dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

MATTER OF S-S-S-, LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 9, 2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a software development and information technology consulting company seeks to 
temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "systems analyst" under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification 
for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-1B program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a 
qualified foreign worker in a position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application 
of a body of highly specialized knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in 
the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
\ 
The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner had not demonstrated 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 it has satisfied all evidentiary requirements. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214:2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
Matter of S-S-S-, LLC 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that 
knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has consistently 
interpreted the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any 
baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed 
position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree 
requirement in a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a 
particular position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
In the H-1B petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would serve as a "systems analyst." 
The Petitioner provided the following description of the duties of the proffered position: 
• Perform System Analysis and design phases of Software Development Life Cycle 
(SDLC/Waterfall) 
• Prepare High-level design, low-level design and breakdown Complex requirements 
into Technical Tasks. 
• Develop Enhancement requests · to develop the existing custom functionality 
(Product) using AS400 
• Debugs & performs system level testing for the newly implemented functionality 
and Provide required documentation with includes program-level and user-level 
documentation. 
• Conduct usability testing in cloud platforms for remote, in house, face to face, 
develop high fidelity websites, applications, mobile apps usability testing and 
reporting. 
Subsequently, in response to a request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided the following 
additional description (note: the original text has not been changed): 
2 
Matter of S-S-S-, LLC 
• Requirement analysis, design and development of web and mobile application to 
technical requirements for business solution interactive app development for the 
Mobile Claim Manager application development project 30% 
• Gathering the requirements and integrating point of interactive app development, to 
process the client data and outline the steps necessary to develop new and modified 
programs for application. 20% 
• Requirement analysis, design and development of web and mobile application to 
technical requirements for business solution. 15% 
• Design and architect test strategy for the project, which includes the proof of 
concept and evaluation of right tools required for conducting the testing specific. 
Work closely with the team to design and develop the project 5% 
• Analyze the business specification and testing the application, as per the project 
specification. 1 0% 
• Prepare documents, responsible for ensure quality of the customer's information 
systems and verify systems functionality and performance and will contribute to 
improve in testing strategy.! 0% 
According to the Petitioner, the proffered position requires, at minimum, a bachelor's degree in the 
occupational field of study, or the 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 
position.1 Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational 
background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation? 
A. First Criterion 
We tum firstto 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 ofLabor'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.3 
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 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 
information. That is, the occupational category designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the 
general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered position, and USC IS regularly reviews the Handbook on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. To satisfy the first criterion, however, the 
3 
Matter of S-S-S-, LLC 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-1B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Computer Systems Analysts" 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 15-1121.4 
The Handbook states the following with regard to the requirements of computer systems analyst 
positions: 
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. 
Education 
Most computer systems analysts have a bachelor's degree in a computer-related field. 
Because these analysts also are heavily involved in the business side of a company, it 
may be helpful to take business courses or major in management information 
systems. 
Some employers prefer applicants who have a master's degree in business 
administration (MBA) with a concentration in~information systems. For more 
technically complex jobs, a master's degree in computer science may be more 
appropriate. 
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. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., 
"Computer Systems Analysts," http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/ 
computer-systems-analysts.htm#tab-4 (last visited Aug. 11, 20 16). 
burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position 
would normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
4 The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level I wage (the 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 I wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which 
the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the occupation. This wage rate indicates: (l) that 
the Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that he 
will be closely supervised and his work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that he will receive 
specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. 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. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-S-S-, LLC 
The Handbook does not support the assertion that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for these positions. This section of the 
narrative begins by stating that a bachelor's degree in a related field is not a requirement. The 
Handbook continues by stating that there is a wide-range of degrees that are acceptable for positions 
in this occupation, including general purpose degrees such as business and liberal arts. While the 
Handbook indicates that a bachelor's degree in a computer or information science field is common, 
it does not report that such a degree in normally a minimum requirement for entry. 
According to the Handbook, many systems analysts have liberal arts degrees and have gained 
programming or technical expertise elsewhere. It further reports that many analysts have technical 
degrees. We observe that the Handbook does not specify a degree level (e.g., associate's degree, 
baccalaureate) for these technical degrees. Moreover, it specifically states that such a degree is not 
always a requirement. Thus, the Handbook does not support the claim that the occupational 
category of computer systems analyst is one for which normally the minimum requirement for entry 
is a baccalaureate degree (or higher) in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Even if it did, the 
record lacks sufficient evidence to support a finding that the particular position proffered here, an 
entry-level computer systems analyst position, would normally have such a minimum, specialty 
degree requirement or its equivalent. 
