dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Science

U.S. Department of Homelantl Security 
20 Mass. Ave. N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
idawhg d8ts deleted tn 
Prevent clearly unwarranted 
hv*n ofpersmal prlvaqr 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: WAC 04 059 5 1838 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 0 9 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
I 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals office in your case. All documents have been returned 
to the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 04 059 51838 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and the matter is now before the 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. The petition will be 
denied. 
The petitioner is a manufacturer of women's bags and shoes that seeks to employ the beneficiary as a 
computer systems programmer. The petitioner, therefore, seeks to classifjr the beneficiary as a 
nonirnmigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to section 10 1 (a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 9 1 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition on the basis that the petitioner had failed to establish that the proposed 
position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 8 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. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, the position must meet one of 
the following criteria: 
(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. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) interprets 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. 
The record of proceeding before the AAO contains (I) the Form 1-1 29 and supporting documentation; (2) the 
director's request for evidence (RFE); (3) the petitioner's RFE response and supporting documenlation; 
(4) the director's denial letter; and (5) the Form I-290B and supporting documentation. The AAO reviewed 
the record in its entirety before issuing its decision. 
WAC 04 059 51838 
Page 3 
The petitioner is a manufacturer of women's bags and shoes with three employees. It proposes to hire the 
beneficiary as a computer systems programmer. In its letter of support submitted with the initial filing, the 
petitioner described the duties of the proposed position as follows: 
Specifically, 60% of [the beneficiary's] time will be allocated in defining the goals and 
analyzing comprehensive methods to computer operator management, controlling and 
executing software packages such as the Office Master System (OMS). This involves 
working with management to understand their initial needs, and facilitating communication 
between all relevant functions. [The beneficiary] will participate in all phases of the 
sofhvare development process (initiation, requirements, analysis, design, and testing). 
[The beneficiary] will analyze current operational procedures, identify problems and learn 
specific input and output requirements such as purchases, inventory, distribution, delivery, 
receipt, sales, etc ... [sic]. Further, she will plan and prepare work flow charts and diagrams 
to specify in detail operations to be performed by computer programs and operations to be 
performed by personnel in [the] system. 
In addition to her project management work, [the beneficiary] will spend 40% of her time 
maintaining investment databases and worlung on extremely complex problems where 
analysis of situations or data requires evaluation of complex variance factors. She will 
analyze and solve complex business problems using the tools of information technology 
(emphasis in orignal). She will design platforms, write code, and develop tests and testing 
procedures. 
She will also lead multiple modeling, simulations, and analysis and act as an expert technical 
resource to programming staff in the program development, testing, and implementation 
process. She will plan and prepare technical reports, memoranda[,] and instructional 
manuals as documentation of program development. In addition, she will develop 
technology-oriented managers with the knowledge and ability to align information systems 
requirements with the long-term business objectives of the our company [sic] (emphasis in 
orignal). 
The director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner had satisfied none of the four criteria set forth at 8 
C.F.R. 8 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), and therefore had not proven that the proposed position qualifies for 
classification as a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, counsel' contends that the proposed position in fact qualifies as a specialty occupation, and that 
the director erred in denying the petition. As a preliminary matter, the AAO notes that on the Form 1-129, the 
proposed position was labeled "computer systems programmer." However, every document in the record 
submitted before the appeal, including the petitioner's letters, previous counsel's letters, and the labor 
condition application, referred to the position as either a "computer systems analyst" or a "systems analyst." 
On appeal, newly-retained counsel refers to the position as a "computer systems programmer," and contends 
that the duties of the proposed position "may only be performed by a Computer Programrner/Analyst." 
Counsel on appeal, is no longer an active member of the California State Bar and is thus not an 
authorized representatnre. 
WAC 04 059 51838 
Page 4 
In determining whether a proposed position qualifies as a specialty occupation, CIS looks beyond the title 
of the proposed position and determines, from a review of the duties of the position and any supporting 
evidence, whether the position actually requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of 
highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment of a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty, as the 
minimum for entry into the occupation as required by the Act. The AAO routinely consults the 
Occupational Outlook Handbook (the Handbook) for its information about the duties and educat-ional 
requirements of particular occupations. 
