialty occupations if they permit, as a minimum entry 
requirement, degrees in more than one closely related specialty . See section 214(i)( I )(B) of the Act ; 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii). This also includes even seemingly disparate specialties providing , again, the evidence of record 
establishes how each acceptable, specific field of study is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
particular position. 
4 
Matter of C-S-S- Inc 
of the proffered position's educational requirement alone, we cannot find that the protTered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
A. First Criterion 
We now tum to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J), 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.6 
On the labor condition application (LCA) 7 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 code 15-1131.8 Thus, we reviewed the 
Handbook's subchapter entitled "How to Become a Computer Programmer," which states, in 
pertinent part, that "some employers hire workers with an associate's degree." Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Computer Programmers (2016-17 
ed.). The Handbook does not support the Petitioner's assertion that a bachelor's degree is required 
for entry into this occupation. 
In the instant matter, the Petitioner has not provided documentation from a probative source to 
substantiate its assertion regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. 
Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J). 
6 All of our references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed in print or 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 establishingthe 
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. 
7 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B worker the higher of either 
the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the "area of employment" or the actual wage paid by the 
employer to other employees with similar experience and qualifications who are performing the same services. See 
Matter ofSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 545-546 (AAO 20 15). 
8 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: (I) 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. 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. 
5 
Matter of C-S-S- Inc 
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 
casts its gaze upon the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy the 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. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors we often consider 
include: 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 .%anti. Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 
1999)(quotingHird/BlakerCorp. v. Sava, 712F. Supp.1095, 1102(S.D.N.Y.1989)). 
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. 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner provided letters from two companies. 9 We reviewed the 
letters in their entirety. However, contrary to the purpose for which the letters were submitted, they 
are not persuasive in establishing the proffered position as a specialty occupation position under any 
ofthe criteria at§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
The letters do not establish that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, 
is required for the positions. For instance, the letters indicate that a degree in a wide variety of 
disciplines is acceptable. 10 Specifically, one of the letters states that "[t]he position requires at least 
9 
We observe that the wording of the letters match virtually verbatim, including grammatical and punctuation errors. 
When letters are worded the same (and include identical errors), it indicates that the words are not necessarily those of 
the authors and may cast some doubt on the letters' validity. 
10 
As previously noted, since there must be a close correlation between the required "body of highly specialized 
knowledge" and the position, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in disparate fields would not meet the statutory 
requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty," unless the petitioner establishes how each field is directly 
related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position such that the required "body of highly specialized 
knowledge" is essentially an amalgamation of these different specialties. Section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act (emphasis 
Matter of C-S-S- Inc 
a Bachelor's degree in Science, Computer Science, Technology, Engineering, or related field." The 
other letter states that "[t]he position requires at least a Bachelor's degree in Business 
Administration, Computer Science, Engineering or related field." 11 
Furthermore, the letters lack information regarding the specific job duties· and day-to-day 
responsibilities for the position claimed to require a bachelor's degree. There is no information 
regarding the complexity of the job duties, supervisory duties (if any), independent judgment 
required or the amount of supervision received. Accordingly, there is insufficient information 
regarding the duties and responsibilities of the organizations' positions to determine whether the 
positions are the same or parallel to the proffered position. Moreover, we observe that the 
companies did not provide sufficient documentary evidence to corroborate that they currently or in 
the past employed individuals in parallel positions to the proffered position, nor did they provide 
adequate documentation to substantiate the claimed academic requirements. 12 The companies did 
not submit sufficient probative evidence of their recruitment and hiring practices. 
The Petitioner also submitted copies of newspaper job advertisements 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 find that most of the advertisements are illegible. 
Consequently, the positions and/or the information regarding the requirements for the positions 
cannot be ascertained. Furthermore, the four postings that are legible do not provide any 
information regarding the hiring employers. The Petitioner did not supplement the record of 
proceedings to establish that these advertising organizations are similar to the Petitioner. 
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 stafting 
(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. 
Moreover, some of the legible advertisements do not appear to be for parallel positions. For 
example, some of the positions appear to be for more senior, experienced employment than the 
proffered position. Therefore, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the primary duties 
and responsibilities of the advertised positions are parallel to the proffered position. 
added). 
11 
Furthermore, although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business administration, 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, 484 F.3d at 147. . 
12 
We note that one ofthe companies provided the foreign academic credentials of an individual; however, the company 
did not provide an academic credential evaluation to establish that the foreign degrees are equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty. 
Matter ofC-S-S- Inc 
In addition, some of the legible postings do not indicate that at least a bachelor's degree in a directly 
related specific specialty (or its equivalent) is required. 13 These job postings suggest, at best, that 
although a bachelor's degree is sometimes required for programmer analyst positions, a bachelor's 
degree in a spec~fic specialty (or its equivalent) is not. 14 
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. 15 That is, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. 
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. 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. 
We reviewed the Petitioner's statements regarding the proffered position; however, the Petitioner 
does not assert that it satisfies this prong of the second criterion. Further, the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently developed relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the proffered position. 
Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
13 
As discussed, the degree requirement set by the statutory and regulatory framework of the H-1 B program is not just a 
bachelor's or higher degree, but a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the duties of the 
position. See section 214(i)(l )(b) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(ii). 
14 It must be noted that even if all of the job postings indicated 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 o(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"). 
15 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 .. 
Matter of C-S-S- Inc 
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. 
The record must establish that a petitioner's stated degree requirement is not a matter of preference 
for high-caliber candidates but is necessitated instead by performance requirements of the position. 
See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d at 387-88. Were we limited solely to reviewing a petitioner's 
claimed self-imposed requirements, an organization could bring any individual with a bachelor's 
degree to the United States to perform any occupation as long as the petitioning entity created a 
token degree requirement. I d. 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. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner provided an internal job posting for the position of 
programmer analyst that was posted just before the instant petition was filed. The Petitioner did not 
provide further information or evidence regarding its recruiting history for the position. Without 
more, the submission of one internal posting is not persuasive in establishing that the Petitioner 
normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the 
position. Therefore, it has not satisfied the third criterion of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
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 claims that its position satisfies this criterion; however, relative specialization and 
complexity have not been sufficiently developed by the Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered 
position. That is, the proposed duties have not been described with sufficient specificity to establish 
that they are more specialized and complex than other positions in the occupational category that are 
not usually associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. We 
also reiterate our earlier comments and findings regarding the implications of the position's wage 
level designation on the LCA. '--' 
Thus, the Petitioner has not demonstrated in the record 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). 
9 
Matter of C-S-S- Inc 
IV. CONCLUSION 
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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofC-S-S-lnc, ID# 589414 (AAO July 27, 2017) 
10