dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S- INC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 6, 2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an information technology company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"computer programmer" under the H-1 B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
The H-18 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 the 
Petitioner had not established that the Petitioner would employ the Beneficiary in a specialty 
occupation position. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the evidence 
submitted satisfies all evidentiary requirements. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
A. 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. 
Matter of S- Inc 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
(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). 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,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). 
B. Proffered Position 
In the H-IB petition, the Petitioner stated that the Benet1ciary will serve as a "computer 
programmer." The Petitioner provided the following description of the duties of the proffered 
position (note: errors in the original text have not been changed): 
• Identifying requirements by establishing personal rapport with the client and with 
other persons in a position to understand service requirements 
• Arranging project requirments in programming sequence by analyzing 
requirements; preparing a work flow chart and diagram using knowledge of tool 
of expertise and implementation of required logic. 
• Programming computer systems by encoding project requirements in computer 
language;Development of Android applications using Java. 
• Develops and maintains applications and database systema by evaluating client 
needs;analyzing requirements ;developing software systems 
• Confirming program operation by conducting tests;modifying program sequence 
and/or codes. 
2 
Matter of S- Inc 
• Maintaing professional and technical knowledge by completing certifications and 
reviewing professional publications 
• Protect sensitive data and database credentials by keeping them confidential. 
• Contributes to team effort by accomplishing related results as needed,Be able to 
identify potential issues and come up with resolutions. 
As to the educational requirement of the position, the Petitioner stated: 
) 
Due to the high level of professional responsibility inherent to the the [sic] instant 
position, the Petitioner's minimum requirement for this position is a comprehensive 
understanding of Computer Systems and Programming, which comes with at least a 
Bachelor's degree in Engineering or a related field. Please note that the Petitioner 
would not consider anyone with lesser qualifications .... 
C. Analysis 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation.
1 
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? 
However, before engaging in that analysis we will first address a foundational deficiency which 
alone precludes a finding that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. In a letter provided 
with the H-IB petition, the Petitioner stated, "Petitioner is a consulting company which places 
workers at end-client locations through contractual agreements." In another letter, it stated, "The 
Beneficiary will be working as [a] Computer Programmer at the Petitioner's client locations." The 
clients for whom the Beneficiary would work have not been identified. 
As recognized by the court in Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384, where the work is to be 
performed for entities other than the petitioner, evidence of the client companies' job requirements is 
critical. The court 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. Such evidence must be sufficiently detailed and explained as to 
demonstrate the type and educational level of highly specialized knowledge in a specific discipline 
that is necessary to perform that particular work. The record of proceedings lacks such evidence 
from any end-user entities that may generate work tor the Beneficiary and whose business needs 
1 
Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
2 
The Petitioner submitted documentation to support 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. 
3 
Matter of S- Inc 
would ultimately determine what the Beneficiary would actually do on a day-to-day basis. The 
Petitioner has not, therefore, established the substantive nature of the work the Beneficiary would 
perform if the H -1 B petition were approved. 
That the Petitioner did not establish the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the 
Beneficiary precludes a finding that the proffered position is a specialty occupation under any 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), because it is the substantive nature of that work that 
determines ( 1) the normal minimum educational requirement for the particular position, which is the 
focus of criterion 1; (2) industry positions which are parallel to the proffered position and thus 
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. 
The Director's decision must therefore be affirmed and the appeal dismissed on this basis alone. 
Nevertheless, we will continue our analysis of whether the proffered position qualifies 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.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). The analysis will be 
based on the assumption, made arguendo, that the duties the Petitioner attributes to the proffered 
position are an accurate description of the duties the Beneficiary would actually perform and that the 
Petitioner has correctly characterized the proffered position as a computer programmer position. 
1. First Criterion 
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. To inform this inquiry, we recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's 
(DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook), which the Petitioner cited as evidence that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation position, as an authoritative source on the duties 
and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses.3 
On the labor condition application (LCA)4 submitted in support of the H-JB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Computer Programmers," 
3 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 USCIS 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. 
