dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Science

MATTER OF C-T -, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 12, 2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petiti~mer, a computer company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "systems 
analyst" under the H-1B 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-1B 
program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a position that 
requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge 
and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as 
a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant 
Worker, concluding that the record did not establish that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation. On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that it has 
demonstrated eligibility. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
) I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a 
non-exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the offered 
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; 
Matter of C-T-, Inc. 
(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"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
In the petition, the Petitioner noted that the Beneficiary will serve as a "systems analyst" 1 and stated: 
Specifically, as a Systems Analyst, the beneficiary will analyze computer and 
business problems of existing and proposed systems and initiate and enable specific 
technologies that will maximize our company's ability to deliver more efficient and 
effective technological and computer-related solutions to our business clients. The 
beneficiary will gather information from users to define the exact nature of system 
problems and then design a system of computer programs and procedures to resolve 
these problems. As a Systems Analyst, the beneficiary will plan and develop new 
computer systems and devise ways to apply the IT industry's already-existing 
technological resources to additional operations that will streamline our clients' 
business processes. This process of developing new computer systems will include 
the design or addition of hardware or software applications that will better harness the 
power and usefulness of our clients' computer systems. In this position, the 
beneficiary will employ a combination of techniques, including: structured analysis, 
data modeling, information engineering, mathematical model building, sampling, and 
cost accounting to plan systems and procedures to resolve computer problems. As 
part of the duties of a Systems Analyst, the beneficiary will also analyze subject 
matter operations to be automated; specify the number and type of records, files, and 
documents to be used, and format the output to meet user's needs. As a Systems 
Analyst, the beneficiary is also required to develop complete specifications and 
1 
The Petitioner repeatedly stated that the Beneficiary will be employed on an in-house project. We hereby withdrawal 
the Director's statements indicating that the Beneficiary will be employed off-site. 
2 
Matter of C-T-, Inc. 
structure charts that will enable computer users to prepare required programs. Most 
importantly, once the systems have been instituted, the beneficiary will coordinate 
tests of the systems, participate in trial runs of new and revised systems, and 
recommend computer equipment changes to obtain more effective operations. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner modified its job description and 
stated the Beneficiary will perform the following duties: 
• Collaboratively work in an agile environment, actively participate in daily stand­
ups sprint planning, spring demos and sprint retrospectives; 
• Perform product design, development, bug verification, release testing and 
support on applications; 
• Work on complex technical problems; 
• Work with other functional teams; 
• Mentor junior team members and share best practices. 
According to the Petitioner, the position requires a bachelor's degree (or the equivalent) in 
computers, engineering, or a related field. The Petitioner further stated that "[f]or a position at the 
level offered, it is not uncommon for the incumbent to also possess a master's degree and/or a 
number of years of experience of increasing responsibility in programming analysis or engineering." 
III. ANALYSIS 
We have reviewed the entire record of proceedings before us. For the reasons discussed below, we 
have determined that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation? Specifically, we find that the record does not establish that the job duties 
require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 3 
A. First Criterion 
We tum first 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 ana educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses.4 On the 
labor condition application (LCA)5 the Petitioner presented in support of this petition, it classified 
2 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
3 
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. 
4 
We do not, however, maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. 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/. 
5 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to USC IS 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 
3 
.
Matter of C-!-, Inc. 
the proffered position under the occupational title "Computer Systems Analysts," corresponding to 
the Standard Occupational Classification code 15-1121 at a Level I wage rate. 6 
Turning to the Handbook, we note that the subchapter entitled "How to Become a Computer 
Systems Analyst" states that "[a] bachelor's degree in a computer or information science field is 
common, although not always a requirement." 7 While the Handbook states that "[m]ost computer 
systems analysts have a bachelor's degree in a computer-related field," it further clarifies that 
"[a]lthough 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."8 The Handbook does not support the Petitioner's assertion that a bachelor's 
degree (or equivalent) in computers, engineering, or a related field is required for entry into this 
occupation. Rather, the Handbook states that those who have earned a liberal arts degree, and who 
possess an unspecified number of years of experience may be sufficient for entry into computer 
systems analyst positions. 
