dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 3938017 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 5, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "ServiceNow customer administrator" 
under the H-1 B 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 Vermont Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish 
that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. Upon 
de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
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 
(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: 
(I) 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"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The record does not establish that the job duties, as described, require the theoretical and practical 
application of a body of a highly specialized knowledge attained through at least a baccalaureate 
degree in a specific discipline. 
A. Minimum Requirements 
The Petitioner asserts that the "minimum requirement for the position is a Bachelors [sic] Degree in 
Business, Management, or an IT related field, or the equivalent." 1 However, a claim that the duties of 
the proffered position may be performed with a general degree in business is inadequate to establish that 
the position is 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 general degree, such as business, 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.").2 
Moreover, the Petitioner when describing the particular position offered to the Beneficiary states that"[ a] 
minimum of a bachelor's degree is required for [the ServiceNow Administrator] position." As explained 
above, we interpret the degree requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to require a degree in a 
1 As the degree field is in the disjunctive, it appears that the Petitioner contends that a general business degree is sufficient 
to perform the duties of the proffered position. 
2 A general degree requirement does not necessarily preclude a proffered position from qualifying as a specialty 
occupation. For example, an entry requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in business with a concentration in a 
specific field, or a bachelor's or higher degree in business combined with relevant education, training, and/or experience 
may, in certain instances, qualify the proffered position as a specialty occupation. In either case, it must be demonstrated 
that the entry requirement is equivalent to a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the 
proffered position. The Petitioner has not provided such evidence here. 
2 
specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. We have consistently stated that 
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. 
We also note that the Petitioner, an information technology company located in Virginia, states that it 
will deploy the Beneficiary to an end-client in North Carolina. As recognized by the court in Defensor, 
201 F.3d at 387-88, where, as here, the work is to be performed for entities other than the petitioner, 
evidence of the client company's 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. In this 
matter the only information in the record from the end-client is a letter which we find questionable. 3 
Setting aside our concern regarding the legitimacy of the letter, we observe that the end-client confirms 
that the duties described require "at least a bachelor's degree." The end-client does not indicate that 
the bachelor's degree must be in a specific discipline, or the equivalent. The Petitioner and the 
end-client's stated requirements alone indicate that the proffered position is not in fact a specialty 
occupation. 
The Petitioner also refers to the opinion prepared by to demonstrate that the 
proposed position requires a bachelor's degree in a specific discipline. .__ ____ __,recites the 
Petitioner's description of duties almost verbatim and opines that the proffered position "requires the 
theoretical and practical application of an advanced, highly specializecl bodv of kumrledge in the field 
of Management, Information Systems, or a closely related IT field."l _ appears unaware 
that both the Petitioner and the end-client find that a general bachelor's degree, with no specific 
discipline requirement, is sufficient to perform the duties of the proffered position. Additionally,□ 
I , I does not discuss the duties described in relation to a particular project or otherwise offer an 
analysis on how a particular project might affect the duties and requirements for the position. The 
lack of a complete analysis and the inconsistency between I Is conclusion regarding the 
requirements of the proposed position and the Petitioner and the end-client's requirements casts doubt 
on the accuracy and validity of the opinion. 4 
The Petitioner further refers to another employee it claims it employs in a position similar to the 
position proffered here. The Petitioner provides a copy of the claimed employee's bachelor's of 
commerce degree issued by a foreign university. The Petitioner does not provide this employee's 
3 The text of the letter appears to have been copied and pasted on to the end-client's letterhead. As the record includes no 
other probative evidence from the end-client, including contracts, statements of work, work orders, requisitions, or 
evidence of a particular project, we question the authenticity of the letter. 
4 The Petitioner appears to contend that it is the obligation of the Director to provide a counter expelt opinion to refute the 
opinion oti I However, it is not the agency's role to disprove a petitioner's claims. As in all visa petition 
proceedings, the burden of proof rests with the Petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Consistent with 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l6)(ii), the Director was limited to the information contained in the record of proceedings in making 
the determination of statutory eligibility. As discussed, the opinion offers little probative value due to the deficiencies 
noted above. 
3 
transcript, or a credentials evaluation of the foreign degree; thus we cannot conclude that the foreign 
bachelor's degree in commerce is the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty awarded 
by an accredited U.S. university. The information submitted regarding the other employee appears to 
confirm that a position similar to the position proffered here does not require a U.S. bachelor's degree 
in a specific discipline, or its equivalent. 
We also reviewed the Petitioner's breakdown of duties, allocation of time to those duties, and the 
courses the Petitioner claims prepared the Beneficiary to perform the duties. However, the test to 
establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the skill set, experience, or education of a proposed 
beneficiary, but whether the position itself qualifies as a specialty occupation. The Petitioner has not 
established how an established curriculum of such courses leading to and resulting in a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the duties of the 
proffered position. Absent this evidence, we cannot conclude that the particular position proffered in 
this matter requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, 
and the 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 as required by the Act. 
