dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF O-C-, LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 5, 2019 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an information technology solutions business, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "business analyst" under the H-lB 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-lB 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 Vermont Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
established that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred and that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation. 1 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 2 
I. 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 knowledge, 
and 
1 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support 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. 
2 We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 
(AAO 2010). 
Matter of 0-C-, LLC 
(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: 
(]) 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. Chertojf, 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"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. Specifically, the 
Petitioner has not established the substantive nature of the work that the Beneficiary will perform, 
which precludes a finding that the proffered position satisfies any of the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
A crucial aspect of this matter is whether the record includes sufficiently described duties such that 
we may discern the nature of the proffered 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. The Petitioner has not provided this evidence. 
On the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary 
will work offsite and designated the work location on the labor condition application (LCA) 3 as 
3 A petitioner is required to submit an LCA to the Depaitment of Labor to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B worker the 
higher of either the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the area of employment or the actual wage paid 
2 
Matter of 0-C-, LLC 
.__ ______ ....,,....,, California. In its letter in support of the etition the Petitioner indicated that the 
laced at its "end-client, California to work 
Services Project[)]." The Petitioner listed the Beneficiary's responsibilities as follows (paraphrased): 
• Conduct requirements gathering and documentation sessions including facilitating 
JAD sessions - 20% 
• Build test data files (developing file layout)- 5% 
• Develop Traceability Matrix Documentations - 10% 
• Author to do use case modeling and develop Use Case diagrams - 10% 
• Perform GAP Analysis AS IS and TO BE analysis - 15% 
• Write test scripts - 20% 
• Support system testing and UAT - 20% 
The Petitioner stated that these duties require at least a bachelor's degree or the equivalent in computer 
science, engineering management, or a closely related field plus related professional experience. The 
Petitioner did not define the amount of experience necessary to perform the duties described in relation 
to the particular project to which the Beneficiary would be assigned. 
The Petitioner also included a letter from the end-client which identified the same project as the 
Petitioner but provided a different set of duties. The end-client stated that the Beneficiary is 
responsible for the following duties (bullet-points added, otherwise verbatim): 
• Gather requirements, document and deliver functional specification documents, 
assist architecture analysis. 
• Draft and maintain business requirements and align them with functional and 
technical requirements. 
• Analyze client's business requirements and processes through document analysis, 
interviews, workshops, and workflow analysis[.] 
• Develop test scenarios and test cases for system and integration testing and user 
acceptance testing, including execution of the test cases. 
• Determine operational objectives by studying business functions, gathering 
information, evaluating output requirements and formats. 
• Improve systems by studying current practices and design modifications. 
• Prepare technical reports by collecting, analyzing and summarizing data and trends. 
• Define project requirements by identifying project milestones, phases and 
elements, forming project team and establishing project budget. 
Although the end-client noted the Beneficiary's responsibility in developing test scenarios and cases 
and user acceptance testing (UAT), it does not identify the amount of time allocated to any of the 
duties. Without this information it is not possible to ascertain if the Petitioner's initial focus ( 45 
percent of the Beneficiary's time) on this element is compatible with what the end-client requires for 
by the employer to other employees with similar duties, experience, and qualifications. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 
20 C.F.R. § 655.73l(a). 
3 
Matter of 0-C-, LLC 
this project. Moreover, the end-client does not specify a preference or an academic requirement to 
perform the duties it describes. 
Neither the Petitioner's description nor the end-client's description provides sufficient, probative 
information to ascertain the actual day-to-day duties of the Beneficiary. The duties are broad, and 
provide no insight into the level of responsibility, the level of complexity or demands associated with 
the proposed duties or the specialized knowledge required to perform them. The initial record did not 
include sufficiently detailed job duties, supervisory duties (if any), independent judgment required, or 
the amount of supervision received for the position. 
The record, in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), includes the Petitioner's 
employment offer to the Beneficiary as a business systems analyst intern, a position that is different 
than the position proffered here. The employment offer provides a different version of the proposed 
duties. It is not possible to conclude that the intern position is comparable to the proffered position, 
in terms of focus of duties, level of responsibility, or complexity of job duties. Thus, this description 
does not assist in establishing what the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to do in the proposed 
position. 
We have also reviewed different analysis documents that the Beneficiary appears to have been 
involved in from November 2017 to July 2018. However, we cannot ascertain the extent of the 
Beneficiary's involvement from the brief information provided at the beginning of each of the 
documents. This information is not sufficiently annotated or detailed to assess the Beneficiary's actual 
duties and level of responsibility regarding the analysis documents. 4 Moreover, these documents 
appear to relate to past work and again do not establish what is expected of the Beneficiary in the 
proposed position. 
We also do not find the position sufficiently described to conclude that the Petitioner has properly 
designated the occupation on the certified LCA. Without further detail, it appears that some of the 
duties may fall within a "Computer Systems Analysts" occupation, which requires a higher wage. 5 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the proffered position is specialized and complex or unique and 
thus satisfies the second prong of the second criterion and the fourth criterion of the regulatory 
requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). In support of this assertion the Petitioner submits an 
opinion authored b~ !Adjunct Professor, The Graduate School- Cybersecurity 
& Information Assurance Department, University ofl I 
4 We have also considered the opinion authored by.__ ______ ____.submitted on appeal. In the opinion~] ___ ~ 
notes that his review of a work sample showed that it contained sections related to business requirements, record 
formatting, file formatting and handling, data validation, error management, UT functionality (impacts), required updates 
to systems documentation, and management's sign-oft1/approval. This information does not assist in conveying the 
Beneficiary's actual tasks related to any of these sections and does not establish that any proposed duties will require a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, in order to perform them. 
