dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

MATTER OF N-I- LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 10,2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an information technology development firm, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "software developer" 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. 
§ 110l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified 
foreign worker in a position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body 
of highly specialized knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the 
specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Beneficiary is not 
qualified to serve in a specialty occupation position. Thereafter, the Director reopened the matter sua 
sponte, and denied the petition on the same ground, but also found that the proffered position does not 
qualify as a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Director erred in her 
decision. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
A. Legal Framework 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
\ 
Matter~~ N-1- LLC 
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). We have consistently interpreted the term "degree" to mean not just 
any baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the 
proposed position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. 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"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
B. Proffered Position 
In the letter of support, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would perform the following job 
duties in the proffered position: · 
[T]he Software Developer will write code to make web applications faster, more 
usable, better-looking, and more powerful. Duties include the following: 
• Write, update, and maintain computer programs or software packages and code; 
• Perform or direct revision, repair, or expansion of existing programs to increase 
operating efficiency or adapt to new requirements for web and other capabilities; 
• Consult with managerial, engineering, and technical personnel to clarify program 
intent, identify problems, and suggest changes; 
• Perform systems analysis and programming tasks to maintain and control the use 
of computer systems software as a systems programmer; 
• Compile and write documentation of program development and subsequent 
revisions, inserting comments in the coded instructions so others can understand 
the program; 
2 
Matter ofN-1- LLC 
• Prepare detailed workflow charts and diagrams that describe input, output, and 
logical operation, and convert them into a series of instructions coded in a 
computer language; 
• Consult with and assist computer operators or system analysts to define and 
resolve problems in running computer programs; 
• Apply variety of full-stack web development principles such as web service 
design and navigation patterns; and 
• Apply user-centered design knowhow to streamline product experience. 
The Petitioner stated that "this is a professional position requiring at"least a Bachelor's degree in 
Information Systems or Electrical-Engineering or similar." 
C. Analysis 
Upon review, we find that the Petitioner has provided inconsistent and insufficient information 
regarding the proffered position.' 
The Petitioner stated on the certified labor condition application (LCA) that the proffered position 
falls under the "Computer Programmers" occupational category corresponding to Standard 
Occupational Classification (SOC) code 15-1131. In fact, we observe that the Petitioner's job 
description is recited virtually verbatim from the list of duties associated with positions located 
within the "Computer Programmers" occupational classification found in the Occupational 
Information Network (O*NET)? However, in response to the Director's first request for evidence 
1 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. 
2 The O*NET Details Report for positions located within the "Computer Programmers" occupational category lists the 
following duties: 
• Correct errors by making appropriate changes and rechecking the program to ensure that the desired results are 
produced. 
• Conduct trial runs of programs and software applications to be sure they will produce the desired information 
and that the instructions are correct. 
• Write, update, and maintain computer programs or software packages to handle specific jobs such as tracking 
inventory, storing or retrieving data, or controlling other equipment. 
• Write, analyze, review, and rewrite programs, using workflow chart and diagram, and applying knowledge of 
computer capabilities, subject matter, and symbolic logic. 
• Perform or direct revision, repair, or expansion of existing programs to increase operating efficiency or adapt to 
new requirements. 
• Consult with managerial, engineering, and technical personnel to clarify program intent, identify problems, and 
suggest changes. 
• Perform systems analysis and programming tasks to maintain and control the use of computer systems software 
as a systems programmer. 
• Compile and write documentation of program development and subsequent revisions, inse1ting comments in the 
coded instructions so others can understand the program. 
3 
Matter of N4- LLC 
(RFE), the Petitioner stated that "[the Beneficiary] is Not a Programmer" and "her position is not a 
computer programmer position." The Petitioner then stated that "[t]he position is Software 
Developer, not Computer Programmer." Thereafter, in response to a subsequent RFE, the Petitioner 
claimed that the "position duties are more expansive and a closer match to the duties as described in 
the O*NET for 15-1131 Computer Programmer/Software Developer." The Petitioner has not 
provided a sufficient explanation for classifying the proffered position under the "Computer 
Programmers" occupational category, yet also stating that the position is not a computer programmer 
position but rather a software developer position. 
