dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

MATTER OF P-T-G-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 28,2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: . FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an information technology consulting company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "programmer analyst" under the H-IB nonimmigrant classification. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-IB 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 that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the Director's findings were erroneous. 
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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a 
non-exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered 
position must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
Matter of P-T-G-, Inc. 
(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 qr 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)(Ar 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). 
We note that, as recognized by the court in Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88, where the work is to be 
performed for entities other than the Petitioner, evidence of the client companies' job requirements is 
critical. The court held that the former Immigration and Naturalization Service had reasonably 
interpreted the statute and regulations as requiring the petitioner to produce evidence that a proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation on the basis of the requirements imposed by the entities 
using the beneficiary's services. Id Such evidence must be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate the 
type and educational level of highly specialized knowledge in a specific discipline that is necessary 
to perform that particular work. 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner identified the proffered position as a "programmer analyst" on the H-lB petition. In a 
letter submitted in support of the petition, the Petitioner indicated that it "employs Programmer 
Analysts to analyze our client's IT requirements and computer hardware to design a system that will 
best process the client's data in the most timely and inexpensive manner." In addition, the Petitioner 
provided the Beneficiary's job duties in the proffered position. 1 
1 We observe that the wording of the duties provided by the Petitioner for the proffered position in the letter of support is 
taken almost verbatim from the Occupational Information Network OnLine's list of tasks associated with the occupation 
category "Computer Systems Analysts." 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of P-T-G- , Inc. 
With the initial petition, the Petitioner also provided a letter from 
In the letter, stated that the Beneficiary will work on the ' 
Product development project and provided a different job description from 
that of the letter of support. Specifically, stated that "[the Beneficiary] will be 
performing [the] following duties:" 
• Analysis, Design and architecture of solutions. 
• Collecting requirements from business teams and converting requirements into 
business models. 
• Install/configuration and development with WebSphere v7.5/8.5. 
• Developing and Importing business models from live for 
implementation in tools. 
• Integrating with external applications like contract center database, 
enterprise exception handling framework and enterprise security systems like. 
LDAP. 
• Implementing VIEWS & COACHES as per the business requirements. 
• Integrating with external Web .Services using Java, J2EE or related development 
techniques (AJAX, DOJO, JavaScript, JSP)[.] 
• Deployment of process models in different environments like DEV, TEST, QA, 
PROD[.] 
• Iterative design & development methodology principles[.] 
• Security integration - identity management, authentication, authorization, access 
control. 
• Release management and automation with respect to enterprise standards. 
• Participate in documentation process through test review, test witnessing & . 
certification of software. 
• Provide technical support for instances deployed in various environments. 
• Provide training to business users for enhancement and support. 
In addition, stated that "[t]he requirements for this position are a Bachelor's Degree 
or equivalent in Computer Science, Computer Integration Systems, Engineering, Mathematics or 
related field." 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted a revised job 
description of the proffered position and provided a percentage breakdown for each of the 
Beneficiary's primary tasks, as follows: 
Daily Activities % of work in a 
normal 8 hrs/day 
Understand business requirements and the integration 10% 
between various functions/systems within and outside 
organization; Design the system and perform any 
modifications for the design 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of P- T-G-, Inc. 
