dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Systems Analyst

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7419115 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 13, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 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. § 110l(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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. We dismissed the Petitioner's 
appeal and its subsequent motion to reconsider, concluding that the Petitioner had not satisfied the 
regulatory criteria demonstrating that the proffered position qualified as a specialty occupation. The 
matter is again before us on a motion to reconsider. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § 1361. Upon review, we will dismiss the motion to reconsider. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
To merit reopening or reconsideration, a petitioner must meet the formal filing requirements (such as, 
for instance, submission of a properly completed Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with the 
correct fee), and show proper cause for granting the motion. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l). 
A motion to reconsider is based on legal grounds and must (1) state the reasons for reconsideration; 
(2) be supported by any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the decision was based on an 
incorrect application of law or policy; and (3) establish that the decision was incorrect based on the 
evidence ofrecord at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R . § 103.5(a)(3) . 
By regulation, the scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision." 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Therefore, the filing before us is not a motion to reconsider the denial of the petition or the dismissal 
of the appeal. Instead, the filing is a motion to reconsider our most recent decision. Therefore, we 
cannot consider new objections to the earlier denial or dismissal decisions, and the Petitioner cannot 
use the present filing to make new allegations of error at prior stages of the proceeding. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner asserts that our decision was based on an incorrect interpretation of the statutory and 
regulatory requirements to establish a position as a specialty occupation. For the reasons below, we 
conclude that the record does not provide a sufficient basis to reconsider the prior decision. 
The Petitioner identified the proffered position on the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant 
Worker, as a functional systems analyst. On the labor condition application (LCA) 1 submitted in 
support of the H-1 B petition, the Petitioner designated the proffered position under the occupational 
category "Computer Systems Analysts" corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification 
(SOC) code 15-1121. The Petitioner asserts that the proffered position's responsibilities will include 
analysis of the company's business operations pertaining to the development and/or implementation 
of software, specifically SAP-based FI/CO (financial accounting and controlling) modules and 
solutions. 
The Petitioner has consistently offered the same description of duties throughout the record. The 
position description, submitted again in support of the instant motion, provides a broad overview of 
the duties of a computer systems analyst who will participate in gathering requirements and analyzing, 
designing, developing, maintaining, testing, implementing, and documenting software relating to SAP 
FI/CO solutions and modules. 
As we noted in our previous decision, the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook 
Handbook (Handbook) reports that a bachelor's degree is not always a requirement for this occupation. 
We concluded that a bachelor's degree in a directly related discipline is not required for entry into the 
occupation, and therefore does not support the Petitioner's claim that the occupational category of 
"Computer Systems Analysts" is one for which normally the minimum requirement for entry is a 
baccalaureate degree ( or higher) in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
On motion, the Petitioner contests our determination, and asserts that we narrowly interpreted the 
Handbook to mean the specialized study must be in a single academic discipline. The Petitioner 
subsequently generalizes USCIS 's treatment of the H-1 B program under the first criterion, and cites 
to Tapis Int'! v. INS, 94 F.Supp.2d 172, 175-76 (D. Mass. 2000), and Residential Finance Corp. v. 
USCIS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012) in rebuttal to this generalized treatment. The Tapis and 
Residential Finance decisions indicate that the first regulatory criterion does not limit qualifying 
occupations to those for which there exists a single, specifically tailored degree program, and that the 
title of the degree ( e.g., "business") does not necessarily control. However, we maintain that the 
Handbook permits a wide variety of specialties to qualify to perform the duties for this occupation. 
1 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA 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 experience and qualifications who are performing the same services. Section 212(n)(l) 
of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(a). 
