dismissed H-1B Case: Electronic Security Systems

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 9450400 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : WL Y 28, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "systems engineer" under the H-IB 
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 Vermont 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 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Act defines an H-IB nonimmigrant as a foreign national "who is 
coming temporarily to the United States to perform services ... in a specialty occupation described in 
section 214(i)(l) ... "(emphasis added). Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the 
term "specialty occupation" as an occupation that requires "theoretical and practical application of a 
body of highly specialized knowledge, and 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 section 214(i)(l) of the Act but adds a 
non-exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) provides that the 
proffered position must meet one of four criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation position . 3 Lastly, 
1 Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
2 See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
3 8 C.F.R. § 2 l 4.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) must be read with the statutory and regulatory definitions of a specialty occupation under 
section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). We construe the tenn "degree" to mean not just any 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(]) states that an H-lB classification may be granted to a foreign national 
who "will perform services in a specialty occupation ... " ( emphasis added). 
Accordingly, to determine whether the Beneficiary will be employed in a specialty occupation, we 
look to the record to ascertain the services the Beneficiary will perform and whether such services 
require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge attained 
through at least a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty or its equivalent. Without 
sufficient evidence regarding the duties the Beneficiary will perform, we are unable to determine whether 
the Beneficiary will be employed in an occupation that meets the statutory and regulatory definitions of 
a specialty occupation and a position that also satisfies at least one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). The duties the Beneficiary will perform in the position determine: (1) the normal 
minimum educational requirement for entry into 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. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
By regulation, the Director is charged with determining whether the petition involves a specialty 
occupation as defined in section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(2). The Director 
may request additional evidence in the course of making this determination. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(8). 
In addition, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the petition and must continue to 
be eligible through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
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. In particular, the Petitioner has not established the 
substantive nature of the position, which precludes a determination that the proffered position qualifies 
as a specialty occupation under at least one of the four regulatory specialty-occupation criteria 
enumerated at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(])-(4). 
A. Nature of the Position 
The Petitioner states that it designs, installs, and maintains computer-based in~t_.e"""----"-----~ 
Petitioner's advertisement indicates that it provides electronic security systems 
· and that it designs, supplies, installs, and maintains syst
1
ms including 
.__ _______ __,,.__ ____ ___.(smart card readers), (cameras and sensors),.__ _ __. 
baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal 
Siam Co1p. 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"). 
2 
(video),~(integrating fire, intrusion, and access control), .... l __ ___,k cameras), and other security 
systems and products. 
The Petitioner desires the Beneficiary services as a systems engineer whose responsibilities include: 
designing electronic security systems consisting of the products listed on its advertisement as well as 
other products; installing application software on server computers and work stations; providing 
customer training on installed systems; designing data networks consisting of routers, switches, and 
modems; and testing/terminating fiber optic cables, providing customer support, and documenting 
design and service records in auto CAD format. On the labor condition application (LCA) 4 submitted 
in support of the H-1 B petition, the Petitioner designated the proffered position under the occupational 
category "Electrical Engineers" corresponding to the standard occupational classification (SOC) code 
17-2071 at a level I wage. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner listed the previously provided 
duties, added other tasks, and added narrative describing the position. For example, the Petitioner 
stated that the Beneficiary would design security systems which would include: custom1zmg 
performance parameters like network speed, congestion, server capacity, system load, number of 
connected devices; use knowledge relating to wired versus wireless and knowledge of the various 
products manuals; supervise and integrate multiple products and software, program the panels, and 
oversee installation; and ensure that wiring, power supply, and load is correctly supplied. Similarly, 
the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would provide customer support in resolving system 
troubles/malfunctions, including troubleshooting device failures onsite or via phone, email, or through 
remote access, generating service tickets for requests, and coordinating with the team to obtain details, 
optimize designs, and resolve issues. These duties do not include sufficient detail to conclude that the 
duties require a bachelor's-level degree in a specific discipline, and to also conclude that the duties 
correspond to the occupation designated on the certified LCA. 
We reviewed the tasks outlined in the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook 
Handbook (Handbook) and the Occupational Information Network's (O*NET) summary report for 
the certified occupation and the particular duties the Petitioner asserts correspond to the Handbook 
and O*NET outlines. The O*NET indicates the focus of the certified occupation is on designing new 
ways to use electrical power to develop or improve products, while the Petitioner's position focuses 
on selecting and installing products that have already been developed. We understand that selecting 
the appropriate products, and installing systems requires knowledge of particular systems and the 
customers' technical and power systems. However, the Petitioner does not describe duties that involve 
developing the customers' electrical systems but rather using the systems that are already in place. 
