dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF T-30-, INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 7, 2015 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an informational technology support business, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a 
bench technician and to classify him as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act)§ 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the 
petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The Director reviewed the record of proceeding and determined that the Petitioner did not establish 
eligibility for the benefit sought. Specifically, the Director stated that the Petitioner had not 
established that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation in accordance with the 
applicable statutory and regulatory. The Director denied the petition. 
The record of proceeding contains: (1) the Petitioner's Form I-129 and supporting documentation; 
(2) the Director's request for evidence (RFE); (3) the Petitioner's response to the RFE; ( 4) the 
Director's decision; (5) the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion and supporting 
documentation; (6) our RFE; and (7) the Petitioner's response to our RFE. We reviewed the record 
in its entirety before issuing our decision. 1 
For the reasons that will be discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not 
established eligibility for the benefit sought. Accordingly, the Director's decision will not be 
disturbed. The appeal is dismissed. 
I. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
To meet its burden of proof in establishing the proffered position as a specialty occupation, the 
Petitioner must establish that the employment it is offering to the Beneficiary meets the following 
statutory and regulatory requirements. 
1 
We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). 
Matter ofT-3G-, Inc. 
A. Legal Framework 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) states, in pertinent part, the following: 
Specialty occupation means an occupation which [ (1)] requires theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in fields of human 
endeavor including, but not limited to, architecture, engineering, mathematics, 
physical sciences, social sciences, medicine and health, education, business 
specialties, accounting, law, theology, and the arts, and which [(2)] requires the 
attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as 
a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, a proposed position 
must meet one of the following criteria: 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the 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. 
As a threshold issue, it is noted that 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must logically be read together 
with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(ii). In other words, this regulatory 
language must be construed in harmony with the thrust of the related provisions and with the statute 
as a whole. SeeK Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) (holding that construction 
oflanguage which takes into account the design of the statute as a whole is preferred); see also COlT 
2 
Matter ofT-3G-, Inc. 
Independence Joint Venture v. Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989); Matter of 
W-F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). As such, the criteria stated in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) 
should logically be read as being necessary but not necessarily sufficient to meet the statutory and 
regulatory definition of specialty occupation. To otherwise interpret this section as stating the 
necessary and sufficient conditions for meeting the definition of specialty occupation would result in 
particular positions meeting a condition under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory or 
regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 387. To avoid this result, 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) must therefore be read as providing supplemental criteria that must be met in 
accordance with, and not as alternatives to, the statutory and regulatory definitions of specialty 
occupation. 
As such and consonant with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) consistently interprets the 
term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered position. See 
Royal Siam Corp. v. Cherto.ff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in 
a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular 
position"). Applying this standard, USCIS regularly approves H-lB petitions for qualified aliens 
who are to be employed as engineers, computer scientists, certified public accountants, college 
professors, and other such occupations. These professions, for which petitioners have regularly been 
able to establish a minimum entry requirement in the United States of a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
particular position, fairly represent the types of specialty occupations that Congress contemplated 
when it created the H-1B visa category. 
To determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCIS does not simply 
rely on a position's title. The specific duties of the proffered position, combined with the nature of 
the petitioning entity's business operations, are factors to be considered. USCIS must examine the 
ultimate employment of the alien, and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. The critical element is not the title 
of the position nor an employer's self-imposed standards, but whether the position actually requires 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty as the minimum for entry into 
the occupation, as required by the Act. 
In ascertaining the intent of a petitioner, USCIS looks to the Form I -129 and the documents filed in 
support of the petition. It is only in this manner that the agency can determine the exact position 
offered, the location of employment, the proffered wage, et cetera. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(9)(i), the Director has the responsibility to consider all of the evidence submitted by a 
petitioner and such other evidence that he or she may independently require to assist his or her 
adjudication. Further, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iv) provides that "[a]n H-1B petition 
involving a specialty occupation shall be accompanied by [ d]ocumentation ... or any other required 
3 
Matter of T-3G-, Inc. 
evidence sufficient to establish ... that the services the beneficiary is to perform are in a specialty 
occupation." 