Additionally, the Petitioner submitted a November 2016 opinion letter from Mr. 
is from Department of Computer 
Science. He stated that a "degree in Computer Science or a very closely related discipline is a 
minimal requirement to be hired for, and to effectively perform, the relevant job duties [in the 
proffered position]." However, Mr. did not provide a probative source .for this assertion. 
Such statements that are not accompanied by supporting documentation are of limited probative 
value and are insufficient to satisfy the Petitioner's burden of proof. 
The Petitioner has not provided documentation from a probative source to substantiate the assertions 
regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. Therefore, it has not 
satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
paid by the employer to other employees with similar experience and qualifications who are performing the same 
services. See Matter of Simeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 545-546 (AAO 20 15). 
6 
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. 
7 
See the Handbook, Computer Systems Analysts (20 16-17 ed.). 
8 !d. 
4 
.
Matter of C-T-, Inc. 
B. Second Criterion 
J 
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 
concentrates on 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. USCIS 
generally considers the following factors 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." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 
1999) (quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, n 02 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
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. Also, there are no submissions from the industry's professional association indicating 
that it has made a 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 has not claimed to satisfy this criterion's requirements, and Mr. letter does 
not address industry degree requirements. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first prong of 
8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.P.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. 
Mr. opinion letter referenced the "analysis phase of a project ... , presumes the ability to 
understand business processes, and to recast them in terms of software systems components and their 
interactions." He continued by stating that the employee must have the requisite theoretical 
5 
.
Matter of C-T-, Inc. 
background to perform such work, which individuals learn in courses focused on systems analysis 
and design, business analytics, and management information systems. Mr. further stated 
the proposed employee will need to possess "significant programming experience and must 
understand the constraints involved in terms of such computational resources as space and time. 
This material is covered in a sequence of programming courses .... " Mr. also described 
the importance of knowledge relating to financial business systems and quality assurance processes. 
He closed asserting that a systems analyst position "is unquestionably a specialty position, and 
requires the services of someone with a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Information 
Systems." 
In his letter, Mr. (1) described the credentials that he asserted qualify him to opine upon the 
nature of the proffered position and why his opinion constituted an "expert credential evaluation"; 
(2) listed the duties proposed for the Beneficiary; (3) stated that the duties he lists require at least a 
bachelor's degree in computer science or a very closely related discipline; and (4) claimed that these 
qualifications are a minimal requirement to be hired for the position. We carefully evaluated Mr. 
assertions in support of the instant petition but, for the following reasons, determined his 
opinions lent little probative value. 
First, Mr. expertise, regarding current degree requirements for systems analysts, is not 
established in the record. The most recent accomplishment or activity within his curriculum vitae is 
from 2005 and does not address his suitability to determine systems analyst qualifications. The 
evidence illustrated that most of his experience has been in an academic setting. 
His opinion letter indicated he currently serves as a professor at a college, and additional evidence 
reflected that he reviews foreign academic credentials and related issues. Mr. did not provide 
further information regarding the nature of his qualifications to opine on the degree requirements for 
computer systems analysts.9 
Moreover, Mr. has not provided sufficient information to establish his expertise on the 
practices of organizations seeking to hire computer systems analysts. Without further clarification, it is 
unclear how his education, training, skills, or experience would translate to expertise regarding the 
current recruiting and hiring practices of an enterprise engaged in "software development" (as 
9 
Although some of the supporting evidence describes Mr. work in evaluating foreign academic credentials, 
this does not qualify him as a "recognized authority" on the requirements for computer systems analysts positions. First, 
an evaluation of an individual's credentials is a separate issue from determining the requirements of a position. Further, 
Mr. has not sufficiently demonstrated that he is a recognized authority as provided at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
More specifically, the term "recognized authority" means a person or organization with expertise in a particular field, 
special skills or knowledge in that field, and the expertise to render the type of opinion requested. !d. A recognized 
authority's opinion must state: (I) the writer's qualifications as an expert; (2) the writer's experience giving such 
opinions, citing specific instances where past opinions have been accepted as authoritative and by whom; (3) how the 
conclusions were reached; and ( 4) the basis for the conclusions supported by copies or citations of any research material 
used. !d. 
6 
.
Matter of C-T-, Inc. 
designated by the Petitioner in the petition) or similar organizations for computer systems analyst (or 
)parallel positions). 
