dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF U-S- INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 2, 2015 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an information technology firm, seeks to employ the Beneficiary in what it designates 
as a "Business Analyst" position. The Petitioner seeks to classify him as a nonimmigrant worker in 
a specialty occupation. See 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The 
matter is now before us on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The record of proceeding includes: (1) the Form I-129 and supporting documentation; (2) the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE); (3) the Petitioner's response to the RFE; (4) the notice of 
decision; and (5) the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, the Petitioner's brief and additional 
documentation. 
The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition determining that the record did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The matter is now before us 
on appeal. We find that the evidence of record does not overcome the Director's grounds for denying 
this petition.1 Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
I. THE PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner attested on the required Labor Condition Application (LCA) that the occupational 
classification for the position is "Computer Systems Analysts," SOC (ONET/OES) Code 15-1121, at 
a Level I (entry) wage.2 
1 
We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). 
Also, in light of the Petitioner's references to the requirement that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USC IS) 
apply the "preponderance of the evidence" standard, we affirm that, in the exercise of our appellate review in this matter, 
as in all matters that come within our purview, we follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in the 
controlling precedent decision, Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,375-376 (AAO 2010). 
2 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 _I I_ 2009.pdf. 
Matter of U-S- Inc. 
In a March 31, 2014 letter, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's duties and responsibilities 
included, but are not limited to, the following: 
• Analyze user requirements, procedures, and problems to automate or improve existing 
systems and review computer system capabilities, workflow, and scheduling limitations. 
• Responsible for analysis of current SAP system for system configuration, system testing 
and performance issues. 
• Assess risk through evaluation of programs and provide recommendations for program 
effectiveness. 
• Create flow charts and work flow diagrams using MS Visio. 
• Configure settings for Controlling Area and Operating Concern, maintain Versions. 
Create Cost Element Groups, maintain Cost Element Attributes, Costing Sheet etc(.] 
• Perform other activities like Cost Updates, Newly Costed Items, Final Cost Load, and 
Export Item Costs and add new changes as per new transformations. 
• Configure business transactions for AP and AR including the Automatic payment. 
[Verbatim.] 
The Petitioner also further stated: "Because of the technical nature of the job duties, a qualified 
applicant must have at a minimum, a bachelor's degree in computer science, engineering, 
Mathematics, Statistics, applied science, business or related :field." 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner described the typical responsibilities of a SAP Functional 
Analyst as well as revising and re-grouping the above list of duties and listing the percentage of time 
to be spent on the responsibilities as follows: 
• Perform Business Analysis, GAP Analysis, Requirement Gathering- 25% 
• Analyze the business requirements and integrate, configure, customize them into the 
SAP System to address business needs - 20% 
• Create flow charts and work flow diagrams - 1 0% 
• Configure settings for Controlling Area and Operating Concern, maintain Versions. 
Create Cost Element Groups, maintain Cost Element Attributes and Costing Sheet. 
Perform other activities like Cost Updates, Newly Costed Items, and Final Cost Load. 
Export Item Costs and add new changes as per new transformations. Configure business 
transactions for AP and AR including the Automatic payment- 40% 
• Report and track defects/bugs identified during testing- 5% 
The Petitioner stated further that "[d]ue to the complex nature of the job duties, the position of 
Business Analyst (SAP Functional) requires a Bachelor's Degree or foreign equivalent plus two to 
three years of work experience." The record, in response to the RFE, also included the Petitioner's 
advertisement for "Programmer Analysts, Software Developers, Systems Analysts, Business 
Analysts, Application Server Admins & Database Admins." The listed qualification on the 
2 
Matter of U-S- Inc. 
advertisement is a bachelor's degree in "Science/Engineering/IT/Business Related" and "1 to 2 years 
of experience in relevant technologies." 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that "[t]he offered position is not an entry level position" and that 
the "job duties and function of the position are indicative of an advanced level, and the established 
requirements clearly arise from business and operational necessity." 
II. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
The principle 1ssue m this matter is whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. 
A. 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) states, in pertinent part, the following: 
Specialty occupation means an occupation which [(1)] requires theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in fields of human 
endeavor including, but not limited to, architecture, engineering, mathematics, 
physical sciences, social sciences, medicine and health, education, business 
specialties, accounting, law, theology, and the arts, and which [(2)] requires the 
attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as 
a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to quality as a specialty occupation, a proposed position must 
meet one of the following criteria: 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the m1mmum 
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 
Matter of U-S- Inc. 
