dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Science

u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF E-C- INC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 10,2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a computer consulting firm, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"programmer analyst" under the H-1 B 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)(l5)(H)(i)(b). The H-1B 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 of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the evidence of 
record does not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Director erred in the 
decision. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
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 E-C-, Inc. 
(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). We have consistently interpreted the term "degree" 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.ff, 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). 
Where the work is to be performed for entities other than the petitioner, evidence of the client 
companies' job requirements is critical. Defensor at 387-88. The court in Defensor held that the 
former Immigration and Naturalization Service had reasonably interpreted the statute and regulations 
as requiring the petitioner to produce evidence that a proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation on the basis of the requirements imposed by the entities using the beneficiary's services. 
!d. Such evidence must be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate the type and educational level of 
highly specialized knowledge in a specific discipline that is necessary to perform that particular 
work. 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a "programmer analyst." On the labor 
condition application (LCA), the Petitioner designated the proffered position under the occupational 
category "Computer Programmers" corresponding to the SOC code 15-1131.1 
1 The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level II wage. We will consider this selection in our analysis of the 
position. The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" issued by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) 
provides a description of the wage levels. DOL's wage-level guidance specifies that a Level II designation is reserved 
for positions involving only moderately complex tasks requiring limited judgment. 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 _II_ 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. 
2 
Matter of E-C-, Inc. 
In a letter submitted with the initial petition, the Petitioner provided the following description of the 
Beneficiary's duties: 
• Partner with internal teams to define and prioritize informational requirements. 
• Creat~ reports and data extracts against large data sets using SQL/Tableau. 
• Stay current with technical best practices and industry trends and advise and 
educate management on their importance. 
• Work with teams to improve our reporting and analysis of our customers, 
products, or marketing programs. 
• Visualizing and reporting data findings creatively in a variety of formats. Design 
AlB tests to evaluate behaviors. 
• Evaluate third-party analysis tools for possible use within the project. 
• Write Customize Framework for application. 
• Provide Weekly Status to Project Manager. 
• Attend Daily serum meetings. 
In the same letter, the Petitioner stated that the position requires a "bachelor's degree or a closely 
related field, or the equivalent" to perform the job duties. 
In response to the request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted a new job description:
2 
Duties Percentage of Time 
Ensures use requirements fit in with the overall 5% 
development approach 
Provide senior-level analytical, design, 20% 
development, testing, implementation, and initial 
production support services 
Develop within the technical framework of the 20% 
client 
Completes and finalizes the technical functional 5% 
specifications of assigned tasks 
Assists DBAs in remodeling the database schema 10% 
and migration of data 
Creates class and activity diagrams as needed for 10% 
assigned modules 
Writes cleah code following standard guidelines 10% 
for the project including comments describing 
blocks of code and develops stored procedures, 
triggers, and view using T-SQL on SQL Server 
2008 R2 
2 
For clarity, we modified the format of the job description into a chart. 
3 
.
Matter of E-C-, Inc. 
Provide requirement specifications, design 10% 
documentation, application code, test cases and 
scripts, test results, user documentation, training 
material, and implementation plans 
Perform unit testing, integration testing and system 5% 
testing check-out as part of application 
development 
Provide weekly status reports as required by the 5% 
project's Project Manager 
The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary will work in-house on a project for the State of 
In a letter provided on the Petitioner's 
letterhead, "CIO" of the ' 
' states that the Petitioner has a contract with and listed the duties of programmer 
analysts working on the project. 3 The letter also states that ''it is anticipated that those 
working on this project will have a minimum of bachelor's degrees in computer science, engineering 
(any)[,] information technology, management information systems, business administrat[ion] or 
related degree." 
III. ANALYSIS 
For the reasons set out below, we have determined 
that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. Specifically, the record (1) does not describe 
the position's duties with sufficient detail; and (2) does not establish that the job duties require an 
educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 4 
A. Description of the Duties 
A crucial aspect of this matter is whether the Petitioner has described the duties of the proffered 
position such that we may discern the nature of the position. The Petitioner has not done so here. 
