dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

(b)(6)
DATE: JUN 0 8 2015 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
. PETITION RECEIPT#: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)( 15)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)( 15)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
NO REPRESENTATIVE OF RECORD 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. 
If you believe we incorrectly decided your case? you may file a motion requesting us to reconsider our 
decision and/or reopen the proceeding. The requirements for motions are located at 8 C.P.R. § 103.5. 
Motions must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this 
decision. The Form I-290B web page (www.uscis.gov/i-290b) contains the latest information on fee, filing 
location, and other requirements. Please do not mail any motions directly to the AAO. 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www. uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
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. 
I. INTRODUCTION 
On the Form I-129 v1sa petitiOn, the petitioner describes itself as 21-employee "IT Services 
Provider" established in In order to employ the beneficiary in what it designates as "SAP 
Analyst" position at a salary of $65,000 per year, 1 the petitioner seeks to classify him as a 
nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to section 10l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15) (H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the evidence of record did not establish that the 
proffered position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. 
The record of proceeding before us contains the following: (1) the Form I-129 and supporting 
documentation; (2) the director's request for additional evidence (RFE); (3) the petitioner's response 
to the RFE; ( 4) the director's letter denying the petition; and (5) the Fortn I-290B, Notice of Appeal 
or Motion, and supporting documentation. 
Upon review of the entire record of proceeding, we find that the evidence of record does not overcome 
the director's basis for denying this petition. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed, and the petition 
will be denied. 
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 
In the exercise of our administrative review in this matter, as in all matters that come within our 
purview, we follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in the controlling 
precedent decision, Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010), unless the law specifically 
provides that a different standard applies. In pertinent part, that decision states the following: 
Except where a different standard is specified by law, a petitioner or applicant in 
administrative immigration proceedings must prove by a preponderance of evidence 
that he or she is eligible for the benefit sought. 
* * * 
1 The Labor Condition Application (LCA) submitted by the petitioner in support of the petition was certified 
for use with a job prospect within the "Computer Systems Analysts" occupational classification, 
SOC (O*NET/OES) Code 15-1121, and a Level I (entry-level) prevailing wage rate, the lowest of the four 
assignable wage-levels. 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
The "preponderance of the evidence" of "truth" is made based on the factual 
circumstances of each individual case. 
* * * 
Thus, in adjudicating the application pursuant to the preponderance of the evidence 
standard, the director must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative 
value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the 
evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true. 
Even if the director has some doubt as to the truth, if the petitioner submits relevant, 
probative, and credible evidence that leads the director to believe that the claim is 
"more likely than not" or "probably" true, the applicant or petitioner has satisfied the 
standard of proof. See INS v. Cardoza-Foncesca, 480 U.S. 421, 431 (1987) 
(discussing "more likely than not" as a greater than 50% chance of an occurrence 
taking place). If the director can articulate a material doubt, it is appropriate for the 
director to either request additional evidence or, if that doubt leads the director to 
believe that the claim is probably not true, deny the application or petition. 
Id. at 375-76. 
Again, we conduct our review of service center decisions on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOJ, 
381 F.3d at 145. In doing so, we apply the preponderance of the evidence standard as outlined in 
Matter of Chawathe. Upon our review of the present matter pursuant to that standard, however, we 
find that the evidence in the record of proceeding does not support counsel's contentions that the 
evidence of record requires that the petition at issue be approved. Applying the preponderance of 
the evidence standard as stated in Matter of Chawathe, we find that the director's determination that 
the evidence of record does not establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation was 
correct. Upon our review of the entire record of proceeding, and with close attention and due regard 
to all of the evidence, separately and in the aggregate, submitted in support of this petition, we find 
that the evidence of record does not establish that the claim of a proffer of a specialty occupation 
position is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. In other words, as the evidentiary analysis of 
this decision will reflect, the petitioner has not submitted relevant, probative, and credible evidence 
that leads us to believe that the petitioner's claim that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. 
III. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
A. Law 
To meet the petitioner's burden of proof in establishing the proffered position as a specialty 
occupation, the evidence of record must establish that the employment the petitioner is offering to 
the beneficiary meets the following statutory and regulatory requirements. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
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. 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) states, in pertinent part, the following: 
Specialty occupation means an occupation which [(1)] requires theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in fields of human 
endeavor including, but not limited to, architecture, engineering, mathematics, 
physical sciences, social sciences, medicine and health, education, business 
specialties, accounting, law, theology, and the arts, and which [(2)] requires the 
attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as 
a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
Pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, a proposed position 
must also meet one of the following criteria: 
(1) 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. 
