dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-1- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 18, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an information technology consulting company , seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "database administrator" 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 Director of the California Service Center denied the petition on two separate grounds, concluding 
that the Petitioner did not establish: ( 1) that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation; 
and (2) that it will maintain an employer-employee relationship with the Beneficiary. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence 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). 
Matter of C-1- Inc. 
(]) 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 his duties at the end-
client site in California for.__ _______ __, ( end-client), pursuant to a direct contract executed 
between the Petitioner and the end-client. The Petitioner provided a list of job duties for the proffered 
position almost identical to that provided by the end-client in its letters. 
III. ANALYSIS 
For the reasons set out below, we have determined that the proffered position does not qualify as a 
specialty occupation. Specifically, the record does not: (1) describe the proffered position in sufficient 
detail; and (2) establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, 
commensurate with a specialty occupation. 2 In particular, we find that the Petitioner has not 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation in support of the H-1 B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
2 
Matter of C-1- Inc. 
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)(l)-(4). 
A. Inconsistent Education Requirement for the Proffered Position 
First, we find that the Petitioner has provided inconsistent information pertaining to the minimum 
education requirements for entry into the proffered position. The table below summarizes the variances 
in the requirements. 
Record of Proceedings Degree Requirements Other Requirements 
Petitioner's Letter - • master's degree (or foreign •none 
March 31, 2018 (page 2) equivalency) in computer science 
or a related field 
Petitioner's Letter - • bachelor's degree m computer •none 
October 8, 2018 science, information technology, 
(page 1) or other computer related subjects 
Petitioner's Letter - • bachelor's degree [no field • relevant expenence m the 
October 1, 2018 specified] database administration role 
(page 1) 
End-Client Letter - • bachelor's degree m computer • expenence with database 
January 11, 2019 science or related field, or its platforms 
(page 1) equivalent • prev10us expenence with .. installing, supporting, trammg, 
and troubleshooting software 
products 
• expenence with Waterfall 
Methodology and well-versed 
knowledge on skills in MS Office 
products 
The Petitioner has provided varying accounts of the educational background experience necessary for the 
performance of the duties of the proffered position. The Petitioner did not provide an explanation for the 
variances in the requirements. Inconsistencies in the record undermine the credibility of the Petitioner's 
claims regarding the proffered position. The Petitioner must resolve these inconsistencies with 
independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92. 
Unresolved material inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of other 
position and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
3 
Matter of C-I- Inc. 
evidence submitted in support of the requested immigration benefit. Id. They also raise questions as to 
the actual, substantive nature of the proffered position. 
B. Position Description 
Moreover, a crucial aspect in establishing the substantive nature of the proffered position 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. The Petitioner has not. 
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 
submits an updated letter from the end-client, on appeal, confirming that the Beneficiary will be 
working as a "database administrator" at its office inl I California. The letter includes a list of 
the Beneficiary's job duties in brief: generalized terms that do not convey the substantive nature of the 
proffered position and its constituent duties. For example, the end-client's letter states that the 
Beneficiary will perform the capacity planning required to create and maintain the database; perform 
ongoing tuning of the database instances; install new versions of the Oracle RDBMS and its tools and 
any tolls that access the oracle database; control migrations of programs, database changes, reference 
data changes, and menu changes through the development life cycle; implement and enforce security 
for all the oracle databases; perform database re-organizations as required to assist performance and 
ensure maximum uptime of the database; keep standards in place to ensure that all application design 
and code is produced with proper integrity, security, and performance; evaluate releases of oracle and 
its tools, and third-party products to ensure that the site is running the products that are most 
appropriate; and provide technical support to application development teams and enforce and maintain 
database constraints to ensure integrity of the database. However, while the letter includes a list of 
"duties and responsibilities" the Beneficiary would perform, it does not identify a specific project he 
will be assigned to. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits documentation from the end-client about a ' ~-------~ 
project. While this documentation includes information about the project and technical aspects 
surrounding the project, it does not identify the role of the Beneficiary or his proposed position within 
the project. In fact, the end-client does not identify any specific project in which the Beneficiary 
would work and does not describe or explain the specific role of the Beneficiary in this, or any, project. 
4 
Matter of C-1- Inc. 
Therefore, the relevance of this documentation pertaining to the end-client's" .__ ______ ____. " 
project is unknown. 
Further, the Petitioner provided the same list of duties as the end-client that the Beneficiary would 
perform in the proffered position, along with the percentages of time he would devote to each, adding 
two additional "experience" -related duties amounting to 20% of time. However, the Petitioner did 
not make a direct connection from the listed duties to an end-client project. Furthermore, the lists of 
duties provided by the Petitioner and the end-client do not actually contain a detailed description 
explaining what particular duties the Beneficiary will perform on a day-to-day basis for the end-client 
or its 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 end-client. 
For all of these reasons, we conclude that 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 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. EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP 
The Director denied the petition on two separate grounds, one of which concluded that the Petitioner 
is not a United States employer, as described at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). As detailed above, the 
record of proceedings lacks sufficient documentation evidencing what exactly the Beneficiary would 
do for the period of time requested or for the assigned project at the end-client facility. Given this 
specific lack of evidence, the Petitioner has not corroborated who has or will have actual control over 
the Beneficiary's work or duties, or the condition and scope of the Beneficiary's services. However, 
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. 
Cite as Matter of C-1- Inc., ID# 4580228 (AAO Sept. 18, 2019) 
5