dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

MATTER OF T-C-S- LTD. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY24,2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an information technology consulting firm, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 
as a "developer" under the H -1 B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § IIOI(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). 
The H-18 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 Petitioner 
had not demonstrated that: (I) the proffered position qualifies for treatment as a specialty occupation 
position; and (2) the Beneficiary is qualified to work in a specialty occupation position. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that evidence of record is sufficient to demonstrate that the instant visa petition should be 
approved. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
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. 
Matter of T-C-S- Ltd. 
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: 
(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 J 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). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
In the H-18 petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a "developer." In a letter 
dated March 28, 2015, the Petitioner provided the following list of duties of the proffered position: 
• Develop industry-specific solutions based on client needs and manage and upgrade 
existing applications. 
• Carry out detailed analysis to understand requirements and create code and/or build 
solutions as per requirements in development/maintenance projects in accordance with 
coding standards. ' 
• Perform unit testing per test plans and test cases. 
• Develop and manage applications, upgrade existing applications and/or integrate 
application with any new/existing applications and databases. 
• Resolve application-related issues experienced by end-users. 
• Provide consulting and/or pre-sales support through initial consulting to engagements 
based on practice solutions offerings, through input on RFPs/RFis/client presentations, 
and through technical reviews of contracts and service agreements, as needed. 
2 
Matter ofT-C-S- Ltd. 
A letter from the Petitioner, dated August 31, 2015, contains the following additional duties: 
• Provide service continuity by analyzing & identifYing issue priority and provide solutions in 
time 
• Address the enhancement demand provided by the business. 
• Quick turnaround for Service requests. 
• Key in resolving the JIRA/Incident!Problem/change management issues. 
• Optimal utilization of the resource (Performance optimization). 
• Standardize platform and services 
• Supporting enterprise solutions as per SLA. 
• Minimize custom solutions adhere to standard solutions in SAP & Improve quality of service. 
• Participate in requirement gathering sessions held with Business 
• System analysis and preparation of Proof of concepts and presenting them to Business 
• Configure the SAP system as per the solution design proposed and document the changes in a 
Configuration Design Specification 
• Transfer the technical requirements to the respective teams and assist in developing a High 
Level design for the program changes 
• Collaborate with the interface teams to test the Business requirement across the system 
landscape 
The Petitioner asserted that the duties of the proffered position "are more than sufficiently complex to 
justifY [the Petitioner's] requirement that candidates for the Computer Programmer position possess at 
least a Bachelor's degree or its equivalent in a technical field." The Petitioner also stated that the 
proffered position requires a bachelor's degree in Computer Science, Engineering, Information 
Systems, or a directly related field. 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the protTered position qualifies as 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? 
As a preliminary matter, we find that the Petitioner has not established the substantive nature of the 
work to be performed by the Beneficiary, which precludes a finding that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation under any criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). For example, the record 
contains a copy of an employment contract. The Petitioner stated that "[the employment contract] is a 
sample deputation agreement demonstrating the terms which govern the employment of [the 
1 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 B 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. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of T-C-S- Ltd. 
Petitioner's] employees, such as the Beneficiary, upon their deputation to the United States." That 
employment contract states, inter alia; 
[The Petitioner] shall be entitled to relocate [the Beneficiary J to another location in the 
United States and/or redefine roles and tasks (including assignments to different 
project(s) and different customer engagement(s) during the Deputation Term .... 
[The Beneficiary] here by agrees to such relocation and extensions as reasonably 
required by [the Petitioner]. 
Because the Petitioner reserves the right to assign the Beneficiary to duties other than those described, it 
has not demonstrated the substantive nature of the duties the Beneficiary would actually perform if the 
visa petition were approved. That is, the Petitioner, has provided the employment agreement described 
above and indicated that it is relevant to the instant petition. If the visa petition were approved, the 
Petitioner has indicated that it might assign the Beneficiary to perform other, unspecified duties. The 
substantive nature of those other duties that the Beneficiary might perform is not clear.3 
That the Petitioner did not establish the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the 
Beneficiary precludes a finding that the proffered position is a specialty occupation under 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 the particular position, which is the focus of criterion 1; 
(2) industry positions which are parallel to the 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 normally 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. Because the Petitioner cannot satisfy any of the alternative criteria of 
8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it is unable to show that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation position pursuant to the salient regulations. This is sufficient reason to find that the 
proffered position has not been shown to qualifY for treatment as a specialty occupation position. 
Nevertheless, in order to perform a comprehensive analysis , we will assume, arguendo, that the duty 
descriptions provided accurately depict the duties the Beneficiary would actually perform if the visa 
petition were approved, and continue our analysis of whether the profiered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. To that end, we will next discuss the four criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) 
individually. 
3 The employment contract also specifically states that the Beneficiary may be relocated to other worksites. However, 
the Petitioner stated in the H-18 petition that the address in Minnesota would 
be the "ONLY WORK LOCATION." "[l]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. 
4 
Matter of T-C-S- Ltd 
A. First Criterion 
We tum first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J), 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. To inform this inquiry, we recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's 
(DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and 
educational reg uirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 4 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Computer Programmers" 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 15-11315 . 
