dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF Z-T-. INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 1. 2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129. PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner. a computer company. seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a ··computer 
systems analyse under the H-1 B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act)* 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 8 U.S.C. * 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
The H-1 B 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. California Service Center. denied the petition. The Director concluded that there is 
insut1icient evidence to establish that the proffered position qualities as a specialty occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's basis 
for denial of the petition was erroneous and contends that it satisfied 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. § 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 <?f Z-T-. 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 
pat1icular 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 
( ../) The nature of the specific duties lis] 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 Cm]J. v. Cherll?{f; 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. ivfeissner. 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 .. computer systems 
analyst." In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE). the Petitioner provided the 
following job duties for the position. along with the approximate percentage of time the Beneficiary 
will spend on each duty: 
• Analyze user requirements. procedures. and problems to automate or improve 
existing systems and review computer system capabilities. workflow. and 
scheduling limitations. 
• Gather business requirements for enhancements to computer 
system/applications. 
• Prepare technical design documents based on business requirements and 
prepare data flow diagrams. 
• Implement new design as per technical specifications. 
• Develop test plans and conduct unit and integration testing. 
• Conduct user acceptance testing with client/end user and fix any issues 
raised. 
• Participate in code deployment and coordinate with ditTerent infrastructure 
teams during go-live, post production, and continued support of end product. 
2 
Matter of Z- T-, Inc. 
More specifically, as a Computer Systems Analyst, [the Beneficiary's] duties will 
breakdown as follows: 
25%- Requirement Gathering 
• Coordinate with business users to obtain business requirements. 
• Analyze the function specification design document. 
• Communicate with business tor requirements clarification. 
• Finalize function specification design document and obtain sign-off. 
30%- Design 
• Design and develop complex software solutions by applying expert level 
understanding of business intelligence best practices. 
• Apply a rich background in systems and data analysis to conduct in-depth 
evaluation of source system data and processes. 
• Use industry standard modeling tools to generate richly documented, 
creatively designed data models. 
• Use the latest business intelligence development tools. methods. and 
technologies to implement high performance, complex analytic solutions. 
20% - Coordination and Communication 
• Coordinate with stakeholders and involved cross functional teams to ensure 
project success. 
I 0% - Prepare test cases and testing support 
• Conduct unit and system testing to ensure design is relevant and 
implementation is producing a usefuL maintainable. and reliable product. 
• Document each step of development to ensure adequate communication 
within the team and customers. 
• Mentor and train other team members by introducing them to new 
technologies. methods, and learning resources. 
• Design and build best-of-class production processes that ensure security. 
efficiency, and availability of analytical tools and data. 
• Actively support products by providing prompt responses to customer 
problems and inquiries. 
15% - Coding, Implementation, and Rollout 
• Assist in implementation of project in its various phases. 
According to the Petitioner, the position requires a bachelor's degree m computer science 
engineering, information systems, or a directly related field. 
3 
1\1atter of Z-T-. 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 satisfies any of the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A) and, therefore. qualities as a specialty occupation. 1 Specifically. the 
record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background. or its equivalent. 
commensurate with a specialty occupation. 2 
A. First Criterion 
We 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. 3 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.
4 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-1 B petition. the Petitioner 
designated the protTered 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: ""A bachelor's degree in a computer or information science field is common. although 
1 In the decision denying the petition. the Director noted that the Petitioner had not established eligibility at the time of 
filing and noted that the Petitioner did not provide documentation (i.e. statements of work. work orders. etc.) regarding 
the claimed project and the Beneficiary's specific role in the project. We agree with the Director that the record does not 
establish the Beneficiary's role and the substantive nature of the work. Nevertheless. even assuming that the Petitioner 
had adequately addressed the discrepancy, the petition could not be approved because the Petitioner has not established 
that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
1 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position. While we may not discuss every document submitted. we have reviewed and considered each one. 
_;Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap. we will address each of the criteria individually. 
~All of our references are to the 2016-2017 edition ofthe Handbook, available at http://www.bls.govlooh/ 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 USC IS 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. 
'The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level II wage. 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 II wage rate is for a petitioner who expects its employee to perform moderately complex tasks that 
require limited judgment. U.S. Dep't of Labor. Emp't & Training Admin .. Prevailing Wage Determination f'oficr 
Guidance. Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009). available at 
http:l/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. 
4 
Matter <?f Z-T-, Inc. 
not always a requirement. Some firms hire analysts with business or liberal arts degrees who have 
skills in information technology or computer programming."' U.S. Dep 't of Labor, Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook. 2016-17 ed., ··computer Systems Analysts."' 
http :I lwww. b Is. gov I oohl computer-and-information- techno logy I computer-systems-analysts. htm#tab-
4 (last visited May 27. 2016). The Handbook also states: "Although many computer systems 
analysts have technical degrees, such a degree is not always a requirement. Many analysts have 
liberal arts degrees and have gained programming or technical expe11ise elsewhere:· !d. 
