dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Science

MA ITER 0 F I-S- LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision ofthe 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 23,2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a computer consulting/staffing firm with four employees, seeks to temporarily 
employ the Beneficiary as a "computer programmer" under the H-IB nonimmigrant classification 
for specialty occupations, See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
IOI(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C § IIOI(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). The H-IB program allows a U.S. employer to 
temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a position that requires 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, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that there is 
insufficient evidence to establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. Upon de novo review, we will dismiss 
the appeal. 
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. 
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: 
Matter of 1-S- LLC 
(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. 
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. Cherto[f, 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 the H-IB petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a "computer 
programmer."' In the letter of support, the Petitioner provided the Beneficiary's job duties in the 
proffered position, along with the approximate percentage of time the Beneficiary will spend on each 
duty. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner repeated the same job duties 
from its letter of support and added the following responsibilities:2 
As a Computer Programmer, [the Beneficiary] will serve as the primary point of 
contact for [the Petitioner's] customers. She will be interacting with the client and 
gather business requirements. She will then analyze these requirements and prepare 
High Level Technical Architecture and Component level architecture. For example, 
this will include Object Oriented Technologies, client/server applications and 
internet/intranet web applications. Design, Development, T~sting and Maintenance, 
1 The Petitioner provided inconsistent information regarding the Beneficiary's rate of pay in the record. In the Form 
1-129 and Labor Condition Application (LCA), the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would be compensated $52,083 
per year. However, the employment agreement between the Petitioner and the Beneficiary stated that the Beneficiary 
would be paid $55,000 per year. No explanation for this inconsistency was provided by the Petitioner. 
2 The Petitioner mistakenly and repeatedly references the Beneficiary in the masculine pronoun case. The record 
provides no explanation for this inconsistency. Thus, we must question the accuracy of the documents and whether the 
information provided is correctly attributed to this particular Beneficiary and position. 
2 
Matter of 1-S- LLC 
Substantial exposure in developing applications including C, C++, Cobol, Java. [The 
Beneficiary] will also be responsible to create a task list and plan that will allow the 
development team members to deliver the software solution. 
On appeal, the Petitioner expands the Beneficiary's job duties. Specifically, the Petitioner provides 
the following job duties for the position (verbatim): 
• Manage ongoing software development projects; 
• Interact and mentor offsite development team; 
• Perform requirement gathering, analysis, estimation, architecture designing, 
development and implementation; 
• Plan, develop, design, test, implement and support custom proprietary software 
applications in various software languages, platforms and environments; 
• Evaluate user requests for new or modified programs; 
• Consult with user to identify current operating procedures to clarify program 
objectives; 
• Formulate plans outlining steps required to develop programs, using structured 
analysis and design; 
• Prepare flowcharts and diagrams to illustrate sequence of steps, [sic] program 
must follow and to describe logical operations involved; 
• Write documentation to describe program development, logic, coding and 
corrections; 
• Oversee installation of hardware and software, monitor performance of program 
after implementation; 
• Conduct user training, performing periodic system updates, interacting with users 
for future enhancements; 
• Architecture, Design and Build; 
• Requirement Gathering/Business analysis; 
• Project Planning; 
• SMC and FP Estimation; 
• Project Scheduling & Tracking; 
• Focused Delivery ensuring Quality of the Deliverables; 
• Deployment at Customer Environment; 
• Post Production Support; and 
• Status Reporting, Handling Escalations 
[The Beneficiary] will also analyze, design, architect, develop and test software 
systems that simulate business process and can be used to optimize and increase their 
efficiency, using various computer languages Windows based platforms; he will 
gather customer requirements and create high-level component level architecture; 
confer 'with personnel of oversee specific input and output requirements; format 
reports; write detailed description of user needs, program functions, and steps 
required to develop or modify computer programs; review computer system 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of 1-S- LLC 
capabilities, workflow; and schedule limitations to determine if requested program or 
program change is possible within existing system. 