B. Proffered Position 
In the support letter, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would perform the following job duties 
in the proffered position: 
• Diagnose and resolve computer systems issues; 
• Perform Virus/Malware removal and patches; 
• Phase out/replace defunct system components; 
• Install and perform repairs to hardware, software, or peripheral equipment, 
following design or installation specifications; [and] 
• Develop training materials and procedures, or train users in the proper use of 
hardware or software. 
The Petitioner also stated that the position requires at a minimum "a Bachelor's degree (computer 
science or related field) or equivalent relevant experience." 
C. Analysis 
As a preliminary matter, upon review of the Petitioner's description of the duties of the proffered 
position, we find that the Petitioner does not provide any information with regard to the order of 
importance and/or frequency of occurrence with which the Beneficiary will perform the functions 
and tasks. Thus, the Petitioner does not specify which tasks were major functions of the proffered 
position and it does not establish the frequency with which each of the duties would be performed 
(e.g., regularly, periodically or at irregular intervals). As a result, the Petitioner did not establish the 
primary and essential functions of the proffered position. 
Moreover, we find that the Petitioner, in its support letter and in response to the RFE, described the 
proposed duties in terms of generalized and generic functions that do not convey sufficient 
substantive information to establish the relative complexity, uniqueness and/or specialization of the 
proffered position or its duties. The abstract level of information provided about the proffered 
position and its constituent duties is exemplified by the Petitioner's assertion the Beneficiary will 
"[d]iagnose and resolve computer system issues." However, the statement does not provide any 
insight into the Beneficiary's actual duties, nor does it include any information regarding the specific 
tasks that the Beneficiary will perform. 
In addition, the Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary will "[p ]erform Virus/Mal ware removal and 
patches" and "[p]hase out/replace defunct system components." Notably, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate how the performance of these duties, as described in the record, would require the 
attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
4 
Matter ofT-3G-, Inc. 
The Petitioner further claimed the Beneficiary will "[i]nstall and perform repairs to hardware, 
software, or peripheral equipment, following design or installation specifications" and "[ d]evelop 
training materials and procedures, or train users in the proper use of hardware or software." The 
Petitioner's statements do not convey any pertinent details as to the actual work involved in these 
tasks. The Petitioner does not explain the Beneficiary's specific role and how his work will be 
conducted and/or applied within the scope of the Petitioner's business operations. Furthermore, the 
Petitioner does not convey how a baccalaureate level of education (or higher) in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, would be required to perform these tasks. Thus, the overall responsibilities for the 
proffered position contain generalized functions without providing sufficient information regarding 
the particular work, and associated educational requirements, into which the duties would manifest 
themselves in their day-to-day performance within the Petitioner's business operations. 
Such generalized information does not in itself establish a necessary correlation between any 
dimension of the proffered position and a need for a particular level of education, or educational 
equivalency, in a body of highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. We also observe, 
therefore, that it is not evident that the proposed duties as described in this record of proceeding, and 
the position that they comprise, merit recognition of the proffered position as a specialty occupation. 
To the extent that they are described by the Petitioner, we find, the proposed duties do not provide a 
sufficient factual basis for conveying the substantive matters that would engage the beneficiary in 
the actual performance of the proffered position for the entire three-year period requested, so as to 
persuasively support the claim that the position's actual work would require the theoretical and 
practical application of any particular educational level of highly specialized knowledge in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, directly related to the demands of the proffered position. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner did not provide sufficient documentation to substantiate the job duties 
and responsibilities of the proffered position. The petitioner did not submit any· documentation to 
substantiate the Beneficiary's work product, nor did the Petitioner submit any financial 
documentation regarding the company's business operations. The record of proceeding lacks 
documentation regarding the Petitioner's business activities and the actual work that the beneficiary 
will perform to substantiate the claim that the Petitioner has H 1B caliber work for the Beneficiary 
for the period of employment requested in the petition. For an H -1 B petition to be granted, the 
petitioner must provide sufficient evidence to establish that it will employ the beneficiary in a 
specialty occupation position. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 
I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter o_fTreasure Crafi ofCalifornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 
(Reg. Comm'r 1972)). 
