dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Systems Analysis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8137519 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 30, 2020 
The Petitioner, a clinical research organization, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"project leader 2" under the H-lB nonimmigrant 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 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 Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and asserts that the Director erred in denying the petition. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 1 
I. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the entire record, for the reasons set out below, we have determined that the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation . In her decision, the Director thoroughly discussed the Petitioner's failure to 
meet any of the four regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4). Upon consideration 
of the entire record, including the evidence submitted and arguments made on appeal, we adopt and 
affirm the Director's decision with the comments below. See Matter of P. Singh, Attorney, 
26 I&N Dec. 623 (BIA 2015) (citing Matter of Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994)); see also 
Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 7-8 (1st Cir. 1996) ("[I]f a reviewing tribunal decides that the facts and 
evaluative judgments prescinding from them have been adequately confronted and correctly resolved 
by a trial judge or hearing officer, then the tribunal is free simply to adopt those findings" provided 
the tribunal's order reflects individualized attention to the case). 
1 We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 
(AAO 2010). 
Regarding the Director's discussion of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), we would 
add that the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook), in 
discussing "Computer Systems Analysts" corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification 
(SOC) code 15-1121, states, in pertinent part, that a bachelor's degree in a computer or information 
science field is common, although not always a requirement. 2 According to the Handbook, some firms 
hire analysts with business or liberal arts degrees. As discussed, we interpret the term "degree" to mean 
a degree in a spectfic specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal Siam Corp., 
484 F.3d at 147. Since there must be a close correlation between the required specialized studies and the 
position, a requirement of general and wide-ranging degrees in business and liberal arts strongly suggests 
that a computer systems analyst position is not categorically a specialty occupation. See id. Cf Matter 
of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). The Handbook continues by stating 
that many analysts have technical degrees, but such a degree is not always a requirement - and that, in 
fact, many analysts have liberal arts degrees and gain programming or technical expertise 
elsewhere. 3 The Handbook does not specify a degree level ( e.g., associate' s degree) for these business, 
technical, and liberal arts degrees. 
The Handbook, therefore, does not support the assertion that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for these positions. See also Altimetrik 
Corp. v. Cissna, No. 18-10116, 2018 WL 6604258, at *6 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 17, 2018) (the Handbook 
"makes it clear that a degree in a computer-related field is not required" for these positions, and 
therefore "USCIS [was] entitled to deference in its finding that systems analysts are not required to 
have a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty"). 
Further, the information from DOL's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) summary report for 
"Computer Systems Analysts" listed as SOC code 15-1121.00, though relevant, also does not establish 
the Petitioner's eligibility under the first criterion, as it does not establish that a bachelor's degree in a 
spectfic specialty, or the equivalent, is normally required. The summary report provides general 
information regarding the occupation; however, it does not support the Petitioner's assertion regarding 
the educational requirements for these positions. For example, the Specific Vocational Preparation (SVP) 
rating, which is defined as "the amount oflapsed time required by a typical worker to learn the techniques, 
acquire the information, and develop the facility needed for average performance in a specific job-worker 
situation," cited within O*NET's Job Zone designates this position as having an SVP 7 < 8. This indicates 
that the occupation requires "over 2 years up to and including 4 years" of training. 4 While the SVP rating 
provides 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 
2 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#tab-4 (last visited 
Jan. 29, 2020). 
3 Id. 
4 This training may be acquired in a school, work, military, institutional, or vocational environment. Specific vocational 
training includes: vocational education, apprenticeship training, in-plant training, on-the-job training, and essential 
experience in other jobs. 
2 
would require. 5 The O*NET summary report for this occupation also does not specify that a degree is 
required, but instead states, "most of these occupations require a four-year bachelor's degree, but some 
do not." Similar to the SVP rating, the Job Zone Four designation does not indicate that any academic 
credentials for Job Zone Four occupations must be directly related to the duties performed. 
