dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Science

U.~. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF T-G-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decis;on of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 9, 2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
' 
The Petitioner, a computer consulting service, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"systems analyst" under the H -1 B 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 hi-ghly 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, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner had not demonstrated that the proffered position is a specialty occupation position. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the evidence of record is sufficient to show that the petition should be approved. 
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 proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
Matter of T-G-, 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. Chertojf, 484 F .3d 13 9, 14 7 (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. THE PROFFERED POSITION 
In a letter submitted with the H -1 B petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would serve as 
a "systems analyst" and provided the following job duties: 
Responsible for analyzing user needs and software requirements to determine the 
feasibility of design and architecture within time and cost constraints. 
Developing and leacling the implementation teams through architectural, conceptual, 
high-level designs. 
Defining the in and out criteria for each project phase. 
Contribution to the road map of the product, in the area of Composite Application 
Framework. 
Project planning, scheduling and reporting, from concept through product 
development and release. 
Developing and publishing project schedules. 
Identifying and monitoring open issues and risks and drive resolution. 
Communicating with Product Release Board on status and issues. Ensure timely 
delivery ofthe project. 
Managing the resource requirements in terms of hardware, software and people, 
ensuring optimum utilization of resources. 
Building credibility, establishing rapport, and maintaining communication with 
stakeholders at multiple levels, including those external to the organization. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter ofT-G- , Inc. 
Recruitment & Staffing. 
Retention of talent through transparency m individual performance and career 
growth. 
In that same letter, the Petitioner stated that "[t]he m1mmum educational requirement for this 
position is at least a bachelor ' s degree (or equivalent) in the occupational field of study." However , 
the Petitioner did not identify any particular major , subject , or range of majors or subjects. 
In a letter submitted in response to a request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner stated that the 
Beneficiary would work on the Petitioner's software project. The Petitioner 
also provided the following amended duty-description (note: errors in the original text have not been 
changed): 
• Conduct a study of the current application and customer specific business rules and 
practices, user requirements and logistic functional Specification analysis for the 
operating application for our Software product project (20%) 
• Report any functional gaps in existing application and .suggest business process 
improvements for ERP application for the for our product 
project (15%) 
• Design and develop consolidate ERP application for our 
Software product Project application to meet specific requirement and 
customization, documentation and implementation for our 
Software product project ( 15%) 
• Design and architect test strategy for the project, which includes, the proof of 
concept and evaluation of right tools required for conducting the testing specific for 
our 'Software product project (25%) 
• Responsible for trouble shooting and resolve issues related to the 
Software product project application (10%) 
• Prepare project documents, Software data Test planning, Test phase execution , 
certifying quality of the product and responsible for ensure ·quality of the 
customer ' s information systems and verify systems functionality and performance 
and will contribute to improve in testing strategy (15%) 
3 
Matter of T-G-, 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 qualifies 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, comrilensurate 
with a specialty occupation.2 
A. First Criterion 
We tum first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which requires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. To inform this inquiry, we recognize the U.S. Department ofLabor'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-1B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Computer Systems Analysts" 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 15-1121.4 The Handbook states the 
following about the educational requirements of computer syst~ms analyst positions: 
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 H-1 B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position and its business operations. While we will 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.gls.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 occupations 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. 
4 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 ofthe 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 she 
will be closely supervised and her work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that she 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 _11_ 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. ld 
4 
Matter of T-G-, Inc. 
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. 
Education 
Most computer systems analysts have a bachelor's degree in a computer-related field. 
Because these analysts also are heavily involved in the business side of a company, it 
may be helpful to take business courses or major in management information 
systems. 
Some employers prefer applicants who have a master's degree in business 
administration (MBA) with a concentration in information systems. For more 
technically complex jobs, a master's degree in computer science may be more' 
appropriate. 
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. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., 
"Computer Systems Analysts," http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/ 
computer-systems-analysts.htm#tab-4 (last visited Aug. 31, 20 16). 
The Handbook 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. This section of the 
narrative begins by stating that a bachelor's degree in a related field is not a requirement. The 
Handbook continues by stating that there is a wide-range of degrees that are acceptable for positions 
in this occupation, including general-purpose degrees such as business and liberal arts. While the 
Handbook indicates that a bachelor's degree in a computer or information science field is common, 
it does not report that such a degree in normally a minimum requirement for entry. 
