dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

.
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 19, 2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a clothing retailer, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "senior 
information technology (IT) project manager" under the H-1 B nonimmigrant classification for 
specialty occupations . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) , 
8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). The H-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 ofhighly 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, concluding that the evidence of 
record does not establish that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the services in a specialty 
occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Director erred in the 
decision. We conduct de novo review on appeal, but a threshold matter must be resolved before we 
may address the merits of the Director's decision. Specifically, a beneficiary's credentials to 
perform a particular job are relevant only when the job is found to be a specialty occupation. As will 
be discussed, the record does not establish that the proffered position requires a baccalaureate or 
higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. We will dismiss the appeal. 
L SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
A. Legal Framework 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowlecjge, 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. 
.
Matter of 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that 
knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We have consistently interpreted the term "degree" 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 P.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 P.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
B. Proffered Position 
In the H-1B petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a "senior IT project 
manager." In its letter of support, the Petitioner provided the following job duties for the position: 
• Oversee multiple IT project teams by developing schedules, establishing quality 
deliverables and objectives, and providing best practices and procedures to deliver 
exceptional quality programs on time and within budget. 
• Collaborate with Business Analysts and Stakeholders to define the scope of a 
project and establish performance metrics. 
• Responsible for the sourcing of new applications software, which includes 
selecting and managing the vendor, negotiating contracts, resource planning, and 
communicating project directives to his or her cohorts. 
• Provide immediate and informed troubleshooting to address project-related issues 
to ensure systems reliabili~y. 
• Prepare and present project presentations and reports to key stakeholders to 
ensure that issues and risks are identified, understood, and dealt with in a manner 
that mitigates the risk to scope, cost, and scheduling conflicts. 
2 
.
Matter of, 
• Conduct business process analysis for selecting technological solutions, 
configuring applications, designs, test and deployment systems, in an effort to 
align IT solutions with current and future business requirements. 
• Develop risk management processes for projects while actively directing the 
development and maintenance of plans, practices, and assignments to resolve any 
existing and potential project issues. 
• Implement and lead an effective project management process that pro-actively 
identifies project requirements and changes. 
According to the Petitioner, the position reqmres a bachelor's degree m computer sctence, 
information systems, or 
a related field. 
C. Analysis 
For the reasons set out below, .we have determined that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 1 Specifically, the record (1) does not describe 
the position's duties with sufficient detail; and (2) does not establish that thejob duties require an 
educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation.2 
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 find that the Petitioner 
has not done so. 
For example, the Petitioner did not provide sufficient information with regard to the order of 
importance and/or frequency of occurrence (e.g., regularly, periodically, or at irregular intervals) 
with which the Beneficiary will perform the functions and tasks. Thus, the record does not specify 
which tasks are major functions of the proffered position. 
In addition, the Petitioner described the proposed duties in terms of generic functions that did not 
convey sufficient substantive information to establish the relative complexity, uniqueness and/or 
specialization of the proffered position or its duties. The abstract level of information provided 
about the proffered position and its constituent duties is exemplified by the Petitioner's assertion that 
the Beneficiary will "[ c ]ollaborate with Business Analysts and Stakeholders." However, the 
statement does not provide sufficient insight into the Beneficiary's actual duties, nor does it include 
further details regarding the specific tasks that the Beneficiary will perform. 
1 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
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 
.
Matter of 
Further, the Petitioner claimed in pertinent part that the Beneficiary will "[p ]repare and present 
project 
presentations and reports." Notably, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how the performance 
of this duty, as described in the record, would require the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
The Petitioner also claimed the Beneficiary will "[ d]evelop risk management process for projects" 
and "[i]mplement and lead an effective project management process/' The Petitioner's statements 
do not convey sufficient pertinent details as to the actual work involved in these tasks. The 
Petitioner did not convey how a baccalaureate level of education (or higher) in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, would be required to perform these tasks. Thus, the overall responsibilities for the 
proffered position contained general functions without providing sufficient information regarding the 
particular work and the associated educationaJ requirements into which the duties would manifest 
themselves in their day-to-day performance within the Petitioner's business operations. 
Without a meaningful job description, the record lacks evidence sufficiently concrete and 
informative to demonstrate that the proffered position requires a specialty occupation's level of 
knowledge in a specific specialty. The tasks as described do not communicate: (1) the actual work 
that the Beneficiary would perform; (2) the complexity, uniqueness and/or specialization of the 
tasks; and/or (3) the correlation between that work and a need for a particular level of knowledge in 
a specific specialty. 
