dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

MATTER OF Z-S-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 23, 2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an information technology firm, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"systems analyst" under the H-1 B 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-1 B 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, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner had not demonstrated that ( 1) the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation 
position; and (2) it will have an employer-employee relationship with the Beneficiary. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the evidence of record satisfies all evidentiary requirements. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
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 ofthe following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
Matter of Z-S-, Inc. 
(I) 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). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has consistently 
interpreted 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 proposed 
position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chert(~[{, 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 the H-lB petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a "systems analyst." In a 
letter provided with the H -1 B petition, the Petitioner provided the following description of the duties 
of the pro tiered position: 
Duties Percentage Level of 
Responsibility 
Understanding, gaugmg, translating, and documenting 30% Primary 
technical requirements to application process that yield . 
optimum throughput. 
Closely interacting with internal and external clients to 20% Primary 
translate the technical and user requirements in application 
design. 
Participating m the strategy and design of system 20% Primary 
frameworks to improve and customize our standard and 
user customized enterprise computer systems; 
Using proven design patterns to standardize the application 15% Secondary 
architecture and user interfaces. 
Installing and configuring various internal and customized 15% Secondary 
software packages to manage and improve the client 
experience. 
2 
Matter of Z-S-, Inc. 
In an itinerary submitted with the H-1 B petition, the Petitioner provided the following additional 
duty description: 
• Develop JavaScript utilizing Node.js 
• Audit writing drivers in Node.js to talk to various Cisco devices deployed in 
Cisco Energy Management System 
• Assist the team with Bash scripting and help customers with technical support 
if required 
• Contribute and provide feedback to other team members' 
initiatives/assignments by participating in design discussions, code reviews 
and support 
• Work with delivery teams to understand end-user requirements, formulate use 
cases, and translate them into a pragmatic and effective technical solution 
• Write drivers in Node.js to talk to various Cisco devises using Cisco Energy 
Engagement System 
That same letter states: "[The Petitioner] requires a minimum of a Bachelor's Degree in Computer 
Science, Computer Information Systems, Engineering, IT or a closely related field." 
In response to a request for evidence (RFE) in this matter, the Petitioner provided the following 
expanded duty description: 
Duties Percentage Level of 
Responsibility 
Understanding, gaugmg, translating, and documenting 30% Primary 
technical requirements to application process that yield 
optimum throughput. 
• Utilize NodeJs and Java for integration 
development 
Closely interacting with internal and external clients to 20% Primary 
translate the technical and user requirements in application 
designs. 
• Write custom code to integrate iSocket devices to 
Cisco Asset Management using Node.Ts. 
• Integrated Cisco asset management with Parstream 
tool to access real time data. 
Participating In the strategy and design of system 20% Primary 
frameworks to improve and customize our standard and 
user customized enterprise computer systems. 
• Integrated Cisco Asset Management with Qlik and 
custom wrote the query in QlikSence to massage 
the data based on customer requirements. 
3 
Matter of Z-S-, Inc. 
• Wrote custom code to integrate Panduit sensors 
with Cisco Asset management and custom 
designed the dashboard to accommodate Panduit 
features within CAM. 
Using proven design patterns to standardize the application 
architecture and user interfaces. 
Installing and configuring various internal and customized 
software packages to manage and improve the client 
expenence. 
• Manage Cisco Server accounts and GitFlow when 
applicable. 
• Write customize code for integration of Cisco 
Asset management and various other lOT devices. 
• Perform, enhance and maintain integration of Cisco 
Asset management with BI tools such as Qlik and 
Tablue. 
III. ANALYSIS 
15% Secondary 
15% Secondary 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation.
1 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or 
its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation? 
1. First Criterion 
We turn first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(l ), which 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. To inform this inquiry, we recognize the U.S. Depm1ment of Labor's 
(DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses? 
' 1 
Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
3 
All of our references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not, however, maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant 
information. That is, the occupational category designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the 
general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered position, and USCIS regularly reviews the Handbook on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. To satisfy the first criterion, however, the 
burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position 
would normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
4 
Matter of Z-S-, Inc. 
On the labor condition application (LCA)4 submitted in support of the H-1 B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Computer Systems Analysts" 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 15-1121.5 The Handbook states the 
following about the educational requirements of positions located within this occupational category: 
A bachelor's degree in a computer or information science field is common, although 
not always a requirement. Some firms hire analysts with business or liberal arts 
degrees who have skills in information technology or computer programming. 
Education 
Most computer systems analysts have a bachelor's degree in a computer-related field. 
Because these analysts also are heavily involved in the business side of a company, it 
may be helpful to take business courses or major in management information 
systems. 
