dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8468063 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 23, 2020 
The Petitioner, an information technology consulting services company, seeks to temporarily employ 
the Beneficiary as a "Project Manager/Scrum Master" under the H-lB nonirnrnigrant classification for 
specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 
8 U.S.C. § 110l(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 of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the evidence of 
record does not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the 
questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires : 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, 
and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a 
non-exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition , the regulations provide that the proffered 
position must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
( 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 construe 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. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in a 
specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular 
position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
The record's labor condition application (LCA) 1 was certified with the job title "Project 
Manager/Scrum Master" for a position falling within the Standard Occupation Classification (SOC) 
code and category 15-1199, "Computer Occupations, All Other." The Petitioner clarified that the most 
appropriate occupational sub-classification is that of "Information Technology Project Managers" 
corresponding to the sub-code of 15-1199.09. The Petitioner, an IT consulting services company, 
indicates that the Beneficiary will be performing duties at an end-client location pursuant to a series 
of agreements between the Petitioner, the end-client, and two vendors. 
The Petitioner provided a description of the proffered position in its initial letter of support and 
expanded on those duties in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) and again on appeal. 
The record also contains documentation from the end-client confirming the duties of the position. For 
the sake of brevity, we will not quote the duty descriptions; however, we have closely reviewed and 
considered the duties. Regarding the position's educational requirements, the Petitioner and the 
end-client stated that the position requires a bachelor's degree or equivalent in engineering 
management, information systems management, or a closely-related field. 
1 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B worker the higher of either 
the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the "area of employment" or the actual wage paid by the employer 
to other employees with similar experience and qualifications who are performing the same services. See Matter o(Simeio 
Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542. 545-546 (AAO 2015). 
2 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its 
equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 2 
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. On appeal, the Petitioner does not eligibility under this criterion. 
Nevertheless, we will briefly address it. 
On the LCA submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner designated the proffered position 
under the occupational category "Computer Occupations, All Other" corresponding to the SOC code 
15-1199. We often look to the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook 
(Handbook) regarding the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it 
addresses. 3 However, there are some occupations for which detailed profiles have not been developed, 
such as for the occupational category "Computer Occupations, All Other." 4 Therefore, it is the 
Petitioner's responsibility to provide probative evidence ( e.g., documentation from other objective, 
authoritative sources) that supports a finding that the particular position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. 
In its initial support letter, the Petitioner referenced the O*NET summary report for "Information 
Technology Project Managers" - SOC code 15-1199.09. The O*NET Summary Report provides 
general information regarding the occupation, but it does not support the Petitioner's assertion 
regarding the educational requirements for the occupation. For example, the Job Zone Four 
designation indicates that most, but some do not, require a four-year bachelor's degree. It does not 
specify the specific field of study, if any, from which the degree must come. The occupation's 
Specialized Vocational Preparation (SVP) rating of 7 < 8 is even less persuasive. An SVP rating of 7 
to less than ("<") 8 indicates that the occupation requires "over 2 years up to and including 4 years" 
of training. While the SVP rating indicates the total number of years of vocational preparation required 
for a particular position, it is important to note that it does not describe how those years are to be 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation to suppmt the H-1 B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered position 
and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each 
one. 
3 We do not maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. That is, the occupational category 
designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered 
position, and 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 ofproofremains 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 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Data for Occupations Not Covered in 
Detail, on the Internet at https://www.bls.gov/ooh/about/data-for-occupations-not-covered-in-detail.htm (last visited Apr. 
8, 2020). 
3 
divided among training, experience, and formal education which, by definition, includes high school 
education and commercial or shop training. 5 The SVP rating also does not specify the particular type 
of degree, if any, that a position would require. For all of these reasons, we are not persuaded by the 
Petitioner's citations to O*NET. 
The record as constituted does not establish that the proffered pos1t10n is located within an 
occupational category for which the Handbook, or any other relevant, authoritative source, indicates 
that the normal minimum entry requirement is at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
the equivalent. Moreover, the Petitioner has not provided documentation from another probative 
source to substantiate its assertion regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular 
position. The Petitioner therefore 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 contemplates 
common industry practice with regard to positions that are "parallel" to the one under consideration, 
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. 
