dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

MATTER OF T-T-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 29, 2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an engineering services company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an 
"IT project manager" under the H-1B 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-1B 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 Petitioner had 
not established that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the Director erred in her findings. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
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. 
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: 
.
Matter ofT- T-, Inc. 
(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. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We have consistently interpreted 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. Chertofj; 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"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted the following 
description of the Beneficiary's duties: 
[The Beneficiary] will plan and review the solutions as per client requirements and 
blueprints, estimate the effort needed, and finalize proposals and bid strategies 
(15%). In doing so, [the Beneficiary] will be required to schedule meetings with 
clients and understand clients' requirements. [The Beneficiary] will also create 
functional design documents and blueprints, analyze requirements and locate gaps, 
and perform effort estimation. In addition, [the Beneficiary] will manage project 
execution to ensure adherence to budgets, schedules, and scopes (10%). In doing so, 
[the Beneficiary] will develop detailed project plans to monitor and track progress, 
ensure resource availability and allocation/resources roadmap, and perform issue/risk 
management to minimize project risks. 
[The Beneficiary] will also be required to manage changes to the project scope, 
project schedule, and project costs using appropriate verification techniques, manage 
weekly/monthly status updates, and monitor and track project milestones and 
deliverables (15%). To this end, [the Beneficiary] will be required to identify 
significant milestones, and minimize the negative impact on project execution in the 
absence of milestone achievement. Furthermore, [the Beneficiary] will conduct 
customer presentations on company services and drive the sales of 
2 
.
Matter ofT- T-, Inc. 
offerings within the account (10%). As such, [the 
Beneficiary] will submit project deliverables, ensuring adherence to quality standards 
(10%). This will require [the Beneficiary] to create the following documents: 
Business Requirement, Effort Estimation, Resource Planning, Project Kick-off, 
Project Plan, GAP Analysis, Technical Design Document, Project Tracking Sheet, 
Unit Testing Document (UAT), Customer Satisfaction Rating (CSR), Issues/Risk 
Log, Standard Naming Convention Final Deliverables, and Weekly/Monthly Status 
Reports. Additionally, [the Beneficiary] will prepare project status reports by 
collecting, analyzing, and summarizing information and trends, including Weekly 
Status Summaries, Monthly Dashboards, and Month Project Status Summaries 
(10%). 
Furthermore, [the Beneficiary] will monitor staffing to successfully deliver projects, 
identify training needs based on clients' technology roadmaps, review performance of 
key resources and provide timely constructive feedback, moderate the team rating 
meetings, and assign KPis to employees and Mid-term/Final Appraisals (10%). [The 
Beneficiary] will also schedule and facilitate meetings related to information 
technology projects (1 0% ). [The Beneficiary] will perform risk assessments to 
develop response strategies, develop and manage annual budgets for information 
technology projects, develop implementation plans that include analyses such as cost­
benefit or return on investment (ROI), and design solutions and provide 
implementation plans (20% ). 
The Petitioner stated that the minimum education required for the performance of the position is "at 
least a bachelor's degree or its equivalent in Computer Applications or a directly related specialty 
field." 
III. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that it would employ the Beneficiary in a specialty occupation. 1 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or 
its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation? 
1 We follow the preponderance ofthe evidence standard as specified in Matter o(Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 
(AAO 2010). 
2 
The Petitioner submitted documentation in support of the H-1 8 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. 
Matter ofT- T-, Inc. 
A. First Criterion 
We turn first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which requires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. 
On the Labor Condition Application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-1 B petition. the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Computer Occupations, All 
Other" corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 15-1199, which 
includes "Information Technology Project Managers" SOC code 15.1199.3 
We often look to the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) 
as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations 
that it addresses. 4 However, there are some occupations for which occupational profiles have not been 
developed, such as for the occupational category "Computer Occupations, All Other."5 Since the 
Handbook does not provide sufficient information regarding the designated occupational category 
for the proffered position, it is incumbent upon the Petitioner to provide probative evidence (e.g., 
documentation from other objective, authoritative sources) that supports a finding that the particular 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner submits the Handbook's chapter on "Computer and Information Systems Managers" 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 11-3021 and notes that it indicates 
that individuals within this occupational category are sometimes referred to as "IT project 
managers," the job title for the proffered position. The Petitioner further explains that the Handbook 
states that these positions "typically need a bachelor's degree in computer or information science." 
