dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7974508 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR . 27, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "systems analyst" under the H-IB 
nonirnmigrant 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 California Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish 
that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation and that the Beneficiary would perform 
services in a specialty occupation for the duration of the requested employment period. 
The petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence .1 
The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) reviews the questions in this matter de nova. 2 Upon de 
nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 184(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: 
(I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
1 Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
2 See Matter of Christo 's Inc ., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . 
(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 construe 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. Chertoff, 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. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. Specifically, the record 
does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, 
commensurate with a specialty occupation. 
A. First Criterion 
The criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I), 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 consider the information contained in the U.S. Department of 
Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) regarding the duties and educational 
requirements of the wide variety of occupations it addresses. 3 
On the labor condition application (LCA) 4 submitted in support of the H-1B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Computer Systems Analysts" 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 15-1121. 5 The Petitioner 
3 We do not 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. Nevertheless, to satisfy the first criterion, the burden of proofremains 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 demonstrate that it will pay an H-IB 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. Section 212(n)(l) 
ofthe Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.73l(a). 
5 The Petitioner used a private wage survey to establish the wage for the proffered position. The Petitioner did not provide 
2 
provided an overview of the proffered position. In response to the Director's request for evidence 
(RFE), the Petitioner stated that it requires a bachelor's or higher degree in computer science, 
information technology, computer information systems, management information systems, or a related 
field, for this position. 
We agree that the Petitioner's description of the position corresponds generally to the "Computer 
Systems Analysts" occupation described both in the Handbook's subchapter on "Computer Systems 
Analysts" and the DOL's Occupational Information Network's (O*NET) summary report on 
"Computer Systems Analysts." We do not conclude, however, that the "Computer Systems Analysts" 
occupation is categorically a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that both the Handbook and the O*NET recognize that a computer 
systems analyst occupation normally requires a bachelor's degree or a bachelor's degree in a specific 
field of study. Our review of the Handbook shows that the Handbook sets out a variety of paths 
available to enter this occupation. For example, the Handbook recognizes that "[a]lthough many 
computer systems analysts have technical degrees, such a degree is not always a requirement" and that 
"[ m ]any analysts have liberal arts degrees and have gained programming or technical expertise 
elsewhere." 6 The Handbook does not clarify the type of technical degree (whether associate or 
bachelor's) and does not suggest how or how much programming or technical expertise is generally 
required for a non-computer degreed individual to enter into the occupation. It is this imprecise and 
varied information in the Handbook regarding the ways to enter into this occupation that obviates a 
conclusion that there is categorically a normal minimum educational requirement for the occupation. 
The Petitioner contends that the Handbook is not the best source of information to establish the normal 
minimum educational requirement because the proffered position is not an entry-level position. In 
general, however, it is the wage level that will demonstrate and support a petitioner's claim that the 
proposed position is not entry-level. Thus, the Petitioner must distinguish its proffered position from 
others within the same occupation through the proper wage level designation to indicate factors such 
as the relative complexity of the job duties, the level of judgment, the amount and level of supervision, 
and the level of understanding required to perform the job duties. 7 In this matter, not only is the 
Petitioner's description of duties insufficiently detailed to establish that the Beneficiary will be 
required to perform advanced or senior duties, the record does not establish that the wages paid would 
be commensurate with a more advanced or senior position. 
relevant portions of the wage survey to demonstrate the conesponding wage level for a computer systems analyst 
occupation and establish that the wage level identified within the private wage survey is appropriate for the position. Our 
review of the wage listed on the LCA shows that it falls between a wage level I and wage level II for this occupation within 
the area of employment when the petition was filed according to the Foreign Labor Ce1iification Data Center Online Wage 
Library at https://flcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResults.aspx?code= 15-1121 &area~year= l 9&source= 1. 
6 See Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Computer Systems Analysts, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-systems-analysts.htm (last visited Mar. 27, 
2020). 
7 See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. 
Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://t1cdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ 
Revised_ 11 _ 2009 .pdf 
3 
The Petitioner also cites Next Generation Tech., Inc. v. Johnson, 328 F. Supp. 3d 252,267 (S.D.N.Y. 
201 7) to support its argument that the Director's conclusion has no "rational connection" to the 
Handbook. However, as recognized by another court, while the Handbook may establish the first 
regulatory criterion for certain professions, many occupations are not described in such a categorical 
manner. 8 See Innova Sols., Inc. v. Baran, 2019 WL 3753334, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2019) (declining 
to follow Next Generation Tech., Inc.). For example, "[the Handbook's] description for the Computer 
Programmer occupation does not describe the normal minimum educational requirements of the 
occupation in a categorical fashion." Id.; see also Xiaotong Liu v. Baran, 2018 WL 7348851 (C.D. 