Furthermore, on the labor condition application (LCA)3 submitted in support of the H-1 B petition, 
the Petitioner designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Computer 
Occupations, All Other" corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 15-
1199. However, in its letter of support, the Petitioner referenced a separate and distinct occupational 
category, specifically "Computer and Information Systems Managers" (which corresponds to SOC 
code 11-3021) and stated that the proffered position "is classified as a computer and information 
systems manager." The Petitioner did not provide an explanation for this discrepancy. 4 
Consequently, we must question the nature of the proffered position, as well as the accuracy of the 
information provided by the Petitioner on the LCA.5 
3 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 8 worker the higher of either 
the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the "area of employment" or the actual wage paid by the 
employer to other employees with similar experience and qualifications who are performing the same services. See 
Matter ofSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 545-546 (AAO 2015). 
4 
We will briefly note that the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) guidance states that when the position is a combination 
of occupations, the Petitioner should select the occupation with the higher wage. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training 
Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available 
at http://tlcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _II_ 2009.pdf The occupational category "Computer 
and Information Systems Managers" has a higher prevailing wage than "Computer Occupations, All Other." 
5 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services must ensure that the LCA supports and corresponds the H-1 8 petition filed 
on behalfofthe Beneficiary. 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b). 
4 
.
Matter of 
As the Petitioner has not established the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the 
Beneficiary, 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 1; 
(2) industry positions which are parallel to the proffered position and thus appropriate for review for 
a common degree requirement, under the first alternate prong of criterion 2; (3) the level of 
complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position, which is the focus of the second alternate prong 
of criterion 2; (4) the factual justification for a petitioner normally requiring a degree or its 
equivalent, when that is an issue under criterion 3; and ( 5) the degree of specialization and 
complexity of the specific duties, which is the focus of criterion 4. 
Nevertheless, assuming, for the sake of argument, that the proffered duties as described in the record 
would in fact be the duties to be performed by the Beneficiary, we will analyze them and the 
evidence of record to determine whether the proffered position as described qualifies as a specialty 
occupation pursuant to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
1. First Criterion 
We tum first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which requires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. 
As previously discussed, on the LCA, the Petitioner designated the proffered position under the 
occupational category "Computer Occupations, All Other" corresponding to the SOC code 15-1199. 
We often look to the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook), 
which is an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of 
occupations that it addresses. 6 However, there are some occupations for which detailed profiles have 
not been developed, such as for the occupational category "Computer Occupations, All Other." 7 
When the Handbook does not support the proposition that a proffered position is one that meets the 
statutory and regulatory provisions of a specialty occupation, it is the Petitioner's responsibility to 
provide probative evidence (e.g., documentation from other objective, authoritative sources) that 
supports a finding that the particular position qualifies as a specialty occupation. For our 
determination, we will consider and weigh all of the evidence submitted. 
The present record does not establish that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the position, as 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l) requires. 
6 
We do not, however, maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. All of our references 
are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. 
7 
For additional information, see https://www.bls.gov/ooh/about/data-for-occupations-not-covered-in-detail.htm. 
5 
--------------- ---------------------
.
Matter of 
2. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two alternative prongs: "The degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or, in the ·alternative, an employer may 
show that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong 
contemplates the common industry 
practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
a. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by us 
include: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the industry's 
professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether letters or 
affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms "routinely employ and 
recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 
1999)(quotingHird/BlakerCorp. v. Sava, 712F. Supp.1095, 1102(S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook, or other authoritative source, reports a requirement for at least a bachelor's degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, we incorporate by reference the previous discussion on 
the matter. Also, there are no s~bmissions from the industry's professional association indicating 
that it has made a degree a minimum entry requirement. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not submit 
any letters or affidavits from similar firms or individuals in the Petitioner's industry attesting that 
such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." Nor is there any other evidence 
relevant to this prong. Thus, the present record does not satisfy the first alternative prong of 
8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
p. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
We reviewed the Petitioner's statements regarding the proffered position; however, the Petitioner 
does not assert that it satisfies this prong of the second criterion and the present record does not 
establish relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the proffered position. Thus, the 
Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
6 
.
Matter of 
3. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it 
normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. 
We reviewed the record, but it does not establish that the Petitioner normally requires at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, directly related to the duties of the 
position. Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J). 
4. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature 
of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. 
In the instant case, relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by 
the Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. The Petitioner does not establish how the 
generally described duties elevate the proffered position 
to a specialty occupation. Thus, the present 
evidence of record does not satisfy the fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
II. BENEFICIARY QUALIFICATIONS 
The Director found that the Beneficiary would not be qualified to perform the duties of the proffered 
position if the job had been determined to be a specialty occupation. However, as previously noted, 
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 need not and 
will not address the Beneficiary's qualifications further. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, we find that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for the 
benefit sought. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of , ID# 232459 (AAO June 19, 2017)