Additionally, we note that the summary report provides the educational requirements of "respondents," 
but does not account for 100% of the "respondents." The respondents' positions within the occupation 
are not distinguished by career level ( e.g., entry-level, mid-level, senior-level). Additionally, the graph 
in the summary report does not indicate that the "education level" for the respondents must be in a specific 
specialty. The survey indicates that 33% of"respondents" claim to hold a bachelor's degree and 14% of 
"respondents" claim to hold a master's degree. However, the same survey indicates that compared to 
bachelor's degree respondents almost the same amount of respondents, 29%, reported possessing at most 
an associate's degree, and further, 24% are unaccounted for. Regardless, a requirement for a bachelor's 
degree alone is not sufficient. Instead, 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. 6 See 
Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147 (describing "a degree requirement in a specific specialty" as "one that 
relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular position"). O*NET, therefore, also does 
not support the assertion that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is 
normally the minimum requirement for these positions. 
Nor is the case law the Petitioner cites sufficient to satisfy the first criterion. The Petitioner asserts that 
the Director has mischaracterized the Handbook to conclude that a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty is not normally the minimum requirement for the proffered position. The Petitioner cites to 
Next Generation Tech., Inc. v. Johnson, 328 F. Supp. 3d 252 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) as relevant here. 
We first note that we are not bound to follow the published decision of a United States district 
court. See Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715, 719-20 (BIA 1993). Nevertheless, even ifwe considered 
the logic underlying the matter, we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
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. 7 See Innova 
Sols., Inc. v. Baran, 2019 WL 3753334, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2019) (declining to follow Next 
Generation Tech., Inc.). Id. 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. 
5 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/help/ 
online/svp. 
6 Nor is it apparent whether these credentials were prerequisites to these individuals' hiring. 
7 Such professions would include surgeons or attorneys, which indisputably require at least a bachelor's degree for entry 
into the occupation. 
3 
Moreover, the court in Next Generation Tech., Inc. relied in part on a users policy memorandum 
regarding "Computer Programmers" indicating generally preferential treatment toward computer 
programmers, and "especially" toward companies in that particular petitioner's industry. However, 
users rescinded the policy memorandum cited by the court in Next Generation Tech. Inc. 8 
Here, the Handbook does not describe the normal minimum educational requirement for the 
occupation in a categorical manner since some employers accept general bachelor's degrees, rather 
than a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. Further, 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 the particular position. 
Regarding the Director's discussion of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2 h we would add 
the following analysis regarding the exprt oniuio: letter authored b Professor of 
Computer and Information Science at the._ ___ __.J College'--------~ in.___ __ _.University_ In 
his letter, I 1(1) describes the credentials that he asserts qualify him to opine upon the nature of 
the proffered position; (2) describes the duties of the Beneficiary's proffered position; and (3) states that 
these duties require at least at least a bachelor's dejee in computer science, business analytics, or a related 
technical field. We carefully evaluated! _s assertions in support of the instant petition but find 
them insufficient. 
First,1 l's expertise, regarding current industry degree requirements for project leader positions is 
not established in the record. His supporting documentation indicates that his experience over the past 
24 years has been in both an academic setting as an "adjunct instructor within f university and 
simultaneously as a "software consultant." The documentation indicates that.___ __ ~! performed some 
graphic design work as a software consultant, but does not identify any clients or specific projects he has 
worked on. Further, the documentation does not list any recent relevant consulting work in the 
Petitioner's area of business and indicates that his most recent publication was in October 1991. 
Further, without further clarification, it is unclear how I f s education, training, skills, or 
experience would translate to expertise regarding the current recruiting and hiring practices of an 
enterprise engaged in" (1) manufacturing uncompounded medicinal chemicals and their derivatives (i.e., 
generally for use by pharmaceutical preparation manufacturers) and/or (2) grading, grinding, and milling 
uncompounded botanicals" (as designated by the Petitioner in the petition) or similar organizations for 
project leaders/computer systems analysts (or parallel positions). 9 
Second,I I briefly described the Petitioner's business similarly to the Petitioner's initial letter of 
support in these proceedings. While I I provides a brief, general description of the Petitioner's 
8 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0142, Rescission of the December 22, 2000 "Guidance memo on HlB 
computer related positions" (Mar. 31, 2017), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/nativedocuments/PM-6002-
0142-H-1 BComputerRelatedPositionsRecission.pdf 
9 The Petitioner designated its business operations under the North American Industry Classification System code 325411, 
which is for "Medicinal and Botanical Manufacturing" and is described as an industry that "comprises establishments 
primarily engaged in (1) manufacturing uncompounded medicinal chemicals and their derivatives (i.e., generally for use 
by pharmaceutical preparation manufacturers) and/or (2) grading, grinding, and milling uncompounded botanicals." For 
additional information, see https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch. 