That is, for H -1 B approval, the Petitioner must demonstrate a legitimate need for an employee exists 
and to substantiate that it has H -1 B caliber work for the Beneficiary for the period of employment 
requested in the petition. It is incumbent upon the Petitioner to demonstrate it has sufficient work to 
require the services of a person with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, to perform duties at a level that requires the theoretical and practical application of at 
Matter ofT-3G-, Inc. 
least a bachelor's degree level of a body of highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty for 
the period specified in the petition. 
The Petitioner does not provide sufficient details regarding the nature and scope of the Beneficiary's 
employment or substantive evidence regarding the actual work that the Beneficiary would perform. 
Without a meaningful job description, the record lacks evidence sufficiently concrete and 
informative to demonstrate that the proffered position requires a specialty occupation's level of 
knowledge in a specific specialty. The tasks as described do not communicate (1) the actual work 
that the beneficiary would perform, (2) the complexity, uniqueness and/or specialization of the tasks, 
and/or (3) the correlation between that work and a need for a particular level education of highly 
specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. The Petitioner's assertions with regard to the 
position's educational requirement are conclusory and unpersuasive, as they are not credibly 
supported by the job descriptions or substantive evidence. 
Furthermore, we note that it is reasonable to assume that the size of an employer's business has or 
could have an impact on the duties of a particular position. See EG Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a/ Mexican 
Wholesale Grocery v Department of Homeland Security, 467 F. Supp. 2d 728 (E.D. Mich. 2006). 
Thus, the size of a petitioner may be considered as a component of the nature of the petitioner's 
business, as the size impacts upon the duties of a particular position. In matters where a petitioner's 
business is relatively small, we review the record for evidence that its operations, are, nevertheless, 
of sufficient complexity to indicate that it would employ the beneficiary in position requiring the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge that may be obtained 
only through a baccalaureate degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Additionally, 
when a petitioner employs relatively few people, it may be necessary for the petitioner to establish 
how the beneficiary will be relieved from performing non-qualifying duties. In the instant case, the 
Director specifically noted this issue in the RFE; however, the Petitioner elected not to address or 
provide probative documentation as to how the Beneficiary will be relieved from performing non­
qualifying duties. 
Finally, it must be noted that the case law cited by counsel in his March 25, 2014 letter pertain to 
immigrant visa petitions and whether the beneficiaries are members of the professions as defined in 
section 101(a)(32) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(32), and as interpreted at those times. The issue 
before us is whether the Petitioner's proffered position qualifies as a nonimmigrant H-lB specialty 
occupation and not whether it is a profession. Thus, the matters cited by counsel are irrelevant to the 
• . . 2 
mstant pet1t10n. 
2 The current, primary, and fundamental difference between qualifYing as a profession and qualifYing as a 
specialty occupation is that specialty occupations require the U.S. bachelor's or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, while a position is specifically identified as qualifYing as a profession as 
that term is defined in section 10l(a)(32) of the Act, that occupation would not necessarily quality as a 
specialty occupation unless it met the definition ofthat term at section 214(i)( I) of the Act. 
Matter ofT-3G-, Inc. 
Further, counsel furnishes no evidence and makes no assertion that the facts in these decisions are 
analogous to the instant petition. Regardless, even ifthe facts of those cases were analogous to those 
in this matter, they are unpublished decisions and, as such, not binding on us. While 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103 .3( c) provides that our precedent decisions are binding on all users employees in the 
administration of the Act, unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. 
A baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is 
normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position 
Nevertheless, we will address each criterion of the regulations for the purpose of providing a 
comprehensive discussion on this issue. We will first review the record of proceeding in relation 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. 
USers recognizes the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook 
(Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements ofthe wide variety 
of occupations that it addresses. 3 The Petitioner asserted in the Labor Condition Application (LCA) 
that the proffered position falls under the "Computer User Support Specialists" occupational 
category.4 We reviewed the section of the Handbook regarding the "Computer Support Specialists" 
3 All of the references are to the 2014-2015 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
http://www.bls.gov/OCO/. The occupational category designated by a petitioner is considered as an aspect in 
establishing the general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered position, and USC IS regularly reviews the Handbook on 
the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. However, to satisfY the first 
criterion, 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. That is, to determine 
whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCIS does not simply rely on a position's title or 
designated occupational category. The specific duties of the proffered position, combined with the nature of the 
petitioning entity's business operations, are factors to be considered. USCIS must examine the ultimate employment of 
the Beneficiary, and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. See generally Defensor v. 