However, as noted, the Petitioner classified the position as "Computer Occupations, All Other,'' 
which also includes "Information Technology Project Managers,'' and not "Computer and 
Information Systems Managers." Notably, "Computer Information Systems Managers'' category has 
significantly higher prevailing wages than ''Computer Occupations, All Other," suggesting that there 
is likely difference in the level of responsibility and the duties of these two occupational categories 
6 
3 The Petitioner has designated the proffered position as a Level II position on the LCA, indicating that it is a position 
involving only moderately complex tasks requiring limited judgment. See 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 _II_ 2009.pdf 
4 All of our references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not, however, maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant 
information. To satisfy the first criterion, the burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to submit sufficient evidence to 
support a finding that its particular position would normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its 
equivalent, for entry. 
5 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Employment Statistics: Occupational Employment and 
Wages, May 2016 Computer Occupations, All Other, https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes 151199.htm (last visited June 
29, 20 17). 
6 According to the LCA, the prevailing wage for a Level II "Computer Occupations, All Other'' position in the area and 
4 
Matter ofT- T-, Inc. 
For example, the summary report for the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) describes 
"Information Technology Project Managers" as follows7 : 
Plan, initiate, and manage information technology (IT) projects. Lead and guide the 
work of technical staff. Serve as liaison between business and technical aspects of 
projects. Plan project stages and assess business implications for each stage. Monitor 
progress to assure deadlines, standards, and cost targets are met. 
Samples of job titles for this occupational category include ''IT Manager,'' "Program Manager" and 
"Senior Project Leader/Team Lead." On the other hand, O*NET indicates that ''Computer and 
Information Systems Managers ... [p ]ian, direct, or coordinate activities in such fields as electronic 
data processing, information systems, systems analysis, and computer programming." 8 Specifically, 
tasks for this occupational category include "direct daily operations of department analyzing 
workflow, establishing priorities, developing standards and setting deadlines" and "develop and 
interpret organizational goals, policies, and procedures." Samples of job titles include ''Application 
Development Director," "Computer Services Director" and "Information Systems Director.'' Given 
the apparent lower level of duties and responsibility assigned to "Information Technology Project 
Managers," it logically follows that this category would not necessarily share the same degree 
requirements for minimum entry as set forth for "Computer and Information Systems Managers" in 
the Handbook. The Petitioner does not adequately explain why these two occupational categories 
should be deemed to share the same minimum educational requirements. 
In addition, the O*NET summary reports, referenced by the Petitioner, are also insufficient to 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation normally requiring at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. O*NET does not state a requirement for a 
bachelor's degree for this occupation. Rather, it assigns this occupation a Job Zone ''Four" rating, 
which groups it among occupations for which "most ... require a four-year bachelor's degree, but 
time period of intended employment is $70,782 per year, which is the proffered salary. In contrast, the Level II 
prevailing wage in the area and time period of intended employment for ''Computer and Information Systems Managers" 
is $97,786 per year. For more information on prevailing wages generally, see the Foreign Labor Certification Data 
Center's Online Wage Library at http://www.tlcdatacenter.com/OESWizardStart.aspx (last visited June 29, 20 17). 
Department of Labor guidance on the LCA states that, if a proffered position involves a combination of different 
occupational classifications, then the petitioner should select the occupational code and classification for the most 
relevant occupation, i.e., the ''highest-paying occupation." 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 _I I_ 2009.pdf. Thus, if the Petitioner believed 
its position to be a combination of the ''Computer Occupations, All Other'' and ''Computer and Information Systems 
Managers'' occupational classifications, then the Petitioner should have submitted an LCA for ''Computer and 
Information Systems Managers." 
7 O*NET OnLine Summary Report for ''15-1199.09 - Information Technology Project Managers,'' 
https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/15-1199.09 (last visited June 29, 20 17). 
