dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
MATTER OF S-USAE- INC DATE: SEPT. 9, 2016 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a company which owns and operates gas stations and convenience stores, seeks to 
extend the temporary employment of the Beneficiary as a "computer programmer/analyst" under the 
H-1B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-1B program allows a 
U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a position that requites 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, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish that it has sufficient specialty occupation work available for the 
Beneficiary for the duration of the requested period. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the Director erred in finding that specialty occupation work is unavailable. 
'-. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.1 
I. LAW 
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 follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 
375-76 (AAO 2010). 
Matter ofS-USAE- 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 following 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. 
I 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has consistently 
interpreted 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. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 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 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided the following 
. overview of the proffered position: 
[The Beneficiary's] initial job duty was to determine the best computer system for our 
company's specific needs. She then designed the system to meet those needs. This 
included the best way to network our businesses together and the best programs to 
accomplish our goals. As needed, she prepared and has updated these programs to 
ensure that our computer system is fully functional and up-to-date. She tests, 
maintains, and monitors computer programs and systems including coordinating the 
installation of computer programs and systems. She coordinates and links the 
computer systems within the company to increase compatibility and the sharing of 
information. She expands or modifies the system to serve new purposes and to 
improve work flow. She installs all network hardware and software and makes 
needed upgrades and repairs. (25% ). 
2 
Matter of S-USAE- Inc 
She trains the staff and users to work with the computer system and programs and 
provides training to users to keep them up to date with technical and financial 
developments, including issues with software problems. She trains our staff in 
computer interface and software use and has prepared instruction manuals. If there 
are any computer issues, she is on the spot to resolve these problems. 1 These 
computer issues can arise at any time, and it is imperative that she be available to 
handle these issues as they happen (1 0% ). 
She is <;onstantly working on new programs to help grow our business, including the 
development of new software programs and systems that will help to increase our 
sales, reduce our costs, and better manage our payroll and tax issues. Currently, she 
is working on developing a new inventory control program. Sometimes these 
programs take months to develop and she has to manage her time working on these 
new programs while she resolves the day to day computing issues of the business. 
She.is responsible for testing new software to ensure there are no problems and she 
must debug programs whenever problems arise. She also has to keep up with 
technical changes in our industry, as well as the computer industry, so that our 
business can perform at its highest potential (35%). 
·For all of our computer systems and software programs, she has to evaluate the cost 
benefit and return on investment to assist the officers of the business in deciding what 
systems and programs to implement. This includes determining what computer 
software, hardware, or peripherals are needed to set up or alter the system, and she 
must stay abreast of new technology trends in order to incorporate any relevant 
applications to existing systems (1 0%). 
Obviously, a computer systems is only as good as the information stored in it. In that 
regard, it is vitally important that all information is correctly and properly saved and 
stored. She maintains all the databases in secure software which stores and organizes 
data, such as financial information, to make sure that it is available to users and is 
secure from unauthorized access. She backs up all data to the "Cloud" as well as to 
an external hard drive and also provides training to our employees who are 
responsible for backing up all data at the end of each day. She saves all important 
information, such as inventory, sales, payroll, taxes, etc. in a central database and 
prepares the daily and mo11thly reports to .know exactly what the company's income 
and expenses are and provides this information to the company accountants for 
preparation of monthly, quarterly, and year-end tax returns (15%). 
The remaining part of her time is spent on literally dozens of other issues related to 
operating and maintaining a well-run computer system. Issues can arise at any time, 
and it is imperative that we have someone on hand who can handle any of these 
problems as they arise (5%). 
3 
Matter of S- USAE- Inc 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes its growing business operations, and states that, "as each new 
business is purchased, [the Beneficiary's] duties increase and become even more complex." 
The Petitioner states that the proffered job duties "can only be handled by someone who has at a 
minimum a Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science or related field," as well as "some experience as 
a programmer/analyst and network administrator." 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Specifically, the record does not adequately demonstrate the nature of the proffered position and its 
constituent duties, and consequently, does not establish that the job duties require an educational 
background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation.2 
Regarding the proffered duties, we concur with the Director's finding that the Petitioner did not 
submit sufficient objective evidence to establish that the Beneficiary would actually perform the 
duties of a computer programmer analyst for the entire requested validity period. While we 
acknowledge the Petitioner's evidence that its business revenue has grown over the past several 
years, the Petitioner did not provide sufficient documentation to demonstrate that it has and would 
continue to utilize the services of a full-time, in-house computer programmer analyst, as claimed. 