B. Nature of the Position 
On the labor condition application (LCA) 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 Category code 15-1199. 5 To understand the nature of a 
particular position, we recognize the Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook 
(Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety 
of occupations that it addresses. 6 The Handbook is a career resource offering information on hundreds 
of occupations. However, there are occupational categories which the Handbook does not cover in 
detail, and instead provides only summary data. 7 The subchapter of the Handbook titled "Data for 
Occupations Not Covered in Detail" states, in relevant part, that the "[t]ypical entry-level education" 
for "Information Technology Project Managers" is a "Bachelor's degree," without indicating that the 
bachelor's degree must be in a specific specialty. 8 Thus, the Handbook is not probative in establishing 
that these positions comprise an occupational group for which normally the minimum requirement for 
entry is at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
The Petitioner also references the DOL's O*NET summary report for "Information Technology 
Project Managers." We have considered the Petitioner's reference to the O*NET's summary report of 
the educational requirements of "respondents" and that the majority report a bachelor's degree is required. 
However, the respondents' positions within this occupation are not distinguished by career level ( e.g., 
5 The Petitioner claims that the duties of the proffered position fall within the parameters of the duties of the "Information 
Technology Project Managers" occupation, a subcategory of SOC code 15-1199, specifically 15-1199.09. 
6 Our references to the Handbook may be accessed at http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not maintain that the Handbook is 
the exclusive source of relevant information. 
7 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook. Data for Occupations Not Covered in 
Detail, https://www.bls.gov/ooh/about/data-for-occupations-not-covered-in-detail.htm (last visited Feb. 5, 2020). 
8 The Handbook also indicates that this occupation does not require work experience in a related occupation or typical 
on-the-job training. Id. 
4 
entry-level, mid-level, senior-level). Additionally, the graph in the summary report does not indicate that 
the "education level" for the respondents must be in a specific specialty. The O*NET summary report 
for this occupation does not establish the duties of the Petitioner's particular position would normally 
require a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 9 
We also considered the job postings and industry letters provided by the Petitioner in order to 
determine whether there is a degree requirement that is common to the Petitioner's industry in parallel 
positions among similar organizations. The job postings and the letters confirm that a general 
bachelor's degree in business is an acceptable degree for this occupation. We reiterate, however, that 
a general bachelor's degree does not satisfy the statutory or regulatory definition of a specialty 
occupation and thus such a requirement is insufficient to qualify a position as a specialty occupation. 
Moreover, the job postings submitted include descriptions for the advertised positions, which do not 
appear parallel to the position proffered here. Additionally, several of the job postings require a 
significant amount of experience to perform the position advertised. The Petitioner here does not 
indicate that any experience is required. The industry letters submitted do not include information as 
to any duties reviewed and thus are insufficient to establish that the positions discussed are parallel to 
the proffered position. These documents are insufficient to conclude there is common degree 
requirement of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent within the Petitioner's 
industry for parallel positions. 
We reviewed the Petitioner's description of the proposed duties but note that the duties are described 
without the context of a specific project or objective. The generic description does not establish the 
substantive nature of the proffered position or demonstrate that performing the associated duties would 
require the theoretical and practical application of highly specialized knowledge and attainment of at 
least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. The record here does not illuminate 
the substantive application of knowledge involved or any particular educational requirement 
associated with the duties described. Here, the job description does not communicate (1) the actual 
work the Beneficiary would perform on a day-to-day basis; (2) the complexity, uniqueness and/or 
specialization of the tasks; or (3) the correlation between that work and a need for a particular level of 
education of highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. 
Given the deficiencies and inconsistencies in the record regarding the Beneficiary's assignment and 
duties, we cannot determine the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the Beneficiary. 
This precludes a conclusion 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 entry into the particular position, which is the focus of criterion 
1; (2) industry positions which are parallel to the proffered position and thus appropriate for review 
for a common degree requirement, under the first alternate prong of criterion 2; (3) the level of 
complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position, which is the focus of the second alternate prong 
of criterion 2; ( 4) the factual justification for a petitioner normally requiring a degree or its equivalent, 
when that is an issue under criterion 3; and ( 5) the degree of specialization and complexity of the 
specific duties, which is the focus of criterion 4. As the Petitioner has not satisfied any criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. 
9 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/help/online/svp. 
5 
Moreover, the Petitioner has not described the proposed position such that we may conclude that the 
position requires both the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge 
and the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as the 
minimum for entry into the occupation. See section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) 
( defining the term "specialty occupation). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6