As a threshold issue, it is noted that 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must logically be read together 
with section 214(i)(1) of the Act and 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). In other words, this regulatory 
language must be construed in harmony with the thrust of the related provisions and with the statute 
as a whole. See K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) (holding that construction 
of language which takes into account the design of the statute as a whole is preferred); see also 
COlT Independence Joint Venture v. Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989); 
Matter of W-F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). As such, the criteria stated in 8 C.P.R. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) should logically be read as being necessary but not necessarily sufficient to 
meet the statutory and regulatory definition of specialty occupation. To otherwise interpret this 
section as stating the necessary and sufficient conditions for meeting the definition of specialty 
occupation would result in particular positions meeting a condition under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory or regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 
F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). To avoid this result, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must therefore be 
read as providing supplemental criteria that must be met in accordance with, and not as alternatives 
to, the statutory and regulatory definitions of specialty occupation. 
As such and consonant with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) consistently 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. 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"). Applying this standard, USCIS regularly approves H-lB petitions for qualified aliens 
who are to be employed as engineers, computer scientists, certified public accountants, college 
professors, and other such occupations. These professions, for which petitioners have regularly 
been able to establish a minimum entry requirement in the United States of a baccalaureate or 
higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent directly related to the duties and 
responsibilities of the particular position, fairly represent the types of specialty occupations that 
Congress contemplated when it created the H-lB visa category. 
To determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCIS does not simply 
rely on a position's title. The specific duties of the proffered position, combined with the nature of 
the petitioning entity's business operations, are factors to be considered. users must examine the 
ultimate employment of the alien, and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. The critical element is not the title 
of the position nor an employer's self-imposed standards, but whether 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 the specific specialty as the minimum for entry 
into the occupation, as required by the Act. 
B. Analysis 
Based upon a complete review of the record of proceeding, we agree with the director and find that 
the evidence of the record does not establish that the position as described constitutes a specialty 
occupation. 
In its support letter dated March 31, 2014, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary's duties include 
the following: 
• Responsible for SAP Landscape Planning, Implementation, Architecture Design 
& Review. 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
• Research, develop, and propose both short and long term solutions to SAP 
system requirements[.] 
• Design well �documented ERP applications enhancements aligned with the 
business needs and in accordance with standard SAP and Quality Assurance best 
practices. 
• Install, upgrade, patch, administer, performance tuning, and monitor SAP 
applications. 
• Identify and evaluate business and technology risks, internal controls which 
mitigate risks, and related opportunities for internal control improvement. 
• Troubleshoot & Performance Tuning I Suppoiting the SAP Landscape. 
• Responsible for SAP R/3/ECC (EHP) and NetWeaver solutions on all the OS 
platforms (Win/Unix). 
• Oracle/MSSq1 DB Administration & Recovery, OS Administration, Security and 
Networks. 
• Installation & Setup of Systems' Landscape I Supporting the Basis & Infra Team 
over issues & concerns. 
• Work with account's CRM, Consulting & Designing Solutions I Efforts 
estimations etc. for new prospects I projects of the account. 
• Develop requirements for new technologies, platforms, architectures and/or 
computing environments and insure they align with IT strategy. 
The director found the initial evidence insufficient to establish eligibility for the benefit sought, and 
issued an RFE. The petitioner was asked to submit probative evidence demonstrating the skills 
required to perform the duties of the proffered position. In response to the director's RFE, the 
petitioner submitted, among others, a letter from its former counsel dated August 13, 2014, and a 
letter dated August 1, 2014, from its Administrative Officer, listing the same duties in the 
petitioner's support letter as quoted above. In its RFE response letter, the petitioner further stated 
that " [ d]ue to the sophisticated nature and heightened complexities of these duties," the beneficiary 
must have "equally sophisticated and heightened level of skill in the Information Technology 
Field." 
On appeal, the petitioner lists the duties of the proffered position and the percentage of time the 
beneficiary would spend for each task as follows: 
% of time allocated 
Job Duties to each duty 
• Responsible for SAP Landscape Planning, 
Implementation, Architecture Design & Review. 40% 
• Installing, upgrading, patching, administering, system 
copies, performance tuning, and monitoring SAP 
applications. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
• Identify and evaluate business and technology risks, 
internal controls which mitigate risks, and related 25% 
opportunities for internal control improvement. 
• Responsible for SAP RI3IECC (EHP) and Net Weaver 
solutions on all the OS platforms[.] 
• Will be involved in OracleiMSSql DB Administration 
& Recovery, OS Administration, Security and 20% 
Networks. 
• Installation & Setup of Systems' Landscape I Supporting 
the Basis & Infra Team over issues & concerns. 
