dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

MATTER OF H-F- LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 29,2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an information technology (IT) services company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "computer systems analyst-QA" 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 of the California Service Center denied the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant 
Worker, concluding that the record did not establish that the position qualified as a specialty 
occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the record sufficiently demonstrates that the proffered position 
is a qualifying specialty occupation. 
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 offered 
position must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
Matter of H-F- LLC 
(I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
(4) The nature of the specific duties [is] 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. Cherto,[f, 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 3 84. 3 87 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
In the petition, the Petitioner offered a description of the proffered position's duties and the time a 
computer systems analyst-QA will devote to each activity, to include: 
Duty %Time 
1. study, evaluate and analyze systems & QA requirements, 25 
procedures, and problems 
- Evaluate and analyze current system 
- Understand user requests for new functions and enhancements 
to the system 
- Conceptualize solutions to new requirements, enhancements and 
problems. 
- Analyze the company's data processing requirements and 
computer hardware to determine the software which will best 
serve the business needs. 
-Translate user needs into software requirement specifications. 
2. Formulate plans for implementation. 15 
- Document the scope and objectives of the new development or 
enhancement. 
- Outline the steps required to develop new or modified programs. 
- Identify the system integration, linkage, and security issues. 
2 
Matter of H-F- LLC 
- Define system deliverables. 
3. Plan and prepare technical reports. 10 
- Prepare data model for technical reference. 
- Prepare process model for functional reference. 
- Determine the data base level changes for enhancement or new 
program. 
-Write scripts to perform the data base changes. 
4. Develop full system model 20 
-Complete detail system specifications 
- Design and build database. 
- Code the front-end by creating forms, queries, menus and 
functions. 
- Develop validation checks, edit checks and lookup tables 
- Design and develop reports, queries and filters. 
- Create on-line help text. 
- Design and code the required security constraints within the 
program. 
- Write scripts to load data if required. 
6. [sic] Provide support for user testing, user acceptance and 10 
implementation. 
-Install and maintain the system; generate reports; modify the 
system. 
- Identify users for testing. 
- Create testing log and problem log. 
- Fine tune the full system model by incorporating results from 
user testing. 
- Obtain user approval. 
- Develop installation procedures, methodology and installation 
tools. 
7. Provide Training and Documentation. 10 
- Prepare technical documentation. 
- Prepare operational documentation. 
- Prepare operations training course and material. 
- Provide training to the users. 
8. Provide production support. 10 
- Maintain and enhance the capabilities of the system. 
- Create knowledge base for online help; Program day to day 
changes in reports. 
100 
3 
Matter of H-F- LLC 
The Petitioner further stated that the position is a specialty occupation as the duties are complex and 
reqmre a bachelor's degree in computer science, information systems, engineering, or a related 
field.' 
III. ANALYSIS 
The Director denied the petition, noting the Petitioner had not demonstrated that there was work 
available for the Beneficiary at the time of filing because the submitted contracts postdated the 
petition filing date. On appeal, the Petitioner submits material reflecting the petitioning 
organization's plans for the Beneficiary's work commitments that predates the petition filing. 
However, the Petitioner did not explain why it did not previously submit this material when the 
Director requested such evidence. We reviewed the evidence but even considering the newly 
offered documentation, the Petitioner has not established that the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. 
We have reviewed the entire record of proceedings before us. For the reasons discussed below, we 
have determined that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. 2 Specifically, we find that the record does not establish that the job duties 
require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation.3 
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) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the 
duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 
4 
On the labor condition application (LCA) the Petitioner presented in support of this petition, it 
classified the proffered position under the occupational title "Computer Systems Analysts," 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 15-1121 at a Level I wage rate. 5 
1 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the proffered position qualifies due to the complex duties, and "the usual 
minimum requirement for performance of the job duties is a bachelor's degree, or equivalent, in computers, engineering, 
or a related field." 
2 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
3 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the petition, including evidence regarding the position and its 
business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 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/OCO/. 
