dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

.
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 5, 2017 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a Business Process Management (BPM) software provider, seeks to temporarily 
employ the Beneficiary as a "technical support engineer" under the H-1 B nonimmigrant 
classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
10l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) , 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). The H-IB program allows a U.S. employer to 
temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a position that requires both (a) the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and (b) the attainment of a 
bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for 
entry into the position. 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish that the position is a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Director erred m her 
findings. 
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 regulation s provide that the proffered 
position must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
Matter of A- Corp. 
(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). 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.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. Meissner, 201 F .3d 3 84, 3 87 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITON 
In its letter in support of the petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will "support on 
premise and cloud customers" and that his specific responsibilities will include: 
• Providing production support of [the Petitioner's] Cloud, 
• Performing root cause analysis and follow-through on resolving the root cause, 
• Developing and enhancing our customer facing systems, 
• Delivering formal and informal training to our customers, 
• Drafting documentation and best practices, and 
• Providing technical support (phone, email, case management) to [the Petitioner's] 
customers in a timely manner. 
The Petitioner stated that this position "requires the skills of an individual with a minimum of a 
bachelor's degree in Computer Science, Information Technology or related." 
III. ANALYSIS 
For the reasons set out below, we determine that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that it would 
employ the Beneficiary in a specialty occupation. Specifically, the record (I) does not describe the 
2 
Matter of A- Corp. 
position's duties with sufficient consistent detail; and (2) does not establish that the job duties 
require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation.' 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-1 B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Computer Support Specialist,'' 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 15-1150. 
Preliminarily, we find that the Petitioner's broad description of duties is insut1icient to demonstrate 
what the Beneficiary will actually do in the proposed position so that we may analyze and ascertain 
the educational requirements required to perform those duties. For example, the Petitioner does not 
explain what sort of technical or production support the Beneficiary will provide to its customers. 
Similarly, the Petitioner does not identify the duties involved in developing and enhancing customer 
facing systems. The Petitioner does not detail what is involved in analyzing the root cause of 
problems and what duties the Beneficiary will be required to perform to resolve the root cause. 
Although the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary will deliver training to its customers and will 
draft documentation and best practices, the Petitioner does not expand upon the Beneficiary's 
involvement and the daily tasks that will engage him in this process. Additionally, the Petitioner 
does not allocate the Beneficiary's time to these generally described duties making it more difficult 
to ascertain the Beneficiary's primary purpose in the organization. 
The Petitioner's overview of the position does not convey an understanding of the Beneficiary's 
actual duties for the Petitioner. It is not possible to ascertain what specific duties will actually 
engage the Beneficiary on a day-to-day basis in his interaction with customers in his computer 
support specialist role. The Petitioner's generic description of the proffered position 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. 
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 proffered position qualifies for classification as a 
specialty occupation and the appeal must be dismissed on this basis alone. We will nevertheless 
1 The Petitioner submitted documentation in support of the H-1 B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position and its business operations. Although we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
3 
Matter of A- Corp. 
perform a complete specialty occupation analysis under each of the four alternative criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)_2 
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 the 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. 3 
The subchapter of the Handbook entitled "How to Become a Computer Support Specialist" states, in 
relevant part: 
Because of the wide range of skills used in difTerent computer support jobs, there are 
many paths into the occupation. A bachelor's degree is required for some computer 
support specialist positions, but an associate's degree or postsecondary classes may 
be enough for others. 
Education 
Education requirements for computer support specialists vary. Computer user 
support specialist jobs require some computer knowledge, but not necessarily a 
postsecondary degree. Applicants who have taken some computer-related classes are 
often qualified. For computer network support specialists, many employers accept 
applicants with an associate's degree, although some prefer applicants to have a 
bachelor's degree. 
Large software companies that provide support to business users who buy their 
products or services often require a bachelor's degree. Positions that are more 
technical are likely to require a degree in a field such as computer science, 
engineering, or information science, but for others, the applicant's field of study is 
less important. 