(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. 
As a threshold issue, it is noted that 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must logically be read together 
with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). In other words, this regulatory 
language must be construed in harmony with the thrust of the related provisions and with the statute 
as a whole. SeeK Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) (holding that construction 
of language which takes into account the design of the statute as a whole is preferred); see also COlT 
Independence Joint Venture v. Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989); Matter of 
W-F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). As such, the criteria stated in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) 
should logically be read as being necessary but not necessarily sufficient to meet the statutory and 
regulatory definition of specialty occupation. To otherwise interpret this section as stating the 
necessary and sufficient conditions for meeting the definition of specialty occupation would result in 
particular positions meeting a condition under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory or 
regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). To avoid this 
result, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must therefore be read as providing supplemental criteria that 
must be met in accordance with, and not as alternatives to, the statutory and regulatory definitions of 
specialty occupation. 
As such and consonant with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) consistently interprets the 
term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered 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"). Applying this standard, USCIS regularly approves H -1 B petitions for qualified aliens 
who are to be employed as engineers, computer scientists, certified public accountants, college 
professors, and other such occupations. These professions, for which petitioners have regularly been 
able to establish a minimum entry requirement in the United States of a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
particular position, fairly represent the types of specialty occupations that Congress contemplated 
when it created the H-IB visa category. 
To determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCIS does not simply 
rely on a position's title. The specific duties of the proffered position, combined with the nature of 
the petitioning entity's business operations, are factors to be: considered. USCIS must examine the 
ultimate employment of the alien, and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. The critical element is not the title 
of the position nor an employer's self-imposed standards, but whether the position actually requires 
4 
Matter of U-S- Inc. 
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, as required by the Act. 
B. Analysis 
As a preliminary matter, the Petitioner claims that a qualified applicant must have a bachelor's 
degree and lists a number of disciplines that would prepare the applicant to perform the job duties, 
including a degree in business, a degree of general application. However, if a bachelor's degree in 
"business" is sufficient to prepare the Beneficiary for entry into the proffered position, the position 
does not qualify 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. C.f Matter of Michael Hertz 
Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558 (Comm'r 1988). 
To prove that a job requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge as required by section 214(i)(l) of the Act, a petitioner must establish that the position 
requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specialized field of study or its 
equivalent. As discussed supra, USCIS interprets the degree requirement at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to require a degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed 
position. Although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business administration, 
may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will 
not justify a finding that a particular position qualifies for dassification as a specialty occupation. 
See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007).3 
The Petitioner also claims that the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree plus two to three 
years of work experience and also that the "[t]he offered position is not an entry level position" and 
that the "job duties and function of the position are indicative of an advanced level" position. 
However, the Petitioner designated the proffered position as a Level I (entry level) position on the 
3 Specifically, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit explained in Royal Siam that: 
!d. 
[t]he courts and the agency consistently have stated that, although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, 
such as a business administration degree, may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, 
requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify the granting of a petition for an H-1 B specialty 
occupation visa. See, e.g., Tapis lnt 'l v. INS, 94 F.Supp.2d 172, 175-76 (D.Mass.2000); Shanti, 36 F. 
Supp.2d at 1164-66; cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I & N Dec. 558, 560 ([Comm'r] 1988) 
(providing frequently cited analysis in connection with a conceptually similar provision). This is as it 
should be: elsewise, an employer could ensure the granting of a specialty occupation visa petition by 
the simple expedient of creating a generic (and essentially artificial) degree requirement. 
5 
Matter of U-S- Inc. 
LCA.
4 
The wage levels are defined in the Department of Labor's (DOL) "Prevailing Wage 
Determination Policy Guidance." 5 A Level I wage rate is described as follows: 
Level I (entry) wage rates are assigned to job offers for beginning level employees 
who have only a basic understanding of the occupation. These employees perform 
routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment. The tasks provide 
experience and familiarization with the employer's methods, practices, and programs. 
The employees may perform higher level work for training and developmental 
purposes. These employees work under close supervision and receive specific 
instructions on required tasks and results expected. Their work is closely monitored 
and reviewed for accuracy. Statements that the job offer is for a research fellow, a 
worker in training, or an internship are indicators that a Level I wage should be 
considered. 
