dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Science

MATTER OF 0-, INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 21,2016 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a consulting service, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "senior computer 
network specialist" under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 110l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-1B program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified 
foreign worker in a position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body 
of highly specialized knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the 
specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner had not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the evidence of record satisfies all evidentiary requirements. 
· Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l'l84(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
Matter of 0-, Inc. 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that 
knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has consistently 
interpreted the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any 
baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed 
position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Cherto_ff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree 
requirement in a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a 
particular position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
In the H-1 B petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a "senior computer 
network specialist." The Petitioner provided the following description of the duties of the proffered 
position: 
The [Beneficiary] will provide network and systems architecture inputs for proposals 
by: 
• / Developing architectural blueprints and deploying work plans based 
on Cloud service models; and 
• Providing expertise in Amazon Web Services- (A WS-) based deployments, 
including moving hosted applications to the Cloud. 
The [Beneficiary] will also provide expertise in the development of security practices 
for networked information systems, by: 
• Providing expertise in IT risk-management-policy development, risk­
assessment, and compliance reporting, and 
• Implementing Identity & Access Management (lAM) using Cloud-based 
infrastructure. 
2 
Matter of 0-, Inc. 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualities as a specialty occupation.
1 
Specifically, the record (1) does not describe the position's duties with sufficient detail; and (2) does 
not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate 
with a specialty occupation. 2 
A. First Criterion 
We turn first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which requires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a .specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. To inform this inquiry, we recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's 
(DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses.3 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupationaJ category "Computer Network Support 
Specialists" corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 15-1152. The Petitioner 
also indicated that the proffered position is a wage Level IV position. 
In the chapter entitled "Computer Support Specialists," which includes computer network support 
specialist positions, the Handbook states the following about the educational requirements of such 
positions: 
Education requirements for computer support specialists vary. Computer user support 
specialist jobs require some computer knowledge, but not necessarily a postsecondary 
degree. Applicants who have taken some computer-related classes are often 
qualified. For computer network support specialists, many employers accept 
applicants with an associate's degree, although some prefer applicants to have a 
bachelor's degree. 
1 
Although so'!le aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
2 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. 
3 All of our references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not, however, maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant 
information. That is, the occupational category designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the 
general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered position, and USCIS regularly reviews the Handbook on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupqtions that it addresses. To satisfy the first criterion, however, the 
burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position 
would normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
3 
Matter of 0-. Inc. 
Large software companies that provide support to business users who buy their 
products or services often require a bachelor's degree.' Positions that are more 
technical are likely to require a degree in a field such as computer science, 
engineering, or information science, but for others, the applicant's field of study is 
less important. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., 
"Computer Support Specialists," https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information­
technology/computer-support-specialists.htm#tab-4 (last visited Dec. 19, 2016). 
The Petitioner correctly observed that the Handbook discusses both computer user support 
specialists and computer network support specialist in that chapter, and asserts that the proffered 
position is a computer network support specialist position. The Petitioner stated that computer 
network support specialists "commonly require[] a bachelor's degree in a computer-related field for 
entry into the field." Therefore, we will concentrate our analysis on computer network support 
specialist positions. 
The Handbook indicates that entry into a computer network support specialist position does not 
necessarily require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent, stating 
that many employers accept applicants with associate's degrees for those positions. 
Further, the Handbook states that some employers only prefer applicant's with a bachelor"s degree. 
It further states that more technical positions are likely to require a bachelor's degree in a field such 
as computer science, engineering, or information science, and that for other employers the field of 
study is less important. Thus, the Handbook indicates that a range of degrees may qualify one for a 
computer network support specialist position, including those less than a bachelor's degree and 
degrees that are not in a specific specialty. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Petitioner to 
demonstrate that the position proffered in the instant case does require such a specialized degree. 
In a letter submitted in response to a request for evidence (RFE), issued in this matter, the Petitioner 
stated: 
There will always be some exceptions in every field where individuals are able to 
enter and may become successful despite having the minimum or less than the 
minimum education. That should not mean that these exceptions are indicative of the 
actual education or experience required to enter a profession. 
The Petitioner's assertion is well taken. Limited exceptions may exist to a normal minimum entry 
requirement. However, the Petitioner is required to demonstrate that the normal minimum entry 
requirement of the proffered position is a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or 
its equivalent. Here, the Petitioner has not done so. 