The Handbook states the following about the educational requirements of positions located within the 
"Computer Programmers" occupational category: 
Most computer programmers have a bachelor's degree; however, some employers hire 
workers who have an associate's degree. Most programmers get a degree in computer 
science or a related subject. Programmers who work in specific fields, such as 
healthcare or accounting, may take classes in that field to supplement their degree in 
computer programming. In addition, employers value experience, which many students 
gain through internships .. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., 
"Computer Programmers," http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer­
programmers.htm#tab-4 (last visited May 23, 20 16). 
According to the Handbook, the occupation accommodates a wide spectrum of educational 
credentials, including less than a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. The Handbook states that 
some employers hire workers who have an associate's degree. Furthermore, while the Handbook's 
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 
infonnation. 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 Handbook on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide 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 tha:t its particular position 
would normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
5 The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level II wage (the second-lowest of four assignable wage levels). 
We will consider this selection in our analysis of the position. The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" 
issued by the DOL provides a description of the wage levels. A Level II wage rate is generally appropriate for positions 
in which the Beneficiary will perform "moderately complex tasks" that require only "limited judgment." U.S. Dep't of 
Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs 
(rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _11_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. !d. 
5 
Matter ofT-C-S- Ltd. 
narrative indicates that most computer programmers obtain a degree (either a bachelor's degree or an 
associate's degree) in computer science or a related field, the Handbook does not report that at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the occupation. The Handbook also reports that employers value computer programmers 
who possess experience, which can be obtained through internships. 
Moreover, given the Petitioner's statement on the LCA that this is a Level II position, and that the 
Beneficiary would therefore be performing moderately complex tasks requiring only limited judgment, 
the Petitioner has not provided documentation from another probative source to substantiate that its 
particular position requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. In fact, to the extent that they are 
described in the record of proceedings, the numerous duties that the Petitioner ascribes to the proffered 
position indicate a need for a range of 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. 
Thus, 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 
casts its gaze upon the 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 
professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether letters or 
affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms "routinely employ and recruit 
only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 1999) 
(quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. 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 other independent, authoritative source) reports an industry-wide requirement 
for at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. Thus, we incorporate by 
reference the previous discussion on the matter. In addition, there are no submissions from the 
6 
Matter of T-C-S-Ltd. 
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 recruit only degreed 
individuals." 
As noted, the Petitioner provided job vacancy announcements placed by other companies to satisfY this 
criterion. The Internet vacancy announcements submitted by the Petitioner do not, however, establish 
that the degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
First, the Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how representative these job vacancy 
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. 
Second, upon review of the advertisements, we find that they do not provide sufficient information 
about the advertising organizations to establish that they are similar to the Petitioner. Without such 
evidence, these advertisements are generally outside the scope of consideration for this criterion, which 
encompasses only organizations that are similar to the Petitioner. Moreover, the descriptions of 
responsibilities in the advertisements are generally perfunctory and do not provide sufficient 
information to determine the role the successful applicant will play in the advertising organization or the 
level of responsibility that will be required of the successful applicant. 
Some of the vacancy announcements advertise computer systems analyst or programmer analyst 
positiOns. However, the Handbook considers computer systems analyst and programmer analyst 
positions separately, in the chapter entitled, "Computer Systems Analysts," while the Petitioner 
represented the proffered position as being located within the "Computer Programmers" occupational 
category. If the proffered position is a computer programmer position, as represented, then those 
positions may not be positions parallel to the proffered position, and the requirements of those positions 
would thus be inapposite to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
Further still, some of those vacancy announcements indicate that a bachelor's degree in business 
administration would be a sufficient educational preparation for the positions they announce. An 
otherwise unspecified degree in business administration is not a degree in a specific specialty. Cf 
Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558 (Cornrn'r 1988). Therefore, an educational 
requirement that may be satisfied by an otherwise unspecified bachelor's degree in business 
administration is not a requirement of a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its 
equivalent. As such, those vacancy announcements provide little support for the proffered position that 
positions parallel to the proffered position require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent. 
One of the vacancy announcements indicates that the position it announces requires a bachelor's degree, 
with a preference that the degree be in computer science, mathematics, or a related field. A 
"preference" is not analogous to a minimum requirement. As such, that vacancy announcement does 
not state a requirement of a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
7 
Matter ofT-C-S- Ltd. 
Finally, even if all of the vacancy announcements were for parallel positions at organizations similar to 
the Petitioner and .in the Petitioner's industry and required a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty or its equivalent, the Petitioner has not demonstrated what statistically valid 
inferences, if any, could be drawn from the announcements provided with regard to the common 
educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations6 
Thus, the evidence of record does not establish that a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to parallel positions with organizations that are in the 
Petitioner's industry and otherwise similar to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has not, therefore, satisfied 
the criterion of 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. 