• Troubleshooting & Performance Tuning I Supporting 
the SAP Landscape. 15% 
As a preliminary matter, we note that there are discrepancies between the duties of the proffered 
position the petitioner listed in its support letter and the duties which it listed in its letter submitted 
with the appeal. Notably, when allocating the time the beneficiary would spend on specific tasks, 
the petitioner did not include four of the duties listed in the support letter and the RFE response 
letter.Z The record has no explanation regarding the change in the duties of the proffered position.3 
This inconsistency undermines the credibility of the petition, and, in particular, the credibility of the 
petitioner's assertions regarding the demands, level of responsibilities and requirements of the 
proffered position. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record 
by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will 
not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth 
lies. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
2 The duties that are not listed on appeal are: 
• Research, develop, and propose both short and long term solutions to SAP system 
requirements[.] 
• Design well-documented ERP applications enhancements aligned with the business 
needs and in accordance with standard SAP and Quality Assurance best practices. 
• Work with account's CRM, Consulting & Designing Solutions I Efforts estimations etc. 
for new prospects I projects of the account. 
• Develop requirements for new technologies, platforms, architectures and/or computing 
environments and insure they align with IT strategy. 
3 The petitioner must establish that the position offered to the beneficiary when the petition was filed merits 
classification for the benefit sought. Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248, 249 (Reg. Comm'r 
1978). If significant changes are made to the initial request for approval, the petitioner must file a new 
petition rather than seek approval of a petition that is not supported by the facts in the record. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
We now turn the evidence of record to determine whether the proffered position as described would 
qualify as a specialty occupation. To that end and to make our determination as to whether the 
employment described above qualifies as a specialty occupation, we will first address the criteria at 
8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which is satisfied by establishing that a baccalaureate or higher 
degree, or its equivalent, in a specific specialty is normally the minimum requirement for entry into 
the particular position that is the subject of the petition. 
We recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL's) Occupational Outlook Handbook (the 
Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety 
of occupations it addresses.4 As noted above, the LCA that the petitioner submitted in support of 
this petition was certified for a job offer falling within the "Co mputer Systems Analysts" 
occupational category. 
The Handbook states the following with regard to the educational requirements necessary for 
entrance into this field: 
A bachelor's degree in a computer or information science field is common, although 
not always a requirement. Some firms hire analysts with business or liberal arts 
degrees who have skills in information technology or computer programming. 
Education 
Most computer systems analysts have a bachelor's degree in a computer-related 
field. Because these analysts also are heavily involved in the business side of a 
company, it may be helpful to take business courses or major in management 
information systems. 
Some employers prefer applicants who have a master's degree in business 
administration (MBA) with a concentration in information systems. For more 
technically complex jobs, a master's degree in computer science may be more 
appropriate. 
Although many computer systems analysts have technical degrees, such a degree is 
not always a requirement. Many analysts have liberal arts degrees and have gained 
programming or technical expertise elsewhere. 
Many systems analysts continue to take classes throughout their careers so that they 
can learn about new and innovative technologies and keep their skills competitive. 
Technological advances come so rapidly in the computer field that continual study is 
necessary to remain competitive. 
4 The Handbook, which is available in printed form, may also be accessed online at 
http://www.stats.bls.gov/oco/. Our references to the Handbook are from the 2014-15 edition available 
online. 
(b)(6)
Page 9 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Systems analysts must understand the business field they are working in. For 
example, a hospital may want an analyst with a background or coursework in health 
management, and an analyst working for a bank may need to understand finance. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., 
"Computer Systems Analysts," http://www .bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/ 
computer-systems-analysts.htm#tab-4 (last visited May 20, 2015). 
The Handbook does not state a normal minimum requirement of a U.S. bachelor's or higher degree 
in a specific specialty or its equivalent for entry into this occupational category, rather the 
Handbook indicates at most that a bachelor's or higher degree in a computer or information science 
field may be a common preference, but not a standard occupational, entry requirement. In fact, this 
chapter indicates that many computer systems analysts, including programmer analysts, may only 
have business or liberal arts degrees and programming or technical experience. See id. 
The requirement of a bachelor's degree in business or liberal arts is inadequate to establish that a 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. A petitioner must demonstrate that the proffered 
position requires a precise and specific course of study that relates directly to the position in 
question. 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 or liberal arts, 
without further specification, does not establish the p@sition as a specialty occupation. Cf. Matter of 
Michael Hertz Associates, 19 I&N Dec. 558 (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 explained above, 
USCIS interprets 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. USCIS has 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 finding that a particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. See 
Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007). 