In addition, the Petitioner states that the position requires a bachelor's degree in computer science, 
computer information systems, or a related field. 
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 satisfies any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) and, therefore, qualifies as a specialty occupation. 3 Specifically , the record (1) 
provides inconsistent information regarding the position; and (2) does not establish that the job 
duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty 
. 4 
occupatiOn. 
As a preliminary matter, we 
note that the Petitioner has provided inconsistent information on several 
critical aspects of the position. For instance, the record contains discrepancies as to whether the 
Beneficiary will work at the Petitioner's business site or at a client site, as well as whether the 
Beneficiary's services are needed for a one-year period or a three-year period.5 Further, the 
Petitioner expanded the Beneficiary's job duties on appeal, adding such items as: (1) manage 
ongoing software development projects; and (2) mentor offsite development team. However, the 
Petitioner must establish that the position offered to the Beneficiary when the petition was filed 
merits classification for the benefit sought. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248, 249 
(Reg'l Comm'r 1978). 
In addition, we observe that many of the job duties provided by the Petitioner on appeal are recited 
virtually verbatim from U.S. Department of Labor's Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT), 
specifically from the occupational category "Programmer-Analyst." 6 Providing job duties for a 
proffered position from DOT or other Internet source is generally not sufficient for establishing 
H-lB eligibility. That is, while this type of description may be appropriate when defining the range 
3 In the decision denying the petition, the Director noted that the Petitioner had not established eligibility at the time of 
filing and noted a number of discrepancies in the record, including: (I) the Petitioner did not identify any specific work 
to which the Beneficiary would be assigned in the initial submission; (2) on the Form l-129 and LCA, the Petitioner 
stated that the Beneficiary would work at its offices in Michigan, but in the letter of support, the Petitioner stated 
that "[t]he primary function of this position includes the following duties at Client's place"; and (3) on the Form l-129, 
the Petitioner requested a validity period from October l, 2015, to March 15, 2018, but in the letter of support, the 
Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would work for the Petitioner "for a one-year period." We agree with the Director 
that the record does not establish the Beneficiary's role and the substantive nature of the work. Nevertheless, even 
assuming that the Petitioner had adequately addressed the discrepancies, the petition could not be approved because the 
Petitioner has not established that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
4 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
5 On appeal, the Petitioner accounts for the discrepancies as typographical errors in the submission. 
6 For additional information , see DOT, available at http:/ /www.occupationalinfo.org/ (last visited June 22, 20 16). 
4 
Matter of 1-S- LLC 
of duties that may be performed within an occupational category, it cannot be relied upon by a 
Petitioner when discussing the duties attached to specific employment for H-1 B approval as this type 
of generic description does not adequately convey the substantive work that the Beneficiary will 
perform on a day-to-day basis. In establishing a position as qualifying as a specialty occupation, a 
Petitioner must describe the specific duties and responsibilities to be performed by a Beneficiary in 
the context of its business operations, demonstrate that 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. 
Furthermore, we find that the Petitioner has provided inconsistent information regarding the 
minimum requirements for the proffered position. On appeal, the Petitioner states that the protTered 
position requires a bachelor's degree "in Computer Science, Computer Information Systems, or a 
related field." However, the Petitioner submits two job postings for the profTered position: one 
indicating that a bachelor's degree "in Computer Science or Electrical Engineering with 5 years 
experience as Software Engineer or IT Consultant" is required and, the other posting stating that a 
"BS in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Information Technology" is required. No 
explanation for these variances in the requirements was provided by the Petitioner.
7 
Without more, the evidence of record is insufficient to establish the specific nature, duties, and 
requirements of the proffered position and, thus, whether it qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Nevertheless, for the purpose of performing a comprehensive analysis of whether the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation, we now turn to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). 
A. First Criterion 
To make our determination as to whether the employment described above qualifies as a specialty 
occupation, we turn 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. 8 To inform this inquiry, we recognize the U.S. 
Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative 
source on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it 
addresses. 9 
7 "[l]t is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve the inconsistencies by independent objective evidence." Matter of Ho, 
19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the 
Petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. /d. at 591-92. 
