dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF T-T- CO. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE L 2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a landscaping company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an ··associate 
systems administrator" under the H-1 B nonimmigrant classification. S'ee 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-lB 
program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a position that 
requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge 
and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as 
a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
evidence of record was insufficient to establish the proffered position as a specialty occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. On appeat the Petitioner submits additional documentation 
and asserts that the proffered position is a specialty occupation under the pertinent statute and 
regulations. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(i) 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) 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 
Matter ofT- T- Co. 
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.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). to qualify as a specialty occupation. a proposed position 
must 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 
( -1) 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. Chertr?ft: 484 F.3d 139. 147 (lst 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. /vfeissner. 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner identified the proffered position as an ··associate systems administrator" on the H-1 B 
petition. In a letter of support, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would perform the following 
duties (paraphrased and bullet points added): 
• Administer and optimize fthe Petitioner's] Server Infrastructure to include UNIX. Linux. 
and Windows Server Administration: 
• Responsible for storage administration. backup/restores. managing upgrades. and 
identifying. recommending, and implementing approved systems and process 
improvements: 
• Create plans for gro\\ih or increases in capacity. and maintain, troubleshoot and manage 
server environment for high performance and stability: 
2 
Matter (~( T- T- ( 'o. 
• Utilize his experience with SQL .lAVA, JavaScript. VB. and Linux to identify and 
resolve problems affecting server performance, efficiency. and availability. respond to 
incidents. and track and update tickets; and. 
• Design and deliver new technology solutions aligned with company growth. 
The Petitioner stated that it requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree in computer science. 
information technology. mathematics. or a related field to perform the duties of the proffered 
position. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE). the Petitioner allocated the Beneficiary's 
time to the following functions: 
Systems Administration and Maintenance - 70% 
Break/Fix - 15% 
Installation and Configuration - 1 0% 
Technical Planning and Documentation - 5% 
III. ANALYSIS 
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 nonnally the minimum requirement tor 
entry into the particular position. To inform this inquiry. \Ve recognize 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.1 
The Petitioner attested on the required labor condition application (LCA) that the occupational 
classification for the position is --computer Systems Analysts:· corresponding to the Standard 
Occupational Classification (SOC) code 15-1121 at a Level I \vage 
The Handbook subchapter entitled .. How to Become a Computer Systems Analyst" states. in 
pertinent part: ·'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." U.S. Dep't of Labor. Bureau of Labor 
Statistics. Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed.. ..Computer Systems Analysts:· 
1 All of our references are to the 2016-17 edition of the Ham/hook. which may be accessed at the Internet site 
http:/
1
www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not. however. maintain that the Ham/hook is the exclusive source of relevant 
information. That is. the occupational category designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the 
general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered position. and USC IS regularly reviews the Handhook on the duties and 
educational requirements of the \Vide variety of occupations that it addresses. To satisfy the first criterion. however. the 
burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its pat1icular position 
would normally have a minimum. specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent. for entry. 
3 
Matter (?[ T- T- Co. 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-systems-analysts.htm#tab-
4 (last visited May 27. 2016). The Handbook also states: ··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 elsevvhere:· ld. 
The Handbook indicates that a bachelor's degree in a computer or information science field may be 
common. but not that it is a requirement for entry into these jobs. In fact. this chapter reports that 
.. many .. computer systems analysts may only have liberal arts degrees and programming or technical 
experience, but does not further qualify the amount of experience needed. 2 The Handbook also notes 
that many analysts have technical degrees, but does not specify a degree level (e.g .. associate· s 
degree) for these degrees. The Handbook further specifies that such a technical degree is not always 
a requirement. Thus, this passage of the Handbook reports that there are several paths for entry into 
the occupation. 
When reviewing the Handbook. we must also consider that the Petitioner designated the proffered 
position as a Level I (entry) position on the LCA. The .. Prevailing Wage Determination Policy 
Guidance'' issued by the DOL describes a Level I wage rate as generally appropriate for a position 
for which the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the occupation. 
