dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Science

(b)(6)
DATE: 
INRE: 
HAY 13 2015 
Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION RECEIPT #: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service: 
Administrative Appeals Orfice (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION : Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) o f the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
NO REPRESENTATIVE OF RECORD 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO ) for your case. 
If you believe we incorrectly decided your case, you may file a motion requesting us to rec onsider our 
decision and/or reopen the procee ding. The require ments for motions are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. 
Motions must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this 
decision. The Form I-290B web page (www .uscis.gov/i-290b) contains the latest information on fee, filing 
location, and other requirements. Please do not mail any motions directly to the AAO. 
Thank you, 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISIO!V 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
On the Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form 1-129), the petitioner describes itself as a 6-
employee "franchise restaurant and fast food services" company established in In order to 
continuously employ the beneficiary to which it assigned the job title "Computer Software 
Engineer" at a salary of $70,800 per year, the petitioner seeks to classify him as a nonimmigrant 
worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
On June 2, 2014, the director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish that 
the proffered position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation in accordance w ith the 
applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director's 
basis for denial of the petition was erroneous and contends that it satisfied all evidentiary 
requirements. 
The record of proceeding before this office contains the following: (1) the Form I-129 and 
supporting documentation; (2) the director's request for additional evidence (RFE); (3) the 
petitioner's response to the RFE; ( 4) the director's letter denying the petition; and (5) a Notice of 
Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B), a brief, and supporting documentation. 
Upon review of the entire record of proceeding, we find that the evidence of record does not overcome 
the director's ground for denying this petition.1 According! y, the appeal will be dismissed, and the 
petition will be denied. 
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
In support of the Form I-129, the petitioner provided two identical letters, neither dated.2 In the 
letters, the petitioner states that it is "un der the ownership of (sic) 
Restaurant and fast food services." The petitioner stated that due to its success and plans for 
expansion, it has decided to "switch to an entirely computerized system for the handling of all our 
transactions." The petitioner described the computer system as follows: 
1 We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). 
2 We note that the content of the letters is verbatim including the business description and the duties for the 
proffered position. However, the first letter requests "extension of the H-lB visa petition" and the second 
letter requests "approval for the H-1B visa petition." Based on the evidence provided, it appears that the 
second letter was submitted with the previously approved petition ( ' filed by the petitioner 
for the beneficiary. 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECIS/0/Ii 
Specifically, the computerized system manages our daily operations, and includes the 
following capabilities: Payment of accounts and invoicing; Handling of personnel 
(wait staff, and bus-boys) by means of personal codes; Functions for the 
administration of the tables (table changes, changes of wait staff, the joining of 
tables, the re-opening of tabs or accounts, etc.); It supports multiple forms of 
payment such as cash, credit cards, coupons, and/or credits, with the option of adding 
additional methods of payment; The use of remote commands for printing, without 
limiting the number of printers for ticket orders, from defined areas; The production 
and maintenance of product catalogues; the handling of users and profiles of 
functions to control access to, and the security of the system; The real-time 
monitoring of sales, in detail, at a general level; Products sold, costs, and sales by 
individual wait staff/employees, and the administration of funds in the cashier(s) 
terminals. 
The petitioner claimed that ''[t]his complex computerized system" "requires its own personnel, 
continuously available, and able to design the system of operations for the program, install the 
program into the system, create and maintain the network of the computerization throughout the 
business establishment, as well as training and enabling our employees (and users of our system) to 
use the same." The petitioner further claimed that the beneficiary "is solely responsible for 
implementing, and managing the programming of the entire Restaurant Catering portion for the 
business, as well as the implementation, and continued servicing of the Franchising portion of the 
business. " 
The petitioner stated that the beneficiary will be responsible for the following responsibilities: 
• Analyze science, engineering, business, and all other data processing problems for 
application to electronic data processing systems. Analyze user requirements, 
procedures, and problems to automate or improve our systems and review computer 
system capabilities, workflow, and scheduling limitations (15% of the time weekly­
basis/6 hrs) [.] 
• Analyze information processing or computation needs and plan and design computer 
systems, using techniques such as structured analysis, data modeling and information 
engineering. (15% of the time weekly-basis/6 hrs)[.] 
