dismissed H-1B Case: Human Resources Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6152242 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 27, 2020 
The Petitioner , an electronic commerce company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an 
"HR program manager" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(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 evidence of 
record does not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation . 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. Upon 
de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 1 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(I) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(I), 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 We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 
(AAO 2010). 
(]) 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, we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation because the record contains inconsistencies that 
undermine the Petitioner's claims regarding the proffered position and lacks sufficient evidence of the 
services that the Beneficiary will perform. 2 
When determining whether a position is a specialty occupation, we look at the nature of the business 
offering the employment and the description of the specific duties of the position as it relates to the 
particular employer. To ascertain the salient aspects of the proposed employment, we look to the Form 
I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, and the documents filed in support of the petition. A 
crucial aspect of this matter is whether the Petitioner has sufficiently and consistently described 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. 
In this case, the Petitioner states that the proffered position is an "HR program manager," and 
submitted a certified labor condition application (LCA) 3 for the occupational category "Management 
Analysts" corresponding to Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 13-1111, with a Level 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H- IB petition, including evidence regarding the proffered position 
and its business operations. Although we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered 
each one. 
3 A petitioner submits the LCA to the Department of Labor (DOL) to demonstrate that it will pay an H-IB 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)(l) of the Act; 20 
C.F.R. § 655.73 l(a). 
2 
II wage. 4 However, we cannot ascertain whether the proffered position properly falls within the 
"Management Analysts" occupational category. According to the Occupational Information Network 
(O*NET) Summary Report, "Management Analysts": 
Conduct organizational studies and evaluations, design systems and procedures, 
conduct work simplification and measurement studies, and prepare operations and 
procedures manuals to assist management in operating more efficiently and 
effectively. 5 
In other words, "they advise managers on how to make organizations more profitable through reduced 
costs and increased revenues." 6 However, some of the described duties appear to fall within the 
general tasks outlined in O*NET for "Software Developers, Applications" (SOC code 15-1132). 
According to O*NET, individuals employed in this occupational category: 
Develop, create, and modify general computer applications software or specialized 
utility programs. Analyze user needs and develop software solutions. Design software 
or customize software for client use with the aim of optimizing operational efficiency. 
May analyze and design databases within an application area, working individually or 
coordinating database development as part of a team. 
In its response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will 
"design, test, and execute solution designs" for the Petitioner's "computer systems" operating within 
its platform. The Petitioner stated that such solution designs will include "to build custom applications 
on the application stack utilizing the vendor toolset or [the Petitioner's] tools." The Beneficiary will 
also "perform and coordinate user acceptance testing with end-users to ensure overall functional and 
technical quality of deliverables" and "provide live technical and user support, monitor systems 
performance against Service Level Agreements, and track system issues, malfunctions, and 
enhancement requests for review and resolution by technical teams." Furthermore, the Beneficiary 
will "respond to system inquiries, and troubleshoot reported issues; and will work with vendors and 
internal resources to maintain system operations, and establish and maintain ongoing reporting 
requirements and key performance indicators." These duties appear to be more aligned with the duties 
of "Software Developers, Applications" occupational category, SOC code 15-1132, rather than the 
duties of "Management Analysts" occupational category. 7 
4 A prevailing wage determination starts with an entry level wage and progresses to a higher wage level after considering 
the experience, education, and skill requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & 
Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009); 
http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHCGuidance _Revised_ 11 _ 2009 .pdf 
5 See O*NET Summary Report for "Management Analysts," https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/13-l l l 1.00 (last 
visited Feb. 27, 2020). 
6 See Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Management Analysts, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/management-analysts.htm#tab-2 (last visited Feb. 27, 2020). 
7 These duties also appear to correspond to the general duties listed under the "Computer and Information Systems 
Managers" (SOC code 11-3021) occupation category. See https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/11-3021.00. 
3 
With respect to the LeA, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) provides clear guidance for selecting 
the most relevant O*NET occupational code classification. 8 The "Prevailing Wage Determination 
Policy Guidance" states the following: 
In determining the nature of the job offer, the first order is to review the requirements 
of the employer's job offer and determine the appropriate occupational classification. 
The O*NET description that corresponds to the employer's job offer shall be used to 
identify the appropriate occupational classification . . . . If the employer's job 
opportunity has worker requirements described in a combination of O*NET 
occupations, the NPWHe should default directly to the relevant O*NET-SOe 
occupational code for the highest paying occupation. For example, if the employer's 
job offer is for an engineer-pilot, the NPWHe shall use the education, skill and 
experience levels for the higher paying occupation when making the wage level 
determination. 
