dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

(b)(6)
u,s. Department or Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: FEB 2 6 2015 OFFICE: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
~ 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director (hereinafter "director") denied the nonimmigrant visa 
petition, and the matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The 
appeal will be dismissed. The petition will be denied. 
I. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND 
On the Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worked (Form I-129), the petitioner describes itself as a 60-
employee "Information Technology Services" firm established in In order to employ the 
beneficiary in what it designates as a "Management Analyst" position, the petitioner seeks to classify 
him as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 110 1(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to establish (1) that it would 
employ the beneficiary in a specialty occupation position, and (2) that it has standing to file the 
instant visa petition as the beneficiary's prospective United States employer as that term is defined at 
8 C.P.R. § 21 4.2(h)(4)(ii). On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director's bases for denial were 
erroneous and contended that the petitioner satisfied all evidentiary requirements. 
As will be discussed below, we have determined that the director did not err in her decision to deny 
the petition on the bases specified in her decision. Accordingly, the director's decision will not be 
disturbed. The appeal will be dismissed, and the petition will be denied. 
We base our decision upon our review of the entire record of proceeding, which includes: (1) the 
petitioner's Form I-129 and the supporting documentation filed with it; (2) the service center's 
request for additional evidence (RFE); (3) the petitioner's response to the RFE; (4) the director's 
denial letter; and (5) the Form I-290B and the petitioner's submissions on appeal. 
II. THE LAW 
Section 101( a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Act defines an H-lB nonimmigrant in pertinent part as an alien: 
subject to section 21 2(j)(2), who is coming temporarily to the United States to 
perform services ... in a specialty occupation described in section 214(i)(1) .. . , 
who meets the requirements for the occupation specified in section 21 4(i)(2) ... , 
and with respect to whom the Secretary of Labor determines and certifies to the 
[Secretary of Homeland Security] that the intending employer has filed with the 
Secretary [of Labor] an application under section 212(n)(1) .... 
The term "United States employer" is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4 )(ii) as follows: 
United States employer means a person, firm, corporation, contractor, or other 
association, or organization in the United States which: 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEpENT DECISION 
Page 3 
(1) Engages a person to work within the United States; 
(2) Has an employer-employee relationship with respect to employees 
I 
under this part, as indicated by the fact that it may hire, pay, fire, 
supervise, or otherwise control the work of any such employe�; and 
(3) Has an Internal Revenue Service Tax identification number. 
(Emphasis added); see also 56 Fed. Reg. 61111, 61121 (Dec. 2, 1991); 
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 s�ecialized 
knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific special�y (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) states, in pertinent part, the following: 
Specialty occupation means an occupation which [(1)] requires theore�ical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in fields Qf human 
endeavor including, but not limited to, architecture, engineering, mathematics, 
physical sciences, social sciences, medicine and health, education, [ business 
specialties, accounting, law, theology, and the arts, and which [(2)] requires the 
attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equi�alent, as 
a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
· 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, a propo�ed position must 
also meet one of the following criteria: ' 
(1) 
(2) 
(3) 
A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent 1s normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positiohs among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may sho� that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed ohly by an 
individual with a degree; 
· 
The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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. 
As a threshold issue, it is noted that 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) must logically be read together 
with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). In other words, this regulatory 
language must be construed in harmony with the thrust of the related provisions and with the statute 
as a whole. SeeK Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) (holding that construction 
of language which takes into account the design of the statute as a whole is preferred); see also COlT 
Independence Joint Venture v. Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989); Matter ofW­
F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). As such, the criteria stated in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) 
should logically be read as being necessary but not necessarily sufficient to meet the statutory and 
regulatory definition of specialty occupation. To otherwise interpret this section as stating the 
necessary and sufficient conditions for meeting the definition of specialty occupation would result in 
particular positions meeting a condition under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory or 
regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). To avoid this 
result, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must therefore be read as providing supplemental criteria that 
must be met in accordance with, and not as alternatives to, the statutory and regulatory definitions of 
specialty occupation. 
As such and consonant with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) consistently interprets 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 proffered 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"). Applying this standard, USCIS regularly approves H-lB petitions for qualified aliens 
who are to be employed as engineers, computer scientists, certified public accountants, college 
professors, and other such occupations. These professions, for which petitioners have regularly been 
able to establish a minimum entry requirement in the United States of a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
particular position, fairly represent the types of specialty occupations that Congress contemplated 
when it created the H-lB visa category. 
To determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCIS does not simply 
rely on a position's title. The specific duties of the proffered position, combined with the nature of 
the petitioning entity's business operations, are factors to be considered. USCIS must examine the 
ultimate employment of the alien, and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. The critical element is not the title 
of the position nor an employer's self-imposed standards, but whether the position actually requires 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty as the minimum for entry into 
the occupation, as required by the Act. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
We note that, as recognized by the court in Defensor, supra, where the work is to be performed for 
entities other than the petitioner, evidence of the client companies' job requirements is critical. See 
Defensor v. Meissner, 20 1 F.3d at 387-388. 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. /d. at 384. 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. 
III. EVIDENCE 
The Labor Condition Application (LCA) submitted to support the visa petition states that the 
proffered position is a "Management Analyst" position, and that it corresponds to Standard 
Occupational Classification (SOC) code and title 13-1 111 , Management Analysts, from the 
Occupational Information Network (O*NET). The LCA further states that the proffered position is 
a Level I, entry-level, position.1 That LCA is certified for employment at 
Ohio.2 
With the visa petition, the petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary received a bachelor's 
degree in commerce from the in India and a master's degree in business 
administration from which is also in India. An evaluation in the record 
states that the beneficiary's degree is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree in business 
administration. 
The petitioner also submitted, inter alia: (1) a copy of the petitioner's employee handbook; (2) a 
document headed, "Performance Review Process"; (3 ) a document headed, "H1B Itinerary for H1B 
Nonimmigrant Worker"; (4) a copy of a "Supplier Agreement," dated July 12, 2013, between the 
petitioner and (5) a letter, dated March 18, 
2014, from signing as director of (6) a document, dated March 20, 2014, 
headed, "Employment Contract"; (7) a document, dated March 20, 2014, headed, "Offer of 
Employment"; (8 ) a document headed, "Position Description of [the petitioner ] for [the beneficiary]; 
(9) a document headed, "Work Order," dated March 26, 2014; and (10 ) a letter, dated March 31, 
2014, from signing as the petitioner's president. 
