dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF V -, LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 27,2017 
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 
"devops [development and operations] engineer" 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)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-lB 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 record did 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 denying 
the petition. 
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 V-. LLC 
(I) 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). 
II. THE PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a devops engineer. 1 In the initial submission, the 
Petitioner provided a list of job duties but stated that the Beneficiary may be required to work on 
other projects and that this possible reassignment should be included in the job description. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner's president provided a 
revised description of the proffered position, stating that the Beneficiary would perform the 
following duties: 
• Expand or modify products to improve features, performance and efficiency. 
Write new application code -Estimated effort- 40% of time. 
• Deploy, Test, Bug fix and Operations management- Estimated effort- 30% of 
the system [sic] 
• Understand and document system requirements and technical solutions. -
Estimated effort - 1 0% 
• Consult with management to ensure agreement on system principles, bug fixes 
and support resolutions. -Estimated effort- 5% of the time 
1 
Within the record, the Petitioner mistakenly and repeatedly references the Beneficiary in the feminine pronoun 
case. The record lacks an 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 V-, LLC 
• Confer with clients regarding the nature of the information processing or 
computation needs a computer program is to address. - Estimated effort - 5% of 
the time 
• Configuration Management - Design, implement and maintain system specific 
environments- Estimated effort- 5% of the time 
• Attend internal trainings to gain knowledge on · best practices and latest 
technologies- Estimated effort- 5% of the time 
The Petitioner provided several accounts of the educational requirements for the proffered position. 
The following chart provides a summary of the Petitioner's statements. 
Record of Proceedings Degree Requirement Experience 
Requirement 
Letter of Support - computer science, information technology, electrical, none 
March 31, 2016 math, or a related field mentioned 
Letter of Support- computer science, management information systems, none 
December 14, 2016 commerce, business administration, electrical mentioned 
engineering, electronics engineering, economics, or a 
relative analytic or scientific discipline 
Affidavit of Petitioner - computer science, engineering, mathematics, statistics, none 
December 14, 2016 management information systems mentioned 
Job Posting- computer science or a related field three years 
December 23, 2016 
Letter of Support - page 2: computer science, management information none 
December 23, 2016 systems, business administration, electrical mentioned 
engineering, electronics engineering, economics, or a 
relative analytic or scientific discipline 
page 2: computer science or a closely related field 
Brief- "in the proffered position" none 
March 6, 201 7 mentioned 
The Petitioner did not provide an explanation for the variances in its requirements. 
III. ANALYSIS 
For the reasons set out below, we have determined that the proffered position does not qualify as a 
specialty occupation? Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties reqmre an 
educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation.3 
2 
Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
3 
Matter of V-, LLC 
A. Degree Requirement- Disparate Fields 
The Petitioner's requirements for the position vary significantly throughout the record, and it did not 
provide an explanation for the inconsistencies. Thus, we must question the accuracy of the 
documents and whether the information provided is correctly attributed to this particular position. 
Further, the Petitioner claims that degrees in various fields are acceptable for the proffered position 
(e.g., commerce, math, economics, electronics). In general, provided the specialties are closely 
related (e.g., chemistry and biochemistry), a minimum of a bachelor's of higher degree in more than 
one specialty is recognized as satisfying the "degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)" 
requirement of section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act. In such a case, the required "body of highly 
specialized knowledge" would essentially be the same. 
Since there must be a close correlation between the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" 
and the position, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in disparate fields would not meet the 
statutory requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)," unless the 
petitioner establishes how each field is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
particular position such that the required body of highly specialized knowledge is essentially an 
amalgamation of these different specialties. Section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). 
Here, the Petitioner has not established how each field directly relates to the proffered position. 
B. Degree Requirement- Business Administration 
According to the Petitioner, a degree in business administration is one of the disciplines that is 
sufficient for entry into the proffered position. This statement, however, is inadequate to establish 
that the proposed position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
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 Matter of Michael Hertz 
Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). 
Although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in busines~ administration, may be a 
legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree will not justify a finding that 
a particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam, 484 F .3d at 
147.4 Thus, for this reason also, the Petitioner has not satisfied the specialty occupation 
requirements. 
3 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
4 Specifically, the judge explained in Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147, that: 
The courts and the agency consistently have stated that, although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, 
4 
Matter of V-, LLC 
C. Business Operations 
The Petitioner stated that it was established in 2008 and that it has two full-time employees and three 
part-time employees in the United States. According to the Petitioner, it employed 15 individuals 
between 2010 and 2015. The Petitioner claimed that it is seeing a huge industry growth and intends 
to hire 15 full-time employees in 2016. 
