dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 12511965 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB . 4, 2021 
The Petitioner , a software consulting company , seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"systems admin" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations . 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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the record did not 
establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief 
and asserts that the Director erred by denying the petition . The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence .1 We review the questions in this matter de nova. 2 Upon de nova 
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. 
1 Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofCh awathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
2 See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . 
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: 
( I) 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. 3 
II. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we conclude that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 4 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its 
equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 5 
The Petitioner initially provided the position's description and expanded on those duties in response 
to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) and on appeal. For the sake of brevity, we will not quote 
the descriptions; however, we have closely reviewed and considered the duties. According to the 
Petitioner's RFE response and appeal documents, the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree 
or its equivalent in computer science or a related field. 
3 See Royal Siam COip. v. Chertof(, 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"). 
4 The Director also determined that the record did not include sufficient evidence to establish a valid employer-employee 
relationship between the Petitioner and the Beneficiary and the Petitioner did not establish the availability of specialty 
occupation work for the Beneficiary during the requested employment period. Consistent with ITServe All., Inc. v. Cissna. 
443 F. Supp. 3d 14 (D.D.C. 2020), the Director's findings and conclusions relating to the employer-employee relationship 
and the concerns regarding the availability of specialty occupation work are hereby withdrawn. However, as will be 
discussed the record does not establish the proffered position is a specialty occupation and it is on that basis that the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
5 The Petitioner submitted documentation to suppmt the H-lB 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. 
2 
At the outset, we observe discrepancies in the record that undermine the overall credibility of this 
petition. The Petitioner submitted three distinct versions of the job duties: (1) one in its August 30, 
2018 support letter; (2) another in its April 30, 2019 itinerary letter and April 30, 2019 control letter 
regarding the Beneficiary's services; and (3) a third in its May 26, 2020 appeal letter. 6 Although most 
duties are consistent throughout each version, several duties only appear in certain versions or are 
modified in others. While some of these modifications appear minor, the missing duties suggest the 
Beneficiary's responsibilities differ depending on the version of job duties. Also, only the April 2019 
versions of the duties provide any indication of how much time is spent on each duty. Any 
inconsistencies to the April 2019 duties are problematic when trying to determine how much time is 
spent on a duty, especially if the April 2019 duty does not appear in another version. Likewise, any 
additions to the Petitioner's initial job duties, such as the tools used, may change the underlying 
requirements and knowledge needed for the occupation. The Petitioner provided no explanation for 
the discrepancies. 
The duties and the requirements presented by the Petitioner and the end-clientl I are inconsistent 
thTughou
1 
the application. The Petitioner's initial August 2018 duties differ from those initially stated 
by Specifically, the August 10, 2018 letter froml !contains the additional duty to 
"[ c ]onfigure and maintain Oracle and DB2 Databases," and omits the duty of "[ c ]reating and 
[m]anaging sites and services [m]onitoring [r]eplication between sites, domains and [m]anaging Esx 
Infrastructure (Esxi 5.5 /6.5) servers." Also, the August 20180 letter specifies using Sarbanes­
Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) compliance when ensuring access to servers, which implies an individual 
must have knowledge of SOX. These discrepancies seem to indicate thel ljob duties may have 
more responsibilities than the initial job duties provided by the Petitioner. In their appeal, the 
Petitioner changes the proffered position's job duties to almost match the duties August 2018 I I 
letter. The differences in job description between the Petitioner and end-client raises questions on 
actual duties of the Beneficiary. 
In addition, the Aug. 2018 support letter states that the proffered position requires the "attainment of 
a bachelor's degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) [] i.e., Computer Science, Computer 
Applications, Engineering or a related field is minimum entry into the occupation." However, the 
August 20181 lletter also states that a bachelor's degree in '1[b]usiress management" and 
"[ m ]athematics" are also acceptable. After the RFE, the Petitioner and changed the educational 
requirement for the proffered position to a bachelor's degree in computer science, or a closely related 
field. The Petitioner explains it only hires employees with a bachelor's or higher in computer science 
or related and that the other "generic" fields listed was in "confolity wrh the earlier H-lB standards." 
