dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

MATTER OF C-B-S- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 9, 2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an IT consulting .firm, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a. "project 
manager" under the H-1B 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-IB 
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 the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation 
position. 1 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the evidence is sufficient to satisfy 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. 
1 In a decision issued contemporaneously, the Director denied the Petitioner's request to extend the Beneficiary's stay in 
H-1 B status. As the Director observed in the decision denying the extension of stay, there is no appeal from the denial of 
a request for an extension of stay. 8 C.F.R. § 214.l(c)(5). We therefore will not address the matter further. 
(b)(6)
Matter of C-B-S-Inc. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet .one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
(1) 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 relate~ 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 
Although the Petitioner's address is in 
Beneficiary would work at 
indicates that the Beneficiary would work for 
(middle vendor). 
California, the visa petition states that the 
m California. Other evidence 
(end client) at that address through 
In the H-lB petition, the Petitionecstated that the Beneficiary will serve as a "project manager." In a 
letter provided with the petition and a letter 
provided in response to a request for evidence (RFE), the 
Petitioner provided the following duty description for that position: 
• Develop and manage the end-to[-]end identity and Access Management project 
implementation plan. 
• Develop the Technical use case for the Identity and Access management systems 
• Document the current Identity and Access management process for gap analysis. 
2 
Matter of C-B-S- Inc. 
• Review the technical system and architectural documents [of] the existing system as 
a part of initial software environment assessment 
• Recommend and document the Identity and Access Management framework based 
on the client environment. 
• Build a roadmap for system Identity and Access management system integration 
• Review the technical requirements for vendor proposals 
• Technical evaluate [sic] the Identity and Access Management products. 
• Review with Business partners and provide technical solutions for business 
challenges 
• Provide ongoing status report to project sponsors and executives on weekly basis. 
The Petitioner also stated: "[T]he Petitioner's minimum requirement for this position is a 
comprehensive understanding of computer systems and programming, which comes with at least a 
Bachelor's degree in computer systems/ engineering/related field, or a related field." 
On appeal, the Petitioner stated that it was "confirming" the duties of the Beneficiary, and provided 
the following duty description: 
1. Interact with stakeholders and clients to collect requirements, manage scope, document 
BRD specifications, flowcharts, seek clarifications, resolve their concerns/questions - 5 
hrs (11%) 
2. Work- with technical team & QA team to implement and test complex 3-D secure 
authentication platforms for various clients. Triage and prioritize defects against project 
milestones- 10 hrs (23%) 
3. Initiate project kick offs, create SOWs, project estimations, devise project plan 
, incorpqrating delivery schedule (development, QA test, UAT, production test), cost and 
resource schedule- 15 hrs (33%) 
4. Identify and manage risks, escalations, and develop contingency risk response strategies 
and risk mitigation plans - 3 hrs ( 6%) 
5. Present to the Director and Sr. Manager on a weekly basis highlighting lessons learnt 
[sic] for escalation cases in the previous week and forthcoming long-term sustainable 
development strategies- 2 hrs (5%) 
6. Manage customer interactions, financial, scheduling and reporting functions for a 
number of projects on CRM tools- 10 hrs (22%) 
3 
Matter of C-B-S- Inc. 
In a letter dated January 19,2015, submitted on appeal, the end client confirmed that the Beneficiary 
would work at its location and provided the following duty description: 
o Manage the CA SaaS solution implementations for the customer 
o Experience managing client onboarding and setup for SaaS products. Such 
·experience will be given a preference 
o Experience managing external facing I client projects 
o Understand customer business requirements and technical requirements and 
recommend the best solution that meets customer requirements 
o Coordinate and participate in review; revisions; changes; enhancements; testing, 
and documentation; Member/business notification of product enhancements and/or 
business opportunities. 
o Build and maintain close relationship with the customer and understand the 
changing needs and environment of the customer 
o Multi-task across many projects and customers, in the neighborhood of 12-15 
customers with multiple projects each. 
o Evaluate business requests to determine feasibility; work with Software Engineers 
to define alternatives and recommend optimal solutions. 