The Petitioner points out that O*NET's report on the "Computer Programmers" occupational 
classification lists "software developer" as an alternative title for a "computer programmer." While 
true, it is important to distinguish a position's title from the occupational classification in which the 
position is located. In determining the nature of a proffered position, the critical element is not the 
title of the position, but the duties of the underlying position. Thus, the Petitioner's choice to name 
the proffered position as a "software developer" is not, in itself~ an issue here. 
What is an issue here is the Petitioner's designation of the proffered position as being located within 
the SOC code 15-1131 for the "Computer Programmers" occupational classification on the LCA. 
For purposes of the LCA, the Petitioner is required to select the occupational code that best 
represents the nature of the job offer, which in turn determines the appropriate prevailing wage.3 
Thus, through the certified LCA, the Petitioner represented that the duties of the proffered position 
would be limited to those of the "Computer Programmers" occupational classification corresponding 
to SOC code 15-1131, and that the Beneficiary would be appropriately compensated for performing 
those duties.4 
The Petitioner's implication that the SOC code and classification of 15-1131, "Computer 
Programmers," is interchangeable with the "Software Developers" occupational classification is not 
persuasive. That is because O*NET contains two specific "Software Developers" occupational 
codes and classifications: SOC 15-1132 for "Software Developers, Applications," and SOC 15-113 3 
• Prepare detailed workflow charts and diagrams that describe input, output, and logical operation, and convert 
them into a series of instructions coded in a computer language. 
• Consult with and assist computer operators or system analysts to define and resolve problems in running 
computer programs. 
O*NET Details Report for "Computer Programmers," https://www.onetonline.org/link/details/ 15-1131.00 (last visited 
Apr. I 0, 20 17). In an older version of O*NET, this same list of duties was also found in the Summary Report for this 
occupation. 
3 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. 
Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. • 2009), available at http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/ 
NPWHC _ Guidance_Revised_ll_2009.pdf. 
4 
The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to USCIS to demonstrate that it would 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 of Simeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 545-546 (AAO 20 15). 
4 
Matter~~ N-1- LLC 
for "Software Developers, Systems Software." Both "Software Developers" occupational categories. 
have higher prevailing wages than for the "Computer Programmers" occupational category. 5 
Moreover, O*NET distinguishes the duties of positions within the "Computer Programmers" 
occupational category from those of positions within the "Software Developers" occupational 
categories. O*NET states, for example, that computer programmers create, modify, and test the 
code, forms, and scripts, and "[ w ]ork from specifications drawn up by software developers and other 
individuals." 6 O*NET also states that computer programmers "[m]ay assist software developers by 
analyzing user needs and designing software solutions." 7 These statements explain that it is the role 
of the software developer to perform the actual design and development of software, while the 
computer programmer assists the software developer by performing the underlying coding, and later, 
by testing, updating and maintaining those software programs. 8 
Thus, the SOC code and classification of 15-1131, "Computer Programmers," is not a "third 
Software Developers SOC (ONET/OES) code" as the Petitioner contends. To the contrary, and 
notwithstanding some overlapping job titles reported for these occupations, O*NET separates 
"Computer Programmers" from "Software Developers" as distinct occupations with different SOC 
codes, prevailing wages, and job duties. 
5 For instance, the prevailing wage in the area and time period of intended employment for "Software Developers, 
Applications" is $73,174 per year, and for "Software Developers, Systems Software" is $79,664 per year. The prevailing 
wage for "Computer Programmers" in the area and time period of intended employment is $69,430 per year ($33.38 per 
hour), which is the exact wage being offered to the Beneficiary. For more information on prevailing wages generally, 
see the FLC Data Center at http://www.tlcdatacenter.com/OESWizardStart.aspx (last visited Apr. I 0, 20 17). 
According to Department of Labor (DOL) guidance on the LCA, if a proffered position involves a combination of 
different occupational classifications, then the petitioner should select the occupational code and classification for the 
most relevant occupation, i.e., the "highest-paying occupation." U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., 
Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC _ Guidance_Revised _11_2009.pdf. Thus, if the Petitioner believed 
its position to be a combination of both "Computer Programmers" and "Software Developers'' occupational 
classifications, then the Petitioner should have submitted an LCA for a position under one of the '"Software Developers" 
occupational codes arid classifications. 
6 O*NET Details Report for "Computer Programmers,'' https://www.onetonline.org/link/details/15-1131.00 (last visited 
Apr. I 0, 20 17). 