8 O*NET OnLine Summary Report for "11-3021.00 - Computer and Information Systems Managers,'' 
https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/ll-3021.00 (last visited June 29, 20 17). 
5 
Matter ofT- T-, Inc. 
some do not."9 Further, O*NET does not indicate that four-year bachelor's degrees required by Job 
Zone Four occupations must be in a specific specialty directly related to the occupation. Therefore, 
O*NET information is not probative of the proffered position being a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation to substantiate its assertion regarding the 
minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. The Petitioner has not satisfied the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
B. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two alternative prongs: ''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[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong 
concentrates upon the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
We generally consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there is such a common 
degree requirement: 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 establish that such firms "routinely 
employ and recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 
(D. Minn. 1999) (quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) 
(considering these "factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook, or another authoritative source, reports a requirement for at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. We incorporate by reference the previous discussion on the 
matter. 
In support of this criteria, the Petitioner provided job postings for IT project manager positions. 
However, we are unable to determine that these companies are similar to the Petitioner or that the 
submitted positions are parallel to the proffered position. For instance, the Petitioner provides little 
information on the size and revenue of these companies and how they compare to the Petitioner. 
Further, although some advertisers appear to be generally in the information technology consulting 
9 O*NET OnLine Help- Job Zones, http://www.onetonline.org/help/online/zones (last visited June 29, 20 17). 
Matter ofT- T-, Inc. 
and staffing industries, the others are from varying sectors, including insurance, city government, 
retail, and healthcare. 
We acknowledge that several IT project manager postings state that a bachelor's degree in computer 
science, information technology, management information systems, or a related information 
technology specialty is required for these positions. However, the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
established that the duties or the requirements for these positions are parallel to the proflered 
position. For example, one posting states that it requires "7-10 years of IT work experience" and 
additional years of experience managing projects. As mentioned, the proflered position is classified 
at a Level II wage, which is assigned to employees who have attained a good understanding of the 
occupation and perform moderately complex tasks that require limited judgement. Therefore, the 
position appears to be more senior than the proflered position. 
Further, another announcement states that a business administration degree would be adequate. We 
note that the requirement of a bachelor's degree in business administration 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 and closely 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 
administration, without further specification, does not establish the position as a specialty 
occupation. C.'l Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). In 
addition to demonstrating that a job requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of 
specialized knowledge as required by section 214(i)(l) of the Act, a petitioner must also 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, we interpret 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) as requiring 
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 finding that a particular position qualifies for classification as a 
specialty occupation. Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. In sum, the job advertisements do not 
establish that organizations similar to the Petitioner routinely employ individuals with degrees in a 
specific specialty, in parallel positions in the Petitioner's industry. 10 
10 
Even if all of the job postings indicated that a requirement of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is common to 
the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations (which they do not), the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from the advertisements with regard to determining the common 
educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. See generally Earl Babbie, The 
Practice of Social Research 186-228 ( 1995). Moreover, given that there is no indication that the advertisements were 
randomly selected, the validity of any such inferences could not be accurately determined even if the sampling unit were 
sufficiently large. See id. at 195-196 (explaining that "[r]andom selection is the key to [the] process [of probability 
sampling]" and that ''random selection offers access to the body of probability theory. which provides the basis for 
estimates of population parameters and estimates of error''). 
The Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how representative the job postings are of the particular 
advertising employers' recruiting history for the type of job advertised. As the advertisements are only solicitations for 
.
Matter ofT- T-, Inc. 
In addition, the Petitioner submits two expert opmwns it asserts demonstrate that its degree 
requirement is common to the industry. In response to the RFE, the Petitioner provided the opinion 
of Associate Professor at the 
who opined that the nature of the position and its managerial role indicates that it requires "at least a 
bachelor's level background in an applicable business or technology field, such as Technology 
Management Information Systems, Computer Science, Computer Applications, or related area." On 
appeal, the Petitioner also submits a letter from Professor of Computer 
Science at who concludes that the duties of the position and its level of complexity 
require a "bachelor's degree or its equivalent in a suitable computing or technology management 
field." 