Some employers prefer applicants who have a master's degree in business 
administration (MBA) with a concentration in information systems. For more 
technically complex jobs, a master's degree in computer science may be more 
appropriate. 
·Although many computer systems analysts have technical degrees, such a degree is 
not always a requirement. Many analysts have liberal arts degrees and have gained 
programming or technical expertise elsewhere. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook. 2016-17 ed., 
"Computer Systems Analysts," http://www.bls.gov/oohlcomputer-and-information-technology/ 
computer-systems-analysts.htm#tab-4 (last visited Jan. 18, 20 17). 
4 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to USC IS to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B 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 experience and qualifications who are performing the same 
services. See Matter ofSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 l&N Dec. 542, 545-546 (AAO 20 15). 
5 The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level I wage (the lowest of four assignable wage levels). We will 
consider this selection in our analysis of the position. The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" issue,d by 
the DOL provides a description of the wage levels. A Level I wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which 
the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the occupation. This wage rate indicates: (I) that 
the Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that he 
will be closely supervised and his work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that he will receive 
specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing 
Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC_Guidance_Revised_ll_2009.pdf A prevailing wage determination stmts 
with an entry level wage and progresses to a higher wage level after considering the experience, education, and skill 
requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. !d. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of Z-S-, Inc. 
The Handbook does not support the assertion that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for these positions. This section of the 
narrative begins by stating that a bachelor's degree in a related field is not a requirement. The 
Handbook continues by stating that there is a wide-range of degrees that are acceptable for positions 
in this occupation, including general purpose degrees such as business and liberal arts. While the 
Handbook indicates that a bachelor's degree in a computer or information science field is common, 
it does not report that such a degree in normally a minimum requirement for entry. 
According to the Handbook, many systems analysts have liberal arts degrees and have gained 
programming or technical expertise elsewhere. It further reports that many analysts have technical 
degrees. We observe that the Handbook does not specify a degree level (e.g., associate's degree, 
baccalaureate) for these technical degrees. Moreover, it specifically states that such a degree is not 
always a requirement. Thus, the Handbook does not support the claim that the occupational 
category of computer systems analyst 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 profTered here, an 
entry-level computer systems analyst position, would normally have such a minimum, specialty 
degree requirement or its equivalent. 
The Petitioner provided an evaluation of the proffered position prepared by 
Ph.D., a professor emeritus at He stated that he had reviewed the duty 
description, the Petitioner's website, and the four vacancy announcements provided, which he 
claimed advertise parallel positions. He stated his opinion that based on the duties of the proffered 
position, it would require a bachelor's degree in computer science, computer information systems, an 
engineering field, or a closely-related field. 
Upon review, we determine that this evaluation does not satisfy the first specialty-occupation 
criterion. does not demonstrate or assert in-depth knowledge of the specific business 
operations or how the duties of the position would actually be performed in the context of the 
Petitioner's business enterprise. For instance, there is no evidence that has visited the 
Petitioner's business, observed the Petitioner's employees, interviewed them about the nature of 
their work, or documented the knowledge that they apply on the job. 
asserts a general industry educational standard for computer systems analyst positions, but 
does not reference any supporting authority or any empirical basis. Likewise, he does not provide a 
substantive, analytical basis for his opinion and ultimate conclusion. For example, he does not relate 
his conclusion to specific, concrete aspects of the Petitioner's business operations to demonstrate a 
sound factual basis for the conclusion about the educational requirements for the particular position 
here at issue. Accordingly, it is unclear how he is able attribute a degree requirement to such a 
generalized treatment of the proffered position. 
\ 
Further, there is no indication that the Petitioner advised that the Petitioner characterized 
the proffered position as a low, entry-level systems analyst position, for a beginning employee who 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of Z-S-, Inc. 
has only a basic understanding of the occupation (as indicated by the wage-level on the LCA) 
relative to other positions within the occupational category. It seems would have found 
this information relevant for his letter. Moreover, without this information, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that possessed the requisite information necessary to adequately assess the 
nature of the Petitioner's position. 
Finally, indicated that a bachelor's degree in engineering - without specifying any 
particular branch or subset within the field- would be a sufficient educational qualification for the 
proffered position. The field of engineering is a broad category that covers numerous and various 
specialties, some of which are only related through the basic principles of science and mathematics, 
e.g., nuclear engineering and aerospace engineering. Therefore, it is not readily apparent that a 
general degree in engineering or one of its other sub-specialties, such as chemical engineering or 
nuclear engineering, is closely related to computer science or that engineering or any and all 
engineering specialties are directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position 
proffered in this matter. 