7 !d. 
8 O*NET's information is consistent with DOL's Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) 's information on 
"Computer Programmers.'' The Handbook's subchapter on "What Computer Programmers Do" states, for example, that 
computer programmers "write and test code ... [to] tum the program designs created by software developers and 
engineers into instructions that a computer can follow" (emphasis added). DOL, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Handbook, 
2016-17 ed., "Computer Programmers," https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/print/computer­
programmers.htm (last visited Apr. 10, 2017). The Handbook also states that computer programmers "[u]pdate and 
expand existing programs." !d. Thus, the Handbook, like O*NET, distinguishes a computer programmer from a 
software developer by making clear that the developer is responsible for the initial design and creation of the programs 
while then the programmers perform the coding, updating, and expanding. 
5 
Matter of N-1- LLC 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained why it classified the proffered position 
under the "Computer Programmers" occupational category, but also asserted that it is not a computer 
programmer position. This critical discrepancy precludes us from understanding the substantive 
nature of the proffered position. 9 
We observe additional discrepancies in the record. For example, the Petitioner designated the 
proffered position in the LCA as a Level I wage (the lowest of four assignable \vage levels), which 
indicates that the proffered position is a low, entry-level position compared to other positions within 
the same occupational category. 10 In other words, through the LCA, the Petitioner conveyed that the 
proffered position is an entry-level computer programmer position. On appeal the Petitioner 
reiterates that the "position is an entry level job." However, further in the same letter, the Petitioner 
states that "[t]he Position is not an Entry-Level "Computer Programmer" position." It is thus not 
clear what the Petitioner is asserting. This ambiguity further precludes us from understanding the 
substantive nature of the proffered position. 
In addition to the above deficiencies, we again observe that the Petitioner's job description is recited 
virtually verbatim from the O*NET Summary Report's list of duties for the occupational 
classification of "Computer Programmers." But providing job duties for a proffered position from 
O*NET or other Internet sources is generally not sufficient for establishing H-lB eligibility. That is, 
while this type of description may be appropriate when defining the range of duties that may be 
performed within an occupational category, it cannot be relied upon by the Petitioner when 
discussing the duties attached to specific employment for H-1 B approval as this type of generic 
description does not adequately convey the substantive work that the Beneficiary would perform on 
a daily basis. In establishing a position as qualifying as a specialty occupation, the Petitioner must 
describe the specific duties and responsibilities to be performed by the Beneficiary in the context of 
the Petitioner's business operations. The Petitioner has not sufficiently done so here. 
For all of the above reasons, the job description in the record of proceedings does not sufficiently 
communicate ( 1) the actual work that the Beneficiary would perform on a day-to-day basis; (2) the 
complexity, uniqueness and/or specialization of the tasks; and (3) the correlation between that work 
and a need for a particular level education of highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. The Petitioner's statements are inadequate to convey the complexity of the job duties, 
the amount of supervision required, and the level of judgment and understanding required to perform 
the duties. The assertions in the record with regard to the educational requirements for the position 
are therefore unsubstantiated. 
9 
It also raises questions as to whether the LCA actually corresponds to and supports the H-1 B petition, as required. 
10 
A prevailing wage determination starts with an entry level wage (Level I) and progresses to a higher wage level (up to 
Level IV) after considering the experience, education, and skill requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. U.S. 
Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration 
Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/ 
NPWHC_Guidance_Revised_l1_2009.pdf. A Level I (entry) wage should be considered for research fellows, workers 
in training, or internships. /d 
6 
Matter of N-1- LLC 
As the Petitioner has not established the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the 
Beneficiary, this precludes a finding that the proffered position satisfies any criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
· § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), because it is the substantive nature of that work that determines (1) the normal 
minimum educational requirement for 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 ofthe specific duties, which is the focus of criterion 4. 
This issue precludes the approval of the petition. Nevertheless, for the purpose of performing a 
comprehensive analysis of whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, we 
now turn to the criteria at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)( A), with the understanding that the proffered 
position falls under the "Computer Programmers" occupational classification corresponding to SOC 
code 15-1131, as indicated on the LCA. 
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 Handbook as an 
authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it 
addresses. 11 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner asserted in the LCA that the proffered position corresponds 
to the SOC code and occupational category 15-1131, "Computer Programmers." We thus reviewed 
the "Computer Programmers" chapter in the Handbook. 12 The subchapter of the Handbook entitled 
11 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 we regularly review 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. 