For example, the Petitioner did not submit any samples of the Beneficiary's work product to 
demonstrate that she developed software programs to facilitate the Petitioner's business operations, 
or provided networking services to connect the computer systems of the Petitioner's multiple 
locations. The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary has implemented accounting and tax programs, 
payroll programs, and an inventory control program, yet does not provide corroborating evidence of 
the existence of such programs. In addition, the record does not contain detailed explanations of 
how such programs are utilized in the Petitioner's daily operations. 
While the Petitioner states that it owns and operates several gas stations and convenience stores, the 
Petitioner only listed one address where the Beneficiary would work, which, from the fuel supply 
agreement and tax returns provided, appears to be a single gas station/convenience store. Although 
the evidence of record indicates that the Petitioner owns and operates more than one gas 
station/convenience store, it does not indicate that the Beneficiary would work at any location other 
than the one specified in the petition. 
Moreover, the Petitioner submitted numerous photos, both exterior and interior, of its gas 
stations/convenience stores. y er none of the submitted\ pictures verify the existence of the 
Petitioner's claimed computer network systems or the Beneficiary's workspace in general. Based on 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support 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 of S- USAE- Inc 
the photographs alone, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence of the claimed 
computer programs and network the Petitioner claims are the focus of the Beneficiary's position and 
is in use among its various locations. Although the Petitioner repeatedly asserts that the Beneficiary 
is responsible for networking all of its various locations together, and training all staff members 
among its three retail outlets in the use of such networks and systems, there is insufficient evidence 
to demonstrate that this claimed intricate system exists and is in use. 
The above deficiencies, coupled with the lack of evidence of any work product that was created by 
the Beneficiary during the past six years, renders the claims of the Petitioner questionable. "Doubt 
cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability 
and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition." Matter of Ho, 19 
I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). " 
The evidence of record also contains conflicting descriptions of the proffered position and its 
associated job duties, which further render the Petitioner's claims questionable. 
Here, the Petitioner attested on the labor condition application (LCA) that the proffered "computer 
systems analyst" position falls within the "Computer Systems Analysts" occupational classification, 
corresponding to Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 15-1121, at a Level I wage. 
However, the Petitioner simultaneously characterizes the proffered position as a "network 
administrator" position. In particular, the Petitioner stated on the Form I-129, Petition for a 
Nonimmigrant Worker, that the Beneficiary "[w]ill continue to work as a network administrator & 
programmer/analyst for the various stores owned by petitioner." Consistent with the "network 
administrator" title, the Petitioner also' listed various network administrator duties for the 
Beneficiary. The Petitioner stated in its initial support letter that "[i]t is imperative that we continue 
, to have a person who can assist our company in developing software programs . . . but, most 
importantly, allows us to network all of the locations together." The Petitioner also stated in its RFE 
response that the Beneficiary's duties include designing "the best way to network our businesses 
together," "coordinat[ing] and link[ing] the computer systems within the company," and "install[ing] 
all network hardware and software." These descriptions are consistent with the typical job duties for 
positions falling within the "Network and Computer Systems Administrators" occupational 
classification, corresponding to SOC code 15-1142.3 
3 See the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) Online Details Report for "Network and Computer Systems 
Administrators," http://www.onetonline.org/link/details/15-1142.00 (last visited Aug. 17, 2016). In this report, O*NET 
lists typical duties of network administrators as including "[m]aintain and administer computer networks and related 
computing environments including computer hardware, systems software, applications software, and all configurations," 
and "[d]esjgn, configure, and test computer hardware, networking software and operating system software." 
See also U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., "What Network 
and Computer Systems Administrators • Do," http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/network­
and-computer-systems-administrators.htm#tab-2 (last visited Aug. 17, 2016). The Handbook states in this sub-chapter 
that network administrators typically' perform duties such as "[d]etermine an organization's network and computer 
system needs before setting one up," "[i]nstall all network hardware and software and make needed upgrades and 
repairs," and "[t]rain users in the proper use of hardware and software." 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter ofS-USAE- Inc 
It is noted that, where a petitioner seeks to employ a beneficiary in two distinct occupations, the 
petitioner should file two separate petitions, requesting concurrent, part-time employment for each 
occupation .. Additionally, the petitioner would need to ensure that it separately meets all 
requirements relevant to each occupation and the payment of wages commensurate with the higher 
paying occupation.4 In this matter, the prevailing wage for "Network and Computer Systems 
Administrators" at a Level I wage is higher, at $45,157 per year, than the prevailing wage for 
"Computer Systems Analysts," which is $44,429 per year. 5 According to guidance from the U.S. 