The petitioner's employee handbook states, inter alia, "[The beneficiary's] supervisor/manager at the 
client site will advise you of your working hours, work breaks, and lunch period (usually one hour)." 
1 The LCA is valid, therefore, for employment of a Level I Management Analyst as described at SOC code 
and title 13-1111, Management Analysts, from O*NET. It is not valid for employment in any other capacity. 
2 The LCA is valid, therefore, for employment in 
not valid for employment in any other area. 
Ohio and the surrounding area. It is 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
It states that, in the event that the client terminates the beneficiary's services on its project, "If other 
work is available, the [Petitioner) will reassign you to another client as soon as other work is 
available." 
The "Performance Review Process" document indicates that the petitioner will review the 
beneficiary's performance. 
The "H1B Itinerary for H1B Nonimmigrant Worker" confirms that the beneficiary would work at 
Ohio. It also contains the following description 
of the duties of the proffered position: 
Participate in Business and Functional Requirement review sessions. Perform Data 
Analysis with heavy use of query tools to understand the source and target of the data 
for validation purposes. Write recommendations for testing solutions, 
implementation and procedure rollout/acceptance in order to help the business adjust 
to current market conditions and/or as a result of data anomaly research. Create and 
Maintain artifacts such as Traceability Matrix, Use Cases, Business Critical process 
diagrams and workflows. Designing and implementing strategies for transportation 
management system services. Participate in the defining the Demand Management 
and staffing profile process to align client's resources to the respective project 
assignments. Act as liaison between the business side and the providers of services 
for the organization. Work on large scope, cross-functional projects as a subject 
matter expert. 
The July 12, 2013 Supplier Agreement sets out the general terms pursuant to which the petitioner 
might provide workers to to work on projects for the clients of The 
March 26, 2014 Work Order states that the petitioner would provide the beneficiary to work for 
position: 
a client of from November 25, 2013 to July 31, 2017. 3 
March 18, 2014 letter provides the following description of the duties of the proffered 
};> Perform Data Analysis with use of query tools to understand the source and target 
of the data for validation purposes 
};> Participate in Business and Functional Requirement review sessions 
};> Perform data analysis in order to prepare test data sets and validate End to End 
data workflow for applications under test 
};> Analyze data gathered and develop solutions or alternative methods of proceeding 
};> Review forms and reports and confer with management and users about format, 
distribution, and purpose, and to identify problems and improvements 
3 We observe that an agreement made on March 26, 2014 to provide a worker beginning on November 25, 
2013 is an unusual chronology. 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
� Design, evaluate, and recommend changes of forms and reports 
As to the supervision of the beneficiary, that letter states: "The overall control and supervision of 
[the beneficiary's] employment and duties are the responsibility of [the petitioner]" and, further, 
"[The petitioner] will have Direct Right to Control and supervise [the beneficiary's] overall work." 
As to the educational requirement of the proffered position, it states: "The above mentioned duties 
require a Bachelor's degree (or the equivalent) in a directly and closely related field." 
The March 20, 2014 Employment Contract contains the following description of the duties of the 
proffered position: 
� Participate in Business and Functional Requirement review sessions. 
� Perform Data Analysis with heavy use of query tools to understand the source and 
target of the data for validation purposes. 
� Write recommendations for testing solutions, implementation and procedure 
rollout/acceptance in order to help the business adjust to current market 
conditions and/or as a result of data anomaly research. 
� Designing and implementing strategies for transportation management system 
services. 
� Participate in the defining the Demand Management and staffing profile process 
to align client's resources to the respective project assignments. 
� Perform data analysis in order to prepare test data sets and validate End to End 
data workflow for applications under test 
� Analyze data gathered and develop solutions or alternative methods of proceeding 
� Develop and implement records management program for filing, protection, and 
retrieval of records, and assure compliance with program. 
� Review forms and reports and confer with management and users about format, 
distribution, and purpose, and to identify problems and improvements 
� Interview personnel and conduct on-site observation to ascertain unit functions, 
work performed, and methods, equipment, and personnel used. 
� Document findings of study and prepare recommendations for implementation of 
new systems, procedures, or organizational changes. 
� Prepare manuals and train workers in use of new forms, reports, procedures or 
equipment, according to organizational policy. 
� Design, evaluate, recommend, and approve changes of forms and reports 
� Plan study of work problems and procedures, such as organizational change, 
communications, information flow, integrated production methods, inventory 
control, or cost analysis. 
The March 20, 2014 "Offer of Em loyment" states, inter alia, that the beneficiary would work as a 
"Management Analyst" for Ohio location and that he "will be 
assigned duties by [his] Supervisor, 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
The position description reiterates the duty description contained in the March 20, 2014 employment 
contract. In his March 31, 2014 letter, also reiterated that duty description. As to the 
educational requirement of the proffered position, he stated: 
The usual minimum requirement for performance of the job duties of a Management 
Analyst in our company, as with any other similar organization, is a Bachelor's degree 
in Science, computer science, computer engineering, electronics, engineering, 
physical sciences or equivalent. 
On April 28, 2014, the service center issued an RFE in this matter. The service center requested, 
inter alia, evidence that the petitioner would employ the beneficiary in a specialty occupation and 
evidence pertinent to the terms of the beneficiary's employment. The service center provided a non­
exhaustive list of items that might be used to satisfy the specialty occupation requirements. 
In response, the petitioner submitted: (1) a list of the educational credentials of seven people whom 
the petitioner claims to employ as management analysts and business analysts; (2) a letter, dated 
May 7, 2014, from signing as "Sr. Consultant, Human Resources Services" at 
(3 ) a document headed, "Monthly Task Report"; (4) two letters, both dated May 8, 2014, from 
others in the petitioner's industry; (5) an evaluation of the proffered position, dated May 15, 2014; 
(6) a letter, dated May 20, 2014, from and (7) another letter, dated May 27, 2014, from 
The employee list provided indicates that the petitioner employs 
as Management Analysts, and employs _ 
as Business Analysts. It also lists their educational qualifications. Five of 
them have master's degrees in "Science in Technology Management." has a 
"Bachelor of Business Administration in Finance" degree, and has a "Master of 
Business Administration in Global Business Leadership and International Trade" degree. 
