dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and ,Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-C-, LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 26,2017 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an information technology services company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "business analyst" under the H -1 B nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-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, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner had not established that it has specialty occupation work available for the Beneficiary. 
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: 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-C-, LLC 
' 
(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) . U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has consistently 
interpreted 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 proposed 
position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree 
requirement in a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a 
particular position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
As recognized by the court in Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88, where the work is to be performed for 
entities other than the Petitioner, evidence of the client companies' job requirements is critical. The 
court held that the former Immigration and Naturalization Service had reasonably interpreted the 
statute and regulations as requiring the Petitioner to produce evidence that a proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation on the basis of the requirements imposed by the entities using the 
Beneficiary's services. ld. Such evidence must be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate the type and 
educational level of highly specialized knowledge in a specific discipline that is necessary to 
perform that particular work. 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
On the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, the Petitioner indicated that it provides 
"Oracle eBusiness suite implementation and support" services. The Petitioner seeks to employ the 
Beneficiary as a business analyst from October 1, 2016, through September 10, 2019. The Petitioner 
specified that the Beneficiary will not work off-site during the requested validity period, and will 
work 
from the Petitioner's business address in Texas. 
The labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the visa petition states that the 
proffered position corresponds to the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code and 
occupation title 15-1121, "Computer Systems Analysts," from the Occupational Information 
Network (O*NET). The LCA further states that the proffered position is a Level II position . . The 
LCA lists the Petitioner ' s address as the Beneficiary ' s sole place of employment. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-C-, LLC 
In its support letter,. the Petitioner described the duties of the proffered position as follows (note: 
errors in the original text have not been changed): 
[S]pecifically, as a Business Analyst, the beneficiary will analyze computer and 
business problems of existing and proposed systems and initiate and enable specific 
technologies that will maximize our company ' s ability to deliver more efficient and 
effective technological and computer-related solutions to our business clients. The 
beneficiary will gather information from users to define the exact nature of system 
problems and then design a system of computer programs and procedures to resolve 
these problems. As a Business Analyst, the beneficiary will plan and develop new 
computer systems and devise ways to apply the IT industry ' s already-existing 
technological processes. This process of developing new computer systems will 
include the design or addition of hardware or software applications that will better 
harness the power and usefulness of our clients' computer systems. In this position , 
the beneficiary will employ a combination of techniques , including: structured 
analysis, data modeling , information engineering , mathematical model building, 
sampling, and cost accounting to plan systems and procedures to resolve computer 
problems. As part of the duties of a Business Analyst, the beneficiary will also 
analyze subject matter operations to be automated, specify the number and type of 
records, files, and documents to be used, and format the output to meet the user's 
needs. As a Business Analyst, the beneficiary is also required to develop complete 
specifications and structure charts that will enable computer users to prepare required 
programs. Most importantly, once the systems have been instituted , the beneficiary 
will coordinate tests of the systems, participate in trial runs of new and revised 
systems, and recommend computer equipment changes to obtain more effective 
operations. 
According to the Petitioner, the proffered position requires a bachelor ' s degree in computers , 
engineering, or a related field, or the equivalent. The Petitioner also stated that "[t]or a position at 
the level offered, it is not uncommon for the incumbent to also possess a master's degree and/or a 
number of years of experience of increasing responsibility in programming analysis or engineering. " 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner reiterated that, "[t]or the 
duration of the requested validity period , the Beneficiar y will work as a Business Analyst for the 
Petitioner performing services on internal projects at [the Petitioner ' s] office, located ... in 
Texas." The Petitioner further explained (note: errors in the original text have not been changed) : 
The Beneficiary will work on the Oracle eBusiness Suite Application Support project 
for [the Petitioner ' s] client, The project will provide support for 
application 
environment. This will include queue management /triage of tickets per year 
(monitoring servers & apps) for approximately 70 hours per month, incidents tasks as 
currently provided by tickets attached for approximately 60 hours a month, proactive 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-C-, LLC 
application patch reviews for approximately 8 hours a month, and proactive problem 
management/escalated tickets/reporting for approximately 22 hours a month. 1 Please 
see the Contractor Agreement and Work Order between [the Petitioner] and 
enclosed in Exhibit 3, for further description of services. Please note that 
although the project is for , work on the project is being performed at 
[the Petitioner's] office. The Beneficiary will be supervised by [the Petitioner ' s] 
managers only. 
Specifically, as a Business Analyst, the Beneficiary will perform the following 
specialized and complex duties: 
• Gathering user requirements in related to Oracle eBusiness Suite 
Application. Preparing and maintaining 
the environment. Unit testing and 
preparing the test documents and delivery. 
