dismissed H-1B Case: Enterprise Software

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-1-, INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 31, 2019 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an enterprise software solutions provider, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 
as a "solutions sales senior specialist" under the H-1 B 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 Vermont 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 additional evidence, and asserts that the Director erred 
in denying the petition. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 1 
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. 
1 We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 
(AAO 2010). 
Matter of S-I-, Inc. 
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 offered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
(]) 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. Chertojf, 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 
For the reasons set out below, we have determined that the proffered position does not qualify as a 
specialty occupation. Specifically, the Petitioner provided insufficient and inconsistent evidence 
demonstrating the nature of the proffered position and its associated duties. 2 
A crucial aspect of this matter is whether the Petitioner has submitted sufficient and consistent 
evidence describing the duties of the proffered position such that we may discern the nature of the 
position and whether the position actually requires the theoretical and practical application of a body 
of highly specialized knowledge attained through at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific 
discipline. We find that the Petitioner has not done so. 
The Petitioner indicated on the petition and on the certified labor condition application (LCA) 3 that 
the Beneficiary will work as a "solutions sales senior specialist" at itsl I Texas location for the 
requested period of employment, from October 2018 to April 2020. In the support letter, the Petitioner 
stated that the Beneficiary will provide services "either on in-house projects and assignment or 
2 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. 
3 A petitioner submits the LCA to the U.S. 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 212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. 
§ 655.73l(a). 
2 
Matter of S-I-, Inc. 
pursuant to [its] customer and client engagements" and that the Beneficiary "may travel to customer 
and client locations based on business need." The Petitioner farther stated that the Beneficiary's 
position is a "mid-level position within the Sales Team ... and 70% travel required to various customer 
sites nationwide to assess needs and promote sales." However, the Petitioner did not elaborate on 
what in-house projects may entail, nor did it provide sufficient details on "client engagements." 
Further, some of the duties the Petitioner provided in response to the Director's request for evidence 
(RFE) do not appear consistent with the occupational category "Wholesale or Manufacturing Sales 
Representative" designated for the proffered position. The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational 
Outlook Handbook (Handbook) states that "Wholesale or Manufacturing Sales Representatives" "sell 
goods for wholesalers or manufacturers to businesses, government agencies, and other organizations" 
and "contact customers, explain the features of the products they are selling, negotiate prices, and 
answer any questions that their customers may have about the products." 4 In the description of the 
duties provided in the support letter, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will "assist Sales Team" 
and "be responsible for meeting sales goals set by the Sales Team by contacting named customers to 
secure new sales opportunities," suggesting that the Beneficiary would be involved in sales directly to 
the customers. On the other hand, the duties submitted in the RFE indicated that the Beneficiary would 
spend significant time in data gathering, process improvement, development of best practices, 
collaborating with various engineering teams and architects in database design, and collaborating with 
value engineering teams to quantify the benefits of the Petitioner's products to its customers. Such 
duties submitted in response to the RFE suggest that the Beneficiary would be involved in the business 
process improvement rather than direct sales to customers, raising questions regarding the fundamental 
nature of the proffered position. 
Nevertheless, the generalized description of the duties does not establish that the position requires the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment of 
a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty, or its equivalent. For example, the duties 
such as"[ u ]tilize academic background and professional experience to gather requirements,"" [g]ather 
requirements to identify business process areas of improvement," "[p ]articipate in the design of 
development best practices," "[l]ead efforts to establish, develop and expand market share," and 
"[ a ]nalyze complex business problems and devise technology solutions" do not meaningfully establish 
a need for a particular level of education, or its equivalency, in a body of highly specialized knowledge 
in a specific specialty. With the broadly described duties, and insufficient and inconsistent evidence 
regarding the proffered position, the record lacks evidence to demonstrate that the proffered position 
requires a bachelor's degree level of knowledge in a specific specialty. That is, the record does not 
adequately communicate (1) the actual day-to-day work that the Beneficiary will perform; (2) the 
complexity, uniqueness, or specialization of the tasks; and (3) the correlation between that work and 
a need for a particular level of education and knowledge. 