• Convert project specifications and statements of problems and procedures to detailed 
logical flow charts for coding into computer language. (10% of the time weekly­
basis/4 hrs). 
• Develop and write computer programs 
documents, data, and information for 
of the time weekly-basis/4 hrs). 
to store, locate, and retrieve specific 
's operation. (10% 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECIS!Otv 
Page 4 
• Compile and write documentation of program development and subsequent revisions, 
inserting comments in the coded instruct ions so others can understand the program. 
(10% of the time week.ly-basis/4 hrs). 
• Conduct trial runs of programs and software applications to be sure they will produce 
the desired information and that the instructions are correct. (10% of the time 
week.ly-basis/4 hrs). 
• Correct errors by making appropriate changes and rechecking the program to ensure 
that the desired results are produced. (5% of the time weekly-basis/2 hrs). 
All [of] the following duties are performed by the Computer System f Analystl in 
approximately 25% of the time weekly-basis/12 hrs, according the business 
necessities: 
• Investigate whether networks, workstations, the central processing unit of the system, 
or peripheral equipment are responding to a program's instructions. 
• Perform systems analysis and programming tasks to maintain and control the use of 
computer systems software as a system programmer. 
• Write, update, and maintain computer programs or software packages to handle 
specific jobs such as tracking inventory , storing or retrieving data, or controlling 
other equipment[.] 
• Develop and maintain the database. 
• Develop records management system[.] 
• Implement computer system changes[.] 
[Verbatim.] 
The petitioner also provided a document entitled "] 
petitioner described the beneficiary's duties as follows: 
-Exhibit D. "3 The 
The restaurants use Digital Touch Screens to process orders which may vary according 
to the weekly offers of the restaurant. That is why he will be constantly making updates 
and restructure of the programs, supplying the constant changes in the program and 
database, constantly adjusting prices, changing and introducing the constant offers and 
combinations of products, etc. He will also perform the installation, maintenance and 
repair of the basic program of operations in each of the branches; the maintenance and 
3 According to USCIS records, the petition ( , was filed by the petitioner for Lhe 
beneficiary and approved on September 30, 2010, valid from October 1, 2010 to September 19, 2013. 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
NON-PRECEDENT DECIS/01\ 
feeding of the network; maintenance and repair of the hardware. Coordinate installation 
of software system. Communicate with staff and management to understand specific 
system requirements. He will provide advice on project costs, design concepts, or 
design changes. He will also evaluate current or emerging technologies to consider 
factors such as cost, portability, compatibility, or usability. Provide technical guidance 
or support for the development or troubleshooting of systems. Identify system data, 
hardware, or software components required to meet restaurant needs. Provide 
guidelines for implementing secure systems, and [m]onitor system operation to detect 
potential problems. 
* * * 
• Design, develop and test the operating systems software of the restaurants-20% (8 hrs) 
• Modify the existing software in order to correct errors- Occasionally. 
• Analyze information to determine, recommend and plan installation of new systems 
or modification of an existing system- 5% (2 hrs) 
• Direct the software programming and development of documentation within the 
company - 10% ( 4 hrs) 
• Make updates and restructure of the programs, supplying the constant changes in the 
program and database, adjusting prices, changing and introducing the constant offers 
and combinations of products, etc. - 30% (12 hrs.) 
• Perform the installation, maintenance and repair of the basic program of operations in 
each of the branches.-15% (6 hrs) 
• Provide the maintenance and feeding of the network; maintenance and repair of the 
hardware- Constantly 
• Coordinate installation of software system- Occasionally 
• Communicate with staff and management to understand specific system 
requirements, -Constantly 
• Provide advice of project costs, design concepts, or design changes- 10% ( 4 hrs.) 
• Evaluate current or emerging technologies to consider factors such as cost, 
portability, compatibility, or usability- Occasionally 
• Provide technical guidance or support for the development or troubleshooting of 
systems. Identify system data, hardware, or software components required to meet 
restaurant needs. -10% (4 hrs) 
• Provide guidelines for implementing secure systems, and Monitor system operation 
to detect potential problems.- Occasionally 
[Verbatim.] 