Mr. states that his assessment is based upon the Petitioner's description of the company and 
the offered position. While Mr. provides a brief and general description of the Petitioner's 
business activities, he does not demonstrate an in-depth knowledge of its operations, or how the duties 
of the position would actually be performed in the context of its business enterprise. Accordingly, we 
find the record does not demonstrate that Mr. has, as claimed, provided his opinion as an 
"expert" on the current requirements for computer systems analyst positions. 
Further, Mr. opinion letter did not cite specific instances in which his past opinions have 
been accepted or recognized as authoritative on this particular issue. The record lacks evidence 
demonstrating that he has conducted research or studies pertinent to the educational requirements for 
such positions (or parallel positions) in the Petitioner's industry for similar organizations, and no 
indication of recognition by professional organizations that he is an authority on those specific 
requirements. His curriculum vitae does not reflect that he has published any recent works on the 
academic or experience requirements for computer systems analysts (or related issues). 10 ' 
Even assuming Mr. was an expert (as he claims) on the degree requirements for computer 
systems analysts, his written testimony does not substantiate his conclusions, such that we can conclude 
that the Petitioner has shouldered its burden of proof. First, Mr. · did 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. Second, Mr. 
did not discuss the duties of the proffered position in any substantive detail. To the contrary, he simply 
listed the tasks in bullet-point fashion with very little discussion. 
Finally, the record does not indicate whether Mr. was aware that, as indicated by the Level I 
wage on the LCA, the Petitioner considered the proffered position to be an entry-level computer 
systems analyst position for a beginning employee who . has only a basic understanding of the 
occupation.11 In other words, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that Mr. possessed the 
requisite information to adequately assess the nature of the position and appropriately determine parallel 
positions based upon the job duties and level of responsibilities. As such, we find that Mr. 
opinion letter lends little probative value, and thus the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative 
prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). Matter of Caron lfit'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 
1988) (The service is not required to accept or may give Jess weight to an advisory opinion when it is 
"not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable."). 
10 
Mr. states that he has authored several articles and books; however, according to his curriculum vitae his 
most recent publications were prior to 2006 and were not related to the issue here. 
11 
In general, a petitioner must distinguish its proffered position from others within the same occupation through the 
proper wage level designation to indicate factors such as the relative complexity of the job duties, the level of judgment, 
the amount and level ,of supervision, and the level of understanding required to perform the job duties. 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 
Matter of C-T-, Inc. 
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. Accordingly, the Petitioner has 
not satisfied the second alternative prong of8 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 v. Meissner, 201 F.3d at 387-88. Were USCIS limited solely to reviewing the 
Petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, any individual with a bachelor's degree could be 
brought to the United States tq perform any occupation as long as the Petitioner created a token 
degree requirement. !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. 
Throughout the proceedings, the Petitioner has not discussed how it qualifies under this criterion, nor 
has it offered evidence to apply to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). Consequently, the 
Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that it normally requires at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the proffer~d position. 
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. 
While the Petitioner provided several job descriptions and information about it business operations, the 
information does not establish that the Beneficiary's duties are more specialized and complex than 
positions that are not usually associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. We also incorporate our earlier discussion and analysis regarding the duties of the proffered 
position, and the designation of the proffered position in the LCA as a Level I position (of the lowest of 
four assignable wage-levels) relative to others within the occupational category. Without further 
evidence, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that its proffered position is one with specialized and 
' 
8 
Matter ojC-T-, Inc. 
complex duties as such a position within this occupational category would likely be classified at a 
higher-level, requiring a substantially higher prevailing wage.12 
Although the Petitioner asserts that the nature of the specific duties is specialized and complex, the 
record lacks sufficient evidence to support this claim. Thus, the Petitioner has submitted inadequate 
probative evidence to satisfy the criterion of the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)( 4). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not satisfied at least 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofC-T-, Inc., ID# 437426 (AAO June 12, 2017) 
12 For example, a Level IV (fully competent) position is designated by DOL for employees who "use advanced skills and 
diversified knowledge to solve unusual and complex problems" and requires a significantly higher wage. For additional 
information regarding wage levels as defined by DOL, 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/pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised_ll_ 2009.pdf. 
9