dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

.
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF G-C-IT 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 27. 2017 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner , an information technology services provider, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "systems analyst" under the H-1 8 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)(l5)(H)(i)(b). The H-1 B program allows a U.S. emplo yer to temporarily employ a qualified 
foreign worker in a position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body 
of highly specialized knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the 
specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center approved the petition. but later revoked the approval 
after serving a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) the petition. In the revocation. the Director 
concluded that the record did not establish that there is sufficient work available for the entire 
validity period requested and as such , that the proffered position qualities as a specialty occupation . 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that it has demonstrated eligibility. 
Upon de novo review. we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. REVOCATION 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may revoke the approval of an H-1 8 petition 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(11)(iii), which states the following: 
(A) Grounds for revocation. The director shall send to the petitioner a notic e of 
intent to revoke the petition in relevant part if he or she finds that: 
(/) The beneficiary is no longer employed by the petitioner in the capacity 
specified in the petition; or 
(2) The statement of facts contained in the petition ... was not true and 
correct, inaccurate, fraudulent, or misrepresented a material fact: or 
(3) The petitioner violated terms and conditions of the approved petition; 
or 
.
Matter oj'G-C-17 
(4) The petitioner violated requirements of section l 0 I (a)(l5)(H) of the 
Act or paragraph (h) of this section; or 
(5) The approval of the petition violated paragraph (h) of this section or 
involved gross enor. 
(B) Notice and decision. The notice of intent to revoke shall contain a detailed 
statement of the grounds for the revocation and the time period allowed for 
the petitioner's rebuttal. The petitioner may submit evidence in rebuttal 
within 30 days of receipt of the notice. The director shall consider all relevant 
evidence presented in deciding whether to revoke the petition in whole or in 
part .... 
The Director ' s statements in the NOIR noting deficiencies in the record at the time of tiling were 
adequate to notify the Petitioner of the intent to revoke the approval of the petition in accordance 
with the provision at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)(ll)(iii)(A)(5). For the reasons outlined below. we 
conclude that the record does not establish that the proffered position qualities as a specialty 
occupation; therefore, it appears that the approval of the petition violated paragraph (h) of this 
section or involved gross error under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(ll )(iii)(A)(5). 
II. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
A. Legal Framework 
Section 214(i)(J) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), detines 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 offered 
position must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
(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 
2 
.
1Hat1er ofG-C-11 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
(4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that 
knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We have consistently interpreted the term "degree" to mean not just 
any baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the 
proposed position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertof{, 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''); De{ensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384. 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
B. Proffered Position 
The Petitioner stated that it provides various services offerings, including '"Consulting. Engineering, 
and Managed services - research. recommendation & testing, installation and integration. 
monitoring, and on-going support - for all aspects of computer networks and IT infrastructure.·· The 
Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary would be assigned to the development of ··a 
\veb-based sports coaching platform designed to help [ soccerj coaches·· and that the work \vould be 
performed at its office location in Virginia. The Petitioner projected that a "Phase 1 '' initial 
launch of the application would take hvo to three years. while a ''Phase 2" software update and bug 
fix deployment would last another two years. The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would work 
on a development team including a team lead, five soft,vare developers. three quality assurance 
analysts, and a systems analyst. 
1 
In support of the petition, the Petitioner described the duties of the 
proffered position as follmvs: 
Utilize object-oriented programming fundamentals and techniques; Utilize structured 
analyticaL design. and testing techniques; Utilize programming languages such as 
Visual Basic Script. Javascript, Active Server Pages (ASP) . .Java Sever Pages (.JSP). 
XML, and DTD schemas: Using object oriented programming, develop, create. 
modify general computer applications software or specialized utility programs; 
Analyze, research, and implement execution algorithms within the software 
environment; Enhance the existing execution algorithms. to improve the performance 
and scalability of the software systems; Work closely with quantitative 
analysts and other stakeholders during the entire development 
cycle (analysis. design. 
prototyping, construction and deployment) to ensure user satisfaction and peak 
performance of the system. 
1 
The Petitioner did not clarify whether this position would be filled by the Beneficiary or whether she would be an 
additional systems analyst on the project. 
.
.Matter ~fG-C-17 
In response to the Director's NOIR, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary had been 
performing the following duties prior to the Director's revocation: 
Evaluating new or modified solutions, data structures, and decision support 
mechanisms ; Performing digital systems design: Making recommendations to 
management through presentations or written reports: Utilizing object-oriented 
programming fundamentals and techniques: Utilizing structured analytical, design, 
and testing techniques; Utilizing programming languages such as Visual Basic Script. 
