dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Science

MATTER OFT-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 10,2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a computer firm, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in the decision. Upon de novo review, we 
will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the 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.P.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 th~ proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
(I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
.
Matter ofT-
(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.P.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 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as an in-house "systems analyst." In response to 
the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner clarified that it "has agreements with 
that permit the Petitioner to develop custom software applications to clients utilizing this 
technology." In addition, the Petitioner provided the following job duties for the position: 
Integration of new planning system with legacy in-house modules. 
System integration includes master and transaction data required for planning systems 
using and with sound knowledge and 
working experience on BOM, WIP, INV & Production scheduling. 
The candidate will be involved in managing the team for developing extended 
products on and forecasting solutions. 
The candidate role will be to architect, design and integrate the systems. 
According to the Petitioner, the position requires a bachelor's degree in computer science. 
III. ANALYSIS 
For the reasons set out below, we have determined that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
proffered position qualities as a specialty occupation. 1 Specifically, the record (1) does not describe 
1 
Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually . 
. 2 
Matter ofT-
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? 
A. Position Description 
A crucial aspect of this matter is whether the Petitioner has sufficiently described the duties of the 
proffered position such that we may discern the nature of the position and whether the position 
actually requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge 
attained through at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific discipline. We find that the Petitioner 
has not done so. 
For example, the Petitioner did not provide sufficient infonnation with. regard to the order of 
importance or frequency of occurrence (e.g., regularly, periodically, or at irregular intervals) with 
which the Beneficiary will perform the functions and tasks. Thus, the record does not specify which 
tasks are major functions of the proffered position. 
Moreover, the description of the Beneficiary's duties, as provided by the Petitioner, lack the 
specificity and detail necessary to support the Petitioner's contention that the position is a specialty 
occupation. While a general description may be appropriate when defining the range of duties that 
are performed within an occupation, such generic descriptions generally cannot be relied upon by the 
Petitioner when discussing the duties attached to specific employment for H-1 B approval. In 
establishing such a position as a specialty occupation, the description of the proffered position must 
include sufficient details to substantiate that the Petitioner has H -1 B caliber work for the 
Beneficiary. Here, the job description does not communicate (1) the actual work that the 
Beneficiary would perform on a day-to-day basis; (2) the complexity, uniqueness, or specialization 
of the tasks; or (3) the correlation between that work and a need for a particular level education of 
highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. 
The Petitioner, thus, has not established the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the 
Beneficiary. We are therefore precluded from finding that the proffered position satisfies any 
criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), because it is the substantive nature of that work that 
determines (1) the normal minimum educational requirement for the particular position, which is the 
focus of criterion 1; (2) industry positions which are parallel to the proffered position and thus 
appropriate for review for a common degree requirement, under the first alternate prong of criterion 
2; (3) the level of complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position, which is the focus of the 
second alternate prong of criterion 2; (4) the factual justification for a petitioner normally requiring a 
'degree or its equivalent, when that is an issue under criterion 3; and (5) the degree of specialization 
and complexity of the specific duties, which is the focus of criterion 4. 
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 
Matter ofT-
Nevertheless, assuming, for the sake of argument, that the proffered duties as described in the record 
would in fact be the duties to be performed by the Beneficiary, we will analyze them and the 
evidence of record to determine whether the proffered position as described qualifies as a specialty 
occupation pursuant to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
B. 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)4 submitted in support of the H-1 B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Computer Systems Analysts" 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 15-1121.5 
The Handbook subchapter entitled "How to Become a Computer Systems Analyst" states, in 
pertinent part, that a bachelor's degree in a computer or information science field is not always a 
req.uirement.6 It continues by stating that some firms hire analysts with business or liberal arts 
degrees. 7 According to the Handbook, although many computer systems analysts have technical 
3 All of our references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed in print or at the Internet 
site http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not, however, maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant 
information. That is, the occupational category designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the 
general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered position, and we regularly review the Handbook on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. Nevertheless, to satisfy the first criterion, 
the burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position 
would normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
4 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B worker the higher of either 
the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the "area of employment" or the actual wage paid by the 
employer to other employees with similar experience and qualifications who are performing the same services. See 
Matter ofSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 545-546 (AAO 20 15). 