The descriptions of the position provided by the experts appear to discuss a position of senior 
leadership and complexity. For instance, describes the position as a '"senior level 
managerial position," while states that the position involves "one of the most complex 
areas of technology consulting and development'' and notes its "complexity and sophistication.'' In 
contrast, as we have noted, the Petitioner has only assigned the position a Level II wage on the LCA 
indicating that it involves only moderately complex tasks that require limited judgment. However, 
the expert opinions describe the position as being the equivalent of a senior management position, 
involving the most complex and sophisticated tasks, more consistent with a significantly higher 
prevailing wage, such as a Level III (experienced) or Level IV (fully competent) wage level. 
Further, based on the Petitioner's provided project organizational chart, the proffered position 
appears to be one of many IT project manager positions within its organization, and not one of senior 
leadership. Therefore, the opinions of the two experts are not consistent with the proffered 
position's stated duties and level of responsibility. The Petitioner has not resolved these 
inconsistencies with independent, objective 
evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 
19 I&N Dec. 582,591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Further, the expert opinions do not demonstrate in-depth knowledge of the Petitioner's specific 
business operations, and what duties the Beneficiary would perform in the context of the Petitioner's 
business. Both opinions discuss the duties and responsibilities of IT project managers in general 
terms and only reiterate the Petitioner provided duties, but not the specifics of the proffered position. 
Given their misunderstanding of the level of responsibilities of the proffered position, it is not clear 
if they had sufficient information to determine the requirements of the position. 
As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as 
advisory. Matter o.fCaron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, we will 
reject an opinion or give it less weight if it is not in accord with other information in the record or if 
it is in any way questionable. !d. In this instance, the expert opinions do not offer sufficient 
probative value in establishing the proffered position as a specialty occupation. 
hire, they are not evidence of the actual hiring practices of these employers. 
.
Matter ofT- T-, Inc. 
As the record does not include probative evidence that a "degree requirement" (i.e., a requirement of 
a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent) is common to the industry in 
parallel positions among similar organizations, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative 
prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the nature of the proposed work will be complex and unique 
based on its application to the automotive industry. However, the Petitioner does not explain how 
the Beneficiary's proposed work differs from other IT project managers assigned to various clients 
in different industries. For instance, it is reasonable to assume that the Petitioner's other IT project 
managers are assigned to other industries serving clients in various sectors, and that they also would 
possess intimate knowledge of the business operations of their clients. As such, we do not find the 
Petitioner's assertion convincing that the duties of the proflered position should be deemed 
uncommon or complex only because they will take place in the automotive industry. 
As we have discussed, the Petitioner has provided expert opinions discussing the complex and 
unique nature of the proffered position. asserts that he was "informed" that the 
position is focused on "one of the most complex areas of technology consulting and development -
that of and software-based data warehousing and analytics." 
This comment from highlights the lack of probative value in both expert opinions 
when assessing whether the proffered position is complex and unique. The opinions simply declare 
the duties of the position as complex and unique with little explanation, and as mentioned, the 
opinion of suggests he was merely "informed" that the duties of the position were 
"one of the most complex." Further, as we have noted, the descriptions of the position as complex 
and sophisticated are not in concert with the position's wage Level II designation on the LCA 
indicating that it involves only moderately complex tasks that require limited judgment. 11 
11 
The Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level II position undermines its claim that the position is particularly 
complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation. Nevertheless, a Level II wage­
designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty occupation, just as a Level IV wage­
designation does not definitively establish such a classification. In certain occupations (e.g., doctors or lawyers), even a 
Level I, entry-level position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, for entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designation would not reflect that an occupation qualifies as 
a specialty occupation if that higher-level position does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. That is, a position's wage-level designation may be a relevant factor but is not itself 
conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 
9 
.
Matter ofT-T-, Inc. 
We note that while a few related courses 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. Upon review, the record lacks sufficiently detailed information 
to distinguish the proffered position as more complex or unique 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position, and references his 
education and experience as evidence that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 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. Here, the Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative complexity or 
uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position, and it did not identify any tasks that are so 
complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. Thus, it cannot 
be concluded that the Petitioner has satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. Third Criterion 
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. 
