dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Science

MATTER OF P-S-. INC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 1. 2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner. a computer consulting company. seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
""computer programmer analyse under the H-1 B nonimmigrant classification. 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-1 B 
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 
evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation 
and that the Petitioner will have an employer-employee relationship with the Beneficiary. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that it has and continues to have specialty occupation work available for the Beneficiary and 
that it is the Beneficiary's employer. 
Upon de nom review. we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l). defines the term .. specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition. the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
(b)(6)
Maller <?f P-S-, 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 
(-/) 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. Cherlld/: 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). 
We note that, as recognized by the court in Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. where the work is to be 
performed tor entities other than the petitioner. evidence of the client companies· job requirements is 
critical. The court held that the t(xmer 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 identified the proflered position as a .. computer programmer analyst" on the H-1 B 
petition. In a letter submitted in support of the petition. the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary 
·'will design, write. develop and enhance custom-made sottware applications as per specific 
requirements and will render professional service, in this particular instance, for our client.·· The 
Petitioner noted that the Beneficiary will work on the · project and 
provided an overview of the project. The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary· s specific duties will 
include: 
• Provide documentation (FSD) tor each developed component/modules /scripts to 
be used for 
2 
(b)(6)
Malter l?{ P-S-. Inc. 
• 
• 
Build/Develop new features and/or 
requirements for the new of [sic] 
Conduct Unit testing for new features 
components in applications as 
as assigned by Client. 
and/or components of 
per 
• SIT Support - Troubleshoot and resolve any defects as become evident during 
system integration (SIT)[.] 
• Develop a Jar which will interact with Informatica API and make is as a 
self-executable Jar. 
The Petitioner added that the Beneficiary will also perform the following duties (paraphrased and 
bullet points added): 
• Be involved in programming, as well as in systems integration, trouble-shooting, 
and design, development and implantation of software applications /solutions. 
• Maintain thorough and accurate documentation on all application systems and 
adhere to established programming and documentation standards. 
• Provide technical evaluation of updated products, assess time estimation, and 
provide technical support within the organization. 
• Responsible for updating existing software systems and appraising management 
on the software that is developed to increase business etliciency or adapt to new 
requirements. 
• Involved in testing, updating, and reviewing computer programs and ensure the 
successful deployment and use of the system/solutions. 
The Petitioner stated that the minimum requirement for this position is a .. Bachelor's degree or its 
equivalent in computer science, engineering or a closely related field." 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary 
will work on the · project. The Petitioner described 
the Beneficiary's duties as follows: 
• Provide documentation (FSD) tor each developed component/modules/scripts to 
be used for 
• Build/Develop new features and/or components in applications as per 
requirements for the new service as assigned by client[.] 
• Develop new web services for lockbox domain[.] 
• Extend account web services for additional products[.] 
• Develop new core domain web services[.] 
• Develop new billing domain web services[.] 
• Onshore-Offshore coordination(.] 
• Work on enhancements tor existing web services[.] 
• Conduct Unit testing tor new features and/or components of modified services[.] 
3 
(b)(6)
Maner (?f P-S- , Inc. 
• SIT Support - Troubleshoot and resolve any defects as become evident during 
system integration (SIT). 
On appeal. the Petitioner provides another description of the Beneficiary"s duties with the 
percentages oftime she will allocate to the duties: 
• Requirement Gathering (20%): Analyze and gather 
requirements for each 
developed component/modules /scripts to be used for 
• Technical Discussions and Solutions (l 0%): Discussions with onshore technical 
and solution architects to identify how the requirements can be embedded into the 
product effectively; identify and determine solutions as to how the product can be 
made more scalable and robust; and discussions with technical design team to 
understand the framework that will be used in program. 
• Design and Documentation (10%): Work on design and architecture ofthe overall 
product considering the requirement gathered; Work on high level estimations and 
development road map based on the requirements; provide documentation (FSD) 
for each developed component /modules /scripts to be used; and prepare design 
documents such as High Level Design (HLDs) and Low Level Design (LLDs) 
with the help of UML diagrams such as EROs, class diagram, Sequence diagram, 
Flow diagram etc. 
• Coding and Development (30%): Build/develop new features and/or components 
in applications as per requirements for the new SEBS modules as assigned by 
Client; develop a Jar which will interact with Informatica API and make it as a 
self-executable Jar; and build an overall framework that generates the required 
metrics on the fly. 