• Responsible for Support tickets and preparing technical Specs related to 
Oracle PA Costing , PA Billing, Project Manufacturing, GL, AP, AR, FA, 
and meeting the deliverables. 
• Adept at determining requirements by interviewing client personnel, 
reviewing documentation and facilitating working sessions. 
• Adept at creating business process models based on the requirements and 
accounting derivations for Oracle eBusiness Suite Application 
• Adept at mapping industry trends and best practices to the client's unique 
requirements and processes to determine applicable fit. 
• Able to presenf solutions described above to senior client management via 
whiteboard and PowerPoint 
• Knowledgeable about Oracle applications, functionality, tools, templates' 
and method and able to setup the system to meet the desired business 
process and requirements. 
• Adept at working with clients to develop testing scenarios and test scripts 
and leading teams in unit, integration and acceptance testing. 
The Petitioner submitted, inter alia: a company overview; a contractor agreement between the 
Petitioner and _ _ a work order between the same parties referencing 
';and the Petitioner ' s employment agreement with the Beneficiary. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the previously submitted documentation of the "in-house 
project" for represents "only a sampling of the multiple client projects 
that the Petitioner typically has ongoing , as well as a sample of the Petitioner's work at the time of 
the RFE response." As "another example that the Beneficiary has readily available specialty 
occupation work through the Petitioner's relationship with "the Petitioner submits, inter 
alia, two statements of work between and ' 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-C-, LLC 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the entire record of proceedings, we find that the Petitioner has not established that it 
has specialty occupation work available for the Beneficiary. That is, the Petitioner has not 
established that, at the time of filing, it has secured definite, non-speculative, H-1 B caliber work for 
the Beneficiary for the entire validity period requested . 
In this matter, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary will only work onsite at the Petitioner ' s 
"office" in Texas on "in-house" or "internal" projects. 1 But the "in-house" project which the 
Beneficiary will purportedly be assigned to is actually a project entitled " 
not sufficiently explained how this project for 
project. 
' for the end-client, The Petitioner has 
constitutes an "in-house" or "internal" 
Moreover, there are no contracts , letters, or other documentation directly from confirming 
the existence of a contract for the Beneficiary 's services and describing the work he will perform . 
As noted above, where the work is to be performed for entities other than the Petitioner, evidence of 
the client companies ' job requirements is critical. See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. The record is 
missing this critical evidence. 
Instead of submitting documentation directly from , the Petitioner submitted a contractor 
agreement and a statement of work between the Petitioner and , which is the mid-vendor 
in this contractual relationship. Even if we were to consider these documents , particularly the 
statement of work, as evidence of a binding contract with (which they are not), we would 
still find them insufficient. . In particular , the statement of work contains no reference to the 
Beneficiary. The statement of work also lacks critical information about such as where 
the company is located, who its primary contact person is, to whom the Petitioner's consultant(s) 
will report, or even who authorized the contract on behalf of Further, the statement of 
work contains only an indirect reference to through the statement that the "[ c ]ontractor 
will participate in traininog and agree to abide by standard policies and procedures." The 
statement of work does not, however, specifically name as client or the entity 
ultimately receiving the services of the work described in the document. 
Additionally , the statement of work contains the following vague statement: "Work will be 
performed per your specifications and locations of choosing and have ability to sub-contract the 
work as needed." But the record does not clarify who "your" refers to, i.e., which entity (the 
1 It appears that the Petitioner's "office" in Texas is a virtual office, based on information found in the website of 
(last 
visited Jan. 25, 20 17). The Petitioner did not claim any deductions for rent on its 2015 and 2014 federal tax return s, and 
claimed "office expense" deductions in the amount s of $663 and $1800 , respectiv ely, during those years. The record 
does not contain evidence , such as a lease, to demonstrate that the Petitioner has actual physical premises from which the 
Beneficiar y can and will perform his work onsite during the entire validity period. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-C-, LLC 
Petitioner, or another entity) will choose the work "specifications" and 
"locations." Nor does the record clarify where these work "locations " (in the plural) will be. Thus, 
the statement of work calls into question whether the Petitioner will only provide services to 
from the Petitioner's address in Texas , as claimed. 2 
A petitioner's unsupported statements are of very limited weight and normally will be insufficient to 
carry its burden of proof, pru1icularly when supporting documentary evidence would reasonably be 
available. See Matter of Soffici , 22 I&N Dec . 158, 165 (Comm ' r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure 
Craft ofCal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm ' r 1972)); see also Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 
369, 376 (AAO 201 0). Tpe Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and 
credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 J&N Dec. at 376. 
