dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Science

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
identifying data deleted to 
prevenr :.izar 1; tmwarranted 
invasion of personal psi= 
pmuc COPY 
20 ~asi. Ave., N.W., Rrn. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: WAC 04 193 5 141 9 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: M): 0 1 m6 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)( 1 S)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101 (a)(] 5)(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 04 193 51419 
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 an importer and wholesaler of crafts and candles that seeks to employ the beneficiary as a 
full-time database administrator. The petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant worker 
in a specialty occupation pursuant to 5 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. $ 1 1 Ol(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 publications related to the occupation of database 
administrator. 
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. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. $ 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 proffered position. 
The record of proceeding before the AAO contains: (1) Form 1-129 and supporting documentation; (2) the 
director's request for additional evidence; (3) the petitioner's response to the director's request; (4) the 
director's denial letter; and (5) Form I-290B and supporting documentation. The AAO reviewed the record in 
its entirety before issuing its decision. 
WAC 04 193 51419 
Page 3 
The petitioner is seeking the beneficiary's services as a full-time database administrator. Evidence of the 
beneficiary's duties includes: the 1-129 petition; the petitioner's June 18,2004 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 be responsible for the following duties: database design, modification, and maintenance; updating 
inventory and creating new functions and features for managing sales and inventory data and for improving 
efficiency of data management; performing troubleshooting, security, backup/recovery, and scripting; 
managing the petitioner's website and creating new web pages; creating reports for online transactions; and 
using MS Access, Peachtree, Excel, Adobe Photoshop, HTML, Java, JavaScript and VBScript. The petitioner 
indicated that the beneficiary is a qualified candidate for the job because she possesses a U.S. master'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 in a specific specialty. Citing to the Department of Labor's 
(DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook), 2004-2005 edition, 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. 9 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
On appeal, counsel states, in part, that the proffered position is that of a database administrator, which, 
according to the DOL, is a specialty occupation requiring a bachelor's degree. Counsel states further that, due 
to its steady and projected business growth, the petitioner needs the services of a database administrator. 
Upon review of the record, the petitioner has established none of the four criteria outlined in 
8 C.F.R. 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. 9 214.2(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 fms 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 115 1, 1165 (D. 
Minn. 1999)(quoting HirdIBlaker COT. v. Sava, 7 12 F. Supp. 1095, 1 102 (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. A review of the Computer Scientists and Database Administrators category in the Handbook, 
2006-2007 edition, does not find that a four-year degree is normally required for a database administrator job. 
The DOL states as follows: "While there is no universally accepted way to prepare for a job as a network 
systems analyst, computer scientist, or database administrator, most employers place a premium on some 
formal college education. A bachelor's degree is a prerequisite for many jobs; however, some jobs may 
require only a 2-year degree." In this case, although counsel asserts that the services of a database 
administrator are warranted due to the petitioner's steady and projected business growth, information in the 
record reflects that the petitioner, which was established in 1990, has an approximate gross annual income of 
WAC 04 193 51419 
Page 4 
$1.2 million and three employees. Upon review of the record in its entirety, the petitioner has not established 
that it will hire a database administrator in a position that requires a four-year degree. Going on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in 
these proceedings. Matter of Soflci, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 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). 
The record does not include any evidence regarding parallel positions in the petitioner's industry. 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. 
The petitioner, therefore, has not established the criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I) or (2). 
The AAO now turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3) - the employer normally requires a 
degree or its equivalent for the position. As the record indicates that the proffered position is a new position, the 
petitioner, therefore, has not established the criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. $214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
Finally, the AAO turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(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. 
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. $ 2 14.2&)(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. $ 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.