dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6948367 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 27, 2020 
The Petitioner, an information technology consulting company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "software application developer" under the H-IB 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-IB program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a 
qualified foreign worker in a position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of 
a body of highly specialized knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the 
specific specialty ( or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition on two separate grounds, concluding 
that the record did not establish that: (1) the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation; and 
(2) the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of the proffered position. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and asserts that the Director erred in denying the petition. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 1 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the tenn "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires : 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, 
and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
1 We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 
(AAO 2010). 
(]) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We construe the term "degree" to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal 
Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in a 
specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular 
position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
As recognized by the court in Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88, where the work is to be performed for 
entities other than the petitioner, evidence of the client companies' job requirements is critical. The 
court held that the former Immigration and Naturalization Service had reasonably interpreted the 
statute and regulations as requiring the petitioner to produce evidence that a proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation on the basis of the requirements imposed by the entities using the 
beneficiary's services. Id. Such evidence must be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate the type and 
educational level of highly specialized knowledge in a specific discipline that is necessary to perform 
that particular work. 
II. THE PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner, which is located in Texas, stated that the Beneficiary will perform her duties at the 
end-client site inl INew Jersey forl O , I 
( end-client), pursuant to contracts executed between the Petitioner and I I 
(vendor) and between the vendor and the end-client. The Petitioner submitted a letter from both, the 
end-client and the vendor, identifying the Beneficiary in the role of"JDA Developer." While the letter 
from the end-client does not identify an assigned project or the specific job duties of the proffered 
position, it does states that, "given the professional nature of these responsibilities, it is standard to 
require a bachelor's degree for this type of role." The letter from the vendor, however, includes an 
2 
attached job description for the position and states that "the minimum education requirement is a 
bachelor's degree or equivalent work experience." 
The Petitioner also provided its own list of job duties for the proffered position and indicated that the 
minimum entry requirement for the proffered position is a bachelor's degree, or equivalent, m 
computers, information systems, electronics, technology, electrical, or a closely related field. 
III. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
For the reasons set out below, we have determined that the proffered position does not qualify as a 
specialty occupation. 2 Specifically, we find that two separate factors independently bar approval of 
this petition: (1) the lack of a requirement for a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the 
equivalent; and (2) the failure to satisfy at least one of the four regulatory specialty-occupation criteria 
enumerated at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(])-(4). In particular, we find that the Petitioner has not 
established the substantive nature of the position, which precludes a determination that the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation under at least one of the four regulatory specialty­
occupation criteria enumerated at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(])-(4). 
A. Lack of a Requirement for a Bachelor's Degree in a Specific Specialty, or the Equivalent 
First, the petition is not approvable because the end-client 3 claimed entry requirement of a bachelor's 
degree, or equivalent, without more, is inadequate to establish that the proposed position qualifies as 
a specialty occupation. 
While the end-client indicated a requirement for a bachelor's degree, it did not mandate that it be in a 
specific specialty. The end-client's claim that a bachelor's degree is a sufficient minimum requirement 
for entry into the proffered position 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. There must be a 
close correlation between the required specialized studies and the position; thus, the mere requirement 
of a degree, 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) ("The mere requirement of a 
college degree for the sake of general education, or to obtain what an employer perceives to be a higher 
caliber employee, also does not establish eligibility."). Thus, while a general-purpose bachelor's 
degree may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, 
will not justify a conclusion that a particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty 
occupation. Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. 
Where the work is to be performed for entities other than the petitioner, evidence pertaining to the 
proffered position's educational requirements is critical. Defensor 201 F.3d at 387-88. The court in 
Defensor held that the former Immigration and Naturalization Service had reasonably interpreted the 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation in support of the H-1 B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
3 We note that the vendor's letter also stated that only "a bachelor's degree or equivalent work experience" is a sufficient 
minimum requirement for entry into the proffered position. 
3 
law as requiring the petitioner to produce evidence that a proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation on the basis of the requirements imposed by the entities using the beneficiary's services. 