The Handbook indicates that a bachelor's degree in a computer or information science field may be 
common. but not that it is a requirement for entry into these jobs. In fact. this chapter reports that 
··many'' computer systems analysts may only have liberal arts degrees and programming or technical 
experience. but does not further qualify the amount of experience needed. The Handbook also notes 
that many analysts have technical degrees, but does not specify a degree level (e.g .. associate· s 
degree) for these degrees. The Handbook further specifies that such a technical degree is not always 
a requirement. Thus. this passage of the Handbook reports that there are several paths for entry into 
the occupation. 
Thus, 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). 
B. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two. alternative prongs: "The degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or. in the alternative, an employer may 
show that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong 
contemplates the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrmvs its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
I. 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 .%anti. Inc. v. Reno. 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151. 1165 (D. Minn. 
1999) (quoting Hird!Blaker Corp. v. Sam, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
5 
Matter (~f Z- T-, Inc. 
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.'' Thus, the Petitioner has not 
satisfied the first alternative prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
perforn1ed 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 pos1t10n qualifies as a specialty occupation. the 
Petitioner described the proffered position and its business operations. On appeaL the Petitioner 
asserts that the Beneficiary's assignment with the end-client is complex. However. the Petitioner has 
not sufliciently developed relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the proffered position. 
Again, it appears that the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to perform moderately complex tasks 
that require limited exercise ofjudgment (by its selection of a Level II wage on the LCA) compared 
to other positions within the same occupation. 6 The description of the duties provided by the 
Petitioner does not specifically identify any tasks that are so complex or unique that only a 
specifically degreed individual could perform them and does not refute the Handbook's narrative 
indicating that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. or its equivalent. is not required. 
In the appeal brief: 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 not satisfied the second alternative prong of 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
6 
Nevertheless. a low wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty 
occupation. just as a high wage-designation does not definitively establish such a classification. In certain occupations 
(e.g .. doctors or lawyers). a Level II position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 
or its equivalent, for entry. Similarly, however. a Level IV wage-designation would not ret1ect that an occupation 
qualifies as a specialty occupation if that higher-level position does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. That is, a position's wage-level designation may be a relevant factor but 
is not itself conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214( i)( I) of the Act. 
Matter of Z- T-, Inc. 
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. 
To merit approval of the petition under this criterion. the record must establish that a petitioner's 
imposition of a degree requirement is not a matter of preference for high-caliber candidates but is 
necessitated by performance requirements of the position. While a petitioner may assert that a 
proffered position requires a specific degree, that statement alone without corroborating evidence 
cannot establish the position as a specialty occupation. Were USCIS limited solely to reviewing the 
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 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. A1eissner. 
201 F.3d at 388. Evidence provided in support of this criterion may include, but is not limited to, 
documentation regarding the Petitioner's past recruiting and hiring practices. as well as information 
regarding employees who previously held the position. 
We reviewed the Petitioner's statements regarding the proffered position: however. the Petitioner 
docs not assert and has not provided evidence in support of this criterion. Therefore. it has not 
satisfied the third criterion of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary ''is performing specialized. technical services 
on this project as a Computer Systems Analyst." However, relative specialization and complexity 
have not been sut1iciently developed by the Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. That is. 
the proposed duties have not been described with sufficient specificity to establish that they arc more 
specialized and complex than other positions in the occupational category that are not usually 
associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. or its equivalent. We also 
reiterate our earlier comments and findings regarding the implications of the position's wage level 
designation on the LCA. Thus, 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)(-I). 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one ofthe 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. 
Matter f?f Z- T-, Inc. 
IV. BENEFICIARY'S QUALIFICATIONS 
As the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. we need 
not fully address other issues evident in the record. That said. we wish to identify an additional issue 
to inform the Petitioner that this matter should be addressed in any future proceedings. 7 
Specifically. the record does not currently demonstrate that the Beneficiary's combined education 
and work experience is the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor"s degree in a specific specialty. While the 
claimed equivalency is based in part on experience. the record does not establish ( 1) that the 
evaluator has authority to grant college-level credit for training and/or experience in the specialty at 
an accredited college or university with a program for granting such credit. or (2) that the 
Beneficiary's expertise in the specialty is recognized through progressively responsible positions 
directly related to the specialty. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(-I) and (0)(1). 
V. CONCLUSION 
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 (?f"Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127. 128 (BIA 2013). Here. that burden 
has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter l?/Z-T-, Inc., ID# 16576 (AAO June 1, 2016) 
7 
In reviewing a matter de novo. we may identifY additional issues not addressed below in the Director's decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States. 229 F. Supp. 2d I 025. I 043 (E. D. Cal. 200 I). affd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 
2003) ("The AAO may deny an application or petition on a ground not identified by the Service Center."). 
8