Cal. Dec. 21, 2018). "Accordingly, [the Petitioner] could not simply rely on [the Handbook] profile, 
and instead had the burden to show that the particular position offered to [the Beneficiary] was among 
the Computer Programmer positions for which a bachelor's degree was normally required." See 
Innova Sols., Inc. 2019 WL 3753334, at *8. Here, the Handbook does not describe the normal 
minimum educational requirement for the occupation in a categorical manner since some employers 
accept less than a bachelor's degree. Moreover, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into its particular position. 
The O*NET is also insufficient to support the Petitioner's claim that the proposed position requires a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The O*NET assigns this occupation a Job 
Zone "Four" rating, which groups it among occupations for which "most ... require a four-year 
bachelor's degree, but some do not." Significantly, O*NET does not indicate that a four-year 
bachelor's degree required by Job Zone Four occupations must be in a specific specialty directly 
related to the occupation. It does not refer to any specific discipline as required, therefore the 
information is not probative of the proffered position being a specialty occupation. Likewise, the 
Specialized Vocational Preparation (SVP) rating cited within O*NET' s Job Zone does not establish 
this occupation is a specialty occupation. Rather the designation of this occupation as 7 < 8 indicates 
that the occupation requires "over 2 years up to and including 4 years" of training. While the SVP 
rating indicates the total number of years of vocational preparation required for a particular position, 
it is important to note that it does not describe how those years are to be divided among training, formal 
education, and experience - and it does not specify the particular type of degree, if any, that a position 
would require. 9 
The "Computer Systems Analysts" occupation encompasses a broad base ofresponsibilities and duties 
and the required education and experience to adequately perform these duties also varies. As noted 
above programming or technical expertise not gained through bachelor's-level study may be 
acceptable to enter into this occupation. The Petitioner has not submitted other probative evidence to 
support a finding that its particular position will normally have a minimum, specialty degree 
requirement, or its equivalent, for entry and the Petitioner has not established that its particular position 
is senior or more advanced than an entry-level position. The Petitioner has the burden to demonstrate 
that the particular position offered to the Beneficiary is among the "Computer Systems Analysts" or 
other technology occupations for which a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, 
8 Such professions would include surgeons or attorneys, which indisputably require at least a bachelor's degree for entry 
into the occupation. 
9 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/help/online/svp. 
4 
is normally required. The Petitioner has not established this component of the specialty occupation 
requirements. 
B. First Prong of the 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[.]" 10 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong concentrates upon the 
common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific 
position. 
To satisfy the first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" ( e.g., a requirement of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent) 
is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. We generally consider the 
following sources of evidence to determine if there is such a common degree requirement: 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 establish 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) (considering these "factors" to inform the commonality of a degree 
requirement)). 
The Petitioner submitted five job postings for consideration in support of the first prong of this criterion. 
Although the job postings are all for positions labeled systems analyst or computer systems analyst, 
the descriptions of duties are either extremely brief or appear to include the duties of a software 
applications developer, an occupation different than the computer systems analyst occupation designated 
on the LCA. 11 Moreover, two of the job posting require significant amounts of experience which would 
also require a higher paying wage. 12 These job postings do not include sufficient information to establish 
that they are parallel to the proffered position in terms of duties, experience, or level of responsibility. 
Thus, even if all the job postings indicated that a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, were required, the Petitioner has not established that the submitted advertisements are relevant 
in that the posted job announcements are not for parallel positions. The advertisements do not assist in 
establishing a common bachelor's degree requirement in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, in its 
10 We will discuss the second prong in section D below. 
11 Generally, a "Software Developers, Applications" occupation (SOC code 15-1132) requires a higher wage in the 
projected area of employment. See Foreign Labor Certification Online Library at 
https://flcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResults.aspx?code= 15-l l 32&area~&year= 19&source= 1. Thus, if the 
Petitioner's position requires duties that include the duties of a software applications developer, the Petitioner would be 
required to designate the higher paying occupation on the certified LCA. See 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_ l l _ 2009.pdf. 
12 See id. 
5 
industry for positions that are parallel to the proposed position. 13 Thus it has not satisfied the first prong 
of the regulation 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it normally 
requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. 
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, 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. Id. 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 provided voluminous documentation regarding the 380 employees it claims had been 
employed to perform the proposed position. However, other than claiming that the employees performed 
this same or similar occupation, the Petitioner does not include the detailed duties of the 380 positions 
within the context of any specific projects, contracts, or clients. Moreover, the Petitioner's description 
for this particular systems analysts position is general and does not convey an understanding of the actual 
day-to-day duties that will engage the Beneficiary or has engaged the other employees. The Petitioner in 
this matter provides software services to different clients in diflerent industries, in part, through its digital 
business value framework. These services encompass application development and maintenance, 
infrastructure management, and business process management. The Petitioner does not describe how this 
particular position or the other positions it may have labeled systems analysts, all perform the same or 
similar duties at the same or similar level of responsibility for the projects it may have delivered. 