5 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: (I) that 
the Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that she 
4 
Matter of H-F- LLC 
Turning to the Handbook, we note that the 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. ''6 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." 7 
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. It also notes that many 
analysts have technical degrees, but does not specify a degree level (e.g., associate's degree) for 
these degrees. The Handbook further specifies that such a technical degree is not always a 
requirement. Thus, this passage reports that there are several paths for entry into the occupation, and 
it does not support the Petitioner's assertion that a bachelor's degree in computers, engineering, or a 
related field is required for entry into this 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. Therefore, it has not 
satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
B. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two alternative prongs: "The degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or. in the alternative, an employer may 
show that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree .... " 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong 
concentrates on 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 
will be closely supervised and her work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that she will receive 
specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing 
Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://tlcdatacenter.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 ofthe Petitioner's job opportunity. /d. 
6 
See the Handbook, Computer Systems Analysts (2016-17 ed.). 
7 /d. 
5 
Matter of H-F- LLC 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. USCIS 
generally considers the following factors to determine whether 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 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. 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." 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner submitted several job postings from other employers it 
characterized as "cross industry advertisements where the minimum requirement is a baccalaureate 
degree." However, the Petitioner's reliance on the postings is misplaced.8 We further note that the 
job postings do not appear to be organizations similar to the Petitioner. For example, the Petitioner 
is a nine-person, IT services company, whereas the advertising organizations include: 
• -the global payments technology company best known for its credit and debit cards; 
• - a New York area health care provider; 
• The government of 
• - one of the world's largest 
independent IT, and business process services companies; and 
• - a renowned IT, systems engineering, and 
professional services company. 
The Petitioner did not supplement the record of proceedings to establish that these organizations are 
similar. When determining whether the Petitioner and the organization share the same general 
characteristics. Such factors may include information regarding the nature or type of organization, 
the particular scope of operations, and the level of revenue and staffing (to list just a few elements 
8 Even if all of the job postings indicated that a requirement of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is common to 
the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations (which they do not), the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from the advertisements with regard to determining the common 
educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. See general~y Earl Babbie, The 
Practice of Social Research 186-228 ( 1995). Moreover, given that there is no indication that the advertisements were 
randomly selected, the validity of any such inferences could not be accurately determined even if the sampling unit were 
sufficiently large. See id. at 195-196 (explaining that "'[r]andom selection is the key to [the] process [of probability 
sampling]" and that "random selection offers access to the body of probability theory, which provides the basis for 
estimates of population parameters and estimates of error"). 
.
Matter of H-F- LLC 
that may be considered). It is not sufficient for the Petitioner to claim that an organization is similar 
and in the same industry without providing a legitimate basis for such an assertion. 
In addition, many of the advertisements do not appear to be for parallel positions. For example, some 
of the positions appear to be for more senior positions than the proffered position.9 More importantly, 
the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the primary duties and responsibilities of the 
advertised positions are parallel to the proffered position. 
Without more, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that a bachelor 's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions 
among similar organizations. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first 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 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 positiOn qualifies as a specialty occupation, the 
Petitioner described its operations and repeatedly asserts that the duties are complex and they require 
a bachelor's degree in computer science, information system, engineering, or a related field. 
However
, the Petitioner has not sufficiently developed relative complexity or uniqueness as an 
aspect of the proffered position. Again, it appears that the Petitioner has designed the position as 
one that is entry-level , for an employee who has only a basic understanding of the occupation by 
classifying it as a Level I position on the LCA. 10 The Petitioner's description of the duties does not 
9 For instance, the posting for prefers a master's degree, but requires a bachelor's degree, three 
years of relevant systems experience, and one year of project management experience. In addition, one of the 
advertisements for requires a bachelor's degree and a minimum of 4+ years of experience. 
10 
The Petitioner contends on appeal that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation on the basis that its 
duties are complex . However , the duties as describ ed lack sufficient specificity to distinguish the proffered position 
from other computer systems analyst-QA positions for which a bachelor 's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, is not required to perform the duties . 