The Labor Condition Application (LCA) filed in support of the petition was certified for use with a 
job prospect within the "Software Developers, Systems Software" occupational classification, SOC 
(O*NET/OES) Code 15-1133 at a Level II (qualified) wage. The LCA also reflects that, as 
mentioned above, the petitioner assigned "Computer Software Engineer" as the position's job title. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
The director found the initial evidence insufficient to establish eligibility for the benefit sought, and 
issued an RFE on February 4, 2014. The petitioner was asked, in part, to submit probative evidence 
to establish that the position required a bachelor's degree in a specific field of study in order to 
perform the duties of the position. Further, the petitioner was asked to submit addit ional 
information about the business. The director outlined some of the types of specific evidence that 
could be submitted. 
In response, the petitioner provided, among other things, job advertisements, the petitioner's business 
plan, promotional materials; and a document very briefly explaining how the petitioner's 
information/computer system "handles the control of sales, purchases increase and decrease in 
inventory, preparation of work schedules, payroll, and payment of supplier's sales reports, purchase 
reports, inventory reports, etc." 
The director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to establish that the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
II. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
A. The 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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) states, in pertinent part, the following: 
Specialty occupation means an occupation which [(1)] requ ires theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in fields of human 
endeavor including, but not limited to, architecture, engineering, mathematics, 
physical sciences, social sciences, medicine and health, education, business 
specialties, accounting, law, theology, and the arts, and which [(2)] requires the 
attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivale nt, as 
a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
Pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, a proposed position must 
also meet one of the following criteria: 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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. 
As a threshold issue, it is noted that 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)( A) must logically be read together 
with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). In other words, this regulatory 
language must be construed in harmony with the thrust of the related provisions and with the statute 
as a whole. SeeK Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) (holding that construction 
of language which takes into account the design of the statute as a whole is preferred); see also COlT 
Independence Joint Venture v. Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989); Matter of W­
F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). As such, the criteria stated in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4 )(iii)(A) 
should logically be read as being necessary but not necessarily sufficient to meet the statutory and 
regulatory definition of specialty occupation. To otherwise interpret this section as stati ng the 
necessary and sufficient conditions for meeting the definition of specialty occupation would result in 
particular positions meeting a condition under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory or 
regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). To avoid this 
result, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must therefore be read as providing supplemental criteria that 
must be met in accordance with, and not as alternatives to, the statutory and regulatory definitions of 
specialty occupation. 
As such and consonant with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration SerVices (USCIS) consistently 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. 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"). Applying this standard, USCIS regularly approves H-lB petitions for qualified aliens 
who are to be employed as engineers, computer scientists, certified public accountants, college 
professors, and other such occupations. These professions, for which petitioners have regu larly been 
able to establish a minimum entry requirement in the United States of a baccalaureate or high er 
degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent directly related to the duties and res ponsibilities of the 
particular position, fairly represent the types of specialty occupations that Congress contemplated 
when it created the H-lB visa category. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
To determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCIS does not simply 
rely on a position's title. The specific duties of the proffered position, combined with the nature of 
the petitioning entity's business operations, are factors to be considered. USCIS must examine the 
ultimate employment of the alien, and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. The critical element is not the title 
of the position nor an employer's self-imposed standards, but whether the position actually requires 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty as the minimum for entry into 
the occupation, as required by the Act. 
B. Analysis 
When determining whether a position is a specialty occupation, we must look at the nature of the 
business offering the employment and the description of the specific duties of the position as it 
relates to the particular employer. To ascertain the intent of a petitioner, US CIS looks to the Form I-
129 and the documents filed in support of the petition. It is only in this manner that the agency can 
determine the exact position offered, the location of employment, the proffered wage, et cetera. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(9)(i), the director has the responsibility to consider all of the 
evidence submitted by a petitioner and such other evidence that he or she may independently require 
to assist his or her adjudication. Further, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iv) provides that 
"[ a]n H-1B petition involving a specialty occupation shall be accompanied by [ d]ocumentation .. . 
or any other required evidence sufficient to establish . . . that the services the beneficiary is to 
perform are in a specialty occupation." 
