dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MAtTER OF C- LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 31,2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an "IT solutions company," seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a "junior systems 
engineer" 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-lB 
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 
did not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation in accordance with the 
applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the evidence of record is sufficient to demonstrate that the instant visa petition should be 
approved. 
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. 
Matter of C- LLC 
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: 
(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 Immigrqtion 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. Chertojf, 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 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary will be employed as a junior systems engineer, and states 
that his services are required to help build a geographic information system (GIS} data modeling 
tool. In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner stated that the 
Beneficiary's duties would include the following (verbatim): 
• Ultimately be responsible for the design of a proprietary geographic information 
system (GIS) data modeling tool. 
o The tool will be used as a proprietary business solution for [the Petitioner's] 
clients who use GIS data, such as maps, coordinates and positioning data, and 
will allow these clients to create visual models of geographic surfaces and 
landmarks. 
• Spend 50% of time acquiring and analyzing business requirements of client 
companies with respect to their GIS data modeling needs. These duties include: 
2 
Matter of C- LLC 
o Leveraging knowledge of environmental geoscience, geographical information 
systems and environmental/geographic data analysis. 
o Communicating with clients' engineering, development, and sales teams. 
o Analyzing clients' current data modeling capabilities and software products' 
integration potential. 
• Spend 50% of time researching upcoming trends in GIS DATA design and 
conforming these (o clients' business needs. These duties include: 
o Providing technical expertise in GIS technology to [the Petitioner's] 
developmenVteam in modeling GIS data. 
o Contributing to the design, programming and modeling of the proprietary GIS 
application. 
o Researching recent worldwide advances in GIS data modeling. 
o Helping build documentation around the design of the GIS-related database 
and application code, such as manuals, user guides, manuals, troubleshooting, 
and patching guides. 
o Preparing marketing materials to promote our GIS data modeling tool. 
According to the Petitioner, the position requires a) bachelor's degree in geographic information 
systems, environmental science, or a related technical field, or its equivalent. 
III. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner stated that it wishes to employ the Beneficiary for a three year period; however, the 
record lacks documentation regarding the work that the Beneficiary would perform to sufficiently 
substantiate that it has H -1 B caliber work for the requested period. For instance, while the Petitioner 
provided a description of its intention to create a geographic information systems (GIS) data 
modeling and management tool, it did not submit documentation demonstrating that it has the 
capacity and resources to develop such a product. We note that the Petitioner submitted an,internal 
market analysis report, entitled "Market Analysis of GIS DB Modelling and Management Systems," 
which states that the Petitioner has identified the need for an efficient database management system 
and anticipates beneficial results if such a project could be developed. However, there is no 
evidence that the Petitioner has initiated such a project. The record lacks supporting evidence such 
as: (1) a business plan; (2) competitive and/or cost analysis; (3) a short- or long- term budget; (4) 
evidence substantiating investments or revenue sources; (5) documentation regarding its sales, costs, 
and income projections; (6) contracts; (7) its timeline and staffing requirements for developing 
products; and/or (8) marketing materials, company brochures, pamphlets, or other documentation 
describing in detail its products and services. 1 
1 The H-lB classification is not intended for companies to engage in speculative employment and hire foreign workers to 
meet possible workforce needs arising from potential business expansions, customers, or contracts. The agency made 
3 
Matter of C- LLC 
Further, the terms and conditions of the Beneficiary's employment, as described in the offer of 
employment letter submitted in response to the RFE, indicates that "[a]ll days off must be approved 
by the end-client" and, in the event of resignation, "[ w ]ritten notice and proof of leaving the position 
that the employee holds with the end-client must be submitted to the [petitioner's] president." These 
two statements, coupled with the nature of the Petitioner's consulting business, suggest that the 
Beneficiary most likely would be outsourced to various client sites as needed depending on_project 
requirements at a given time. 