4 
business activities, he does not demonstrate in-depth knowledge of its operations or explain how the duties 
of the position would actually be performed in the context of its business enterprise. 
Furthermore, whilel I referenced the duties of the proffered position and stated that "[t]hroughout 
the information technology field, ... the position of project leader 2 must have at least a bachelor's-level 
degree in computer science, business analytics, or a related technical field," he did not reference, cite, or 
discuss any studies, surveys, industry publications, authoritative publications, or other sources of 
empirical information which he may have consulted to complete his evaluation. While he also stated that 
"it is a general, industry-standard practice for companies with engagement in substantive technology 
usage or development, such as [the Petitioner], to ensure that professionals hired for a computer systems 
analysis position of this nature possess a bachelor's-level background in computer science, business 
analytics, or a related specialized field," he did not submit any evidence to substantiate his claims. As 
such, it remains unclear how I I reached his conclusions as to the industry educational 
requirements for the proffered position. 
Additionally,! !briefly described the duties of the proffered position and concluded that the 
proffered position is a professional entry-level position that requires a bachelor's degree, or equivalent, 
in computer science, business analytics, or a related technical field. However! ldid not reference 
the specifics of the particular tasks upon which the Beneficiary would work in meaningful detail. For 
example, while we appreciate his brief discussions of the generic duties for the proffered position 
provided by the Petitioner, that description still falls short of providing a meaningful discussion of what 
the Beneficiary would actually do in the proffered position and how those duties actually require the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge. 
FurthermoreJ I references the Beneficiary's qualifications for the proffered position and claims 
that she "would be ideally qualified" to hold the proffered position of project leader 2 with the Petitioner. 
However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education or experience of a 
proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. Simply discussing the Beneficiary's qualifications, or courses available in a 
degree program, does not sufficiently develop relative complexity or uniqueness rthe particular position. 
As such, we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that l adequately assessed the 
nature of the position and appropriately determined parallel positions based upon the job duties and level 
of responsibilities. 
We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of 
Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, 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. Id. Consistent with Caron Int 'l, we conclude that this evaluation does not satisfy 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director "ignored the evidence of the Beneficiary's master of 
science degree in business intelligence analytics and Petitioner's detailed explanation of how it relates to 
[the Beneficiary's] job duties." The Petitioner goes on to state that "the Beneficiary's education clearly 
meets [the] "specialized knowledge in a specific specialty" requirement for computer systems analysts in 
the [Handbook] language." However, while the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well qualified 
for the position, and references her qualifications, including detailed information about the courses related 
5 
to the knowledge required in order to perform the duties of the proffered position, the test to establish a 
position as a specialty occupation is not the education or experience of a proposed beneficiary, but 
whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
Simply providing a long list of the Beneficiary's qualifications, coursework, or courses available in a 
degree program, does not sufficiently develop relative complexity or uniqueness of the particular position. 
The Petitioner also contends that the resumes submitted for two additional employees in response to the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE), "confirmed that they possess a bachelor's degree in computer 
information systems to take the project I eader position, which is a computer science fie Id." WI ~sagree.
1 
Initially, we note that the Petitioner submitted a resume with a pay stub for the company 
I I for I I and a Linkedln profile with a pay stub for the Petitioner for 
I I First,I ts resume does not indicate employment with the Petitioner10 or in the same 
capacity as the position proffered here. Further, the resume specifically states "continuing education 
towards an bachelor's degree [sic] in management information systems," and does not state that a 
bachelor's degree has been awarded. Second, whilel l's Linkedln profile lists a bachelor's 
degree in information systems, it does not indicate employment with the Petitioner or in the same capacity 
as the position proffered here. Regardless, the record lacks education credentials and evidence of 
employment in the same or similar position as the one proffered here for these individuals. 11 
II. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden here, and the petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
10 We note that the resume indicates employment with companies that later merged into the petitioning company, all prior 
to March 2017. 
11 Notably, the Petitioner did not submit the academic credentials of these individuals, e.g. copies of diplomas and 
transcripts. The Petitioner should note that the evidentiary weight of a resume or a Linkedln profile is generally 
insignificant as it represents a claim by an individual, rather than evidence to support that claim. In the instant case, no 
fiuther documentation was submitted of the individuals' asse1ted credentials. 
6