• Unit and Functional Testing ( 
1 0%): Conduct Unit testing for new features and/or 
components developed/modified in visual studio provides its internal tool 
for unit testing called test classes, a minimum of 75% of which is needed to 
package the application (for deployment); and perform basic functional testing for 
the developed features from U I. 
• Production Support ( 1 0%): Support - troubleshoot and resolve any detects as 
become evident during system integration (SIT). 
• Miscellaneous (1 0% ): Coordination with offshore teams ; onshore support lor 
deliverables; technical help to onshore teams on implementation of key modules: 
walkthroughs of design and architecture of the HLD and LLDs to offshore team: 
clarification with offshore team on requirement front; and technical 
documentation. 
The Petitioner states that its ··understanding with the client is to select highly qualified functional 
and technical professionals for these projects given the complexity of this multi-billion dollar 
financial institution's business and systems." 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of P-S-. Inc. 
III. ANALYSIS 
In this matter the Petitioner has provided a general overview of the proffered position's duties and 
asserts that the Beneficiary will be assigned to perform this work on project(s) for a third party 
client. 1 The statements of work (SOW) provided show that an unidentified. undetermined number of 
the Petitioner"s personnel will be assigned to work on the client project(s) which is either in the 
development or application support stage. The SOWs each provide a broadly-stated description of 
the scope of the project(s). and a brief: few-word description of the activities associated with the 
SOW.2 None of the SOWs specifically lists the Beneficiary or a computer programmer analyst as 
one ofthe key assigned personnel. 
We observe that the latest SOW, dated July 27, 2015. does not list anyone under .. Key Vendor 
Personnel'' (see subsection 5.1 ). Moreover , the latest SOW lists three subcontractor companies as 
performing 75% of the total work to be performed by the Petitioner (see subsection 5.2). The 
Petitioner has not explained the significance of this information reflecting that it will subcontract 
75% of its work out to other companies. and how this will affect the availability of work for the 
Petitioner and the Beneficiary. 
In addition, the latest SOW states that .. lt]he Service Level Agreements are attached in Appendix 
A.'' However, the Petitioner has not provided any documents entitled .. Service Level Agreements"" 
or .. Appendix A."' The Petitioner also has not provided any other documents from the claimed third 
party 
client in support of the instant petition. Therefore, upon review of the totality of the record. it 
is not possible to ascertain the Beneficiary"s assignment. her actual day-to-day duties, and whether 
the duties comprise specialty occupation work. Again, where the work is to be performed for 
entities other than the Petitioner, evidence of the client companies· job requirements is critical. 
De.fimsor, 20 l F.3d at 387-88. In addition , '·going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient tor purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings.'' Maller 
l~lS'o.ffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter t~j'Treasure Cn{/t t~lCal.. 14 I&N 
Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
Taken as a whole. the record of proceedings does not contain sufficient. reliable evidence 
demonstrating the substantive nature of the proffered position and its constituent duties.3 
Nevertheless, we will review the Petitioner's general description of duties and the evidence of record 
to determine whether the proffered position as described would qualify for classification as a 
1 The Petitioner initially stated that the Beneficiary would work on the project. Subsequently. the Petitioner stated 
that the Beneficiary would work on the project. The Petitioner has not established whether the project and 
the project are the same. 
2 For example, the SOW indicates that the project activities include: requirement analysis , development and unit testing. 
enhancements, system integration testing and user acceptance testing. 
-' Further, without full disclosure. we are unable to detennine whether the requisite employer-employee relationship with 
exist between the Petitioner and Beneticiary. 
5 
Matter (~f P-S-, Inc. 
specialty occupation.-l To that end and to make our determination as to whether the employment 
described above qualities as a specialty occupation, we turn to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
A. 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 intorm 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 ofthe wide variety of occupations that it addresses.5 
The Petitioner attested on the required labor condition application (LCA) that the occupational 
classification tor the position is ··computer Systems Analysts." corresponding to the Standard 
Occupational Classification code 15-1121 at a Level I wage. 
The Handbook subchapter entitled '"How to Become a Computer Systems Analyst" states. in 
pertinent part: .. A bachelor's degree in a computer or information science field is common. although 
not always a requirement. Some firms hire analysts with business or liberal arts degrees who have 
skills in information technology or computer programming." U.S. Dep't of Labor. Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook. 2016-17 ed.. ..Computer Systems Analysts:· 
http :1 lwww. b Is. gov I ooh/ computer-and- information- technology I computer-systems-analysts. htm #tab-
4 (last visited May 4. 2016). The Handbook also states: '"Although many computer systems analysts 
have technical degrees. such a degree is not always a requirement. Many analysts have liberal arts 
degrees and have gained programming or technical expertise elsewhere." !d. 