In support ofthe H-lB petition, the Petitioner also submitted an "Expert Opinion Letter" prepared by 
an associate professor in the at the 
The conclusion of that evaluation is that the proffered position requires a 
"Bachelor's Degree (or the equivalent) in Computer Science, Information Systems, Computer 
Engineering, or a related field." The evaluator states that "I have reviewed an in-depth description 
of the duties for [the proffered position]." He further states that the evaluation is "based on the 
complex nature of the programming, development, and testing duties [of the proffered position]." 
The record contains little indication as to whether the evaluator possesses any knowledge of the 
Petitioner's proffered position beyond the duty descriptions in the record of proceedings. Although 
he provided a description of the Petitioner's business,5 and stated that the evaluation is "based on the 
complex nature of the programming, development, and testing duties [of the proffered position]," 
there is no indication that the evaluator possesses an in-depth ,knowledge of the Petitioner's business 
operations or the. complexity of the proffered position as it would be performed in the context of the 
Petitioner's business. For instance, there is no evidence that the evaluator visited the Petitioner's 
business, observed tqe Petitioner's employees, interviewed them about the nature of their work, or 
documented the knowledge that they apply on the job. 
5 The evaluator described the , Petitioner as "an information technology consulting firm, providing IT solution 
development and services in business consulting, product development, and application support for clients in the 
financial services, portfolio man~gement, transportation, healthcare, automobile, banking, and technology industries." 
5 
Matter of S-S-S-, LLC 
Furthermore, there is no indication that the Petitioner advised the evaluator that the Petitioner 
characterized the proffered position as a low, entry-level systems analyst position, for a beginning 
employee who has only a basic understanding of the occupation (as indicated by the wage-level on 
the LCA) relative to other positions within the occupational category. It appears that the evaluator 
would have found this information relevant for his opinion letter. Without this information, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the evaluator possessed the requisite information necessary to 
adequately assess the nature of the Petitioner's position and appropriately determine parallel 
positions based upon job duties and responsibilities. We consider this a significant omission, in that 
it indicates an incomplete review of the proffered position. 
In any event, we find that the evaluator does not provide a substantive, analytical basis for his 
opinion and conclusion. He does not relate his conclusions to specific, concrete aspects of the 
Petitioner's business operations to demonstrate a sound factual basis for his conclusions about the 
educational requirements for the particular position here at issue. Accordingly, the very fact that he 
attributes a degree requirement to such a generalized treatment of the proffered position undermines 
his assertions, opinions, and conclusions. 
In summary, and for all of the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the evaluation of the 
proffered position does not establish the proffered position as a specialty occupation under any of the 
specialty-occupation criteria. The conclusions reached by the evaluator lack the requisite specificity 
and detail and are not supported by independent, objective evidence demonstrating the manner in 
which he reached such conclusions. There is an inadequate factual foundation established to support 
the opinion and we find that the opinion is not in accord with other information in the record. As 
such, neither the evaluator's findings nor his ultimate conclusions satisfy any criterion of the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
We mfiy, in our discretion, use as advisory opmwn statements submitted as expert testimony. 
However, where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we 
are not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Matter of Caron International, 
19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988). 
Further, we find that, 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 
6 
Matter of S-S-S-, LLC 
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. 
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) 
(quotingHird/BlakerCorp. v. Sava, 712F. 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. Also, there are no submissions from the industry's 
professional association indicating that it has made a degree a minimum entry requirement. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner did not submit any letters or affidavits from similar firms or individuals 
in the Petitioner's industry attesting that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed 
individuals." 
The Petitioner did provide two vacancy announcements placed by other companies to satisfy this 
criterion. They were placed for positions entitled "Computer Systems Analyst" and "Systems 
Analyst." However, they do not establish that the claimed degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among siml.lar organizations. First, we note that the Petitioner did not 
provide any independent evidence of how representative these vacancy announcements 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 vacancy announcements, we find that they do not provide sufficient 
information about the advertising organizations to establish that those organizations are similar to 
the Petitioner. Without such evidence, job vacancy announcements are generally outside the scope 
of consideration for this criterion, which encompasses only organizations that are similar to the 
Petitioner. 