For instance, the initial job description stated that the Beneficiary will "partner with teams," and 
"work with teams," but these statements lack adequate information to determine the Beneficiary's 
role, as well as how much independent judgement is required from him - and the amount of 
supervision he will receive. 
3 
This letter signed by the client is on the Petitioner's letterhead rather than the letterhead of the client company. On 
appeal, the Petitioner submits the exact same letter but with a different date and on the client's letterhead. The_ Petitioner 
did not provide an explanation and we are unable to reconcile this oddity. 
4 
The Petitioner submitted documentation in support of the H-1 8 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 E-C-, Inc. 
Furthermore, the job description submitted in response to the RFE substantially ditiers from the 
initial job description: every task is different. For example, the second job description does not state 
that the Beneficiary will work with teams, as mentioned twice in the initial description. Further, the 
new description indicated that Beneficiary will provide "senior-level analytical, design, 
development, testing, implementation, and initial production support services." The initial 
description did not mention these "senior-lever" services. 5 The Petitioner does not explain the 
reason for these variances in the job duties for the proffered position. 
In addition, in response to the RFE, the Petitioner explained that depending on the need of the 
clients, the "Beneficiary will either work in house on the project or on [the Petitioner's] 
proprietary project, The Petitioner provided a document regarding an project but it 
is not clear if this is the same project as the referenced In addition, the project outline did 
not indicate that the Petitioner will require the services of a programmer analyst, or the Beneficiary 
specifically. 
· Overall, the Petitioner has not provided a sufficient explanation of the demands, level of 
responsibilities, complexity, or requirements necessary for the performance of these duties. The 
Petitioner must substantiate that it has H-1 B caliber work for the Beneficiary. Here, the Petitioner 
has not established the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the Beneficiary, which 
precludes a 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 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. 
B. Position Requirements 
Further, the requirements for the position as stated in the record raise a number of issues. 
First, the Petitioner claimed that the proffered position requires an individual with a "bachelor's 
degree or a closely related field, or the equivalent," but did not submit an explanation of what type of 
field of study is required. We interpret the degree requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to 
5 
The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary's performance of these "senior-level" services is consistent with 
its claim that the proffered position is a Level II position within the occupational category. The Petitioner is required to 
submit a certified LCA to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to demonstrate that it will pay an H-18 
worker the higher of either the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the "area of employment" or the 
actual wage paid by the employer to other employees with similar experience and qualifications who are performing the 
same services. See Matter ofSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542,545-546 (AAO 2015). 
5 
.
Matter of E-C-, Inc. 
require a degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. However, in 
this case, the Petitioner did not indicate a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty was required for 
the position. Thus, for this reason the petition cannot be approved. 
Second, the record contains inconsistent information regarding the minimum requirements for the 
proffered position. More specifically, the Petitioner's statement in the support letter varies 
considerably from the client's who reports that "it is anticipated that those working on this 
project will have a minimum of bachelor's degrees in computer science, engineering (any)[,] 
information technology, management information systems, business administrat[ion] or related 
degree." The Petitioner did not provide an explanation for the variances in the record as to the type 
of bachelor's degree required for the position. 
Third, it does not appear that the client has any specific educational requirements for the position as 
it states that such credentials are simply "anticipated." A preference for high-caliber employees is 
not sufficient to establish a position as a specialty occupation. 
Fourth, the client stated that a degree in business administration is acceptable for the proffered 
position. Since there must be a close correlation between the required specialized studies and the 
position, the requirement of a degree with a generalized title, such as business administration, 
without further specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. C.f Afatter qf 
Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). 
Thus, for the above reasons, the petition cannot be approved. Nevertheless, we \vill perform a 
comprehensive analysis of the evidence provided pursuant to the criteria at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 6 
C. First Criterion 
We tum first to the criterion at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J), 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 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.7 
6 
Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
7 
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 
would normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
6 
Matter of E-C-, Inc. 
As previously mentioned, the Petitioner designated the proffered position under the occupational 
category "Computer Programmers." 