8 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
9 All of our references are to the 2016-2017 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 responsibilities 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 
5 
Matter of 1-S- LLC 
On the LCA submitted in support of the H-IB petltwn, the Petitioner designated the proffered 
position under the occupational category "Computer Programmers" corresponding to the Standard 
Occupational Classification code 15-1131 at a Levell wage. 10 
The Handbook subchapter entitled "How to Become a Computer Programmer" states in pertinent 
part: "Most computer programmers have a bachelor's degree; however, some employers hire 
workers who have an associate's degree." 11 Thus, the Handbook does not support. the Petitioner's 
assertion that a bachelor's degree is required for entry into this occupation. The Handbook does not 
indicate that there are any specific degree requirements for these jobs. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a copy of the Federal Register, Vol. 69, No. 247 at Appendix A to 
the Preamble-Professional Recruitment Occupations-Education and Training Categories at 77377 
(December 27, 2004) and claims that it is relevant here. We note, however, that the Federal 
Register states that the purpose of the list of occupations at Appendix A is not for determining 
whether a position is a specialty occupation, specifying that "the list [Appendix A] is not intended to 
be used to qualify an alien for purposes of eligibility under the H-1 B and H-1 B I 
program." Moreover, the Federal Register states that "[t]he primary purpose of the list of 
occupations is to provide employers with the necessary information to determine whether to recruit 
under the standards provided in the regulations for professional occupations or for nonprofessional 
occupations." The Federal Register continues by stating that "the only presumption the list of 
occupations should create is that if the occupation involved in the application is on the list of 
occupations in Appendix A, employers must follow the recruitment regiment for professional 
occupations at § 656.17( e) of this final rule." 
Thus, we do not agree with the Petitioner's contention that the information is relevant to this 
matter. The Petitioner cites no statutory or regulatory authority, case law, or precedent decision to 
support it. Moreover, neither the statutory nor regulatory provisions governing US CIS adjudication 
of Form 1-129 specialty occupation petitions provide for the approval of an H-IB petition based 
would normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
10 We will consider the Petitioner's classification of the proffered position at a Level I wage (the lowest of four 
assignable wage levels) in our analysis of the position. The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" issued by 
the DOL provides a description of the wage levels. A Level I wage rate is generally appropriate for positions 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 he 
will be closely supervised and his work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that he will receive 
specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. 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_ll_2009.pdf. A prevailing wage determination starts 
with an entry level wage and progresses to a higher wage level after considering the experience, education, and skill 
requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. !d. A Level I wage should be considered for research fellows, workers 
in training, or internships. /d. 
11 For additional infonnation regarding the occupational category "Computer Programmers," see U.S. Dep't of Labor, 
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-2017 ed., Computer Programmers, available at 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-programmers.htm (last visited June 22, 20 16). 
6 
Matter of 1-S- LLC 
upon Appendix A, or even indicate that an employer's recruitment regiment for a permanent labor 
certification (which involves DOL) are relevant to the adjudication by USCIS ofH-lB petitions. 
Furthermore, we are not persuaded by the Petitioner's claim that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation because of the cited appendix. The appendix is a list of occupations for which a 
bachelor's degree or higher degree is a customary requirement. It does not, however, demonstrate 
that a bachelor's degree in a .lpecific specialty is required, and does not, therefore, demonstrate that a 
position so designated qualifies as a specialty occupation as defined in section 214(i)(l) of the Act 
and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(ii). Therefore, despite the Petitioner's assertion to the contrary, the 
documentation is not probative of the proffered position qualifying as a specialty occupation.12 
The Petitioner has not provided documentation from a probative source to substantiate its assertion 
regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. Thus, the Petitioner has 
not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J). 
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 the 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. 
