dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

MATTER OF S-S-, LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 16,2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a custom software development and information technology firm, seeks to 
temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "business analyst" under the H-1 B nonimmigrant 
classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(l5)(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 kiwwledge 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 there is 
insufficient evidence to establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's basis 
for denial of the petition was erroneous and contends that it satisfied all evidentiary requirements. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-S-, LLC 
(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.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We have consistently interpreted the term "degree" in the criteria at 
8 C.P.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. 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 384, 387-88 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
In the H -1 B petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a "business analyst." 1 In 
its letter of support, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will work at its branch office m 
Missouri, with periodic travel to its branch office in Kansas. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner clarified that the Beneficiary 
will be working on the 
project. In addition, the Petitioner stated that it "has various ongoing projects in addition to internal 
product/service upgrades and development tasks that the Beneficiary may become involved with if 
he no longer needs to primarily contribute his time to the " The Petitioner also 
provided the following job duties for the position: 
Job Duties % oftime 
executing 
on a daily 
basis 
Collaborate with [the Petitioner's] functional · business analysts 
1 It must be noted that the Petitioner's organizational chart, submitted in response to the Director's RFE, shows the 
Beneficiary as a "software engineer" and not a "business analyst." The Petitioner provided no explanation for this 
discrepancy. 
2 
Matter of S-S-. LLC 
throughout the design, development, testing, and implementation of a 
module of the solution such as contribution reporting, purchase of 
service, benefit claims, benefit calculations, [and] benefit payments. 10% 
Monitor team progress and provide status reports to the [Petitioner's] 
project manager, functional manager, and technical manager. 5% 
Perform functional analysis of the client's current business process 
and supporting documentation. 5% 
Lead meetings with client subject matter experts (SMEs) to elicit, 
clarify, and confirm business requirements. 5% 
Identify process improvements and facilitate reengineering of business 
process. 5% 
Prepare Business Process Management (BPM) maps usmg [the 
Petitioner's] Design Studio. 5% 
Design user interface prototype screens and navigational flows. 5% 
Prepare design specification artifacts defining business rules, 
outbound communication, reports, and input I output files. 5% 
Facilitate Joint Application Design (JAD) or other design meetings 
with clients. 5% 
Prepare test cases for system testing and user acceptance testing. 5% 
Support the sign-off process for design specification deliverables. 5% 
Verify coverage oftest cases to ensure system quality. 5% 
Write SQL queries in Microsoft SQL Server to procure test data. 5% 
Conduct unit testing, integration testing, and system testing on the 
developed solution. 20% 
Support end users during User Acceptance Testing (UAT) and, if 
required, throughout the duration of maintenance and support 
agreements. 
~ 
5% 
Prepare training materials and conduct training activities for system 
end users. 5% 
Total: 100% 
According to the Petitioner, the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree in computer science, 
engineering, or a closely related field. 
III. ANALYSIS 
On appeal, the Petitioner indicates that the "preponderance of the evidence" standard is relevant to 
this matter, and that it established through credible evidence that the pro±Iered position is a specialty 
occupation and sufficient H-lB caliber work exists for the Beneficiary for the entire requested 
period. 
The "preponderance of the evidence" standard requires that the evidence demonstrate that the 
Petitioner's claim is "probably true," where the determination of "truth" is made based on the factual 
3 
Matter of S-S-, LLC 
cin;umstances of each individual case. Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) 
(citing Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989)). In evaluating the evidence, the 
truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. !d. Thus, in 
adjudicating the petition pursuant to the preponderance of the evidence standard, the Director must 
examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is 
probably true. 
Applying the preponderance of the evidence standard, 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 not establish that the 
job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty 
occupation. 2 
For H-IB approval, the Petitioner must demonstrate a legitimate need for an employee exists and 
substantiate that it has H-lB caliber work for the Beneficiary for the period of employment 
requested in the petition. It is incumbent upon the Petitioner to demonstrate it has sufficient work to 
require the services of a. person with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, to perform duties at a level that requires the theoretical and practical application of at 
least a bachelor's degree level of a body of highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty for 
the period specified in the petition. 
In this matter, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary will be employed in-house as a business 
analyst. However, we find that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient, credible evidence to 
establish in-house employment for the Beneficiary for the validity of the requested H -1 B 
employment period. Specifically, the Petitioner did not submit a job description to adequately 
convey the substantive work to be performed by the Beneficiary. As reflected in the description of 
the position as quoted above, the proffered position has been described in terms of generalized and 
generic functions that do not convey sufficient substantive information to establish the relative 
complexity, uniqueness and/or specialization of the proffered position or its duties. 