For H-1B approval, the petitioner must demonstrate a legitimate need for an employee exists and to 
substantiate that it has H-1B caliber work for the beneficiary for the period of employment requested 
in the petition. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to demonstrate it has sufficient work to require 
the services of a person with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, to 
perform duties at a level that requires the theoretical and practical application of at least a bachelor's 
degree level of a body of highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty for the period 
specified· in the petition. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient 
for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 
158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. 
Comm'r 1972)). 
We find that the record of proceeding lacks documentation regarding the petitioner's business 
activities and the actual work that the beneficiary will perform to sufficiently substantiate the claim 
that the petitioner has H-1B caliber work for the beneficiary for the period of employment requested 
in the petition. As mentioned, the petitioner is a 6-employee "franchise restaurant and fast food 
services" company established in: The petitioner operates two restaurants called "l 
" in . Florida, and also in , Florida. The petitioner further indicated that 
it decided to "switch to an entirely computerized system for handling our transactions " due to its 
success and plans for expansion. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
However, the petitioner did not provide documents to substantiate its claim for expansion. In 
support of the petition, the petitioner initially submitted a 30-page business plan dated April 2007, 6 
years prior to filing this petition. According to the section entitled "Expansion Strategy" in the 
business plan, "the next goal is to open multiple ' ,'sandwiches shops." 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner submitted another business plan dated April 2012: While this 
document is 28 pages, it is verbatim from the business plan dated April 2007, including its 
expansion plan, where it claims that its goal is to open multiple restaurants. Likewise. in suooort of 
the Form I-129, the petitioner also had submitted a document entitled " 
"Exhibit C," which appears to have been submitted as a part of the previously filed petition for the 
beneficiary, approved on September 30, 2010. The petitioner claimed that it "intends to sell at least 
10 franchises; it is installing 10 new branches during the next two years." However, 3 years after 
approval of the previous petition, the petitioner did not submit evidence of expansion including 
franchising and installing new branches.4 
Moreover, the petitioner did not sufficiently substantiate its need for a full-time computer software 
engineer. In response to the RFE, the petitioner submitted examples of restaurant systems utilized 
by other restaurants which appear to have similar functions that the petitioner claimed that the 
beneficiary would develop such as payment options, table management and more. The petitioner 
did not explain why this type of system could not be purchased. Further, the petitioner also did not 
explain why the beneficiary is still working on developing the system three years since the approval 
of the previous petition. While the petitioner submitted a brief description of the system and a 
document that contains computer codes, the petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to establish 
that the beneficiary actually wrote the program or developed the system for the restaurant. In 
addition, a part of the job description states that the beneficiary will maintain the system and update 
4 The petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the nonimmigrant visa petitiOn. g C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(1). The agency made clear long ago that speculative employment is not permitted in the H-IB 
program. For example, a 1998 proposed rule documented this position as follows: 
Historically, the Service has not granted H-1B classification on the basis of speculative, or 
undetermined, prospective employment. The H-1B classification is not intended as a vehicle 
for an alien to engage in a job search within the United States, or for employers to bring in 
temporary foreign workers to meet possible workforce needs arising from potential business 
expansions or the expectation of potential new customers or contracts. To determine whether 
an alien is properly classifiable as an H-1B nonimmigrant under the statute, the Service must 
first examine the duties of the position to be occupied to ascertain whether the duties of the 
position require the attainment of a specific bachelor's degree. See section 214(i) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the "Act"). The Service must then determine whether the 
alien has the appropriate degree for the occupation. In the case of speculative employment, 
the Service is unable to perform either part of this two-prong analysis and, therefore, is 
unable to adjudicate properly a request for H-1B classification. Moreover, there is no 
assurance that the alien will engage in a specialty occupation upon arrival in this country. 
63 Fed. Reg. 30419, 30419- 30420 (June 4, 1998). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
the information of the system such as changing prices, adding new dishes or specials, or new 
inventory. The petitioner did not explain why duties such as updates of the system such as changes 
in prices, inventory and promotions require a full-time computer software engineer. 
Thus, the petitioner has not provided the underlying documentation necessary to corroborate that the 
beneficiary would perform the claimed duties set out in the petitioner's letter of support. Going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 r&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 r&N Dec. 190 (Reg. eomm'r 1972)). 