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 tirms "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. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
12 The issue before us is whether the Petitioner's proffered position qualifies as a nonimmigrant H-1 B specialty 
occupation and not whether it is a profession as that term is defined in section IOI(a)(32) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § IIOI(a)(32), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). Thus, while a position may qualify as a profession as that term is 
defined in section IOI(a)(32) of the Act, the occupation would not necessarily qualify as a specialty occupation unless it 
met the definition of that term at section 214(i)( I) of the Act. 
7 
(b)(6)
Matter of I-S- LLC 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its profTered position is one for which 
the Handbook, or other authoritative source, reports a requirement for at least a bachelor 's degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, we incorporate by reference the 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." 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner submitted copies of job announcements placed by other 
employers. However, upon review of the documents, we find that the Petitioner's reliance on the job 
announcements is misplaced. First, we note that some of the job postings do not appear to involve 
organizations similar to the Petitioner. For example, the advertising organizations include 
-
a global security company - and the Furthermore, one of the postings 
appears to be for a staffing agency for which no information is provided regarding the hiring 
employer. Another posting is for a position working with the in its research 
of ground and surface water. The Petitioner did not supplement the record to establish that the 
advertising organizations are similar to it. 
When determining whether the Petitioner and the · organization share the same general 
characteristics, such factors may include information regarding the nature or type of organization, 
and, when pertinent, the particular scope of operations, as well as the level of revenue and staffing 
(to list just a few elements that may be considered). It is not sufficient for the Petitioner to claim that 
an organization is similar and in the same industry without providing a legitimate basis for such an 
assertion. 
Moreover, some of the advertisements do not appear to be for parallel positions. For example, some 
of the positions appear to be for more senior positions than the proffered position. Moreover, some 
of the postings do not include the duties and responsibilities for the advertised positions. Thus, it is 
not possible to determine important aspects, such as the day-to-day responsibilities, complexity of 
the job duties, supervisory duties (if any), independent judgment required or the amount of 
supervision received. Therefore, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the primary 
duties and responsibilities of the advertised positions are parallel to the proffered position. 
In addition, none of the postings indicate that at least a bachelor's degree in a directly related 
specific specialty (or its equivalent) is required. 13 The job postings suggest, at best, that a bachelor's 
degree is sometimes required for computer programmer positions, but a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty (or its equivalent) is not.
14 
13 As discussed, the degree requirement set by the statutory and regulatory framework of the H-1 B program is not just a 
bachelor's or higher degree, but a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the duties of the 
position. See section 214(i)( I )(b) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(ii). 
14 It must be noted that even if all of the job postings indicated that a requirement of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations (which they do not), the Petitioner 
8 
Matter of 1-S- LLC 
As the documentation does not establish that the Petitioner has met this prong of the regulations, 
further analysis regarding the specific information contained in each of the job postings is not 
necessary. 15 That is, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. 
Without more, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions 
among similar organizations. Thus, 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. 
In support of its assertion that the proffered pos1tton qualifies as a specialty occupation, the 
Petitioner described the proffered position and its business operations. In response to the RFE and 
on appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the duties of the proffered position are so complex that only an 
individual with a bachelor's degree in computer science, computer information systems, or a related 
field can perform the duties. However, the Petitioner designated the proffered position as an entry­
level position within the occupational category (by selecting a Level I wage). This designation, 
when read in combination with the Petitioner's job descriptions and the Handbook's account of the 
requirements for this occupation. further suggests that the particular position is not so complex or 
unique that the duties can only be performed an individual with bachelor's degree or higher in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
While the Petitioner may believe that the proffered position meets this criterion of the regulations, it 
has not sufficiently demonstrated how the position as described requires the theoretical and practical 
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and the attainment of a bachelor's or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. For instance, the Petitioner did not submit 
information relevant to a detailed course of study leading to a specialty degree and did not establish 
has not demonstrated what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from the advertisements with regard to 
detennining the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. See 
generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 ( 1995). Moreover, given that there is no indication that 
the advertisements were randomly selected, the validity of any such inferences could not be accurately determined even 
if the sampling unit were sufficiently large. See id. at 195-196 (explaining that "[r]andom selection is the key to [the] 
process [of probability sampling]" and that "random selection offers access to the body of probability theory, which 
provides the basis for estimates of population parameters and estimates of error"). 
