dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9113278 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 25, 2020 
The Petitioner, an information technology consulting company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "technical project manager" 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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The matter is now before us 
on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate el igibi I ity 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 Christa's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the entire record, 1 for the reasons set out below, we have determined that the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. In her decision, the Director thoroughly discussed the Petitioner's failure to 
meet any of the four regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l) - (4). Upon consideration 
of the record, we adopt and affirm the Director's decision with the comments below. See Matter of P. 
Singh, Attorney, 26 l&N Dec. 623 (BIA 2015) (citing Matter of Burbano, 20 l&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 
1994); see also Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 7-8 (1st Cir. 1996) ("[l]f a reviewing tribunal decides that the 
facts and evaluative judgments prescinding from them have been adequately confronted and correctly 
1 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
resolved by a trial judge or hearing officer, then the tribunal is free simply to adopt those findings" 
provided the tribunal's order reflects individualized attention to the case). 
First, we'd like to address the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner submitted plagiarized 
documents for its internal ticketing system. In response, the Petitioner states the following: 
It's a common business practice for organizations to integrate a ticketing 
software/system internally, therefore the information found on training manuals would 
be similar .... The ticketing system while common in all organizations, is unique and 
managed internally through organization's internal IT team/support that ensures both 
VPN and Ticketing System and other internal systems and portals are constantly 
functioning without obstruction and any networking attacks. . . . Therefore, there has 
been no plagiarism, and Petitioner's ticketing system and other internal systems and 
portals are its very own. 
While the Petitioner claims that some similarity is expected between these documents, the Petitioner 
does not explain why the Petitioner's document is copied verbatim from the online source. The 
Petitioner also claims that its ticketing system "is unique and managed internally" and that all internal 
systems "are its very own." However, if the Petitioner has customized an existing ticketing system, 
such as the one copied from the on line source, it is not shown in the training manual provided. Further, 
if the Petitioner's VPN and other internal systems are so critical to the Petitioner's organization, the 
manual provided does not specifically address what configurations or special access requirements are 
needed to use the ticketing system within its corporate environment. In this instance, the Petitioner 
has not clarified or provided sufficient evidence to overcome the Director's conclusion in her decision. 
The Petitioner must resolve this discrepancy in the record with independent, objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Unresolved 
material inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of other evidence 
submitted in support of the requested immigration benefit. Id. 
Regarding the Director's discussion of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(1), the 
Petitioner states, on appeal, that the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook 
Handbook (Handbook) "provides a list of various jobs under this code, which indicate that 8 out of 10 
positions require a minimum of a bachelor's degree or even higher education to qualify for the 
position." On appeal, the Petitioner submits a list of "computer and information technology 
occupations" from the Handbook that includes a brief job summary, entry-level education, and 2018 
median pay. First, the Petitioner has not identified any particular occupation for the proffered position 
and merely placed the position in the "Computer Occupations, All Others" category for which a 
detailed profile has not been developed in the Handbook. Second, this list of occupations does not 
indicate that these positions comprise of 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. Thus, the 
Petitioner's reliance on the "8 out of 10 positions" requiring a minimum of a bachelor's degree or even 
higher education as a demonstration that a bachelor's degree is the normal requirement for the 
occupation is misguided. A requirement for a bachelor's degree alone is not sufficient. Instead, 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., 484 F.3d at 147 
2 
(describing "a degree requirement in a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and 
responsibilities of a particular position"). 
Here, the record lacks sufficient probative evidence to demonstrate that this particular position 
proffered by the petitioner is one for which a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied 
the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(1). 
Regarding the Director's discussion of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) and (4), we 
would add the following analysis regarding the job duties of the proffered position. On appeal, the 
Petitioner states that the proffered position is a highly sophisticated job consisting of technical and 
complex duties that are critically important for the success of its organization. We reviewed the 
Petitioner's statements regarding the proffered position; however, while the Petitioner stated that the 
technical project manager "is responsible for planning, monitoring, controlling, and managing IT 
projects throughout the Software Development Lifecycle, starting from initiation, analysis, 
plan/design, build, and test, until implementation," it has not sufficiently developed relative 
specialization, complexity, or uniqueness as an aspect of the proffered position. That is, while the 
Petitioner provided an extensive job description, it has not explained in detail how tasks such as, 
effectively plan, control, monitor, and manage various IT projects towards successful execution and 
completion; support and guide the development team in architecting the application using various tools 
and implementing them; manage a team of technical resources working to build server environments 
to host the internal websites and applications; gather feedback for the existing website from users/sales 
team and discuss these with business so that they can be added as requirements for future releases to 
further enhance user experience and promote user friendliness; create reusable artifacts such as 
templates, frameworks, test cases; monitor project progress continuously across defined metrics and 
create mitigation plan for all risks deviating us from the original project plan; handle resource 
problems efficiently by effectively using the resource pool; help other projects by lending out 
resources during their critical phase of the project; actively participate with the development team to 
deploy all modules in the test environment well in advance to resolve any unforeseen integration 
issues; document all steps in order to use the same process during production deployment; provide and 
lend support to the Dev Lead and Test Lead helping them come up with the specific development plan 
and test plan; work in conjecture [sic] with the team to gather data and produce various effective 
reports; enforce standards and processes within the teams; manage resources and have smooth 
communication across all the teams; conduct weekly status report calls with clients; create informative 
dashboards for clients; work with business and technical teams to establish communication channel 
and clarity over the requirements after finalization of project scope; and organize and conduct meetings 
with stakeholders to discuss optimizing and achieving maximum benefit require the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge. These listed duties,2 when read in 
combination with the evidence found in record of proceedings, suggests that this particular position is 
not so specialized, complex, or unique relative to other technical project managers that the duties can 
2 While the Petitioner provided numerous duties and tasks for the proffered position, we will not list each one. We note 
that this is not an exhaustive list of all tasks for which the Petitioner has not explained the requirement for the theoretical 
and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge. The Petitioner should not assume that any duties or 
tasks not listed here are otherwise persuasive. 
3 
only be performed by an individual with a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
Further, the Beneficiary's proposed job duties include collaborations with "users," "sales team," 
"team," "Dev lead," "Test lead," "business," "development team," "team members," "resources," 
"program managers," "stakeholders," "clients," and "technical teams." Additionally, on appeal, the 
Petitioner specifically states that it "maintains a full time infrastructure team." However, the Petitioner 
has not identified the individuals the Beneficiary would work with or how they relate to her assigned 
projects, or any "clients" the Beneficiary would support in the proffered position. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner provided detailed information about the Beneficiary's completed 
coursework and classroom knowledge as they relate to each listed duty. The Petitioner indicated that 
these courses and specific coursework provided the Beneficiary with the skills necessary to perform 
the listed duties. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education 
or experience of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Simply providing a long list of the Beneficiary's 
coursework, or courses available in a degree program, does not sufficiently develop relative 
specialization, complexity, or uniqueness of the particular position. 
Here, the Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the 
duties of the position, and it did not identify any tasks that are so complex or unique that only a 
specifically degreed individual could perform them. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the 
second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). Nor has the Petitioner established that 
its proffered position is one with duties sufficiently specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(i i i)(A)( 4). 
11. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 3 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 here, and the petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 As this issue precludes approval of the petition, we will not address any of the additional matters we have observed in 
our de novo review of this matter, except to notify the Petitioner that the record is not currently sufficient to establish that 
the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of the proffered position. Specifically, the Petitioner did not submit an 
evaluation of the Beneficiary's foreign degree or sufficient evidence to establish that his degree is equivalent to a U.S. 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. The Petitioner should be prepared to address this issue in any future H-lB filings. 
4