dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 5447842 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 9, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "computer systems analyst" 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)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-lB 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 . 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofSkirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&NDec. 799, 806 (AAO 
2012). Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
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: 
(]) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that 
knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We construe the term "degree" to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal 
Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in a 
specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular 
position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. ANALYSIS 
For the reasons discussed below, we have determined that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 1 Specifically, we conclude that the record does 
not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate 
with a specialty occupation. 2 
A. First Criterion 
We first tum to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(]), 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. 3 
1 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the petition, including evidence regarding the position and its business 
operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 We do not however. maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. To satisfy the first 
criterion, the Petitioner bears the burden to submit sufficient evidence to support a determination that its particular position 
will normally have at its minimum, a bachelor's degree requirement in a particular specialty, or its equivalent, for entry at 
any level - be it at the entry level (Level I), or at the fully competent level (Level TV). 
2 
The Petitioner submitted the required DOL ETA Form 9035 & 9035E, Labor Condition Application 
for Nonimmigrant Workers (LCA) with this petition, where it classified the proffered position under 
the occupational title "Computer Systems Analysts," corresponding to the Standard Occupational 
Classification code 15-1121. 4 According to the portion of the Handbook titled How to Become a 
Computer Systems Analyst, "[a] bachelor's degree in a computer or information science field is 
common, although not always a requirement. Some firms hire analysts with business or liberal arts 
degrees who have skills in information technology or computer programming." 5 The Handbook also 
states: "Although many computer systems analysts have technical degrees, such a degree is not always 
a requirement. Many analysts have liberal arts degrees and have gained programming or technical 
expertise elsewhere." 6 
The Handbook therefore does not support the assertion that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for these positions. As cited above, 
the Handbook specifically states that a bachelor's degree in a related field is "not always a 
requirement." The Handbook continues by indicating that there is a wide range of degrees that are 
acceptable for positions in this occupation, including general-purpose degrees in business and liberal 
arts. Again, we interpret the term "degree" to mean a degree in a specific specialty that directly relates 
to the proposed position. 7 
Since there must be a close correlation between the required specialized studies and the position, a 
requirement for general and wide-ranging degrees such as in business and liberal arts strongly suggests 
that computer systems analysts positions are not categorically a specialty occupation. 8 Further, while 
the Handbook indicates that computer systems analysts without a computer-related degree obtain 
related skills and experience elsewhere, it does not quantify the skills and experience needed for entry 
into this occupation by individuals without a computer-science related degree. It further reports that 
many analysts have technical degrees. However, the Handbook does not specify a degree level ( e.g., 
associate's degree, baccalaureate) for these technical degrees. 
In the absence of support from the Handbook, the Petitioner submitted a letter from._l --;=======­
a faculty member of computer and information science atl I University. In his letter, .... !---~ 
(1) describes the credentials that he asserts qualify him to opine upon the nature of the proffered 
position; (2) mentions some of the duties proposed for the Beneficiary; and (3) states that these duties 
require at least a bachelor's degree in computer science, software engineering, or a related field. We 
carefully evaluated I Is assertions in support of the instant petition but, for the following 
reasons, determined his letter is not persuasive. 
4 The Petitioner is required to submit a ce11ified LCA to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to demonstrate 
that it will pay the Beneficiary 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. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.73 l(a). 
5 Bureau of Labor Statistics, DOL, Handbook, Computer Systems Analysts, https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and­
information-technology/computer-systems-analysts.htm#tab-4 (last visited Jan. 8, 2020). 
6 Id. 
7 See Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147. 
8 See id. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 T&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). See also Altimetrik Corp. v. Cissna, 
No. 18-10116, 2018 WL 6604258, at *6 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 17, 2018) (the Handbook "makes it clear that a degree in a 
computer-related field is not required" for these positions, and therefore "USCIS [was] entitled to deference in its finding 
that systems analysts are not required to have a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty"). 
3 
In his letter,I I states that his assessment is based upon "the detailed analysis of the subject 
position, as set forth in a petition letter to the USCIS dated June 28, 2017 and a similarly detailed 
internal job description provided by the employer." While I I provides a brief: general 
description of the Petitioner's business activities, he does not demonstrate in-depth knowledge of its 
operations or how the duties of the position would actually be performed in the context of its business 
enterprise. 
Further, I Is opinion letter does not substantiate his conclusions, such that we can conclude 
that the Petitioner has met its burden of proof FirstJ I does not reference, cite, or discuss any 
studies, surveys, industry publications, authoritative publications, or other sources of empirical 
information which he may have consulted to complete his evaluation. 
In additionJ I states that he reviewed the duties of the proffered position provided by the 
Petitioner and concluded that the "broad range of project topology and the sophistication of the 
technologies utilized ... require an individual having both practical and theoretical training in software 
design, development, testing, and integration ... typically received by completing a [b ]achelor' s 
degree in Computer Science, Software Engineering, or a closely related field." However,! I 
does not reference the specifics of the particular projects or tasks upon which the Beneficiary would 
work in meaningful detail. For example, while we appreciate his brief discussion of several of the job 
duties provided by the Petitioner, that description still falls short of providing a meaningful discussion 
of what the Beneficiary would actually do in the proffered position and how those duties actually 
require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge. Nor does 
he address the Petitioner's Level II designation, which indicates that the Petitioner expects the 
Beneficiary to perform only moderately complex tasks that require limited exercise of judgment 
compared to other positions within the same occupation. 9 The omission of a discussion or 
acknowledgement of the wage designation diminishes the evidentiary value of this opinion. As a 
result, we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated thatl I possessed the requisite 
information to adequately assess the nature of the position and appropriately determine the minimum 
education necessary for entry into the particular position based upon its likely job duties and 
responsibilities. 