Id. Such evidence must be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate the type and educational level of highly 
specialized knowledge in a specific discipline that is necessary to perform that particular work. 
However, the record of proceedings does not contain such evidence. 
B. Position Description 
Moreover, a crucial aspect of this matter is whether the Petitioner has sufficiently described the duties 
of the proffered position such that we may discern the nature of the position and whether the position 
actually requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge 
attained through at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific discipline. We conclude that the Petitioner 
has not done so. 
We determine that the evidence is insufficient to establish that the proffered position qualifies for 
classification as a specialty occupation. As recognized in Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88, it is necessary 
for the end-client to provide sufficient information regarding the proposed job duties to be performed 
at its location in order to properly ascertain the minimum educational requirements necessary to 
perform those duties. In other words, as the nurses in that case would provide services to the end­
client hospitals and not to the petitioning staffing company, the Petitioner-provided job duties and 
alleged requirements to perform those duties were irrelevant to a specialty occupation determination. 
See id. 
Here, the record of proceedings does not provide sufficient information from the end-client regarding 
the project assignment or the specific job duties to be performed by the Beneficiary. The Petitioner 
submitted a letter from the end-client, in response to the RFE, confirming that the Beneficiary will be 
working as a "JDA developer" at its office inl I New Jersey. The letter does not include any 
information pertaining to a project the Beneficiary would be assigned to or the job duties she would 
perform. The letter simply states that the vendor "has been engaged in overall technical design and 
development activities, for which the professional services of [the Beneficiary] are required as a JDA 
Developer," but does not identify the "activities" the Beneficiary would be assigned to. This very 
brief and generalized position description does not convey the substantive nature of the proffered 
position or its constituent duties. Additionally, the end-client's State of Work (SOW) also does not 
identify a project the Beneficiary would be assigned or list the job duties she would perform; it simply 
states that she "will be required to support to [sic] multiple [end-client] projects which shall be defined 
and communicated to [ the Beneficiary] by the [end-client] Project Manager." Thus, the Petitioner has 
not provided sufficient evidence from the end-client to establish that the proffered position qualifies 
as a specialty occupation. 
Although the end-client did not provide information on a project or job duties, the vendor attached a 
job description of the JDA developer position to its letter. The document describes the job duties in 
brief: generalized terms that fail to convey the substantive nature of the proffered position and its 
constituent duties, as follows: 4 
4 We note that the percentages of time devoted to the listed duties amounts to only 95% of the Beneficiary's time. 
4 
• 30% Write, code, test, and analyze JDA programs and applications. This 
includes researching, designing, documenting, and modifying applications 
throughout the production life cycle. 
• 20% Perform detailed technical analysis and capable of documenting 
functional/technical requirements and system impact to ensure the successful 
delivery and support of various applications. Work with the business to analyze 
business processes and system issues and tum them into actionable system changes 
that benefit the requesting party( s ), improve efficiency in operations and overall 
performance. Interacts directly with business users and conveys technical 
concepts/solutions in an easy to understand way. 
• 20% Lead the design, architecture, and support of solutions. Perform 
intermediate-level application design, implementation, and maintenance with 
minimal direction. 
• 10% Conduct extensive unit testing of programs and software applications to 
ensure they will produce the desired information as per the technical and functional 
requirements. Correct errors by making appropriate changes and then rechecking 
the program to ensure that the desired results are produced as per the technical and 
functional requirements. 
• 10% Guides or directs work of others who may perform similar or related 
work. Serves as a mentor/developmental advisor and/or training resource to less 
experienced start: providing an example with regard to quality of work. 
• 5% Works with manager and Solution Architect/Design for a specific discipline to 
guide the overall technical direction and strategy of the IT department. Researches 
new technologies and best practices, advises and recommends changes to existing 
IT policies, procedures and strategy. 