o Work closely with developers and requesters identifying data and functional 
requirements in the design of new/enhanced systems. 
o Ensure timely and accurate communication with project staff throughout the life 
cycle ofthe project. 
o Communicate to customers on new products, features and offerings. 
o Maintai11 a high level of customer satisfaction r 
o Provide the Enterprise sales team with pre-sales technical assistance 
o Has very good understanding and working knowledge in latest internet technologies 
as well as SaaS products. 
o Working knowledge of how Credit/Debit card transactions work 
o Keep abreast with latest technologies 
In that letter, the end client stated that the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree in 
computer science or the equivalent and a minimum of four years of experience in enterprise software 
implementation. 
III. ANALYSIS 
I 
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. 
Specifically, we find that the record of proceedings lacks sufficient documentation to substantiate the 
claim that the Petitioner has H-IB caliber work for the Beneficiary for the period of employment 
requested in the petition. · · 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of C-B-S- Inc. 
The record contains a letter from the end client, which states that "[the end client] has a Master 
Services Agreement with [the middle vendor]," and that pursuant to "[the middle vendor]'s Supplier 
Agreement with [the Petitioner], [the middle vendor] has procured the services of [the Beneficiary] 
to be assigned to work as a Project Manager at [the end client's] location at 
California." However, the letter is not supported 
by the above-mentioned master 
services agreement or the supplier agreement, or other similar documentation to substantiate its 
contractual terms and detailing specifics ofthe Beneficiary's claimed assignment. 
The record also contains a letter from the middle vendor, which states that "[the Beneficiary] will be 
on a contract 
engagement for [the end client]" and that it "is a long-term project which has an 
opportunity for an extension subject to continuing business necessity."2 However, it does not 
indicate that the Beneficiary will be on the contract engagement for the duration of the validity period 
requested. Likewise, the letter from the end client also did not specify the duration of the Beneficiary's 
engagement, and the record does not contain information regarding other projects. 
Without a purchase order or contract that outlines the terms and conditions of the Beneficiary's 
employment and information regarding specific projects to which the Beneficiary would be assigned 
that covers the duration of the period of employment requested, we '!-re not able to ascertain what the 
Beneficiary would do, where the Beneficiary would work, or how this would impact circumstances of 
his relationship with the Petitioner. A petition must be filed for non-speculative work for the 
Beneficiary, for the entire period requested, 
that existed as of the time of the petition's filing. The 
Petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the nonimmigrant visa petition. 8 C.F.R. § 
103.2(b)(1). A visa petition may not be approved based on speculation of future eligibility or after 
the Petitioner or Beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Michelin Tire 
Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg'l Comm'r 1978).3 
2 Notably, the letter from the middle vendor is on the end client's letterhead and is not signed. 
3 The agency mad.e clear long ago that speculative employment is not permitted in the H-1 8 program. For example, a 
1998 proposed rule documented this position as follows: 
Historically, the · Service has not granted H-1 8 classification on the basis of speculative, or 
undetermined, prospective employment. The H-1 8 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 8 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) ofthe 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-i 8 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). While a petitioner is certainly permitted to change its intent with regard to 
non-speculative employment, e.g., a change in duties or job location, it must nonetheless document such a material 
5 
Matter of C-B-S- Inc. 
Further, the record contains numerous discrepancies that lead us to question the Petitioner's claim 
with regard to the services the Beneficiary will perform, as well as the actual nature and 
requirements of the proffered position. When a petition includes discrepancies, those inconsistencies 
will raise concerns about the veraCity of the Petitioner's assertions. 
For example, the record contains inconsistent job title for the proffered position. In the H-1B 
petition, the Petitioner claims that the proffered position is a project manager position. However, the 
middle vendor indicates that the Beneficiary will be employed as a "QA engineer" for the end client. 
In another letter submitted with the RFE, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary will be working 
as a "Middleware Admin" for the end client. 