However, this explanation does not clarify why the end-client, initially believes the position 
could be performed by a "business management" degree for the duties the Petitioner eventually adopts 
as the duties of the position. 
These inconsistencies raise questions regarding the position's actual nature and its actual minimum 
requirements. The Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. 7 Unresolved material inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the 
6 The Petitioner also submitted work agreements and letters with the client,c=] and the vendorJ~---~[ which 
also had other versions of the job duties. 
7 Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
3 
reliability and sufficiency of other evidence submitted m support of the requested immigration 
benefit. 8 
A. First Criterion 
We 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. 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. 9 
On the labor condition application (LCA) 10 submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Network and Computer Systems 
Administrators" corresponding to the standard occupational classification (SOC) code 15-1142. 11 Thus, 
we reviewed the Handbook's subchapter entitled "How to Become a Network and Computer Systems 
Administrator," which states, in relevant part, that some employers require only a postsecondary 
certificate or an associate' s degree, and that most require a bachelor's degree in a field related to computer 
or information science. 12 
The Director interpreted these statements as indicating that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
the equivalent, is not normally required for positions located within this occupation, and we agree. On 
appeal, the Petitioner observes the Handbook states "most [employers] require a bachelor's degree in a 
field related to computer or information science" and "the typical entry level education ... is a Bachelor's 
Degree" for this occupation. The Petitioner argues the usage of "most" in the Handbook indicates that a 
particular position within computer system administration jobs normally requires at least a bachelor's in 
a specific specialty or its equivalent. Further, the Petitioner observes that DOL's Occupational 
Information Network (O*NET) indicates that fifty-two percent of respondents in the 15-1142 
occupation require a minimum of a bachelor's degree. However, when the Handbook statements are 
read in conjunction with DOL' s O*NET survey results which indicate that twenty percent of individuals 
8 Id. 
9 We do not 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. To satisfy the first criterion, however, the burden ofproofremains 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. 
10 A petitioner submits the LCA to DOL to demonstrate that it will pay an H-lB 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 duties, experience, and qualifications. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(a). 
11 On November 17, 2020, O*NET Online updated the occupation SOC 15-1142, Network and Computer Systems 
Administrators to a new SOC code. 15-1244. Specifically, a search for SOC 15-1142 in O*NET Online provides the 
following message. "This occupational code is no longer in use. In the future, please use 15-1244.00 (Network and 
Computer Systems Administrators) instead." For purposes of this decision, we will refer to the occupational code and 
name at the time of the Director's decision, 15-1142, Network and Computer Systems Administrators. See 
https://www.onetonline.org/find/quick?s= 15-1 142 Oast visited Feb. 3, 2021 ). 
12 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Network and Computer Systems 
Administrators, at https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/network-and-computer-systems­
administrators.htrn (last visited Feb.3.2021). 
4 
holding jobs within the "Network and Computer Systems Administrators" occupational category possess 
an associate's degree, and another ten percent took some college coursework but did not graduate, 13 the 
efficacy of the Petitioner's claim that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is normally required for 
this occupation is significantly diminished.14 
Additionally, the Petitioner's reference to O*NET's entry for "Network and Computer Systems 
Administrators" (SOC code 15-1142) does not aid its case, either. The O*NET Summary Report does 
not establish that a bachelor's degree in a spec[fic specialty, or the equivalent, is normally required for 
this occupation. 15 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. As the 
Director noted, 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. 16 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 
does not indicate that the "education level" for the respondents must be in a specific specialty. For 
these reasons, O*NET does not establish the proffered position as a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation from a probative, authoritative source to 
substantiate its assertion regarding the normal 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 
13 U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Information Network, Network and Computer Systems Administrators, at 
https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/15-1244.00 (last visited Feb. 3, 2021). 
14 We note that the O*NET survey accounts for only 82% of these workers. According to O*NET, 52% possess a 
bachelor's degree, 20% possess an associate's degree, and 10% took some college classes but did not graduate. It does 
not account for the remaining 18%. Id. Accordingly, the figure for those who possess less than a bachelor's degree may 
be even higher. 