Meissner, 201 F.3d 384. 
4 The Petitioner also designated the proffered position as a Level I (entry level) position. The "Prevailing Wage 
Determination Policy Guidance" issued by DOL provides a description of the wage levels. A Level I wage rate is 
described by DOL as follows: 
Level I (entry) wage rates are assigned to job offers for beginning level employees who have only a 
basic understanding of the occupation. These employees perform routine tasks that require limited, if 
any, exercise of judgment. The tasks provide experience and familiarization with the employer's 
methods, practices, and programs. The employees may perform higher level work for training and 
developmental purposes. These employees work under close supervision and receive specific 
instructions on required tasks and results expected. Their work is closely monitored and reviewed for 
accuracy. Statements that the job offer is for a research fellow, a worker in training, or an internship 
are indicators that a Level I wage should be considered. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. 
Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/ 
Matter ofT-JG-, Inc. 
occupational category, including the section entitled "How to Become a Computer Support 
Specialist," which describes the following preparation for the occupation: 
Because of the wide range of skills used in different computer support jobs, there are 
many paths into the occupation. A bachelor's degree is required for some computer 
support specialist positions, but an associate's degree or postsecondary classes may 
be enough for others. 
Education 
Education requirements for computer support specialists vary. Computer user support 
specialist jobs require some computer knowledge, but not necessarily a postsecondary 
degree. Applicants who have taken some computer-related classes are often qualified. 
For computer network support specialists, many employers accept applicants with an 
associate's degree, although some prefer applicants to have a bachelor's degree. 
Large software companies that provide support to business users who buy their 
products or services often require a bachelor's degree. More technical positions are 
likely to require a degree in a field such as computer science, engineering, or 
information science, but for others, the applicant's field of study is less important. 
To keep up with changes in technology, many computer support specialists continue 
their education throughout their careers. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., 
Computer Support Specialists, available at http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information­
technology/computer-support-specialists.htm#tab-4 (last visited September 9, 2015). 
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. More specifically, the 
Handbook states that there are many paths into the occupation. The Handbook reports that a 
bachelor's degree is required for some computer support specialist positions, but that an associate's 
degree or postsecondary classes may be enough for others. The narrative of the Handbook reports 
that computer user support specialist jobs require some computer knowledge, but not necessarily a 
postsecondary degree. The Handbook further states that many employers accept applicants with an 
associate's degree, although some prefer applicants to have a bachelor's degree. In addition, the 
Handbook reports that large software companies that provide support to business users who buy their 
products or services often require a bachelor's degree. Furthermore, the Handbook states that more 
technical positions are likely to require a degree in a field such as computer science, engineering, or 
information science, but for others, the applicant's field of study is less important. Thus, the 
Handbook does not support the claim that the occupational category of computer support specialists 
pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _II_ 2009 .pdf. 
Matter ofT-3G-, Inc. 
is one for which normally the minimum requirement for entry is a baccalaureate degree (or higher) 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Even if it did, the record lacks sufficient evidence to 
support a finding that the particular position proffered here, an entry-level bench technician position 
(as indicated on the LCA), would normally have such a minimum, specialty degree requirement or 
its equivalent. 