For example, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will "[c]ollaborate with [the Petitioner's] 
functional business analysts throughout the design, development, testing, and implementation of a 
module of the solution such as contribution reporting, purchase of service, benefit claims, benefit 
calculations, [and] benefit payments"; "[ m]onitor team progress and provide status reports to the 
[Petitioner's] project manager, functional manager, and technical manager"; "[p ]erform functional 
analysis of the client's current business process and supporting documentation"; "[p]repare test cases 
for system testing and user acceptance testing"; "[ s ]upport the sign-off process for design 
specification deliverables;" and [ c ]onduct unit testing, integration testing, and system testing on the 
2 
The Petitioner submitted documentation in support of 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. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-S-, LLC 
developed solution." The record of proceedings does not contain a more detailed description 
explaining what particular duties the Beneficiary will perform on a day-to-day basis (e.g., what is 
meant by "[p ]erform functional analysis"). Nor is there a detailed explanation regarding the 
demands, level of responsibilities, complexity , or requirements necessary for the performance of 
these duties (e.g., explain what specific systems and applications are involved, and what body of 
knowledge is required to perform the duties). The Petitioner's description is generalized and generic 
and does not convey the substantive nature of the work that the Beneficiary would actually perform , 
or any particular body of highly specialized knowledge that would have to be theoretically and 
practically applied to perform it. 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides a/ brief description of some software products offered by the 
Petitioner, but it does not provide a detailed understanding of the Beneficiary's responsibilities with 
working on these products . The Petitioner also states that it is working on the trademarked 
pension administration software and systems, but the Petitioner's job description does not 
specifically discuss in detail any of these software products and only mentions The 
responsibilities for the proffered position contain generalized functions without providing sufficient 
information regarding the particular work, and associated educational requirements, into which the 
duties would manifest themselves in their day-to-day performance. 
Furthermore, in the RFE, the Director requested a more detailed job description and the product to 
be developed or the service to be provided; however, in response, the Petitioner provided the same 
general duties and added the percentage breakdown for each duty. "Failure to submit requested 
evidence which precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the [petition] ." 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l4). 
The record of proceedings also lacks documentation regarding the Petitioner ' s business activities and 
the actual work that the Beneficiary will perform to sufficiently substantiate the claim that the 
Petitioner has H-lB caliber work for the Beneficiary for the period of employment requested in the 
petition. In response to the RFE, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will primarily be working 
on the project from the Petitioner ' s offices. The Petitioner submitted a letter from the 
executive secretary of to confirm that it has an "ongoing agreement with [the 
Petitioner] to upgrade, develop, and administer its retirement benefits management system that will 
continue after the current contract term ends on July 31 , 2016." The letter also states that 
expects to "continue the agreement 'for additional phases of this project after the 
current phase to continue through September 30, 2019." Upon review, the letter does not indicate a 
need for a busin_ess analyst and does not state how a business analyst would assist on this project, or 
specifically name the Beneficiary as personnel to assist with this project. .· In addition, the project 
summary is very brief and vague and does not clearly explain how the additional phase will take 3 
more years to complete. 
The Petitioner also did not submit any contracts or corroborating evidence that this project will 
continue until September 2019, and that there are sufficient funds to continue for the entire duration 
of the project. In response to the RFE, the Petitioner also stated that it has two other clients in the 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-S-. LLC 
area and it expects the Beneficiary to work on "multiple project as needed." However, the Petitioner 
did not provide any information regarding the projects for the additional clients, or evidence that the 
work provided by the Beneficiary will be utilized on these projects. Thus, the Petitioner did not 
provide documents to substantiate its ongoing project for the requested H-lB validity period.3 
Furthermore, upon review of the "maintenance and support service level agreement" between the 
Petitioner and section 2.4. states that "(a]s the parties develop projects to be governed 
by the Agreement, they shall enter in Statements of Work which shall contain the detailed terms of 
each project." In the current petition, the Petitioner did not submit any statements of work that list 
the project details or the need for the Beneficiary's services. Without additional information and 
documentation establishing what projects have been secured, the specific duties the Beneficiary will 
perform on these projects, and the required knowledge perform these duties, we are unable to discern 
the substantive nature of the position and whether the position indeed qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. 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. 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 qualifies as a specialty occupation on the basis of the requirements imposed by the entities 
using the beneficiary's services. Id. Such evidence must be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate the 
type and educational level of highly specialized knO\vledge in a specific discipline that is necessary 
to perform that particular work. The record of proceedings does not contain such evidence here. 