15 As indicated above, a requirement for a bachelor's degree alone is not sufficient. 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 Co1p., 484 F.3d at 147; Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
16 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/ 
help/online/svp. 
5 
common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific 
position. 17 
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 establish that such firms "routinely employ and 
recruit only degreed individuals." 18 
The Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which the Handbook ( or other 
independent, authoritative sources) 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts this position qualifies as a specialty occupation because a degree 
requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions as evidenced by job postings. To be relevant 
for consideration under this criterion, however, the job vacancy announcements must advertise "parallel 
positions," and the announcements must have been placed by organizations that (1) conduct business in 
the Petitioner's industry and (2) are also "similar" to the Petitioner. Absent such evidence, job postings 
submitted by a Petitioner are generally outside the scope of consideration for this criterion. None of 
these job vacancy announcements meet this threshold. 
From their response to the RFE to their appeal brief: the Petitioner provided several job postings to 
demonstrate that positions comparable to the Petitioner's position require at least a minimum of a 
bachelor's degree in a specialty field for the position. 19 In addition, the Petitioner provided information 
on the companies posting these positions. However, the information is insufficient to demonstrate that 
these companies conduct business in the Petitioner's industry and are also "similar" to it. According to 
the Petitioner's Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, the Petitioner has 170 employees and 
grosses $14 million in annual income. However, the Petitioner provided documents that show three 
companies have 501 to 1000 employees, another that has 1001 to 5,000 employees, and one that has 5001 
to 10000 employees. Also, two of the companies have revenue of $1 to $5 million U.S. dollars (USD) 
per year, one company shows revenue of $25 to $50 million USD per year, another company indicates it 
has a revenue of $50 to $100 million USD per year, and one has a revenue of $1 to $2 billion USD per 
year. These variances in employees and revenue cast doubt as to whether the companies are "similar" to 
the Petitioner. 
17 We will discuss the second prong of the second criterion in section D below. 
18 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)). 
19 The Petitioner provided information for Orion Systems Integrators and Princeton University - Academic Technology 
Services, but no job postings for these entities were found. These two entities will not be included in the discussion. Also, 
some of the provided job postings were difficult to read as the printouts have some text and graphics superimposed on 
other text. For the purposes of this decision, we considered legible evidence only. 
6 
Even if these companies are considered "similar," the Petitioner does not discuss in detail how the 
advertised job positions are parallel to the proffered position. Our review of the job postings confirms 
that the advertised job opportunities are not "parallel positions." The Petitioner does not require any 
work experience to enter the proffered position. However, most of the advertised positions require 
experience, some substantial. For example, one of the positions requires three to five years of 
experience, one position requires four years of networking experience, another requires "4+" years of 
experience, two require "5+" years of experience, one requires "7+" years of experience, another 
requires seven to nine years of related experience, and one requires ten to fifteen years of experience. 
Also, three of the postings show different educational requirements than the Petitioner's bachelor's 
degree requirements. Although the job postings indicate a preference for a bachelor's degree, one 
posting requires only a high school diploma and two positions require only experience for entry into 
these opportunities. 20 In addition, several of the job postings have additional requirements not 
requested by the Petitioner. Specifically, several postings require information technology 
certifications, such as, CompTIA Security+, SSCP (Systems Security Certified Practitioner), and 
MSCE (Microsoft Certified Solutions Expert), and/or require a security clearance. Considered 
collectively, these factors indicate that the advertised positions are not "parallel" to the proposed 
position. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the job vacancy announcements are relevant. 
In addition, the Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence as to how representative these 
particular job advertisements are of the advertising employers' recruiting history for the types of job 
advertised. 21 As the advertisements are only solicitations for hire, they are not evidence of the 
employers' actual hiring practices. 