Javascript , Active Server Pages (ASP), Java Server Pages (.JSP), XML and DTD 
schemas; Analyzing functional documents: Developing functional specifications; 
Using object oriented programming, developing, creating, modifying general 
computer applications sofhvare or specialized utility programs; Analyzing 
existing systems/procedure/data and proposing changes that vmuld result in 
overall system enhancement. 
According to the Petitioner , the position requires a bachelor's degree in computer science , computer 
information systems, mathematics, computer engineering, electrical engmeenng, or a related 
technical field. 
C. Nature ofthe Position 
For the reasons set out below, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. 2 Specifically , the record (I) does not describe the position's 
duties with sufficient detail; (2) does not establish that the job duties require an educational 
background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation; and (3) does not 
demonstrate that non-speculative work has been secured. 
A crucial aspect of this matter is whether the Petitioner has sufficiently described the duties of the 
proffered position such that \Ve may discern the nature of the position and 'vhether the position 
actually requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge 
attained through at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific discipline . We conclude that the 
Petitioner has not done so. 
For example, the Petitioner did not provide sufficient information \vith regard to the order of 
importance or frequency of occurrence (e.g., regularly. periodically , or at inegular intervals) with 
which the Beneticiary will perform his functions and tasks. Thus. the record does not specify w·hich 
tasks are major functions of the proffered position. 
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. 
4 
.
Matler o(G-C-17 
In addition, the duties provided for the Beneficiary are vague and do not convey the actual day-to-day 
tasks to be performed and the knowledge required to perform them. Although the Petitioner references 
the project to which the Beneficiary will be assigned, the development of it does not 
provide sufficient detail regarding the Beneficiary's actual tasks within the context of this project. The 
provided duties are general and only vaguely reference technology and technical aspects of the project 
without explaining the demands, level of responsibility, complexity, or requirements necessary for 
performance. For instance, the duties make reference to types of technology and processes the 
Beneficiary will utilize, such as "Visual Basic Script , Javascript, Active Server Pages (ASP). Java 
Server Pages (JSP), XML , and DTD schemas,'' but it does not explain the specifics of these systems 
and applications and how they would be used by the Beneficiary in the context of the asserted 
project. 
Beyond these technological references , the Petitioner only provides general duties such as 
"eva luating new or modified solutions, " "making recommendations to management through 
presentations or written reports," "utilizing structured analytical, design, and testing techniques." 
"developing, creating, modifying general computer applications software or specialized utility 
programs," and "developing functional specifications.'' These duties could apply to almost any 
information technology assignment. The lack of clarity regarding the Beneficiary 's actual tasks is 
particularly notable considering the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary has been working on the 
project for one year from the approval of the petition in June 2016 until the revocation 
in June 2017. The Petitioner did not provide a more detailed description explaining what particular 
duties the Beneficiary would perform on a day-to-day basis , nor is there a detailed explanation 
regarding the nature of the referenced technology, processes, tools , and processes, and what body of 
knowledge is required to perform the duties. 
Furthermore , we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the petition was tiled for non­
speculative work for the Beneficiary at the time of the petition's filing tor the entire period 
requested. 3 In response to the NOIR, the Petitioner submitted evidence indicating that the 
3 The agency made clear long ago that speculative employment is not permitted in the H-I 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 
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) ofthe 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. 
.
Matter o.fG-C-11 
application is a new venture under development and thus leaving question as to whether it 
would lead to sutlicient work for the Beneficiary for the entire requested period. 
For instance, the Petitioner provided a business plan outlining its goals with respect to the web-based 
application, and on appeal, it provides a requirements document discussing the different envisioned 
functionalities of the web based application , along with a letter from its accountant. However , the 
Petitioner does not sufficiently alleviate the uncertainty surrounding the new development project 
with supporting evidence of its plans. It provides several screenshots of what the application would 
look like and submits a requirements document outlining the application 's different functionalities, 
but it provides little evidence of its actual development plans and timelines with respect to the 
proposed work. The Petitioner states that the project will take place in two phases. the initial ·'Phase 
1" involving the initial launch of the application project to last approximately two to three years. and 
a "Phase 2" related to software updates and bug and error fixes estimated to last around two years 
after the completion of the first phase. However. the Petitioner provides no explanation or 
documentary support for this statement, such as a detailed explanation or timeline reflecting 
projected tasks and completion dates to substantiate its assertion that the project will last until at 
least September 2019. The Petitioner does not explain in detail how the submitted evidence. 
reflecting only what the system may look like, demonstrates the specific need for the Beneficiary 's 
position throughout the entire requested period of employment. The submitted project documents do 
not sufficiently corroborate a need for a system analyst for the entire requested period. 