Department of Labor (DOL), if the Petitioner believed the position encompasses the duties of both a 
computer systems analyst and network administrator, as appears to be the case here, it should have 
chosen the relevant occupational code for the highest paying occupation, in this case "Network and 
Compvter Systems Administrators"6 That the Petitioner acknowledges the position as a network 
administrator, but did not choose the most relevant occupational code for "Network and Computer 
Systems Administrators," without further explanation, leads us to question the Petitioner's 
credibility 
and reliability. 
Furthermore, we highlight the proffered duties of preparing the company's daily and monthly reports 
on "inventory, sales, payroll, taxes, etc.," knowing "exactly what the company's income and 
expenses are[,] and provid[ing] this information to the company accountants for preparation of 
monthly, quarterly, and year-end tax returns." The Petitioner has not explained and documented 
how these job duties involving the company's finances (e.g., inventory, sales, payroll, and taxes) are 
consistent with the "Computer Systems Analysts" occupational classification chosen here. 
We also highlight the Petitioner's vague statements that the Beneficiary's duties, which include 
"literally dozens" of other unspecified duties, are "increase[ing] and becom[ing] even more 
4 See generally 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h); U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination 
Policy Guidance,Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at http:/lflcdatacenter.com /download/NP 
WHC _Guidance_ Revised _ II _ 2009 .pdf. 
5 For more information regarding the wages for "Network and Computer Systems Administrators"- SOC 15-1142, in 
the AR MSA for the period 7/2015 6/20 16, se.e 
http://www.tlcdatacenter.com /OesQuickResults.aspx?code=l5-1142 &year= 16&source=l (last visited 
Aug. 17, 2016). · 
6 Specifically, DOL's "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" states the following : 
In determining the ·nature of the job offer, the first order is to review the requirements of the 
employer 's job offer and determine the appropriate occupational classification. The O*NET 
description that corresponds to the employer 's job offer shall be used to identify the appropriate 
occupational classification ..... If the employer's job opportunity has worker requirements described 
in a combination ofO*NET occupations, the SWA should default directly to the relevant O*NET-SOC 
occupational code for the highest paying occupation. For example, if the employer's job offer is for an 
engineer-pilot, the SW A shall use the education, skill and experience levels for the higher paying 
occupation when making the wage level determination. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination 
Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://tlcdatacenter .com/download/NP 
WHC_Guidance_Revised_11_2009.pdf. · 
6 
Matter of S-USAE- Inc 
complex" as the Petitioner's business grows. The Petitioner has not provided sufficient details to 
convey the nature of the Beneficiary's additional duties. We are further precluded from finding that 
the "Computer Systems Analysts" occupational classification chosen here is the most appropriate, 
relevant occupational classification, and that the Petitioner's statements about the proffered position 
are credible. 
Overall, we find that the Petitioner has not sufficiently established the substantive nature of the work 
to be performed by the Beneficiary. We are therefore precluded from 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 entry into the 
particular position, which is the focus of criterion 1; (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. Accordingly, as the Petitioner cannot satisfy any ofthe criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), 
we cannot find that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
However, even if. the Petitioner had shown that it would employ the Beneficiary as a computer 
programmer/analyst, we still would not find that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation, as explained below.7 
A. First Criterion 
We tum first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which requires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. To inform this inquiry, we recognize the DOL's Occupational 
Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requir~ments of 
the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 8 · 
7 The Director stated that "USCIS acknowledges that the position of computer programmer/analyst is traditionally 
considered a specialty occupation," and the Petitioner cites to this concession on appeal in support of the assertion that 
the proffered position is in fact a specialty occupation. We note, however, that this blanket assertion on the part of the 
Director was misplaced, as each petition filing is a separate proceeding with a separate record, and eligibility in every 
matter before USC IS is determined based on the evidence presented in each individual proceeding. 
8 All of our references are to the 2016-17 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not, however, maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant 
information. That is, the occupational category designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the 
general tasks and resJ)onsibilities of a proffered position, and USC IS regularly reviews the Handbook on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. To satisfy the first criterion, however, the 
burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position 
would normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
7 
Matter of S-USAE- Inc 
The Handbook subchapter entitled "How to Become a Computer Systems Analyst" states, in 
pertinent part: "A bachelor's degree in a computer or information science field is common, although 
not always a requirement. Some firms hire analysts with business or liberal arts degrees who have 
skills in information technology or computer programming." 9 The Handbook also states: "Although 
many computer systems analysts have technical degrees, such a degree is not always a requirement. 