Moreover, the description of the Beneficiary's duties, as provided by the Petitioner, lack the 
specificity and detail necessary to support the Petitioner's contention that the position is a specialty 
occupation. While a generalized description may be appropriate when defining the range of duties 
that are performed within an occupation, such generic descriptions generally cannot be relied upon 
by the Petitioner when discussing the duties attached to specific employment for H-lB approval. In 
establishing such a position as a specialty occupation, the description of the proffered position must 
include sufficient details to substantiate that the Petitioner has H-lB caliber work for the 
Beneficiary. In response to the RFE, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would "[u]ltimately 
be responsible for the design of a proprietary geographic information system (GIS) data modeling 
tool." However, the Petitioner did provide the percentage of time the Beneficiary would spend on 
this duty. Furthermore, the statement does not provide any insight into the Beneficiary's actual 
duties and tasks, nor does it explain when the Beneficiary would assume these design duties. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the "vast bulk of the development and work on the project will 
be handled by [the Beneficiary] and a small business team." This statement that the Beneficiary 
will handle "the vast bulk" of the development does not align with stated duties submitted in 
response to the RFE that he would spend 100% of his time on client requirements and "ultimately be 
responsible for the design." In addition, the Petitioner states that once the Beneficiary joins the 
organization, the product will be in the "market evaluation" phase. The Petitioner further states that 
"[ o ]nee the product is purchased by a customer, we will then enter new business requirements, or 
requirements analysis, phase, where the product is customized to the particular end client and its 
existing platform." This statement is also inconsistent with the Beneficiary's stated duties, of which 
100% consist of client requirements and then "ultimately" design duties. No explanation for these 
inconsistencies was provided. 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient details regarding the nature and scope of the Beneficiary's 
employment or substantive evidence regarding the actual work that the Beneficiary would perform. 
Without a meaningful job description, the record lacks evidence sufficiently concrete and 
informative to demonstrate that the proffered position requires a specialty occupation's level of 
knowledge in a specific specialty. The tasks as described do not communicate (1) the actual work 
that the beneficiary would perform; (2) the complexity, uniqueness and/or specialization of the tasks; 
clear long ago that speculative employment is not permitted in the H-1 8 program. See, e.g., 63 Fed. Reg. 30419, 30419 -
30420 (June 4, 1998). 
4 
Matter of C- LLC 
and/or (3) the correlation between that work and a need for a particular level education of highly 
specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. 
The Petitioner thus has not established the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the 
Beneficiary, which therefore precludes a 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 for review for a common degree requirement, under the first alternate prong of criterion 
2; (3) the level of complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position, which is the 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. 
However, even if the Petitioner had shown that it would employ the Beneficiary as a junior systems 
engineer, we still would not find that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, as 
explained below. 
A. First Criterion 
We turn 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 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.2 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support ofthe H-1B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under~ the occupational category "Computer Occupations, All 
Other" corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 15-1199. There are 
occupational categories which are not covered in detail by the Handbook, as well as occupations for 
which the Handbook does not provide any information. The Handbook states the following about 
these occupations: 
Although employment for hundreds of occupations is covered in detail in the 
Occupational Outlook Handbook, this page presents summary data on additional 
occupatipns for which employment projections are prepared but detailed occupational 
information is not developed. For each occ11pation, the Occupational Information 
Network (O*NET) code, the occupational definition, 2014 employment, the May 
2014 median annual wage, the projected employment change and growth rate from 
2014 to 2024, and education and training categories are presented. 
2 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/. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of C- LLC 
', 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-2017 ed., 
"Data for Occupations Not Covered in Detail," http://www.bls.gov/ooh/About/Data-for­
Occupations-Not-Covered-in-Detail.htm (last visited Aug. 30, 2016). 
Thus, the narrative of the Handbook reports that there are some occupations for which only summary 
data is prepared but detailed occupational profiles are not developed. The Handbook suggests that 
for at least some of the occupations,little meaningful information could be developed. 