4 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to USC IS 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 empjoyees with similar experience and qualifications who are performing the same 
4 
Matter of S- Inc 
corresponding to Standard Occupational Classification code 15-1131.5 The Handbook states the 
following about the educational requirements of computt;r programmer positions: 6 
Most computer programmers have a bachelor's degree; however, some employers 
hire workers who have an associate's degree. Most programmers get a degree in 
computer science or a related subject. Programmers who work in specific fields, such 
as healthcare or accounting, may take classes in that field to supplement their degree 
in computer programming. In addition, employers value experience, which many 
students gain through internships. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook. 2016-17 ed., 
"Computer Programmers," http://www. bls.gov /ooh/computer-and-information-technology I 
computer-programmers.htm#tab-4 (last visited Jan. 4, 2017). 
According to the Handbook, the occupation accommodates a wide spectrum of educational 
credentials, including less than a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. For example, the 
Handbook states that some employers hire workers who have an associate's degree. Furthermore, 
while the Handbook's narrative indicates that most computer programmers obtain a degree (either a 
bachelor's degree or an associate's degree) in computer science or a related field, the Handbook does 
not report that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the 
minimum requirement for entry into the occupation. The Handbook also reports that employers 
value computer programmers who possess experience, which can be obtained through internships. 
Further, in designating the proffered position at a Level I wage, the Petitioner has indicated that the 
proffered position is a comparatively low, entry-level position relative to others within the 
occupation. Given the Handbook's implication that typical positions located within this 
occupational category do not require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, it appears unlikely 
that an entry-level position with these characteristics would have such a requirement.7 
services. See Matter ofSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 545-546 (AAO 20 15). 
5 The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level I wage (the lowest of four assignable wage levels). 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 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 _11_ 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. 
6 The Handbook, which is available in printed form, may also be accessed on the Internet, at http://www.bls.gov/oco/. 
Our references to the Handbook are to the 2016- 2017 edition available online. 
7 
Given the assertions of record regarding the proffered position, the Petitioner's wage-level designation on the LCA 
raises questions as to whether the LCA actually corresponds to and supports the H-1 B petition. While we will not 
explore the issue of the LCA in depth here, the Petitioner should be prepared to address it in any future H-1 B filings 
5 
Matter of S- Inc 
As an additional authority, the Petitioner pointed to DOL's classification of computer programmer 
positions in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) at a Specific Vocational Preparation (SVP) 
rating of 7. However, the occupation's SVP rating is not probative of the proffered position being a 
specialty occupation, as these ratings are meant to indicate only the total number of years of training 
required for a particular position, but do not describe how those years are to be divided among 
training, formal education, and experience, and do not specify the particular type of degree, if any, 
that a position would require. 8 
As the Petitioner has not provided documentation from a probative source to substantiate its 
assertion regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position, the Petitioner 
has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
2. 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. 
a. 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 firms "routinely employ and recruit 
only degreed individuals." See Shanli, 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)). 
Here and 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. Also, there are no submissions from the industry's 
because it appears to constitute an additional ground of ineligibility. 
8 For more information about SVP ratings, see O*NET Online Help Specific Vocational Preparation (SVP), 
https://www.onetonline.org/help/online/svp (last visited Jan. 4, 20 17). 
6 
Matter of S- Inc 
professional associatiOn indicating that it has made a degree a mm1mum 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." 
The Petitioner did provide six vacancy announcements placed by other companies advertising 
positions entitled Computer Programmer, Computer Programmer I, Junior Programmer, Java 
Programmer (Entry Level), and Programmer Automated Systems. However, we observe that most 
of these advertisements contain an experience requirement, and some contain a requirement for a 
considerable amount of very specific programming experience. This suggests that most of those 
positions advertised in these vacancy announcements are not entry-level positions. In order to show 
that positions parallel to the proffered position require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty or its equivalent, the Petitioner would be required to show that other wage Level I 
computer programmer positions, which are entry-level positions, require a minimum of a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
While one of the vacancy announcements states that the position announced requires a bachelor's 
degree, it does not require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. Thus, that vacancy 
announcement does not contain a requirement of a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent. 