When, as here, the Handbook does not support the proposition that the proffered position satisfies 
this first criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it is incumbent upon the petitioner to provide 
persuasive evidence that the proffered position otherwise satisfies the criterion, notwithstanding the 
absence of the Handbook's support on the issue. In such case, it is the petitioner's responsibility to 
provide probative evidence (e.g., documentation from other authoritative sources) that supports a 
favorable finding with regard to this criterion. The regulation at 8 C.F. R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iv) provides 
that "[a]n H-lB petition involving a specialty occupation shall be accompanied by [d]ocumentation 
... or any other required evidence sufficient to establish ... that the services the beneficiary is to 
perform are in a specialty occupation." On appeal, the petitioner states that the duties of the 
proffered position "truly complex and require a heightened understanding of advanced computer 
programming and technology." However, going on record without supporting documentary 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter 
of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 
14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm'r 1972)). 
Moreover, the LCA submitted by the petitioner in support of the instant position was certified for 
use with a job prospect within the "Computer Systems Analysts" occupational category, SOC 
(O*NET/OES) Code 15-1121 and a Level I (entry-level) prevailing wage rate, the lowest of the four 
assignable wage-levels. The Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance issued by the U.S. 
Department of Labor (DOL) states the following with regard to Level I wage rates: 
Level I (entry) wage rates are assigned to job offers for beginning level employees 
who have only a basic understanding of the occupation. These employees perform 
routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment. The tasks provide 
experience and familiarization with the employer's methods, practices, and programs. 
The employees may perform higher level work for training and developmental 
purposes. These employees work under close supervision and receive specific 
instructions on required tasks and results expected. Their work is closely monitored 
and reviewed for accuracy. Statements that the job offer is for a research fellow, a 
worker in training, or an internship are indicators that a Level I wage should be 
considered.5 
The proposed duties' level of complexity, uniqueness, and specialization, as well as the level of 
independent judgment and occupational understanding required to perform them, are questionable, as 
the petitioner submitted an LCA certified for a Level I, entry-level position. The LCA's wage-level 
iridicates that the proffered position is actually a low-level, entry position relative to others within the 
same occupation. In accordance with the relevant DOL explanatory information on wage levels, this 
wage rate indicates that the beneficiary is only required to possess a basic understanding of the 
occupation; that he will be expected to perform routine tasks requiring limited, if any, exercise of 
judgment; that he will be closely supervised and his work closely monitored and reviewed for 
accuracy; and that he will receive specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. 
We find that the p etition er' s assertion with regard to the educational requirement for the po sition is 
conclusory and unpersuasive, as it is not supported by the job description or probative evidence. 
Again, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
Finally, on appeal, the petitioner states that the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (hereinafter the 
DOT) considers a SAP analyst position to be "professional and kindred." According to DOT: 
5 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/ 
pdf/NPWHC_Guidance_Revised_l1_2009.pdf (last visited May 20, 2015). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
030.167-014 SYSTEMS ANALYST (profess. & kin.) 
Analyzes user requirements, procedures, and problems to automate processing or to 
improve existing computer system: Confers with personnel of organizational units 
involved to analyze current operational procedures, identify problems, and learn 
specific input and output requirements, such as forms of data input, how data is to be 
summarized, and formats for reports. Writes detailed description of user needs, 
program functions, and steps required to develop or modify computer program. 
Reviews computer system capabilities, workflow, and scheduling limitations to 
determine if requested program or program change is possible within existing 
system. Studies existing information processing systems to evaluate effectiveness 
and develops new systems to improve production or workflow as required. Prepares 
workflow charts and diagrams to specify in detail operations to be performed by 
equipment and computer programs and operations to be performed by personnel in 
system. Conducts studies pertaining to development of new information systems to 
meet current and projected needs. Plans and prepares technical reports, memoranda, 
and instructional manuals as documentation of program development. Upgrades 
system and corrects errors to maintain system after implementation. May assist 
COMPUTER PROGRAMMER (profess. & kin.) 030.162-010 in resolution of work 
problems related to flow charts, project specifications, or programming. May prepare 
time and cost estimates for completing projects. May direct and coordinate work of 
others to develop, test, install, and modify programs. 
GOE: 11.01.01 STRENGTH: S GED: R5 M4 L5 SVP: 7 DLU: 90 
The DOT does not support the assertion that SAP analysts positions are specialty occupation 
positions. This conclusion is apparent upon reading Section II of the DOT's Appendix C, 
Components of the Definition Trailer, which addresses the Specific Vocational Preparation (SVP) 
rating system.6 The section reads: 
II. SPECIFIC VOCATIONAL PREPARATION (SVP) 
Specific Vocational Preparation is defined as the amount of lapsed time required by a 
typical worker to learn the techniques, acquire the information, and develop the 
facility needed for average performance in a specific job-worker situation. 
