dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6160590 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 16, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "Linux administrator" under the 
H-lB nonirnrnigrant 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. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofSkirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&NDec. 799, 806 (AAO 
2012). Upon de nova 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: 
(]) 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). We construe 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"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
For the reasons discussed below, we have determined that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 1 Specifically, we conclude that 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 first tum to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(]), 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 
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 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. 
3 We do not however. maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. To satisfy the first 
criterion, the Petitioner bears the burden to submit sufficient evidence to support a determination that its particular position 
will normally have at its minimum, a bachelor's degree requirement in a particular specialty, or its equivalent, for entry at 
any level - be it at the entry level (Level I), or at the fully competent level (Level TV). 
2 
The Petitioner submitted the required DOL ETA Form 9035 & 9035E, Labor Condition Application 
for Nonimmigrant Workers (LCA) with this petition, where it classified the proffered position under 
the occupational title "Network and Computer Systems Administrators," corresponding to the 
Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 15-1142. 4 The Handbook states, in pertinent part: 
"Most employers require network and computer systems administrators to have a bachelor's degree in 
a field related to computer or information science. Others may require only a postsecondary certificate 
or an associate's degree." 5 As noted, the Handbook specifically states that an employer may accept a 
postsecondary certificate or an associate' s degree rather than a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty. Therefore, the Handbook does not support the Petitioner's assertion that a baccalaureate or 
higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent is normally the minimum requirement for entry. 
The Handbook therefore 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. As cited above, 
the Handbook specifically states that a bachelor's degree in a related field is "not always a 
requirement." The Handbook continues by indicating that there is a wide range of degrees that are 
acceptable for positions in this occupation, including general-purpose degrees in business and liberal 
arts. Again, we interpret the term "degree" to mean a degree in a specific specialty that directly relates 
to the proposed position. 6 
In the absence of support from the Handbook, the Petitioner cited to DOL' s Occupational Information 
Network (O*NET) summary report for "Network and Computer Systems Administrators" (SOC code 
15-1142.00). The O*NET Summary Report does not establish that a bachelor's degree in a spec[fic 
specialty, or the equivalent, is normally required. It provides general information regarding the 
occupation, but it does not support a conclusion that the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or the equivalent. Instead, O*NET assigns these positions a "Job Zone Four" 
rating, which states "most of these occupations require a four-year bachelor's degree, but some do 
not." Moreover, the Job Zone Four designation does not indicate that any academic credentials for 
Job Zone Four occupations must be directly related to the duties performed. In addition, the 
specialized vocational preparation (SVP) rating designates this occupation as 7 < 8. An SVP rating of 
7 to less than ("<") 8 indicates that the occupation requires "over 2 years up to and including 4 years" 
of training. While the SVP rating indicates the total number of years of vocational preparation required 
for a particular position, it is important to note that it does not describe how those years are to be 
divided among training, experience, and formal education. The SVP rating also does not specify the 
particular type of degree, if any, that a position would require. 7 Further, although the summary reports 
provide the educational requirements of "respondents," it does not account for 100% of the 
"respondents." Moreover, the respondents' positions within the occupation are not distinguished by 
career level ( e.g., entry-level, mid-level, senior-level). Furthermore, the graph in the summary report 
4 The Petitioner is required to submit a ce11ified LCA to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to demonstrate 
that it will pay the Beneficiary 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. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.73 l(a). 
5 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Network and Computer Systems 
Administrators, https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/network-and-computer­
systems-administrators.htm#tab- 4 (last visited Jan. 15, 2020). 
6 See Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147. 
7 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/ 
help/online/svp. 
3 
does not indicate that the "education level" for the respondents must be in a specific specialty. For all 
of these reasons, O*NET does not establish the proffered position as a specialty occupation. 
In the instant matter, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation from a probative, 
authoritative 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 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. 
We generally consider the following sources of evidence 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 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) (considering these 
"factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
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 for our consideration under this prong. Thus, based upon a complete review of the record of 
proceedings, we conclude that the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
4 
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. 
We reviewed the Petitioner's statements regarding the proffered position; however, the Petitioner has 
not sufficiently developed relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the proffered position. 