In summary, and for each and all of the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the opinion letter 
rendered by does not establish the proffered position as a specialty occupation. The 
conclusions reached by lack the requisite specificity and detail and are not supported by 
independent, objective evidence demonstrating the manner in which he reached such conclusions. 
There is an inadequate factual foundation established to support the opinion and we find that the 
opinion is not in accord with other information in the record. Finally, his conclusion suggests that 
the proffered position does not require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its 
equivalent. 
We may, in our discretion, use as advisory opmwn statements submitted as expert testimony. 
However, where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we 
are not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Matter (~l Caron International, 
19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988). As a reasonable exercise of our discretion we discount the 
advisory opinion letter as not probative of any criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). For 
efficiency's sake, we hereby incorporate the above discussion and analysis regarding the opinion 
letter into each of the bases in this decision for dismissing the appeal. 
Finally, we turn to the Petitioner's citation of the Memorandum from Terry Way, Director of 
Nebraska Service Center, Guidance Memorandum on H 1 B Computer Related Positions (Dec. 22, 
2000). 
We find that the Petitioner's reliance on this memorandum is misplaced. By its very terms, the 
memorandum was issued by the then-Director of the Nebraska Service Center (NSC) as an attempt 
to "clarify" an aspect of NSC adjudications; and, framed as it was, as a memorandum to NSC 
adjudications officers, it was addressed exclusively to NSC personnel within that Director's chain of 
command. As such, it has no force and effect upon the present matter, which was initially 
adjudicated by the California Service Center. 
Matter of Z-S-, Inc. 
It is also noted that the legacy memorandum cited by the Petitioner does not bear a "P" designation. 
According to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) § 3.4, "correspondence is advisory in nature, 
intended only to convey the author's point of view .... " AFM § 3.4 goes on to note that examples 
of correspondence include letters, memoranda not bearing the "P" designation, unpublished AAO 
decisions, USCIS and DHS General Counsel Opinions, etc. 
Even if we were bound by this memorandum either as a management directive or as a matter of law, 
it was issued nearly two decades ago, during what the NSC Director perceived as a period of 
"transition" for certain-computer related occupations. In addition, this memorandum referred to now 
outdated versions of the Handbook (the latest of those being the 2000-2001 edition),-and also relied 
partly on a perceived line of relatively early unpublished (and unspecified) decisions in the area of 
computer-related occupations, which did not address the computer-related occupations as they have 
evolved since those decisions were issued nearly two decades ago.
6 
In any event, the memorandum 
reminds adjudicators that a specialty occupation eligibility determination is not based on the 
proffered position's job title but instead on the actual duties to be performed. For all of the reasons 
articulated above, the memorandum is immaterial to this discussion regarding the job duties of the 
Petitioner's proffered position and whether the Petitioner has satisfied its burden of establishing that this 
particular position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
It is incumbent on the Petitioner to provide sufficient evidence to establish that the particular 
position that it proffers would necessitate services at a level requiring the theoretical and practical 
application of at least a bachelor's degree level of a body of highly specialized knowledge in a 
specific specialty. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iv) provides that "[a]n H-lB petition 
involving a specialty occupation shall be accompanied by [ d]ocumentation ... or any other required 
evidence sufficient to establish ... that the services the beneficiary is to perform are in a specialty 
occupation." A petitioner's unsupported statements are of very limited weight and normally will be 
insufficient to carry its burden of proof. See Matter (?f Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 
1998) (citing Matter o(Treasure Craft o(Cal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'! Comm'r 1972)); see also 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). The Petitioner must support its assertions 
with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter (?{Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
For the reasons explained above, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
2. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two alternative prongs: "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 
1
position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong 
6 While 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c) provides that our precedent decisions are binding on all USCIS employees in the 
administration of the Act, unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. 
8 
..-------------------- --- -
Matter of Z-S-, Inc. 
casts its gaze upon the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
a. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
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 atlidavits from similar firms or individuals 
in the Petitioner's industry attesting that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed 
individuals." 
The Petitioner provided job vacancy announcements placed by other companies for our 
consideration under this prong. However, the announcements lack sufficient information regarding 
their business operations to conduct a legitimate comparison to the Petitioner. The Petitioner did not 
provide additional information to establish that it shares the same general characteristics, as well as 
information regarding which aspects or traits (if any) it shares with the advertising organizations. 
