dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF V-I-S-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 12,2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an information technology consulting firm, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "senior Citrix engineer" under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-1B program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified 
foreign worker in a position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body 
of highly specialized knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the 
specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation position. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the evidence of record satisfies all evidentiary requirements. 
I 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
'I 
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 V-1-S-, Inc. 
(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 Immigration Services (USCIS) has consistently 
interpreted the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any 
baccalaureate or higher degree , but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed 
position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. 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 
,-
In the H-1 B petition , the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a "senior Citrix 
engineer. " In a letter submitted with the petition , the Petitioner provided the following job duties: 
As a Senior Citrix Engineer , [the Beneficiary] will provide design review 
recommendations to the Customer and remediate existing design challenges or 
constraints in a timely manner with no disruption to existing systems or compromise 
of security. '[The Beneficiary] will perform site planning and design for product 
implementation , configuration and optimization of hardware and software , and 
troubleshooting. He will provide as-built/as-installed documentation necessary to 
support 'authority to operate' content for user and technician training and 
documentation. He will provide assistance with troubleshooting the configuration 
and connectivity . He will also provid e design and Bill of Materials (BOM) to meet 
customer ' s current requirements. 
The Petitioner further stated, "The position is professional in nature and requires, at a minimum , a 
Bachelor's degree in Engineering or a related field, or equivalent" 
The Beneficiary would not perform his job duties at the Petitioner's Maryland location . 
Instead , he would work in Maryland , at an office of the 
(end-client) pursuant to contractual agreements between (l) the Petitioner and 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of V-1-S-, Inc. 
(vendor) and (2) the vendor and the end-client. In other words, the contractual succession 
appears to be as follows: Petitioner -7 Vendor -7 End-client. 
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. 1 
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? 
However, before engaging in that analysis we ___ will first address a foundational deficiency which 
alone precludes a finding that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. As recognized by the 
court in Defensor, supra, 201 F.3d at 387-88, whe~e the work is to be performed for entities other 
than the petitioner, evidence of the client companies ' job requirements is critical. See Defensor, 201 
F.3d at 387-88. The court held that the former Immigration and Naturalization Service had 
reasonably interpreted the statute and regulations as requiring the petitioner to produce evidence that 
a proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation on the basis of the requirements imposed by 
the entities using the beneficiary's services. Jd. Such evidence must be sufficiently detailed to 
demonstrate the type and educational level of highly specialized knowledge in a specific discipline 
that is necessary to perform that particular work. 
Here, the record of proceedings in this case is similarly devoid of sufficient information from the 
end-client regarding the specific job duties to be performed by the Beneficiary for that company. 
While the assertions of the vendor are noted, it is not the vendor who would be utilizing the 
Beneficiary's services. 3 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 factua'l 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. 
1 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each ofthe criteria individually. 
2 _The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 B petition, includi_ng 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 The Director also noted this deficiency in her decision denying the petition. On appeal, the Petitioner neither addresses 
the Director's statements nor explains why it has elected not to submit documentation from the end-client. 
3 
Matter of V-1-S-, Inc. 
While this factor alone precludes a finding that the proffered position is a specialty occupation we 
will nonetheless perform a full specialty-occupation analysis so as to provide the Petitioner with a 
more comprehensive analysis. 
A. First Criterion 
We tum next 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 U.S. 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.4 
On the labor condition application (LCA)5 submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Computer Systems Analysts" 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 15-1121. The Handbook states the 
following about the educational requirements of positi~ns located within this occupational category: 
Most computer systems analysts have a bachelor's degree in a computer-related field. 
Because these analysts also are heavily involved in the business side of a company, it 
may be helpful to take business courses or major in management information 
systems. 
Some employers prefer applicants who have a master's degree in business 
administration (MBA) with a concentration in information systems. For more 
technically complex jobs, a master's degree in computer science may be more 
appropriate. 
Although many computer systems analysts have technical degrees, such a degree is 
not always a requirement. Many analysts have liberal arts degrees and have gained 
programming or technical expertise elsewhere. 
4 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 designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the 
general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered position, and USC IS regularly reviews 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 pro~of 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. 
5 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to USCIS 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 ofSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 545-546 (AAO 20 15). 
4 
Matter of V-1-S-, Inc. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook. 2016-17 ed., 
"Computer Systems Analysts," http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/ 
computer-systems-analysts.htm#tab-4 (last visited Jan. 11, 20 17). 