In her May 7, 2014 letter, stated: 
This is to confirm [the beneficiaryl will be working with as a consultant 
through our preferred vendor subcontracted through m 
the capacity of QA Analyst at the Ohio location]. This is an 
ongoing project and expected to continue for approximately through [sic] July 2017 
with extensions as needed. 
That letter also provided the following description of the duties of the proffered position: 
4 We observe that the existence of an intervening contractor, to whom 
beneficiary and which, in turn, would assign the beneficiary to work for 
mentioned. 
would assign the 
in Ohio, was never previously 
(b)(6)
Page 9 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
• Participate in Business and Functional Requirement review sessions. 
• Perform Data Analysis with heavy use of query tools to understand the source and 
target of the data for validation purposes. 
• Write recommendations for testing solutions, implementation and procedure 
rollout/acceptance in order to help the business adjust to current market 
conditions and/or as a result of data anomaly research. 
• Designing and implementing strategies for transportation management system 
services. 
• Participate in the defining the Demand Management and staffing profile process 
to align client's resources to the respective project assignments. 
• Perform data analysis in order to prepare test data sets and validate End to End 
data workflow for applications under test 
• Analyze data gathered and develop solutions or alternative methods of proceeding 
• Develop and implement records management program for filing, protection, and 
retrieval of records, and assure compliance with program. 
• Review forms and reports and confer with management and users about format, 
distribution, and purpose, and to identify problems and improvements 
One of the May 8, 2014 letters is from signing as HR Manager of The 
other is from signing as HR Manager of Both 
state that their companies' businesses are similar to that of the petitioner, and that a minimum of a 
bachelor's degree or its equivalent is a requirement for their company and is common in the industry 
for a management analyst position. 
The May 15, 2014 evaluation of the proffered position states that, based on the duty description 
contained in the March 20, 2014 Employment Contract, the duties of the proffered position require a 
minimum of "a Bachelor's Degree in Business Information Systems, Business Administration, or a 
related area, or the equivalent." 
In his May 20, 2014 letter, 
proffered position: 5 provided the foll owin g descript ion of the duties of the 
• Participate in Business and Functional Requirement review sessions and Perform 
Data Analysis with heavy use of query tools to understand the source and target of 
the data for validation purpose 
• Document findings of study and prepare recommendations for implementation of 
new systems, procedures, or organizational changes 
• Design, evaluate, recommend, and approve changes of forms and reports 
5 We observe that this duty description is the same as that in the description in the March 20, 2014 
Employment Contract, except that some phrases have been moved around within the description and in some 
cases two duties have been consolidated into one. 
(b)(6)
Page 10 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
• Write recommendations for testing solutions, implementation and procedure 
rollout/acceptance in order to help the business adjust to current market 
conditions and/or as a result of data anomaly research. 
• Designing and implementing strategies for transportation management system 
services. 
• Participate in the defining the Demand Management and staffing profile process 
to align client's resources to the respective project assignments. 
• Perform data analysis in order to prepare test data sets and validate End to End 
data workflow for applications under test 
• Analyze data gathered and develop solutions or alternative methods of proceeding 
and Plan study of work problems and procedures, such as organizational change, 
communications, information flow, integrated production methods, inventory 
control, or cost analysis 
• Develop and implement records management program for filing, protection, and 
retrieval of records, and assure compliance with prognim. 
• Review forms and reports and confer with management and users about format, 
distribution, and purpose, and to identify problems and improvements and 
interview personnel and conduct on-site observation to ascertain unit functions, 
work performed, and methods, equipment, and personnel used. 
• Prepare manuals and train workers in use of new forms, reports, procedures or 
equipment, according to organizational policy. 
As to the supervision of the beneficiary and the control of the project to be developed, 
stated: 
[The petitioner] does not work on any other arrangement except where we exercise 
the Right to Control on our employee and the project to ensure the work is performed 
professionally well as per the contract at the end-clients [sic] site located at [the 
Ohio address]. 
The entire implementation, development and manner of delivery are within the 
control of [the petitioner]. 
In his May 27, 2014 letter, reiterated various assertions previously made pertinent to the 
proffered position and the relationship between the petitioner and the beneficiary. 
The director denied the petition on June 12, 20 14, on the bases listed above. On appeal, the 
petitioner submitted: (1) vacancy announcements posted by on its website; (2) a 
letter, also dated August 1, 2014, from (3) a letter, dated August 1, 2014 
from and (4) a brief. 
The vacancy announcements from website include an announcement for 
management analyst positions. It states that the positions announced require a master's degree in 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
computers or engineering with coursework in Computer Architecture, Work Design/Productivity 
Engineering, Statistical Design Modeling, and Engineering Management. 
The August 1, 2014 letter from lists 16 people whom 
claims employs as management analysts. Three of those people have bachelor's 
degrees in business administration. Another six of those people have master's degrees in business 
administration. did not attempt to reconcile that fact with the assertion, in the 
vacancy announcements discussed above, that management analyst positions with 
require a master's degree in computers or engineering. 
The August 1, 2014 letter from 
employs as management analysts. 
lists seven people whom states 
In his brief, counsel cited the non-precedent AAO decisions, the U.S. Department of Labor's 
(DOL's) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook), and O*NET as support for the proposition 
that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation position. Counsel cited Matter of 
Smith, 12 I&N Dec 772, 773 (D.D. 1967); Matter of Allen Gee, Inc., 17 I&N Dec 296 (Acting Reg. 
Comm. 1979); and Matter of Ord, 18 I&N Dec 285 (Reg. Comm. 1982) for the proposition that the 
common law does not determine whether an employer-employee relationship exists under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(ii). 
IV. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION ANALYSIS 
We note that, although 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c) provides that our precedent decisions are binding on all 
USCIS employees in the administration of the Act, unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. 
The petitioner is certainly permitted to note the reasoning of our previous decisions, to demonstrate 
that the instant case is very similar, to assert that the reasoning of the previous case is compelling, 
and to urge that the reasoning should be extended. However, the petitioner has failed to furnish 
evidence establishing that the facts of the instant petition are analogous to those in the cited 
unpubli shed decisions. 6 
We observe that March 31, 2014 letter indicated that a bachelor's degree in any branch 
of science would be a sufficient educational qualification for the proffered position. He also stated 
that a bachelor's degree in any branch of engineering would be a sufficient educational qualification 
for the proffered position. 
