dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

MATTER OF P-I-T- CORP. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 14, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an information technology business, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
computer systems analyst under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
The H-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, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
evidence of record does not establish that the Petitioner has specialty occupation work available for 
the Beneficiary, and thus, that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the evidence of record was sufficient to establish eligibility for the benefit sought. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.P.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: 
Matter of P-1-T- 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). 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 computer systems 
analyst. In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided the 
following job duties for the position: 
• Modify existing software to correct errors, allow it to adapt to new hardware, and 
improve its performance (25% ). 
• Develop and ·direct software system testing and validation procedures, 
programming, and documentation (10%). 
• Confer with systems analysts, engineers, programmers and others to design 
system solutions and obtain information on project limitations and capabilities, 
performance requirements and interfaces (5%). 
• Analyze user needs and software requirements to determine feasibility of design 
within time and cost constraints (1 0% ). 
• Design, develop and modify software systems, using· scientific analysis and 
mathematical models to predict and measure outcome and consequences of design 
(10%). 
• Store, retrieve, and manipulate data for analysis of· system capabilities and 
requirements (5%). 
• Coordinate software system installation and monitor equipment functioning to 
ensure specifications are met (5%). 
2 
Matter of P-1-T- Corp. 
• Obtain and evaluate infoi'lllation on factors such as reporting formats required, 
costs, and security needs to determine hardware configuration (10%). 
• Research and examine current systems and consulting users by liaising with PITC 
colleagues such as systems analysts and designers (5%). 
• Design and write software, documentation and operating manuals (5%). 
• Test and modify systems to ensure that they operate reliably by providing support 
and responding to feedback, fault-finding, diagnosing and fixing system controls 
(10%). 
According to the Petitioner, the position requires "a m1mmum of a Bachelor's degree or its 
equivalent in Computer Science, Computer Applications, Commerce, Business Administration or a 
related field." 
Ill: 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 (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. 1 
The record of proceedings lacks sufficient information regarding the proffered position. For H-lB 
approval, the Petitioner must demonstrate a legitimate need for an employee exists and to 
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 computer 
systems 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-lB 
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 
1 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-18 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 
(b)(6)
Matter of P-1-T- Corp. 
position or its duties. For example, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will "modify existing 
software to correct errors, allow it to adapt to new hardware, and improve its performance"; 
"develop and direct software system testing and validation procedures, programming, and 
documentation"; "design, develop and modify software systems, using scientific analysis and 
mathematical models to predict and measure outcome and consequences of design"; and, "test and 
modify systems to ensure that they operate reliably by providing support and responding to 
feedback, fault-finding, diagnosing and fixing system controls." The Petitioner's description is 
generalized and generic in that the Petitioner 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. 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, but 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.P.R.§ 103.2(b)(l4). 
In addition, the job description states that the Beneficiary will "confer with systems analysts, 
engineers, programmers and others to design system solutions and obtain information on project 
limitations and capabilities, performance requirements and interfaces." Further, in response to the 
RFE, the Petitioner asserted that "all our professional employees are financial analysts, computer 
engineers, project managers, programmer analysts, software developers, and computer systems 
analysts with requisite expertise in the field of employment." However, the Petitioner only has two 
employees, and one of the employees is the CEO. The record does not reflect that the Petitioner has 
additional employees. "Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a 
reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the 
visa petition." Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). 
We further note that the record of proceedings 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-1 B caliber work for the Beneficiary for the period of employment 
requested in the petition. The Petitioner submitted a project summary for the in-house 
project that the Beneficiary will work on as a computer systems analyst. The summary indicated 
that the project will be a "2-3 year ongoing in-house project." The summary lists two phases and a 
developmental approach. Under the development approach section, the Petitioner states that "our 
solution will be based on the doubango framework." The Petitioner also submitted a programmer's 
guide for doubango. Upon review, none of the documentation explains how a computer systems 
analyst would assist on this project, or specifically name the Beneficiary as personnel to assist with 
this project. In addition, the project summary is vague and does not clearly explain how the two 
phase will take two to three years to complete. The Petitioner also did not submit any contracts or 
corroborating evidence that this project has been contracted and that there are sufficient funds to 
continue for the entire duration of the project. Thus, the Petitioner did not provide documents to 
4 
Matter of P-1-T- Corp. 
substantiate its ongoing project for the H-1B validity period2• "[G]oing on !record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in 
these proceedings." Matter of So.ffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft ofCal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
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, USCIS 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 tasks as described do not communicate (1) the actual work 
that the Beneficiary would perform, (2) the complexity, uniqueness and/or specialization of the 
tasks, and/or (3) the correlation between that work and a need for a particular level education of 
highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. 