This training may be acquired in a school, work, military, institutional, or vocational 
environment. It does not include the orientation time required of a fully qualified 
worker to become accustomed to the speCial conditions of any new job. Specific 
vocational training includes: vocational education, apprenticeship training, in-plant 
training, on-the-job training, and essential experience in other jobs. 
6 The Appendix can be found at the following website: http://www.oalj.dol.gov/PUBLIC/DOT/ 
REFERENCES/DOT APPC.HTM. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
Specific vocational training includes training given m any of the following 
circumstances: 
a. Vocational education (high school; commercial or shop training; technical school; 
art school; and that part of college training which is organized around a specific 
vocational objective); 
b. Apprenticeship training (for apprenticeable jobs only); 
c. In-plant training (organized classroom study provided by an employer); 
d. On-the-job training (serving as learner or trainee on the job under the instruction 
of a qualified worker); 
e. Essential experience in other jobs (serving in less responsible jobs which lead to 
the higher grade job or serving in other jobs which qualify). 
The following is an explanation of the various levels of specific vocational 
preparation: 
Level 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
Time 
Short demonstration only 
Anything beyond short demonstration up to and including 1 month 
Over 1 month up to and including 3 months 
Over 3 months up to and including 6 months 
Over 6 months up to and including 1 year 
Over 1 year up to and including 2 years 
Over 2 years up to and including 4 years 
Over 4 years up to and including 10 years 
Over 10 years 
Note: The levels of this scale are mutually exclusive and do not overlap. 
Thus, an SVP rating of 7 does not indicate that at least a four-year bachelor's degree is required, or 
more importantly, that such a degree must be in a specific specialty closely related to the occupation 
to which this rating is assigned. Therefore, the DOT information is not probative of the proffered 
position being a specialty occupation. 
The petitioner has not established that the proffered position falls under an occupational category 
for which the Handbook, or other authoritative source, indicates that normally the minimum 
requirement for entry is at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
Furthermore, the duties and requirements of the proffered position as described in the record of 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
proceeding do not indicate that the position is one for which a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry. Thus, the 
petitioner failed to satisfy the first criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
Next, we will review the record of proceeding regarding the first of the two alternative prongs of 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)( 2). This prong alternatively calls for a petitioner to establish that a 
requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common for 
positions that are identifiable as being (1) in the petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered 
position, and also (3) located in organizations that are similar to the petitioner. 
Here and as already discussed, the evidence of record does not establish that the petitioner's proffered 
position is one for which the Handbook reports an industry-wide requirement for at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. Also, there are no submissions from professional 
associations in the petitioner's industry attesting that individuals employed in positions parallel to the 
proffered position are routinely required to have a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent for entry into those positions. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits links to three job announcements. However, the petitioner did not 
submit the actual job announcements. Consequently, there is insufficient information regarding the 
duties of these positions and the employers' business operations to conduct legitimate comparison to 
the proffered position and the petitioner's operations. 7 
For the petitioner to establish that an organization is similar, it must demonstrate that the petitioner 
and the organization share the same general characteristics. Without such evidence, documentation 
submitted by a petitioner is generally outside the scope of consideration for this criterion, which 
encompasses only organizations that are similar to the petitioner. When determining whether the 
petitioner and the advertising organization share the same general characteristics, such factors may 
include information regarding the nature or type of organization, and, when pertinent, the particular 
scope of operations, as well as the level of revenue and staffing (to list just a few elements that may 
be considered). It is not sufficient for the petitioner to claim that an organization is similar and in 
the same industry without providing a legitimate basis for such an assertion. 
Thus, based upon a complete review of the record, we find that the evidence of record does not 
establish that a requirement for at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, 
is common for positions that are identifiable as being (1) in the petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to 
the proffered position, and also (3) located in organizations that are similar to the petitioner. 
Thus, for the reasons discussed above, the evidence of record does not satisfy the first alternative 
prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A)( 2). 
7 In making determination of statutory eligibility, USCIS is limited to the information contained in the record 
of proceeding. See 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b )(16)(ii). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C. F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
In the instant case, the evidence of record does not credibly demonstrate relative complexity or 
uniqueness as aspects of the proffered position. Specifically, it is unclear how the SAP analyst 
position, as described, necessitates the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly 
specialized knowledge such that a person who has attained a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent is required to perform them. Rather, we find, that, as reflected in this 
decision's earlier quotation of duty descriptions from the record of proceeding, the evidence of 
record does not distinguish the proffered position from other positions falling within the "Computer 
Systems Analysts" occupational category, which, the Handbook indicates, do not necessarily 
require a person with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent to enter 
those positions. 
