dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF I- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 4, 2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an information technology consulting business, seeks to extend the temporary 
employment of the Beneficiary as a '"senior storage operations specialise under the H -1 B 
nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
§ 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(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 
proffered position does not qualify as a specialty occupation in accordance with the applicable 
statutory and regulatory provisions. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that it 
has established that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
A. Legal Framework 
To meet its burden of proof, the Petitioner must establish that the employment it is offering to the 
Beneficiary meets the following statutory and regulatory requirements. 
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 
Matter of I- Inc. 
(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: 
(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 
( -1) The nature of the specific duties lis J so specialized and complex that 
knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has consistently 
interpreted the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any 
baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed 
position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Cherf(~ff, 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. j\feissner, 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. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d at 387-88. 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 qualities as a specialty occupation on the 
basis of the requirements imposed by the entities using the beneficiary's services. !d. 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. 
B. Proffered Position 
The Petitioner identified the proffered position as a "senior storage operations specialise on the 
Form I-129. and attested on the required labor condition application (LCA) that the occupational 
classification for the position is "Network and Computer Systems Administrators ... corresponding to 
the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 15-1142, at a Level I wage rate. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of 1- Inc. 
On both the Form 1-129 and the LCA, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary will work ofT-site 
at the address of Illinois. The Petitioner did not list any other 
work locations for the Beneficiary. The Petitioner identified the address of 
Illinois. as the Beneficiary's home address. 
In the letter of support, the Petitioner listed the following job duties for the profTered position: 
• Be responsible for the design. implementation, and maintaining 
and 
• Assist in the planning of migration approach from one storage array to another 
• Implement, design, and plan the Storage Resource management (SRM) Suite. 
including testing and configuration documentation 
• Provide hand-on-training to the Client Resources on the new 
and SRM tools 
• Troubleshoot any issued related to system and provide 24/7 production support 
The Petitioner stated that these duties ··require an advanced theoretical knowledge and practical 
expertise gained through either a Bachelor's or a Master's degree in Computer Science. Information 
Systems, Management Information Systems. Electrical/Electronics Engineering, Physics. or a 
closely related field ... 
The Petitioner also submitted letters from the purported end-client and mid-vendor in this matter. 
These letters provide the following description of the proffered position: 
• Storage provisioning. setup and management 
performance troubleshooting, Unisphere for and 
• Zoning, management 
• Management and provisioning 
• Recoverpoint provisioning skills. CG creation, deletion, enable/disable image 
access, and RP troubleshooting 
• SRM - Manage SRM tool, Monitoring and generation of 
reports. **Will eventually need SCA 
C. 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 
3 
Matter of I- Inc. 
not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate 
with a specialty occupation. 1 
For instance, the letters from the end-client describe the duties of the proffered position in overly 
broad and generalized terms. The stated duties lack sufficient detail and concrete explanation to 
establish the substantive nature of the work and associated applications of specialized knowledge that 
their actual performance will require. 
Further, the letters from the end-client mid-vendor. and the Petitioner all state that the Beneficiary will 
be assigned to .. the project:' Other than stating that the project is expected to last until Febmary 2018. 
there has been no further explanation regarding the .. project" to which the Beneficiary will be assigned. 
For instance, the letters do not specify the name and nature of this particular project or the resources 
and personnel dedicated to this project. Without more, we find the evidence of record inadequate to 
convey the substantive nature of the work that the Beneficiary will perform for the claimed end­
client. 