The AAO concurs with counsel that the duties of the proposed position accord with those of computer 
programmer-analysts, as they encompass duties from both areas. The duties of the proposed position 
therefore fall within those noted for computer systems analysts, database administrators, and computer 
scientists, as the Handbook places the occupation of programmer-analyst within this group of 
occupations, noting that "[plrograrnmer-analysts design and update the software that runs a computer. 
Because they are responsible for both programming and systems analysis, these workers must be 
proficient in both areas." 
The Handbook notes that there is no universally accepted way to prepare for a position in this 
occupational grouping, but that most employers place a premium on some formal college education. 
While a bachelor's degree is a prerequisite for many positions, others may require only a two-year degree. 
For more technically complex positions, persons with graduate degrees are preferred. Many employers 
seek applicants who have a bachelor's degree in computer science, information science or management 
information systems (MIS). MIS programs are usually part of a business school or college and differ 
considerably from computer science programs, emphasrzmg business and management-oriented course 
work and business computing courses. Employers are increasingly seeking individuals with a master's 
degree in business administration with a concentration in information systems as more firms move their 
business to the Internet. The educational requirements for these positions vary greatly, depending on the 
needs of a particular position. A bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, however, is not a minimum 
requirement for entry into the occupation. Therefore, the proposed position does not qualify as a 
specialty occupation under 8 C.F.R. 4 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I). 
Nor does the proposed position qualify as a specialty occupation under either prong of 8 C.F.R. 
214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). The first prong of this regulation requires a showing that a specific degree 
requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. The AA(3 has 
reviewed the three job postings submitted in response to the director's request for evidence. Counsel, 
however, has failed to consider the specific requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) for 
establishing a baccalaureate or higher degree as an industry norm. To meet the burden of proof imposed by 
the regulatory language, a petitioner must establish that its degree requirement exists in parallel positions 
among similar organizations. 
Counsel has not established that any of the submitted job postings pertain to parallel positions in similar 
organizations. For example, the United States Postal Service, one of the largest employers in the IJnited 
States, with millions of customers, is similar in neither size nor scope of operations to the petitioner, a 
manufacturer of women's bags and shoes with three employees. In another posting, the name of the 
employer is not listed. The employer placing the third job posting does not require a bachelor's degree; it 
notes specifically that five years of experience will substitute for a degree. Moreover, the inforn~ation 
regarding the duties and responsibilities of the advertised positions is general and does not support a 
meaningful comparison of their actual performance and specialty knowledge requirements to the proposed 
position. The AAO is presented with no basis to conclude that the advertised positions and the one proposed 
here are parallel, as required by the regulation. 
WAC 04 059 51 838 
Page 5 
Thus, the position does not qualify under the first prong of the second criterion. The second prong of the 
second criterion will be discussed later in this decision. 
The AAO next turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3), which requires that the petitioner 
demonstrate that it normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position. To determine a 
petitioner's ability to meet the third criterion, the AAO normally reviews the petitioner's past 
employment practices, as well as the histories, including the names and dates of employment, of those 
employees with degrees who previously held the position, and copies of those employees' diplomas. 
In the RFE response, the petitioner submitted a letter stating, in part, that "[mlany other companies and 
especially our company require any employee holding the position of Computer Analyst to possess at 
least a baccalaureate degree or higher." 
However, no evidence was submitted to document the petitioner's assertion that it normally requires 
individuals holding the proposed position to possess such degrees. Simply going on record w~thout 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
Therefore, the third criterion of 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) has not been satisfied. 
Finally, the duties to be performed by the beneficiary are not so specialized or complex that knowledge 
required to perform them is usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty. Nor are the duties so complex or unique that they can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree in a specific specialty. The petitioner has not established that its proposed 
position is more complex than the one outlined in the Handbook, which does not require a four-year 
degree. 
As described, the duties of this position do not appear to be so unique or complex that they require the 
services of an individual with a bachelor's degree. As previously noted, not all programmer analyst 
positions require a bachelor's degree, as some require only a two-year degree. Thus, the proposed 
position does not qualify as a specialty occupation under the second prong of the second criterion of 8 
C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), nor does it qualify under the fourth criterion of that regulation. 
The proposed position does not qualify for classification as a specialty occupation under any of the four 
criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. $5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I), (2), (3), and (4), and the petition was properly 
denied. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that the position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. 
Accordingly, the AAO will not disturb the director's denial of the petition. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 1J.S.C. 
1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.