dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Science

MATTER OF S-P-S-, INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 27,2017 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a computer consulting firm, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"programmer analyst" under the H-1 B 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 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 qualifies as a specialty occupation. 1 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in denying the petition. 
Upon de novo 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 
We hereby withdraw the Director's statement that the position of programmer analyst is traditionally considered a 
specialty occupation. The Director does not cite to any authoritative or objective source to support this statement. 
.
Matter ofS-P-S-, Inc. 
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 followi!lg criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
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 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 Corp. v. Cherto.ff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing 
"a degree requirement in a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and 
responsibilities of a particular position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner provided the following information about the path of contractual succession: 
[ Pet;t;oo~ l reod~ ~ ) (""d CBeot ~ ) 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would serve as a programmer analyst and be employed off­
site at the end-client's location. 
The vender and end-client provided the following duties for the proffered position:2 
• • Responsible for the design, development and administration of transactional and 
analytical data constructs/structures using Python orR, Tableau, Terradata, SAS. 
2 This list of duties was endorsed by the Petitioner. 
2 
Matter ofS-P-S-, Inc. 
• Included within those responsibilities are the areas of data access and delivery 
technologies, expertise in data quality, data organization, metadata, and data 
profiling. 
• May provide technical support on data warehouse teams. 
• Demonstrated ability to move from one sequential assignment to the next (work 
environment and priorities can change quickly depending on business needs). 
• Demonstrated ability to move data between production systems and across 
multiple platforms[.] 
They did not state that the position has any specific academic or experience requirements. 
With the initial submission, the Petitioner provided the following information regarding the 
requirements of the position. However, we note, that there are variances as to the acceptable 
disciplines and additional requirements.3 
Record of Educational Level Disciplines Additional 
Proceedings Requirements 
Letter of Support bachelor's or master's computer science, none 
-Nov. 3, 2015 degree information systems, 
management, 
information systems, 
electrical/electronics, 
engineering, physics 
Letter of Support bachelor's degree computer science, proficiency in 
-Oct. 31, 2016 engmeenng, software tools 
management/computer 
information systems 
Further, the Petitioner provided inconsistent information regarding the Beneficiary's supervisor. 
The chart below summarized the Petitioner's statements: 
3 
The Petitioner stated that a degree in one of several disparate fields (e.g., management and physics) is sufficient for the 
position. In general, provided the specialties are closely related, a minimum of a bachelor's or higher degree in more 
than one specialty is recognized as satisfying ~he "degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)" requirement of 
section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act. In such a case, the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" would essentially 
be the same. 
A minimum entry requirement of degrees in disparate fields, however, would not meet the statutory requirement that the 
degree be "in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)," unless the Petitioner establishes how each field is directly related 
to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position such that the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" 
is essentially an amalgamation of these different specialties. Section 214(i)( I )(B) of the Act (emphasis added). The 
Petitioner has not made this showing. 
3 
.
Matter ofS-P-S-. Inc. 
Record of Proceedings Supervisor 
Letter of Support- Oct. 31, 2016 I 
Right of Control Over the Beneficiary (no date) I 
The Petitioner did not provide an explanation for the variances in the minimum requirements for the 
position or for the inconsistency in who will supervise the Beneficiary. 
III. ANALYSIS 
For the reasons set out below, we have determined that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. Specifically, the record (1) does not describe 
the position's duties with sufficient detail; and (2) does not establish that the job duties require an 
educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation.4 
More specifically, a crucial aspect of this matter is whether the record contains sufficient 
information that we may discern the nature of the position. The Petitioner has not done so here. For 
example, the record does not provide the order of importance and/or frequency of occurrence (e.g., 
regularly, periodically, or at irregular intervals) with which the Beneficiary will perform the 
functions and tasks. Thus, the record does not specify which tasks are major functions of the 
proffered position. 
Further, as recognized in Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88, it is necessary for the end-client to provide 
sufficient information regarding the proposed job duties to be performed at its location( s) in order to 
properly ascertain the minimum educational requirements necessary to perform those duties. In 
other words, as the employees in that case would provide services to the end-client and not to the 
petitioning staffing company, the Petitioner-provided job duties and alleged requirements to perform 
those duties were irrelevant to a specialty occupation determination. See id. 
Here, the end-client described the proposed duties in terms of generic functions that do not convey 
substantive information to establish the relative complexity, uniqueness and/or specialization of the 
proffered position or its duties. The abstract level of information provided about the proffered 
position and its constituent duties is exemplified by the assertion that the Beneficiary "may" provide 
technical support, suggesting that this function is not a required task for the position. Further, 
providing technical support could encompass a range of responsibilities and the record lacks 
sufficient details on how this would translate to specific tasks. 
The end-client also claimed the position involves the "demonstrated ability to move from one 
sequential assignment to the next" and the "demonstrated ability to move data." The phrase 
"demonstrated ability" suggests that the individual should have some background with these tasks. 
4 
The Petitioner submitted documentation in support of the H-1 B 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. 
4 
Matter ofS-P-S-, Inc. 
However, the statements do not convey enough pertinent details as to communicate the Beneficiary's 
actual role or the work that he will perform. Further, the record does not convey how a 
baccalaureate level of education (or higher) iri a specific specialty, or its equivalent, would be 
required for its performance. 
Thus, the responsibilities for the proffered position contained general functions without providing 
sufficient information regarding the particular work and the associated educational requirements into 
which the duties would manifest themselves in their day-to-day performance. The description of the 
Beneficiary's duties lack the specificity and detail necessary to support the Petitioner's contention 
that the position is a specialty occupation. 
While a general description may be appropriate when defining the range of duties that are performed 
within an occupation, such a generic description generally cannot be relied upon when discussing the 
duties attached to specific employment for H-1 B approval. In establishing such a position as a 
specialty occupation, especially one that may be classified as a staffing position or labor-for-hire, the 
description of the proffered position must include enough details to substantiate that the Petitioner 
(or, in this case, the end-client) has H-1 B caliber work for the Beneficiary. Here, the job description 
from the Petitioner and the end-client does not sufficiently communicate: (1) the actual work that 
the Beneficiary would perform; (2) the complexity, uniqueness or specialization of the tasks; or (3) 
the correlation between that work and a need for a particular level of knowledge in a specific 
specialty. 
Importantly, the record lacks sufficient substantive documentation from the end-client regarding 
what it may or may not have specified with regard to the educational credentials of persons to be 
assigned to its project. Moreover, the Petitioner provided inconsistent information about the 
position's requirements. 
The Petitioner, thus, has not established the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the 
Beneficiary, which precludes a finding that the proffered position satisfies any criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A), because it is the substantive nature of that work that determines (1) the normal 
minimum educational requirement for the particular position, which is the focus of criterion I; 
(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. 
Moreover, the Petitioner does not directly assert eligibility or provide sufficient evidence in support 
ofthe regulatory criteria. Thus, the present record does not satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
5 
Matter ofS-P-S-, Inc. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, we find that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for tht: 
benefit sought. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofS-P-S-, Inc., ID# 441768 (AAO July 27, 2017)