Moreover there are discrepancies in the record of proceedings with regard to the requirements for the 
proffered position. In the letter filed with the H-1B petition, the Petitioner indicated that the position 
requires at least a Bachelor's degree in computer systems, engineering or related field." On appeal, 
the Petitioner asserts that the proffered position "involves complex job duties"; therefore, an alien 
with a degree in Information Technology and Business Administration only can perform those 
duties." The end client states that "a Bachelor's degree in computer science or equivalent is 
required" and "4-6 years of experience in enterprise software implementation." 4 
We note that "it is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve the inconsistencies by independent 
objective evidence." Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). Any attefupt to explain or 
reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective 
evidence pointing to where the truth lies. !d. at 591-92. Here, the Petitioner did not explain the 
discrepancies which undermine its credibility with regard to the services the Beneficiary will 
perfoqn, as well as the actual nature and requirements of the proffered position. 
Because of the discrepancies discussed above, we cannot determine the nature and scope of the 
Beneficiary's employment. The record lacks evidence sufficiently informative to demonstrate that 
the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation under 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 for 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 specialization and 
complexity of the specific duties, which is the focus of criterion 4. Thus, the Petitioner has not 
satisfied any of the criteria under the applicable provisions at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
change in intent through an amend~d or new petition in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(E). 
4 As we will discuss later, the Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level I wage (entry-level). 
6 
Matter of C-B-S- Inc. 
Nevertheless, we will continue our evaluation and analysis of the evidence provided by the 
Petitioner.5 . Upon review, we find that the record does not establish that the job duties require an 
educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 6 
A. First Criterion 
We tum first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J), which requires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally tile minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. To inform this inquiry, we recognize the U.S. Department ofLabor'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. 7 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-1B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Computer Occupations, All 
Other" corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 15-1199.8 However, the 
Handbook does not provide a detailed narrative account nor does it provide summary data for this 
occupational category. More specifically, the Handbook does not provide the typical duties and 
responsibilities for "Computer Occupations, All Other." It also does not provide any information 
regarding the academic and/or professional requirements for these positions. Thus, the Handbook 
does not support- the claim that the occupational category here is one for which normally the 
minimum requirement for entry is a baccalaureate degree (or higher) in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. · 
5 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
6 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. 
7 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. 
8 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" issued 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: (1) that 
the Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that she 
will be closely sup~rvised and her work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that she 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 _11_ 2009.pdf A prevailing wage determination starts 
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. ( 
Matter of C-B-S- Inc. 
Notably in a letter submitted with the H-1B petition, the Petitioner referred to the occupational 
category of"Software Quality Assurance Engineers and Testers" at SOC 15-1199.01, implying that 
the proffered position is such a position. As to those positions, the Petitioner stated: 
This occupation is in an SVP range of at least 7, therefore, a bachelor's degree is the 
minimum requirement. Furthermore, this requirement of a minimum of bachelor's 
degree has been confirmed by the [Handbook] published by the US Department of 
Labor, where it stated that at least Bachelor's Degree in a specialized area is 
commonly required according to the education and training subheading for this 
occupation. Thus, this is the typical requirement in the Petitioner's industry. 
We observe that the Handbook discusses the duties of software quality assurance analysts in the 
chapter pertinent to computer systems analysts. The Handbook states the following about the 
educational requirements of computer systems analyst positions: 
A bachelor's degree in 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 requirenl'ent. 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/ooh/computer-and- information-technology I 
computer-systems-analysts.htm#tab-4 (last visited Aug. 30, 20 16). 
The Handbook does not state that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a spec(fic specialty, or its 
equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation. In fact, the 
Handbook specifically states that a bachelor's degree is not always a requirement for computer 
systems analyst positions. Further, it indicates that many analysts have a liberal arts degree, rather 
than a degree in 'a specific specialty directly related to systems analysis. Moreover, the Handbook 
also notes that many analysts have technical degrees, but does not specify a degree level (e.g. 
8 
Matter of C-B-S- Inc. 
associate's degrees), and also states that such a technical degree is not always a requirement. Thus, 
the Handbook does not support the claim that the occupational category is one for which normally 
the minimum requirement for entry is a baccalaureate degree (or higher) in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
As mentioned, the Petitioner states that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation 
position since the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) indicates that the proffered position has 
Specific Vocational Preparation (SVP) 7. 