Further, some positions do not appear to be for parallel positions. They advertise positions entitled 
senior systems analyst, senior programmer analyst, and systems analyst. As noted, the Petitioner 
assigned the proffered position a Level I wage, thereby stating that it is an entry-level position for an 
employee with only a basic understanding ofthe occupation who will be closely supervised. Such a 
position would not likely be assigned a "senior" designation. Further, some of the advertised 
positions contain an experience requirement. As such, these positions do not appear to be parallel 
the proffered position, and are not, therefore, directly relevant to the first prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
Finally, even if all of the vacancy announcements advertised parallel positions with organizations 
similar to the Petitioner and in the Petitioner's industry and stated a requirement for a minimum of a 
bachel~r's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent, we would still find that the Petitioner has 
9 
Matter of Z-S-, Inc. 
not demonstrated what statistically valid inferences, if aqy, could be drawn from so few 
announcements with regard to the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions 
in similar organizations. 7 
For the reasons explained above, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
b. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
A review of the record of proceedings finds 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 descriptions of the 
proffered position's duties, the evidence of record does not establish 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 ofthe 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. 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-level) wage. As typical positions located within the 
occupational category do not require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, it 
seems unlikely that one with these characteristics would. 
7 USCIS "must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true." Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. As discussed, the Petitioner has not established the relevance ofthejob advertisements 
submitted to the position proffered in this case. Even if their relevance had been established, the Petitioner still would 
not have demonstrated what inferences, if any, can be drawn from these few job postings with regard to determining the 
common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations in the same industry. See 
generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 (1995). 
10 
Matter of Z-S-, Inc. 
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 etTect 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 Petitioner did 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 of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
3. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires an employer to demonstrate that it 
normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. 
The Petitioner submitted a list of 25 of its employees, their educational qualifications, and their years 
of experience. They occupy positions entitled systems analyst, computer systems analyst, and IAM 
systems analyst. The Petitioner did not identify which of those employees occupy Level I positions. 
It appears that most of these individuals possess work experience - some as many as 10 years - the 
Petitioner has not established that any of them occupy the type of Level I position proffered here. 
The Petitioner also did not provide any information regarding the complexity of the job duties, 
supervisory duties (if any), independept judgment required or the amount of supervision received. 
Accordingly, it is unclear whether the duties and responsibilities of these individual are the same or 
similar to the proffered position. Further, the Petitioner did not submit any documentation in support 
of the list (e.g., copies of diplomas/transcripts, employment records). Therefore, the Petitioner has 
not provided sufficient evidence to establish that it normally requires at least a bachelor's degree, or 
the equivalent, in a specific specialty for the proffered position. 
For the reasons explained above, we cannot conclude that the Petitioner has satisfied the third 
crit~rion of 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A). 8 
4. Fourth Criterion 
8 While a petitioner may believe or otherwise assert that a proffered position requires a degree in a specific specialty, 
that opinion alone without corroborating evidence cannot establish the position as a specialty 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, 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)( I) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4 )(ii) (defining the term ''specialty occupation"). 
II 
Matter of Z-S-, Inc. 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature 
of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. 
In the instant case, relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by 
the Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. We again refer to our earlier comments and 
findings with regard to the implication of the Petitioner's designation of the proffered position in the 
LCA as a Level I (the lowest of four assignable levels) wage. That is, the Level I wage designation 
is indicative of a low, entry-level position relative to others within the occupational category, and 
hence one not likely distinguishable by relatively specialized and complex duties. Again, given the 
Handbook's indication that the duties of typical positions located within the occupational category 
selected by the Petitioner do not normally require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the 
equivalent, it seems unlikely that a position with these characteristics would. 9 
Upon review of the totality of the record, we find that the Petitioner has not established that the 
nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the 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 evidence of record does not, therefore, satisfy the fourth criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The appeal will be 
dismissed on this basis. 
IV. EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP 
As the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the proffered position is a specialty occupation, we need 
not fully address the Director's finding that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that it would engage 
the Beneficiary in an employer-employee relationship other than to briefly note that we agree with 
the Director's determination on the issue. As noted by the Director, the Petitioner claims that the 
Beneficiary would perform her duties at an end-client location. 
9 
Again, 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, a Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a 
specialty occupation, just as a Level IV wage-designation does not definitively establish such a classification. In certain 
occupations (e.g., doctors or lawyers), a Level I, 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 speci!llty 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 relevant factor but is not itself conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements 
of section 214(i)( I) of the Act. 
12 
Matter of Z-S-, Inc. 
The United States Supreme Court determined that where federal law fails to clearly define the term 
."employee," courts should conclude that the term was "intended to describe the conventional master­
servant relationship as understood by common-law agency doctrine." Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. 