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 
Thus, in designating the proffered position at a Level I wage, the Petitioner has indicated that the 
proffered position is a comparatively low, entry-level position relative to others within the 
occupation. That is, in accordance with the relevant DOL explanatory information on wage lev~ls, 
this wage rate indicates that the Beneficiary is only required to have a basic understanding of the 
occupation and carries expectations that the Beneficiary perform routine tasks that require limited, if 
any, exercise of judgment; that he would be closely supervised; that his work would be closely 
monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and that he would receive specific instructions on required 
tasks and expected results. Based upon the Petitioner's designation of the proffered position as a 
Level I (entry) position, it does not appear that the Beneficiary will be expected to serve in a senior 
or leadership role or work at an advanced level. As noted above, according to DOL guidance, a 
statement that the job offer is for a research fellow, worker in training or an internship is indicative 
that a Level I wage should be considered. 
4 Wage levels should be determined only after selecting the most relevant O*NET code classification. Then, a prevailing 
wage determination is made by selecting one of four wage levels for an occupation based on a comparison of the 
employer's job requirements to the occupational requirements, including tasks, knowledge, skills, and specific vocational 
preparation (education, training and experience) generally required for acceptable performance in that occupation. 
5 Prevailing wage determinations start with a Level I (entry) and progress to a wage that is commensurate with that of a 
Level II (qualified), Level III (experienced), or Level IV (fully competent) after considering the job requirements, 
experience, education, special skills/other requirements and supervisory duties. Factors to be considered when 
determining the prevailing wage level for a position include the complexity of the job duties, the level of judgment, the 
amount and level of supervision, and the level of understanding required to perform the job duties. DOL emphasizes that 
these guidelines should not be implemented in a mechanical fashion and that the wage level should be commensurate 
with the complexity of the tasks, independent judgment required, and amount of close supervision received. 
Matter of U-S- Inc. 
Fundamentally, it appears that (1) the Petitioner previously claimed to DOL that the proffered 
position is a Level I (entry) position to obtain a lower required wage; and (2) the Petitioner is now 
claiming to users that the position is a higher-level and more complex position in order to support 
its claim that the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The Petitioner cannot have it both 
ways. Either the position is more advanced and complex (based on a comparison of the employer's 
job requirements to the standard occupational requirements) and thereby necessitates a higher 
required wage, or it is an entry-level position for which the lower wage offered to the Beneficiary in 
this petition is acceptable. To permit otherwise would be directly contrary to the U.S. worker 
protection provisions contained in section 212(n)(l)(A) of the Act and its implementing regulations. 
Here, the Petitioner's claim that the proffered position's minimum entry requirements may be 
satisfied with a general bachelor's degree or a general bachelor's degree in business, among other 
disparate degrees, is tantamount to an acknowledgment that the position is not a specialty 
occupation. The Petitioner's added claim, in response to the RFE, that the position also requires two 
to three years of work experience and its claim on appeal that the position is not an entry level 
position, conflict with its designation of the position as position requiring only a Level I (entry) 
position. Doubt cast on any aspect of the Petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of 
the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. 
Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). 
That being said and with the understanding that we are incorporating these comments and findings 
as part of our analysis of each of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii), we shall now separately 
address each of those criteria. 
A baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is 
normally the minimum requirementfor entry into the particular position 
We will first address the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). This criterion requires that a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position. We recognize the DOL's 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 Petitioner attests on the LCA that the duties of the proffered position fall within the parameters 
of the occupational category of a computer systems analyst. A review of the Handbook does not 
indicate that, simply by virtue of its occupational classification, such a position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. More specifically, the information on the educational requirements in the 
"Computer Systems Analysts" chapter of the 2014-2015 edition of the Handbook indicates at most 
that a bachelor's or higher degree in a computer or infomtation science field may be a common 
6 All of the references are to the 2014-2015 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
http://www.bls.gov/OCO/. The excerpt of the Handbook regarding the duties and requirements of the referenced 
occupational category is hereby incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
7 
Matter of U-S- Inc. 
preference, but not a standard occupational, entry requirement. See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of 
Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., "Computer Systems Analysts," 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/Computer-and-Information-Technology/Computer-systems­
analysts.htm#tab-4 (last visited Sept. 28, 2015). In fact, this chapter reports that many computer 
systems analysts may only have liberal arts degrees and programming or technical experience. See 
id. The Handbook also notes that many analysts have tec:hnical degrees but does not specify a 
degree level (e.g., associate's degree, baccalaureate) for these technical degrees. Moreover, the 
Handbook specifically states that such a degree is not always a requirement. Thus, the Handbook 
does not support the claim that the proffered position falls under an occupational group for which 
normally the minimum requirement for entry is a baccalaureate degree (or higher) in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. 