According to the Handbook, many systems analysts have liberal arts degrees and have gained 
programming or technical expertise elsewhere. It further reports that many analysts have technical 
degrees. We observe that the Handbook does not specify a degree level (e.g., associate's degree, 
baccalaureate) for these technical degrees. Moreover, it specifically states that such a degree is not 
always a requirement. Thus, the Handbook does not support the claim that the computer systems 
analyst occupational category is one for which normally the minimum requirement for entry is a 
baccalaureate degree (or higher) in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Even if it did, the record 
lacks sufficient evidence to support a finding that the particular position proffered here, an entry­
level computer systems analyst position, would normally have such a minimum, specialty degree 
requirement or its equivalent. 
5 
Matter of T-G-, Inc. 
Further, we find that, to the extent that they are described in the record of proceedings, the numerous 
duties that the Petitioner ascribes to the proffered position indicate a need for a range of technical 
knowledge in the computer/IT field, but do not establish any particular level of formal, 
postsecondary education leading to a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty as minimally 
necessary to attain such knowledge. 
For all of the reasons explained above, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.P.R. 
I 
§ 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 
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 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 USC IS 
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 Sh~nti, 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)). 
Here and as already discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered 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, 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 de greed 
individuals." 
Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
6 
Matter of T-G-, Inc. 
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. · 
A review of the record of proceedings finds 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 would be 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. 
This is further evidenced by the LCA submitted by the Petitioner in support of the instant 
petition. As noted, the Petitioner attested on the LCA that the proper wage level for the proffered 
position would be a Level I (entry-level) wage. Such a wage level is for a position which only 
requires a basic understanding of the occupation; the performance of routine tasks that require 
limited, if any, exercise of judgment; close supervision and work closely monitored and reviewed for 
accuracy; and the receipt of specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. It is not 
indicative of a position that requires the performance of particularly complex duties. It is, instead, 
appropriate for a position whose incumbent has only basic understanding of the occupation. In order 
to attempt to show that parallel positions require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent, the Petitioner would be obliged to demonstrate that other wage Level I 
systems analyst positions, entry-level positions requiring only a basic understanding of computer 
systems analysis, require a minimup1 of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent, 
the proposition of which is not supported by the Handbook. 
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 degrees acceptable for such positions, including degrees 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. As the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate how the proffered position is so complex or unique relative to other positions within the 
7 
Matter of T-G-, Inc. 
same occupational category that do_pot require at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty 
or its equivalent for entry into the occupation in the United States, it cannot be concluded that the 
Petitioner has 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 Petitioner stated in the H-1B petition that it was established in 1998 and that it currently has 15 
employees. It did not indicate how many computer systems analysts it employs or has employed in 
the past, and it did not provide any information regarding the educational qualifications of any such 
individuals. 
'v 
While a petitioner may believe or otherwise assert that a proffered position requires a specific 
degree, 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 petitioner 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 Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d at 388. In other 
words, if a petitioner's stated degree requirement is only designed to artificially meet the standards 
for an H-1B visa and/or to underemploy an individual in a position for which he or she is 
overqualified and if 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"). 
The Petitioner has submitted insufficient evidence to show that it normally requires a minimum of a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for the proffered position, and has not, 
therefore, 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. 
In the instant case, relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by 
the Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. 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 I position (the lowest of four assignable wage-levels) relative to others within the same 
8 
Matter of T-G-, Inc. 
occupational category. 5 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). 
For all of these reasons, we find that the Petitioner has not established 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 
eql:livalent. The evidence of record does not, therefore, satisfy the fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). 
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. 6 
I 
The burden is on the Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; MatterofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden 
has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofT-G-, Inc., ID# 18000 (AAO Sept. 9, 2016) 
5 The Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position undermines its claim that the position is 
particularly complex, speciali~ed, or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation. Nevertheless, a 
Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty occupation, just as a 
Level IV wage-designation does not definitively establish such a classification. In certain occupations (e.g., doctors or 
lawyers), a Level I, entry-level 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 Rosition meets the requirements of section 214(i)(l) ofthe Act. 
6 
As this matter precludes approval of the petition, we will not address any of the additional issues we have observed on 
appeal, except to note that the current record of proceedings does not establish that the LCA corresponds to and supports 
the petition. 
9