2 Although some aspects ofthe regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
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 is reviewed as an aspect in establishing the general tasks and 
responsibilities of a proffered position, and we regularly review the Handbook on the duties and educational 
requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. To satisfy the first criterion, however, the burden of 
proof remains on the Petitioner to submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position would 
normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
4 
Matter of A- Corp. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., 
Computer Support Specialists, https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information­
technology/computer-support-specialists.htm#tab-4 (last visited Mar. 31, 20 17). 
The Handbook identifies multiple paths to qualify to perform the duties of this occupation including 
an associate's degree or some undefined postsecondary classes, but not necessarily a postsecondary 
degree. The Petitioner asserts that it is a large software company and that it "provides [BPM] 
support to its clients who subscribe to its BPM software," thus it falls within the kind of company 
referenced in the Handbook that often requires a bachelor degree. However, the requirement of a 
general bachelor's degree as the minimum for entry into the occupation is inadequate to establish 
that this occupation qualifies as a specialty occupation. We recognize that the Handbook adds that 
"[p ]ositions that are more technical are likely to require a degree in a field such as computer science, 
engineering, or information science." We also note, however, that the Handbook goes on to limit 
this statement by indicating that "but for others, the applicant's field of study is less important." 
Thus, the Handbook does not provide sufficient support for a finding that the occupation of a 
computer support specialist is a specialty occupation, but rather strongly suggests the contrary. As 
noted above, we regularly review the Handbook on the duties and educational requirements of the 
occupations it addresses but it is the responsibility of 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. The Petitioner has not done so here. Other than the general 
description provided and its conclusory assertion regarding the academic requirements, the Petitioner 
does not explain or offer any analysis on why its particular position requires a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty. The Petitioner also does not cite other authoritative sources that contradict the 
Handbook's report that there are varying paths for entry into this occupation, including possessing 
less than a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 
The Petitioner's description of duties does not indicate that this particular position proffered by the 
Petitioner is one for which a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, 
is normally the minimum requirement for entry. 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 
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 upon the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
5 
.
Matter of A- Corp. 
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. 
When determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors we often consider 
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/Bfaker Corp. v. Sava. 712 F. 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 sources) reports an industry-\vide 
requirement for at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, we 
incorporate by reference the previous discussion on thematter. Also, there are no submissions from 
the industry's professional association indicating that it has made a degree a minimum entry 
requirement. 
In support of its assertion that the degree requirement is common to the Petitioner's industry in 
parallel positions among similar 
organizations, the Petitioner submitted copies ofjob advertisements 
posted on the Internet by companies such as and 
It appears that one of the advertisers, is a data analytics company that 
supports data collection, aggregation, and processing in order to deliver data to clients. This 
company is not similar to the Petitioner in that it is not described as providing customer service 
software support to customers. Although the other three companies appear to have divisions that are 
involved in providing customer service to support their software, the Petitioner has not submitted 
evidence to establish that they are similar to it in terms of size and scope. Additionally, the duties of 
the advertised positions are broadly stated and there is no actual basis that estabJjshes the advertised 
positions incorporate the same or similar duties of the proffered position. Thus, the record does not 
establish that the submitted ad\rertisements are relevant in that the posted job announcements are not 
for parallel positions in similar organizations all within the same industry. 
Further, the requirements to perform the duties of the advertised positions vary. For example, 
requires only a bachelor's degree for the position of support engineer or senior 
support engineer. Although expresses a preference that the bachelor degree be in a 
technical field and provides examples of different disciplines such as engineering, physics, 
mathematics, or computer science, a preference is not a requirement. requirement 
also differs from the other three companies which indicate that a master's degree in computer 
science or a bachelor's degree in computer science ( and will 
qualify the successful candidate for their advertised positions. Based on the differences in only four 
advertisements, it is not possible to conclude what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn 
6 
Matter of A- Corp. 
from the job postings with regard to the common educational requirements for entry into parallel 
positions in similar organizations. See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice ol Social Research 
186-228 (7th ed. 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 195-96 (explaining that "[ r )andom selection is the 
key to [the] process [of probability sampling)" and that "random selection otTers access to the body 
of probability theory, which provides the basis for estimates of population parameters and estimates 
of error"). 