D. Second Prong of Second Criterion and Fourth Criterion 
As noted above, the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), 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. 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. 
13 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, 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. Sec id. at 
195-196 ( explaining that "[r]andorn 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"). 
6 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the duties of the proffered position are specialized and complex and 
refers to its descriptions of the duties previously submitted. We reviewed the chart which includes a 
broad outline of the proffered position, the Beneficiary's coursework and skills she will use in the position, 
and the Petitioner's conclusory statement that each of the duties must have a bachelor's degree or higher 
in computer science or a related field. We note that the Petitioner also indicates that each job duty requires 
further specialized experience within the occupation, but that the Petitioner does not offer a definition or 
explanation of the type or amount of additional experience needed. 
First, we note that the Beneficiary's educational background does not assist in establishing a proposed 
position is particularly specialized and complex, or unique or is a specialty occupation. The test to 
establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the skill set or education of a proposed beneficiary, 
but whether the position itself qualifies as a specialty occupation. The Petitioner does not offer analysis 
supporting its conclusion that the proposed position requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent. The Petitioner does not explain why the duties of the proffered position are so 
specialized and complex as to be distinguishable from those of similar but non-degreed or non-specialty 
degreed employment. 
The Petitioner also refers to the position evaluation prepared by I I Professor of 
Mathematics, Computer Science, and Information Systems,! !university of I I 14 D 
I I repeats the duties and lists 18 "knowledge areas" in the 2013 Curriculum Guidelines for 
Undergraduate Programs in Computer Science, published by the Association for Computing Machinery 
(ACM). 15 I lnotes that the guidelines list 18 knowledge areas as a model for curriculums in 
computer science and other technical fields. He also states "[i]n my opinion, any of the duties listed for 
the position could be matched to a corresponding knowledge area, suggesting a high degree of 
competence necessary to perform them" and that "if any of the job duties require competence in a major 
knowledge area, it stands to reason that the whole of the job's responsibilities could not be performed 
satisfactorily without Bachelor-level competence in Computer Science or a related technical field." 
~--~I however, does not discuss the current relevance of guidelines published in 2013 to the rapidly 
changing technology environment. He does not refer to the Handbook's more recent information on this 
occupation or attempt to distinguish the Handbook's report that a variety of paths, including less than a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, are available to enter this occupation. Other than referring to 
the "wide adoption of the ACM's Curriculum Guidelines," he does not discuss relevant research, studies, 
or authoritative publications he utilized as part of his review and foundation for his opinion. I I 
14 Service records show that I I used a template with little analysis to support his conclusions. Similar templates 
with the same language, organization, cited source, and similar conclusory statements regarding different occupations and 
also without supporting analysis have been submitted on behalf of other petitioners. The similarity in conclusions, without 
cogent analysis, strongly suggests that the authors of the opinions were asked to confirm a preconceived notion as to the 
required degrees. not objectively assess the proffered position and opine on the minimum bachelor's degree required. We 
also note that the Petitioner refers to an opinion authored by 1 !" but such an opinion is not included in this record 
of proceedings. 
15 These guidelines for potential curriculums are far too broad to establish a particular position requires a body of highly 
specialized knowledge resulting in a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Neither the Petitioner nor 
I brovides a comprehensible analysis of the relevance of such guidelines, if any, to establish the particular position 
proffered here is a specialty occupation. Moreover, we note that this document or pertinent excerpts are not provided for 
the record for our review. 
7 
does not offer a cogent analysis of the duties and a comprehensible explanation of why the duties require 
"Bachelor-level competence in Computer Science or a related technical field." The record does not 
include probative evidence corroborating his conclusion regarding the minimum entry requirements for 
this occupation. Without a more thorough analysis of the proffered position and a foundation for his 
conclusions, his opinion has little probative value. 16 
The Petitioner has not developed the complexity and specialization, or uniqueness aspect of the position 
proffered here. The evidence of record does not establish that the proffered position is significantly 
different from other computer systems analysts positions such that it refutes the Handbook's 
information to the effect that there is a spectrum of degrees acceptable for such a position, including 
degrees not in a specific specialty. The record lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish 
the proffered position as unique from or more specialized and complex than other closely related 
positions that can be performed by persons without at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent. 
Upon review of the totality of the evidence submitted, the Petitioner has not established that more likely 
than not, the proffered position is a specialty occupation under any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Moreover, the record does not establish that the duties of the proffered position 
require the theoretical and practical application of highly specialized knowledge and attainment of at least 
a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. See section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty occupation). 
Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and 
hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding its claim that it has sufficient specialty 
occupation work available for the Beneficiary throughout the requested employment period. See INS 
v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on 
issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 
I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant 
is otherwise ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
16 Where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we are not required to accept or 
may give less weight to that evidence. Matter of Caron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). 
8