The petitioner stated on the Form r-129 that the beneficiary would be employed in a computer 
software engineer position. However, to determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty 
occupation, USers does not simply rely on a position's title. As previously mentioned, the spec iti c 
duties of the proffered position, combined with the nature of the petitioning entity's business 
operations, are factors to be considered. users must examine the ultimate employment of the alien, 
and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. See generally Defensor v. 
Meissner, 201 F.3d 384. The critical element is not the title of the position nor an employer's self­
imposed standards, but whether the evidence in the record of proceeding establishes that performance 
of the particular proffered position actually requires the theoretical and practical application of a body 
of highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty as the minimum for entry into the occupation, as required by the Act. 
We recognize the Handbook as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of 
the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 5 As previously discussed, the petitioner asserted in 
the LeA that the proffered position falls within the occupational category "Software Developer, 
Systems Software." 
We reviewed of the information in the Handbook regarding the occupational category "Software 
Developers," including the sections regarding the typical duties and requirements for this occupational 
category.6 Although the petitioner titled the position computer software engineer and categorized the 
occupational category as "Software Devel opers, Sys tems Software" on the LCA, upon review of the 
job description provided by the petitioner, we are not persuaded that the proffer ed position falls under 
the occupational category of "Software Developers." 
The Handbook, which is available in printed form, may also be accessed on the Internet at 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. Our references to the Handbook are to the 2014-2015 edition available online. 
6 For additional information regarding the occupational category "Software Developers," see U.S. Dep't of 
Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., Software Developers , on 
the Internet at http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology /software-developers. htm ( last 
visited May 6, 2015). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECIS/01\ 
Page 11 
The subchapter of the Handbook entitled "What Software Developers Do" states the following about 
this occupational category: 
Software developers are the creative minds behind computer programs. Some 
develop the applications that allow people to do specific tasks on a computer or other 
device. Others develop the underlying systems that run the devices or control 
networks. 
Duties 
Software developers typically do the following: 
• Analyze users' needs, then design, test, and develop software to meet those needs 
• Recommend software upgrades for customers' existing programs and systems 
• Design each piece of the application or system and plan how the pieces will work 
together 
• Create a variety of models and diagrams (such as flowcharts) that instruct 
programmers how to write the software code 
• Ensure that the software continues to function normally through software 
maintenance and testing 
• Document every aspect of the application or system as a reference for future 
maintenance and upgrades 
• Collaborate with other computer specialists to create optimum software 
Software developers are in charge of the entire development process for a software 
program. They begin by asking how the customer plans to use the software. They 
design the program and then give instructions to programmers, who write computer 
code and test it. If the program does not work as expected or people find it too 
difficult to use, software developers go back to the design process to fix the problems 
or improve the program. After the program is released to the customer, a developer 
may perform upgrades and maintenance. 
Developers usually work closely with computer programmers. However, in some 
companies, developers write code themselves instead of giving instructions to 
computer programmers. 
Developers who supervise a software project from the planning stages through 
implementation sometimes are called information technology (IT) project managers. 
These workers monitor the project's progress to ensure that it meets deadlines, 
standards, and cost targets. IT project managers who plan and direct an 
organization's IT department or IT policies are included in the profile on computer 
and information systems managers. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
The following are types of software developers: 
Applications softw are developers design computer applications, such as word 
processors and games, for consumers. They may create custom software for a 
specific customer or commercial software to be sold to the general public. Some 
applications software developers create complex databases for organizations. They 
also create programs that people use over the Internet and within a company's 
intranet. 
Systems softw are developers create the systems that keep computers functioning 
properly. These could be operating systems that are part of computers the general 
public buys or systems built specifically for an organization. Often, systems software 
developers also build the system's interface, which is what allows users to interact 
with the computer. Systems software developers create the operating systems that 
control most of the consumer electronics in use today, including those in phones or 
cars. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., 
Software Developers, on the Internet at http://www .bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information­
technology/software-developers.htm#tab-2 (last visited May 6, 2015). 
We find that the evidence of record does not establish the substantive nature of the proffered 
position. The petitioner submitted multiple versions of job duties and they vary greatly from lhe 
duties listed in the Handbook for Software Developers and thus, do not appear to fall within the 
occupational category "Software Developers." 