2 
In citing to Tapis, the Petitioner states that "the court held that a position may qualify as a specialty 
occupation if the employer requires a bachelor's degree or its equivalent." The Petitioner asserts that 
"[f]or the 'equivalent' language to have any reasonable meaning it must encompass various 
combinations of academic and experienced based training." We agree with the district court judge in 
Tapis, that in satisfying the specialty occupation requirements, both the Act and the regulations require 
a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, and that this language indicates that the 
degree does not have to be a degree in a single specific specialty. 2 
Notably, however, the Petitioner has not consistently stated the minimum requirements for the position 
in this case. Rather, it has presented varied minimum educational requirements. For example, initially 
the Petitioner stated that it would accept a bachelor's degree in accounting or computer science, but 
later expanded those fields to include finance, business, and information systems/management. On 
motion, the Petitioner contends that "the educational qualification of an Accounting or Finance or 
Computer Science or Information Management/Systems or its equivalent is a minimum requirement 
to discharge the duties as a SAP FICO RESOURCES (Functional Systems Analyst) and as such as not 
two disparate fields." Here, the Petitioner has not sufficiently clarified the variances in its position 
requirements for us to determine what they actually are, nor has it explained how the facts of this case 
are similar to Tapis. 
We also do not conclude that the Tapis court states that any position can qualify as a specialty 
occupation based solely on the claimed requirements of a petitioner. Instead, we must examine the 
actual employment requirements, and, on the basis of that examination, determine whether the position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384 (5th Cir. 2000). 
The focus is neither the title of the position, the knowledge of the beneficiary, nor the fact that an 
employer has routinely insisted on certain educational standards, but whether performance of the 
position actually requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge and the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty as the 
minimum for entry into the occupation as required by the Act. 
The Petitioner also cites Residential Finance to argue that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the 
degree is what is important." Section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act. The Residential Finance court observed 
that "knowledge [ in a specific specialty ( or its equivalent)] and not the title of the degree" is the essence 
of the requirement at section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act. 839 F. Supp. 2d at 997. The Residential Finance 
court opined that "there is no apparent requirement that the specialized study need[ s to] be in a single 
academic discipline as opposed to a specialized course of study in related business specialties" for the 
purpose of classifying a proffered position as a specialty occupation. Id. at 996-97. We agree with 
the Residential Finance court's proposition that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is 
what is important." However, as noted above, there must be a close correlation between the required 
2 Specifically, in Tapis, the U.S. district court found that while the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) 
was reasonable in requiring a bachelor's degree in a specific field, it abused its discretion by ignoring the portion of the 
regulations that allows for the equivalent ofa specialized baccalaureate degree. According to the U.S. district court, TNS's 
interpretation was not reasonable because then H-1 B visas would only be available in fields where a specific degree was 
offered, ignoring the statutory definition allowing for "various combinations of academic and experience based 
training." Tapis Int'! v. INS, 94 F. Supp. 2d at 176. The court elaborated that ·'[i]n fields where no specifically tailored 
baccalaureate program exists, the only possible way to achieve something equivalent is by studying a related field ( or 
fields) and then obtaining specialized experience." 
3 
"body of highly specialized knowledge" and the position; therefore, a minimum entry requirement of 
a degree in disparate fields would not meet the statutory requirement that the degree be "in the specific 
specialty ( or its equivalent)," unless the Petitioner establishes how each field is directly related to the 
duties and responsibilities of the particular position. The Petitioner has not done so here. 
In general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry and biochemistry, a minimum 
of a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty is recognized as satisfying the "degree in 
the specific specialty ( or its equivalent)" requirement of section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act. In such a 
case, the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" would essentially be the same. Since there 
must be a close correlation between the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" and the 
position, however, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in disparate fields, such as engineering, 
science, and business, would not meet the statutory requirement that the degree be "in the specific 
specialty ( or its equivalent)," unless the Petitioner establishes how each field is directly related to the 
duties and responsibilities of the particular position such that the required body of highly specialized 
knowledge is essentially an amalgamation of these different specialties. Section 214(i)(l)(B) of the 
Act ( emphasis added). 3 For the aforementioned reasons, however, the Petitioner has not met its burden 
to establish that the particular position offered in this matter requires a bachelor's or higher degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent, directly related to its duties in order to perform those tasks. 
In any event, the Petitioner has famished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition 
are analogous to those in Residential Finance or Tap is. 4 In contrast to the broad precedential authority 
of the case law of a United States circuit court, we are not bound to follow the published decision of a 
United States district court in matters arising even within the same district. See K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. at 
719-20. Although the reasoning underlying a district judge's decision will be given due consideration 
when it is properly before us, the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of law. Id. It is 
also important to note that in a subsequent case reviewed in the same jurisdiction, the court agreed 
with our analysis of Residential Finance. See Health Carousel, LLC v. USCIS, No. 1: 13-CV-23, 2014 
WL 29591 (S.D. Ohio 2014). 