For instance, the Petitioner did not sufficiently explain how the following tasks require a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent: 
• Review and Approves PSC requests - 6% 
• Work on GCP User account creation-22% 
• Patching All Linus VMs -4% 
• RedHat Satellite maintenance - 14% 
• VMs Configuration per user request- 15% 
• Research and Development to implement new strategies - 8% 
• Logging and monitoring and creating Metric alerts on individual projects - 9% 
• Collaborate on additional projects to support VM Configuration and Maintenance 
-12% 
• Project updates and meetings - 10% 
Moreover, while the Petitioner provided additional information regarding the proffered duties from its 
job description's section entitled "Examples of Work Performed," in some instances that information 
falls short of explaining what the Beneficiary will actually do on a day-to-day basis in the proffered 
position. That is, the Petitioner has not explained in detail how tasks such as: 
• Administer RedHat Satellite server 
• Administer Oracle Spacewalk server 
• Deploy/maintain/troubleshoot virtual and physical Linus servers (RedHat and 
Oracle Linux) in an on premise server hosting environment 
• Deploy/maintain/troubleshoot virtual Linux servers (RedHat and Oracle Linux) in 
cloud compute server hosting environment, such as A WS, Google, and Azure 
• Apply security patches on a monthly basis 
• Develop "as-built" documentation as well as Standard Operating Procedures 
(SOPs) 
• Implement system configurations based on industry best practices 
• Configure and maintain logging, monitoring, and alerting 
• Assist m maintammg vanous infrastructure components, such as 
DNS/DHCP/IPAM (Infoblox) 
• Assist with administering centralized storage (SAN, DAS, NAS) 
• Develop and maintain configuration management solutions 
• Develop automation scripts for various tasks (bash, Perl, Java script) 
require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge. 
5 
The listed job duties and tasks, when read in combination with the Petitioner's Level I-designation on 
the LCA, suggest that this particular position is not so complex or unique relative to other network 
and computer systems administrators that the duties can only be performed by an individual with a 
bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 8 The Petitioner stated that it 
requires a bachelor's degree in computer science, or a related field. However, while a few related 
courses may be beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently demonstrated how an established curriculum of 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. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted copies of architecture guides for RedHat Satellite and Oracle 
Linux. However, the Petitioner did not sufficiently explain how these documents distinguish and 
differentiate the duties of the proffered position from the typical duties performed by other network 
and computer systems administrators, and why the proffered duties require a baccalaureate ( or higher 
degree) in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as claimed. 
On appeal, the Petitioner cites Arctic Catering, Inc. v. Thornburgh, 769 F. Supp. 1167 (D. Colo. 1991), 
claiming that this case demonstrates "that the specialty occupation legal analysis for defining what 
positions and job duties qualify as "unique and complex" / "specialized and complex" is fully capable 
of incorporating the rapidly advancing changes in technology that have birthed such new and difficult­
to-pigeonhole positions like" the proffered position. The Petitioner's assertions are misplaced, as the 
matter cited pertains to an immigrant visa petition and whether the beneficiary is a member of a 
profession as defined in section 101(a)(32) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(32), and as interpreted at 
that time. The issue before us is whether the Petitioner's proffered position qualifies as a nonimmigrant 
H-1 B specialty occupation and not whether it is a profession. Thus, the matter cited by the Petitioner 
is irrelevant to the instant petition. 9 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the pos1t10n, 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). 
8 A low wage-level designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty occupation, just as 
a high wage-level 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 ofa bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, for entry. Similarly, however, a Level TV 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 position meets the requirements of section 2 l 4(i)( I) of the Act. 
9 The current, primary, and fundamental difference between qualifying as a profession and qualifying as a specialty 
occupation is that specialty occupations require the U.S. bachelor's or higher degree to be in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. Thus, while "teachers in elementary or secondary schools" are specifically identified as qualifying as a 
profession as that term is defined in section 10l(a)(32) of the Act, that occupation would not necessarily qualify as a 
specialty occupation unless it met the definition of that term at section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 
6 
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. Upon review of 
the record, we find that the Petitioner did not submit information regarding employees who currently 
or previously held the position. The record does not establish that the Petitioner normally requires at 
least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, directly related to the duties of the 
position. Therefore, the Petitioner has not 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. 
For the reasons similar to those discussed under the second prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), 
we find that the Petitioner has not established 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). 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 relative to others within the same occupational category. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and 
alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner 
has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7