3 The agency made clear long ago that speculative employment is not permitted in the H-1 B program . For. example , a 
1998 proposed rule documented this position as follows : 
Historically, the Service has not granted H-1 B classification on the basis of speculative, or 
undetermined , prospective employment. The H-1 B classification is not intended as a vehicle for an 
alien to engage in a job search within the United States, or for employers to bring in temporary foreign 
workers to meet possible workforce needs arising from potential business expansions or the 
expectation of potential new customers or contracts. To determine whether an alien is properly 
classifiable as an H-1 B nonimmigrant under the statute, the Service must first examine the duties of the 
position to be occupied to ascertain whether the duties of the position require the attainment of a 
specific bachelor 's degree . See section 214(i) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act (the " Act"). The 
Service must then determine whether the alien has the appropriate degree for the occupation. In the 
case of speculative employment, the Service is unable to perform either part of this two-prong analysis 
and, therefore, is unable to adjudicate properly a request for H-1 B classification. Moreover, there is no 
assurance that the alien will engage in a specialty occupation upon arrival in this country. 
Petitioning Requirements for the H Nonimmigrant Clas sification, 63 Fed. Reg. 30,419, 30,419-20 (proposed June 4, 
1998) (to be codified at 8 C.F. R. pt. 214). While a petitioner is certainly permitted to change its intent with regard to 
non-speculative employment , e.g., a change in duties or job location , it must nonetheless document such a material 
change in intent through an amended or new petition in accordance with 8 C.F.R . § 214 .2(h)(2)(i)(E) . 
6 
Matter of S-S-, LLC 
As observed above, USCIS in this matter must review the actual duties the Beneficiary will be 
expected to perform to ascertain whether those duties require at least a baccalaureate degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, as required for classification as a specialty occupation. To 
'accomplish that task in this matter, users must analyze the actual duties in conjunction with the 
specific project(s) to which the Beneficiary will be assigned. To allow otherwise, results in generic 
descriptions of duties that, while they may appear (in some instances) to comprise the duties of a 
specialty occupation, are not related to any actual services the Beneficiary is expected to provide. 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient details regarding the nature and scope of the Beneficiary's 
employment or any 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 Petitioner 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. 
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 as a specialty 
occupation. The Director's decision is affirmed, and the appeal is dismissed for this reason. 
IV. EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP 
Finally, we will briefly address the issue of whether or not the Petitioner qualifies as an H-lB 
employer. The United States Supreme Court determined that where federal law fails to clearly 
define the term "employee," courts should conclude that the term was "intended to describe the 
conventional master-servant relationship as understood by common-law agency doctrine." 
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318, 322-23 (1992) (quoting Cmty. for Creative 
Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989)). The Supreme Court stated: 
"In determining whether a hired party is an employee under the general common law 
of agency, we consider the hiring party's right to control the manner and means by 
which the product is accomplished. Among the other factors relevant to this inquiry 
are the skill required; the source of the instrumentalities and tools; the location of the 
work; the duration of the relationship between the parties; whether the hiring party 
has the right to assign additional projects to the hired party; the extent of the hired 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-S-, LLC 
party's discretion over when and how long to work; the method of payment; the hired 
party's role in hiring and paying assistants; whether the work is part of the regular 
business of the hiring party; whether the hiring party is in business ; the provision of 
employee benefits; and the tax treatment of the hired party." 
ld. ; see also Clackamas Gastroenterology Assocs ., P.C. v. Wells, 538 U.S. 440 , 445 (2003) (quoting 
Darden, 503 U.S. at 323) . As the common-law test contains "no shorthand formula or magic phrase 
that can be applied to find the answer , ... all of the incidents of the relationship must be assessed 
and weighed with no one factor being decisive." Darden, 503 U.S. at 324 (quoting NLRB v. United 
Ins. Co. of Am., 390 U.S. 254,258 (1968)). 
As such~ while social security contributions, worker's compensation contributions, unemployment 
insurance contributions , federal and state income tax withholdings , and other benefits are still 
relevant factors in determining who will control the Beneficiary , other incidents of the relationship, 
e.g., who will oversee and direct the work of the Beneficiary , who will provide the instrumentalities 
and tools, where will the work be located , and who has the right or ability to affect the projects to 
which the Beneficiary is assigned , must also be assessed and weighed in order to make a 
determination as to who will be the Beneficiary's employer. As discussed above, the record of 
proceedings lacks sufficient documentation evidencing exactly what the Beneficiary would do for 
the period of time requested. Given this specific lack of evidence, the Petitioner has not established 
who has or will have actual control over the Beneficiary's work or duties , or the condition and scope 
of the Beneficiary's services. We also note that the record does not include a statement of work for 
the client or contractual evidence of work for other clients if the project ends. Without 
. full disclosure of all of the relevant factors, we cannot conclude that the requisite employer­
employee relationship will exist between the Petitioner and 
the Beneficiary . For this additional 
reason, the petition is not approvable. 
V. 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. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter o.fS-S-, LLC, ID# 270857 (AAO Feb. 16, 2017) 
8