dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 16, 2024 InRe : 31682123 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonirnrnigrant Worker (H-lB) 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-IB nonimmigrant 
classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) . The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to 
temporarily employ a qualified nonimmigrant 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 record did not 
establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. The matter is now before us on appeal 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter ofChristo 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) of the Act defines an H-lB nonirnrnigrant as a foreign national "who is 
corning temporarily to the United States to perform services ... in a specialty occupation described in 
section 214(i)(l) ... "(emphasis added). Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 184(i)(l), defines 
the term "specialty occupation" as an occupation that requires "theoretical and practical application of 
a body of highly specialized knowledge, and 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 section 214(i)(l) of the Act, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) provides that the 
proffered position must meet one of four criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation position. 1 Lastly, 
1 8 C.F.R. § 2 l 4.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) must be read with the statutory and regulatory definitions of a specialty occupation under 
section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). We construe the tenn "degree" to mean not just any 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(l) states that an H-lB classification may be granted to a foreign national 
who "will perform services in a specialty occupation ... " ( emphasis added). 
Accordingly, to determine whether the Beneficiary will be employed in a specialty occupation, we 
look to the record to ascertain the services the Beneficiary will perform and whether such services 
require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge attained 
through at least a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty or its equivalent. Without 
sufficient evidence regarding the duties the Beneficiary will perform, we are unable to determine whether 
the Beneficiary will be employed in an occupation that meets the statutory and regulatory definitions of 
a specialty occupation and a position that also satisfies at least one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 2 l 4.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). The services the Beneficiary will perform in the position determine: (1) the normal 
minimum educational requirement for entry into 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. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
By regulation, the Director is charged with determining whether the petition involves a specialty 
occupation as defined in section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(2). The Director 
may request additional evidence in the course of making this determination. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(8). 
In addition, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the petition and must continue to 
be eligible through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
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. 
Specifically, we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated the position's duties and 
requirements with sufficient clarity and therefore has not established the substantive nature of the 
position, which precludes a determination that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation under at least one of the four regulatory specialty occupation criteria enumerated at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4). 
The Petitioner, a computer and software consultancy company, intends to employ the Beneficiary in 
the position of "Manager JC50 - Computer Systems Engineers/Architects." On the labor condition 
application (LCA) submitted in support of the petition, the Petitioner designated the proffered position 
to be in the occupational category of "Computer Systems Engineers/ Architects," corresponding to 
Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 15-1299.08 in the Occupational Information 
Network (O*NET). 2 The Petitioner states that the educational requirement for the position is a 
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"). 
2 According to O*NET's description. positions located within this occupation primarily "[d]esign and develop solutions 
2 
bachelor's degree in "computer engineering, computer science, information technology, computer 
information systems, and software development and testing, or a closely related field." 3 
With the initial filing, the Petitioner provided a lengthy, narrative description of Beneficiary's 
proposed duties. The job description is divided into 4 duties that are labeled, respectively, as 50%, 
20%, 15%, and 15% of the job. Each of the four duties are several paragraphs long and contain 
disparate tasks that appear unconnected to each other. For example, the 50% section includes the 
statement that the Beneficiary "works on identifying and assessing automation opportunities, 
requirements gathering and analysis, estimation and create (sic) high-level design on Robotics Process 
Automation technologies;" but also "oversees the onsite/near-shore/off-shore team members; guides 
them in better understanding of the existing applications and environment, resolution of bug fixes, 
critical deliverables, and production support operational activities;" and "manages detailed solution 
design specifications, coding, unit and integration testing of the object and process modules of the 
project;" among other duties. Although the job description is lengthy, it is primarily written in vague, 
jargon-laden terms. If there are primary, overarching themes to each of the four duties, we are unable 
to ascertain them; the tasks within each duty appear arbitrary. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided what it called a "more 
detailed" job description. This job description, however, is shorter than the one submitted initially; it 
does not expand on the initial job duties provided but instead changes the organization and order of 
the paragraphs in the initial job description. Although this job description is still divided into 4 duties 
labeled 50%, 20%, 15%, and 15%, the duties are not the same as initially presented. Instead, the 
Petitioner moved paragraphs and blocks of text from one section to another, without explanation. For 
example, the paragraph that relates to robotics process automation is now listed in a 15% section 
instead of the 50% section. The 50% section now contains the language that initially appeared in one 
of 15% sections. Rather than clarifying the duties initially presented, the Petitioner has shuffled the 
vague, lengthy blocks of text from one section to another. 