Moreover, on appeal the Petitioner appears to have materially changed the terms and conditions of 
the Beneficiary 's assignment. More specifically , on appeal the Petitioner implies that the 
Beneficiary will also be assigned to another end-client , and submits two statements of 
work between and However , on appeal the Petitioner cannot materially change 
the terms and conditions of the proposed employment. The Petitioner must establish eligibility at the 
time of filing. 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(1 ). The position offered to the Beneficiary must have merited 
classification for the benefit sought when the petition was filed. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 
17 I&N Dec. 248, 249 (Reg ' l Comm'r 1978). Prior to the appeal, the Petitioner did not indicate that 
the Beneficiary will be assigned to an end-client other than 
Nevertheless, even if we were "to consider the Petitioner ' s assertions and documents regarding the 
end-client we would still find them insufficient for the same reasons we found the 
Petitioner ' s assertions and documents regarding insufficient. Again , the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently explained how these projects for constitute "in-house " or "internal " projects . 
Neither statement of work details where the Beneficiary is to perform services for , nor 
provides critical information about This lack of information further calls into question 
whether the Petitioner will only provide services from its address in Texas , as claimed. 3 
Furthermore , the statements of work between and do not reference the 
Beneficiary. In fact, one of the statements of work lists the required resources as three senior 
business analysts . In contrast , on the LCA the Petitioner designated the proffered position at a Level 
II wage level, which indicates that the position is for an employee who has a good understanding of 
the occupation but who will only perform moderately complex tasks that require limited judgment. 4 
Therefore, it does not appear that the proffered Level II position is one of the three senior-level 
2 We note that an inaccurate statement anywhere on the Form 1-129 or in the evidence submitted in connection with the 
petition mandates its denial. See 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(h)(IO )(ii); see also id. § 103.2(b)(l) . 
· See supra text accomp anying note I. 
4 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 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-C-, LLC 
business analyst positions listed on the statement of work. 5 The other statement of work states that 
"shall not use subcontractors in the performance of the Consulting Services unless 
authorized by ' The record contains no evidence that authorized the services of 
the Beneficiary, who would be considered a subcontractor in relation to 
( 
One of the statements of work with expires on April 18, 2017. The other statement of work 
does not state the length of the project. Additionally, the statement of work with is 
estimated to be completed by June 30, 2018. Here, however, the Petitioner is requesting a validity 
-period until September 10, 2019. The Petitioner has not sufficiently explained and documented what 
the Beneficiary will do for the duration of the entire validity period requested. Again, a petitioner's 
unsupported statements are of very limited weight and normally will be insufficient to carry its 
burden of proof, particularly when supporting documentary evidence would reasonably be 
available. See Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165; see also Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 
376. 
On appeal, the Petitioner expl<;1ins that the documentation regarding and is "only 
a sampling of the multiple client projects that the Petitioner typically has ongoing, as well as a 
sample of the Petitioner's work at the time of the RFE response." Likewise, the employment 
agreement between the Petitioner and the Beneficiary states that his services "shall be primarily 
rendered at [Petitioner's] business premises or at such other places as the [Petitioner] shall in good 
faith require," and that he shall perform "such other duties as may be assigned from time to time." 
But the Petitioner has not specifically identified what other clients and client projects the Beneficiary 
will definitively be assigned to for the duration of the validity period. Based on the open-ended 
language the Petitioner uses to describe the Beneficiary 's employment , it is more likely than not that 
the Petitioner will assign the Beneficiary to clients other than and 
Therefore, based upon the record in its entirety , we find that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that, 
as of the time of filing, it has secured definite, non-speculative work for the Beneficiary for the 
entire validity period requested. As previously discussed, USCIS regulations affirmatively require a 
petitioner to establish eligibility for the benefit it is seeking at the time the petition is filed. See 
8 C.F .R. 103 .2(b )(1 ). A visa petition may not be approved based on speculation of future eligibility 
or after the Petitioner or Beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of 
Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. at 249.6 
5 As indicated on the LCA, the prevailing wage for a Level II "Computer Systems Analysts " position in the area and time 
period of intended employment is $73,174 per year. This annual salary equals $35 .18 per hour. According to the 
statement of work, however, each of the three senior business analysts commands an hourly rate of $135. This is 
significantly higher than the prevailing wage for the proffered position, which further supports our conclusion that the 
proffered position is not one of the three senior-level business analyst positions listed on the statement of work. 