This wage rate indicates: ( 1) that the Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that 
require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that she will be closely supervised and her work 
closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy: and (3) that she will receive specific instructions on 
required tasks and expected results. U.S. Dep't of Labor. Emp't & Training Admin .. PremilinR 
WaRe Determination Policy Guidance. Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available 
at http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC_ Guidance_ Revised_l1_2009.pdf 
A prevailing wage determination starts with an entry level wage and progresses to a higher wage 
level after considering the experience. education. and skill requirements of the Petitioner's job 
opportunity. ld. A Level I wage should be considered for research fellows. workers in training. or 
internships. !d. Thus, in designating the proffered position at a Level I wage. the Petitioner has 
indicated that the proffered position is a comparatively low. entry-level position relative to others 
within the occupation. 3 
2 On appeaL the Petitioner asserts that "every reference to a non-computer degree in the Computer Systems Analyst 
OOH occupation description is accompanied by a reference to also requiring intlxmation technology or computer 
programming experience, expe11ise. or skill." However, as previously stated, the Ham/hook does not specify the amount 
of technical or programming experience needed. Therefore, the Handbook does not establish whether the required 
technical or programming experience, combined with a liberal arts degree, would be equivalent to a bachelor's degree in 
a specific specialty. 
' The Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level L entry-level position indicates that it is a comparatively low­
level position compared to other positions within the same occupation. Nevertheless. a Level I wage-designation does 
not preclude a proffered position trom 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). a Level L entry-level 
position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specitic specialty. or its equivalent. for 
entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designation would not reflect that an occupation qualities 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 
4 
(b)(6)
Mauer 4T-T- Co. 
On appeaL the Petitioner provides information regarding the number of LCAs certified by DOL for 
computer systems analyst positions. It is important to note, however, that while DOL is the agency 
that certifies LCA applications, USCIS determines whether the occupation is a specialty 
occupation. See 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b). Further, there are a wide range of duties and levels of 
responsibilities within the occupation. Therefor e, to satisfy the specialty occupation requirem ents. a 
petitioner must describe the specific duties and responsibilities to be perfonned by a beneficiar y in 
the context of that petitioner's business operations. 
We have also reviewed the opinion letter authored by based his 
opinion on his education and his professional and academic experience working in the academic 
setting and with various companies. 
repeats the Petitioner's overview of the duties of the proffered position and opines 
"that a qualified applicant for the System Administrator position must have an understandin g of the 
computer systems development process and of the technical as well as mathematical requirement s of 
complex transactional processes undet1aken within the employer's large systems infrastructur e:· 
concludes that ''[t]he level of education most consistent with having the required 
background for this occupation, as performed specifically at lthe Petitioner] , is a Bachelor' s Degree 
in Computer Science or other related field (such as Applied Mathematics)." also 
concludes that the proffered position is a ·'highly professional and advanced technical occupati on·· 
and that '·[g]eneralized (as opposed to Bachelor's-level or higher) knowledge of the applicable 
technicaL scientific, and operational concepts of computer science, mathematics, and technic al 
management, alone. is not sufficient for a System Administrator to handle the function al 
requirements for the instant position." 
Upon review of the opinion letter, we find that characterization of the proffered 
position as an .. advanced'' technical occupation that requires a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty appears inconsistent with the Petitioner' s designation of the position as a Level I (entry) 
wage posttton. As noted above, a Level I position requires only a basic understanding of the 
occupation and does not include advanced knowledge or experience within the occupation . It is 
unclear if was informed of the Petitioner's attestation on the LCA that the proffered 
position was a Level I (entry) wage position. The omission of any discussion of the entry wage 
designation diminishes the evidentiary value of this opinion as the opinion does not appear to be 
based on a complete understanding of the proffered position. 