The Handbook indicates that a bachelor's degree in a computer or information science field may be 
common. but not that it is a requirement tor entry into these jobs. In fact, this chapter reports that 
·•many" computer systems analysts may only have liberal arts degrees and programming or technical 
experience, but does not further qualify the amount of experience needed. The Handbook also notes 
that many analysts have technical degrees, but does not specify a degree level (e.g .. associate's 
degree) tor these technical degrees. The Handbook further specifies that such a technical degree is 
not always a requirement. Thus, this passage of the Handbook reports that there arc several paths tor 
4 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. 
5 All of our references are to the 2016-17 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
http://www.bls.gov/oohl. 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 nonnally have a minimum. specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent. for entry. 
6 
Matter (?f P-S-, Inc. 
entry into the occupation. 
When reviewing the Handbook. \Ve must also consider that the Petitioner designated the proffered 
position as a Level I (entry) position on the LCA. The .. Prevailing Wage Determination Policy 
Guidance" issued by the DOL describes a Level I wage rate as generally appropriate for a position 
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 she will be closely supervised and her work 
closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy: and (3) that she will receive specific instructions on 
required tasks and expected results. U.S. Dep't of Labor. Emp't & Training Admin .. Premiling 
Wage Determination Policy Guidance. Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009). available 
at http://tlcdatacenter.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. A Level I wage should be considered for research fellows. workers in training, or 
internships. /d. Thus, 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. 6 
The Petitioner has not provided documentation from a probative source to substantiate its assertion 
regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. Thus. the Petitioner has 
not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J). 
B. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two. alternative prongs: .. The degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or. in the alternatire. an employer may 
show that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degreef.r 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong 
contemplates common industry practice. while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
1. First Prong 
6 The Petitioner's designation ofthis position as a Level I. entry-level position indicates that it is a comparatively low­
level position compared to other positions within the same occupation. Nevertheless, a Level I wage-designation does 
not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty occupation. just as a Level IV wage-designation does 
not definitively establish such a classification. In certain occupations (e.g., doctors or lawyers). a Level l. 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 qualities 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. 
Matter of P-S-, Inc. 
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: vvhether 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. Sam. 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
As discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which the 
Handbook, or another authoritative source, reports an industry-wide requirement for at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. We incorporate by reference our previous 
discussion on the matter. Also, there are no submissions from the industry's professional association 
indicating that it has made a degree a minimum entry requirement. Furthermore. the Petitioner did 
not submit any letters or affidavits from similar firms or individuals in the Petitioner's industry 
attesting that such firms ·'routinely employ and recruit only de greed individuals ... See id Therefore, 
based upon a complete review of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not satisfied the first 
alternative prong of8 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. 
Upon review, we find that the Petitioner has not sufficiently developed relative complexity or 
uniqueness as an aspect of the proffered position. For instance, the Petitioner did not submit 
information relevant to a detailed course of study leading to a specialty degree and did not establish 
how such a curriculum is necessary to perform the duties it may believe are so complex and 
unique. While a few related courses may be beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated how an established curriculum of such courses leading to a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the 
duties of the proffered position. 
In this matter. the Petitioner highlights .. the complexity of [its client's] multi-billion dollar financial 
institution's business and systems ... and asserts that the position's .. duties are both technical and very 
complex:· However, these vague descriptions ofthe client's operations, without specifically relating 
the duties of the proffered position to the client's operations, are insutlicient to establish relative 
complexity or uniqueness as aspects of the proffered position. The general descriptions of the 
(b)(6)
Matter of P-S-. Inc. 
proffered duties do not identify any tasks that are so complex or unique that only a specifically 
degreed individual could perform them. Rather. the duties the Petitioner ascribed to the proffered 
position indicate a need for a range of technical knowledge in the computer/IT field. but do not 
establish any particular level of formaL postsecondary education leading to a bachelor's or higher 
degree in a specific specialty (or its equivalent) as minimally necessary to attain such knowledge. 