In certain instances, the Handbook is not determinative. When the Handbook does not support the 
proposition that a proffered position is one that meets the statutory and regulatory provisions of a 
specialty occupation, it is incumbent upon the Petitioner to provide persuasive evidence that the 
proffered position more likely than not satisfies this or one of the other three criteria, 
notwithstanding the absence of the Handbook's support on the issue. In such case, it is the 
Petitioner's responsibility to provide probative evidence (e.g., documentation from other objective, 
authoritative sources) that supports a finding that the particular position in question qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. Whenever more than one authoritative source exists, an adjudicator will 
consider and weigh all of the evidence presented to determine whether the particular position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
We have reviewed the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) Summary Report for 
"Computer Systems Analysts" and find that O*NET does not state a requirement for a bachelor's 
degree for this occupation. Rather, it assigns this occupation a Job Zone "Four" rating, which 
groups it among occupations of which "most," but not all, "require a four-year bachelor's 
degree." Further, O*NET does not indicate that four-year bachelor's degrees required by Job Zone 
Four occupations must be in a specific specialty directly related to the occupation. Therefore, 
O*NET information is not probative of the proffered position being a specialty occupation. 
The Handbook does not support the claim that the occupational category of computer systems 
analysts is one for which normally the minimum requirement for entry is a baccalaureate degree (or 
higher) in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Even if it did, the record lacks sufficient evidence to 
support a finding that the particular position proffered here, an entry-level computer systems analyst 
position (as indicated on the LCA), would normally have such a minimum, specialty degree 
requirement or its equivalent. The duties and requirements of the position as described in the record 
of proceeding do not indicate 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)(l). 
Matter of U-S- Inc. 
The requirement of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel 
positions among similar organizations 
Next, we will review the record regarding the first of the two alternative prongs of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). This prong alternatively calls for a petitioner to establish that a requirement 
of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or ilts equivalent, is common for positions 
that are identifiable as being (1) in the Petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered position, and 
also (3) located in organizations that are similar to the Petitioner. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by USC IS 
include: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the industry's 
professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether letters or 
affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms "routinely employ and recruit 
only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 1999) 
(quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
Here and as already discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for 
which the Handbook (or other independent, authoritative source) reports an industry-wide requirement 
for at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. Thus, we incorporate by 
reference the previous discussion on the matter. Also, there are no submissions from the industry's 
professional association indicating that it has made a degree a minimum entry requirement. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner did not submit any letters or affidavits from similar firms or individuals 
in the Petitioner's industry attesting that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed 
individuals." 
The Petitioner submitted copies of several online job announcements. However, this documentation 
does not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. We note that the 
Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how representative these job advertisements 
are of the particular advertising employers' recruiting history for the type of jobs advertised. 
Further, as they are only solicitations for hire, they are not evidence of the employers' actual hiring 
practices. 
Additionally, for the Petitioner to establish that an organization is similar, it must demonstrate that it 
shares the same general characteristics with the advertising organization. Without such evidence, 
documentation submitted by a petitioner is generally outside the scope of consideration for this 
criterion, which encompasses only organizations that are similar to the Petitioner. When 
determining whether the Petitioner and the advertising organization share the same general 
characteristics, such factors may include information regarding the nature or type of organization, 
and, when pertinent, the particular scope of operations, as well as the level of revenue and staffing 
(to list just a few elements that may be considered). It is not sufficient for the Petitioner to claim that 
an organization is similar and in the same industry without providing a legitimate basis for such an 
assertion. In this matter, the Petitioner notes on appeal the difficulty of obtaining information on the 
9 
Matter of U-S- Inc. 
annual revenues or number of employees of other companies and asserts that it has "made 
reasonable efforts to only include information of companies engaged in similar kind of business (IT 
Solutions and Service providers)." 
On the Form I-129, the Petitioner stated that it is an information technology company established in 
2000. The Petitioner designated its business operations under the North American Industry 
Classification System (NAICS) code 541511 on the LCA and Form I-129. According to the U.S. 