4.All of our references to the Handbook may be accessed at the Internet site http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We consider the 
Handbook as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it 
addresses. We do not however, maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. That is, the 
occupational category designated by the Petitioner is considered as 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. However, the burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to submit 
sufficient evidence to establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
3 
Matter of S-I-, Inc. 
The Petitioner also provided various experience and knowledge requirements for the proffered 
position without much specificity. For example, while the Petitioner stated that it requires "a 
bachelor's degree or equivalent in Computer Science, Business, or a related field of study," it also 
stated that the duties "require the educational background and experience of a degreed professional 
who possesses a deep understanding of [its] industry," but did not explain what it means by "deep 
understanding" or how to determine whether a candidate has the required "deep understanding" of its 
industry. Similarly, the Petitioner stated that the position requires "the ability to conduct requirements 
gathering" and "a solid education in combination with business skill and technical knowledge." 
However, the Petitioner does not elaborate on whether its required ability, business skill, and technical 
knowledge would be gained through experience, training, or formal education; nor does it explain 
whether such knowledge should be equivalent to a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty. 
Given the inconsistencies and the generalized description of the proffered position in the record along 
with vague requirements associated with it, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established the 
substantive nature of the work to be performed by the Beneficiary, which precludes a 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. 
Accordingly, as the Petitioner has not established that it has satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A), it cannot be found that the proffered position qualifies for classification as a 
specialty occupation. 5 
III. BENEFICIARY'S QUALIFICATIONS 
Beyond the Director's decision, we will briefly address another issue we observe in the record. As 
discussed in this decision, the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence regarding the proffered 
position such that we could determine that the position requires a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty or its equivalent. Absent a determination that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty or its equivalent is required to perform the duties of the proffered position, we need 
not address whether the Beneficiary possesses that degree or its equivalent. However, we note that 
the record does not adequately establish that the Beneficiary has a U.S. degree or a foreign degree that 
is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 6 
5 As the lack of probative and consistent evidence in the record precludes a conclusion that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation and is dispositive of the appeal, we will not fmiher discuss the Petitioner's assertions on appeal 
regarding the criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
6 See section 214(i)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(2); 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C) and (D). 
4 
Matter of S-I-, Inc. 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a "solutions sales senior specialist" and stated 
that it requires a bachelor's degree or equivalent in computer science, business, or a related field. The 
Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary is "well qualified for the Position offered" and that "he was 
awarded a Bachelor in Administration from I I University, located in ... Canada" in 2004. 7 
However, an evaluation of the Beneficiary's foreign degree completed by Morningside Evaluations 
concluded that the Beneficiary has attained the equivalent of "one year of academic coursework from 
an accredited institution of higher education in the United States." 8 
The record also contains letters from professors I I andl [ both concluding 
that based on the Beneficiary's foreign academic course work and experience, he has attained the 
equivalent of a bachelor's degree in business administration from an accredited institution of higher 
education in the United States. However, the professors do not explain in detail how they reach their 
conclusion. While they note the Beneficiary's past employment dates and the position titles, they do 
not discuss in detail the letters submitted to support his employment or the lack thereof The record 
does not contain letters from the Beneficiary's former employers detailing his duties and 
demonstratin pro ressivel responsible ex erience. For exam le the record does not contain letters 
fro and 9 Furthermore, 
in their briefletters,__~ ________ __, and.__ _______ __,_onfirm the Beneficiary's 
employment with their company, but provide no information regarding his position or the associated 
duties. Given the lack of information provided in these employment letters regarding the specifics of 
the Beneficiary's duties, it is unclear how the professors were able to make a determination on the 
degree equivalency of the Beneficiary's experience. 
The record does not contain sufficient evidence demonstrating that the Beneficiary would be qualified 
to perform the duties of the proffered position by the Petitioner's own standards. Since evidence was 
not presented that the Beneficiary has at least a U.S. bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, the petition could not be approved even if eligibility for the benefit sought had been 
otherwise established. The Petitioner must address this deficiency in any future filings. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of S-1-, Inc., ID# 4995660 (AAO Oct. 31, 2019) 
7 See the second page of the Petitioner's support letter. 
8 The Morningside evaluation was completed on March 9, 2018, which is after the claimed bachelor's degree from 
I I University. 
9 Professors listed seven former employers of the Beneficiary to support their conclusion. 
5