As noted above, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which the 
Handbook, or another 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. The Petitioner did not challenge the Director's adverse finding under this prong on appeal, 
and did not submit additional evidence to satisfy this prong of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
We will now 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. 
When discussing H-1B employment, the description of duties must be comprehensive enough to 
properly ascertain the minimum educational requirements necessary to perform those duties. 
Although the Petitioner provided a more extensive job description with percentages of time spent on 
5 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/help/online/svp. 
4 
each duty on appeal, the job description does not detail the complexity or uniqueness of the job duties, 
supervisory duties (if any), independent judgment required, or the amount of supervision received. 
The Petitioner provides an expansive list of duties, and supplements the list of duties with the 
coursework it asserts correspond to each of the identified duties. According to the overview of the 
position, the Beneficiary will be working on a project for the end-client where he will be developing 
"a new television meter used to enable television ratings for television content providers." While the 
Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary's principal job duty is to "provide expertise in strategic planning, 
business process modeling, business process analysis, object-oriented analysis & design, use case 
modeling, use case analysis, component-based development, and quality assurance," it does not 
describe in detail how providing his expertise relates to the identified project. The Petitioner further 
does not articulate the systems and methodologies to be used by the Beneficiary, and there is no 
supplemental information provided by the end-client on appeal to further clarify the manner in which 
the Beneficiary's duties will be performed. The record as constituted, therefore, does not distinguish 
the proffered position as more complex or unique from other positions that can be performed by 
persons without a degree in a specific specialty. 
The Petitioner provides two position evaluations from Professor! I Professor at the 
University ot1 ~ 6 In his letters, Professor! I ( 1) describes the credentials that he 
asserts qualify him to opine upon the nature of the proffered position; (2) references the duties 
proposed for the Beneficiary; and (3) states that those duties require at least a bachelor's degree in 
~ering management or information systems management. We carefully evaluated Professor 
L__Js assertions in support of the instant petition but, for the following reasons, determined his 
letters are not persuasive. 
First, Professor D does not discuss the Petitioner's business operations in any meaningful detail. 
Though he does recite the duties of the proffered position, he does not discuss them within the context 
in which they will actually be performed. In particular, the absence of any substantive discussion of the 
duties specific to the end-client's project raises doubts about his level of familiarity with the proffered 
position and also undermines his conclusion regarding the degree requirement of the position. Simply 
labeling the duties as "complicated" and "unique" without explaining why such duties require highly 
specialized knowledge and attainment of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty does not 
suffice. 
Professor! ts failure to discuss the proffered position at the end-client raises further questions 
regarding the evidentiary value of the opinions. Although he states that he spoke to both the Petitioner's 
president and its business devellpment I manager to gain a comprehensive understanding of the 
Petitioner's operations, Professor s omission of the end-client project and the duties and 
responsibilities of the Beneficiary as they relate to that project render his opinions questionable. His 
opinions thus do not demonstrate a sound factual basis for the conclusion about the educational 
requirements for the particular position here at issue. 
Moreover, Professor I I asserts a general industry educational standard for "[p ]rofessionals in 
Information Systems positions" without referencing any supporting authority or any empirical basis 
6 It appears that the second opinion letter, submitted on appeal, is supplemental to the first opinion by vi1iue of information 
obtained through "an in-depth investigatory phone call" with a representative of the Petitioner. 
5 
for the pronouncement. Professor I I cites to the IS 20 IO Curriculum Guidelines for 
Undergraduate Degree Programs in I11formation Systems, published by the Association for 
Computing Machinery (ACM), and asserts that academic programs in information systems and related 
fields model their curricula to impart skills in 7 major "knowledge areas."7 Other than referring to the 
"wide adoption of the ACM's Curriculum Guidelines," he does not discuss relevant research, studies, or 
authoritative publications he utilized as part of his review and foundation for his opinion. Rather than 
offering a cogent analysis of the duties and a comprehensible explanation of why the duties require a 
bachelor's degree in engineering management or information systems management, Professor! ts 
evaluations create further ambiguity in the record. Upon review of these evaluations, they do not 
sufficiently correspond to the record and have little probative value. 
