dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Systems Administration

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 8469141 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 27, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "network and computer systems 
administrator" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). The H-lB 
program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a position that 
requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge 
and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty ( or its equivalent) as a 
minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The California Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish 
that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
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. § 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: 
1 Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofCha wathe, 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) . 
( I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We 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"). 
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. 3 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. 4 
3 On appeal the Petitioner challenges the Director's decision on the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l) and (4). 
The Petitioner does not address the Director's assessment and decision on the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) 
and (3). Accordingly, we will limit our analysis of the evidence as it relates to the first and fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) and the statutory and regulatory definitions. Section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
4 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 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 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. 
2 
On the certified labor condition application (LCA), 5 the Petitioner designated the proposed position 
as a Standard Occupation Classification (SOC) code 15-1142 "Network and Computer Systems 
Administrators" occupation at a Level I wage. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Handbook 
reports that "[ m Jost employers require network and computer systems administrators to have a 
bachelor's degree in a field related to computer or information science" 6 and thus this occupation is a 
specialty occupation. However, the Handbook recognizes in the next sentence that "[ o ]thers may 
require only a postsecondary certificate or an associate's degree." 7 Thus, the Handbook identifies a 
range of methods to enter the occupation, from a postsecondary certificate to an associate's degree to 
a bachelor's degree in a field related to computer or information science. It is the imprecise and varied 
information in the Handbook regarding the ways to enter this occupation that precludes a conclusion 
that there is categorically a normal minimum educational requirement for entry into the occupation. 
The Petitioner also refers to the DOL's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) summary report 
for "Network and Computer Systems Administrators" as establishing that such a position requires a 
bachelor's degree. However, the O*NET does not state a requirement for a bachelor's degree for this 
occupation. Rather, it 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 Job Zone Four occupations require that a bachelor's 
degree must be in a specific specialty directly related to the occupation. That is, it does not refer to 
any specific discipline as required, therefore the information is not probative of the proffered position 
being a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner cites Next Generation Tech., Inc. v. Johnson, 328 F. Supp. 3d 252,267 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) 
to support its argument that the Handbook establishes its particular position is a specialty occupation. 
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. As will be discussed, the Petitioner also has not established that 
5 A petitioner is required to submit an LCA to the Department of Labor to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B worker the 
higher of either the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the area of employment or the actual wage paid 
by the employer to other employees with similar duties, experience, and qualifications. Section 2 l 2(n)( 1) of the Act; 
20 C.F.R. § 655.73 l(a). 
6 See Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Network and Computer Systems 
Administrators, https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/network-and-computer-systems­
administrators.htm (last visited Apr. 23, 2020). 
7 Id. 
8 Such professions would include surgeons or attorneys, which indisputably require at least a bachelor's degree for entry 
into the occupation. 
3 
its particular position is among the "Network and Computer Systems Administrators" for which a 
bachelor's degree in a specific discipline, or its equivalent, is normally required. 
The Petitioner also cites to Residential Finance Corp. v. USCIS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012), 
for the proposition that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is what is important. Diplomas 
rarely come bearing occupation-specific majors. What is required is an occupation that requires highly 
specialized knowledge and a prospective employee who has attained the credentialing indicating 
possession of that knowledge." We agree that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is what 
is important." However, the record must not only demonstrate that an occupation requires the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of specialized knowledge but must also establish that 
the position requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specialized field of study or 
its equivalent. Section 214(i)(l) of the Act. Here, the Handbook does not establish that the "Network 
and Computer Systems Administrators" occupation categorically requires 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. Stated another way, some employers require only a postsecondary certificate or an 
associate's degree to enter the occupation. 9 
Moreover, the Petitioner has not 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 duties, as 
described involve tasks that are generic and routine and while some technology knowledge of various 
software, platforms, and environments may be required, there is insufficient probative detail to 
conclude that the duties require the body of highly specialized knowledge that is attained through 
bachelor's-level study in a specific discipline. Again, the Petitioner has the burden to demonstrate 
that the particular position offered to the Beneficiary is among the "Network and Computer Systems 
Administrators" or other technology occupations for which a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, is normally required. The Petitioner has not established this component of the 
specialty occupation requirements. 
B. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature 
of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
The "Network and Computer Systems Administrators" occupation encompasses a broad base of 
responsibilities and duties and the required education and experience to adequately perform these duties 
also varies. We have reviewed the position evaluation ofl l Associate Professor of 
Computer Science and Information Systems, I !University, in order to better understand the 
Petitioner's proffered position. However, I I repeats the position's duties and lists 18 
"knowledge areas" from the 2013 Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate Programs in Computer 
Science, published by the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM).10 These guidelines for 
9 Supra DOL Handbook at https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/network-and-computer­
systems-administrators.htm (last visited Apr. 23, 2020). 