Therefore. we conclude that the Petitioner has not established non-speculative work for the 
Beneficiary at the time of the petition's filing for the entire period requested. 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)(l) . 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 offacts. See Matter (?fA1ichelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg'] Comm'r 1978). 
We conclude that the Petitioner has not established the substantive nature of the work to be 
performed by the Beneficiary, which therefore precl udcs a finding that the proffered position 
satisfies any criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). It is the substantive nature of that work that 
determines ( 1) the nom1al minimum educational requirement for entry into the particular position. 
which is the focus of criterion I; (2) industry positions which are parallel to the protlered 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 fix us of the 
second alternate prong of criterion 2; (4) the factual justification for a petitioner nonnally 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. As the Petitioner has not 
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). 
.
Maller ofG-C-17 
established that it has satisfied any ofthe 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. 
Nevertheless , assuming, for the sake of argument, that the Petitioner had adequately and accurately 
described the duties of the proffered position and established availability of non-speculative work , we 
will now discuss the proffered position in relation to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. ~ 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A).4 
D. First Criterion 
We turn first to the criterion at 8 C.F .R. ~ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). which require s 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 requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 5 
On the labor condition application (LCA) 6 the Petitioner presented in support of this petttton, it 
classified the proffered position under the occup ational title "Co mputer Systems Analysts," 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 15-1121. The Handbook's 
subchapter entitled "How to Become a Computer Systems Analy st" states that ·'[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 degre es who have skills in information technology or 
computer progra mming .'' 7 The Handbook also states that " [a] I though man y computer systems 
analysts have technical degrees, such a degree is not always a requirement. Many anal ysts have 
liberal arts degrees and have gained programming or technical expertise elsewhere. "8 
The Handbook does not indicate that at least a bach elor's degr ee in a specific specialty. or its 
equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for these positions. As noted, the Handbook states 
that a bachelor 's degree in a computer-related field is "not always a requir ement." Rather. the 
Handbook states that many computer systems analysts may only have liberal arts degrees and 
programming or technical experience. but does not further specify the amount of experience needed. 
It also notes that many analysts have technical degrees, but does not specify a degree leve l (e.g., 
4 
Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
5 We do not, however. maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. 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/. 
6 
The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to USC IS to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B worker the 
higher of either the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the '"area of employment'" or the actual wage 
paid by the employer to other employees with similar experience and qualifications who are performing the same 
services. See Malter ofSimeio Solutions. LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 545-546 (AAO 20 15). 
7 
See Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlo ok Handbook. Computer Systems Analysts 
(20 16-17 ed.). 
8/d. 
.., 
.
Matter qfG-C-11 
associate's degree) for these degrees, and indicates that such a technical degree is not always a 
requirement. Thus, the Handbook reports that there are several paths for entry into the occupation. 
9 
Otherwise, the Petitioner has not provided documentation from a probative source to substantiate the 
assertions regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. Therefore. it 
has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(/). 
E. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two alternative prongs: "The degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or. in the alternative, an employer may 
show that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree .... " 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong 
concentrates on the common industry practice, while the alternative prong nanows its focus to the 
Petitioner's 
specific position. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion. the Petitioner must establish that the ''degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty. or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
We generally consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there is such a common 
degree requirement: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree: whether the 
industry's professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement: and whether 
letters or affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry establish that such firms ··routinely 
employ and recruit only degreed individuals.'' See ,%anti. Inc. v. Reno. 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 
(D. Minn. 1999) (quoting Hird!Blaker Cmp. v. Sava. 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) 
(considering these "factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
As previously discussed. the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook. or another authoritative source. reports a requirement for at least a bachelor· s degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. We incorporate by reference the previous discussion on the 
9 
In addition, the Handbook indicates that baccalaureate degrees in various fields (e.g. computer or information science, 
or liberal arts) may be adequate for entry into this occupation. In general, provided the specialties are closely related 
(e.g., computer and information science), a minimum of a bachelor's degree in more than one specialty is recognized as 
satisfying the "degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)'" requirement of section 2 I 4(i)( I )(B) of the Act. In such 
a case, the required ''body of highly specialized knowledge'' would essentially be the same. 
Since there must be a close correlation between the required "body of highly specialized knowledge'' and the position, 
however, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in disparate fields (e.g., computer science and liberal arts) would not 
meet the statutory requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)," unless the Petitioner 
establishes how each field is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position such that the 
required body of highly specialized knowledge is essentially an amalgamation of these different specialties. Section 
2 I 4(i)( I )(b) of the Act. The Petitioner has not done so here. 
.