Analyze functional problems and determine techniques and 45% 
requirements most feasible for addressing business problems; 
Analyze, design, and develop solutions; Collect 
requirements from business team and convert requirements 
into business models; Assist in the development of the 
prototype solution, especially where it pertains to 
customization of the solution as against doing a simple 
configuration 
Implement the design and write the new code and develop the 15% 
programs; Transit the business process knowledge to 
implementation team and oversee planning and execution; 
Work on prototyping future Interface rollouts; Implement 
VIEWS & COACHES as per the business requirements; 
Iteratively design and develop methodology principles 
Create and develop new code for the new functionalities; 1 0% 
Install, configure, and develop WebSphere v7.5/8.51; 
Develop and import business models from 
live for implementation in tools; Deploy process models 
in different environments like DEV, TEST, QA, PROD 
Download historical data. to create the report; Release 5% 
management and · automation with respect to enterprise 
standards 
Participate in unit testing, system testing and integration 10% 
testing of the interfaces; Integrate with external Web Services 
using Java, J2EE or related development techniques (AJAX, 
DOJO, JavaScript, JSP); Analyze user requirements and 
convert them into design documents; Develop Integration 
Processes, Message Interfaces/Service Interfaces, Operational 
Mapping, Inbound & Outbound Interfaces, Data Types, 
Message Types, Mapping programs/objects using XSLT, 
Java; Integrate with external applications like contact 
center database, enterprise exception handling framework, 
and enterprise security systems like LDAP; Security 
integration including identity management, authentication, 
authorization and access control 
Generate management report and provide technical software 5% 
support; Provide technical support for instances 
deployed m vanous environments; Participate m 
documentation process 
through test review, test witnessing 
and certification of software; Provide training to business 
users for enhancement and support 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of P-T-G -, Inc. 
According to the Petitioner, the position requires a bachelor's degree m computer sciences or 
engineering sciences, or its equivalent? 
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 proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Specifically, the record (1) does not describe the position's duties with sufficient detail; and (2) does 
not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate 
with a specialty occupation.3 · 
As a preliminary matter, we note the Petitioner's assertion on appeal that the Director 
mischaracterized the proffered position as a computer programmer, and thus incorrectly evaluated 
the position under the wrong classification. We will remedy this error in our de novo review of the 
record, and will evaluate the position as that of a computer systems analyst as claimed by the 
Petitioner. 
In this matter the Petitioner has provided a general overview of the proffered position's duties and 
asserts that the Beneficiary will be assigned to perform this work on project(s) for third-party clients. 
In the letter dated March 16, 2015, · claims that the Beneficiary will work on the 
Product development project, which was scheduled to begin on· 
October 1, 2015, and end on September 6, 2018.4 Although the letter and the statement of work 
(SOW) make references to the Petitioner's relationship with and/or involvement in 
this project is unclear. 
The SOW provides a broadly-stated description of the scope of the project, and a brief, few-word 
description of the. activities associated with the SOW. The SOW does not specifically list the 
Beneficiary or any programmer analysts as key assigned personnel. Rather, the SOW identifies the 
responsibilities of the Project Manager, Project Owner, E-Portal Platform Leads, and Infrastructure 
Representative. Other than the letter from there is no additional information 
2 It must be noted that the Petitioner has provided inconsistent information regarding the requirements for the proffered 
position. Specifically, in the letter of support, the Petitioner stated that the proffered position requires a bachelor's 
degree in computer sciences or engineering sciences, or its equivalent. However, in response to the RFE,the Petitioner 
provided a letter from which states that the "requirements for this position are a Bachelor's Degree or 
equivalent in Computer Science, Computer Integration Systems, Engineering, Mathematics or related · field." The 
Petitioner provided no explanation for this apparent inconsistency. "[I]t is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve the 
inconsistencies by independent objective evidence." Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). Any attempt to 
explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Id. at 591-92. 
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 The SOW provided shows that this project was scheduled to commence on July l, 2015 and finish on September 28, 
2018: 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of P-T-G-, Inc. 
regarding the Beneficiary's claimed role in this project, which is significant because the SOW breaks 
down the activity timeline of the project into specific sections, not all of which appear to require the 
services of a programmer analyst. 
According to the Petitioner's employment offer letter, the Beneficiary will provide services either at 
the Petitioner's offices or at client locations, and may be required to relocate anywhere in the 
country, depending on the business derriands of the company as determined by the company and at 
the company's sole discretion. Absent additional documentation, the amount and availability of 
work for the Petitioner and the Beneficiary cannot be ascertained. Therefore, upon review of the 
totality of the record, it is not possible to ascertain the Beneficiary's assignment, his actual 
·day-to-day duties, and whether the duties comprise specialty occupation work. The submitted 
document is unclear as to whether the Beneficiary will be performing services to a third party client 
or in house for the Petitioner. Again, where the work is to be performed for entities other 
than the Petitioner, evidence of the client companies' job requirements is critical. Defensor, 201 
F.3d at 387-88. In addition, "going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings." Matter of Soffici, 22 
I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of Cal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 
(Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
Taken as a whole, the record of proceedings does not contain sufficient, reliable evidence 
demonstrating the substantive nature of the proffered position and its constituent duties. 5 
Nevertheless, we will review the Petitioner's general description of duties and the evidence of record 
to determine whether the proffered position as described would qualify for classification as a 
specialty occupation. To that end and to make our determination as to whether the employment 
described above qualifies as a specialty occupation, we turn to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A). 