More specifically, the petitioner did not demonstrate how the duties described require the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge such that a 
bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform them. 
For instance, the petitioner did not submit information relevant to a detailed course of study leading 
to a specialty degree and did not establish how such a curriculum is necessary to perform the duties 
of the proffered position. While related courses may be beneficial, or even essential, in performing 
certain duties of a SAP analyst position, the petitioner did not demonstrate 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 petitioner's proffered position. 
This is further evidenced by the LCA submitted by the petitioner in support of the instant petition. 
Again, we incorporate by reference and reiterate our earlier discussion that the LCA indicates that 
the position is a low-level (entry-level) position relative to others within the occupation. Based 
upon the wage rate, the beneficiary is only required to perform routine tasks that require limited, if 
any, exercise of judgment. Accordingly, given the Handbook's indication that typical positions 
located within the "Computer Systems Analysts" occupational category do not require at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, for entry, it is not credible that a position 
involving limited exercise of judgment would contain such a requirement. 
Without further evidence, it is simply not credible that the petitioner's proffered position is complex 
or unique, as such a position would likely be classified at a higher-level, such as a Level IV (fully 
competent) position, requiring a significantly higher prevailing wage. For instance, a Level IV 
(fully competent) position is designated by DOL for employees who "use advanced skills and 
diversified knowledge to solve unusual and complex problems." Even a position involving a Level 
II wage, which would exceed the complexity of the one proposed by the petitioner, would involve 
only "moderately complex tasks that require limited judgment." 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
For all of these reasons, it cannot be concluded that the evidence of record satisfies the second 
alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it 
normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. We 
normally review the petitioner's past recruiting and hiring practices, as well as information 
regarding employees who previously held the position. 
To merit approval of the petition under this criterion, the record must establish that the imposition 
of a degree requirement by the petitioner is not merely a matter of preference for high-caliber 
candidates but is necessitated by performance requirements of the position. On appeal, the 
petitioner states that it has "previously employed personnel in the same position with minimum [a] 
bachelor's degree" and provides the names of two individuals and their petition receipt numbers. 
The petitioner did not submit probative evidence demonstrating that these individuals were in fact 
employed by the petitioner and that the positions they held were the same as the proffered position. 
As stated earlier, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 
165. 
When "any person makes an application for a visa or any other document required for entry, or 
makes an application for admission, [ . . . ] the burden of proof shall be upon such person to 
establish that he is eligible" for such benefit. 8 U.S.C. § 1361; see also Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm'r 1972). Furthermore, any suggestion that USCIS must 
review unpublished decisions and possibly request and review each case file relevant to those 
decisions, while being impractical and inefficient, would also be a shift in the evidentiary burden in 
this proceeding from the petitioner to USCIS, which would be contrary to section 291 of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. § 1361. Accordingly, neither our office nor the director was required to request and/or 
obtain a copy of the unpublished decisions cited by the petitioner. 
If a petitioner wishes to have unpublished decisions considered by USCIS in the adjudication of a 
petition, the petitioner is permitted to submit copies of such evidence that it either obtained itself 
through its own legal research and/or received in response to a Freedom of Information Act request 
filed in accordance with 6 C. F.R. Part 5. Otherwise, "[t]he non-existence or other unavailability of 
required evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility." 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(i). In the instant 
case, the petitioner did not submit a copy of the unpublished decisions. As the record of proceeding 
does not contain any evidence of the unpublished decisions, there were no underlying facts to be 
analyzed and, therefore, no prior, substantive determinations could have been made to determine 
what facts, if any, were analogous to those in this proceeding. While 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c) provides 
that our precedent decisions are binding on all USCIS employees in the administration of the Act, 
unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. 
Furthermore, if the previous nonimmigrant petitions were approved based on the same unsupported 
assertions that are contained in the current record, the approvals would constitute material and gross 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 16 
error on the part of the director. We are not required to approve petitions where eligibility has not 
been demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g. 
Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). It would be 
"absurd to suggest that [USCIS] or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding 
precedent." Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 
485 u.s. 1008 (1988). 
A prior approval does not compel the approval of a subsequent petition or relieve the petitioner of 
its burden to provide sufficient documentation to establish current eligibility for the benefit sought. 
55 Fed. Reg. 2606, 2612 (Jan. 26, 1990). A prior approval also does not preclude USCIS from 
denying an extension of an original visa petition based on a reassessment of eligibility for the 
benefit sought. See Texas A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556, 2004 WL 1240482 (5th Cir. 