In establishing a position as a specialty occupation. a petitioner must describe the specific duties and 
responsibilities to be performed by a beneficiary in the context of the petitioner's business 
operations, or the end-client's business operations as in the case here. to demonstrate that a 
legitimate need for an employee exists. and substantiate that it has H-IB caliber work for the 
Beneficiary for the period of employment requested in the petition. The Petitioner has not 
adequately done so here.2 
As the Petitioner has not established the substantive nature of the work to be perfonned by the 
Beneficiary. we are precluded from finding that the proffered position satisfies any criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A). because it is the substantive nature of that work that determines (1) the 
normal minimum educational requirement for entry into the particular position. which is the focus of 
criterion 1; (2) industry positions which are parallel to the proffered position and thus appropriate tor 
review tor a common degree requirement, under the first alternate prong of criterion 2; (3) the level of 
complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position. which is the focus of the second alternate prong of 
criterion 2; ( 4) the factual justification for a petitioner normally requiring a degree or its equivalent. 
when that is an issue under criterion 3: and (5) the degree of specialization and complexity of the 
specific duties. which is the focus of criterion 4. Accordingly. as the Petitioner has not established 
that it has satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C .F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A), it cannot be found that the 
proflered position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. 
1 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 8 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. 
2 The record of proceedings does not contain copies of any contracts between the Petitioner. the claimed end-client. and 'or the 
claimed mid-vendor in this case. The lack of such objective evidence leads us to further question whether the Petitioner has 
legitimate, H-1 8 caliber work available for the Beneficiary for the period of employment requested in the petition. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of 1- Inc. 
We will now address the opinion letter prepared by concludes 
that the proffered position requires the attainment of at least a bachelor's-level degree in computer 
information systems/applications, information systems, engineering (including civil engineering with 
a concentration in computer information systems). or another closely related field, or the equivalent. 
We find that opinion is not based upon sufficient information about the actual 
position being proposed here. For instance, does not indicate whether he visited the 
business premises where the work would be performed, or whether he discussed the position with 
anyone affiliated with the end-client, so as to ascertain and base his opinions upon the substantive 
nature and educational requirements of the proposed duties as they would be actually performed. 
Significantly, the majority of the job duties described by is not corroborated by job 
descriptions provided by the end-client. For example, states that a senior storage 
operational specialist ''works with both the business and technology teams to handle day-to-day 
business applications ... land serves as] the go-between when it comes to communicating those 
changes between departments.'' He further states that a senior storage operational specialist· s 
'·primary role is to analyze a company's system, which includes evaluating business models, zeroing 
in on the business's strategic needs, and make recommendations for improvements." However, no 
such job duties involving liaising with the end-client's business department and evaluating its 
business models were mentioned in the end-client letters. 
Additionally, states that the proffered position "revolves around the development and 
coding of computer software systems" and has "a complex software development and system 
engineering role." However, these descriptions appear at odds with the Petitioner's designation of 
the proffered position under the "Network and Computer Systems Administrators" occupational 
category (SOC code 15-1142), as the core duties of positions under this occupational category 
revolve around installing and supporting an organization's network_ systems, as opposed to ·'software 
development" or "system engineering'' as stated by does not identify 
3 We recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Information Network (O*NET) and Occupational 
Outlook Handhook (Handbook) as authoritative sources on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of 
occupations that they addresses. O*NET summarizes the core duties of positions under the ··Network and Computer 
Systems Administrators· · occupational category as to "[ijnstall. configure, and support an organization's local area 
network (LAN). wide area network (WAN) . and Internet systems or a segment of a network system" and "[m]onitor 
network to ensure network availability to all system users and may perform 
necessary maintenance to support net\vork 
availability.'' O*NET Summary Report for "Network and 
Computer Systems Administrators:· 
http://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/15-1142.00 (last visited Apr. 20 20 16). 
Likewise, the Handhook summarizes the core duties of positions under the ''Network and Computer Systems 
Administrators" occupational category as to "organize, install, and support an organization's computer systems. 
including local area networks (LANs), wide area networks (WANs), network segments. intranets. and other data 
communication systems." DOL, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Ham/hook, 2016-17 ed .. "Network 
and Computer Systems Administrators, .. http://www.bls .gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology /printinetwork­
and-computer-systems-administrators.htm (last visited Apr. 20, 20 16). None of these authoritative sources corroborate 
descriptions ofthe proffered position's ·'primary" duties. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of 1- Inc. 
the source of his information about the duties of the proffered position that are not contained and 
corroborated by other evidence in the record. 