12 
The Petitioner disagrees with the Director's reliance on the Handbook chapter on positions located within the 
"Computer Programmers" occupational category. In response to the second RFE, the Petitioner submitted an excerpt 
from the Handbook regarding the occupational category "Software Developers," and advocates reliance on this 
occupational classification instead. 
However, we agree with the Director's decision under this criterion to analyze the Handbook chapter on "Computer 
Programmers," as this matches the O*NET SOC code and occupational category 15-1131, "Computer Programmers," on 
the LCA. If the Petitioner believed its position to be a "Software Developers" position for which reliance on the 
7 
Matter of N-1- LLC 
"How to Become a Computer Programmer" states, in pertinent part: "Most computer programmers 
have a bachelor's degree; however, some employers hire workers who have an associate's degree. 
Most programmers get a degree in computer science or a related subject." 13 
According to the Handbook, this occupation accommodates a wide spectrum of educational 
credentials, including less than a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. The Handbook states that 
some employers hire workers who have an associate's degree. Furthermore, while the Handbook's 
narrative indicates that most computer programmers obtain a degree - which could be either a 
bachelor's degree or an associate's degree - in computer science or a related field, the Handbook 
does not report that at least a bachelor's degree in this field, or its equivalent, is normally required. 
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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a copy of the O*NET Summary Report for the "Computer 
Programmers" occupational category. Upon review, we find that it is 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. According to the Summary Report, the "Computer 
Programmers" occupation has a Job Zone 4 rating which indicates that most, but not all, of the 
positions within this occupation require a bachelor's degree. However, the Job Zone rating does not 
demonstrate that a bachelor's degree in any specffic .specialty is required. 14 The Petitioner also cites 
statistics that 78% of respondents in this occupation possess a bachelor's degree, while only 6% 
possess only a high school diploma or equivalent. But we also observe that an additional 11% of 
respondents possess a post-secondary certificate, for a total of 17% of respondents who have less 
than a bachelor's degree. In any event, these statistics do not specify whether respondents have a 
bachelor's degree in any spec?fic specialty. 15 Therefore, O*NET is insufficient to demonstrate that a 
position under the "Computer Programmers" occupational category qualities as a specialty 
occupation as defined in section 214(i)(l) ofthe Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
Handbook chapter on "Software Developers" would have been appropriate, then the Petitioner should have submitted an 
LCA certified for a position within one of the two O*NET "Software Developers" occupational categories. 
We acknowledge the Petitioner's statement that the Handbook, with 334 occupations, is generally more limited than 
O*NET, which covers more than 900 occupations. But this reasoning does not apply in this situation, where there is an 
exact match in the title of the occupational classification (i.e., "Computer Programmers") and a substantial match in the 
nature of the duties of the occupation (as described earlier in this decision). We are not persuaded by the Petitioner's 
assertion that the Handbook's description of"Computer Programmers" is more limited than O*NET. 
13 U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., "Computer 
Programmers," https://ww.w.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/print/computer-programmers.htm (last 
visited Apr. I 0, 20 17). 
14 See O*NET OnLine Help Center at http://www.onetonline.org/help/online/zones. Further, the Help Center discussion 
confirms that a designation of Job Zone 4 does not indicate any requirements for particular majors or academic 
concentrations. 
15 
These statistics also do not indicate whether such a degree was actually required to perform the respondents' jobs 
duties or represented minimum hiring standards imposed by their employers, for example. 
8 
Matter ofN-1- LLC 
In the instant case, the duties and requirements of the position as described in the record of 
proceedings 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)(J). 
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 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 
contemplates 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 we often consider 
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) (quotingHird/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 another authoritative source, reports a standard industry-wide requirement for at 
least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. We incorporate by reference the 
previous discussion on the matter. Also, there are no submissions from the industry's professional 
association, or letters or affidavits from similar firms or individuals in the petitioner's industry, 
regarding industry degree requirements. In fact, the Petitioner stated that such evidence is 
unavailable because of the unique nature of its industry. Thus, we find that the Petitioner has not 
satisfied the first alternative prong of8 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. 