Many analysts have liberal arts degrees and have gained programming or technical expertise 
elsewhere." I 0 
The Handbook indicates that a bachelor's degree in a computer or information science field may be 
common, but not that it is a requirement for entry into these jobs. In fact, this chapter reports that 
, I 
"many" computer systems analysts may only have liberal arts degrees and programming or technical 
experience, but does not further qualify the amount of experience needed. The Handbook also notes 
that many analysts have technical degrees, but does not specify a degree level (e.g., associate's 
degree) for these technical degrees. The Handbook further specifies that such a technical degree is 
not always a requirement. Thus, this passage of the Handbook reports that there are several paths for 
entry into the occupation. 
When reviewing the Handbook, we must also consider that the Petitioner designated the proffered 
position as a Level I (entry) positiod on the LCA. The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy 
Guidance" issued by the DOL describes a Level I wage rate as generally appropriate for a position 
for which the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the occupation. 
This wage rate indicates: (1) that the Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that 
require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that she will be closely supervised and her work 
closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that she will receive specific instructions on 
required tasks and expected results. I 1 Thus, in designating the proffered position at a Level I wage, 
the Petitioner has indicated that the proffered position is a comparatively low, entry-level position 
relative to others within the oGcupation. IZ 
9 U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., "Computer Systems 
Analysts," http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-systems-analysts.htm#tab-4 (last 
visited Aug. 17, 20 16). 
10 !d. 
11 U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. 
Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ 
Revised_I1_2009.pdf 
12 The Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position indicates that it is a comparatively 
low-level position compared to other positions within the same occupation. Nevertheless, a Level I wage-designation 
does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty occupation, just as a Level IV wage-designation 
does not definitively establish such a classification. In certain occupations (e.g., doctors or lawyers), a Level I, entry­
level position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for 
entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designation would not reflect that an occupation qualifies as a specialty 
occupation if that higher-level position does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degre(( in a specific 
specialty, or its 'equivalent. That is, a position's wage level designation may be a relevant factor but is not itself 
conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)( I) of the Act. 
8 
( 
Matter ofS-USAE- Inc 
In the instant case, the Petitioner has not established that the proffered position falls under an 
occupational category for which the Handbook, or another authoritative source, indicates that 
normally the minimum requirement for entry is at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
B. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs: "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[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong 
contemplates common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
I 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by 
USCIS 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 Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1 095, 1102 (S .D .N.Y. 1989) ). 
As discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which the 
Handbook, or another authoritative source, reports an industry-wide requirement for at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. We incorporate by reference our previous 
discussion on the matter. Also, there are no submissions from the industry's professional association 
indicating that it has made a degree a minimum entry requirement. Furthermore, the Petitioner did 
not submit any letters or affidavits from similar firms or individuals in the Petitioner's industry 
attesting that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." See id. Therefore, 
based upon a complete review of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not satisfied the first 
alternative prong of 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
9 
Matter of S- USAE- Inc 
Upon review, we find that the Petitioner has not sufficiently developed relative complexity or 
uniqueness as an aspect of the proffered position. For instance, the Petitioner did not submit 
information relevant to a detailed course of study leading to a specialty degree and did not establish 
how such a curriculum is necessary to perform the duties it may believe are so complex and 
unique. While a few related courses may be beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated how an established curriculum of such courses leading to a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the 
duties of the proffered position. 
In this matter, the Petitioner- highlights the Beneficiary's duties of designing the company's 
computer systems and network, and expanding and maintaining that system as the Petitioner's 
business expands. The Petitioner again highlights on appeal its growing business operations, 
resulting in the Beneficiary's duties increasing and becoming "even more complex." However, 
these vague descriptions of the Beneficiary's duties, without additional detail or corroborating 
evidence of the specific tasks she will perform as they relate to the Petitioner's operations, are 
insufficient to establish relative complexity or uniqueness as aspects of the proffered position. The 
general descriptions of the proffered duties do not identify which tasks are so complex or unique that 
only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. While the duties the Petitioner ascribed 
to the proffered position indicate a need for a range of technical knowledge in the computer/IT field, 
they do not establish any particular level of formal, postsecondary education leading to a bachelor's 
or higher degree in a specific specialty (or its equivalent) as minimally necessary to attain such 
knowledge. 
Further, and as previously noted, the LCA submitted by the Petitioner indicates that the proffered 
position is a Level I (entry) wage, which, as noted above, is the lowest of four assignable wage 
levels. Without additional evidence, the record of proceedings does not indicate that the proffered 
position is so complex or unique, as such a position would likely be classified at a higher-level, 
which requires a significantly higher prevailing wage.13 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position, and references her 
qualifications. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education 
or experience of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative 
complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position, and it did not identify any tasks 
that are so complex or unique that only Ja specifically degreed individual could perform them. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)(2). 