While some portion of the list of subjects that could be included in the general category of "science" 
may be open to debate, "science" certainly includes physics, chemistry, geology, meteorology, 
biology, zoology, and botany. 
6 In fact, one of those two cited cases involves a visa petition for a market research analyst to work for a 
manufacturing business. The other case involves a position designated a senior programmer/analyst position. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
In general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry and biochemistry, a minimum 
of a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty is recognized as satisfying the "degree in 
the specific specialty (or its equivalent)" requirement of section 214(i)(1)(B) of the Act. In such a 
case, the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" would essentially be the same. Since 
there must be a close correlation between the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" and 
the position, however, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in two disparate fields, such as 
philosophy and engineering, would not meet the statutory requirement that the degree be "in the 
specific specialty (or its equivalent)," unless the petitioner establishes how each field is directly 
related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position such that the required "body of 
highly specialized knowledge" is essentially an amalgamation of these different specialties. Section 
214(i)(1)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). 
In other words, while the statutory "the" and the regulatory "a" both denote a singular "specialty," 
we do not so narrowly interpret these provisions to exclude positions from qualifying as specialty 
occupations if they permit, as a minimum entry requirement, degrees in more than one closely 
related specialty. See section 214(i)(1)(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). This also includes 
even seemingly disparate specialties providing, again, the evidence of record establishes how each 
acceptable, specific field of study is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
particular position. The instant case, however, contains no argument to support the proposition that 
all of the subjects that comprise the general category of science, considered together, delineate a 
specific specialty. 
Similarly, the requirement of a bachelor's degree in engineering is inadequate to establish that a 
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 to the position in 
question. Since there must be a close correlation between the required specialized studies and the 
position, the requirement of degrees with generalized titles, such as engineering, 7 without further 
specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz 
Associates, 19 I&N Dec. 558 (Comm'r 1988). 
The assertion of the petitioner's president that a degree in any branch of science or any branch of 
engineering would be a sufficient educational qualification for the proffered position is tantamount 
to an admission that the proffered position does not require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty or its equivalent and does not, therefore, qualify as a specialty occupation position. 
Further, the May 15, 2014 evaluation of the proffered position states that, based on the duty 
description contained in the March 20, 2014 Employment Contract, the duties of the proffered 
7 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, besides a degree in electrical engineering, it is not readily apparent that a 
general degree in engineering or one of its other sub-specialties, such as chemical engineering or nuclear 
engineering, is closely related to computer science or that engineering or any and all engineering specialties 
are directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position proffered in this matter. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
position require a minimum of "a Bachelor's Degree in Business Information Systems, Business 
Administration, or a related area, or the equivalent." A degree with a generalized title, such as 
business administration, without further specification, is not a degree in a specific specialty. Cf 
Matter of Michael Hertz Associates, 19 I&N Dec. 558 (Comm'r 1988). As such, an educational 
requirement that may be satisfied by an otherwise undifferentiated bachelor's degree in business 
administration is not a requirement of a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its 
equivalent. 
However, as was explained above, and as recognized by the court in Defensor, supra, where the 
work is to be performed for entities other than the petitioner, evidence of the end-user client 
companies' job requirements and the duties they would assign is critical. See Defensor v. Meissner, 
201 F.3d at 387-388. As will be explained in more detail below, we find that the end-client in this 
case, the entity for whom the work in this case would be performed, is The salient duty 
description, then, is the duty description ostensibly provided by in the May 7, 2014 letter from 
which is the only duty description that purports to have come from 
To determine whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation position, we turn 
first to the criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 21 4.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(J) and (2): a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty or its equivalent is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular 
position; and a degree requirement in a specific specialty is common to the industry in parallel 
positions among similar organizations or a particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with a degree in a specific specialty. Factors we consider when 
determining these criteria include: whether the Handbook, on which we routinely rely for the 
educational requirements of particular occupations, reports the industry requires a degree in a 
specific specialty; whether the industry's professional association has made a degree in a specific 
specialty 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) (quotingHird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 
712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
We will first address the requirement under 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l): A baccalaureate or 
higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular 
position. We recognize the Handbook, cited by the petitioner, as an authoritative source on the 
duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses.8 The 
petitioner claims in the LCA that the proffered position corresponds to SOC code and title 13- 1111, 
Management Analysts from O*NET. The Handbook describes the occupation of "Management 
Analysts" as follows: 
8 The Handbook, which is available in printed form, may also be accessed on the Internet, at 
http://www.bls.gov/oco/. Our references to the Handbook are to the 2014 - 2015 edition available online. 
(b)(6)
Page 14 
NON-PRECEDENT DECIS/0/1 
What Management Analysts Do 
Management analysts, often called management consultants, propose ways to 
improve an organization's efficiency. They advise managers on how to make 
organizations more profitable through reduced costs and increased revenues. 
Duties 
Management analysts typically do the following: 
• Gather and organize information about the problem to be solved or the 
procedure to be improved 
• Interview personnel and conduct on-site observations to determine the 
methods, equipment, and personnel that will be needed 
• Analyze financial and other data, including revenue, expenditure, and 
employment reports 
• Develop solutions or alternative practices 
• Recommend new systems, procedures, or organizational changes 
• Make recommendations to management through presentations or 
written reports 
• Confer with managers to ensure that the changes are working 
Although some management analysts work for the organization that they are 
analyzing, most work as consultants on a contractual basis. 
Whether they are self-employed or part of a large consulting company, the work of a 
management analyst may vary from project to project. Some projects require a team 
of consultants, each specializing in one area. In other projects, consultants work 
independently with the client organization's managers. 
Management analysts often specialize in certain areas, such as inventory 
management or reorganizing corporate structures to eliminate duplicate and 
nonessential jobs. Some consultants specialize in a specific industry, such as 
healthcare or telecommunications. In government, management analysts usually 
specialize by type of agency. 
Organizations hire consultants to develop strategies for entering and remaining 
competitive in the electronic marketplace. 
Management analysts who work on contract may write proposals and bid for jobs. 
Typically, an organization that needs the help of a management analyst solicits 
proposals from a number of consultants and consulting companies that specialize in 
the needed work. Those who want the work must then submit a proposal by the 
(b)(6)
Page 15 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
deadline that explains how they will do the work, who will do the work, why they are 
the best consultants to do the work, what the schedule will be, and how much it will 
cost. The organization that needs the consultants then selects the proposal that best 
meets its needs and budget. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., 
"Management Analysts," http ://www .bls.gov /ooh/business-and- financial/management -anal ysts.htm# 
tab-2 (last visited Feb. 25, 2015). 