The DOT does not support the assertion that assignment of an SVP rating of 7 is indicative of a 
specialty occupation. This conclusion is apparent upon reading Section II of the DOT's Appendix 
C, Components of the Definition Trailer, which addresses the SVP rating system.9 The section 
reads: 
II. SPECIFIC VOCATIONAL PREPARATION (SVP) 
Specific Vocational Preparation is defined as the amount of lapsed time required by a 
typical worker to learn the techniques, acquire the information, and develop the 
facility needed for average performance in a specific job-worker situation. 
\ 
This training may be acquired in a school, work, military, institutional, or vocational 
environment. It does not include the orientation time required of a fully qualified 
worker to become accustomed to the special conditions of any new job. Specific 
vocational training includes: vocational education, apprenticeship training, in-plant 
training, on-the-job training, and essential experience in other jobs. 
Specific vocational training includes training given in any of the following 
circumstances: 
a: Vocational education (high school; commercial or shop training; technical school; 
art school; and that part of college training which is organized around a specific 
vocational objective); 
b. Apprenticeship training (for apprenticeable jobs only); 
c. In-plant training (organized classroom study provided by an employer); 
d. On-the-job training (serving as learner or trainee on the job under the instruction of 
a qualified worker); 
9 The Appendix can be found at the following Internet site: http://www.oalj.dol.gov/PUBLIC/DOT 
/REFERENCES/DOT APPC.HTM. 
9 
Matter of C-B-S- Inc. 
e. Essential experience in other jobs (serving in less responsible jobs which lead to 
the higher grade job or serving in other jobs which qualify). 
The following is an explanation of the various levels of specific vocational 
preparation: 
Level 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
Time 
Short demonstration only 
Anything beyond short demonstration up to and including 1 month 
Over 1 month up to and including 3 months 
Over 3 months up to and including 6 months 
Over 6 months up to and including 1 year 
Over 1 year up to and including 2 years 
Over 2 years up to and including 4 years 
Over 4 years up to and including 1 0 years 
Over 1 0 years 
Note: The levels ofthis scale are mutually exclusive and do not overlap. 
Thus, an SVP rating of 7 does not indicate that at least a four-year bachelor's degree is required, or 
more importantly, that such a degree must be in a specific specialty closely related to the occupation 
to which this rating is assigned. Therefore, the DOT information is not probative of the proffered 
position qualifying as a specialty occupation. 
The evidence submitted does not demonstrate that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the proffered 
position. Further, the Petitioner has not provided documentation from other probative sources to 
substantiate its assertion regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. 
Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
B. 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 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 
casts its gaze upon the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter of C-B-S- Inc. 
1. 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 consid~red 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 r~cruit only degreed 
individuals." 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides four vacancy announcements. None of the companies that placed 
those vacancy anilouncements have-been shown to be in the Petitioner's industry, and some clearly 
are not.1° Further, those companies have not been shown to be otherwise similar to the Petitioner. 
Unless they are shown to have been placed by similar companies in the Petitioner's industry, 
vacancy announcements are generally outside the scope of inquiry in determining whether the 
Petitioner has satisfied the first prong of 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
Further, some of the vacancy announcements provided state a requirement of a bachelor's degree, 
but do not indicate that the requisite degree must be in any specific specialty. Some state that 
''equivalent· work experience" may be substituted for the otherwise requisite degree, without 
identifying the type and amount of work experience that the hiring authority would consider to be 
equivalent to a bachelor's degree. Without such information, we are unable to determine whether 
those vacancy announcements require a minimum of a bachelor's degree or its equivalent within the 
meaning ofthe salient regulations. See 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5). · 
/ 
10 One of the vacancy announcements was placed by "a global 
payment technology company." Another was placed by "a leader of digital ticketing for live entertainment 
venues and fans." One was placed by a health information technology company. The fourth vacancy 
announcement was placed by a recruitment company, for an unidentified client. 