The Petitioner also provided three letters in an attempt to demonstrate that similar organizations 
employ individuals with at least a bachelor's degree in computer science or a related field in the 
position of "systems admin." In summary, the letter-writers assert their companies hire individuals 
20 Even if the job postings advertised positions that are parallel to the proffered position, and are from similar companies 
within the same industry, they would still not be relevant for our consideration under this criterion because they do not 
confirm that the job postings mandate at least a bachelor's in a specialty degree. The Petitioner indicated that a bachelor's 
degree or its equivalent is required for the proffered position. Tfthe Petitioner contends that these job postings that require 
no degrees are evidence of degree requirements that are similar to its degree requirements and are normally required in its 
industry, the Petitioner confirms that the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. We consider this to be a 
significant evidentiary shortcoming. 
21 In addition, the Petitioner does not demonstrate what statistically valid inferences, if any, could be drawn from the job 
postings with regard to the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. See 
generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 (7th ed. 1995). Moreover, given that there is no indication 
that the advertisements were randomly selected, the validity of any such inferences could not be accurately determined 
even if the sampling unit were sufficiently large. Sec id at 195-96 (explaining that "[r]andom selection is the key to [the] 
process [ of probability sampling]" and that "random selection offers access to the body of probability theory, which 
provides the basis for estimates of population parameters and estimates of error"). 
As such, even if all the job vacancy announcements supported the finding that the position requires a bachelor's or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, which they do not, it could not be found that such a limited number of 
postings that appear to have been consciously selected could credibly refute the findings of the Handbook published by 
the Bureau of Labor Statistics that such a position does not normally require at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
7 
for the "systems admin" position and have only hired individuals with a bachelor's degree in computer 
science. However, we see no evidence that these companies' "system admin" positions are parallel to 
the employer's proffered position. The letters do not define or provide evidence of what would be 
considered a "systems admin" position within each company. As discussed above, there is a wide 
variance in the requirements to perform the duties of a systems administrator position. Neither the 
letter-writers nor the Petitioner offer analysis or evidence explaining what duties may require a higher 
degree and what duties require only a high school degree and/or certifications in particular technology. 
The letters also do not include sufficient information to demonstrate these companies are similar to 
the Petitioner. The Petitioner, who has the burden of proof in these matters, must show that these 
companies are similar and within the same industry. Further, two of the letter-writers I I and 
.__ _____ ___.I repeat the Petitioner's May 26, 2020 appeal support letter version of the proposed 
position's job duties, and conclude that only individuals with a bachelor's degree in computer science 
or a related field could perform these duties. However, these letter-writers do not explain why these 
duties require more than an associate's degree, certifications in particular technology, or experience. 
These letter-writers do not distinguish these duties from duties that can be performed by less than a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. As such, neither of these letters provide any analysis showing 
why the Petitioner's job duties would require a bachelor's degree in computer science. 
We also considered the letter authored b~ I Senior Professor of Information 
Systems Management atl I University, regarding industry requirements for the Petitioner's 
particular position. The author describes his experience as a professor and a consultant and concludes 
that it is common for positions similar to the one proffered here to require at least a bachelor's degree. 
I !states that it is "typical for a growth-oriented IT service provider with critical projects 
underway to hire a Systems Admin or someone in a similar professional position and require the 
minimum attainment of a Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science or closely related field for the 
position." However does not offer probative evidence to support his conclusion. In his 
letter,.__ ___ ~states the Handbook shows that the occupation is projected to grow about 19.8% 
from 2016 to 2026. However, this does not support his claim that at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty is required for parallel positions within the industry. In addition,! I 
discusses the Handbook and O*NET Online for the occupation of "Network and Computer Systems 
Administrators." I I claims that the Handbook and O*NET Online appear to indicate that 
a majority of this occupation requires at least a bachelor's degree, but as discussed earlier, these 
resources do not demonstrate a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is required to enter the 
occupation of "Network and Computer Systems Administrators." Whilel I may have 
anecdotal information based on his experience as a professor and as a consultant in the industry, he 
does not indicate he has published, conducted research, or run surveys regarding the minimum education 
requirements for positions such as the position proffered here. He does not discuss any relevant research, 
studies, or other authoritative publications he utilized as part of his review and foundation for his opinion 
that there is an industry standard for system admin positions. 22 As such,I ts letter does has 
not demonstrated that a degree requirement is common to the industry. 