10 This document or pertinent excerpts were not provided for the record for our review. 
4 
potential curriculums are far too broad to establish that a particular position requires a body of highly 
specialized knowledge that is attained through study at a bachelor-level degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent. I lalso 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." 11 I !concludes 
further that because "there is significant overlap between the prescribed duties for the position, and the 
general knowledge areas covered in Bachelor-level Computer Science programs, ... any individual 
lacking a Bachelor's degree ( or its equivalent) in these fields would not be able to perform these duties to 
the degree [the Petitioner] requires for the continuous execution of its business operations." I I 
however, does not offer a cogent analysis of why matching any of the duties of the particular position to 
the broadly described corresponding knowledge areas for a potential curriculum is the same as 
establishing that the duties require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Other 
than referring to the "wide adoption of the ACM's Curriculum Guidelines," he does not discuss their 
relevance in establishing that the particular position offered here requires a specific bachelor's degree. 
Moreover, he does not discuss other relevant research, studies, or authoritative publications he utilized 
as part of his review and foundation for his opinion. For example, he does not refer to the Handbook's 
more recent information on this occupation or attempt to distinguish the Handbook's report that 
several paths, including less than a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, are available as a 
minimum to enter this occupation. 
Although! I reviewed the Petitioner's duties of the proffered position, it is also not clear that he 
is distinguishing the occupation of "Network and Computer Systems Administrators" from the 
occupation of "Computer Network Architects." For example, I !claims that "[a]ssit[ing] in 
analysis, planning and modeling of network hardware and software," defines the complexity of the 
proposed position, because working within an architectural domain, requires mastery of different layers 
of architecture and integrating these layers requires expertise in the knowledge area concerned with the 
application of theory, knowledge, and practice to effectively and efficiently build reliable software 
systems, networks for the Petitioner. 12 However, building network software systems corresponds more 
closely to the "Computer Network Architects" occupation, than the occupation designated on the LCA. 
This is important because the occupation of "Computer Network Architects" requires a significantly 
higher wage. 13 If the Beneficiary will perform some duties that are more likely the duties of a "Computer 
11 Service records show that I lused a template with similar organization and this same conclusory statement as 
has been submitted on behalf of other petitioners regarding different occupations. 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. 
12 If the proffered position requires mastery of different layers of architecture and expertise associated with building network 
software systems, as I buggests, we question the Petitioner's designation of the position as requiring only a wage 
Level I on the certified LCA. A wage Level I position on the submitted LCA indicates that it is an entry-level position for an 
employee who has only basic understanding of the occupation. 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://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised_ 11 _ 2009.pdf Thus, a wage Level I position would 
not require mastery or expertise of the occupation. 
13 See Foreign Labor Certification Data Center Online Wage Libra1y at 
https://flcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResults.aspx?code= 15-l 143&area~year= l 9&source= 1. 
5 
Network Architects" occupation, the Petitioner must designate the higher paying position on the certified 
LCA.14 
Similarly, I I opines that responsibility for security of the network falls to individuals in 
systems-related positions, such as the "Network and Computer Systems Administrators" role but he also 
appears to acknowledge that "[ a ]dministrators, architects, and developers" are all involved in network 
security tasks. We agree that the tasks outlined by the Petitioner regarding network security falls within 
the occupation of a "Computer Network Architects" as the first task listed for such an occupation in the 
O*NET summary report is "[ d]evelop or recommend network security measures, such as firewalls, 
network security audits, or automated security probes." 15 We also acknowledge that both occupations 
are involved in security measures. In this matter, it is the lack of detail regarding the day-to-day tasks of 
the proffered position that compounds the ambiguity in the record regarding the nature of the proffered 
position and the level of responsibility of the position within the Petitioner's business operations. 
Upon review ot1 I's position evaluation, the evaluation is insufficient to support a claim that the 
Petitioner's proffered position is complex and specialized. 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 that is consistent with the record and with a 
relevant foundation for his conclusions, his opinion has little probative value. 16 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that a level I wage does not preclude a position's consideration as a 
specialty occupation. We agree that 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)(l) of the 
Act. However, in general, a petitioner must distinguish its proflered 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. 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 If an individual with an 
associate's degree or a general bachelor's degree may enter the occupation, as described in the Handbook, 
the Petitioner must offer some evidence distinguishing its particular position from such positions within 
this occupation. The Petitioner's choice of a level I wage does not assist but rather hinders a conclusion 
that the Petitioner's particular position is distinguishable from those positions that do not require a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
Here, the Petitioner does not sufficiently develop the specialization, complexity, or uniqueness aspect 
of the proffered position and has not designated the proffered position as requiring more than an 
entry-level wage which requires a basic understanding of the occupation. The evidence of record does 
not establish that the proffered position is significantly different from other "Network and Computer 
14 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://www.t1cdatacenter.com/pdt1/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised_ 11 _ 2009.pdf 
15 See O*NET's summary report for "Computer Network Architects" at https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/l 5-
1143.00 (last visited Apr. 23, 2020). 
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 l&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). 
6 
Systems Administrators" positions such that it refutes the Handbook's information to the effect that a 
postsecondary certificate or an associate's degree, are acceptable to perform the duties of the position. 
The Petitioner's designation of the proffered position as requiring only a Level I wage reinforces our 
conclusion that the position is not particularly specialized and complex. The record lacks sufficiently 
detailed and unambiguous 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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7