15 The Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how representative the job postings are of the particular 
advertising employers' recruiting history for the type of job advertised. As the advertisements are only solicitations for 
hire, they are not evidence of the actual hiring practices of these employers. 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter of I-S- LLC 
how such a curriculum is necessary to perform the tasks. 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 is required. The evidence in the record does not refute the 
Handbook's information to the effect that an associate's degree or a general degree may be sufficient 
for entry into the occupation. Without more, the record lacks sufficiently detailed information to 
distinguish the level of judgment and understanding necessary to perform the duties as so complex 
and unique. 
On appeal, 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 a 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). 
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. 
To merit approval of the petition under this criterion, the record must establish that a petitioner's 
imposition of a degree requirement is not a matter of preference for high-caliber candidates but is 
necessitated by performance requirements of the position. While a petitioner may assert that a 
proffered position requires a specific degree, that statement alone without corroborating evidence 
cannot establish the position as a specialty occupation. Were USCIS limited solely to reviewing 
the 
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 Petitioner 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 388. Evidence provided in support of this criterion may include, but is not limited to, 
documentation regarding the Petitioner's past recruiting and hiring practices, as well as information 
regarding employees who previously held the position. 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides two job postings for the proffered position from its website and 
The posting from the Petitioner's website states that a "BS degree in Computer 
Science or Electrical Engineering with 5 years experience as Software Engineer or IT Consultant" is 
required. The other posting states that the position requires a "[m]inimum Bachelor degree in 
Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Information Technology." As previously discussed, the 
Petitioner has provided inconsistent information regarding the educational requirements for the 
proffered position. 
10 
Matter of I-S- LLC 
In addition, the Petitioner submits the H-lB approval notices and employment agreements for three 
of its employees in the computer programmer position. 16 Upon review, we find that the employment 
agreements indicate that two of the individuals are compensated $50,000 per year and one individual 
is compensated $65,000 per year. The documentation indicates that two individuals are paid less 
than the salary offered to the Beneficiary, and one individual is paid significantly higher than the 
salary offered to the Beneficiary. Thus, this strongly suggests that they are employed in different 
positions. The Petitioner did not provide an explanation for the variances in the wages. Without 
more, the documentation does not establish that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion of the 
regulations. 
Further, the Petitioner did not provide the job duties and day-to-day responsibilities for these 
individuals. The Petitioner also did not submit any information regarding the complexity of the job 
duties, supervisory duties (if any), independent judgment required or the amount of supervision 
received. Accordingly, it is unclear whether the duties and responsibilities of these individuals are 
the same or similar to the proffered position. 
Moreover, the Petitioner did not provide the total number of people it has employed to serve in the 
proffered position. Consequently, it cannot be determined how representative the Petitioner's claim 
regarding three individuals is of the Petitioner's normal recruiting and hiring practices. The 
Petitioner has not persuasively established that it normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the 
third criterion of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
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. 
The Petitioner claims that its position satisfies this criterion; however, relative specialization and 
complexity have not been sufficiently developed by the Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered 
position. That is, the proposed duties have not been described with sufficient specificity to establish 
that they are more specialized and complex than other positions in the occupational category that are 
not usually associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. We 
also reiterate our earlier comments and findings regarding the implications of the position's wage 
level designation on the LCA. 17 Thus, the Petitioner has not demonstrated in the record that its 
16 Notably, the Petitioner did not submit the academic credentials of these individuals, e.g. copies of diplomas and 
transcripts. 
17 The Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position undermines its claim that the position is 
particularly specialized and complex 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 
II 
Matter of I-S- LLC 
proffered posttlon is one with duties sufficiently specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)( 4). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
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. The burden is on the 
Petitioner to show 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 . 
. Cite as Malter of I-S- LLC, ID# 17106 (AAO June 23, 2016) 
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 LevellY 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 degree 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. 
12