Nor does the record establish that these vacancy announcements were placed by organizations 
conducting business within the Petitioner's industry that are otherwise similar to it. For example, the 
company that placed one of the vacancy announcements states that it is "a provider of 30 
measurement and inspection solutions." Some others do not indicate what industry they are in. 
Absent information to establish that the advertising organizations are in the Petitioner's industry and 
are otherwise similar to the Petitioner, vacancy announcements are generally outside the scope of 
consideration for this criterion. · 
Finally, even if all of the vacancy announcements advertised parallel positions with organizations 
similar to the Petitioner and in the Petitioner's industry and stated a requirement for a minimum of a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent, we would still find that the Petitioner has 
not demonstrated what statistically valid inferences, if any, could be drawn from six announcements 
with regard to the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar 
. . 9 
orgamzatwns. 
9 USCIS "must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true." Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). As just discussed, the Petitioner has not established the relevance ofthe 
job advertisements submitted to the position proffered in this case. Even if their relevance had been established, the 
Petitioner still would not have demonstrated what inferences, if any, can be drawn from these few job postings with 
regard to determining the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations in 
the same industry. See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 ( 1995). 
7 
Matter of S- Inc 
Thus, the eviderice of record does not establish that a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to parallel positions with organizations that are in 
the Petitioner's industry and otherwise similar to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has not, therefore, 
satisfied the criterion ofthe first alternative prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
b. 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. 
A review of the record of proceedings finds that the Petitioner has not credibly demonstrated that the 
duties the Beneficiary will be responsible for or perform on a day-to-day basis constitute a position 
so complex or unique that it can only be performed by a person with at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner's descriptions of the proffered position's duties 
do not establish why a few related courses or industry experience alone is insufficient preparation for 
the proffered position. While a few related courses may be beneficial, or even required, 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 description of the duties 
does not specifically identify any tasks that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed 
individual could perform them. The record lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish the 
proffered position as more complex or unique from other positions that can be performed by persons 
without at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
This is further evidenced by the LCA submitted by the Petitioner in support of the instant 
petition. As noted above, the Petitioner attested on the submitted LCA that the wage level for the 
proffered position is a Level I (entry-level) wage. Such a wage level is for a position which only 
requires the performance of routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; close 
supervision and work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and the receipt of specific 
instructions on required tasks and expected results, and is contrary to a position that requires the 
performance of complex duties.
10 
It is,• instead, a position for an employee who has only basic 
understanding of the occupation. · 
10 
The issue here is that the Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position undermines its 
claim that the position is particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same 
occupation. Nevertheless, it is important to note that a Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position 
from classification as a specialty occupation. In certain occupations (doctors or lawyers, for example), an entry-level 
position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for 
entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designation would not reflect that an occupation qualifies as a specialty 
occupation if that higher-level position does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent. That is, a position's wage level designation may be a consideration but is not a substitute for 
a determination of whether a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)( I) of the Act. 
8 
Matter of S- Inc 
Therefore, the evidence of record does not establish that this position is significantly different from 
other positions in the occupation such that it refutes the Handbook's information to the etiect that 
there is a spectrum of degrees acceptable for such positions, including degrees not in a specific 
specialty. In other words, if typical positions located within the occupational category do not require 
a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, then it is unclear how a position with 
the Level I characteristics described qbove would, as the record lacks sufficiently detailed 
information to distinguish the proffered position as unique from or more complex than positions that 
can be performed by persons without at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. As the Petitioner did not demonstrate how the proffered position is so complex or 
unique relative to other positions within the same occupational category that do not require at least a 
baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for entry into the occupation in the 
United States, 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). 
3. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it 
normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. 
The Petitioner asserted that it requires a bachelor's degree in engineering or a related field for the 
proffered position. While a petitioner may believe or otherwise assert that a proffered position 
requires a degree in a specific specialty, that opinion alone without corroborating evidence cannot 
establish the position as a specialty occupation. Were USCIS limited solely to reviewing a 
petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, then any individual with a bachelor's degree could 
be brought to the United States to perform any occupation as long as the employer artificially created 
a token degree requirement, whereby all individuals employed in a particular position possessed a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty or its equivalent. See Defensor v. Meissner, 
201 F. 3d at 387. In other words, if a petitioner's degree requirement is only symbolic and the 
proffered position does not in fact require such a specialty degree or its equivalent to perform its 
duties, the occupation would not meet the statutory or regulatory definition of a specialty 
occupation. See section 214(i)(l) ofthe Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty 
occupation"). A petitioner's unsupported statements are of very limited weight and normally will be 
insufficient to carry its burden of proof, particularly when supporting documentary evidence would 
reasonably be available. See Matter o.fSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter 
o.fTreasure Craft a_[ Cal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)); see also Matier o_fChawathe, 25 
I&N Dec. at 376. The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. See Matter o.fChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
To satisfy this criterion the Petitioner provided evidence pertinent to two of its employees. The 
Petitioner stated in the H-1 B petition that it is an "IT Product development and services" firm, that it 
was established in 2011. The evidence submitted is insufficient to show that these two individuals 
are the only people the Petitioner has employed as computer programmers in the past or that they are 
representative of all the people the Petitioner has thus employed. Further, the evidence does not 
9 
Matter of S- Inc 
demonstrate that these two individuals held Level I positions. As such, the educational requirement 
of their positions has not been shown to be directly relevant to the educational requirement of the 
proffered position in the instant case. 11 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that it normally requires at least a 
bachelor's degree, or the equivalent, in a specific specialty for the proffered position. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). 
4. 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. 
Again, relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by the Petitioner 
as an aspect of the proffered position. The duties of the proffered position, such as identifying a 
client's software requirements, arranging them in a logical sequence, and encoding the necessary 
steps in Java contain insufficient indication of a nature so specialized and complex that they require 
knowledge usually associated with attainment of a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent. 
In other words, the proposed duties have not been described with sufficient specificity to show that 
they are more specialized and complex than the duties of computer programmer positions that are 
not usually associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specificspecialty or its equivalent. 
We again refer to our earlier comments and findings with regard to the implication of the Petitioner's 
designation of the proffered position in the LCA as a Level I (the lowest of four assignable levels) 
wage. That is, the Level I wage designation is indicative of a low, entry-level position relative to 
others within the occupational category, and hence one not likely distinguishable by relatively 
specialized and complex duties. In classifying the proffered position at a Levell (entry-level) wage, 
the Petitioner effectively attested to DOL that the Beneficiary would perform routine tasks that 
require limited, if any, exercise of judgment, that he would be closely supervised and his work 
closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy, and that he would receive specific instructions on 
required tasks and expected results. 12 The DOL guidance referenced above states that an employer 
should consider a Level I wage designation when the job offer is for a research fellow, a worker in 
training, or an internship. 
11 In any event, it is not clear whether two previous hires· would constitute sufficient evidence of a past history of 
employing only persons with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, to establish eligibility 
under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(3). 
12 
Again, the Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position undermines its claim that the 
position is particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation. 
10 
Matter of S- Inc 
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.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 13 
II. CONCLUSION 
The burden is on the Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that burden has not been met 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofS- Inc, ID# 32072 (AAO Jan. 6, 2017) 
13 
The Director also found that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that the Beneficiary is entitled to an exemption from 
the general limit on the number of H-1 B visas issued per year. Since our determination on the specialty occupation 
issued is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we will not address this issue. 
II