The Petitioner has not credibly demonstrated that the duties the Beneficiary will be responsible for or 
perform on a day-to-day basis constitute a position so complex or unique that it can only be performed 
by a person with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Even when 
considering the Petitioner's general descriptions of the proffered position's duties, the evidence of 
record does not establish why a few related courses or industry experience alone is insufficient 
preparation for the proffered position. While a few related courses may be beneficial, or even required, 
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. The description of the duties does 
not specifically identity any tasks that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed 
individual could perform them. 
Therefore, the evidence of record does not establish that this position is significantly different tram 
other positions in the occupation such that it refutes the Handbook's information to the effect that there 
is a spectrum of degrees acceptable for such positions, including degrees that are less than a bachelor's 
degree. In other words, the record lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish the proffered 
position as unique from or more complex than positions that can be performed by persons without at 
6 USCIS "must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true." Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 20 I 0). As just discussed, the Petitioner has not established the relevance of the 
job advertisements submitted to the position proffered in this case. Even if their relevance had been established, the 
Petitioner still would not have demonstrated what inferences, if any, could be drawn from these few job postings with 
regard to determining the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations in 
the same industry. See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 (1995). 
8 
Matter of T-C-S- Ltd. 
least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. As the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
how the proffered position is so complex or unique relative to other positions within the same 
occupational category that do not require at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty or its 
equivalent for entry into the occupation in the United States, we cannot conclude that the Petitioner has 
satisfied the second alternative prong of8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
This is further evidenced by the LCA submitted by the Petitioner in support of the instant petition. 
Again, the LCA indicates that, relative to other positions located within the "Computer 
Programmers" occupational category, the Beneficiary would perform only moderately complex tasks 
that require only limited judgment. Without further evidence, the evidence does not demonstrate 
that the proffered position is complex or unique as such a position falling under this occupational 
category would likely be classified at a higher-level, such as a Level lli (experienced) or Level IV 
(fully competent) position, requiring a significantly higher prevailing wage.7 For example, a Level 
IV (tully competent) position is designated by DOL for employees who "use advanced skills and 
diversified knowledge to solve unusual and complex problems." The evidence of record does not 
establish that this position is significantly different from other positions in the occupational category 
such that it refutes the Handbook's information that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent is not required for the proffered position. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position, and references his 
qualifications. 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. 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. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.P.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. 
7 The issue here is that 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, it is important to note that a Level II wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position 
from classification as a specialty occupation. In certain occupations (doctors or lawyers, for example), such a 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 consideration but is not a substitute for a determination 
of whether a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)( I) of the Act. 
9 
Matter ofT-C-S- Ltd. 
To establish eligibility under this criterion, the Petitioner submitted evidence pertinent to 36 of its 
employees, whom the Petitioner stated work as computer programmers. The record shows that all 36 of 
these employees are H-1 B beneficiaries. The issue to be addressed under this criterion is not whether 
the Petitioner requires that all of its H-!B employees have a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent, but whether it normally requires such a degree for its computer programmer positions8 
The Petitioner claims to have a total of 308,464 employees "worldwide." We do not know how many 
workers the Petitioner employs in the United States, notwithstanding that such information was 
specifically requested by the Director. The Petitioner also did not state how many computer 
programmers it currently employs in the United States or how many it has employed recently. The 
record contains insufficient indication that the educational qualifications of the 36 workers it identified 
are representative of a requirement that the Petitioner normally imposes in the recruiting and hiring of 
computer programmers. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that it normally requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty or its equivalent for the proffered position and has not, therefore, 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 degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. 
We find that in the instant case, relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently 
developed by the Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. We again refer to our earlier 
comments and findings with regard to the implication of the Petitioner's designation of the proffered 
position in the LCA as a Level II (the second lowest of four assignable levels) wage. That is, the Level 
II wage designation is indicative of a position that entails performing moderately complex tasks that 
require limited judgment.9 
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 
8 Although many of the degrees held by those identified workers are in Computer Applications, Computer Science and 
Engineering, Information Science and Technology, and similar subjects, one of those workers appears to have a 
bachelor's degree in Biotechnology. This also suggests that the Petitioner may not impose a requirement of a minimum 
of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent on its programmer positions. However, as was explained 
above, the evidence does not demonstrate that the Petitioner imposes a requirement of any bachelor's degree or 
equivalent on its programmers, and we need not, therefore, further belabor the issue of whether it imposes a requirement 
of a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
9 Again, the Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level II position undermines its claim that the duties of the 
position are particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation. 
10 
Malter of T-C-S- Ltd. 
associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. The evidence of record does not, therefore, satisfy the fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). 
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. BENEFICIARY'S QUALIFICATIONS 
The Director also found that the Beneficiary would not be qualified to perform the duties of the 
proffered position if the job had been determined to be a specialty occupation. However, a 
beneficiary's credentials to perform a particular job are relevant only when the job is found to be a 
specialty occupation. As discussed in this decision, the proffered position does not require a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Therefore, we need not and 
will not address the Beneficiary's qualifications further. 
V. CONCLUSION 
The burden is on the Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden 
has ·not been met. 
ORDER:· The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofT-C-S- Ltd, ID# 17349 (AAO May 24, 2016) 
II