Darden, 503 U.S. 318, 322-23 (1992) (quoting Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 
730 (1989)). The Supreme Court stated: 
"In determining whether a hired party is an employee under the general common law 
of agency, we consider the hiring party's right to control the manner and means by 
which the product is accomplished. Among the other factors relevant to this inquiry 
are the skill required; the source of the instrumentalities and tools; the location of the 
work; the duration of the relationship between the parties; whether the hiring party 
has the right to assign additional projects to the hired party; the extent of the hired 
party's discretion over when and how long to work; the method of payment; the hired 
party's role in hiring and paying assistants; whether the work is part of the regular 
business of the hiring party; whether the hiring party is in business; the provision of 
employee benefits; and the tax treatment of the hired party." 
!d.; see also Clackamas Gastroenterology A.~·socs., P.C. v. Wells, 538 U.S. 440, 445 (2003) (quoting 
Darden, 503 U.S. at 323). As the common-law test contains "no shorthand formula or magic phrase 
that can be applied to find the answer, ... all of the incidents of the relationship must be assessed 
and weighed with no one factor being decisive." Darden, 503 U.S. at 324 (quoting NLRB v. United 
Ins. Co. ofAm., 390 U.S. 254, 258 (1968)). 
Assigning duties and supervising performance is central to an employer-employee relationship: The 
Petitioner claims that the end-client would not manage and direct the Beneficiary's employment, and 
that the end-client would not have the power to review the Beneficiary's performance. While the 
Petitioner's assertions that it would evaluate the Beneficiary's performance are noted, they are not 
persuasive. The record indicates that the Petitioner would perform these evaluations based upon 
information provided by the Beneficiary, which raises questions as to how much control the 
Petitioner would actually be able to exert over her day-to-day duties. The "quarterly review" 
submitted by the Petitioner raises additional questions as to how meaningful these evaluations would 
be, as the Petitioner referred to the Beneficiary by using the wrong gender pronouns throughout the 
evaluation. Moreover, the evaluation was cursory at most and lacked any meaningful discussion of 
the Beneficiary's actual work. 
In considering the employer-employee relationship issue, we must consider the Petitioner's Level I 
wage designation in the LCA. The Petitioner has claimed that the Beneficiary would be "closely 
supervised" and her work "closely monitored," and that she would "receive specific instructions" as 
she performs routine tasks that "require limited, if any, exercise of judgment." However, it is not 
clear who would closely supervise, closely monitor, and specifically instruct the Beneficiary. 
In any event, we note that the period of intended employment in this case is from October 1, 2016, to 
September 5, 2019. However, the work order in the record was for a project to be completed by 
13 
(b)(6)
Matter of Z-S-, Inc. 
December 31, 2016. 10 It does not demonstrate that the Petitioner has work for the Beneficiary to 
perform, at an end client's location or elsewhere, throughout the period of intended employment.
11 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that, if the H -1 B petition were approved, the Petitioner would 
exercise an employer-employee relationship with the Beneficiary. We find that the evidence is 
insufficient to establish, 
therefore, that the Petitioner qualifies as a United States employer, as 
defined by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
V. CONCLUSION 
The burden 
is on the Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofZ-S-, Inc., ID# 186100 (AAO Jan. 23, 2017) 
10 
On appeal, the Petitioner provided a heavily redacted statement of work SOW for a project to be completed by 
October 31, 2016, in Arizona. However, the instant petition was filed for work to be performed in 
California; therefore, we will not discuss it further. 
11 
The agency made clear long ago that speculative employment is not permitted in the H-1 B program. For example, a 
1998 proposed rule documented this position as follows: 
Historically, the Service has not granted H-1 B classification on the basis of speculative, or 
undetermined, prospective employment. The H-1 B classification is not intended as a vehicle for an 
alien to engage in a job search within the United States, or for employers to bring in temporary foreign 
workers to meet possible workforce needs arising from potential business expansions or the 
expectation of potential new customers or contracts. To determine whether an alien is properly 
classifiable as an H-1 B nonimmigrant under the statute, the Service must first examine the duties of the 
position to be occupied to ascertain whether the duties of the position require the attainment of a 
specific bachelor's degree. See section 214(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the "Act"). The 
Service must then determine whether the alien has the appropriate degree for the occupation. In the 
case of speculative employment, the Service is unable to perform either part of this two-prong analysis 
and, therefore, is unable to adjudicate properly a request for H-1 B classification. Moreover, there is no 
assurance that the alien will engage in a specialty occupation upon arrival in this country. 
Petitioning Requirements for the H Nonimmigrant Classification, 63 Fed. Reg. 30,419, 30,419-20 (proposed June 4, 
1998) (to be codified at 8 C.F.R. pt. 214). 
14