We also reviewed the Beneficiary's time detail record regarding his past work to further understand 
his position at the Petitioner. The Beneficiary, for example, indicated that he activated Windows on a 
2016 server, installed software, moved a management and SQL database to a new server, moved 
cameras to a new server, tested them, and confirmed customer was able to log in and view the cameras; 
and ran Windows, updated drivers, uninstalled and reinstalled Windows to fix errors, as well as 
4 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. § 655.73l(a). 
3 
installing third-party security systems, and troubleshooting problems with installation. We also 
reviewed the diagrams associated with the work product and note that it appears that the Beneficiary 
must understand how to program and install different security systems including using the appropriate 
wire or cable in the installation. Although the Beneficiary will need technology knowledge to install 
and troubleshoot errors and to program and integrate security systems, the duties as described and the 
work product do not include sufficient detail to comprise the duties of an electrical engineer requiring 
a bachelor's degree in a specific discipline, or its equivalent. 
We further reviewed the Petitioner's organizational chart and a 2019 performance review which shows 
that the Beneficiary will supervise other systems engineers, installers, sub-contractors, and will liaise 
with clients. The Petitioner, however, does not allocate any of the Beneficiary's time to supervising 
others but indicates only that the Beneficiary will spend a minimal amount of time training in-house 
systems engineers, service technicians, and installers. The Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary 
will spend 15 percent of his time providing customer support in resolving system troubles and 
malfunctions and an additional 3 percent of his time training customers. Again, these duties do not 
include the requisite information demonstrating that these duties comprise the duties of an electrical 
engineer requiring a bachelor's degree in a specific discipline, or its equivalent. 
The issue here is that the Petitioner provides such a broad description for the proposed position that 
the duties could encompass any number of electrical or technology occupations. We understand there 
may be overlap between various occupations, however, the information in the record is not sufficiently 
detailed so that we may ascertain the substantive nature of the proposed position and analyze whether 
the petition is supported by an LCA which corresponds with the petition. That is, the duties are so 
generally described we cannot ascertain either the application of knowledge needed to perform the 
position, or the occupation and wage level required. 
Moreover, the job duties appear basic and routine and associated with designing, installing, and 
maintaining computer-based electronic security systems. While the duties may require some 
vocational knowledge, the duties are not sufficiently detailed to establish that they require a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Without a meaningful job description, the record lacks 
evidence sufficiently informative to demonstrate that the proffered position requires a specialty 
occupation's level of knowledge in a specific discipline. 
We reviewed the position evaluation ofl I, Director and......._ _____ ~ School of 
Computing and Information Science,! I University for insight into the proffered 
position. I I repeats the Petitioner's description of duties, repeats the Beneficiary's 
coursework, and concludes without analysis that the duties of a systems engineer are complex and 
specialized and require the knowledge gained through the Beneficiary's coursework. I I 
concludes in summary that the proffered position could not be performed by an individual without a 
bachelor's degree or the equivalent in electrical engineering, electronics engineering, or a related 
field. 5 I I does not provide a cogent analysis of the duties, nor does he offer any discussion 
on why the duties he reviewed require the Beneficiary's particular coursework. He does not discuss 
why other methods of study or experience could not lead to a sufficiently similar knowledge-set. For 
example, through several years of experience building the necessary skills and knowledge to perform 
5 ~I --~ldoes not offer his standards or definition for what constitutes a related field. 
4 
in the position. Moreover,! I does not discuss the principles and methods he used to reach his 
conclusion and how he applied any principles and methods in reaching his conclusion. He does not 
indicate he has published, conducted research, run surveys, or engaged in any enterprise or employment 
regarding the minimum education requirements for positions such as the position proffered here. The 
position evaluation does not provide further insight into the Petitioner's proposed position, but rather is 
essentially a restatement of the generally described duties of the proposed position and the Beneficiary's 
particular coursework. Without analysis and meaningful discussion of the proposed duties, the evaluation 
has little probative value. 6 
We note that the Petitioner also refers to several of the Beneficiary's courses to establish that at least 
a bachelor's degree or its equivalent in Electrical Engineering, Electronics Engineering, or a related 
field, is required to perform the duties of the proposed position. 7 However, 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. Thus, whether or not the Beneficiary in 
this case has completed a specialized course of study directly related to the proffered position is 
irrelevant to the issue of whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, i.e., whether 
the duties of the proffered position require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly 
specialized knowledge and the attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. Section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
B. Assertions on Appeal 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) supplanted 
the Petitioner's job requirements with its own belief regarding the job requirements to perform the 
duties of the proffered position. We point out that it is the Petitioner's burden to establish that the 
duties of its proffered position require a bachelor's degree in a specific discipline, or its equivalent. 