Moreover. the record does not include evidence that has published. 
conducted 
research, run surveys, or engaged in any enterprise, pursuit. or employment - academic or otherwi se 
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)( I ) of the Act. 
~ On appeal , the Petition er submits an additional opinion letter prepared by which evaluates the 
Beneliciar y· s academic credentials and docs not offer further analysis of the duties of the proftered position and the 
qualifications to perform them . 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter ofT-T- Co. 
regarding the minimum education requirements for the performance of the duties of the proffered 
position. While he may have anecdotal information regarding recruitment by employers for students 
who study computing and information systems, the record does not include any relevant research. 
studies, surveys, or other authoritative publications as part of his review and/or as a foundation for 
his opinion. '·[G]oing on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings.'' Malter (~lSo.ffid. 22 I&N Dec. 158, 
165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter (~l Treasure Crafi l?( Cal., 14 l&N Dec. 190 (Reg' I Comm'r 
1972)). 
We may. in our discretion, use as advisory opmwn statements submitted as expert testimony . 
However. where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. we 
are not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Mauer (~(Caron In/ "/, Inc., 
19 I&N Dec. 791. 795 (Comm 'r I 988). For the reasons discussed above , we do not find that 
opinion letter constitutes probative evidence towards satisfying 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(/) or any other criterion. For efficiency's sake. we hereby incorpor ate the 
above discussion and analysis regarding the opinion letter into each of the bases in this decision for 
dismissing the appeal. 
The record lacks sufficient evidence to support a finding that the particular position proffered here, 
an entry-level computer systems analysts position (as indicated on the LCA), would normally have 
such a minimum, specialty degree requirement or its equivalent. The duties and requirements of the 
position as described in the record of proceedings do not indicate that this particular position is one 
for which a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent , is normall y the 
minimum requirement for entry. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 c.r.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J). 
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(.r 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong 
contemplates common industry practice. while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
I. 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. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement factors often considered by USCIS 
include: whether the Handbook reports that the industry 
requires a degree; whether the industry's 
6 
A1atter l?( T-T- Co. 
professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement: and whether letters or 
affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms .. routinely employ and recmit 
only degreed individuals ... See Shanti. Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151. 1165 (D. Minn. 1999) 
(quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. r. Sava. 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
Here and as already discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for 
which the Handbook (or another authoritative source) reports an industry-wide requirement tor at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. or its equivalent. We incorporate by reference the previous 
discussion on the matter. Also, there are no submissions from the industry's professional association 
indicating that it has made a degree a minimum entry requirement. Furthermore. the Petitioner did 
not submit any letters or affidavits from similar firms or individuals in the Petitioner"s industry 
attesting that such firms ··routinely employ and recmit only de greed individuals ... See id. 
We have reviewed the printouts of the online job announcements submitted by the Petitioner. as well 
as the fact sheets for the advertising organizations submitted on appeal. This documentation. 
however. does not establish that the advertising organizations are in the same industry as the 
Petitioner and for parallel positions. 
The advertising organizations include IT providers and a specialty glass and ceramics manufacturer. 
The positions advertised are tor a systems engineer. a scientific computing systems administrator. a 
senior IT systems administrator. a web systems administrator II. and a systems administrator. While 
the proffered position and the descriptions of duties f(x the advertised positions include some of the 
same duties. it is not possible to ascertain that the advertised positions are parallel to the proffered 
position. For example, the systems engineer position requires at least 5 years of experience. and the 
systems administrator position requires at least 11 years of experience. The senior IT systems 
administrator requires 8 to 10 years of experience in addition to a bachelor's degree. or 6 to 8 years 
of experience in addition to a master's degree. As previously noted, the Petitioner designated the 
profTered position at a Level I. entry-level \vage rate, which is appropriate for a worker-in-training or 
an individual performing an internship, not tor a position that requires experience in addition to a 
degree. 5 Without detailed information regarding the proffered position and additional evidence 
regarding the duties and responsibilities of the advertised positions. it is not possible to conclude that 
the advertised positions are parallel to the protTered position, either in terms of duties or 
qualifications. 