This list of duties provided by the vendor does not contain a detailed description explaining what 
particular tasks the Beneficiary will perform on a day-to-day basis for the end-client's project. Nor is 
there a detailed explanation regarding the demands, level of responsibilities, complexity, or 
requirements necessary for the performance of these duties from the vendor or the end-client. While 
the record indicates that the Beneficiary will work for the end-client, it does not specifically describe 
a project or explain the specific role of the Beneficiary in an assigned project. Additionally, the 
document provided by the vendor includes additional information about the skills and knowledge 
required to perform the duties of JDA developer. However, although many experience requirements 
are listed, the document does not identify any education requirements for entry into the position. Thus, 
the Petitioner also has not provided sufficient evidence from the vendor to establish that the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Further, while the Petitioner also provided a brief list of job duties, along with the percentage of time 
the Beneficiary would devote to overall functions, this information also fails to convey the substantive 
nature of the proffered position and its constituent duties. For example, the Petitioner indicated that 
the Beneficiary would devote 10% of her time to business requirements; 10% of her time to technical 
systems design; 70% of her time to development; 5% of her time to integration and testing; and 5% of 
her time to deployment. The Petitioner further stated that the Beneficiary would "provide technical 
and functional direction in implementing and development of JDA supply chain solutions in demand 
and Enterprise Supply Planning (ESP), Sequencing, Reporting and Sales & Operations Planning." 
5 
The Petitioner then provided several tasks the Beneficiary would perform for requirement gathering, 
development, and deployment. However, this list of duties provided by the Petitioner does not actually 
contain a detailed description explaining what particular tasks the Beneficiary will perform on a day­
to-day basis for the client or its project either. While the Petitioner provided a vague description of 
the position, it did not provide a detailed explanation regarding the demands, level of responsibilities, 
or complexity of these duties. The Petitioner described the position in terms of generic functions that 
do not convey sufficient substantive information to establish the relative complexity, uniqueness, 
and/or specialization of the proffered position or its duties. The Petitioner's statements do not provide 
sufficient insight into the Beneficiary's actual duties, nor do they include details regarding the specific 
tasks that the Beneficiary will perform as they relate to an assigned project. The statements also do 
not demonstrate how the performance of these duties, as described in the record, would require the 
attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner did not submit any information pertaining to a particular project the 
Beneficiary would work on for the end-client. Although the Petitioner submitted a letter and a 
Statement of Work from the end-client, the record does not outline the duties and role of the proffered 
position in the context of any project. 5 For example, the Petitioner did not provide any documentation 
specifically about a project, to include an outline of the project's expected work products, timelines, 
or the Beneficiary's name and job title on particular tasks. Nor did the Petitioner specifically correlate 
the listed duties to a project for the end-client. 
Overall, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient details regarding the nature and scope of the 
Beneficiary's employment or 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 position as described does 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 of knowledge in a 
specific specialty. 
As a result, the Petitioner has not established the substantive nature of the work that the Beneficiary 
will perform. This precludes a finding that the proffered position satisfies any criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), because it is the substantive nature of that work that determines: (1) the normal 
minimum educational requirement for the particular position, which is the focus of criterion one; 
(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 two; (3) the level of 
complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position, which is the focus of the second alternate prong 
of criterion two; (4) the factual justification for a petitioner normally requiring a degree or its 
equivalent, when that is an issue under criterion three; and (5) the degree of specialization and 
5 We 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, we review the 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. 
6 
complexity of the specific duties, which is the focus of criterion four. Therefore, we cannot conclude 
that the proffered position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. 
IV. BENEFICIARY QUALIFICATIONS 
The Director denied the petition on two separate grounds, one of which concluded that the Beneficiary 
is not qualified to perform the duties of the proffered position. However, a beneficiary's credentials 
to perform a particular job are relevant only when the job is found to be a specialty occupation. As 
discussed in this decision, the proffered position does not require a baccalaureate or higher degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Therefore, we will reserve this issue as we have concluded that 
the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 
V. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 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. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7