To do so, the Petitioner must provide a description of duties that cogently conveys what the 
Beneficiary will be required to do in the proffered position and some analysis of why the duties require 
the referenced degree. Identifying a duty and indicating that a particular course will prepare the 
Beneficiary to perform the task is insufficient. Again, the Beneficiary's education does not establish 
that a particular position is a specialty occupation. Moreover, the Petitioner's repeated claim that its 
particular position requires knowledge conveyed in courses taught in typical electrical engineering, 
electronics engineering programs is not the same as establishing that the performance requirements of 
the position described necessitate bachelor's-level study culminating in a bachelor's degree in one of 
these disciplines. Especially when there are other methods available to obtain the knowledge and skill 
set to perform the duties which do not involve a bachelor's degree in a specific discipline, or its 
equivalent. The Petitioner has not provided relevant corroborating evidence sufficient to support its 
testimonial claim that the position is a specialty occupation. 
We also note that the Petitioner misunderstands the Director's use of Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 
384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). Although the Petitioner is not a placement agency, Defensor stands for the 
6 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'l, Inc., 19 T&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). 
7 Although an electrical engineer could perform the duties of the proposed position, the Petitioner does not provide the 
necessary information explaining and establishing how or why the position requires a bachelor's degree in electrical or 
electronics engineering. 
5 
proposition that 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. 
The Petitioner also asserts that the degree certificates and recent pay statements of the other systems 
engineer clearly establish that a bachelor's degree in a specific field is a minimum requirement for the 
proffered position. We reviewed the information in the record regarding this employee and note that 
the Petitioner does not provide a description of this individual's duties and that although he will also 
be required to supervise other employees, his pay statements show that he is not paid at the same level 
as the pay for the proposed position. Thus, the record lacks sufficient information to establish that this 
individual's position is the same as the proposed position. Although the Petitioner appears to rely 
primarily on this individual's academic degree to establish its normal hiring requirements, we reiterate 
that an employee's degree does not establish that a position is a specialty occupation. Id. Similarly, 
the record lacks evidence of the positions held by two former employees the Petitioner claims held 
this position. This information does not establish either that the proposed position requires the 
minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or the Petitioner's normal hiring requirements 
for such a position. Moreover, we emphasize that the Petitioner must also satisfy the statutory 
requirement that the position itself 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, 
or its equivalent, as the minimum for entry into the occupation. See section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty occupation). As discussed, the Petitioner's 
descriptions of the proposed duties are insufficiently detailed to establish that the proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation under the statutory requirements. 
The Petitioner further asserts that the job postings from comparable companies and its official job 
description establish that the proposed position qualifies as a specialty occupation. We have discussed 
the Petitioner's job description and conclude that it does not include sufficient information to establish 
the position is an electrical engineering position that requires a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. The advertisements submitted do not appear to include duties that are 
parallel to the proffered position. Although the job postings are for positions titled systems engineer, 
software engineer, or electrical engineer the duties are either perfunctory and lack sufficient 
information for an adequate comparison or include duties that are not parallel to the position proffered 
here. Additionally, some of the advertisements indicate that the duties may be performed with 
experience equivalent to a bachelor's degree but do not specify the advertisers' standards for 
determining the equivalency. The job postings do not establish an industry standard for entry into a 
position parallel to the position proffered here. 
The Petitioner does not include the necessary elaboration and clarifying information to identify the 
occupation or the knowledge necessary to perform the duties. Without a substantive description of 
6 
the nature of the position we also cannot conclude that the occupation and wage level designated on 
the LCA corresponds to and supports the petition. 8 
Upon review of the totality of the record, the record does not establish the substantive nature of the 
proffered position such that we can conclude that the Petitioner has satisfied any of the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). The record also does not demonstrate that performing the duties 
described would 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. 
8 The LCA serves as the critical mechanism for enforcing section 212(n)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(n)(l). See Labor 
Condition Applications and Requirements for Employers Using Nonimmigrants on H-IB Visas in Specialty Occupations 
and as Fashion Models; Labor Certification Process for Permanent Employment of Aliens in the United States, 65 Fed. 
Reg. 80,110, 80, 110-11 (proposed Dec. 20, 2000) (to be codified at 20 C.F.R. pts. 655-56) (indicating that the wage 
protections in the Act seek "to protect U.S. workers' wages and eliminate any economic incentive or advantage in hiring 
temporary foreign workers" and that this "process of protecting U.S. workers begins with [the filing of an LCA] with 
[DOL]."). While DOL is the agency that certifies LCA applications before they are submitted to USCTS, DOL regulations 
note that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (i.e., its immigration benefits branch, USCTS) is the department 
responsible for determining whether the content of an LCA filed for a particular Fom1 1-129 actually supports that 
petition. See 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b). The regulation at 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b) requires that USCIS ensure that "the 
petition is supported by an LCA which corresponds with the petition .... " 
7