In support of the petition, the Petitioner provided excerpts from its tax returns filed in 2013, 2014, 
and 2015. The documentation shows that during this three-year period, the company did not have 
any expenses for: salaries and wages; compensation of officers, employee benefit plans; and 
pension, profit sharing, etc. Further, the record shows that the Petitioner's annual income is 
decreasing, and that its business income in 2015 was negative $9,255. There is a lack of evidence 
supporting the Petitioner's claim that its business is growing or expanding. 
In the RFE, the Director requested the Petitioner provide an organizational chart and include the 
names and job titles of the individuals working with the Beneficiary. 5 In response, the Petitioner 
submitted an organizational chart with 10 entries. Many of the job titles were provided in the plural 
(e.g., architects, devops engineers, application developers, network and system administrators, QA 
engineers) suggesting that multiple employees hold these positions. However, the names of the 
individuals were not provided - and there are significantly more jobs than the number of reported 
employees. The chart does not appear to reflect the Petitioner's current staff and therefore, without 
more, it cannot be considered persuasive in the instant matter. 
The Petitioner's claim that it intends to expand its business operations in the future is not sufficient 
to demonstrate that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation.6 A petitioner must 
establish eligibility at the time of filing the petition. See 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(I). A petition may not 
be approved at a future date after the Petitioner or Beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of 
facts. Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. Comm'r 1978). The H-1 B 
classification is not intended as a vehicle for employers to bring in temporary workers to meet 
possible workforce needs arising from potential business expansions or the expectation of potential 
new customers or contracts. 63 Fed. Reg. 30419, 30419 - 30420 (June 4, 1998). 
such as a business administration degree, may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, 
requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify the granting of a petition for an H-1 B specialty 
occupation visa. See, e.g., Tapis lnt 'I v. INS, 94 F.Supp.2d 172, 175-76 (D. Mass. 2000); Shanti, 36 F. 
Supp. 2d at 1164-66; cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I & &N Dec. 558, 560 ([Comm'r] 1988) 
(providing frequently cited analysis in connection with a conceptually similar provision). This is as it 
should be: elsewise, an employer could ensure the granting of a specialty occupation visa petition by 
the simple expedient of creating a generic (and essentially artificial) degree requirement. 
5 
In the record, the Petitioner provided inconsistent information about who would supervise the Beneficiary. 
6 
The Petitioner's statement on appeal that it was acquired by another company approximately seven months after the 
petition was filed does not establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § I 03.2(b )(I). 
5 
Matter of V-, LLC 
Nevertheless, we will continue our analysis of whether the proffered position qualities as a specialty 
occupation for the purpose of performing a comprehensive analysis. We will next discuss the record 
of proceedings in relation to the four criteria at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
D. First Criterion 
We turn now to the criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which requires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. To inform this inquiry, we recognize the 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 
On the labor condition application (LCA)8 submitted in support of the H-1 B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Computer Systems Analysts" 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 15-1121.9 
The Handbook begins by stating that a degree in the computer or information science field is not 
always a requirement. It further reports that "[a]lthough many computer systems analysts have 
technical degrees, such a degree is not always a requirement." 10 According to the Handbook, many 
analysts have liberal arts degrees. 11 The Handbook does not specify a degree level (e.g., associate's 
degree, baccalaureate) for these technical and liberal degrees. 
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 we regularly review 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. 
8 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to us to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B 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, 545-46 (AAO 20 15). 
9 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 DOL provides a description of the wage 
levels. A Level II wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to 
have attained, either through education or experience, a good understanding of the occupation, but who will only perform 
moderately complex tasks that require 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. 
10 
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Computer Systems Analysts (20 16-
17 ed.). 
II fd. 
6 
Matter of V-, LLC 
Thus, the Handbook's report is insufficient to conclude that simply by vi11ue of its occupational 
classification the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
In support of the petition, the Petitioner references DOL's Occupational Information Network 
(O*NET) summary report for "Computer Systems Analysts." We reviewed the summary report and 
note that it provides general information regarding the occupation. It does not, however, support the 
Petitioner's assertion regarding the educational requirements for these positions. 
We will first focus on the Specialized Vocational Preparation (SVP) rating. DOL designates the 
occupation "Computer Systems Analysts" as having an SVP 7 < 8. This indicates that the 
occupation requires "over 2 years up to and including 4 years" of training. While the SVP rating 
provides 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.12 
Next we will address DOL's designation in the summary report of the occupation as a Job Zone 
Four. Similar to the SVP rating, the summary report does not indicate that any academic credentials 
for Job Zone Four occupations must be directly related to the duties performed. 
Finally, we note that the summary report provides the educational requirements of "respondents," 
but does not account for 100% of the "respondents." 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. 
Here, the record lacks sufficient evidence to support a finding that the position, as described, is one 
for which a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the 
minimum requirement for entry. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
E. 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. 
12 
For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/help/ 
online/svp. 
.