The Petitioner also submitted a copy of the O*NET OnLine Summary Report for the "Computer 
User Support Specialists" occupational category. The Summary Report states that the "Computer 
User Support Specialists" occupational category has a designation of Job Zone 3, which indicates 
that medium preparation is needed. It also states that most occupations in this zone require training 
in vocational schools, related on-the-job experience, or an associate's degree. See O*NET OnLine 
Help Center, available at http://www.onetonline.org/help/online/zones, for a discussion of Job 
Zone 3. This submission therefore strengthens our determination that the position does not satisfy 
this criterion. Even if the occupation has received a Job Zone 4 or higher designation, we would still 
find the O*NET information insufficient to establish that the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation normally requiring at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. Even when it indicates that a bachelor's degree, or its equivalent, is necessary, the 
O*NET does not normally specify that a bachelor's degree in any specific specialty is required, and 
does not, therefore, demonstrate that a position so designated qualifies as a specialty occupation as 
defined in section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). Therefore, despite the 
Petitioner's assertion to the contrary, the O*NET is not probative evidence that the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
In the instant case, the duties and requirements of the pos1t10n as described in the record of 
proceeding do not indicate that this particular position proffered by the Petitioner is one for which a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
The requirement of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel 
positions among similar organizations 
Next, we will review the record regarding the first of the two alternative prongs of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). This prong alternatively calls for a petitioner to establish that a requirement 
of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common for positions 
that are identifiable as being (1) in the petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered position, and 
also (3) located in organizations that are similar to the petitioner. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by 
USCIS 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 
9 
Matter ofT-3G-, Inc. 
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)). 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook (or other independent, authoritative source) reports a standard industry-wide 
requirement for at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, we 
incorporate by reference the previous discussion on the matter. Also, there are no submissions from 
the industry's professional association indicating that it has made a degree a minimum entry 
requirement. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not submit any letters or affidavits from similar firms 
or individuals in the petitioner's industry attesting that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only 
de greed individuals." Nor does the record of proceeding contain any other evidence for 
consideration under this prong. Thus, based upon a complete review of the record of proceeding, we 
find that the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by 
an individual with a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent 
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. 
In support of its assertion that the proffered pos1t10n qualifies as a specialty occupation, the 
petitioner described the proffered position and its business operations. Upon review, we find that the 
Petitioner has not sufficiently developed relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the 
proffered position. For instance, the Petitioner did not submit information relevant to a detailed 
course of study leading to a specialty degree and did not establish how such a curriculum is 
necessary to perform the duties it may believe are so complex and unique. While a few related 
courses may be beneficial, or even required, in performing certain duties of the position, the 
Petitioner does not demonstrate 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 de greed individual could perform them. 5 
5 
Again, the Petitioner designated the proffered position on the LCA at a Level I wage level. This designation indicates 
that the proffered position is a low-level, entry position relative to others within the "Computer Support Specialists" 
occupational category. Such a designation is inconsistent with a claim that the duties of the position are complex and 
unique as such a position would likely be classified at a higher-level, such as a Level III (experienced) or Level IV (fully 
competent) position, requiring a significantly higher prevailing wage. For example, a Level IV (fully competent) 
position is designated by DOL for employees who "use advanced skills and diversified knowledge to solve unusual and 
complex problems. For additional information regarding wage levels as defined by DOL, see U.S. Dep't of Labor, 
Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. 
10 
Matter ofT-3G-, Inc. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well qualified for the position, and references his 
qualifications. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education 
or experience of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner has not satisfied the second 
alternative prong of8 e.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The employer normally requires a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position 
The third criterion of 8 e.F.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. To 
this end, we review the petitioner's past recruiting and hiring practices, as well as information 
regarding employees who previously held the position, and any other documentation submitted by a 
petitioner in support of this criterion of the regulations. 
To merit approval of the petition under this criterion, the record must establish that a petitioner's 
imposition of a degree requirement is not merely a matter of preference for high-caliber candidates 
but is necessitated by performance requirements of the position. While a petitioner may assert that a 
proffered position requires a specific degree, that statement alone without corroborating evidence 
cannot establish the position as a specialty occupation. Were USeiS limited solely to reviewing a 
petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, then any individuai with a bachelor's degree could 
be brought to the United States to perform any occupation as long as the petitioner artificially 
created a token degree requirement, whereby all individuals employed in a particular position 
possessed a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty, or its equivalent. See Defensor 
v. Meissner, 201 F.3d at 388. In other words, if a petitioner's stated degree requirement is only 
designed to artificially meet the standards for an H-1B visa and/or to underemploy an individual in a 
position for which he or she is overqualified and if the proffered position does not in fact require 
such a specialty degree or its equivalent, to perform its duties, the occupation would not meet the 
statutory or regulatory definition of a specialty occupation. See section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 
8 e.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty occupation"). 