4 
Matter of 0-, Inc. 
For example, in support of the petition, the Petitioner cited to the Department of Labor's O*NET 
Internet site, which categorizes Computer Network Support Specialists in Job Zone Four, O*NET 
Job Zone Four does not state a requirement for a bachelor's degree. Rather, the inclusion of the 
proffered position in Job Zone Four groups it among occupations of which "most," but not all, 
"require a four-year bachelor's degree." 4 Further, O*NET does not indicate that a four-year 
bachelor's degree that may be required by Job Zone Four occupations must be in a specific specialty 
directly related to the occupation. Therefore, the submitted O*NET information is not probative of 
the proffered position being a specialty occupation. 
Further, we find that, to the extent that they are described in the record of proceedings, the duties 
that the Petitioner ascribes to the proffered position indicate a need for a range of knowledge in the 
information technology field, but they do not establish any particular level of formal, postsecondary 
education leading to a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty. The overall 
responsibilities for the proffered position contain generalized functions without providing sufficient 
information regarding the particular work, and associated educational requirements, into which the 
duties would manifest themselves in their day-to-day performance within the Petitioner's business 
operations. 
Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.P.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.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong 
focuses on the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows the analysis 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. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by USCIS 
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 Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 115I. I I 65 (D. Minn. 1999) 
(quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
4 For an explanation of Job Zones, see http://www.onetonline.org/help/online/zones. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of 0-, Inc. 
As already discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its protiered position is one for which the 
Handbook (or other independent, authoritative source) reports an industry-wide 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. Also, the Petitioner has not submitted evidence indicating that the 
industry's professional association has made a specific bachelor's degree a minimum entry 
requirement. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not submit any letters or affidavits from similar firms 
or individuals in the Petitioner's industry attesting that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only 
degreed individuals." 
The Petitioner did provide vacancy announcements placed by other companies in an efiort to satisfy 
this criterion. Those vacancy announcements are for positions entitled Network Operations 
Specialist/Migrations Network Specialist, Network Specialist, Network Operations Specialist, 
Networks Support Specialist, Jr. Network and Systems Administrator/IT Specialist, among others. 
One of the vacancy announcements provided was placed by a plastics company. Another was placed 
by a staffing company. One was placed by the and another by the 
Yet another was placed by a health insurance services company. None of the companies 
that placed the vacancy announcements provided have been shown to be in the Petitioner's industry 
and some clearly are not. Because the vacancy announcements provided have not been shown to 
have been placed by companies in the Petitioner's industry that are otherwise similar to the 
Petitioner, they have not been shown to be directly relevant to the criterion of the first prong of 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
Some of the vacancy announcements provided do not contain any reference to an educational 
requirement. They do not state a requirement of a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent. 
Some of the vacancy announcements provided indicate that the minimum acceptable education for 
the positions they announce is a high school diploma or GED. Clearly, they do not require a 
minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
Some of the announcements state that an associate's degree, or a two-year degree, would be a 
sufficient qualification for the positions they announce. 
Some of the announcements state that a bachelor's degree is preferred for the positions they 
announce. Clearly, those vacancy announcements do not reflect a requirement of a minimum of a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
Likewise, another announcement indicates that a degree in "Business" would be a sufficient 
educational preparation. A degree with a generalized title, such as business administration, without 
further specification, is not a degree in a specific specialty. C.f Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 
I&N Dec. 558 (Comm'r 1988). As such, that vacancy announcement does not contain a requirement 
of a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
6 
Matter of 0-, Inc. 
Some of the announcements state a requirement of a bachelor's degree, but do not indicate that the 
degree must be in a specific specialty. They do not appear to require a minimum of a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
One vacancy announcement states a requirement of a bachelor's degree in "a technical discipline." 
Whether that announcement states a requirement of a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent is unclear. 
Some announcements state that the otherwise reqmsite bachelor's degree may be waived if the 
applicant has "equivalent experience," but do not indicate what type or amount of experience the 
hiring authority would consider to be equivalent to the requisite bachelor's degree. Whether those 
vacancy announcements require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its 
equivalent within the meaning of the salient statutes is unclear. See generally, 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5). 5 Those vacancy announcements do not necessarily indicate a requirement 
of a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
Finally, even if all of the vacancy announcements provided advertised parallel positions with 
organizations similar to the Petitioner and in the Petitioner's industry and stated a requirement for a 
minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent, we would still find that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated what statistically valid inferences, if any, could be drawn from those 
an~ouncements with regard to the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions 
in similar organizations. 6 
The evidence of record does not establish that a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to parallel positions with organizations that are in the 
Petitioner's industry and otherwise similar to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has not, therefore, 
satisfied the crjterion ofthe first alternative prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
I 
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 
5 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(D)(5) requires, for instance, that for employment experience to be deemed 
equivalent to a bachelor's degree, three years of experience may be substituted for each year of education lacked. The 
regulations also contain requirements pertinent to the quality of that experience. 