Census Bureau, NAICS is used to classify business establishments according to type of economic 
activity and each establishment is classified to an industry according to the primary business activity 
taking place there. See http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/ (last visited Sept. 28, 2015). The 
NAICS code specified by the Petitioner is designated for "Custom Computer Programming 
Services," and is defined by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau as follows: 
This U.S. industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in writing, modifying, 
testing, and supporting software to meet the needs of a particular customer. 
U.S. Dep't of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definition, 541511 - Custom 
Computer Programming Services, http://www.census.gov/egi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch (last visited 
Sept. 28, 2015). 
Even if considering that the advertising organizations are in the same industry, Custom Computer 
Programming Services, there is still insufficient information in the record regarding the advertising 
organizations to establish that the advertising organizations are similar to the Petitioner. 
Additionally, contrary to the purpose for which the advertisements were submitted, the postings do 
not establish that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required for 
the positions. For example, of the 11 advertisements submitted, one requires only a general 
bachelor's degree, one requires an undefined technical degree, one requires an undefined degree in a 
"related field," and four accept a bachelor's degree in the general field of business as minimum 
educational requirements. Again general-purpose degrees may be a legitimate prerequisite for a 
particular position, however, requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify a finding that a 
particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. See Royal Siam Corp. v. 
Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007). Thus, advertisements that request or require only a 
general-purpose degree are not probative to the issue of whether the Petitioner's proffered position 
requires a degree in a specific specialty. 
Additionally, the majority of the advertised positions appear to be more senior than the proffered 
position as they list between five and ten years of required experience in addition to a degree. As 
previously noted, the Petitioner characterized the proffered position as a Level I (entry) position on 
the LCA, even though it claimed the position required experience. 7 Upon review, the job 
advertisements do not establish that similar organizations to the Petitioner routinely employ 
7 DOL guidance states that Level I positions are appropriate for a worker-in-training or an individual performing an 
internship. 
10 
Matter of U-S- Inc. 
individuals with degrees in a specific specialty, in parallel positions in the petitioner's industry. 
Further, even if all of the job postings indicated that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is 
common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations, the Petitioner does not 
demonstrate what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from the advertisements with 
regard to determining the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in 
similar organizations. 8 
The evidence of record does not establish that a requirement for at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, is (1) common to the Petitioner's industry (2) in parallel 
positions (3) among organizations similar to the Petitioner. Thus, for the reasons discussed above, 
the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by 
an individual with a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent 
A review of the record of proceeding indicates that the Petitioner has not credibly demonstrated that 
the duties the beneficiary will be responsible for or perform on a day-to-day basis constitute a 
position so complex or unique that it can only be performed by a person with at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Even when considering the Petitioner's description 
of duties, the Petitioner has not established why a few related courses or industry experience alone is 
insufficient preparation for the proffered position. While a few related courses may be beneficial, or 
even required, in performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how 
an established curriculum of such courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the duties of the proffered position. The 
description of the duties does not specifically identify any tasks that are so complex or unique that 
only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. Rather, the duties as described appear to 
incorporate tasks that can be performed by any individual with experience and/or the appropriate 
certifications in SAP functionality. The record lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish 
the proffered position as more complex or unique from other positions that can be performed by 
persons without at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
This is further evidenced by the LCA submitted by the Petitioner in support of the instant petition. 
As noted above, the Petitioner attested on the submitted LCA that the wage level for the proffered 
position is a Level I (entry) wage. Such a wage level which only requires a basic understanding of 
the occupation; the performance of routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; 
8 See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 (1995). Given that there is no indication that the 
advertisements were randomly selected, the validity of any such inferences could not be accurately determined even if 
the sampling unit were sufficiently large. See id. at 195-196 (explaining that "[r]andom selection is the key to [the] 
process [of probability sampling]" and that "random selection offers access to the body of probability theory, which 
provides the basis for estimates ofpopulation parameters and estimates of error"). 
