dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 17514484 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-1B) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 13, 2021 
The Petitioner, an information technology company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"software developer" under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. 
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-1B 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, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief 
and asserts that the Director erred by denying the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 
(AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 l&N 
Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Act defines an H-1B nonimmigrant as a foreign national "who is 
coming temporarily to the United States to perform services ... in a specialty occupation described in 
section 214(i)(l) ... "(emphasis added). Section 214(i)(I) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(I), defines the 
term "specialty occupation" as an occupation that requires "theoretical and practical application of a 
body of highly specialized knowledge, and 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 section 214(i)(I) of the Act but adds a 
non-exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) provides that the 
proffered position must meet one of four criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation position. 1 Lastly, 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(1) states that an H-1B classification may be granted to a foreign national 
who "will perform services in a specialty occupation ... " (emphasis added). 
Accordingly, to determine whether the Beneficiary will be employed in a specialty occupation, we 
look to the record to ascertain the services the Beneficiary will perform and whether such services 
require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge attained 
through at least a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty or its equivalent. Without 
sufficient evidence regarding the duties the Beneficiary will perform, we are unable to determine whether 
the Beneficiary will be employed in an occupation that meets the statutory and regulatory definitions of 
a specialty occupation and a position that also satisfies at least one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). The services the Beneficiary will perform in the position determine: (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. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
By regulation, the Director is charged with determining whether the petition involves a specialty 
occupation as defined in section 214(i)(1) of the Act. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(2). The Director 
may request additional evidence in the course of making this determination. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8). 
In addition, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the petition and must continue to 
be eligible through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will be employed as an "software developer." In their 
original June 2020 support letter (Support Letter), the Petitioner describes the duties and 
responsibilities of the proffered position as follows: 
• Gather, analyze, and interpret functional specifications and user requirements 
(20%); 
• Design appropriate software solutions, including logical/physical database 
structures and entity relationship diagramming as needed (20%); 
• Develop and code system features, including user interfaces and 
internet/intranet functionality as required by the applications (20%); 
• Test and troubleshoot new and existing software systems (15%); 
• Integrate new software and enhancement into existing systems (15%); and 
• Provide user training and system documentation when necessary (10%). 
1 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must be read with the statutory and regulatory definitions of a specialty occupation under 
section 214(i)(1) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). We constrne 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"). 
2 
The Petitioner also provided more details to each of the duties in their appeal. According to the 
Petitioner, the proffered position requires at least a bachelor's degree in "[c]omputer [s]cience, 
[ e ]ngineering, [b ]usiness/[ m ]anagement, or a related area." 
On the labor condition application (LCA) 2 submitted in support of the H-1B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Software Developers, 
Applications" corresponding to the standard occupational classification code (SOC) 15-1132 from the 
Occupational Information Network (O*NET), at a wage level 11 rate. According to O*NET's 
description, positions located within the "Software Developers, Applications" occupation primarily 
"[ d]evelop, create, and modify general computer applications software or specialized uti I ity 
programs." 3 
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. When determining whether a position 
is a specialty occupation, we look at the nature of the business offering the employment and the 
description of the specific duties of the position as it relates to the performance of those duties within 
the context of that particular employer's business operations. 
The Support Letter's duties are overarching and abstract. The provided duties lack any explanation of 
specific tasks, methodologies, tools, or knowledge that would be required. For example, the duty to 
"[ d]esign appropriate software solutions, including logical/physical database structures and entity 
relationship diagramming as needed" does not describe the type of software solutions, knowledge, 
programming languages, and skills the Beneficiary would need to perform this duty. These 
generalized tasks do not provide sufficient detail to determine if the position requires any specialized 
knowledge and whether this knowledge would require at least a bachelor's in a specialized field. In 
sum, without a detailed job description, the record does not demonstrate the actual work the 
Beneficiary will perform; the "complexity and uniqueness" of the position; the "specialization and 
complexity" of the duties; or that the proffered position requires at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty. With these ambiguities in the record regarding the duties of the position, we cannot 
ascertain the substantive nature of the position. 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides additional details for each of the job duties. However, these 
expanded details go beyond mere additions or clarifications but instead change the nature of the 
Petitioner's originally submitted job duties. The Petitioner cannot materially change the proffered 
position's description on appeal. The Petitioner must establish that the position offered to the 
2 A petitioner submits the LCA to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1B 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 duties, experience, and qualifications. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 
C.F.R. § 655.731(a). 
3 O*NET OnLine Archives, "Summary Report for: 15-1132.00 - Software Developers, Applications." 
https://www.onetonline.org/Archive_ONET-SOC_2010_ Taxonomy_09_2020/link/summary/15-1132.00 (last visited 
Sep. 13, 2021). 
3 
Beneficiary when the petition was filed merits classification for the benefit sought. See Matter of 
Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248,249 (Reg'l Comm'r 1978). 
Moreover, the Petitioner's varying statements regarding the educational requirements for the position 
raise additional, and equally significant, questions as to the substantive nature of this position. They 
also cast doubt as to whether a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, is in fact 
required. The Petitioner's insistence that a bachelor's degree in business would qualify the candidate 
for the proffered position is also problematic. As previously mentioned, the record of proceedings 
indicates the position requires at least a bachelor's degree in '"[c]omputer [s]cience, [e]ngineering, 
[b]usiness/[m]anagement, or a related area." (Emphasis added.) Even if established by the evidence 
of record, the requirement of a bachelor's degree in business 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 and closely to the position in question. Since 
there must be a close correlation between the required specialized studies and the position, the 
requirement of a degree with a generalized title, such as business, without further specification, does 
not establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf. Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 l&N Dec. 
558,560 (Comm'r 1988). In addition to demonstrating that a job requires the theoretical and practical 
application of a body of specialized knowledge as required by section 214(i){l) of the Act, a petitioner 
must also establish that the position requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a 
specialized field of study or its equivalent. As explained above, we interpret 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii){A) as requiring a degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed 
position. We have consistently stated that, although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a 
degree in business, may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, 
without more, will not justify a finding conclusion that a particular position qualifies for classification 
as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submitted two new sets of educational requirements for the proffered 
position. Both the Petitioner and I I of I I I I include educational requirements for the proffered position but exclude the 
"[b]usiness/management" field of study from the record of proceeding.4 Although the new sets of 
educational requirements remove "business" as a field of study, the updated requirements materially 
change the Petitioner's initial educational requirement. As previously mentioned, the Petitioner must 
establish that the position offered to the Beneficiary when the petition was filed merits classification 
for the benefit sought. Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 l&N Dec. at 248, 249. A petitioner may not 
make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS 
requirements. See Matter of lzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). As such, the 
position's educational requirements are not consistent throughout the record, which raises yet more 
questions as to the actual substantive nature of the position. 
Absent more specific and consistent evidence regarding the nature of the proffered position's duties 
and requirements, the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate the substantive nature of the work to be 
performed by the Beneficiary. This, therefore, precludes our ability to ascertain the nature of the 
4 On appeal, the Petitioner states the proffered position requires "a Bachelor degree in Computer Science, ComP.uter 
Applications, Computer Engineering, Information Systems or another technology-related field of study." D I ts letter states the position requires "education at least equal to a baccalaureate degree in a specific field of 
study such as Computer Science, Computer Information Systems, or a closely related field" 
4 
position and whether the proffered position satisfies any criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
Additionally, the record does not demonstrate that performing the general duties described 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. See section 214(i)(1) of the Act; 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty occupation). 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
As set forth above, we conclude that the evidence of record does not establish, more likely than not, 
that the proffered position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. Accordingly, 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. 
5