Accordingly, in certain instances, the Handbook is not determinative. When the Handbook does not 
support the proposition that a proffered position is one that meets the statutory and regulatory 
provisions of a specialty occupation, it is incumbent upon the Petitioner to provide persuasive 
evidence that the proffered position more likely than not satisfies the statutory and regulatory 
provisions, including this or one of the other three criteria, notwithstanding the absence of the 
Handbook's, support on the issue. In , such cases, it is the Petitioner's responsibility to provide 
probative evidence (e.g., documentation from other objective, authoritative sources) that indicates 
whether the particular position in question qualifies as a specialty occupation. Whenever more than 
one authoritative source exists, we will consider and weigh all of the evidence presented to 
determine whether the particular position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
In support of its claim, the Petitioner provided a letter from In his letter, 
(1) describes the credentials that he asserts qualify him to opine upon the nature of the 
proffered position; (2) lists the duties proposed for the Beneficiary; and (3) states that these duties 
require at least a bachelor's degree in geographic information systems, environmental science, or a 
related technical discipline. We carefully evaluated assertions in support of the 
instant petition but, for the following reasons, determined his letter does not have significant weight 
in this matter. 
First, expertise, regarding current industry degree requirements for junior systems 
engineer positions is not established in the record. His supporting documentation indicates that all of 
his experience has been in an academic setting as a faculty member within a university's school of 
computer science and information systems. 
Moreover, has not provided sufficient information to establish his expertise on the 
practices of organizations seeking to hire junior systems engineers. Without further clarification, it 
is unclear how his education, training, skills or experience would translate to expertise regarding the 
current recruiting and hiring practices of an enterprise engaged in "IT solutions" (as designated by 
the Petitioner in the petition) or similar organizations for junior systems engineers (or parallel 
positions). 
states 
that his assessment is based upon a description provided by the Petitioner of the 
company and the offered position. While provides a brief, general description of the 
Petitioner's business activities, he does not demonstrate in-depth knowledge of its operations or how 
the duties of the position would actually be performed in the context of its business enterprise. 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of C- LLC 
Furthermore, opinion letter does not cite specific instances in which his past opinions 
have been accepted or recognized as authoritative on this particular issue. There is no indication that 
he has conducted any research or studies pertinent to the educational requirements for such positions 
(or parallel positions) in the Petitioner's industry for similar organizations, and no indication of 
recognition by professional organizations that he is an authority on those specific requirements. 
states that he has "numerous publications in leading journals for the computing and 
engineering industries." Notably, his curriculum vitae does not reflect that he has published any 
works on the academic/experience requirements for junior systems engineers (or related issues). 
Even assuming was an expert on degree requirements for junior systems engineers, 
his letter testimony does not substantiate his conclusions, such that we can conclude that the 
Petitioner has shouldered its burden of proof. First, does not reference, cite, or 
discuss any studies, surveys, industry publications, authoritative publications, or other sources of 
empirical information which he may have consulted to complete his evaluation. Second, 
does not discuss the duties of the proffered position in any substantive detail. Third, 
recitation of the job duties differs from the job description the Petitioner submitted to 
USCIS. For example, job description does not state that 100% of the Beneficiary's 
time will be spent on client requirements. The Petitioner did not address this discrepancy: 
As such, we find that opinion letter lends little probative value, and thus the 
Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). Matter of Caron Int'l, 
19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (The service is not required to accept or may give less weight 
to an advisory opinion when it is "not in accord with other information or is in any way 
, questionable."). 
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.P.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 J can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree[.]" 8 C.P.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. 
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. 
7 
Matter of C- LLC 
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. 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." Thus, the Petitioner has not 
satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so 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. 
We reviewed the Petitioner's statements regarding the proffered position; however, the Petitioner 
does not assert that it satisfies this prong of the second criterion. Further, the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently developed relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the proffered position. 
Thus, 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 with~ut corroborating evidence 
cannot establish the position as a specialty occupation. 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, 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, 
8 
Matter of C- LLC 
documentation regarding the Petitioner's past recruiting and hiring practices, as well as information 
regarding employees who previously held the position. 
We reviewed the Petitioner's statements regarding the proffered position; however, the Petitioner 
does not assert and has not provided evidence in support of this criterion. Therefore, it has not 
satisfied the third criterion of 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
D. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.P.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 support of this criterion, the Petitioner provided a description of the duties of the proffered 
position and information regarding its business operations. 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. 
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 ~hat 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 ofC- LLC, ID# 17879 (AAO Aug. 31, 2016) 
9