To satisfy this criterion, the evidence of record must show that the specific performance 
requirements of the position generated the recruiting and hiring history. A petitioner's perfunctory 
declaration of a particular educational requirement will not mask the fact that the position is not a 
specialty occupation. users must examine the actual employment requirements, and, on the basis 
of that examination, determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. See 
generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. In this pursuit, the critical element is not the title of 
the position, or the fact that an employer has routinely insisted on certain educational standards, but 
whether performance of the position actually requires the theoretical and practical application of a 
body of highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the 
Nov. 2009), available at http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC_ Guidance_ Revised _II_ 2009.pdf. 
I 1 
(b)(6)
Matter ofT-JG-, Inc. 
specific specialty as the minimum for entry into the occupation as required by the Act. To interpret 
the regulations any other way would lead to absurd results: if users were constrained to recognize 
a specialty occupation merely because the petitioner has an established practice of demanding 
certain educational requirements for the proffered position - and without consideration of how a 
beneficiary is to be specifically employed - then any alien with a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty could be brought into the United States to perform non-specialty occupations, so long as 
the employer required all such employees to have baccalaureate or higher degrees. See id. at 388. 
The Petitioner stated in the Form I-129 petition that it has 16 employees and was established in 
(approximately years prior to the filing of the H-1 B petition). However, upon review of the 
record, the Petitioner did not provide any documentary evidence regarding current or past 
recruitment efforts for this position. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not submit any information 
regarding employees who currently or previously held the position. The record does not establish a 
prior history of recruiting and hiring for the proffered position only persons with at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
Upon review of the record, the Petitioner has not provided probative evidence to establish that it 
normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the 
proffered position. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the third criterion of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
The nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty , or its equivalent 
The 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. 
The Petitioner claims that the nature of the specific duties of the position in the context of its 
business operations 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. We reviewed the Petitioner 's statements regarding the proffered position and its 
business operations. However, relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently 
developed by the Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. That is, the proposed duties have 
not been described with sufficient specificity to establish that they are more specialized and complex 
than positions that are not usually associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent. 
12 
Matter ofT-3G-, Inc. 
We further incorporate our earlier discussion and analysis regarding the duties of the proffered 
position, and the designation ofthe proffered position in the LCA as a Level I position (of the lowest 
of four assignable wage-levels) relative to others within the occupational category.6 Without more, 
the position is one not likely distinguishable by relatively specialized and complex duties. That is, 
without further evidence, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that its proffered position is one with 
specialized and complex duties as such a position would likely be classified at a higher-level, such as 
a Level III (experienced) or Level IV (fully competent) position, requiring a substantially higher 
prevailing wage. 7 
Although the Petitioner asserts that the nature of the specific duties is specialized and complex, the 
record lacks sufficient evidence to support this claim. Thus, the Petitioner has submitted inadequate 
probative evidence to satisfy the criterion ofthe regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
For the reasons related in the preceding discussion, the Petitioner has not established that it has 
satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) and, therefore, it cannot be found that 
the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The appeal is dismissed and the petition 
denied. 
II. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met.8 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed 
Cite as Matter ofT-3G-, Inc., ID# 11987 (AAO Oct. 7, 2015) 
6 The Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position undermines its claim that the position is 
particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation. Nevertheless, it is 
important to note that a Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty 
occupation. In certain occupations (doctors or lawyers, for example), an entry-level position would still require a 
minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV 
wage-designation would not reflect that an occupation qualifies as a specialty occupation if that higher-level position 
does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. That is, a 
position's wage level designation may be a consideration but is not a substitute for a determination of whether a 
proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 
7 As previously discussed, a Level IV (fully competent) position is designated by DOL for employees who "use 
advanced skills and diversified knowledge to solve unusual and complex problems" and requires a significantly higher 
wage. 
8 As the identified ground for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's continued eligibility, we need not address any 
additional issues in the record of proceeding. 
13