The duties of management analysts are centered upon analyzing the operation of organizations and 
determining how they can be run more efficiently. The duties of the proffered position, as described 
m May 7, 2014 letter, indicate that the proffered position is a computer systems 
analyst position. 
The Handbook describes the duties of a computer systems analyst as follows: 
What Computer Systems Analysts Do: 
Computer systems analysts study an organization's current computer systems and 
procedures and design information systems solutions to help the organization operate 
more efficiently and effectively. They bring business and information technology (IT) 
together by understanding the needs and limitations of both. 
Duties 
Computer systems analysts typically do the following: 
• Consult with managers to determine the role of the IT system in an 
organization 
• Research emerging technologies to decide if installing them can 
increase the organization's efficiency and effectiveness 
• Prepare an analysis of costs and benefits so that management can 
decide if information systems and computing infrastructure 
upgrades are financially worthwhile 
• Devise ways to add new functionality to existing computer systems 
• Design and develop new systems by choosing and configuring 
hardware and software 
• Oversee the installation and configuration of new systems to 
customize them for the organization 
• Conduct testing to ensure that the systems work as expected 
• Train the system's end users and write instruction manuals 
(b)(6)
Page 16 
NON-PRECEDENT DE CIS! OJ 
Computer systems analysts use a variety of techniques to design computer systems 
such as data-modeling, which create rules for the computer to follow when presenting 
data, thereby allowing analysts to make faster decisions. Analysts conduct in-depth 
tests and analyze information and trends in the data to increase a system's 
performance and efficiency. 
Analysts calculate requirements for how much memory and speed the computer 
system needs. They prepare flowcharts or other kinds of diagrams for programmers or 
engineers to use when building the system. Analysts also work with these people to 
solve problems that arise after the initial system is set up. Most analysts do some 
programming in the course of their work. 
Most computer systems analysts specialize in certain types of computer systems that 
are specific to the organization they work with. For example, an analyst might work 
predominantly with financial computer systems or engineering systems. 
Because systems analysts work closely with an organization's business leaders, they 
help the IT team understand how its computer systems can best serve the 
organization. 
In some cases, analysts who supervise the initial installation or upgrade of IT systems 
from start to finish may be called IT project managers. They monitor a project's 
progress to ensure that deadlines, standards, and cost targets are met. IT project 
managers who plan and direct an organization's IT department or IT policies are 
included in the profile on computer and information systems managers. 
Many computer systems analysts are general-purpose analysts who develop new 
systems or fine-tune existing ones; however, there are some specialized systems 
analysts. The following are examples of types of computer systems analysts: 
Systems designers or systems architects specialize in helping organizations choose a 
specific type of hardware and software system. They translate the long-term business 
goals of an organization into technical solutions. Analysts develop a plan for the 
computer systems that will be able to reach those goals. They work with management 
to ensure that systems and the IT infrastructure are set up to best serve the 
organization's mission. 
Software quality assurance (QA) analysts do in-depth testing of the systems they 
design. They run tests and diagnose problems in order to make sure that critical 
requirements are met. QA analysts write reports to management recommending ways 
to improve the system. 
Programmer analysts design and update their system's software and create 
applications tailored to their organization's needs. They do more coding and 
(b)(6)
Page 17 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
debugging than other types of analysts, although they still work extensively with 
management and business analysts to determine what business needs the applications 
are meant to address. Other occupations that do programming are computer 
programmers and software developers. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., 
"Computer Systems Analysts," http://ww w.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/ 
computer-systems-analysts.htm#tab-2 (last visited Feb. 25, 2015). 
The duty description allegedly provided by of corresponds very closely to 
the description of a computer systems analyst position in the Handbook, and especially to a software 
quality assurance analyst position as described within that chapter. That 
description of the duties of the proffered position corresponds more closely to a "software quality 
assurance (QA) analyst" position is consistent with her referring to the proffered position as a "QA 
Analyst" position. We find that the proffered position, as described by is a 
computer software analyst position. 
The petitioner asserted that the proffered position, based on information in the Handbook and in 
O*NET pertinent to management analysts, is clearly a specialty occupation position. Given that we 
have found that the proffered position is not a management analyst position, the evidence pertinent 
to those positions is of no direct relevance. 
The Handbook states the following about the educational requirements of computer software analyst 
positions: 
How to Become a Computer Systems Analyst 
A bachelor's degree in a computer or information science field is common, although 
not always a requirement. Some firms hire analysts with business or liberal arts 
degrees who have skills in information technology or computer programming. 
Education 
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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 18 
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. 
Many systems analysts continue to take classes throughout their careers so that they 
can learn about new and innovative technologies and keep their skills competitive. 
Technological advances come so rapidly in the computer field that continual study is 
necessary to remain competitive. 
Systems analysts must understand the business field they are working in. For 
example, a hospital may want an analyst with a background or coursework in health 
management, and an analyst working for a bank may need to understand finance. 
Advancement 
With experience, systems analysts can advance to project manager and lead a team of 
analysts. Some can eventually become information technology (IT) directors or chief 
technology officers, For more information, see the profile on computer and 
information systems managers. 
Important Qualities 
Analytical skills. Analysts must interpret complex information from various sources 
and be able to decide the best way to move forward on a project. They must also be 
able to figure out how changes may affect the project. 
Communication skills. Analysts work as a go-between with management and the IT 
department and must be able to explain complex issues in a way that both will 
understand. 
Creativity. Because analysts are tasked with finding innovative solutions to computer 
problems, an ability to "think outside the box" is important. 
!d. at http ://www .bls.gov /ooh/computer-and -information-technology /computer-systems-analysts. 
htm#tab-4 (last visited Feb. 25, 2015). 
The Handbook makes clear that computer systems analyst positions do not, as a category, require a 
minimum of a bachelor's degree or the equivalent, as it indicates that many systems analysts have a 
liberal arts degree and programming knowledge, rather than a degree in a specific specialty directly 
related to systems analysis. 
