dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-S- INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 27,2017 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an information technology consulting firm, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "Java developer" under the H -1 B nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(l5)(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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in denying the petition. 
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.P.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) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
Matter of C-S- Inc. 
(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.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We have consistently interpreted 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). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
In its letter of support, the Petitioner described the job duties of the proffered position as follows: 
• Research, design, and development of computer software systems, analyzing 
software requirements, developing and directing software systems, testing 
procedures, programming, documentation, coordinating installation of software 
systems; 
• Analysis and develop business logic for computer applications that includes 
windows and web based; ~ 
• Detailed description of writing program instructions (code), prepare sample data, 
testing programs, troubleshooting; 
• Work on JAVA and J2EE applications; 
• Writing Dynamic SQL queries in SQL language, tuning SQL quenes, create 
stored procedures, packages for processing and displaying data; 
• Design and development of front-end modules using Visual Basic, Java, HTML, 
Java Scripts, etc. Designing and normalization of database tables, building 
relationship. Setting up error-traps using error handling routines; 
• Design and develop reports in business intelligence; 
• Maintenance, Support, Performing new program enhancements on regular basis 
for the application system. 
2 
.
Matter of C-S- Inc. 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides the following job duties for the proffered position: 
Job Duties Percentage of Time 
• Participate in product design meetings 20% 
• Documenting requirement gathered during the design 
meetings 
• Development of portal modules assigned to her 50% 
• Development of database specific plug-ins for 
Metadata crawler 
• Development of any additional plug-ins to support loading 
data form [sic] various sources 
• Work with quality assurance team in testing the product 20% 
• Resolve any production issues 10% 
The Petitioner stated that the minimum entry requirement for the proffered position is at least a 
bachelor's degree in information technology or a related field. 
III. ANALYSIS 
For the reasons set out below, we have determined that the proffered position does not qualify as a 
specialty occupation. 
On the Form 1-129, the Petitioner requested that the Beneficiary be granted H-1B classification from 
October 1, 2016, to September 13, 2019. In response to the Director's request for evidence, the 
Petitioner indicated tha~ the Beneficiary will work on-site at the Petitioner's office location in 
New Jersey, with its client, The Petitioner stated that it has 
sufficient work for the Beneficiary and submitted invoices for work the Petitioner performed for 
On appeal, the Petitioner specifically states 
that is the end client for the 
Beneficiary's services," and that the "Beneficiary will work on project as a Java 
Developer." 
The Petitioner submitted its Master Consulting Services Agreement with which states 
that the term of the Agreement is "from the date of execution until mutually terminated or 
amended," and the "[Petitioner] will provide the services, functions and responsibilities described in 
the work orders to be performed by [the Petitioner] for .. from time to time." The 
Agreement also states that "[the Petitioner] will perform the Services through individual separate 
projects or work assignments which will be authorized by the issuance of a work order" and "[u]pon 
request that [the Petitioner] provide Services, will disclose to [the Petitioner] the 
specific opportunity and name of the client to whom Services will be provided." 
The Petitioner submitted a copy of Work Order # from The work order 
identifies the Services to be provided as "Javai.Net Developer" and the consultant to perform the 
work under this work order as the Beneficiary. The term of the work order lists a start date of 
3 
.
Mcitter of C-S- Inc. 
February 1, 2016, until "Termination," and the work location as the Petitioner's office in 
New Jersey. The work order does not provide any additional information or any details about the 
actual work to be performed by the Beneficiary. 
We find that the record lacks sufficient documentation regarding the Petitioner's business activities 
and the actual work that the Beneficiary will perform such that it can be found that the Petitioner has 
H-1B caliber work for the Beneficiary for the period of employment requested in the petition. The 
Petitioner initially provided a position description and list of job duties for the proffered Java 
developer position that are general and vague, without any specificity to the projects the Beneficiary 
would be involved in. While the work order from identifies the Beneficiary and lists the 
services to be provided as "Java/.Net Developer," it does not specifically refer to the proffered 
position and does not indicate what duties the Beneficiary will be responsible for. Neither the 
Agreement nor the work order presented provides sufficient detail of the work to be performed by 
the Beneficiary in the proffered position. Although the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary will be 
working on an ' project" for and provides a second list of job duties on appeal, the 
newly listed duties are also vague and do not present a clear picture of what the Beneficiary will 
actually do in the proffered position. Without detailed work orders, statement of works, or similar 
documentation describing the specific duties the Petitioner requires the Beneficiary to perform, as 
those duties relate to specific projects for we are unable to discern the nature of the 
proffered position and whether the position indeed requires the theoretical and practical application 
of a body of highly specialized knowledge attained through a baccalaureate program. 
Also, the record does not include a position description or educational requirements for the proffered 
work from As recognized in Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387~88, it is necessary for the end client 
to provide sufficient intormati.on 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 in this case is similarly devoid of sufficient information from the end client, 
regarding the job duties to be performed by the Beneficiary for that company. 
There is insufficient evidence to establish the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the 
Beneficiary, which therefore 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 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 tor 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 spe.cialization and complexity of the 
specific duties, which is the focus of criterion 4. 
4 
Matter of C-S- Inc. 
Accordingly, as the Petitioner has not established that it has satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it cannot be found that the proffered position qualifies for classification as a 
specialty occupation. For this reason, the petition will be denied. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal must be dismissed because the Petitioner did not establish that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofC-S- Inc., ID# 343969 (AAO Apr. 27, 2017) 
5