Matter of V-, LLC 
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 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 already discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook (or other independent, authoritative source) reports an industry-wide 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. In addition, there are no submissions from the 
industry's professional association indicating that it has made a degree a minimum entry 
requirement. 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner submitted a letter from of 
claims that all of employees have at least 
a baccalaureate. He does not provide, however, the number of people the company employs, 
information about these individuals' work (e.g., job titles, duties), or describe their specific 
credentials. Importantly, he also does not state whether the company currently or in the past has 
employed devops engineers. His testimony does not sufficiently substantiate his conclusions, such 
that we can conclude that the Petitioner has shouldered its burden of proof. letter 
is not supported by evidence or the necessary information to determine that his company routinely 
employs and recruits only degreed individuals for devops engineer positions (or parallel positions). 
See id. 
The Petitioner also provided 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, some of the advertisements provide little or no information regarding the 
hiring employers, and the Petitioner did not supplement the record of proceedings to establish that 
these 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 stafting 
8 
.
Matter of V-, LLC 
(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. 
Second, some of the advertisements do not appear to be for parallel positions. For instance, many of 
the postings appear to be for more senior, experienced employment than the proffered position. 13 
Moreover, some of the postings do not include sufficient information about the duties and 
responsibilities for the advertised positions. Thus, it is not possible to determine important aspects 
of the jobs, 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. 
Third, some of the postings do not indicate that at least a bachelor's degree in a directly related 
specific specialty (or its equivalent) is required. 14 For instance, one of the postings states that 
bachelor's degree is preferred, and another posting indicates that a computer science degree is 
preferred. A preference is not an indication of a minimum requirement. Further, some of the 
postings report that a bachelor's degree is necessary, but they do not specify any particular discipline 
is required. Therefore, it appears that a degree in any field (or a general degree) is sufficient for 
these positions. Overall, the job postings suggest, at best, that although a bachelor's degree is 
sometimes required for these positions, a bachelor's degree in a spec(fic specialty (or its equivalent) 
is not.15 
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.16 That is, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. 
13 
For instance: requires a degree and 14 years of experience or 18 years of experience; and 
require a degree and I 0 years of experience; and require a degree and 8 
years of experience. However, the Petitioner indicated that the proffered position is a lower level (Level II) position on 
the LCA. 
14 
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)(l )(b) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(ii). 
15 
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 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"). 
16 
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 
Matter of V-, LLC 
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. We reviewed the Petitioner's statements regarding the proffered position. However, it 
did not assert eligibility or provide evidence in support of this prong. As a result, the Petitioner has 
not satisfied the second prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
F. 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 we limited solely to reviewing a petitioner's 
claimed self-imposed requirements, an organization could bring any individual with a bachelor's 
degree to the United States to perform any occupation as long as the petitioning entity 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. 
The Petitioner's business operations began in 2008- thus, eight years before the instant petition was 
filed. According to the Petitioner, it always requires its engineers and technical information 
technology (IT) professionals to hold a bachelor's degree or higher in computer science (or its 
equivalent). 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted one job posting as evidence of its 
claimed degree requirement. However, the evidence does not establish that anyone was hired into a 
position that is the same (or similar) to the one offered to the Beneficiary. The Petitioner did not 
provide the total number of people it has employed to serve in the proffered position. Therefore, 
without more, it cannot be determined how representative this one job posting (over an eight year 
period) is of the Petitioner's normal recruiting and hiring practices. There is a lack of evidence or 
information supporting the Petitioner's statement. 
We reviewed the evidence, but 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). 
10 
Matter of V-, LLC 
G. 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 it satisfies this criterion and references the duties of the position and its 
business operations. However, the Petitioner does not establish how the duties elevate the proffered 
position to a specialty occupation. 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 
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. 
We also refer to our earlier comments and findings with regard to the implication of the Petitioner's 
designation ·of the proffered position on the LCA as a Level II wage, and hence one not likely 
distinguishable by relatively specialized and complex duties.17 This designation, when read in 
combination with the evidence presented and the Handbook's account of the requirements for this 
occupation. does not support the Petitioner's assertion. 18 Further, as previously discussed, the 
Petitioner has provided inconsistent information regarding the requirements it asserts are necessary 
for the position. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the pos1t10n, and references his 
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. For the reasons discussed above, the evidence of 
record does not satisfy the fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
17 
The Petitioner's designation of this position as a relatively low-level position undermines its claim that the position is 
particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation. Nevertheless, a 
lower wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty occupation, just as a 
higher wage-designation does not definitively establish such a classification. In certain occupations (e.g., doctors or 
lawyers), a lower~level position would still require a minimum of an advanced degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, for entry. Similarly, however, a higher 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. 
18 
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 the degree must be in a specific specialty. 
II 
Matter of V-, LLC 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal must be dismissed because the Petitioner did not establish that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofV-, LLC, ID# 532892 (AAO July 27, 2017) 
12