' 13 See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. 
Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ 
Revised_l1_2009.pdf 
10 
Matter of S-USAE-1nc 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it 
normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. 
The Petitioner states that it was established in 2007, and currently employs 10 people among three 
retail outlets.14 The Petitioner submits no evidence that it has previously hired any other individuals 
in the position of computer programmer/analyst. While we note the Petitioner's assertion that the 
Beneficiary is the only person to. hold the position of computer programmer/analyst, and that the 
Beneficiary was previously approved for H -1 B employment with the Petitibner in the proffered 
position, a prior approval does not compel the approval of a subsequent petition or relieve the 
Petitioner of its burden to provide sufficient documentation to establish current eligibility for the 
benefit sought.15 Temporary Alien Workers Seeking Classification Under the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 55 Fed. Reg. 2,606, 2,612 (Jan. 26, 1990) (to be codified at 8 C.F.R. pt. 214). 
Here, the record of proceedings is insufficient to establish that the Petitioner normally requires a 
bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the proffered position. The 
Petitioner h
1
as not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). ' 
D. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R., § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature 
of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. 
In the instant case, relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by 
the Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. The Petitioner does not establish how the 
14 Although the Petitioner provides evidence on appeal of its acquisition of an additional gas station/convenience store in 
January 2016, this evidence is not relevant to our review of the ~Petitioner's enterprise, because the Petitioner must 
establish eligibility at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). A visa petition may not be approved at a future date 
after the Petitioner or Beneficiary becornes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N 
Dec. 248,249 (Reg'l Comm'r 1978). 
15 While a petitioner may believe or otherwise assert that a proffered position requires a degree in a specific specialty, 
that opinion alone without corroborating evidence cannot establish the position as a specialty occupation. Were USCIS 
limited solely to reviewing a petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, then any individual with a bachelor's 
degree could be brought to the United States to perform any occupation as long as the employer artificially created a 
token degree requirement, whereby all individuals employed in a particular position possessed a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in the specific specialty or its equivalent. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d at 387. In other words, if a 
petitioner's degree requirement is only symbolit and the proffered position does not in fact require such a specialty 
degree or its equivalent to perform its duties, the occupation would not meet the statutory or regulatory definition of a 
specialty occupation. See section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty 
occupation"). 
I I 
Matter of S-USAE- Inc 
proffered duties elevate the proffered position to a specialty occupation. We again refer to our 
comments regarding the implications of the Petitioner's designation of the proffered position at a 
Level I (entry) wage level. 
Upon review of the totality of the record, the Petitioner has not established that the nature of the 
specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform the duties is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. For the reasons discussed above, the evidence of record does not satisfy the fourth 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
IV. PRIOR APPROVALS 
The Petitioner noted that USCIS ap'proved other petitions that had been previously filed on behalf of 
the Beneficiary. The Director's decision does not indicate whether the prior approvals of the other 
nonimmigrant petitions were reviewed. If the previous nonimmigrant petitions were approved based 
on the same unsupported and contradictory assertions that are contained in the current record, the 
approvals would constitute material and gross error on the part of the Director. We are not required 
to approve petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals 
that may have been erroneous. See Matter of Church Scientology Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 
(Comm'r 1988). It would be "absurd to suggest that [USCIS] or any agency must treat 
acknowledged errors as binding precedent." Sussex Eng'g, Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 
1090 (6th Cir. 1987). -
As noted above, a prior approval does not compel the approval of a subsequent petition or relieve the 
Petitioner of its burden to provide sufficient documentation to establish current eligibility for the 
benefit sought. Temporary Alien W~rkers Seeking Classification Under the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 55 Fed. Reg. 2,606, 2,612 (Jan._26, 1990) (to be codified at 8 C.F.R. pt. 214). A 
prior approval also does not preclude USCIS from denying an extension of an original visa petition I . 
based on a reassessment of eligibility for the benefit sought. See Tex. A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 F. 
App'x 556 (5th Cir. 2004). Furthermore, our authority over the service centers is comparable to the 
relationship between a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director had 
approved the nonimmigrant petitions on behalf of a beneficiary, we would not be bound to follow 
the contradictory decision of a service center. See La. Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 44 F. Supp. 
1 
2d 800, 803 (E.D. La. 1999). 
V. CONCLUSION 
The petition will be denied and the ,appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each 
considered as an independent and alternative basis for the decision. The burden is on the Petitioner 
12 
Matter of S-USAE- Inc 
to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. ,§ 1361 
Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&NDec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofS-USAE- Inc, ID# 17754 (AAO Sept. 9, 2016) 
13