9 For additional information, 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://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised_ 11 _ 2009.pdf 
We note that a low wage-level designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty 
occupation, just as a high wage-level designation does not definitively establish such a classification. In certain 
occupations ( e.g., doctors or lawyers), a Level II 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 2 l 4(i)( I) of the Act. 
4 
For the reasons discussed, we conclude that the opinion letter from I I is insufficient to satisfy 
the first criterion. Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (The service is not 
required to accept or may give less weight to an advisory opinion when it is "not in accord with other 
information or is in any way questionable."). 10 
In the instant matter, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation from a probative, 
authoritative 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)(l). 
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 contemplates 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 other authoritative source, reports a requirement for at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, we incorporate by reference the previous discussion on the 
matter. 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner submitted copies of job announcements placed by other 
employers. However, upon review of the documents, we find that the Petitioner's reliance on the job 
announcements is misplaced. First, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that these organizations are 
similar. 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, 
10 We hereby incorporate our discussion of._l __ __,ts letter into our discussion of the other 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) 
criteria. 
5 
when pertinent, the particular scope of operations, as well as the level of revenue and staffing (to list 
just a few elements that may be considered). It is not sufficient for the Petitioner to claim that an 
organization is similar and conducts business in the same industry without providing a legitimate basis 
for such an assertion. For instance, the Petitioner did submit information regarding the employers' 
revenue or staffing. 11 The Petitioner did not sufficiently supplement the record of proceedings to 
establish that these advertising organizations are similar. 
Moreover, some of the advertisements do not include sufficient information about the duties and 
responsibilities for the advertised position. Thus, it is not possible to determine important aspects of 
the job, such as the day-to-day responsibilities, complexity of the job duties, supervisory duties (if 
any), degree of independent judgment required, or the amount of supervision received. Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the primary duties and responsibilities of the advertised 
positions are parallel to those of the proffered position. 
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. 12 That is, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. 13 
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. 
The Petitioner submitted a list of job duties and the percentage of time the Beneficiary would devote 
to certain tasks, along with an explanation of the Beneficiary's relevant coursework. However, the 
record does not demonstrate that the necessary knowledge for the proffered position is attained through 
11 We note that one of the advertisements indicate that the employer has over 500 employees, whereas the Petitioner is a 
38-person company. Thus, this employer does not appear to be similar to the Petitioner. 
12 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. 
13 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 adve1iisements 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"). 
6 
an established curriculum of particular courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. While a few related courses may be beneficial in performing certain duties 
of the position, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how an established curriculum of such courses 
leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to 
perform the duties of the proffered position. In fact, the duties as described by the Petitioner, which 
includes tasks such as "[ e ]nab le engagements with customers and business users to gather new product 
feature requirements or make changes to existing product features," "[ w ]rite, update, and maintain 
computer programs or software packages to handle the specific requirements of our software 
products," [ c ]orrect errors by making appropriate changes and rechecking the program to ensure that 
the desired results are produced," and "[p]rovide technical support to [the Petitioner's] clients to 
resolve product issues" do not appear to be so complex or unique from other computer systems analyst 
positions such that a degree in a specific specialty would be necessary to perform them. 
The Petitioner also claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position, and references his 
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 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. 
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, 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. Id. 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 support of this criterion, the Petitioner provided the offer letters, academic credentials and 2018 
Forms W-2, Wage and Tax Statements of its employees in computer systems analyst positions. Upon 
review of the Forms W-2, it appears that some of the individuals are paid substantially less than the 
salary offered to the Beneficiary. Thus, these individuals are not in the same or similar position to the 
one offered to the Beneficiary. The Petitioner did not provide an explanation for the variances in the 
wages. 
7 
Moreover, the Petitioner did not provide the job duties and day-to-day responsibilities of the 
employees that it claims serves in positions that are the same as the proffered position. The Petitioner 
did not provide any information regarding the complexity of the job duties, supervisory duties (if any), 
independent judgment required or the amount of supervision received. Accordingly, the Petitioner 
has not established that the duties and responsibilities of these individuals are the same as the 
Beneficiary's in the proffered position. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted its newspaper advertisements for computer systems analyst 
positions. Notably, the advertisements were posted in June 2018, which is after the Form I-129 was 
submitted. 14 Moreover, the advertisements state that the positions require a bachelor's degree in 
computer science, information systems, computer applications and "2 yrs in software coding, 
development, testing of apps & user interface design & guidelines." The advertisements are not 
consistent with the initially stated requirements for the proffered position, which was a bachelor's 
degree in computer science, software engineering, or electrical engineering, and no experience 
requirement. 
Without more, the Petitioner has not persuasively established that it normally requires at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. Therefore, the Petitioner 
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. 
Upon review, we conclude that relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently 
developed by the Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. We note the Petitioner's submission 
of a detailed overview of the proffered position. However, 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. 
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 II position relative to others within the same 
occupational category. Thus, 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). 
14 The Petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the nonimmigrant visa petition and must continue to be 
eligible for the benefit through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(1 ). A visa petition may not be approved at a future date 
after the Petitioner or Beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Michelin Tire Co1p., 17 l&N 
Dec. 248, 249 (Reg'l Comm'r 1978). 
8 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one 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. 
9