dismissed H-1B Case: Information Systems

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: WAC 04 1 16 5 1026 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: JAB f 8 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10l(a)(l S)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 04 116 51026 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and the matter is now before 
the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. The petition will be denied. 
The petitioner is engaged in the administration of 20 convenience stores at various Shell gas stations across 
southern California. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as an information systems engineer. The petitioner 
endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a nonimrnigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to 
5 1 Ol(a)(l S)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101(a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition because the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. On appeal, 
counsel submits a brief. 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 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. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, the position must meet one of 
the following criteria: 
(I) 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. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) interprets the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is 
directly related to the proffered position. 
The record of proceeding before the AAO contains: (1) Form 1-129 and supporting documentation; (2) the 
director's request for additional evidence; (3) the petitioner's response to the director's request; (4) the 
director's denial letter; and (5) Form I-290B and supporting documentation. The AAO reviewed the record in 
its entirety before issuing its decision. 
The petitioner is seeking the beneficiary's services as an information systems engineer. Evidence of the 
beneficiary's duties includes: the 1-129 petition; counsel's March 16, 2004 letter in support of the petition; 
WAC 04 116 51026 
Page 3 
and the petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence. According to this evidence, the beneficiary 
would perform duties that entail: evaluating effectiveness of existing information processing systems and 
developing new systems to improve efficiency; analyzing current operations, workload flows and volumes, 
userlsystem interactions, and training and performance support systems requirements; developing hardware 
architectures and configurations, operational scenarios, and component specifications; and identifying 
software functionality and assessing system transactions and throughput. The petitioner indicated that a 
qualified candidate for the job would possess a bachelor's degree in a related field or an equivalent thereof. 
The director found that the proffered position was not a specialty occupation because the job is not an 
information systems engineer; it is a computer support specialist and systems administrator. Citing to the 
Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook), 2004-2005 edition, the director noted 
that the minimum requirement for entry into the position was not a baccalaureate degree or its equivalent in a 
specific specialty. The director found further that the petitioner failed to establish any of the criteria found at 8 
C.F.R. 8 2 14.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
On appeal, counsel states, in part, that the petitioner meets its burden of proof that the proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. Counsel states further that the proffered position is that of a computer and 
information systems manager, and is not a computer support specialist, systems administrator, or security 
specialist. Counsel also states that the complexity of the petitioner's business requires the development, 
implementation, and maintenance of sophisticated information systems software. 
Upon review of the record, the petitioner has established none of the four criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. 
3 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Therefore, the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 
The AAO turns first to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I) and (2): a baccalaureate or higher 
degree or its equivalent is the normal minimum requirement for entry into the particular position; a degree 
requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations; or a particular 
position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree. 
Factors often considered by CIS when determining these criteria include: whether the Handbook reports that the 
industry requires a degree; whether the industry's professional association has made a degree a minimum entry 
requirement; and whether letters or affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms 
"routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1 15 1, 1 165 (D. 
Minn. 1999)(quoting HirdBlaker Corp. v. Suva, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1 102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
The AAO routinely consults the Handbook for its information about the duties and educational requirements of 
particular occupations. The AAO does not concur with counsel that the proffered position is that of a computer 
and information systems manager, who directs the work of systems analysts, computer programmers, support 
specialists, and other computer-related workers. See the Handbook, 2004-2005 ed. at 26. None of the 
beneficiary's job duties entails the level of responsibility of that occupation. A review of the network or computer 
systems administrators under the Computer Support Specialists and Systems Administrators category in the 
Handbook confirms the accuracy of the director's assessment to the effect that, the job duties parallel the 
responsibilities of a network or computer systems administrator, who ensures that the design of an organization's 
computer site allows all of the components, including computers, the network, and software, to fit together and 
work properly. See the Handbook, 2004-2005 ed. at 103. No evidence in the Handbook indicates that a 
baccalaureate or higher degree, or its equivalent, is required for a network or computer systems administrator. 
WAC 04 116 51026 
Page 4 
Regarding parallel positions in the petitioner's industry, the petitioner submitted Internet job postings for 
information systems engineers. There is no evidence, however, to show that the employers issuing those 
postings are similar to the petitioner, or that the advertised positions are parallel to the instant position. The 
majority of the advertisements are for information systems engineers in the marketing research, atomic power, 
and engineering industries. The petitioner's industry, however, is not represented. Thus, the advertisements 
have no relevance. 
The record also does not include any evidence from professional associations regarding an industry standard, 
or documentation to support the complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position. The petitioner, therefore, 
has not established the criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I) or (2). 
The AAO now turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 214,2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3) - the employer normally requires a 
degree or its equivalent for the position. As the record indicates that the proffered position is a new position, the 
petitioner, therefore, has not established the criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
Finally, the AAO turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(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. 
To the extent that they are depicted in the record, the duties do not appear so specialized and complex as to 
require the highly specialized knowledge associated with a baccalaureate or higher degree, or its equivalent, 
in a specific specialty. Therefore, the evidence does not establish that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation under 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
As related in the discussion above, the petitioner has failed to establish that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation. Accordingly, the AAO shall not disturb the director's denial of the petition. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary is qualified to 
perform the services of a specialty occupation. The record contains a credentials evaluation from a company 
that specializes in evaluating academic credentials concluding that the beneficiary possesses the U.S. 
equivalent of a bachelor's degree in computer information systems. The evaluation, however, is based upon 
the beneficiary's education, training and work experience. A credentials evaluation service may not evaluate 
an alien's work experience or training; it can only evaluate educational credentials. See 8 C.F.R. 
3 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(3). Furthermore, the record contains no independent evidence, such as a letter from a 
university provost, to demonstrate that the evaluator is an official who has authority to grant college-level 
credit for training and/or experience in the specialty at an accredited college or university which has a 
program for granting such credit based on an individual's training and/or work experience. Thus, the 
evaluation carries no weight in these proceedings. Matter of Sea, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 8 17 (Comm. 1988). For 
this additional reason, the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.