Even if all ofthejob postings indicated that 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 
does not demonstrate what statistically valid inferences, if any. can be drawn from these limited 
number of advertisements with regard to the common educational requirements for entry into 
parallel positions in similar organizations. or even into the advertising organizations themselves. 
5 For additional information regarding wage levels, see DOL, Employment and Training Administration's Prerai/ing 
Wage Determination PoliGy Guidance, Nonagricultural Immigration Programs (Rev. Nov. 2009). available on the 
Internet at http:l/www. foreignlaborcert.doleta.govlpdf!Policy _ Nonag_ Progs.pdf. 
Matter l?(T-T- Co. 
We note that the Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how representative these job 
advertisements are of the particular advertising employers· recruiting history for the type of jobs 
advertised. Further. as they are only solicitations for hire. they are not evidence of the employers' 
actual hiring practices. Based upon a complete review of the record of proceedings. 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). \vhich 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. 
Even though the Petitioner asserts that the proffered position· s duties are complex. the Petitioner has 
not demonstrated how the described duties 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 it claims are complex. Rather. the duties the Petitioner 
ascribed to the proffered position indicate a need for technical knowledge in the computer/IT field. 
but do not establish any particular level of formaL postsecondary education leading to a bachelor's 
or higher degree in a specific specialty as minimally necessary to attain such knowledge. 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will draw upon the skills 
and knowledge he obtained when completing certain courses during his bachelor's-level studies. We 
note. however, 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. 6 That is, the Petitioner has identified one path that will qualify 
the Beneficiary to perform the duties of the proffered position. The Petitioner has not. however. 
demonstrated that the duties it described are so complex or unique that they can be performed only 
by an individual with a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty. or its equivalent. 
This is further evidenced by the LCA submitted by the Petitioner in suppm1 of the instant 
petition. Again. the Petitioner attested on the submitted LCA that the wage level for the proffered 
position is a Level I (entry) wage. which indicates that the Beneficiary is only required to have a 
basic understanding of the occupation. The Level I wage rate is inconsistent with the Petitioner's 
assertions that the profTered position is .. highly technical and complex .. and '·involves advanced 
6 
The Petitioner claimed that the Beneticiaf)'s educational background will assist him in carrying out the duties of the 
proffered position, and takes particular note of the Beneticiaf)··s mathematical and infonnation technology courses. 
However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the skill set or education of a proposed 
beneficiary. but whether the position itself requires the attainment of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 
8 
lvfatter l?[ T- T- Co. 
upper-level responsibilities and highly specialized duties,'' as such a higher-level position would 
likely be classified as a Level III or Level IV position. 7 
The record lacks sutliciently detailed information to distinguish the protTered position as unique 
from or more complex than other closely related positions that can be performed by persons without 
at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Accordingly. the Petitioner has 
not satisfied the second alternative prong of8 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 
norn1ally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner stated that. in accordance with its .. employment practices and 
policies, over the past fifteen ( 15) years, [its] company has not hired any individual in the Associate 
Systems Administrator role that does not meet [its] minimum criteria of possessing a Bachelor· s 
degree in a specific field." However. the Petitioner has not submitted additional details and 
corroborating evidence to support this assertion. Again, .. going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings:· j\latter (?f S(?fflci, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. The evidence of record therefore does not 
establish the Petitioner"s eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 8 
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 degree in a specific specialty. or 
its equivalent. 
7 For more information. see U.S. Dep't of Labor. Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Polh:r 
Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009). available at 
http://www. foreign laborcert.doleta.gov/pdf'NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _II_ 2009.pdf. 
8 We point out. for the Petitioner's information only. that to merit approval of the petition under this criterion, the record 
must establish that a petitioner's imposition of a degree requirement is not merely a matter of preference for high-caliber 
candidates but is necessitated by performance requirements of the position. While a petitioner may assert that a 
proffered position requires a degree or even a degree in a specific specialty. such statements 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. Afeissner, 20 I 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)( I) of the Act: 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term ""specialty occupation"). 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter (~l T- T- Co. 