In summary, the opinion letters rendered by Professor I l are not sufficient ~lish the 
proffered position as a specialty occupation. The conclusions reached by Professorl__J lack the 
requisite specificity and detail and are not supported by independent, objective evidence demonstrating 
the manner in which he reached such conclusions. There is an inadequate factual foundation 
established to support the opinions and the of nions I are not in accord with other information in the 
record. Therefore, the letters from Professor do not establish that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation. 
We may, in our discretion, use advisory opinion statements submitted as expert testimony. However, 
where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we are not 
required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N 
Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988). As a reasonable exercise of our discretion we discount the advisory opinion 
letters as not probative of any criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position, and references the 
Beneficiary's education and experience as evidence that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation. 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. Here, the Petitioner did not sufficiently develop 
relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position, and it did not identify any 
tasks that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. 
Thus, it cannot be concluded that the Petitioner has 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. On appeal, the 
Petitioner did not assert eligibility under this criterion, nor did it provide additional evidence to satisfy 
the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
7 These guidelines used for potential curriculums are far too broad to establish that a particular position requires a body of 
highly specialized knowledge resulting from study at a bachelor's-degree level in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, in 
order to perform the duties of the position. Neither the Petitioner nor Dr.c=]provides a comprehensible analysis of the 
relevance of such guidelines, if any, to establish the particular position proffered here is a specialty occupation. 
6 
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. 
As discussed, neither the Handbook nor another authoritative source indicates that a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, is normally required for positions located within this 
occupational category, and the Petitioner's descriptions of the proffered position's duties provide 
insufficient information to determine whether the nature of the position is so specialized and complex 
that it can be performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent. 
On appeal, the Petitioner supplemented the record with a 32-page letter from its president, which listed 
the principal duties of the proffered position, the percentage of time to be devoted to each of the stated 
duties, and the coursework that prepared the Beneficiary to perform such duties. 8 The descriptions do 
not detail the specialized and complex nature of specific duties the Beneficiary will perform. The 
Petitioner describes a position that involves knowledge of information technology methods and 
techniques. The Petitioner, however, does not develop relative specialization and complexity as an aspect 
of the proffered position. While the Petitioner attempts to provide more specificity, duties such as 
"determine operational feasibility by evaluating analysis," "direct the creation and maintenance of 
processes and procedures" "confidentially lead the top tier Priority 1 incidents" and "execute a data set 
for the development work that is done and make sure that the workflow is running as expected" do not 
allow us to understand what the Beneficiary would actually do as he carries out these tasks. The 
proposed duties do not include meaningful discussion of how those duties require the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge. 
The Petitioner describes a position that involves knowledge of information technology methods and 
techniques. The Petitioner, however, does not develop relative specialization and complexity as an aspect 
of the proffered position. The proposed duties do not include meaningful discussion of what the 
Beneficiary will actually be required to do in the proffered position and how those duties require the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge. 
We have again reviewed Professorl ts opinions in order to ascertain what elements of the particular 
position are specialized and complex. We again do not find the opinions persuasive. Professor I I 
does not present a descriptive analysis that supports his ultimate conclusion that the duties described are 
specialized, requiring a bachelor's degree in engineering management, information systems management, 
or a related area at a minimum. We again note that the information upon which his opinions are based 
is unclear, as he does not discuss the duties of the Beneficiary in the context of the end-client project. 
His opinions, therefore, are not supported with analysis demonstrating that the duties of the proposed 
8 As recognized by the court in Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387-88 (5th Cir. 2000), where the work is to be 
performed for entities other than the petitioner, evidence of the client companies' job requirements is critical. We note 
that the supplemental description of the duties of the position submitted on appeal is not endorsed by the end-client and 
thus is afforded less evidentiary weight. 
7 
position require a bachelor's degree in engineering management or information systems management. 
That is, he does not adequately explain why the position cannot be performed by a person without a 
degree in one of these fields. 
As the Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative specialization and complexity as an aspect of 
the duties of the position, it has not satisfied the criterion at 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 that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8