dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Science
Decision Summary
The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish that the proffered position of Systems Administrator qualifies as a specialty occupation. The AAO found that the duties were not proven to be so specialized or complex as to require a bachelor's degree in a specific field, referencing the Occupational Outlook Handbook. The petitioner also failed to demonstrate that a specific degree is a normal minimum requirement for the position, common in the industry, or a standard requirement for the employer.
Criteria Discussed
Sign up free to download the original PDF
Downloaded the case? Use it in your next draft →View Full Decision Text
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 Washington. DC 20529 'BJ. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services EAC 03 084 5 1920 Office: VERMONT SERVlCE CENTER * r, q^"$ FILE: Date: c-# , - G 'LUJ PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the lmmigratation and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 B l Ol(a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b) ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. AIP 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 Aclmi~~istrative Appeals Office EAC 03 084 51920 Page 2 DHSCUS$ION: The senlice center director denied the nonimmigrmt visa petition and the matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (MO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. The petition will be denied. The petitioner is a women's apparel business that seeks to employ the beneficiary as a systems administrator. The petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occtapation pursuant to 5 !Ol(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 110P(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b). The director denied the petition because the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. On appeal, the petitioner submits a letter. Section 214(i)(9) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 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 requirernent 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. tj 2 14.2(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; (43 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. The petitioner is seeking the beneficiary's services as a systems administrator. Evidence of the beneficiary's duties includes: the 1-129 petition; the petitioner's January 14, 2003 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 EAC 03 084 5 B 920 Page 3 perform duties that entail: maintaining all computers in the office; networking related computer programs; and maintaining the e-mail system and the MBI system, which is specific to the garment industry in ordering, inventory, invoice, and shipping procedures. The petitioner indicated that a qualified candidate for the job would possess a bachelor's degree in computer science or a related field. The director found that the proffered position was not a specialty occupation because the proposed duties ase not so complex as to require a bachelor's degree. Citing to the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (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. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). On appeal, the petitioner states, in part, that the proposed duties, which entail monitoring and maintaining the daily operation of the MBH system including troubleshooting for malfunctions, and maintaining, repairing, and upgrading all of the petitioner's computers, are so complex as to require a bachelor's degree. The petitioner states further that the beneficiary is bilingual, a req~lirernent that was mentioned in the petitioner's job posting. The petitioner also states that its other IT employee, a systems analyst, holds a bachelor's degree in computes science. Upon review of the record, the petitioner has established none of the four criteria outlined in 8 C.F.W. tj 2 14.2(h)(4)(jii)(A). Therefore, the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. The AAO turns first to the criteria at 8 8.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)o 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 m individ~~al 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 fins "routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1 15 1, 1 B 65 (D. Minn. 1999)(quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 IF. Supp. 1095, 1 102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). The M0 routinely consults the Handbook for its infomation about the duties and educational requirements o-F particular occupations. The A40 does not concur with the petitioner that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. A review of the Computer Support Specialists and Systems Administrators job descriptions in the Handbook, 2004-2005 edition, finds that many employers seek applicants with bachelor's degrees for systems administrators, although not necessarily in a computer-related field. No evidence in the Handbook indicates that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty is required for a systems administrator position. Furthemore, the petitioner also has not established that the beneficiary's bilingual duties are of such complexity that a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty, as distinguished from familiarity with the English and Chinese languages or a less extensive education, is necessary for the successfinl completion of its duties. Thus, the petitioner has not shown that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required for the position being offered to the beneficiary. The record does not include any evidence regarding parallel positions in the petitioner's industry. The record also does not include any evidence from professional associations regarding an industry standard, or EAC 03 084 51920 Page 4 documentation to support the complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position. The petitioner, therefore, laas not established the criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2@)(4)(iii)(A)(I) or (2). The AAO now turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(AQo - the employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position. Oln appeal, the petitioner states that its systems analyst holds a bachelor's degree in computer science. A systems administrator position and a systems analyst position, however, are not the same position. Furthermore, the record does not contain any evidence of the petitioner's past hiring practices and therefore, the petitioner has not met its burden of proof in this regard. 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 Tremure CraB of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). Finally, the AAO turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. tj 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4) - the nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that howledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher 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. 3 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 occupations. 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. Tne petitioner has not sustained that burden. 0mEW: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.
Avoid the mistakes that led to this denial
MeritDraft learns from dismissed cases so your petition avoids the same pitfalls. Get arguments built on winning precedents.
Avoid This in My Petition →No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.