A. First Criterion 
We tum first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which requires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. To inform this inquiry, we recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's 
(DOL's) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses.6 
5 Further, without full disclosure, we are unable to detennine whether the requisite employer-employee relationship with 
exist between the Petitioner and Beneficiary. 
6 All of our references are to the 2016-17 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 USCIS 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 that its particular position 
would nonnally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
6 
Matter of P-T-G-, Inc. 
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 II wage.7 
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," 
http://www. bls.gov I oohl computer-and-information-technology/ computer-systems-anal ysts.htm#tab­
(last visited September 28, 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 elsewhere." Id 
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. The Handbook also notes 
that many analysts have technical degrees, but does not specify a degree level (e.g., associate's 
degree) for these technical 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. 
The Petitioner has not provided documentation from a probative source to substantiate its assertion 
regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. Thus, the Petitioner has 
not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 2l4.2(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 
contemplates the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
7 We will consider this selection in our analysis of the position. The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" 
issued by DOL provides a description of the wage levels. A Level II wage rate is for a petitioner who expects its 
employee to perform moderately complex tasks that require 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 _II_ 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. 
7 
(b)(6)
Matter of P-T-G-, Inc. 
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. 
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)). 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook, or other authoritative source, reports a 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. Also, there are no submissions from the industry's professional association indicating 
that it has made a degree a minimum entry requirement. 
The Petitioner submitted several job vacancy announcements to establish that similar firms or 
individuals in the Petitioner's industry routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals. The 
Petitioner submits an advertisement for a programmer analyst position for which 
seeks the services of a java developer. Although this posting lists a bachelor's degree or equivalent 
in computer science under its educational requirements, it also indicates that it will accept an 
individual who is "working toward degree," thus indicating that a bachelor's degree is not an 
essential prerequisite. 
The next posting, by solicits a systems analyst with a "bachelor's 
degree and related industry curriculum in information systems or business process management." 
While this position requires a bachelor's degree in specific fields,the degree requirement is more 
specific than the broader requirement of the Petitioner . and thus differentiates this position from the 
proffered position in this matter. 
The final advertisement is for a SAP solution architect with which solicits for the position 
on behalf of an undisclosed client. This posting requires at least eight years of experience working 
with SAP, which suggests that this position, while sharing similar attributes to the proffered position, 
requires a higher-level of experience that the proffered position, which is classified as a Level II 
position on the LCA and thus indicative of a position that requires an individual to perform only 
moderately complex tasks that require limited judgment. 
For the reasons discussed above, we do not find these three job advertisements sufficient to establish 
that 'similar firms in the Petitioner's industry routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals. 
Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
8 
Matter of P-FG-, Inc. 
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. 
In support of its assertion that the proffered pos1t10n qualifies as a specialty occupation, the 
Petitioner described the proffered position and its business operations. However, the Petitioner has 
not sufficiently developed relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the proffered position. 
Again, it appears that the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to perform moderately complex tasks 
that require limited exercise of judgment (by its selection of a Level II wage on the LCA) compared 
to other positions within the same occupation. 8 The description of the duties provided by the 
Petitioner does not specifically identify any tasks that are so complex or unique that only a 
specifically degreed individual could perform them and does not refute the Handbook's narrative 
indicating that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is not required. 
Although the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position, and references 
his qualifications, 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.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it 
normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. 