Here, the prevailing wage for positions in the "Software Developers, Applications" category at Level 
II wage in the area of employment is higher at $112,549 per year than the prevailing wage for 
"Management Analysts," which is $89,315 per year. 9 Thus, according to DOL guidance, the Petitioner 
should have chosen the relevant occupational code for the highest paying occupation. As such, the 
attested wage rate of $95,000 per year on the Form I-129 would fall below that required by law at that 
time for the proffered position. 
While DOL is the agency that certifies LeA applications before they are submitted to users, DOL 
regulations note that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (i.e., its immigration benefits 
branch, USeIS) is the department responsible for determining whether the content of an LeA filed for 
a particular Form I-129 actually supports that petition. The regulations state, in pertinent part: 
For H-1B visas ... DHS accepts the employer's petition (DHS Form I-129) with the 
DOL certified LeA attached. In doing so, the DHS determines whether the petition is 
supported by an LCA which corresponds with the petition, whether the occupation 
named in the [LeA] is a specialty occupation or whether the individual is a fashion 
model of distinguished merit and ability, and whether the qualifications of the 
nonimmigrant meet the statutory requirements of H-1 B visa classification. 
20 e.F.R. § 655.705(b) (emphasis added). 
The regulation at 20 e.F.R. § 655.705(b) requires that users ensure that an LeA actually supports 
the H-1B petition filed on behalf of the Beneficiary. Here, the Petitioner has not established that the 
Le A corresponds to the claimed duties of the proffered position, which raises questions regarding the 
substantive nature of the proffered position. 
8 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/pdt;NPWHC _ Guidance 
_Revised_l 1_2009.pdf 
9 See https://flcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResults.aspx?code= 15-l 132&areac=::Jvyear= 18&source= 1 (last visited Feb. 
27, 2020). 
4 
Aside from the LCA issue, we note that the Petitioner's requirement of a bachelor's degree in business 
administration is inadequate to establish that a position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The 
Petitioner lists a bachelor's degree in business administration as one of the acceptable degrees for the 
proffered position. Since there must be a close correlation between the required specialized studies 
and the position, the requirement of a degree with a generalized title, such as business administration, 
without further specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of 
Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). To prove that a job requires the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge as required by section 
214(i)(l) of the Act, a petitioner must establish that the position requires the attainment of a bachelor's 
or higher degree in a specialized field of study or its equivalent. As noted above, we interpret the 
degree requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to require a degree in a specific specialty that is 
directly related to the proposed position. We have consistently stated that, although a general-purpose 
bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business administration, 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 Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. 
The Petitioner also states that the Beneficiary will "utilize analytical and troubleshooting skills to 
understand the business requirements" and "apply data analysis and research skills to identify key 
indicators and develop predictive modeling for key employee life cycle events." The Petitioner further 
states that "[t]his type of complex and specialized work requires proficiency in identifying and 
envisaging the needs of users." While the Petitioner asserts that "[t]o achieve this, the proffered 
position requires specialized knowledge - i.e., knowledge possessed only by one having a Bachelor's 
degree or foreign equivalent - in Business Administration/Management, Computer Science, Statistics, 
Engineering Management Information Systems or a related field," it has not demonstrated that an 
established curriculum of particular courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent is required for the proffered position. While a few related courses and skills 
may be beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how 
an established curriculum of such 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. The Petitioner 
further states that "there is a substantial nexus between the fulfillment of a degree in Business 
Administration and the performance of these job duties" ( emphasis omitted). As we discussed above, 
the requirement of a bachelor's degree in business administration is inadequate to establish that a 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Moreover, the position as described by the Petitioner does not sufficiently detail the nature of the 
duties. 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. The duties such as 
"responsible for developing product roadmap for internal HR systems," "responsible for conducting 
surveys, group discussions, interviews and data analysis," "responsible for maintaining records and 
publish[ing] audit reports," and "gathers information on compliance & policy gaps" do not establish a 
need for a particular level of education, or its equivalency, in a body of highly specialized knowledge 
in a specific specialty without additional information regarding the projects that the Beneficiary will 
work on. The Petitioner also states that the Beneficiary will be interacting with the various 
departments of the organization. However, the Petitioner did not submit an organizational chart. 
5 
Therefore, the organizational set-up, the Beneficiary's pos1t10n within the Petitioner's overall 
organizational hierarchy, and the extent of his duties cannot be determined. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well qualified for the position, and references his 
qualifications. 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. With the broadly described duties, 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. 
As the Petitioner has not established the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the 
Beneficiary, it has not demonstrated that the proffered position satisfies any criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 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. 10 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
10 Because the Petitioner has not established the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the Beneficiary, it has 
not demonstrated that the proffered position meets the statutory definition of a specialty occupation. See Section 2 l 4(i)(l) 
of the Act. Therefore, fu11her discussion of the assel1ions made on appeal regarding whether the Petitioner satisfies any 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) is not necessary. 
6