6 USCIS "must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true." Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). As just discussed, the Petitioner has not established the relevance ofthe 
job advertisements submitted to the position proffered in this case. Even if their relevance had been established. the 
Petitioner still would not have demonstrated what inferences, if any, can be drawn from these few job postings with 
regard to determining the common educational .requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations in 
the same industry. See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 ( 1995). 
Matter of 0-, Inc. 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
A review of the record of proceedings indicates that the Petitioner has not credibly demonstrated that 
the duties the Beneficiary will be responsible for or perform on a day~to-day basis constitute a 
position so complex or unique that it can only be performed by a person with at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Even when considering the Petitioner's general 
descriptions of the proffered position's duties, the evidence of record does not establish why a few 
related courses or industry experience alone is insufficient preparation for the proffered position. 
While a few related courses may be beneficial, or even required, 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. The description of the duties does not specifically identify any 
tasks that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. 
The record lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish the proffered position as more 
complex or unique from other positions that can be performed by persons without at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
Therefore, the evidence of record does not establish that this position is significantly different from 
other positions in the occupation such that it refutes the Handbook's information to the effect that 
there is a spectrum of educational qualifications acceptable for such positions, including degrees less 
than a bachelor's degree and degrees that are not in a specific specialty. In other words, the record 
lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish the proffered position as unique from or more 
complex than positions that can be performed by persons without at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
The Petitioner 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 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 Petitioner has not expressly asserted eligibility nor submitted evidence under this criterion. 
Further, the Petitioner stated, on the H-lB petition, that it was established in 2014 and has one 
employee. We observe that the proffered position may be a new position, that is, this may be the 
first time the Petitioner has attempted to hire a computer network support specialist. While a 
8 
Matter of 0-, Inc. 
first-time hiring for a position is certainly not a basis for precluding a position from recognition as a 
specialty occupation, it is unclear how an employer that has never recruited and hired for the 
position would be able to satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3), which requires a 
demonstration that it normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its 
equivalent for the position. We cannot conclude that the Petitioner has satisfied the third criterion of 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 7 
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 duties of the proffered position, such as "Developing architectural blueprints and deploying 
work plans based on Cloud service models," "Providing expertise in [A WS-based] deployments," 
"moving hosted applications to the Cloud," "Providing expertise in IT risk-management," and 
"Implementing [lAM] using Cloud-based infrastructure," contain insufficient indication of a nature 
so specialized and complex that they require knowledge us"ually associated with attainment of a 
minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its-equivalent. 
In other words, the proposed duties have not been described with sufficient specificity to show that 
they are more specialized and complex than computer· network support specialist positions that are 
not usually associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
Overall, the evidence of record is inadequate to establish that the duties of the position are so 
specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with 
the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. For the 
reasons discussed above, the evidence of record does not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
7 While a petitioner may believe or otherwise assert that a proffered position requires a degree in a specific specialty, 
that opinion alone without corroborating evidence cannot establish the position as a specialty occupation. Were USCIS 
limited solely to reviewing a petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, then any individual with a bachelor's 
degree could be brought to the United States to perform any occupation as long as the employer artificially created a 
token degree requirement, whereby all individuals employed in a particular position possessed a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in the specific specialty or its equivalent. See Df!jensor v. Meissner, 20 I F. 3d at 387. In other words, if a 
petitioner's degree requirement is only symbolic and the proffered position does not in fact require such a specialty 
degree or its equivalent to perform its duties, the occupation would not meet the statutory or regulatory definition of a 
specialty occupation. See section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(ii) (defining the term "specialty 
occupation"). 
9 
Matter of 0-, Inc. 
IV. 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 burden is on the Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden 
has not been met. 8 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofO-, Inc., ID# 27940 (AAO Dec. 21, 2016) 
8 Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we will not address other grounds of 
ineligibility we observe in the record of proceedings. 
10