22 I I discusses the Handbook and O*NET Online for the occupation of "Network and Computer Systems 
Administrators." I I claims that the Handbook and O*NET Online appear to indicate that a majority of this 
occupation requires at least a bachelor's degree, but as discussed earlier, these resources do not demonstrate a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty is required to enter the occupation of"Network and Computer Systems Administrators." 
8 
Moreover, the Petitioner's own evidence undercuts! 0 Is claims that a bachelor's degree 
requirement is the minimum industry hiring standard. As noted, the Petitioner submitted job postings 
advertising what it claims are parallel positions, and those postings contain entry requirements that 
appear at odds wit~ Is assertions. Again, two of the hiring companies would accept 
someone with work experience - but no college degree - for what the Petitioner claims are parallel 
positions, and a third would accept someone with a high school diploma for such a position. Neither 
I I nor the Petitioner address this evidence that clearly undermines their claim that a degree 
requirement is common to the industry. 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient probative evidence to establish that a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions 
among similar organizations. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 2 l 4.2(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. Evidence 
provided in this criterion may include, but is not limited to, an organizational chart showing the 
Petitioner's hierarchy and staffing levels with corresponding academic and experience requirements 
for this position, as well as documentary evidence of past employment practices for the position. 
The Petitioner claims they have hired individuals in the same or similar position title with at least a 
bachelor's degree in computer science or a related field. In support of this criterion, the Petitioner 
provided the job duties, earning statements, diplomas, and/or transcripts of seven individuals working 
in positions it claims are similar to the one offered to the Beneficiary. 23 Notably, most of the duties 
of these individuals do not appear to be consistent with the different iterations of the Petitioner's job 
duties. The Petitioner's proffered position appears to focus mostly on computer system administration, 
whereas some of these positions appear to include other duties beyond administration such as, software 
design and testing. For example, some software design and testing duties found include "[c]reate 
large-scale applications" and "application debugging using their IDE [Integrated Development 
Environment]." Other duties, such as, "[p]erform system/architectural design" and seem to imply 
designing computer systems and solutions as opposed to just administration of these systems. We also 
note that some of these positions use tools and systems, which are not mentioned in any version of the 
proffered position's duties and casts further doubt that these positions are similar. 
Even if these positions are similar to the proffered one, which has not been established, the earning 
statements do not indicate the positions are paid the same wage or that the positions are for the same 
or similar end client projects. The Beneficiary, according to the Form 1-129, pay stubs, and contracts, 
receives a salary of $45 per hour. However, none of the other individuals appear to be paid the same 
23 With their RFE Response, the Petitioner provided the earning statements and diplomas and/or transcripts of these seven 
individuals. With their appeal, the Petitioner including a letter providing the job duties of all seven individuals. 
9 
rate as the Beneficiary. 24 The variance in wage may indicate these seven positions differ in tasks, 
knowledge, skills, and specific vocational preparation than the Beneficiary's position. In aggregate, 
the earning statements and variability in the different positions' duties suggest that the seven 
individuals were employed in different positions. Without more, the documentation does not establish 
that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion of the regulations. 
On appeal, the Petitioner also submitted an undated job posting for the proffered position which 
appears to have been posted on its website. 25 However, the job posting does not indicate the date upon 
which it was posted, and we question whether it was in fact placed after this petition was denied. The 
Petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the nonimmigrant visa petition. 26 We decline 
to assign any significant evidentiary weight to this posting. 
Even if the Petitioner always requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty to perform the duties 
of the proffered position, the record must still 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. 27 The Petitioner in this matter has not persuasively established that it 
normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position 
proffered here. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). Moreover, it has not established the duties of the proposed position require 
a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, in order to perform them. 
D. Second Prong of the Second Criterion and Fourth Criterion 
The second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) 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. The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 2 l 4.2(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. 
First, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the position or its duties can be performed only by an 
individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. On appeal, the Petitioner submits 
their letter detailing the end client project and providing supplementary tasks for each job duty. 