2004). Furthermore, our authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship 
between a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director had approved the 
nonimmigrant petitions on behalf of the beneficiary, we would not be bound to follow the 
contradictory decision of a service center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 
282785 (E.D. La.), affd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
While a petitioner may believe or otherwise assert that a proffered position requires a degree in a 
specific specialty, that opinion alone without corroborating evidence cannot establish the position as 
a specialty occupation. Were USCIS limited solely to reviewing a petitioner's claimed self­
imposed requirements, then any individual with a bachelor's degree could be brought to the United 
States to perform any occupation as long as the employer artificially created a token degree 
requirement, whereby all individuals employed in a particular position possessed a baccalaureate or 
higher degree in the specific specialty or its equivalent. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d at 
387. In other words, if a petitioner's degree requirement is only symbolic and the proffered position 
does not in fact require such a specialty degree or its equivalent to perform its duties, the occupation 
would not meet the statutory or regulatory definition of a specialty occupation. See section 
214(i)(1) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty occupation"). The 
record does not contain documentary evidence demonstrating a hiring history of the petitioner. As 
the record of proceeding does not demonstrate that the petitioner normally requires at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for the proffered position, it does not 
satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(3). 
Next, we find that the evidence of record does not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)( 4), which requires the petitioner to establish that the nature of the proffered 
position's duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is usually 
associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty or its 
equivalent. 
8 Any such assertion would be undermined in this particular case by. the fact that the petitioner indicated on 
the LCA that the proffered position is a comparatively low, entry-level position relative to others within its 
occupation. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 17 
Again, relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by the petitioner 
as an aspect of the proffered position's duties. In other words, the proposed duties have not been 
described with sufficient specificity to show that their nature is more specialized and complex than 
SAP analyst positions whose duties are not of a nature so specialized and complex that their 
performance requires knowledge usually associated with a degree in a specific specialty. In 
reviewing the record of proceeding under this criterion, we reiterate our earlier discussion regarding 
the Handbook's entries for positions falling within the "Computer Systems Analysts" occupational 
category. Again, the Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
the equivalent, is a standard, minimum requirement to perform the duties of such positions, and the 
record indicates no factors that would elevate the duties proposed for the beneficiary above those 
discussed for similar positions in the Handbook. With regard to the specific duties of the position 
proffered here, we find that the record of proceeding lacks sufficient, credible evidence establishing 
that they are so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is usually 
associated with the attainment of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent. 
Moreover, we incorporate our earlier discussion regarding the wage-level designation on the LCA, 
which is appropriate for duties whose nature is less complex and specialized than required to satisfy 
this criterion. We find that both on its own terms and also in comparison with the two higher wage­
levels that can be designated in an LCA, by the submission of an LCA certified for a wage-level I 
(entry-level), the petitioner effectively attests that the proposed duties are of relatively low 
complexity as compared to others within the same occupational category. This fact is materially 
inconsistent with the level of complexity required by this criterion. 
As earlier noted, the Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance issued by DOL states the 
following with regard to Level I wage rates: 
Level I (entry) wage rates are assigned to job offers for beginning level employees who 
have only a basic understanding of the occupation. These employees perform routine 
tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment. The tasks provide experience and 
familiarization with the employer's methods, practices, and programs. The employees 
may perform higher level work for training and developmental purposes. These 
employees work under close supervision and receive specific instructions on required 
tasks and results expected. Their work is closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy. 
Statements that the job offer is for a research fellow, a worker in training, or an internship 
are indicators that a Level I wage should be considered [emphasis in original]. 9 
The pertinent guidance from DOL, at page 7 of its Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance 
describes the next higher wage-level as follows: 
9 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/ 
pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _11_ 2009.pdf (last visited May 20, 2015). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 18 
/d . 
Level II (qualified) wage rates are assigned to job offers for qualified employees 
who have attained, either through education or experience, a good understanding of 
the occupation. They perform moderately complex tasks that require limited 
judgment. An indicator that the job request warrants a wage determination at Level 
II would be a requirement for years of education and/or experience that are generally 
required as described in the O*NET Job Zones. 
The above descriptive summary indicates that even this higher-than-designated wage level is 
appropriate for only "moderate! y complex tasks that require limited judgment." The fact that this 
higher-than-here-assigned, Level II wage-rate itself indicates performance of only "moderately 
complex tasks that require limited judgment," is very telling with regard to the relatively low level 
of complexity imputed to the proffered position by virtue of its Level I wage-rate designation. 
Further, we note the relatively low level of complexity that even this Level II wage-level reflects 
when compared with the two still-higher LCA wage levels, neither of which was designated on the 
LCA submitted to support this petition. 