Further, we note that the wording of the duties is virtually verbatim from different categories of 
occupations such as "Computer Systems Analysts" or "Computer Programmers" as described in the 
Occupational Information Network (O*NET) Code Connector. This type of generalized description 
may be appropriate when defining the range of duties that may be performed within an occupational 
category, but it fails to adequately convey the substantive work that the beneficiary will perform 
within the petitioner's business operations and, thus, cannot be relied upon by a petitioner when 
discussing the duties attached to specific employment. In establishing a position as a specialty 
occupation, a petitioner must describe the specific duties and responsibilities to be performed by a 
beneficiary in the context of the petitioner's business operations, demonstrate a legitimate need for 
an employee exists, and substantiate that it has H-lB caliber work for the beneficiary for the period 
of employment requested in the petition. 
As observed above, USCIS in this matter must review the actual duties the beneficiary will be 
expected to perform to ascertain whether those duties require at least a baccalaureate degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, as required for classification as a specialty occupation. To 
accomplish that task in this matter, USCIS must analyze the actual duties in conjunction with the 
specific project(s) to which the beneficiary will be assigned. To allow otherwise, results in generic 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DEC/S!Otv 
Page 13 
descriptions of duties that, while they may appear (in some instances) to comprise the duties of a 
specialty occupation, are not related to any actual services the beneficiary is expected to provide. 
Without additional information describing the specific duties the petitioner requires the beneficiary 
to perform, USCIS is unable to discern the nature of the position and whether the position indeed 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. Without a meaningful job description within the context of non­
speculative employment, the petitioner may not establish any of the alternate criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). The duties as described by the petitioner do not establish that the work proposed 
for the beneficiary actually exists. USCIS regulations affirmatively require a petitioner to establish 
eligibility for the benefit it is seeking at the time the petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. 103 .2(b )(1 ). A 
visa petition may not be approved based on speculation of future eligibility or after the petitioner or 
beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N 
Dec. 248 (Reg. Comm'r 1978). 
We also find that the record did not establish relative complexity, specialization and/or uniqueness as 
distinguishing aspects of either the proposed duties or the position that they are said to comprise. As 
evident in the job description quoted above, the record of proceeding presents the duties comprising the 
proffered position in terms of relatively abstract and generalized functions. More specifically, they lack 
sufficient detail and concrete explanation to establish the substantive nature of the work and associated 
applications of specialized knowledge that their actual performance would require within the context of 
the petitioner's particular business operations. The evidence of record contains neither substantive 
explanation nor documentation showing the range and volume of company products that the 
beneficiary would have to organize and manage. Likewise, the record does not clarify the substantive 
work and associated applications of specialized knowledge that would be involved in the referenced 
duty. Also, the petitioner does not provide substantive information with regard to the particular work, 
methodologies, and applications of knowledge that would be required for the percentage-assigned 
duties. 
The petitioner has failed to provide sufficient details regarding the nature and scope of the 
beneficiary's employment or any substantive evidence regarding the actual work that the beneficiary 
would perform. Without a meaningful job description, the record lacks evidence sufficiently 
concrete and informative to demonstrate that the proffered position requires a specialty occupation's 
level of knowledge in a specific specialty. The tasks as described fail to communicate (1) the actual 
work that the beneficiary would perform, (2) the complexity, uniqueness and/or specialization of the 
tasks, and/or (3) the correlation between that work and a need for a particular level education of 
highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. The petitioner's assertions with regard to the 
position's educational requirement are conclusory and unpersuasive, as they are not supported by 
the job descriptions or substantive evidence. 
The record's failure to establish the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the 
beneficiary precludes a finding that the proffered position is a specialty occupation under 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 1; (2) industry positions which are parallel to the proffered position and thus 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISIO!'v 
Page 14 
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 norm ally 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. 
As the petitioner has not established that it has satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it cannot be found that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The appeal will be dismissed and the petition denied for this reason. 7 
III. CONCLUSION 
The evidence of record fails to establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
Accordingly, the petition will be denied. 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden tp establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied. 
7 As the grounds discussed above preclude approval of the petition, we will not address additional issues and 
deficiencies that we observe in the record of proceeding.