Although the additional details provide a better understanding of the position's duties, the letter does 
not discuss how or why these duties are so "specialized and complex" or "complex or unique" that 
(1) they differ from other network and system administrator positions, or (2) require at least a 
24 The rate of pay for the seven individuals was determined by reviewing their earning statements. The pay rate for that 
pay period was divided by the hours worked during the pay period. The seven rates of pay were found to be: (1) $48.44 
per hour, (2) $48.00 per hour, (3) $37.50 per hour, (4) $46.05 per hour, (5) $168.00 per hour, (6) $37.50 per hour, and (7) 
$41.67 per hour. None of these rates match the Beneficiary's rate of pay, $45.00 per hour. We also note the Petitioner did 
not provide any discussion on why these wages vary. 
25 In the appeal briet: Counsel refers to the job posting for the position of "Quality Assurance Analyst," which differs from 
the position title of"Systems Admin." This appears to be a typographical error. 
26 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
27 Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. 
10 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Likewise, the letters from the client~]-~ 
and the vendor) F8 also do not provide such a discussion. 
The Petitioner also claims that these duties can "only be competently" performed by an individual 
with a bachelor's degree in computer science or closely related, and provides examples of how several 
courses in a computer science major prepares for the proffered position. However, these statements 
do not sufficiently develop whether the position itselfrequires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, but rather suggest that the Beneficiary only needs knowledge of certain 
subjects to perform the tasks. In other words, the Petitioner did not submit information relevant to a 
detailed course of study leading to a specialty degree and did not establish how such a curriculum is 
necessary to perform the duties it claims are so "specialized and complex" or "complex or unique." 
While a few related courses 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. Further, the Petitioner did not sufficiently discuss or identify any 
tasks that are so "specialized and complex" or "complex or unique that only a specifically degreed 
individual could perform them. 
We now tum once more to the position evaluation provided b~ lofl !university. 
In his letter, I IO) describes the credentials that he asserts qualify him to opine upon the 
nature of the proffered position; (2) lists the evidence he reviewed for assessment; and (3) states the 
position is specialized and requires at least a bachelor's degree or its equivalent in computer science, 
information technology, or a closely related field. I ts assertions are not persuasive, as he 
merely restates the Petitioner's job duties contained in the April 30, 2019 Itinerary of Services and Control 
Letters and does not explain why they are specialized and complex, or unique. 
Moreover,! ldoes not provide a persuasive analysis explaining why the duties the Petitioner 
describes require a computer science degree to perform them. Rather J O I discusses the possible 
courses required by a computer science degree or a related field and how they prepare an individual for 
the proffered position. In particular,! I states computer aided design, networking, and 
operating system courses can prepare an individual to perform specific duties required in the proffered 
position. We understand that an individual who takes one or several of these courses may be prepared to 
perform the duties of this position; however, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is 
not the skill set or education of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. Thus, whether or not the Beneficiary in this case has completed a specialized course 
of study directly related to the proffered position is irrelevant to the issue of whether the proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation, i.e., whether the duties of the proffered position require the theoretical 
and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and the attainment of a bachelor's 
degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 29 I I has not persuasively established 
the proffered position qualifies under the statutory or regulatory definition. 
28 The Petitioner provided two letters from the end-clientc==J: (1) one dated August 10, 2018 and (2) another dated April 
23, 2019. They also provided three different versions of the vendor letter from! !: (1) August 27, 2018: (2) 
April 29, 2019; and (3) May 5, 2020. None of these letters discussed why the position or its duties were "specialized and 
complex" and "complex or unique." 