11 
Matter of C-B-S- Inc. 
One of the vacancy announcements states that an MBA would be a sufficient educational preparation 
for the position announced. A degree with a generalized title, such as business administration, 
without further specification, is not a degree in a speCific specialty. C.f Matter of Michael Hertz 
Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558 (Comm'r 1988). As such, an educational requirement that may be 
satisfied by an otherwise undifferentiated degree in business administration is not a requirement of a 
minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
Finally, even if all of the vacancy announcements w~re for parallel positions with organizations 
similar to the Petitioner and in its industry and required a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty or its equivalent, the Petitioner has not demonstrated what statistically valid 
inferences, if any, can be drawn from four announcements with regard to the common educational 
requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. 11 
Thus, the evidence of record does not establish that a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to parallel positions with organizations that are in 
the Petitioner's industry and otherwise similar to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has not, therefore, 
satisfied the criterion ofthe first alternative prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner relied upon the second duty description, above, and on some of the duties 
described in the third duty description, provided in the letter from the end client, in support of this 
criterion. The Petitioner retracted the first duty description, above. The Petitioner asserted that it 
had no intention of causing any confusion pertinent to the end client in this case, but did not explain 
why an inaccurate duty description was provided with the H-1B petition and in a subsequent letter. 
A review of the record of proceedings 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. The evidence of record does not establish why a few 
related cpurses or industry experience alone would be insufficient preparation for the proffered 
11 users "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. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). As just discussed, the Petitioner has not established the relevance of the 
job 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). 
12 
Matter of C-B-S- Inc. 
posttlon. While 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. 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. 
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 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.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it 
normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. 
The Petitioner stated, on the H-IB petition, that it was established in 2000 and that it has 15 
employees in the United State,s. Whether or not the Petitioner employs, or has employed, anyone 
else in the position proffered in the instant H-IB petition is unknown to us. In any event, the 
Petitioner did not provide any evidence pertinent to the qualifications of any of its other employees, 
and has not, therefore, provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the criterion at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
D. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires apetitioner 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. The record does not demonstrate that the duties 
of the proffered position, such as managing SaaS solutions, managing client onboarding, managing 
client projects, etc., are more complicated than those of computer systems analyst positions that do 
13 
Matter of C-B-S- Inc. 
not require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. We also 
incorporate our earlier discussion and analysis regarding the designation of the position in the LCA 
as a Level I position (the lowest of four assignable wage-Jevels) relative to others within the same 
. 1 12 occupatwna category. 
Upon review of the totality of the record, 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 Petitioner has not, therefore, satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A). 
Becat~se the Petitioner has not, satisfied one ofthe criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered positionqualifies as a specialty occupation. 
IV. BENEFICIARY QUALIFICATION 
Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we need not address 
another ground of ineligibility we observe in the record of proceedings. Nevertheless, we will 
briefly note and summarize it here with the hope and intention that, if the Petitioner seeks again to 
employ the Beneficiary or another individual as an H-1 B employee in the proffered position, it will 
submit sufficient independent objective evidence to address and overcome this additional ground in 
any future filing. 
As discussed in this decision, the Petitior{er did not submit sufficient evidence regarding the 
proffered position to determine whether it will require a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent. Absent this determination that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty or its equivalent is required to perfoffil the duties of the proffered position, it also 
cannot be determined whether the Beneficiary possesses that degree or its equivalent. Therefore, we 
need not and will not address the Beneficiary's qualifications further, except to note that, in any 
event, the Petitioner did not submit an evaluation of the Beneficiary's foreign degree or sufficient 
evidence to establish that [his/her] degree is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty. As such, since evidence was not presented that the Beneficiary has at least a U.S. 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, the petition could not be approved even if 
eligibility for the benefit sought had been otherwise established. 
12 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 occypation, just as a 
LevellY 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 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 relevant factor but is not 
itself conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)(l) ofthe Act. 
14 
Matter of C-B-S- Inc. 
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; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden 
has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofC-B-S- Inc., ID# 18129 (AAO Sept. 9, 2016)' 
15