Further, by classifying the proffered position at a Level I wage, the Petitioner indicated that it is an 
entry-level position. However, one of the vacancy announcements states that the advertised 
7 
Matter of S-S-S-, LLC 
position requi~es at a minimum of three years of experience. The advertised position, therefore, 
does not appear to be entry-level. Therefore, they have not been shown to be positions parallel to 
the proffered position, and as such the job vacancy announcements have not been shown to be 
directly relevant to the requirements described at the first prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
Finally, even if both of the vacancy announcements involved parallel positions at organizations 
similar to the Petitioner, the organizations placing them conducted business in the Petitioner's 
industry, and the advertised positions required a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent, we would still find that the Petitioner had not demonstrated what 
statistically valid inferences, if any, could be drawn from two announcements with regard to the 
common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations.6 
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 ofthe 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 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. 
Even considering the Petitioner's general descriptions of the proffered position's duties, we still find 
that the evidence of record does not establish why a few related courses or industry experience alone 
would be 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 
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, can 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). 
Matter of S-S-S-, LLC 
position. The description of the duties does not specifically identify any tasks that are so complex or 
unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. 
This is further evidenced by the LCA submitted by the Petitioner in support of the instant petition. 
As noted above, the Petitioner attested on the submitted LCA that the wage level for the proffered 
position is a Level I (entry-level) wage. Such a wage level is for a position which only requires a 
basic understanding of the occupation; the performance of routine tasks that require limited, if any, 
exercise of judgment; close supervision and work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and 
the receipt of specific instructions on required tasks and expected results, is contrary to a position 
that requires the performance of complex duties. 7 It is, instead, a position for an employee who has 
only basic understanding of the occupation. In order to attempt to show that parallel positions 
require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent, the Petitioner 
would be obliged to demonstrate that other wage Level I systems analyst positions, entry-level 
positions requiring only a basic understanding of systems analysis, require a minimum of a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent, the proposition of which is not supported 
by the Handbook. 
Therefore, the evidence of record does not estaplish that this position is significantly different from 
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 not in a specific 
specialty. 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 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, it cannot be concluded that the 
Petitioner has satisfied the second alternative prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F:R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it 
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 I, entry-level 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 I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position 
from classification as a speCialty occupation. In certain occupations (doctors or lawyers, for example), an 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 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 of S-S-S-, LLC 
To satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner provided a printout of a vacancy announcement it placed on a 
popular job search website. While placed for a computer systems analyst position, it is not clear that 
the position for which this vacancy announcement was placed is the one proffered in the H-IB 
petition. For example, it states that the advertised position requires a master's degree in computer 
science and a minimum of one year of experience. However, because the Petitioner classified the 
proffered position as a Level I, entry-level position, it is not clear that the advertised position and the 
proffered posit~on have the same requirements. In any event, the vacancy announcement does not 
demonstrate that the Petitioner normally requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent for the proffered position. 
Further, we observe that the Petitioner was established in 2006 and has eleven employees. In 
addition, USC IS computer records indicate that it has submitted more than 100 employment-based 
visa petitions since 2011. That the Petitioner insisted, on one occasion, on a specialized degree does 
not indicate that it is a normal requirement. 
The Petitioner submitted insufficient evidence to show 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 
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. 
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 I (the lowest of four assignable levels) wage. That is, the Level I wage designation 
is indicative of a low, entry-l<;:vel position relative to others within the occupational category, and 
hence one not likely distinguishable by relatively specialized and complex duties. Upon review of 
the totality of the record, we find th~'t: the Petitioner has not established that the nature of the specific 
duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform the duties is usually 
associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
For the reasons discussed above, the evidence of record does not satisfy the fourth criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
10 
Matter of S-S-S-, LLC 
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. 8 
IV. 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 ofS-S-S-, LLC, ID# 18015 (AAO Sept. 9, 2016) 
8 Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we will not address other grounds of 
ineligibility we. observe in the record of proceedings including whether the LCA corresponds to the petition. 
11