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. Neverthele ss, a 
Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty occupation, just as a 
Level IV wage-designation does not definitively establish such a classification . In certain occupations (e.g., doctors or 
lawyers) , a Level 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 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)( I) of the Act. 
Matter of H-F- LLC 
specifically identify any tasks that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed 
individual could perform them. The duties as described also do not refute the Handbook's statement 
that a bachelor's degree in a computer or information science field is not always a requirement. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position, and references the 
Beneficiary's education credentials. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty 
occupation is not the education or experience of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position 
itself requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner did 
not sufficiently develop relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position. 
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. 
The record must establish that a petitioner's stated degree requirement is not a matter of preference 
for high-caliber candidates but is necessitated instead by performance requirements of the position. 
See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d at 387-88. Were USCIS limited solely to reviewing the 
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. !d. Evidence provided in support of this criterion may include, but is not 
limited to, documentation regarding the Petitioner's past recruitment and hiring practices, as well as 
information regarding employees who previously held the position. 
The Petitioner offered two of its own newspaper job advertisements in support of this criterion. 
However, this evidence relates to a position with different job title and duties from the proffered 
position. Thus, it is not relevant to the matter here. 
The Petitioner also submitted material regarding several individuals. However, these individuals 
occupy positions with different job titles from the proffered position. Further, the Petitioner has not 
established that they are providing the same or similar services as the Beneficiary would provide in 
the proffered position. As a result, the material related to its employees is not relevant to this 
criterion's requirements. 
The Petitioner also provided a document that it characterizes as a job posting. Although the material 
reflects the Petitioner posted the announcement for 14 days, it did not provide corroborating material 
establishing the timeframe that it displayed this job posting at its office. Moreover, the 
documentation appears to be a notice in connection with DOL's posting requirements for LCAs. See 
20 C.F.R. § 655.734. 11 Moreover, as the job posting is only a solicitation for hire, it is not evidence 
11 The purpose of DOL's posting requirement is to notify the bargaining representative and the petitioning company's 
Matter of H-F- LLC 
of the Petitioner's actual hiring practices. We further note that the Petitioner was established in 2012 
- four years before the petition was filed. Thus, it cannot be determined how representative this one 
job posting (over a four year period) is of the Petitioner's hiring practices for the proffered position. 
Without additional information, the submission is not persuasive in establishing that the Petitioner 
normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the 
position. 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that it normally requires at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the proffered position. Therefore, it 
has not satisfied the third criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
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. 
While the Petitioner provided a detailed job description, the description does not establish that the 
duties are more specialized and complex than positions that are not usually associated with at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. We also incorporate our earlier 
discussion and analysis regarding the duties of the proffered position, and the designation of the 
proffered position in the LCA as a Level I position (of the lowest of four assignable wage-levels) 
relative to others within the occupational category. 12 Without further evidence, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that its proffered position is one with specialized and complex duties, as such a 
position within this occupational category would likely be classified at a higher-level, requiring a 
substantially higher prevailing wage. 13 
Although the Petitioner asserts that the nature of the specific duties is specialized and complex, the 
record lacks sufficient evidence to support this claim. Thus, the Petitioner has submitted inadequate 
probative evidence to satisfy the criterion ofthe regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
employees that a petitioner intends to hire a foreign worker and provide basic information about the position (e.g., 
occupation, wage, period of employment), as well as to direct complaints to DOL's Wage and Hour Division. 
12 Furthermore, the Petitioner's claim that ·'[t]or a position at the level offered, it is not uncommon for the incumbent to 
also possess a master's degree and/or a number of years of experience" is inconsistent with its designation of the position 
as a Levell, entry-level position. 
13 For example, a Level IV (fully competent) position is designated by DOL for employees who "use advanced skills and 
diversified knowledge to solve unusual and complex problems" and requires a significantly higher wage. For additional 
information regarding wage levels as defined by DOL, see U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing 
Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _II_ 2009.pdf. 
9 
Matter of H-F- LLC 
IV. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not satisfied at least 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of H-F- LLC, ID# 483330 (AAO June 29, 2017) 
10