We reviewed the Handbook's subchapter entitled "How to Become a Computer Programmer," 
which states, in pertinent part, that some employers hire workers with an associate's degree.8 Thus, 
the Handbook does not support the Petitioner's assertion that a bachelor's degree is. required for 
entry into this occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner cites to DOL's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) summary 
report. The summary report for "Computer Programmers" provides general information regarding 
the occupation; how~ver, \t does not support the Petitioner's assertion regarding the educational 
requirements for these positions. For example, the Specialized Vocational Preparation (SVP) rating 
cited within O*NET's Job Zone designates this occupation as 7 < 8. An SVP rating of 7 to less than 
("<") 8 indicates that the occupation requires "over 2 years up to and including 4 years" of 
training. While the SVP rating indicates the total number of years of vocational preparation required 
for a particular position, it is important to note that it does not describe how those years are to be 
divided among training, formal education, and experience - and it does not specify the particular 
type of degree, if any, that a position would require.9 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner notes that the O*NET indicated that 78% of respondents have 
a bachelor's degree or higher. But this does not account for 100% of the "respondents," and the 
respondents' positions within the occupation are not distinguished by career level (e.g., entry-level, 
mid-level, senior-level). Additionally, the graph in the summary report does not indicate that the 
"education level" for the respondents must be in a specific specialty. 
In the instant matter, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient 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)(l). 
D. 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 
casts its gaze upon the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
8 
Bureau of Labor Statistics ,U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Computer Programmers (20 16-17 
ed.). 
9 
For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/help/ 
online/svp. 
.
Matter of E-C- , Inc. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy the first prong of the second crite'rion, 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 we often consider 
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. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook, or another authoritative source, reports a requirement for at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. We incorporate by reference the previous discussion on the 
matter. Furthermore, the Petitioner has not offered evidence from an industry professional 
association, or from firms or individuals in the industry, indicating such a degree is a minimum 
requirement 
for entry into the position. 
The Petitioner submitted a few job announcements placed by other employers. The Petitioner stated 
that the advertisements are for "similar IT organizations." However, we note that some of the job 
postings do not appear to involve organizations similar to the Petitioner. Fcir example, the Petitioner 
is a software consulting company, whereas the posting are from: 
• -a project to work for an insurance subsidiary 
• -
a staffing services company 
• development center (a.k.a. -
a multi-national company with a 
position in the gaming studios 
Although the announcements generally indicate the number of employees working for each 
company, the Petitioner did not articulate how this demonstrates the companies' similarity to it, 
particularly since the number of employees working for these companies varies considerably. 10 
Further, the Petitioner does not explain how the services provided by these companies are simi Jar to 
those provided by the Petitioner or how it came to the conclusion that they ar~ in the same industry. 
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 basis for such an assertion. 
10 
The Petitioner indicates on the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, that it employs 47 individuals. 
8 
.
Matter of E-C-, Inc. 
Further, many of the advertisements do not appear to be for parallel positions. For example, the 
postings require a degree and several years of experience, such as: 
• -3 to 5 years of experience 
• -5 to 7+ years of experience 
• -over 5 years of experience 
More importantly, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the primary duties and 
responsibilities of the advertised positions are parallel to the proffered position. 11 
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 the petition, the Petitioner provided information regarding the proffered position and its 
business operations. When discussing H-IB employment, the Petitioner's description must be 
comprehensive enough to properly ascertain the minimum educational requirements necessary to 
perform those duties. While a few related skills and techniques 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. The Petitioner's job description lacks 
sufficient details establishing, for instance, the complexity or uniqueness of the job duties, 
supervisory duties (if any), independent judgment required, or the amount of supervision received. 
The Petitioner has not distingtfished the protiered position as more complex or unique from other 
positions within the same occupation that can be performed by persons without such a degree. 
11 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 
has not demonstrated what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from the advertisements with regard to 
determining the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. See 
generally Earl Babbie, The Practice ()(Social Research I 86-228 (I 995). 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"). 
9 
Matter of E-C-, Inc. 
