dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Software

MATTER OF I-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 10,2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a computer software and development sales business, seeks to temporarily employ 
the Beneficiary as an "implementation consultant" under the H -1 B nonimmigrant classification for 
specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). The H-1B program allows a'U.S. employer to temporarily employ 
a qualified foreign worker in a position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application 
of a body of highly specialized knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in 
the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition concluding that the evidence of record 
does not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
a brief, and asserts that the Director erred in her findings. 
Upon de novo 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: 
Matter of 1-, Inc. 
(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 perfomied 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). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
In the H-IB petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as an "implementation 
consultant." In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided the 
following job duties for the position (verbatim): 
Per our statement of work with our customers, [the Beneficiary] is responsible for the 
following: 
Requirements Gathering 
1. [The Beneficiary] captures business requirements from our customer. 
Business requirement gathering involves interviewing customer's subject' 
matter experts to understand data integrity needs for a specific requirement. 
2. Technical Specification Creation 
[The Beneficiary] is responsible for creating technical specifications for the 
data integrity rules using the business requirements captured from the 
customer. 
3. Implementation 
2 
Matter of 1-, Inc. 
[The Beneficiary] then implements the technical specification usmg 
proprietary software to write rules around the given requirements. He is 
responsible for writing rules and testing the code in a test environment. He is 
also responsible for adding, deleting and modifying code if there are changes 
in the requirements. 
1 
Once the testing phase is complete, he is responsible for 
deploying the [Petitioner's] Controls Solutions in the customer's technology 
environment. More specifically, he[:] 
• Leads or assists with gathering the business requirements to configure 
[the Petitioner's] Controls Solutions Understands the business 
requirements 
• Analyzes customer's data stored in a variety of format including XML, 
EDI in a multiple data sources including file system, oracle, ms sql 
• Translates the business requirements and data analysis results into 
control technical specifications 
• Designs control solutions that can be implemented usmg [the 
Petitioner's] software to achieve data integrity 
• Codes controls solutions using the technical specification and design 
document leveraging [the Petitioner's] software 
• Tests and validates the rules using customer data 
• Executes quality assurance related activities to ensure quality of data 
integrity control delivery 
• Helps to identify existing and potential performance problems m 
customer environment. Performance testing includes speed of 
, processing consideration given current and future data volume 
• Additional responsibilities may include benchmarking, capacity 
planning, performance measurement, analysis, and troubleshooting 
• Deploys Controls Solutions in the production environment 
• Ensures Controls Solutions are running efficiently in the production 
environment 
• Produces required documentation in conjunction with the delivery 
According to the Petitioner, the position requires a bachelor's degree in computer science or similar 
degree in technology, or its equivalent. 
III. 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. 
Specifically, the record does not describe the position's duties with sufficient detail; and does not 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of 1-, Inc. 
establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with 
a specialty occupation. 1 
USCIS in this matter must review the actual duties the Beneficiary will be expected to perform to 
ascertain whether those duties require at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. To accomplish that task, USCIS must analyze the actual duties in conjunction with the 
specific project(s) to which the Beneficiary will be assigned. To allow otherwise, results in generic 
descriptions of duties that, while they may appear (fn some instances) to comprise the duties of a 
specialty occupation, are not related to any actual services the Beneficiary is expected to provide. 
In that regard, we have reviewed the information in the record regarding the Petitioner's computer 
software and development sales business and the claimed project(s) upon which the Beneficiary 
would work. Upon, review of this information, we find that the record of proceedings lacks 
sufficient documentation regarding the actual work that the Beneficiary will perform to sufficiently 
substantiate the claim that the Petitioner has H-IB caliber work for the Beneficiary for the period of 
, employment requested in the petition. 
According to the Petitioner, it is the leading provider of data integrity and data analytics software, 
solutions and services, and serves several companies including 
and In response to the 
RFE, the Petitioner stated that pursuant to statements of work (SOW) with its customers, the 
Beneficiary will perform the duties of an implementation consultant. On appeal, the Petitioner 
clarifies that the Beneficiary has been working on its end-client, 
project. 
Upon review of the record of proceedings, we find that the Petitioner has not submitted a detailed 
work order, SOW, or similar documentation confirming that the Petitioner and the client(s) have a 
contractual agreement for the Beneficiary's services, and if so, the terms of his assignment. Without 
detailed work orders, SOWs, or similar documentation describing the specific duties the Petitioner 
requires the Beneficiary to perform, as those duties relate to specific projects, USCIS is unable to 
discern the nature of the position and whether the position indeed requires the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge attained through a baccalaureate 
program. Without a meaningful job description within the context of non-speculative employment, 
the Petitioner may not establish any of the alternate criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
Without additional information and documentation establishing what projects have been secured for 
the Beneficiary, and accordingly, the specific duties the Beneficiary would perform on these 
projects, we are unable to discern the substantive nature of the position and whether the position 
indeed qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
1 The Petitioner submitted documentation in support of the H-1 B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
4 
Matter of 1-, Inc. 
Consequently, we are precluded from finding that the proffered position satisfies any criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), because it is the substantive nature of that 'work that determines: (1) 
the normal minimum educational requirement for the particular position, which is the focus of 
criterion 1; (2) industry positions which are parallel to the proffered position and thus appropriate for 
review for a common degree requirement, under the first alternate prong of criterion 2; (3) the level 
of complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position, which is the focus of the second alternate 
prong of criterion 2; ( 4) the factual justification for a petitioner normally requiring a degree or its 
equivalent, when that is an issue under criterion 3; and (5) the degree of specialization and 
complexity of the specific duties, which is· the focus of criterion 4. As the Petitioner has not 
established that it satisfies any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it cannot be found that 
the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
IV. 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 1appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of I-, Inc., ID# 150924 (AAO Jan. 10, 20 17) 
5