Where, as here, the Handbook does not support the proposition that the proffered position satisfies 
this . first criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it is incumbent upon the petitioner to provide 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 19 
persuasive evidence that the proffered position otherwise satisfies this criterion by a preponderance 
of the evidence standard, notwithstanding the absence of the Handbook's support on the issue. In 
such a case, it is the petitioner's responsibility to provide probative evidence (e.g., documentation 
from other authoritative sources) that supports a favorable finding with regard to this criterion. The 
regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iv) provides that "[a]n H-1B petition involving a specialty 
occupation shall be accompanied by [ d]ocumentation .. . or any other required evidence sufficient 
to establish ... that the services the beneficiary is to perform are in a specialty occupation." Again, 
going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting 
the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. In this case, the 
Handbook does not support the proposition that the proffered position satisfies 8 C.P.R. 
§ 21 4.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), and the record of proceeding does not contain persuasive documentary 
evidence from any other relevant authoritative source establishing that the proffered position's 
inclusion in this occupational category would be sufficient in itself to establish that a bachelor's or 
higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent "is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into [this] particular position." 
Further, we find that, even assuming that the duties of the proffered position have been accurately 
described, to the extent that they are described in the record of proceeding, they indicate a need for a 
range of knowledge in the computer/IT field, but do not establish any particular level of formal, 
postsecondary education leading to a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty as minimally 
necessary to attain such knowledge. 
As the evidence of record does not establish that the particular position here proffered is one for 
which the normal minimum entry requirement is a baccalaureate or higher degree, or the equivalent, 
in a specific specialty, the petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
Next, we find that the petitioner has not satisfied the first of the two alternative prongs of 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). This prong alternatively calls for a petitioner to establish that a requirement 
of a bachelor' s or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common for positions 
that are identifiable as being (1) in the petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered position, and 
also (3) located in organizations that are similar to the petitioner. 
In determining whether there is a common degree requirement, factors often considered by USCIS 
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 at 1165 (quoting 
Hird!Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. at 1102). 
In the instant case, the petitioner has not established that the proffered position falls under an 
occupational category for which the Handbook, or other reliable and authoritative source, indicates 
that there is a standard, minimum entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
(b)(6)
----------------------- --·-· ···--··· --
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 20 
specialty or its equivalent. Also, there are no submissions from professional associations in the 
petitioner's industry attesting that individuals employed in positions parallel to the proffered position 
are routinely required to have a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its 
equivalent for entry into those positions. 
The petitioner did provide the letters from and that were 
briefly discussed above. Both writers stated that their company requires, for the position of 
Management Analyst, a bachelor's or higher degree or its equivalent. 
However, as was explained above, what various companies mean by "management analyst" differs, 
and those letters contain no description of the duties their company requires their "management 
analysts" to perform. Further, the letters state only that management analyst positions with those 
companies require a minimum of a bachelor's degree or its equivalent. They do not indicate that the 
requisite degree must be in any specific specialty. As such, those letters are insufficient, for both 
reasons, to show that similar organizations in the petitioner's industry require a minimum of a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its eq-uivalent for positions parallel to the proffered 
position. 
The record also contains a vacancy announcement for management analyst positions posted by 
the company for which works, on its website. It states 
that such positions require a master's degree in either computers or engineering with coursework in 
computer architecture, work/design/productivity engineering, statistical design modeling and 
engineering management. As was explained above, a requirement of an otherwise unspecified 
degree in engineering is not a requirement of a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent. Further, there is no assertion that an engineering degree with the 
specified coursework listed would qualify as a degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
Further still, the employee lists of the company for which 
works, make clear that neither company requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree in 
a specific speci alty or its equivalent for their management analyst positions, as both employ people 
in that position who have only an otherwise unspecified bachelor's or master's degree in business 
administration. As was explained above, a requirement that may be satisfied by an otherwise 
unspecified degree in business administration is not a requirement of a minimum of a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
Thus, the evidence of record does not establish that a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to positions that are (1) in the petitioner's industry, 
(2) parallel to the proffered position, and also (3) located in organizations that are similar to the 
petitioner. The evidence does not, therefore, satisfy the first alternative prong of 8 C.P.R. 
§ 21 4.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The evidence of record also does not satisfy the second alternative prong of 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which provides that "an employer may show that its particular position is so 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 21 
complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree." A review of the 
record indicates that the petitioner has failed to credibly demonstrate that the duties that comprise the 
proffered position entail such complexity or uniqueness as to constitute a position so complex or 
unique that it can be performed only by a person with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty. 
Specifically, the petitioner failed to demonstrate how the duties that collectively constitute the 
proffered position require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge such that a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is 
required to perform them. For instance, the petitioner did not submit information relevant to a 
detailed course of study leading to a specialty degree and did not establish how such a curriculum is 
necessary to perform the duties of the proffered position. While a few related courses may be 
beneficial, or even required, in performing certain duties of the proffered position, the petitioner has 
failed to demonstrate 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 
particular position here. 
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 distingu ish 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 fails to 
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, 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). 
We will next address the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3), which may be satisfied if the 
petitioner demonstrates that it normally requires a min imum of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent for the proffered position.9 
9 While a petitioner may believe or otherwise assert that a proffered position requires a degree, 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 a specific specialty or its equivalent. See Defensor v. Meissner, 
201 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 § 21 4(i)(l) of the Act; 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2 (h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty occupation"). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 22 
The petitioner provided a list of five people it employs as management analysts and three people it 
employs as business analysts. The distinction between the two positions is not stated and the 
petitioner has not clarified whether business analyst positions are identical to the proffered position. 
As this is unknown to us, whether the petitioner's business analyst positions should be considered in 
the analysis pertinent to 8 C.P.R. § 21 4.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(3) is unclear. 
Further, the petitioner stated on the visa petition that it has sixty employees. The record does not 
indicate that the five management analysts, with or without inclusion of the three business analysts 
listed, are the only people the petitioner employs or has employed in the proffered position. How 
many people it employs and has employed in the proffered position remains unknown to us. As 
such, the evidence is insufficient to show that the petitioner normally requires a minimum of a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for the proffered position and insufficient to 
satisfy the criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 21 4.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(3). 
Finally, we will address the alternative criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 21 4.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4), which is 
satisfied if the petitioner establishes that the nature of the specific duties is so specialized and 
complex that knowledge required to perform them is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
Again, relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by the petitioner 
as an aspect of the proffered position. The duties of the proffered position as stated in the letter from 
such as participating in business and functional requirement review sessions; 
performing data analysis; writing recommendations for testing solutions, implementation, and 
procedure rollout/acceptance; designing and implementing strategies for transportation management 
system services, etc., contain insufficient indication of a nature so specialized and complex they 
require knowledge usually associated attainment of a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent. 