According to the Handbook, many individuals employed within this occupational category have 
liberal arts degrees and have gained programming or technical expertise elsewhere. It further reports 
that many analysts have technical degrees. We observe that the Handbook does not specify a degree 
level (e.g., associate's degree, baccalaureate) for these technical degrees. Moreover, it specifically 
states that such a degree is not always a requirement. Thus, the Handbook does not support the 
claim that the occupational category of computer systems analyst is one for which normally the 
minimum requirement for entry is a baccalaureate degree (or higher) in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. Even if it did, the record of proceedings does not contain sufficient persuasive 
documentary evidence from any other relevant authoritative source establishing that the proffered 
position's inclusion within the "Computer Systems Analysts" occupational category establishes the 
proffered position as, in the words of this criterion, a "particular position" for which "[a] 
baccalaureate or higher degreeor its equivalent is normally the minimum requirement for entry." 
Thus, 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 yresents 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 
casts its gaze upon 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. 
In determining whether there is such a corrimon degree requirelJlent, factors often considered by USC IS 
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)). 
Here and as already discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for 
which the Handbook (or other independent, authoritative source) reports an industry-wide requirement 
5 
Matter of V-1-S-, Inc. 
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." Nor does the record contain any other evidence for our consideration under this prong. 
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. 
A review of the record of proceedings finds that the Petitioner has not credibly demonstrated that the 
duties the Beneficiary will be responsible for or perform on a day-to-day basis constitute a position 
so complex or unique that it can only be performed by a person with at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. As noted, the record does not contain evidence from the end­
client regarding the proffered position and the job duties. Even when considering the Petitioner's 
descriptions of the proffered position's duties, the evidence of record does not establish why a few 
related courses or industry experience alone is insufficient preparation for the proffered position. 
For example, while a few related courses may be beneficial, or even required, in performing certain 
duties of the position, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how an established curriculum of such 
courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is 
required to perform the duties of the proffered position. The description of the duties does not 
specifically identify any tasks that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed 
individual could perform them. The record lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish the 
proffered position as more complex or unique from other positions that can be performed by persons 
withoutat least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
Therefore, the evidence of record does not establish that this position is significantly different from 
other positions in the occupation such that it refutes the Handbook's information to the effect that 
there is a spectrum of degrees acceptable for such positions, including degrees not in a specific 
specialty. In other words, the record lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish the 
proffered position as unique from or more complex than positions that can be performed by persons 
without at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. As the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate how the proffered position is so complex or unique relative to other positions within the 
same occupational category that do not require at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty 
or its equivalent for entry into the occupation in the United States, we cannot conclude that the 
Petitioner has satisfied the second alternative prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
6 
Matter of V-1-S-, Inc. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the positiOn, and references his 
qualifications. 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. 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. 
Again, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong. 
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.6 
The Petitioner has not expressly asserted eligibility under this criterion. Nor does it provide any 
evidence pertinent to past or present employees. An employer would generally be unable to satisfy 
the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3) without providing such evidence. 
Setting that issue aside, we note that the Petitioner has not even effectively claimed that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation position by virtue of requiring a minimum of a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. That is, the Petitioner stated that the 
proffered position requires a minimum of a Bachelor's degree in engineering or a related field, or its 
equivalent. However, the field of engineering is a broad category that covers numerous and various 
specialties, some of which are only related through the basic principles of science and mathematics, 
e.g., nuclear engineering and aerospace engineering. Therefore, whether a general degree in 
engineering or in one of its many sub-specialties, such as chemical engineering or nuclear 
engineering would be directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position 
proffered in this matter is not readily apparent. 
For all of these reasons, the current record does not satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
6 While a petitioner may believe or otherwise assert that a proffered position requires a degree in a specific specialty, 
that opinion alone without corroborating evidence cannot establish the position as a specialty occupation. Were USCIS 
limited solely to reviewing a 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 employer artificially 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, 20 I F. 3d at 387. In other words, if a 
petitioner's degree requirement is only symbolic and the proffered position does not in fact require such a specialty 
degree or its equivalent to perform its duties, the occupation would not meet the statutory or regulatory definition of a 
specialty occupation. See section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty 
occupation"). 
Matter of V-1-S-, Inc. 
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 duties of the proffered position, such as providing design review recommendations, remediating 
design challenges in a timely manner, performing site planning, etc., contain insufficient indication 
of a nature so specialized and complex that they require knowledge usually associated with 
attainment of a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. Given the 
Handbook's indication that typical positions located within this occupational category do not 
normally require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, it is unclear why the 
duties of the proffered position would. In other words, the proposed duties have not been described 
with sufficient specificity to show that they are more specialized and complex than those of the 
positions located in this occupational category that are not usually associated with at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
For the reasons discussed above, the evidence of record does not satisfy the fourth criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
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. 
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.f"V-1-S-, Inc., ID# 97207 (AAO Jan. 12, 2017) 
8