The job advertisements submitted for the first time on appeal do not establish that similar 
organizations to the Petitioner routinely employ individuals with degrees in a specific specialty, in 
parallel positions in the Petitioner's industry. The Petitioner has not satisfied the 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 has not sufficiently developed relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the 
proffered position. For instance, the Petitioner did not submit information relevant to a detailed 
course of study leading to a specialty degree and did not establish how such a curriculum is 
necessary to perform the duties it may believe are so complex and unique. Instead, the Petitioner 
provided a general overview of the proposed position that is subject to ditTerent interpretations 
regarding the level of analytical involvement by the Beneficiary and other salient aspects of the 
positiOn. More specifically, the Petitioner does not demonstrate how the duties require the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge such that a bachelor's 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform them. The 
descriptions do not specifically identify any tasks that are so complex or unique that only a 
specifically degreed individual could perform them. 
The Petitioner references the Beneficiary's coursework and his ability to perform the core job duties; 
however, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the Beneficiary's skills or 
particular coursework, but whether the position itself qualities as a specialty occupation. The 
Petitioner does not explain or clarify at any time in the record which of the duties, if any, of the 
proffered position would be so complex or unique as to be distinguishable from those of similar but 
non-degreed or non-specialty degreed employment. The Petitioner has not established the second 
.. alternative prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The record is insufficient to establish the proffered position as satisfying either prong of the criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
Matter of A- Corp. 
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. 
Here, the Petitioner submits a list of 11 employees. The list identifies the employee by name and 
education level and indicates that they are employed in the position of technical support engineer. 
Although the title for these employees is the same title as the proffered position, theJ Petitioner does 
not indicate whether the employees all perform the same or similar duties as the duties it generally 
described in this matter. Additionally, the record does not include documentary evidence 
corroborating the Petitioner's employment of these individuals. Further, we note that the Petitioner 
states on appeal that it now employs 640 employees. The Petitioner does not specify how many of 
these 640 individuals hold the position of a technical support engineer. Thus, it is not possible to 
discern if the list of 11 employees is representative of all the employees the Petitioner hired to work 
in the proffered position or is simply a sample of the Petitioner's technical support personnel. 
The Petitioner also notes that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) approved another 
petition filed on behalf of another individual at the same time as this petition and that it included the 
same information and LCA. However, if the other nonimmigrant petition was approved based on 
the same unsupported claims and assertions that are contained in the current record, that approval 
would constitute material and gross error on the part of the Director. We are not required to approve 
petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely because of approvals that may have 
been erroneous. See Matter o.fChurch Scientology Jnt'l, 19I&N Dec. 593,597 (Comm'r 1988). It 
would be "absurd to suggest that [USCIS] or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding 
precedent." Sussex Eng 'g, Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F .2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987). 
The record does not include sufficient evidence that the Petitioner has satisfied the third criterion. 
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. 
The proposed duties have not been descrioed with sufficient specificity to show that they are more 
specialized and complex than other technical positions that are not usually associated with at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. We recognize that the Petitioner desires 
an individual with experience in customer service as it relates to supporting its software product; 
however, the Petitioner does not offer any detail regarding the generically described duties and 
analysis describing how or why the duties are so specialized and complex that they require a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty to perform them. The Petitioner has not established that this 
position requires a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent and has not 
8 
Matter of A- Corp. 
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). 
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. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed because the Petitioner has not established the proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A- Corp., ID# 315980 (AAO Apr. 5, 2017) 
I 
9