In other words, the proposed duties have not been described with sufficient specificity to show that 
they are more special ized and complex than the duties of computer syste ms analyst positions that are 
not usually associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. The 
evidence of record does not, therefore, satisfy the criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)( 4). 
The petitioner has failed to establish that it has satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) and, therefore, it cannot be found that the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. The appeal will be dismissed and the petition denied for this reason. 
V. EMPLOYER- EMPLOYEE ANALYSIS 
We will next address whether the petitioner has demonstrated that it qualifies as the petitioner's 
United States employer as that term is defined at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
Although "United States employer" is defined in the regulations at 8 C.P.R.§ 21 4.2(h)(4)(ii), it is noted 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION • 
Page 23 
that the terms "employee" and "employer-employee relationship" are not defined for purposes of the 
H-1B visa classification. Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Act indicates that an alien coming to the 
United States to perform services in a specialty occupation will have an "intending employer" who will 
file a Labor Condition Application with the Secretary of Labor pursuant to section 212(n)(1) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1182(n)(1) (2012). The intending employer is described as offering full-time or part-time 
"employment" to the H-1B "employee." Subsections 212(n)(1)(A)(i) and 21 2(n)(2)(C)(vii) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1182(n )(1)(A)(i), (2)(C)(vii) (2012). Further, the regulations indicate that "United States 
employers" must file a Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker(Form 1-129) in order to classify aliens as 
H-1B temporary "employees." 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(1), (2)(i)(A). Finally, the definition of "United 
States employer" indicates in its second prong that the petitioner must have an "employer-employee 
relationship" with the "employees under this part," i.e., the H-1B beneficiary, and that this relationship 
be evidenced by the employer's ability to "hire, pay, fire, supervise, or otherwise control the work of 
any such employee." 8 C.F.R. § 21 4.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "United States employer"). 
Neither the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) nor USCIS defined the terms 
"employee" or "employer-employee relationship" by regulation for purposes of the H-1B visa 
classification, even though the regulation describes H-1B beneficiaries as being "employees" who must 
. have an "employer-employee relationship" with a "United States employer." !d. Therefore, for 
purposes of the H -1B visa classification, these terms are undefined. 
The United States Supreme Court has 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 Mutual Ins. Co. v. 
Darden, 503 U.S. 318, 322-323 (1992) (hereinafter "Darden") (quoting Community 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 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." 
Darden, 503 U.S. at 323-324 (quoting Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. at 751-
752); see also Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates, P.C. v. Wells, 538 U.S. 440, 445 (2003) 
(hereinafter "Clackamas"). 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 (quotingNLRB v. United Ins. Co. 
of America, 390 U.S. 254, 258 (1968)). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 24 
In this matter, the Act does not exhibit a legislative intent to extend the definition of "employer" in 
section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Act, "employment" in section 21 2(n)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, or 
"employee" in section 21 2(n)(2)(C)(vii) of the Act beyond the traditional common law definitions. See 
generally 136 Cong. Rec. S17106 (daily ed. Oct. 26, 1990); 136 Cong. Rec. H12358 (daily ed. Oct. 27, 
1990). On the contrary, in the context of the H-1B visa classification, the regulations define the term 
"United States employer" to be even more restrictive than the common law agency definition.10 
Specifically, the regulatory definition of "United States employer" requires H-lB employers to have a 
tax identification number, to engage a person to work within the United States, and to have an 
"employer-employee relationship" with the H-lB "employee." 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii). Accordingly, 
the term "United States employer" not only requires H-lB employers and employees to have an 
"employer-employee relationship" as understood by common-law agency doctrine, it imposes 
additional requirements of having a tax identification number and to employ persons in the United 
States. The lack of an express expansion of the definition regarding the terms "employee" or 
"employer-employee relationship" combined with the agency's otherwise generally circular definition 
of United States employer in 8 C.P.R. § 21 4.2(h)(4)(ii) indicates that the regulations do not intend to 
10 
While the Da rden court considered only the definition of "employee" un der the Employee Retirement 
Income Security Act of 1974 (" ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1002(6), and did not address the definition of 
"employer," courts have generally refused to extend the common law agency definition to ERISA's use of 
employer because "the definition of 'employer' in ERISA, un like the definition of 'employee,' clearly 
indicates legislative intent to extend the definition beyond the traditional common law definition." See, e.g., 
Bowers v. Andrew Weir Shipping, Ltd., 81 0 F. Supp. 522 (S.D.N.Y. 1992), affd, 27 F.3d 800 (2nd Cir.), cert. 
denied, 51 3 U.S. 1000 (1994). 
However, in this matter, the Act does not exhibit a legislative intent to extend the definition of "employer" in 
section 101( a)(15 )(H)(i)(b) of the Act, "employment" in section 212(n)(l )(A)(i) of the Act, or "employee" in 
section 21 2(n) (2)(C)(vii) of the Act beyond the traditional common Jaw definitions. Instead, in the context of 
the H-1B visa classification, the term "United States employer" was defined in the regulations to be even 
more restrictive than the common Jaw agency definition. A federal agency's in terpretation of a statute whose 
administration is entrusted to it is to be accepted unless Cong ress has spoken directly on the issue. See 
Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. , 467 U.S. 837, 844-845 (1 984). 
Finally, it is also noted that if the statute and the regulations were somehow read as extending the definition 
of employee in the H-1B context beyond the traditional common law def inition, this in terpretation would 
likely thwart congressional design and lead to an absurd result when considering the $750 or $1 ,500 fee 
imposed on H-lB employers under section 214( c)(9) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 11 84(c)(9). As 20 C.F.R. § 
655.7 3 1(c)(10) (ii) mandates that no part of the fee imposed un der section 21 4(c)(9) of the Act shall be paid, 
"directly or indir ectly, volun tarily or involun tarily," by the beneficiary, it would not appear possible to 
comply with this provision in a situation in which the beneficiary is his or her own employer, especially 
. where the requisite "control" over the beneficiary has not been established by the petitioner. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 25 
extend the definition beyond "the traditional common law definition" or, more importantly, that 
construing these terms in this manner would thwart congressional design or lead to absurd results. Cf 
Darden, 503 U.S. at 318-319. 11 
Accordingly, in the absence of an express congressional intent to impose broader definitions, both the 
"conventional master-servant relationship as understood by common-law agency doctrine" and the 
Darden construction test apply to the terms "employee" and "employer-employee relationship" as used 
in section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Act, section 212(n) of the Act, and 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h).12 
Therefore, in considering whether or not one will be an "employee" in an "employer-employee 
relationship" with a "United States employer" for purposes of H-1B nonimmigrant petitions, USCIS 
must focus on the common-law touchstone of "control." Clackamas, 538 U.S. at 450; see also 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining a "United States employer" as one who "has an employer-employee 
relationship with respect to employees under this part, as indicated by the fact that it may hire, pay, fire, 
supervise, or otherwise control the work of any such employee .... " (emphasis added)). 
