dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Science

identifVing data deld to 
prevent clearly unw-ted 
invasion ot personal pfivw 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: WAC 04 125 5 1653 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN f 2 2006 
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. $ 1 101 (a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
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, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 04 125 51653 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center 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 business that installs, supports, and repairs point-of-sale (POS) computers. It seeks to 
employ the beneficiary as a systems analyst/network administrator. The petitioner endeavors to classify the 
beneficiary as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to 8 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 9 1 101 (a)(l S)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition because the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. On appeal, 
counsel submits a brief and additional evidence, including Internet job advertisements and excerpts from 
publications such as Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) and 
America 's Career InfoNet. 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 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. 9 214.2(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. 9 214.2(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 proffered position. 
The record of proceeding before the AAO contains: (1) Form 1-129 and supporting documentation; (2) the 
director's denial letter; and (3) Form I-290B and supporting documentation. The AAO reviewed the record in 
its entirety before issuing its decision. 
WAC 04 125 51653 
Page 3 
The petitioner is seeking the beneficiary's services as a systems analysthetwork administrator. Evidence of 
the beneficiary's duties includes: the 1-129 petition; the petitioner's March 8, 2004 letter in support of the 
petition; and the petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence. According to this evidence, the 
beneficiary would perform duties that entail: collecting and analyzing information and system requirements; 
designing and verifying the automated systems utilized by the petitioner; developing and directing product 
testing activities and debugging procedures; overseeing the installation and integrating the functions of all the 
systems, databases, and network installation; and preparing and presenting oral and written reports on 
assigned projects. The petitioner indicated that the beneficiary is a qualified candidate for the job because he 
possesses the U.S. equivalent of a bachelor's degree in computer science. 
The director found that the proffered position was not a specialty occupation because the proposed duties are 
not so complex as to require a bachelor's degree. Citing to the DOL's Handbook, the director noted that the 
minimum requirement for entry into the position was not a baccalaureate degree or its equivalent in a specific 
specialty. The director found further that the petitioner failed to establish any of the criteria found at 8 C.F.R. 
5 2 14.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
On appeal, counsel states, in part, that the duties and responsibilities of the proffered position are so highly 
specialized and complex as to require a bachelor's degree. Counsel states further that the degree requirement 
is industry wide. Counsel submits excerpts from DOL publications and job announcements as supporting 
documentation. 
Upon review of the record, the petitioner has established none of the four criteria outlined in 
8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Therefore, the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 
The AAO turns first to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I) and (2): a baccalaureate or higher 
degree or its equivalent is the normal minimum requirement for entry into the particular position; a degree 
requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations; or a particular 
position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree. 
Factors often considered by CIS when determining these criteria include: whether the Handbook reports that the 
industry requires a degree; whether the industry's professional association has made a degree a minimum entry 
requirement; and whether letters or affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms 
"routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. 
Minn. 1999)(quoting Hird/Blaker Cop v. Suva, 712 F. Supp. 1095,1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
The AAO routinely consults the Handbook for its information about the duties and educational requirements of 
particular occupations. The AAO does not concur with counsel that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation. In this case, information on the petition indicates that the petitioner installs, supports, and repairs 
point-of-sale (POS) computers, and has 25 employees and a gross annual income of $5 million. A review of 
the Computer Support Specialists and Systems Administrators category in the Handbook, 2006-2007 edition, 
finds that the proffered position is primarily that of a network administrator or computer systems administrator. 
According to the DOL, network administrators and computer systems administrators perform the following 
duties: 
[Dlesign, install, and support an organization's local-area network (LAN), wide-area network 
(WAN), network segment, Internet, or intranet system. They provide day-to-day onsite 
WAC 04 125 51653 
Page 4 
administrative support for software users in a variety of work environments, including professional 
offices, small businesses, government, and large corporations. They maintain network hardware 
and software, analyze problems, and monitor the network to ensure its availability to system users. 
These workers gather data to identify customer needs and then use the information to identify, 
interpret, and evaluate system and network requirements. Administrators also may plan, 
coordinate, and implement network security measures. 
No evidence in the Handbook indicates that a baccalaureate or higher degree, or its equivalent, is required for 
these jobs. Further, although counsel asserts on appeal that the petitioner is "currently adapting strategies for their 
expansion programs that will support and enable them to cope with the increase in their workload," thereby 
necessitating the services of a systems analyst'network administrator, there is no documentation of record that 
current expansion plans are underway or about the specific requirements of those plans. Without documentary 
evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The 
unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 
(BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 
506 (BIA 1980). 
Counsel's reference to and assertions about the relevance of information from America S Career InfoNet are 
not persuasive. The America's Career InfoNet "Occupation Report" is not based upon the statutory and 
regulatory criteria for specialty occupations that govern this processing. Furthermore, this document's use of 
the word "typical" does not equate to "required" or "normally required." Accordingly, the fact that a 
"Bachelor's degree" is described as the "Typical Educationamraining Level" for network and computer 
systems administrators in the State of California is not probative. 
Regarding parallel positions in the petitioner's industry, counsel submits additional Internet job postings on 
appeal. One of the advertisers is a leading software company and another advertiser is a leading provider of 
information systems to the healthcare and medical industries. There is no evidence, however, to show that the 
employers issuing those postings are similar to the petitioner, or that the advertised positions are parallel to 
the instant position. Thus, the advertisements are not probative. 
The record also does not include any evidence from firms, individuals, or professional associations regarding 
an industry standard, or documentation to support the complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position; and 
the duties that comprise the proffered position are described in generalized terms that do not establish the 
position as sufficiently unique or sufficiently complex to require a bachelor's degree level of knowledge in a 
specific specialty. 
The petitioner, therefore, has not established the criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I) or (2). 
The AAO now turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3) - the employer normally requires a 
degree or its equivalent for the position. As counsel does not address this issue on appeal, it will not be discussed 
further. The evidence of record does not establish this criterion. 
Finally, the AAO turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(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 hgher degree. The duties are described in exclusively generic terms that do not 
WAC 04 125 5 1653 
Page 5 
distinguish them from those performed by network or computer systems administrators for whch the Handbook 
indicates no requirement for or usual association with a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty. 
To the extent that they are depicted in the record, the duties do not appear so specialized and complex as to 
require the highly specialized knowledge associated with a baccalaureate or higher degree, or its equivalent, 
in a specific specialty. Therefore, the evidence does not establish that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation under 8 C.F.R. !j 2 14.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
As related in the discussion above, the petitioner has failed to establish that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation. Accordingly, the AAO shall 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 U.S.C. 5 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.