The Petitioner 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) 
2 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-18 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) of the 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 Classification, 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). 
5 
Matter of P-1-T- Corp. 
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. 
However, even if the Petitioner had established the substantive nature of the work, the Petitioner's 
requirements for the proffered position indicate that the position is not a specialty occupation. 
Specifically, the Petitioner indicates that the position requires "a minimum of a Bachelor's degree or 
its equivalent in Computer Science, Computer Applications, Commerce, Business Administration or 
a related field." On appeal, the Petitioner states "a bachelor's degree in the field is a minimum 
prerequisite for this professional specialty occupation" but does not state a specific specialty 
required for the position. 
However, the claimed requirement of a degree in such majors as "Commerce" or "Business 
Administration" for the proffered position, without further specialization, is inadequate to establish 
that the proposed position qualifies as a specialty occupation. A petitioner must demonstrate that the 
proffered position requires a precise and specific' course of study that relates direCtly and closely to 
the position in question. Since there must be a close correlation between the required specialized 
studies and the position, the requirement of a degree with a generalized title, such as business 
administration, without further specification, does not establish the position as a specialty 
occupation. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). 
To prove that a job requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge as required by section 214(i)(l) of the Act, a petitioner must establish that the position 
requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specialized field of study or its 
equivalent. As discussed supra, US CIS interprets the degree requirement at 8 C.F .R. § 
214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to require a degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed 
position. Although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business administration, 
may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will 
not justify a finding that a particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. 
Royal Siam Corp. v. Cherto.IJ, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007). 
Again, the Petitioner claims that the duties of the proffered position can be performed by an 
individual with only a general-purpose bachelor's degree, i.e., a bachelor's degree in business 
administration. Without more, this assertion alone indicates that the proffered position is not in fact 
a specialty occupation. As such, even if the substantive nature ofthe work had been established, the 
instant petition could not be approved for this additional reason. 
6 
Matter of P-1-T- Corp. 
IV. ADDITIONAL ISSUES 
Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we need not address 
other grounds of ineligibility we observe in the record of proceedings. Nevertheless, we will briefly 
note and summarize them here with the hope and intention that, if the Petitioner seeks again to 
employ the Beneficiary or another individual as an H -1 B employee in the proffered position, it will 
submit sufficient independent objective evidence to address and overcome these additional grounds 
in any future filing. 
A. Beneficiary's Qualification 
We do not need to examine the issue of the Beneficiary's qualifications, because the Petitioner has 
not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
In other words, the Beneficiary's credentials to perform a particular job are relevant only when the 
job is found to be a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence regarding the proffered position to determine 
whether it will require a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
Absent this determination that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty or its 
equivalent is required to perform the duties of the proffered position, it also cannot be determined 
whether the Beneficiary possesses that degree or its equivalent. Therefore, we need not and will not 
address the Beneficiary's qualifications further, except to note that, in any event, the Petitioner did 
not submit an evaluation of the Beneficiary's foreign degrees or sufficient evidence to establish that 
the Beneficiary's degree is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 
B. Employer-Employee Relationship 
Further, the evidence does not demonstrate that the Petitioner qualifies as a United States employer 
having an employer-employee relationship with the Beneficiary. As detailed above, the record of 
proceedings lacks sufficient documentation evidencing what exactly the Beneficiary would do for 
the period of time requested or where exactly and for whom the Beneficiary would be providing his 
services. Given this specific lack of evidence, the Petitioner has not corroborated who has or will 
have actual control over the Beneficiary's work or duties, or the condition and scope of the 
Beneficiary's services. In other words, the Petitioner has not established whether it has made a bona 
fide offer of employment to the Beneficiary based on the evidence of rec<;>rd or that the Petitioner, or 
any other company which it may represent, will have and maintain the requisite employer-employee 
relationship with the Beneficiary for the duration of the requested employment period. See 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "United States employer" and requiring the Petitioner to engage 
the Beneficiary to work such that it will have and maintain an employer-employee relationship with 
respect to the sponsored H-lB nonimmigrant worker). Again and as previously discussed, there is 
insufficient evidence detailing where the Beneficiary will work, the specific projects to be performed 
by the Beneficiary, or for which company the Beneficiary will ultimately perform these services. 
Matter of P-1-T- Corp. 
V. CONCLUSION 
The evidence of record does not establish that the Petitioner has specialty occupation work available 
for the Beneficiary, and thus, 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; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden 
has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofP-1-T- Corp., ID# 17906 (AAO Sept. 14, 2016) 
8