The factors indicating that a worker is or will be an "employee" of an "employer" are clearly delineated 
in both the Darden and Clackamas decisions. Darden, 503 U.S. at 323-324; Clackamas, 538 U.S. at 
445; see also Restatement (Second) of Agency§ 220(2) (1958). Such indicia of control include when, 
where, and how a worker performs the job; the continuity of the worker's relationship with the 
employer; the tax treatment of the worker; the provision of employee benefits; and whether the work 
performed by the worker is part of the employer's regular business. See Clackamas, 538 U.S. at 445; 
see also New Compliance Manual, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, § 2-I II(A)(l) 
(adopting a materially identical test and indicating that said test was based on the Darden decision); see 
also Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 388 (5th Cir. 2000) (determining that hospitals, as the 
recipients of beneficiaries' services, are the "true employers" of H-lB nurses under 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h), 
even though a medical contract service agency is the actual petitioner, because the hospitals ultimately 
hire, pay, fire, supervise, or otherwise control the work of the beneficiaries). 
It is important to note, however, that the factors listed in Darden and Clackamas are not exhaustive and 
must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Other aspects of the relationship between the parties relevant 
11 
To the extent the regulations are ambiguous with regard to the terms "employee" or "employer-employee 
relationship," the agency's in terpretation of these terms should be found to be controlling unless "'plainly 
erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation." ' Au er v. Robbins, 51 9 U.S. 452, 461 (19 97) (citing Robertson 
v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 359 , 109 S.Ct. 1835, 1850, 104 L.Ed.2d 35 1 (1 989) 
(quoting Bowles v. Seminol e Rock & Sand Co. , 325 U.S. 41 0, 414, 65 S.Ct. 1215, 1217, 89 L.Ed. 17 00 
(19 45)). 
12 That said, there are instances in the Act where Congress may have intended a broader application of the 
term "employer" than what is encompassed in the conventional master-servant relationship. See, e.g. , section 
21 4(c)(2)(F) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 11 84(c)(2)(F) (referring to "unaffiliated employers" supervising and 
controlling L-lB in tracompany transferees having specialized knowledge); section 274A of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 132 4a (referring to the employment of unau thorized aliens). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 26 
to control may affect the determination of whether an employer-employee relationship exists. 
Furthermore, not all or even a majority of the listed criteria need be met; however, the fact finder must 
weigh and compare a combination of the factors in analyzing the facts of each individual case. The 
determination must be based on all of the circumstances in the relationship between the parties, 
regardless of whether the parties refer to it as an employee or as an independent contractor relationship. 
See Clackamas, 538 U.S. at 448-449; New Compliance Manual at § 2-III(A)(1). 
Furthermore, when examining the factors relevant to determining control, USCIS must assess and 
weigh each actual factor itself as it exists or will exist and not the claimed employer's right to influence 
or change that factor, unless specifically provided for by the common-law test. See Darden, 503 U.S. 
at 323-324. For example, while the assignment of additional projects is dependent on who has the right 
to assign them, it is the actual source of the instrumentalities and tools that must be examined, and not 
who has the right to provide the tools required to complete an assigned project. See id. at 323 . 
Lastly, the "mere existence of a document styled 'employment agreement"' shall not lead inexorably to 
the conclusion that the worker is an employee. Clackamas, 538 U.S. at 450. "Rather, ... the answer to 
whether [an individual] is an employee depends on 'all of the incidents of the relationship ... with no 
one factor being decisive."' Id. at 451 (quoting Darden, 503 U.S. at 32 4). 
Applying the Darden and Clackamas tests to this matter, the petitioner has not established that it 
will be a "United States employer" having an "employer-employee relationship" with the beneficiary 
as an H-1B temporary "employee." 
If the visa petition were approved, the petitioner, located in New Jersey, would allegedly assign the 
beneficiary, through as an intermediary, possibly through as another 
intermediary, and possibly through additional, unidentified intermediaries, to work on a project for 
in Ohio. 
The beneficiary's supervisor is identified as the petitioner's president. The petitioner, a 
company which reportedly has 60 employees, has not submitted sufficient evidence that it will 
assign its president to an off-site location in Ohio to supervise the beneficiary. Although the 
petitioner asserts not only that it will assign the beneficiary's tasks and supervise his performance, 
but that the petitioner would control the project upon which the beneficiary would work, including 
the "entire implementation, development and manner of delivery," these assertions are not supported 
with sufficient documentary evidence.13 
Notwithstanding the assurances provided by the petitioner and of and 
notwithstanding that the petitioner might perform a pro forma evaluation of the beneficiary's work as 
per the "Performance Review Process" document in the record, we find, by a preponderance of the 
evidence, that if the petitioner were to assign the beneficiary to work at the off-site location, an 
employee of another company would assign the beneficiary's tasks and supervise his performance. 
13 See the May 20, 2014 letter from the petitioner's president. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 27 
We, therefore, find that the facts of this case indicate that the petitioner would not be the 
beneficiary's U.S. employer as that term is defined at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). The appeal will be 
dismissed and the visa petition will be denied on this additional basis. 
VI. CONCLUSION 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by us even if the service center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial 
decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 
2001), affd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) 
(noting that we conduct appellate review on a de novo basis). 
Moreover, when we deny a petition on multiple alternative grounds, a plaintiff can succeed on a 
challenge only if it shows that we abused our discretion with respect to all of the enumerated 
grounds. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043, affd. 345 F.3d 
683. 
The director's decision will be affirmed and the petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, 
with each considered as an independent and alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition 
proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish 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. The petition is denied.