Both the job descriptions use much of the same language (albeit in a different order) and reference 
many of the same applications and tools, such as UiPath, Decipher IDP, and REFramework. But 
because the two job descriptions shuffle language between different sections, it is unclear what the 
primary duties of the position are. The Petitioner does not provide an explanation for why the 
description of the job's duties has changed so drastically, nor does the Petitioner even acknowledge 
that it changed the description of the job. Again, we recognize that the two job descriptions appear to 
relate to each other and describe similar work, but they are organized so differently, and place entirely 
different emphasis on different aspects of the job, that we are unable to ascertain any logical way in 
which the description submitted in response to the RFE "clarifies" the initial job description. Despite 
the lengthy nature of both job descriptions, we are left without a clear picture of the substantive nature 
of the job duties. 
to complex applications problems, system administration issues, or network concerns" and "[p]erform systems 
management and integration functions." See O*NET OnLine Summary Report for "15-1299.08 - Computer Systems 
Engineers/ Architects," https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/l 5-l 299.08. 
3 The Petitioner stated this degree requirement only in response to the Director's request for evidence. In the initial filing, 
the Petitioner made the more generic assertion that the position requires a bachelor's degree "in a field of study that is 
directly related to position to successfully perform the job duties." 
3 
Moreover, the Petitioner's repeated use of technical terms, software applications and tools, and 
references to its proprietary methods and processes are not self-evident of a specialized degree 
requirement. There are technology occupations that may be performed with a general degree and 
certifications or experience in a particular program, framework, or third-party software. In fact, the 
RFE job description does not state that there is any specific degree requirement for the position and 
instead implies that the necessary training and experience for the position is learned on the job, 
asserting that: 
[The Beneficiary] will use [the Petitioner's] Best Practice to perform his job duties in 
the United States, specifically [the Petitioner's] Best Practice for UIPath RPA tool for 
achieving regulatory compliance as acquired through [the Petitioner's] Leaming and 
Development programs and/ or on-the-job experience within [the Petitioner's] family 
of companies. 
The Petitioner's claims on appeal do not help elucidate the nature of the Beneficiary's job duties. 
Instead, the Petitioner asserts on appeal, among other claims, that the position is a specialty occupation 
because it "would likely fall under" the occupational category of "Computer and Information Systems 
Manager," which is designated with SOC code 11-3021. However, as noted above, the Petitioner 
designated that this position is in the occupational category "Computer Systems Engineers/ Architects" 
and obtained a certified LCA in that category. Rather than helping support a finding that the position 
is a specialty occupation, the Petitioner's argument here creates additional confusion as to the true, 
substantive nature of the proffered position. This claim additionally creates a question as to whether 
the LCA corresponds to the position, as required by the regulations. 4 Moreover, we note that the 
wages for the Computer and Information Systems Manger occupation are significantly higher than the 
wages for the certified LCA category. 
Finally, there are inconsistencies in the record regarding the position's job title, which we also 
conclude contribute to the lack of clarity regarding the proffered position. In the opinion letter 
submitted in response to the RFE, the writer refers to the position as having the title "Senior 
Associate." The Petitioner on appeal refers to the position as a "senior associate," as one of its 
"Technology Lead - US roles," and as an engineering manager. The Petitioner's reference to this 
position as a manager role, a senior associate position, and a technology lead position create additional 
lack of clarity as to the true nature of the proffered position. 
We must review the actual duties the Beneficiary will be expected to perform to ascertain whether 
those duties require at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as required 
for classification as a specialty occupation. To accomplish that task, we must understand and analyze 
the actual duties in conjunction with the Petitioner's business operations. We conclude that the lack 
of clarity surrounding the job descriptions, the discussion of the position's similarity to an entirely 
different occupational category, and the references to different job titles in the petition, taken together, 
cast sufficient doubt on the actual duties of proffered position that we are unable to determine whether 
those duties require at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
4 While the U.S. Department of Labor certifies the LCA, under the regulations USCIS has the authority to determine 
whether an H-lB petition is supported by an LCA which "corresponds with the petition." 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b); see also 
ITServe Alliance, Inc. v. DHS, 590 F. Supp. 3d at 40 (noting that 20 C.F.R. § 655.705 requires USCIS "to check that the 
[H-lB] petition matches the LCA"). 
4 
Based on the foregoing, the record lacks sufficiently probative and informative evidence to 
demonstrate that the proffered position requires a specialty occupation's level of knowledge in a 
specific specialty. The record does not adequately convey (1) the actual work that the Beneficiary will 
perform; (2) the complexity, uniqueness, or specialization of the tasks; and (3) the correlation between 
that work and a need for a particular level of education and knowledge. Without sufficient clarity 
regarding the duties the Beneficiary will perform we are unable to determine whether the Beneficiary 
will be employed in an occupation that meets the statutory and regulatory definitions of specialty 
occupation and is a position that also satisfies at least one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Further, based upon the Petitioner's statements on appeal, we cannot determine 
whether the certified LCA corresponds to and supports the position generally described in the petition. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Upon review of the totality of the evidence submitted, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient 
evidence substantive detail or clarity regarding the duties the Beneficiary will perform and therefore 
has not established the minimum degree requirement for the occupation. Therefore we are unable to 
determine the substantive nature of the work and whether the Beneficiary will be employed in a 
position that satisfies at least one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) and is an occupation 
that meets the statutory and regulatory definitions of a specialty occupation as defined by section 
214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's 
burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. See section 291 of the Act. The 
Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5