6 The agency made clear long ago that speculative employment r is not permitted in the H-1 B program. For example, a 
1998 proposed rule documented this position as follows : ( 
Historically, the Service has not granted H-1 B classification on the basis of speculative, or 
undetermined , prospective employment. The H-1 B classification is not intended as a vehicle for an 
7 
Matter of S-C-, LLC 
Nor has the Petitioner demonstrated that it has secured definite, non-speculative work of H-lB 
caliber for the Beneficiary. That is, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation, because the evidence of record does not establish the substantive 
~ature of the proffered position and its constituent duties. 7 
The record does not establish the substantive nature of the proffered position and its constituent 
duties because, as previously mentioned, the employment agreement between the Petitioner and the 
Beneficiary states that he shall perform "such other duties as may be assigned from time to time." It 
also states that the Beneficiary "shall also perform such other duties as are customarily performed by 
other persons in similar such positions." The Petitioner has not described in detail what other job 
duties the Beneficiary will or may be assigned to during the term of his employment. 
Also, the Petitioner has provided inconsistent descriptions regarding the Beneficiary's job duties. 
Initially, the Petitioner described the job duties as involving the design and development of new 
computer systems, including the design or addition of hardware or software applications. In 
response to the RFE, however, the Petitioner then claimed that the Beneficiary will spend 160 hours 
a month, which amounts to full-time work for an entire month, 8 on the following job duties: queue 
management/triage of tickets and monitoring servers and applications (70 hours per month); 
ticket/incidents tasks (60 hours per month); application patch reviews (8 hours a month); and 
problem management with escalated tickets (22 hours a month). None of these duties appear to 
involve the initially-described duties of designing and developing new computer systems. 9 The 
Petitioner has not resolved these apparently inconsistent descriptions. 
alien to engage in a job search within the United States, or for employers to bring in temporary foreign 
workers to meet possible workforce needs arising from potential business expansions or the 
expectation of potential new customers or contracts. To determine whether an alien is properly 
classifiable as an H-1 B nonimmigrant under the statute, the Service must first examine the duties of the 
position to be occupied to ascertain whether the duties of the position require the attainment of a 
specific bachelor's degree. See section 214(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the "Act"). The 
Service must then determine whether the alien has the appropriate degree for the occupation. In the 
case of speculative employment, the Service is unable to perform either part of this two-prong analysis 
and, therefore, is unable to adjudicate properly a request for H-1 B classification. Moreover, there is no 
assurance that the alien will engage in a specialty occupation upon arrival in this country. 
Petitioning Requirements for the H Nonimmigrant Classification, 63 Fed. Reg. 30,419, 30,419-20 (proposed June 4, 
1998) (to be codified at 8 C.F.R. pt. 214). While a petitioner is certainly permitted to change its intent with regard to 
non-speculative employment, e.g., a change in duties or job location, it must nonetheless document such a material 
change in intent through an amended or new petition in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(E). 
7 We will withdraw the Director's comments that "the position of Business Analyst is traditionally considered a specialty 
occupation." The Director has not provided any persuasive reasoning nor cited to any authoritative sources to support 
such a conclusion. 
8 This assumes the Beneficiary will work a 40-hour work week. Multiplying 40 hours per week by 4 weeks equals 160 
hours for a month. 
9 In fact, it is questionable whether these job duties related to queue management, triage of tickets, and resolving 
tickets/incidents, are even appropriate for a position classified under the "Computer Systems Analysts" occupational 
classification. For more information about the typical job duties of "Computer Systems Analysts," see the O*NET 
Details Report for "Computer Systems Analysts," https://www.onetonline.org/linkldetails/15-1121.00 (last visited Jan. 
8 
Matter of S-C-. LLC 
"[I]t is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve the inconsistencies by independent objective 
evidence." Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). Any attempt to explain or reconcile 
such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. !d. at 591-92. "Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof 
may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence 
offered in support of the visa petition." !d. at 591. 
Several of the stated "specialized and complex duties" do not convey the actual duties, tasks, or 
services to be performed. For example, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's will perform the 
following: "[a]dept at determining requirements by interviewing client personnel"; "[a]ble to 
present solutions described above to senior client management"; and "[k]nowledgeable about Oracle 
applications, functionality, tools, templates and method and able to setup the system to meet the 
desired business process and requirements." These statements appear to relate to the Beneficiary's 
abilities, rather than further illuminating the substantive nature of the proffered position. Moreover, 
one of the stated "duties" includes "leading teams in unit, integration and acceptance testing." As 
previously noted, however, the Petitioner designated the proffered position at a Level .JI wage level. 