29 Section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
11 
Additionally] I does not discuss why other methods could not lead to a sufficiently similar 
knowledge set, for example, training or experience to gain this knowledge or alternate degrees that would 
be acceptable. Rather, I I provides the conclusion~tement that "duties such as 
installing, configuring, designing and ongoing maintenance, of L__J router and switches in Data 
Centers, defining and executing process of server patching, OS upgrades, and engineering change 
requests could only be performed competently by a candidate with at least a Bachelor's Degree in 
Computer Science or a related field," without considering alternative methods. For example,D 
I ldoes not discuss the variousD certifications available, an associate's degree or general 
bachelor's degree with aD certification(s), or vocational training and experience as methods that 
provide the same knowledge set. A lack of sufficient consideration of alternatives is a basis that can 
adversely affect the evidentiary weight of such an opinion. 30 
.__ ____ _.I may draw inferences that computer science courses would be beneficial toward 
performing certain duties of the position; however, we disagree with any inference that only a degree 
in computer science is required in order to perform the duties of the proffered position. Put simply, 
stating that a person with a bachelor's degree in computer science could perform the duties of the 
proffered position is not the same as stating that such a degree is required to perform those duties. 
We also notel O I asserts that the Petitioner has "complex and extensive IT needs" which 
requires the Petitioner to seek Network and Computer Systems Administrators who have at least a 
bachelor's degree to "safeguard its investment in client projects." However, this assertion does not 
support how the job duties are so "specialized and complex" and "complex or unique" that a bachelor's 
degree is necessary. Neither the importance of the work, nor the proffered position's role in it, can 
substitute for specialization. 
,__ ____ _.I acknowledges that the Handbook and O*NET appear to "leave the possibility open for 
a minority of Network and Computer Systems Administrators positions to require less than a 
Bachelor's degree," but he opines the Petitioner's proffered position would "absolutely" require a 
bachelor's degree at the minimum. However,! I does not provide a cogent analysis of 
which of the duties elevate the position to "specialized and complex" or "complex and unique" 
position that requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. The possibility that the proffered 
position may work on a network that generates millions of dollars does not provide evidence that a 
bachelor's degree is necessary for the position. 
For the reasons stated, the aforementioned opinion letter does not provide a sufficient basis to establish 
that the actual position described requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, 
and thus does not assist in establishing the position as a specialty occupation. As a matter of discretion, 
we may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory.31 However, we may reject an 
opinion or give it less weight if it is not in accord with other information in the record or if it is in any 
way questionable. 32 
30 See Ambrosini v. Labarraque, IOI F.3d 129, 140 (D.C. Cir. 1996). 
31 Matter of Caron Int'/, Inc., 19 l&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). 
32 Id. 
12 
Finally, the Petitioner designated the proffered position as requiring only a wage level II on the 
certified LCA. However, in this case, that Level II designation, when read in combination with the 
evidence of record, indicates that this particular position is likely not so specialized and complex or 
unique such that the duties could only be performed by an individual with a bachelor's degree or higher 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Neither the Handbook, O*NET, nor the Petitioner's own 
evidence establish that typical positions located within this occupational category require a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, and the Level II designation indicates that the proffered is no more 
specialized, complex, or unique than such positions. In fact, the Level II designation is at odds with 
the claims made by the Petitioner that the duties of the proffered position are "complex or unique" as 
well as "specialized and complex" as compared to such typical network and computer systems 
administrators. 33 The record lacks sufficiently detailed and unambiguous information to distinguish 
the proffered position as unique from or more specialized and complex than other closely related 
positions that can be performed by persons without at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent. 
In light of all the above, the Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative specialization and 
complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position, and it did not identify tasks that 
are so specialized and 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) or 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
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. Moreover, the record 
does not establish that the Petitioner satisfied the statutory and regulatory definitions of specialty 
occupation. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As set forth above, we conclude that the evidence of record does not establish, more likely than not, 
that the proffered position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. Accordingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 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. 
33 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/pdt!NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised_ 11 _ 2009 .pdf It does not appear that, relative 
to other positions located within the occupational category, this is one with specialized and complex, or unique duties, as 
such a higher-level position would be classified as a Level TIT or Level TV position, requiring a significantly higher 
prevailing wage. While not dispositive, a salary that is beneath the median wage for the occupational category in the area 
of intended employment (which is the case with a Level II wage) strongly suggests that the position is not particularly 
specialized, complex, or unique relative to other positions within the occupational category. 
13