The Petitioner also asserts, again, that the four job postings previously submitted establish that a 
bachelor's degree in a specific field of study for similar positions is common to the Petitioner's 
industry and that our disregard of those postings was erroneous. Specifically, to rebut our finding that 
the small number of postings does not provide a valid statistical inference, the Petitioner states that 
"there is not a set industry platform where hiring is done." While noted, we again maintain that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that a common degree requirement exists for parallel positions among 
similar organizations, and that the four postings, which appeared to be consciously selected, do not 
refute the conclusions of the Handbook that such a position does not normally require at least a 
baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for entry into the occupation in the 
3 The court in Residential Finance did not eliminate the statutory "bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty" 
language imposed by Congress. Rather, it found that the petitioner in that case had satisfied the requirement. 
4 The district judge's decision appears to have been based largely on the many factual errors made by the Director in the 
decision denying the petition. We further note that the Director's decision was not appealed to us. Based on the district 
court's findings and description of the record, if that matter had first been appealed through the available administrative 
process, we may very well have remanded the matter to the service center for a new decision for many of the same reasons 
articulated by the district court if these enors could not have been remedied by us in our de novo review of the matter. 
4 
United States. As noted previously, the job postings confirm that there are several different degrees 
that are acceptable to perform the duties of a SAP FI/CO analyst, including a general bachelor's degree 
and a business degree. 5 
Finally, the Petitioner asserts that the pos1t10n is specialized and complex such that it can be 
distinguished from similar positions that do not require a degree in a specific specialty. The Petitioner 
points out that its designation of the position at a Level III wage level on the LCA is in itself indicative 
of the level of experience required to perform the duties of the position. The Petitioner again restates 
the duties of the position; however, we once again find that this information does not establish that the 
duties are more specialized and complex than similar positions that are not usually associated with at 
least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
The listed job duties and tasks, when read in combination with the Petitioner's statements about its 
business operations and Level III wage-level designation on the LCA, suggest that this particular 
position is not so specialized and complex relative to systems analysts that the duties can only be 
performed by an individual with a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
While a few related courses may be beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, the 
Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated how an established curriculum of 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. 
With respect to the Petitioner's reference to Fred 26 Importers v. DHS, 445 F. Supp. 2d 1174 (C.D. 
Cal. 2006), we note that in that case, the court found that USCIS had failed to provide a rational basis 
for its finding that the petitioner had failed to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)( 4). Such is clearly 
not the case here, as the Director specifically discussed that criterion at page 6 of the initial decision, 
and we discussed the Petitioner's most recent assertions and matters relevant to the analysis of that 
criterion throughout our most recent decision. Even if that were not the case, we would be under no 
obligation to follow the holding in Fred 26 Importers: again, in contrast to the broad precedential 
authority of the case law of a United States circuit court, we reiterate here that we are not bound to 
follow the published decision of a United States district court in matters arising even within the same 
district, as detailed above. See Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. at 715. 
Nevertheless, we again note that the Petitioner simply concludes that the proffered position is 
specialized and complex based on its statement of duties. Ultimately, this material does not carry the 
weight to demonstrate that the duties are so specialized or 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. Although the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for 
the position, and references his qualifications, 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. The Petitioner has not provided 
sufficient evidence that the duties require more than technical proficiency in the fields of accounting, 
computer science, or related areas. The Petitioner, therefore, has not demonstrated that its proffered 
5 As set out in our prior decisions, although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business, may be a 
legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify a conclusion that a 
particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam Co1p., 484 F.3d at 147. 
5 
pos1t10n 1s one with duties sufficiently specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)( 4). 
The Petitioner has not presented sufficient evidence or argument on motion to establish that our prior 
analysis was incorrect as a matter of law. Moreover, the Petitioner has not established that the 
proffered position satisfies the regulatory and statutory definitions of specialty occupation. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner's arguments offered on motion do not provide a sufficient basis to 
reconsider the prior decision. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reconsidering this matter and 
has not otherwise established eligibility for the immigrant benefit sought. In visa petition proceedings, 
it is a 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. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
6