Further, the Petitioner has designated the profiered position as a Level II position on the LCA.12 
This designation, when read in combination with the evidence presented and the Handbook's 
account of the requirements for this occupation. suggests that the particular position is not so 
complex or unique that the duties can only be performed by an individual with bachelor's degree or 
higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 13 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the positiOn, and references the 
Beneficiary's credentials as evidence that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 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. Here, 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. Thus, it cannot 
. be concluded that the Petitioner has satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
E. 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 record must establish that a petitioner's stated degree requirement is not a matter of preference 
for high-caliber candidates but is necessitated instead by performance requirements of the position. 
See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d at 387-88. Were USCIS limited solely to reviewing the 
Petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, 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. !d. Evidence provided in support of this criterion may include, but is not 
limited to, documentation regarding the Petitioner's past recruitment and hiring practices, as well as 
information regarding employees who previously held the position. 
12 The Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level II position undermines its claim that the position is particularly 
complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation. Nevertheless, a Level II 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 low 
level position would still require a minimum of an advanced 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 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. 
13 
The evidence of record does not establish that this position is significantly different from other positions within the 
occupational category such that it refutes the Handbook's information to the effect that some courses are advantageous to 
obtaining such a position, but not specifying that a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty (or its equivalent) is 
required. 
10 
Matter of E-C-, Inc. 
The Petitioner submitted copies of a job advertisement it placed for the position of programmer 
analyst. In the ad, the Petitioner states that a bachelor's degree in computer science, computer 
applications, computer engineering, technology or related is required. The educational requirement 
in this advertisement is very different from the Petitioner's educational requirement, as stated in the 
support letter (which indicated a bachelor's degree with no specific specialty is acceptable) The 
Petitioner did not explain this variance and it is not clear if the job advertisement is for the same or 
similar job to the proffered position. · 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted evidence relevant to nine individuals, 
including their foreign academic credentials, payroll documentation, and prior H-1 B approval 
notices. The Petitioner only provided evaluations of the foreign academic credentials for three of the 
nine individuals. 
The Petitioner was established in 2000. 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 nine individuals (over a 17 -year period of time) is of 
the Petitioner's normal recruiting and hiring practices. 
Further, the Petitioner does not explain or document the duties and responsibilities of these positions 
and how their knowledge compares to the proffered position, nor does it articulate the body of highly 
specialized knowledge required for these positions. The record lacks evidence establishing that their 
work has the same or similar substantive responsibilities, duties, and performance requirements as 
the proffered position 
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.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
F. 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. 
Although the Petitioner generally refers to the Beneficiary's duties as "specialized," we find that the 
Petitioner has not sufficiently developed relative specialization and complexity as an aspect of the 
proffered position. The proposed duties have not been described with enough detail to show that 
they are more specialized and complex than other computer programmer positions that are not 
usually associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The 
Petitioner does not establish how the generally described duties elevate the proffered position to a 
specialty occupation. We also incorporate our earlier discussion and analysis regarding the duties of 
the proffered position, and the designation of the position in the LCA as a Level II position, and not 
as the higher Level III (referring to "special skills or knowledge") or Level IV (referring to "complex 
II 
Matter of E-C-, Inc. 
or unusual problems") wage levels. For the reasons discussed above, the evidence of record does not 
meetS C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
IV. BENEFICIARY'S QUALIFICATIONS 
As the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the proffered position is a specialty occupation, we need 
not fully address other issues evident in the record. That said, we wish to identify an additional issue 
to inform the Petitioner that this matter should be addressed in any future proceedings. 14 
Specifically, the record does not currently demonstrate that the Beneficiary's combined education 
and work experience is the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. The 
Petitioner submitted the Beneficiary's foreign degree and transcript, and a few letters of professional 
experience, but it did not provide an evaluation to indicate that the Beneficiary's credentials are the 
equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C). 
V. 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. 15 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of E-C-, Inc., ID# 481526 (AAO Aug. 10, 20 17) 
14 
In reviewing a matter de novo, we may identifY additional issues not addressed below in the Director's decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d I 025, I 043 (E. D. Cal. 200 I), affd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 
2003) ("The AAO may deny an application or petition on a ground not identified by the Service Center."). 
15 
Since the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the proffered position is a specialty occupation, we will not discuss other 
issues, including whether the Petitioner has sufficient office space. 
12