Furthermore, contrary to assertions that the proffered position and its constituent 
duties are '·complex:' .. highly specialized,'' and ·'advanced," the Petitioner designated the proffered 
position as a Level I (entry) position on the LCA. In designating the proffered position at a Level I 
wage, the Petitioner has indicated that the proffered position is a comparatively low, entry-level 
position relative to others within this occupation:-l does not discuss the fact that the 
Petitioner submitted an LCA certified for a 
wage-level that is appropriate for a beginning level 
position relative to others within the occupation. and which signifies that the Beneficiary is only 
expected to possess a basic understanding of the occupation. Rather. appears to 
believe that the Beneficiary will have great autonomy and responsibility when performing the duties 
of the proffered position, such as to .. make changes to information technology policy at the 
company.'' These omissions greatly diminish the evidentiary value of his opinion. as his opinion 
does not appear to be based on a complete understanding of the proffered position. 
Rather, it appears that opinion is largely based upon generalized information about 
other positions bearing the same or similar title to the proffered position.5 This forms a faulty factual 
4 The wage levels are defined in the DOL's '"Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance." A Level I wage rate is 
described as follows: 
Level I (entry) wage rates are assigned to job offers for beginning level employees who have only a 
basic understanding of the occupation. These employees perform routine tasks that require limited. if 
any, exercise of judgment. The tasks provide experience and familiarization with the employer's 
methods, practices, and programs. The employees may perform higher level work for training and 
developmental purposes. These employees work under close supervision and receive specific 
instructions on required tasks and results expected. Their work is closely monitored and reviewed for 
accuracy. Statements that the job otTer is for a research fellow, a worker in training, or an internship 
are indicators that a Level I wage should be considered. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor. Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. 
Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), availahle at 
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdfiNPWHC_ Guidance_ Revised _II_ 2009 .pdf 
The Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I. entry-level position undermines the claim that the position is 
particularly complex or specialized compared to other positions within the same occupation. Nevertheless. 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. 
5 For example. references information found on the Internet. such as from www.payscale.com and job 
announcements posted online. Although states that he extensively researched employment websites. he lists 
only three example job postings, all of which require a bachelor's degree in an unspecified "related field." 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of/- Inc. 
basis for his opmwn, as a determination of whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty 
occupation must be based upon the actual duties of the proffered position, combined with the nature 
ofthe business operations where such work is to be performed, not upon a position's title or generic 
job duties. Accordingly, we find that opinion letter does not merit recognition or 
weight as an expert opinion, and is not probative evidence towards satisfying any criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the 
Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron Int '1. Inc. , 19 I&N Dec. 791. 795 (Comm 'r 1988). 
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. ld. 
For all of the reasons discussed above, the evidence of record is insufficient to establish that the 
proffered position satisfies any criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), and thus, that it qualities 
for classification as a specialty occupation. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed and the 
petition denied. 
II. BENEFICIARY ' S QUALIFICATIONS 
As the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the proffered position is a specialty occupation, we need 
not fully address other issues evident in the record. That said. we wish to identity additional issues 
to inform the Petitioner that these matters should be addressed in future proceedings. 6 
Specitically. the record does not currently demonstrate that the Beneficiary's combined education 
and work experience is the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. While the 
claimed equivalency determinations from are based in part on 
experience, the record does not establish that the evaluators have authority to grant college-level 
credit for training and/or experience in the specialty at an accredited college or university with a 
program for granting such credit. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4) and (D)(l). We observe. 
for example, that the letter from Associate Dean, College of Management and 
Technology at states that '"provides associated support to the 
Program Director by making recommendations regarding transfer credits, evaluating educational 
credentials, and/or Professional Certifications/Experience.'' However. the authority to provide 
"support'' and "recommendations'' does not equate to the authority to actually grant college-level 
credit pursuant to the plain language of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(l) . Further. the Petitioner has 
not provided sufficient information about the .. life experience'' credits or the 
under the School of Business at the 
The record also does not establish that the Beneficiary's expertise in the specialty is recognized 
through progressively responsible positions directly related to the specialty. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 
214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4) and (D)(J). The experience letters provided and which were reviewed by the 
6 In reviewing a matter de novo, we may identify additional issues not addressed below in the Director's decision . St!e 
Spencer Enterprises. Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003) 
("The AAO may deny an application or petition on a ground not identified by the Service Center.") . 