Here. the Petitioner has submitted broad descriptions of the proposed duties and identified certain 
software that the Beneficiary will usc in performing his duties. While the Petitioner emphasizes that 
the Beneficiary will draw upon his skills and knowledge learned from certain bachelor-level 
courscwork, the Petitioner has not offered an analysis of why the duties it generically describes 
require a bachelor's degree in computer science. information technology. or mathematics. The 
Petitioner has not provided probative evidence establishing that more than a general degree and 
technical experience are necessary to perform the duties of the proffered position. That is. the duties 
of the position are not described in such a way that establishes that the duties require more than 
technical training in computer technology. Although the Petitioner may desire a candidate that has a 
bachelor's degree, the Petitioner does not submit sufficient probative evidence explaining in detail 
how or why the duties are so complex or specialized that they require a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, to perform them. 
The Petitioner additionally asserts that the proffered position includes the duties of other specialty 
occupations, including the occupations of database administrators, software developers, and network 
and computer systems administrators. The Petitioner submits excerpts from the Handbook's 
chapters on these occupations to demonstrate their standard minimum entry requirements. 
However, we find the Petitioner's reliance upon these other occupations and their respective 
Handbook chapters misplaced. In particular, the Petitioner does not identify the amount of time the 
Beneficiary will perform database administrative duties, software development or network and 
computer systems administrative duties. The record here does not include su11icient information to 
establish that the duties the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to perform would incorporate duties 
for any of the occupations listed. Thus, it is not possible to ascertain whether these duties are 
primary duties or are merely incidental to the pert<.)rmance of the duties of the proffered position. 
Moreover, if the duties of these other occupations comprise the Beneficiary's primary duties, then 
the LCA should reflect the occupational classification of the most relevant. i.e., highest-paying. 
occupation. 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_11_2009.pdf (noting that 
the highest-paying occupation should be used for positions involving duties of more than one 
occupation). In this instance, the Petitioner has not adequately established that the .. Computer 
Systems Analyse occupational classification (corresponding to SOC code 15-1121) selected here 
represents the most relevant occupational classification. Accordingly, the evidence of record does 
not corroborate the Petitioner's asset1ions regarding the relative specialization and complexity of the 
proffered position by virtue of its overlapping duties with other occupational classifications.
9 
9 
As indicated on the LCA, the prevailing wage for a Level I ""Computer Systems Analyst" position in the 
MN-WI MSA, for the time period 712014 - 6/2015, is $59,384 per year. In contrast, the 
prevailing wages for Level I ··software Developers, Applications" (SOC code 15-1132) and ··software Developers. 
Systems Software'' (SOC 15-1133) positions in the same MSA and time period are $65,957 per year. and $64.917 per 
year, respectively. For more information regarding prevailing wages generally. sec 
10 
Matter (?f T-T- Co. 
Upon review of the totality of the record, the Petitioner has not established that the nature of the 
specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform the duties is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. The Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(-/). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
As the evidence does not satisfy any ofthe criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), we cannot find 
that the protTered position qualities as a specialty occupation. 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; AJatter <~(Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127. 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as ,Hatter qj"T-T- Co., ID# 17101 (AAO June L 2016) 
http://www.tlcdatacenter.com/OesWizardStart.aspx (last visited May 27, 2016). 
Thus. if the Petitioner believed its position was appropriately described in a combination of occupations including 
"Software Developer" positions which have higher prevailing wages than "Computer Systems Analyst" positions. then 
the Petitioner should have submitted an LCA for a position corresponding to one of the two "Software Developers" 
occupational classifications. Because the Petitioner did not do so. the Petitioner cannot reasonably rely on the 
Handbook's infonnation with respect to these other occupations. 
1 1