9 
Matter of N-1- LLC 
In support of its assertion that the proffered positiOn qualifies as a specialty occupation, the 
Petitioner described the proffered position and its business operations. For example, the Petitioner 
highlights its software and quality inspection process which is unique to the aviation industry, as 
well as its contractual agreements with major companies in the industry. Upon review, however, we 
find that the Petitioner has not sufficiently developed relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect 
of the proffered position. The description of the proffered duties, which is virtually identical to 
O*NET's list of duties for all computer programmers, does not specifically identify any tasks that 
are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. Therefore, 
even though the Petitioner's product may be unique, the record does not establish how the proffered 
duties are distinguishable from similar duties that can be performed by non-specialty degreed 
individuals as to render the proffered duties so complex or unique. 
Here, we consider the Petitioner's designation of the proffered positiOn on the LCA under the 
"Computer Programmers" occupational category at a Level I (entry-level) wage level, which is the 
lowest of four assignable wage-levels. This designation indicates that the proffered position is for an 
employee that is only required to have a basic understanding of the occupation; that she will be 
expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; that she will be 
closely supervised and her work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and that she will 
receive specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. 16 Such a designation is 
inconsistent with a claim that the duties of the position are so 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. 17 
We agree with the Petitioner's general statement that "[t]he regulations do not restrict the H-1 B 
classification to Level 2 or higher positions." 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 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 is not itself conclusive evidence that a 
proffered position meets or does not meet the requirements of section 214(i)( 1) of the Act. 
That being said, a position's wage level is still a relevant (but non-exclusive) factor, when 
considered together with the occupational classification, in assessing a position's claimed 
complexity or uniqueness. The Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I position under 
the "Computer Programmers" occupational category indicates that this is a beginning, entry-level 
16 
DOL, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs 
(rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _II_ 2009.pdf. 
17 
For example, a LevellY (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. /d. 
10 
Matter o.fN-1- LLC 
position compared to other computer programmer positions which the Handbook indicates do not 
normally require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as a minimum entry 
requirement, as such positions may be performed by persons with an associate's degree. Therefore, 
the Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position under the "Computer 
Programmers" occupation undermines the claim that the proffered position is particularly complex 
or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation. 
The Petitioner also claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position, and references her 
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 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) 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 in the H-lB petition that it has six employees and was established in 2001. In 
response to an RFE, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary "is the only person who has held the 
position." As the Petitioner does not claim to have employed others in the proffered position, the 
Petitioner has not satisfied the third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)~ which contemplates 
the Petitioner's normal employment practices. 
To merit approval of the petition under this criterion, the record must also 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. In other words, the 
record must show that the specific performance requirements of the position generated the 
Petitioner's recruiting and hiring history. The record here does not establish how the proffered job 
duties generated the Petitioner's requirement of"at least a Bachelor's degree in Information Systems 
or Electrical Engineering or similar." 18 For instance, the Petitioner did not submit information 
18 
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. If we were limited solely to reviewing the 
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 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, 20 I F.3d at 388. 
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 
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 we 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 
II 
Matter of N-1- LLC 
relevant to a detailed course of study leading to a degree in information systems, and did not 
establish how such a curriculum is necessary to perform the job duties. While a few computer­
related courses may be beneficial 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 in order to satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
4. Fourth Criterion 
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 does not assert, nor does the record corroborate, that the specific duties of the 
proffered position are so specialized and complex. We reiterate our earlier discussions regarding the 
Petitioner's generalized description of the position, as well as the implications of the Level I wage 
rate under the "Computer Programmers" occupational classification designated on the LCA. Thus, 
the Petitioner has satisfied the criterion of the 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. 
II. BENEFICIARY QUALIFICATIONS 
The Director also found that the Beneficiary would not be qualified to perform the duties of the 
proffered position if the job had been determined to be a specialty occupation. However, a 
beneficiary's credentials to perform a particular job are relevant only when the job is found to be a 
specialty occupation. As discussed in this decision, the record does not demonstrate that the 
proffered position requires a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. Therefore, we need not and will not address the Beneficiary's qualifications further. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The record IS insufficient to demonstrate that the proffered position qualities as a specialty 
occupation. 
without consideration of how the Beneficiary is to be specifically employed - then any individual 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. 
12 
Matter of N-1- LLC. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter o.fN-1- LLC, ID# 94376 (AAO Apr. 10, 2017) 
13