1 1 
Matter of U-S- Inc. 
close supervision and work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and the receipt of specific 
instructions on required tasks and expected results, is contrary to a position that requires the 
performance of complex duties.9 
Therefore, the evidence of record does not establish that this position is significantly different from 
other positions in the occupation such that it refutes the Handbook's information to the effect that 
there is a spectrum of degrees acceptable for such positions, including degrees not in a specific 
specialty. In other words, the record lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish the 
proffered position as unique from or more complex than positions that can be performed by persons 
without at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. As the evidence of 
record does not demonstrate how the proffered position is so complex or unique relative to other 
positions within the same occupational category that do not require at least a baccalaureate degree in 
a specific specialty or its equivalent for entry into the occupation in the United States, it cannot be 
concluded that the Petitioner has satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The employer normally requires a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
spec~jic specialty, or its equivalent, for the position 
The Petitioner has included information for the record to demonstrate it has employees who perform 
the duties of a SAP Functional Analyst and who have been approved for H-lB classification. 
However, the record does not include evidence of the specific duties these individuals provide to the 
Petitioner or to its clients. Additionally, although the Petitioner submits degree certificates, resumes, 
recent pay stubs, and IRS Forms W-2 to demonstrate that it employs individuals with degrees, the 
record does not include the underlying evidence establishing that these individuals have bachelor's 
degrees in a specific discipline directly related to those duties.10 
Furthermore, to merit approval of the petition under this criterion, the record must establish that a 
petitioner's imposition of a degree requirement is not merely a matter of preference for high-caliber 
candidates but is necessitated by performance requirements of the position. While a petitioner may 
assert that a proffered position requires a degree or even a degree in a specific specialty, such 
statements without corroborating evidence cannot establish the position as a specialty 
9 The issue here is that the Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position undermines its claim 
that the position is particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same 
occupation. Nevertheless, it is important to note that a Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position 
from classification as a specialty occupation. In certain occupations (doctors or lawyers, for example), an entry-level 
position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for 
entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designation would not reflect that an occupation qualifies as a specialty 
occupation if that higher-level position does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent. That is, a position's wage level designation may be a consideration but is not a substitute for a 
determination of whether a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)( I) of the Act. 
10 While the Petitioner's list of employees identifies individuals that have been approved for H-1 B classification, the 
record does not include the records underlying those approvals. Accordingly, we cannot examine the evidence to 
determine if those approvals were made in error, or not. 
12 
Matter of U-S- Inc. 
occupation. Were USCIS limited solely to reviewing a petitioner's claimed self-imposed 
requirements, then any individual with a bachelor's degree could be brought to the United States to 
perform any occupation as long as the employer artificially created a token degree requirement, 
whereby all individuals employed in a particular position possessed a baccalaureate or higher degree 
in the specific specialty, or its equivalent See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d at 387. In other 
words, if a petitioner's degree requirement is only symbolic and the proffered position does not in 
fact require such a specialty degree, or its equivalent, to perform its duties, the occupation would not 
meet the statutory or regulatory definition of a specialty occupation. See section 214(i)(l) of the 
Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty occupation"). Here, the evidence of 
record is insufficient to establish the referenced criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3) based 
on the Petitioner's normal hiring practices. 
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 in a specific specialty, or its equivalent 
The Petitioner in this matter has not submitted a job description that persuasively supports the claim that 
the position's day-to-day job responsibilities and duties would require the theoretical and practical 
application of a particular educational level of highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty 
directly related to those duties and responsibilities. The overall responsibilities for the proffered 
position contain generalized technical functions without providing sufficient information regarding 
the particular work, and associated educational requirements, into which the duties would manifest 
themselves in their day-to-day performance within the Petitioner's operations. The Petitioner has 
not demonstrated how the Business Analyst/SAP Functional Analyst would engage in specialized 
and complex duties that require the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent 
In this case, relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by the 
Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. Based upon a complete review of the record of 
proceeding, we conclude that the evidence does not establish that the position, as described, more 
likely than not constitutes a specialty occupation. The Petitioner has not described the duties of the 
position in such a way that establishes that the duties require more than the technical expertise of an 
individual trained and certified in SAP methodology. Although the Petitioner may desire a 
candidate that has a bachelor's degree, the Petitioner does not explain in detail how or why the duties 
are so complex or specialized that they require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent The Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)( 4). 
Accordingly, as the evidence does not satisfy any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it 
cannot be found that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
13 
Matter of U-S- Inc. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As set forth above, we find that the evidence of record does not establish that the proffered position 
qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. Accordingly, the petition will be denied. 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; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 11 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of U-S-Inc., ID# 13783 (AAO Oct. 2, 2015) 
11 
As the identified grounds of ineligibility are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we need not address the additional 
issues in the record of proceeding we observe that also preclude approval of the petition. 
14