5 If a proposed position includes duties that fall within two or more different related occupations, the Petitioner is required 
to designate the higher-paying occupation on the LCA. See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training 
Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available 
at http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised_ 11 _ 2009 .pdf 
4 
Matter of 0-C-, LLC 
~---~lstates that he conferred with the chief of the end-client's office ofl~------~I the 
Petitioner's lead business analyst, and the Beneficiary in regard to the academic degree requirements 
for the proffered position. I I claims that as a result of the video conference with these 
individuals, he obtained several insights regarding the position, which include that the position 
involves extensive and intricate knowledge of the custom-built I I system, that the business 
analyst role requires a high-level of technical proficiency in SQL, for data extraction, transformation, 
and management reporting, and that the SQL server and telecommunication systems are used to 
transmit data files from the I I system to the~s Comptroller's office. I I 
however, does not translate these insights into duties that have specific academic requirements. From 
these brief "insights" it appears that the Beneficiary will need experience with the I I system 
and will require proficiency in SQL, neither of which appears to require a bachelor's degree in a 
specific discipline, or its equivalent. 
.__ __ ____.I also offers his understanding that thel ~ system continues to be farther developed 
and enhanced. Although we understand that the end-client's project may continue to exist and require 
work, the issue is whether the work required is specialty occupation work. The opinion does not 
include sufficient analysis of the duties of the position with explanations and clarifications establishing 
how and why those duties require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. We 
also note that I I indicates that the business analyst works as part of an 18-member team, 
which includes 8 application developers and 10 other IT specialists. However, without corroboration 
from the end-client or the Petitioner regarding the number of resources needed for the project and their 
actual role within the project, this information does not assist in establishing the necessity for an H-lB 
caliber position to work on the project. The record also does not include the Petitioner's organizational 
chart depicting the Beneficiary within a particular project team or establishing the Beneficiary's role 
in relation to other project team members. The lack of corroboration in the record regarding the 
specific position and the level of complexity and responsibility of the position limit our ability to 
ascertain the nature of the position and assess whether the Beneficiary will perform duties that are 
commensurate with a specialty occupation . 
.__ ___ _.lforther expresses his understanding that the Beneficiary performs or had performed some 
of the duties initially listed by the Petitioner or the end-client. This repetition of previously provided 
duties, which as stated above, lack the necessary detail to convey an understanding of the Beneficiary's 
day-to-day duties, does not assist in establishing that the generally described duties require a 
bachelor's degree in a specific discipline, or its equivalent. The remainder ofl ~ opinion 
includes the use of a template which uses the same language, organization, and similar conclusory 
statements without supporting analysis that has been submitted on behalf of other petitioners. 6 We 
may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of 
Caron Int 'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, where an opinion is not in accord 
6 Service records show that a number of opinions prepared bvl I and others use a template that includes a repetition 
of a Petitioner or end-client's duties. a repetition of the duties listed in the O*NET and in the Handbook if applicable. for 
the occupation. a list of a number of courses that may be part of a computer science or the Beneficiary's degree, and an 
identification of two or three useful courses for the occupation. The similarity in conclusions, without cogent analysis, 
strongly suggests that the authors of the opinions were asked to confirm a preconceived notion as to the required degrees, 
not objectively assess the proffered position and opine on the minimum bachelor's degree required. Although we 
acknowledge the opinion submitted here, the lack of actual analysis limits the probative value of the opinion. 
5 
Matter of 0-C-, LLC 
with other information or is in any way questionable, we are not required to accept or may give less 
weight to that evidence. Id. 
The Petitioner has not provided a consistent version of the proposed duties. We again observe that it 
is not possible to ascertain the nature and level of responsibility of the proposed position, including 
whether the duties as generally described correspond to the occupation designated on the LCA. To 
the extent they are described, the proposed duties do not provide a sufficient factual basis for 
conveying the substantive matters that will engage the Beneficiary in the actual performance of the 
proffered position. The inconsistencies in the record preclude an analysis of the Beneficiary's actual 
position and overall level of responsibility. As we cannot determine what the Beneficiary will be 
expected to do in the proposed position we cannot conclude that the actual position 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. 
The inconsistencies related to the position also preclude our ability to determine that the Petitioner 
selected the appropriate SOC code and wage level for the proffered position. 
Because the Petitioner has not established the substantive nature of the work that the Beneficiary will 
actually perform for the stated end-client, we are unable to evaluate whether the proffered position 
satisfies any criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), because it is the substantive nature of that work 
that determines (1) the normal minimum educational requirement for entry into the particular position, 
which is the focus of criterion 1; (2) industry positions which are parallel to the proffered position and 
thus appropriate for review for a common degree requirement, under the first alternate prong of 
criterion 2; (3) the level of complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position, which is the focus of 
the second alternate prong of criterion 2; ( 4) the 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. 
Accordingly, as the Petitioner has not established that it has satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A), it cannot be found that the proffered position qualifies for classification as a 
specialty occupation. Further, the record does not establish that the proffered position, as generally 
described, satisfies the statutory and regulatory definitions of specialty occupation. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 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. The Petitioner 
has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of 0-C-, LLC, ID# 4789547 (AAO Sept. 5, 2019) 
6