5 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 that the 
Beneficiary: (I) will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) will be 
closely supervised and the work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) 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. 
6 
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Computer Systems Analysts (20 16-
17 ed.). 
7 !d. 
4 
Matter ofT-
degrees, such a degree is not always a requirement. 8 The Handbook does not specify a degree level 
(e.g., associate's degree) for these degrees. 
In the instant matter, the Petitioner has not provided documentation from a probative source to 
substantiate its assertion regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. 
Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
C. 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. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by us 
include: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the industry's 
professional ass_ociation 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)). 
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." Nor is there any other evidence 
relevant to this prong. Thus, based upon a complete review of the record of proceedings, we find 
that the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
5 
Matter ofT-
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. 
In support of its assertion that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, the 
Petitioner described the proffered position and its business operations. When discussing H-1 B 
employment, the Petitioner's description must be comprehensive enough to properly ascertain the 
minimum educational requirements necessary to perform those duties. While a few related skills 
and techniques 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. The Petitioner's job description lacks sufficient details establishing, for instance, the 
complexity or uniqueness of the job duties, supervisory duties (if any), independent judgment 
required, or the amount of supervision received. The Petitioner has not distinguished the proffered 
position as more complex or unique from other positions that can be performed by persons without 
such a degree. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree due to "the 
complexity of the job duties." However, the Petitioner designated the proffered position as an entry­
level position within the occupational category (by selecting a Level I wage).9 This designation, 
when read in combination with the Petitioner's job description and the Handbook's account of the 
requirements for this occupation, suggests that the particular position is not so complex or unique 
that the duties can only be performed by an individual with bachelor's degree or higher in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. 10 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position, and references the 
Beneficiary's 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 
9 
The Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position undermines its claim that the position is 
particularly complex, unique, and specialized 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 an advanced degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent, for entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designation would not reflect that an occupation qualities 
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 214(i)(J) of the Act. 
10 
The evidence of record does not establish that this position is significantly different from other positions within the 
occupational category such that it refutes the Handbook's information to the effect that a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is not required for entry into the position. 
Matter ofT-
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). . 
D. 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 reyord must establish that a petitioner's stated degree requirement is not a matter of preference 
for high-caliber candidates but is necessitated instead by performance requirements of the position. 
See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d at 387-88. Were we limited solely to reviewing a petitioner's 
claimed self-imposed requirements, an organization could bring any individual with a bachelor's 
degree to the United States to perform any occupation as long as the petitioning entity created a 
token degree requirement. !d. Evidence provided in support of this criterion may include, but is not 
limited to, documentation regarding the Petitioner's past recruitment and hiring practices, as well as 
information regarding employees who previously held the position. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner provided its employees contact list, which includes the 
individuals' job titles and education. Notably, the document indicates that there are three individuals 
that hold the title of systems analyst. However, the record lacks evidence establishing that their 
work has the same or similar substantive responsibilities, duties, and performance requirements as 
the proffered position. Fu;rther, the Petitioner's business was established in 2008 . .It did not provide 
the total number of people it has employed to serve in the proffered position. Consequently, it 
cannot be determined how representative the Petitioner's claim regarding three individuals is of the 
Petitioner's normal recruiting and hiring practices over an eight year period. 
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). 
E. 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. The Petitioner does not establish how the 
generally described duties elevate the proffered position to a specialty occupation. We again refer to 
Matter ofT-
our comments regarding the implications of the Petitioner's designation of the proffered position at a 
Level I wage level. 
Upon review of the totality of the record,. the Petitioner has not established that the nature of the 
specific duties is 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 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. 
ORDER: The app~al is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofT-, ID# 364442 (AAO Aug. 10, 20 17) 
8