The record must establish that a petitioner's stated degree requirement is not a matter of preference 
for high-caliber candidates but is necessitated instead by performance requirements of the position. 
See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. If we were limited solely to reviewing the 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 Petitioner created a token degree 
requirement. Id. Evidence provided in support of this criterion may include, but is not limited to, 
documentation regarding the Petitioner's past recruitment and hiring practices, as well as 
information regarding employees who previously held the position. 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted evidence that it employs two other IT 
project managers who perform work for its client, Provided documentation 
indicated that these IT project managers hold foreign degrees equivalent to U.S. bachelor 's degrees 
in electrical engineering and computer science. On appeal, the Petitioner provides documentation 
specific to two more IT project managers it employs , including evidence reflecting that these two 
employees earned foreign degrees equating to U.S. bachelor's degrees in computer engineering and 
electronics. 
In denying the petition, the Director pointed to the fact that two of the asserted IT project managers 
have degrees in electronic engineering and electronics, and noted that these were not specific 
specialty degrees listed by the Petitioner as acceptable for the proffered position. On appeal, the 
Petitioner contends that these degrees would fall under the definition of a ''related" technology based 
degrees. Although we acknowledge that the electronic or electrical based degrees may be related to 
10 
.
Matter ofT-T-, Inc. 
the other degrees asserted as required for the position, we also emphasize that this reflects shifting 
assertions by the Petitioner as to the type of specific bachelor's degree required for the position. 
For instance, in support of the petition, the Petitioner did not indicate that a specific bachelor's 
degree was required for the position, only vaguely stating that a bachelor's degree was required. ln 
response to the RFE, the Petitioner stated that a bachelor's degree in computer applications "or a 
related field" would suffice. Further , the expert opinions of and 
indicated that a wide range of technology related degrees would be sufficient for the position , 
including, business or science degrees in technology management , management information 
systems, computer science, computer applications , "or a related field." With respect to this criteria , 
the Petitioner submits evidence relevant to four of its IT project managers reflecting that two hold 
degrees in electronics and electrical engineering , specialty degrees not referenced by the Petitioner 
or its experts as meeting the minimum entry requirements for the position. This is particularly 
noteworthy since the expert opinion of makes reference to bachelor's degrees in 
business and a job announcement provided by the Petitioner reflects that a bachelor's degree in 
business administration would have sufficed. In total, the evidence of the record reflects an ever 
expanding list of bachelor ' s degrees that could be deemed sufficient for the proffered position , 
leaving question as to whether a bachelor 's degree in a spec(fic .specialty is indeed required for the 
position. Again, the Petitioner has not resolved these inconsistencies with independent , objective 
evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92. 
Furthermore, the educational credentials related to four IT project managers do not establish that the 
Petitioner normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty , or its equivalent, for the 
position. The Petitioner is a multinational corporation established in 1997 employing 554 
employees. The Petitioner does not articulate how many IT project managers it has employed . The 
educational credentials for four IT project managers , even if consistent with the Petitioner ' s asserted 
specific bachelor's degree requirement, do not sufficiently demonstrate that it normally requires a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
D. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature 
of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degre e in a specific specialt y, or 
its equivalent. 
On appeal, the Petitioner points to the submitted expert opinions, specifically noting 
reference to ' projects" and discussion of 
"high-level computer programming, systems analysis, and enterprise systems architecture .'' 
However , we do not find that this evidence sufficiently develop s relative specialization and 
complexity as an aspect of the proffered position. We incorporate our earlier discussion and analysis 
II 
Matter ofT- T-, Inc. 
regarding the duties of the proffered position, and the designation of the position in the LCA as a 
Level II position, and not as the higher Level III (referring to "special skills or knowledge") or Level 
IV (referring to "complex or unusual problems") wage levels. 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence that the duties, as generally described, require 
more than technical proficiency in the information technology field. The Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that its proffered position is one with duties sufficiently specialized and complex to 
satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofT-T-, Inc., ID# 448582 (AAO June 29, 2017) 
12