To merit approval of the petition under this criterion, the record must establish that a petitioner's 
imposition of a degree requirement is not 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 specific degree, that statement alone without corroborating evidence 
cannot establish the position as a specialty occupation. Were USCIS limited solely to reviewing the 
8 Nevertheless, a low wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty 
occupation, just as a high wage-designation does not definitively establish such a classification. In certain occupations 
(e.g., doctors or lawyers), a Level II position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, for entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designation would not reflect that an occupation 
qualifies as a specialty occupation if that higher-level position does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. That is, a position's wage-level designation may be a relevant factor but 
is not itself conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)(l) of the. Act. 
9 
Matter of P-T-G-, Inc. 
Petitioner's claimed self-:-imposed requirements, then any individual with a bachelor's degree could 
be brought to the United States to perform any occupation as long as the .Petitioner created a token 
degree requirement, whereby all individuals employed in a particular position possessed a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty, or its equivalent. See Defensor v. Meissner, 
201 F.3d at 388. Evidence provided in support of this criterion may include, but is not limited to, 
documentation regarding the Petitioner's past recruiting and hiring practices, as well as information 
regarding employees who previously held the position. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that it normally requires a degree for the proffered position. In 
support of this assertion, the Petitioner states that all of its employees holding the job title of 
computer systems analyst possess at least a bachelor's degree in computer science or related fields, 
or its foreign equivalent. The Petitioner provides a list of 33 employees it claims are currently or 
have been employed as computer systems analysts for the company. 
Although the Petitioner submitted copies of the foreign diplomas, academic credentials evaluations, 
resumes, and quartexly wage reports for the listed employees, there is insufficient evidence to 
establish that they are actually employed by the Petitioner in programmer analyst positions that are 
akin to the position proffered to the Beneficiary. The organizational charts submitted with the 
petition list many of these individuals, but we are unable to ascertain their position titles and the true 
nature of their assigned duties, such that we can conclude that they all hold positions akin to the 
proffered position. This evidence, therefore, is not sufficient to establish that the Petitioner previously 
hired degreed individuals to fill the proffered position in the past and, therefore, the Petitioner has 
not satisfied this criterion. 
A petitioner's perfunctory declaration of a particular educational requirement will not mask the fact 
that the position is not a specialty occupation. USCIS must examine the actual employment 
requirements and, on the basis of that examination, determine whether the position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384. In this pursuit, the critical 
element is not the title of the position, or the fact that an employer has routinely insisted on certain 
educational standards, but whether performance of the position actually requires the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty, or its equivalent, as the minimum for entry 
into the occupation as required by section 214(i)( 1) of the Act. According to the Court in Defensor, 
"To interpret the regulations any other way would lead to an absurd result." !d. at 388. If USCIS 
were constrained to recognize a specialty occupation merely because the petitioner has an 
established practice of demanding certain educational requirements for the proffered position - and 
without consideration of how a beneficiary is to be specifically employed - then any beneficiary 
with a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty could be brought into the United States to perform 
non-specialty occupations, so long as the employer required all such employees to have 
baccalaureate or higher degrees. See id. 
As discussed previously in this decision, the substantive nature of the Beneficiary's proposed 
position cannot be determined, and we are precluded from determining whether the performance of 
the position requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter of P-T-G-, Inc. 
knowledge, and the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, as the minimum for entry into the occupation. Therefore, without being able to analyze 
this threshold issue, we consequently cannot determine whether the 33 positions listed here are akin 
to the proffered position, and establish a routine hiring history by the Petitioner. Accordingly, the 
Petitioner has not established the referenced criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J). 
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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the project upon which the Beneficiary will be assigned "is 
designed to provide and integration by leveraging platform and guide the 
classification and fulfillment of customer request while providing end-to-end visibility to the 
organization of the fulfillment cycle for each individual customer request." Based on this statement, 
the Petitioner concludes that the project is complex. However, relative specialization and 
complexity have not been sufficiently developed by the Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered 
position. That is, the proposed duties have not been described with sufficient specificity to establish 
that they are more specialized and complex than other positions in the occupational category that are 
not usually associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. We 
also reiterate our earlier comments and findings regarding the implications of the position's wage 
level designation on the LCA. Thus, the Petitioner has not demonstrated in the record 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). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
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. 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 ofP-T-G-, Inc. ID# 94137 (AAO Sept. 28, 2016) 
11