Further. the LCA submitted by the Petitioner indicates that the proffered position is a Level I (entry) 
wage. which, as noted above. is the lowest of four assignable wage levels. Without additional 
evidence. the record of proceeding does not indicate that the proffered position is so complex or 
unique. as such a position would likely be classified at a higher-level, which requires a significantly 
higher prevailing wage. For all of the above reasons. the Petitioner has not satisfied the second 
alternative prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it 
normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. or its equivalent for the position. 
Here. the Petitioner submits on appeal a list of 52 employees whom it claims arc ··all the 
[P]etitioner's [client] onsite team members:· The list identities the employees by name. title. visa­
type, and education level. The titles include computer programmer analyst. senior computer 
programmer analyst. architect, senior architect. delivery manager. and senior delivery manager. and 
their educational levels include bachelor's or master's degrees in engineering (information 
technology and electronics). computers, and technology. 
Without additional evidence regarding these individuals' job duties and positions, it is not possible 
to discern if the different titled positions within the list of 52 employees perform the same or similar 
duties with similar levels of responsibilities as the proffered position. For instance. the Petitioner· s 
list of employees includes several individuals who appear to be employed in a ''senior'' capacity. 
However. as the Petitioner has designated the proffered position as a Level I entry position. it does 
not appear that these individuals are employed in the same capacity as the proffered position. 
In addition, although the Petitioner asserts that all of these individuals are assigned to the same client 
as the Beneficiary, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to support this assertion. We 
observe, for example. that these individuals reside in difTerent states ranging from California to 
Minnesota. Regardless, even if they were all assigned to the same client as claimed. this still does 
not establish that these individuals are employed in the same capacity as the proffered position. 
which is the relevant inquiry under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
Moreover. the Petitioner states that it was established in . and currently employs over 500 
employees. The Petitioner has not specified how many of its 500 plus employees are in a computer 
programmer analyst position, and how many computer programmer analysts the company has 
9 
Matter of P-S-. Inc. 
employed in the past. Thus, it is not possible to determine how representative this list of employees 
is of the Petitioner's employment practices for the proffered position. 
On appeaL the Petitioner asserts that it is .. inexplicable as to why USCIS has approved so many 
petitions over the years for the same or other similar specialty occupation positions. for I the 
Petitioner's) employees with the same or similar educational qualifications. for the very same ... 
client and the specialty occupation work being done here... However. as discussed above. the record 
does not include sut1icient evidence of the specific client assignments the individuals granted H-1 B 
approval were given, and does not include evidence of the specific \Vork these individuals 
performed. The record also does not include corroborating evidence of these individuals' claimed 
educational credentials. Accordingly. we do not have sutlicient information to compare the 
proffered position to the positions previously approved for H-1 B employment. A prior approval 
does not compel the approval of a subsequent petition or relieve the Petitioner of its burden to 
provide sufficient documentation to establish current eligibility for the benefit sought. 7 Temporary 
Alien Workers Seeking Classification Under the Immigration and Nationality Act. 55 Fed. Reg. 
2,606. 2.612 (Jan. 26, 1990) (to be codified at 8 C.F.R. pt. 214). 
Here. the record of proceedings is insufficient to establish that the Petitioner normally requires a 
bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty, or its equivalent for the proffered position. The 
Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
D. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature 
of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty. or 
its equivalent. 
In the instant case. relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by 
the Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. The Petitioner does not establish how the 
generally described duties of its computer programmer analyst elevate the prot1cred position to a 
specialty occupation. We again refer to our comments regarding the insufficient evidence of the 
7 While a petitioner may believe or othenvise 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. Afeissner. 20 I F. 3d at 387. In other words. if a 
petitioner's degree requirement is only symbolic and the protTered 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) of the Act: 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term ··specialty 
occupation''). 
10 
Matter (~f P-S-, Inc. 
Beneficiary's job duties and assignment, as well as to the implications ofthe Petitioner's designation 
of the proffered position at a Level I (entry) wage level. 
Upon review of the totality of the record. the Petitioner has not established that the nature of the 
specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform the duties is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher 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). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Therefore. we 
cannot find that the proffered position qualities as a specialty occupation. The appeal will be 
dismissed and the petition denied for this reason. As this basis for denial is dispositive of the 
Petitioner's eligibility for the benefit sought, we need not and will not address at this time any 
additional issues in the record of proceedings. 
The burden is on the Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter (~fOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127. 128 (BIA 2013). Here. that burden 
has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter (d"P-S-, Inc., ID# 16979 (AAO June 1, 2016) 
11