This wage level is inconsistent with the claim that the Beneficiary will perform leadership-level 
duties.10 
Further still, the Petitioner submitted a company overview which included a page entitled "Staffing 
Model/Representative Team." The Petitioner characterized this particular page as "show[ing] the 
project's general staff composition." This page lists: one database administrator (DBA) with 13 
years of experience; two human resources/payroll functional consultants with 8 years of experience; 
and three financial and supply chain management (SCM) consultants with 7 to , 13 years of 
experience. Notably absent from this page is any reference to the proffered "business analyst" 
position, which the Petitioner stated is commonly performed by persons with experience in 
"programming analysis or engineering." It is not evident from this document, or elsewhere in the 
record, what the role of the proffered position is with respect to the Petitioner's projects. 
For all of the above reasons, we find that the Petitioner has not established the substantive nature of 
the work to be performed by the Beneficiary. This therefore precludes a finding that the proffered 
position satisfies any criterion at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A), because it is the substantive nature 
of that work that determines (1) the normal minimum educational requirement for entry into the 
I 
particular position, which is the focus of criterion 1; (2) industry positions which are parallel to the 
25, 20 17). The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) chapter on "Computer Systems 
Analysts" provides additional, authoritative information on this occupational classification. See U.S. Dep't of Labor, 
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., "Computer Systems Analysts," 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-systems-analysts.htm#tab-2 (last visited Jan. 
25, 20 17). Neither O*NET, nor the Handbook, indicates that computer systems analysts typically perform duties related 
to queue management, triage of tickets, and resolving tickets/incidents. 
10 
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/N PWHC _Guidance_ Revised _I I_ 2009 .pdf 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-C-, LLC 
proffered position and thus appropriate for review for a common degree requirement, under the first 
alternate prong of criterion 2; (3) the level of complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position, 
., which is the focus of the second alternate prong of criterion 2; (4) the factual justification for a 
petitioner norn;mlly requiring a degree or its equivalent, when that is an issue under criterion 3; and 
(5) the degree of specialization and complexity of the specific duties, which is the focus of criterion 
4. Accordingly , as the Petitioner has not established that it has satisfied any of the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A), it cannot be found that the proffered position qualifies for 
classification as a specialty occupation. 
As the Petitioner has not established that it has definite, specialty occupation caliber work available 
for the Beneficiary, the appeal must be dismissed. 
IV. BENEFICIARY QUALIFICATIONS 
Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner 's appeal, we need not address 
another ground of ineligibility we observe in the record of proceedings. Nevertheless, we will 
briefly note and summarize it here with the intention that, if the Petitioner seeks again to employ the 
Beneficiary as an H-1 B employee in the proffered position, it will submit sufficient independent 
objective evidence to address and overcome this additional ground in any future filing. 
Here, the record is insufficient to demonstrate that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties 
of the proffered position . The Petitioner states that the proffered position requires a bachelor's 
degree in computers, engineering , or a related field, or the equivalent. But the evaluation of the 
Beneficiary's education prepared by states that, based on his academic 
qualifications alone, he possesses the equivalent to a U.S. master of business administration degree. 
The Petitioner does not state that it accepts a degree in business administration as a minimum 
educational requirement for the position. 11 
11 
If the Petitioner accepted a business administration degree a's sufficient for entry into the proffered position , then this 
alone would tend to demonstrate that the proffered position is not 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. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Asso cs., 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 , USCIS interprets 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 . 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. Roy al Siam , 484 F.3d at 147. 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter ofS-C-, LLC 
The same evaluation from states that, based on the Beneficiary's academic 
qualifications and professional experience combined, the Beneficiary possess the equivalent to a 
U.S. bachelor of science degree in computer information systems. However, in accordance with the 
provision at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(3), we will accept a credential evaluation service's 
evaluation of education only, not training and/or work experience. We will not give weight to the 
evaluation's statements regarding the Beneficiary's training and/or work experience. 
We note that the evaluation was prepared by who states: "Because of the position I 
hold at I have the authority to grant college-level credit for 
training, and/or courses taken at other U.S. or international universities." Nevertheless, the 
evaluation is on the letterhead of , a credentials evaluation service. The 
record contains no evidence that Dr. prepared the evaluation in his official capacity as a 
representative of Therefore, we will not consider this 
evaluation under the provision at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(l), which pertains to "[a]n 
evaluation from an official who has authority to grant college-level credit for training and/or 
experience in the specialty at an accredited college or university which has a program for granting 
such credit based on an individual's 
training and/or work experience (emphasis added)." 
V. CONCLUSION 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofS-C-. LLC, ID# 165713 (AAO Jan. 26, 2017) 
11