The aforementioned Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance describes the Level III wage 
designation as follows: 
/d . 
Level III (experienced) wage rates are assigned to job offers for experienced 
employees who have a sound understanding of the occupation and have attained, 
either through education or experience, special skills or knowledge. They perform 
tasks that require exercising judgment and may coordinate the activities of other 
staff. They may have supervisory authority over those staff. A requirement for years 
of experience or educational degrees that are at the higher ranges indicated in the 
O*NET Job Zones would be indicators that a Level III wage should be considered. 
Frequently, key words in the job title can be used as indicators that an employer's job 
offer is for an experienced worker. ... 
The Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance describes the Level IV wage designation as 
follows: 
Level IV (fully competent) wage rates are assigned to job offers for competent 
employees who have sufficient experience in the occupation to plan and conduct 
work requiring judgment and the independent evaluation, selection, modification, 
and application of standard procedures and techniques. Such employees use 
advanced skills and diversified knowledge to solve unusual and complex problems. 
These employees receive only technical guidance and their work is reviewed only for 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 19 
!d. 
application of sound judgment and effectiveness in meeting the establishment's 
procedures and expectations. They generally have management and/or supervisory 
responsibilities. 
As already noted, by virtue of this submission, the petitioner effectively attested that the proffered 
position is a low-level (entry-level) position relative to others within the occupation, and that, as 
clear by comparison with DOL's instructive comments about the next higher level (Level II), the 
proffered position did not even involve "moderately complex tasks that require limited judgment" 
(the level of complexity noted for the next higher wage-level, Level II). 
For all of these reasons, the evidence in the record of proceeding does not establish that the 
proposed duties meet the specialization and complexity threshold at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)( 4) . 
The petitioner relies on Young China Daily v Chappell, 742 F. Supp. 552 (N.D. Cal. 1989), 
asserting that "[w]hether a position is professional, is unrelated to size of company, salary or prior 
company history of maintain position." While we concur that USCIS should not limit its review to 
the size of a petitioner and must consider the actual responsibilities of the proffered position, it also 
notes that it is reasonable to assume that the size of an employer's business has or could have an 
impact on the claimed duties of a particular position. See EG Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a/ Mexican 
Wholesale Grocery v. Department of Homeland Security, 467 F. Supp. 2d 728 (E.D. Mich. 2006). 
Thus, the size of a petitioner may be considered as a component of the nature of the petitioner's 
business, as the size impacts upon the actual duties of a particular position. 
As discussed above, absent any independent documentary evidence to support a finding that the 
duties to be performed by the beneficiary in relation to the petitioner's claimed operations are 
sufficiently complex, or that a degree requirement is common to the industry, the petitioner's 
reliance on Young China Daily is not persuasive. Regardless, 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 within the same district. See Matter of 
K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715 (BIA 1993). 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. !d. at 719. 
We are not persuaded by the petitioner's comments on Matter of Hung 12 I&N Dec. 178 (Reg. 
Comm'r. 1967) as the material facts of the present proceeding are distinguishable from those in 
Hung. Specifically, Hung addresses the issue of whether the beneficiary is qualified for the 
specialty occupation, rather than the issue at hand - whether the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 20 
As the evidence of record does not satisfy at least one of the criteria at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it cannot be found that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed and the petition will be denied on this basis. 
We do not need to examine the issue of the beneficiary's qualifications, because the petitioner has 
not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
In other words, the beneficiary's credentials to perform a particular job are relevant only when the 
job is found to be a specialty occupation. 
IV. EMPLOYMENT LOCATION 
We also note that the record is not clear regarding all of the beneficiary's employment locations. 
The petitioner indicated on the Form I-129 that the beneficiary would be working only at the 
petitioner's office in Virginia and that he would not be working off-site. On appeal, the petitioner 
indicates that it has offices in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and India. The petitioner 
states that the beneficiary has the option to work from "his [h]ome," "from a remote location," and 
out of its office in Virginia. The petitioner further states that its server could be accessed by its 
employees based in any of its offices around the world. However, the petitioner did not state 
whether the beneficiary will be residing in Virginia or in any other state in the United States. The 
beneficiary's telework location and the intervals of his telework would have implications on 
whether the petitioner would be able to maintain employer-employee relationship with the 
beneficiary, as well as whether the beneficiary's telework location would be covered with the 
certified LCA submitted with the instant petition. 
V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reason.10 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; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). 
Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied. 
10 
As the issues discussed above are dispositive of the petitioner's eligibility for the benefit sought in this 
matter, we will not address and will instead reserve our determination on the numerous additional issues and 
deficiencies we observe in the record of proceeding with regard to approval of the H-lB petition.