(b)(6)
Matter of I- Inc. 
evaluators do not include sufficient information to show that the Beneficiary has education, 
specialized training, and/or progressively responsible experience that is equivalent to completion of 
a United States baccalaureate or higher degree in a specialty occupation, and that he has recognition 
of expertise in the specialty through progressively responsible positions directly related to the 
specialty. Thus, the evaluations by are not probative evidence of the 
Beneficiary's qualifications. We may, in our discretion, use an evaluation of a person's foreign 
education as an advisory opinion. Malter of Sea, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 817, 820 (Comm'r 1988). 
However. where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we 
may discount or give less weight to that evaluation. /d. 
III. EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP 
Another issue evident in the record that we wish to identify, and which should be addressed in future 
proceedings, is whether the Petitioner meets the regulatory definition of a United States employer as 
that term is defined at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
In this matter, the Petitioner represented on both the Form 1-129 and the LCA that Beneficiary will 
work otT-site at the address of Illinois. The Petitioner identified 
this address as the Beneficiary's home address. The letters from both the mid-vendor and the end­
client similarly state that the Beneficiary will be working "'remotely'" from 
apartment number Illinois. However, the Petitioner has not credibly explained , in 
detail, how the Beneficiary will be providing his services from his home in Illinois to the end-client 
whose office address has not been identified for the record. 
For example, the Petitioner states on appeal that the Beneficiary ·'will be stationed at the [end­
client's] office located at IL.'' The Petitioner further states on appeal 
that "'[t]he Beneficiary is required to provide weekly reports to the IT Director of the Petitioner on 
the status of work executed at client locations.'' However, it is not apparent how these statements 
apply to the proffered position, as the Beneficiary will not be working at "'client locations:· 
While the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will report to its "IT Director.'' the Petitioner also 
stated that the Beneficiary will report to the company's "Vice President HR.'' 7 Moreover. the mid­
vendor letter states that "[ w ]hile engaged at [the end-client] [the Beneficiary] reports 
to .. . the [end-client's] Residency Engagement/Partner Manager." The Petitioner has not claritied 
the relationship between its IT Director, Vice President of Human Resources, and the end-client's 
Residency Engagement/Partner Manager with respect to the supervision and control of the 
Beneficiary's work. Furthermore, the Petitioner has not explained the mid-vendor's reference to 
7 The Petitioner's offer letter to the Beneficiary also states that he "will report to the Human Resources department.'' 
8 The reference to "'[the end-client] suggests that the end-client may share a facility with another company. 
whose relationship to the instant matter has not been explained . 
8 
Matter of I- Inc. 
The above discrepancies and deficiencies. combined with the lack of detailed job duties, prevent us 
from understanding exactly what the Beneficiary will do for the period of time requested or where 
exactly the Beneficiary will be providing his services. Given this specific lack of evidence. the 
Petitioner has not corroborated who has or will have actual control over the Beneficiary's \Vork or 
duties, or the condition and scope of the Beneficiary's services. In other words, the Petitioner has 
not established whether it has made a bonafide offer of employment to the Beneficiary based on the 
evidence of record or that the Petitioner. or any other company which it may represent. will have and 
maintain the requisite employer-employee relationship with the Beneficiary for the duration of the 
requested employment period. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term .. United States 
employer'' and requiring the Petitioner to engage the Beneficiary to work such that it will have and 
maintain an employer-employee relationship with respect to the sponsored H-1 B nonimmigrant 
worker). Again and as previously discussed. there is insufficient evidence detailing where the 
Beneficiary will work, and the specific project and duties to be perfonned by the 
Beneficiary. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to establish that the Petitioner qualities as a 
United States employer. 
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 lvfatter (~f I- Inc .• ID# 16342 (AAO May 4, 20 16) 
9