Ma/ler ofG-C-!1 
matter. Also, there are no submissions from the industry's professional assoc iation indicating that it 
has made a degree a minimum entry requirem ent. 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 degre ed individuals.'' Nor is there any other evidence 
relevant to this prong. Thus, based upon a complete review of the record of proceeding s, we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 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 compl ex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
In support of its asset1ion that the proffer ed positiOn qualities as a specialty occupation , the 
Petitioner submitted a job description for the proffered position and infonnation regardin g its 
business operation s. However, as discussed , the Beneficiary's dutie s vvere vague, general tasks that 
do not convey her actual day-to-day tasks within the context of her asserte d project. Therefore , the 
Petitioner did not sufticiently develop relativ e complexity or uniquenes s as an aspect of the duti es of 
the position, and it did not identify any task s that are so complex or uniqu e that only a specific ally 
degreed individual could perfo rm them. 
Moreover, the Petition er's designation of the proffered position as a Level I entry-level position 
within the ''Co mput er Systems Analyst" occupational category does not support its claim that the 
position is particul arly complex, specialized, unique compared to other positions -,vithin the same 
occupalion. 10 Therefore, it does not appear that the position is one with complex or unique duties 
relative to other computer systems analyst positions requiring a signific antly higher prevailing wage. 
as such a Level III (experienced) or Level IV (fully competent) wage leve l. 11 
10 
A 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. DOL, Emp't & Training Admin., 
Prevailing Wage Determination Policv Guidan ce, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009). available at 
http://www.foreignlaborcer1.doleta.gov/pdf!N PWHC _ Guidance_Revised I I_ 2009.pdf 
11 
The Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position undermines its claim that the position is 
particularly complex, unique. and specialized compared to other positions within the same occupation. Never1heless, a 
Level I wage-designati on does not preclude a proffered position from classificati on as a specialty occupation. ju st as a 
Level IV wage-designation does not definitively establish such a classification. In cer1ain occupations (e.g., doctors or 
lawyers), a Level I, 
entry-level position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent, for entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designation would not reflect that an occupation 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 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 2 14(i)( I) of the Act. 
9 
.
Matter ofG-C-17 
We note that while a few related courses may be beneficial in performing certain duties of the 
position, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how an established curriculum of such courses leading 
to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform 
the duties of the protTered position. Upon review, the record lacks sufficiently detailed information 
to distinguish the proffered position as more complex or unique than other computer systems anal yst 
positions that can be performed by person s without at least a bachelor 's degree in a specific 
specialty , or its equivalent. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the positiOn, and references her 
education and experience as evidence 
that the protlered position is a specialty occupation. However, 
the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education or experience of a 
proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor" s degree in a speci fie 
specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
F. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it 
normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. 
The Petitioner stated in response to the NOIR that "all of our workers who hold this and similar 
positions are required to, and in fact do hold at least a Bachelor's degree (or equivalent) in one of the 
aforementioned tields ." 12 However , the Petitioner submits no supporting documentation to 
substantiate its assertion that its systems analysts are typically required to hold a bachelor's degree in 
a specific specialty . For instance, we are given no indication as to how many systems analysts the 
company employs or what degrees they hold. The Petitioner also does not provide supporting 
documentation to substantiate the educational credentials of its systems analysts. The Petitioner did 
not submit any evidence of previous or current employees in the same position as the Beneficiary ' s 
proffered position. Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
G. 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. 
Again, as previously mentioned. the Beneficiary's duties are stated in vague, general terms that do 
not sut1iciently convey the Beneficiary's actual duties within the context of her asserted project. 
12 
We note that the "aforementioned fields '' were asserted as degrees in computer science , computer information sys tem s, 
mathematics , computer engine ering, electrical engine ering or a related technical field. 
10 
.
Matter l?[G-C-17 
Therefore, the job description submitted by the Petitioner does not establish that the proffered duties 
are more specialized and complex than the duties of positions that are not usually associated with at 
least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. We 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 I wage, and hence one not likely distinguishable by relatively specialized and 
complex duties. 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence that the duties, as generally described. require 
more than technical proficiency in the information technology field. The Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that its proffered position is one with duties sufficiently specialized and complex to 
satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualities as a specialty occupation. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons outlined above, we conclude that the Director properly revoked the petition under 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(ll )(iii)(A)(5) as the approval of the petition violated paragraph (h) of this 
section or involved gross error. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of'G-C-17 ID# 826881 (AAO Dec. 27, 2017) 
II