dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF 1- LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 30,2016 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an IT development and consulting firm seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as 
a "programmer analyst" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). 
The H-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, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The Director found that the Petitioner 
did not demonstrate that it would employ the Beneficiary in a specialty occupation position. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the evidence of record satisfies all evidentiary requirements. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. 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) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the protTered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
Matter of 1- LLC 
(I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternatiYe, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that 
knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has consistently 
interpreted the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any 
baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed 
position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. 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). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
In the H-18 petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a "programmer analyst." 
The Petitioner described the duties of the position as follows (note: errors in the original text have 
not been changed): 
• Designing, programming and implementing software applications & packages 
customized to meet project needs; 
• Reviewing, repairing and modifying software p~ograms to ensure technical 
accuracy and reliability of programs; 
• Analyzing the communications, · informational, database and programming 
requirements of clients needs; research and select appropriate systems; including 
ensuring forward compatibility of existing systems; 
• 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. 
The Petitioner stated that the duties of the proffered position require a minimum of a bachelor's 
degree in engineering, science, computer science, or business administration. 
2 
Matter of 1- LLC 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 1 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or 
its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation.2 
As a preliminary matter, the Petitioner's claim that a bachelor's degree in business administration, or 
"science," is a sufficient minimum requirement for entry into the proffered position is inadequate to 
establish that the proposed position qualities as a specialty occupation. To prove that a job requires 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge as required by 
section 214(i)(l) of the Act, a petitioner must establish that the position requires the attainment of a 
bachelor's or higher degree in a specialized field of study or its equivalent. As discussed supra, 
USCIS interprets the degree requirement at 8 C:F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) to require a d~gree in a 
specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. Although a general-purpose 
bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business administration, may be a legitimate prerequisite for a 
particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify a finding that a particular 
position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam Corp. v. Cherf(~jf; 484 
F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007).3 
Again, the Petitioner in this matter claims that the duties of the proffered position can be performed 
by an individual with only a general-purpose bachelor's degree, i.e., a bachelor's degree in business 
administration or "science." 4 Without more, this assertion alone indicates that the proffered position 
is not in fact a specialty occupation. The Director's decision must therefore be affirmed and the 
appeal dismissed on this basis alone. 
1 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 8 petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
3 Specifically, the judge explained in Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147, that: 
The courts and the agency consistently have stated that, although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, 
such as a business administration degree, may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, 
requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify the granting of a petition for an H-1 8 specialty 
occupation visa. See, e.g.. Tapis lnt 'lv. INS, 94 F.Supp.2d 172, 175-76 (D. Mass. 2000); Shanti, 36 F. 
Supp. 2d at 1164-66; cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I & &N Dec. 558, 560 ([Comm 'r] 1988) 
(providing frequently cited analysis in connection with a conceptually similar provision). This is as it 
should be: elsewise, an employer could ensure the granting of a specialty occupation visa petition by 
the simple expedient of creating a generic (and essentially artificial) degree requirement. 
4 The field of "science" would include the diverse disciplines 6f of zoology, chemistry, botany, and astronomy -just to 
name a few. 
3 
Matter of 1- LLC 
A. First Criterion 
We turn 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 the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. To inform this inquiry, we recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's 
(DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 5 
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 Programmers," 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 15-1131. 6 The Handbook states the 
following about the educational requirements of positions located within the "Computer 
Programmer" occupational category: 
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. Programmers who work in specific fields, 
such as healthcare or accounting, may take classes in that field to supplement their 
degree in computer programming. In addition, employers value experience, which 
many students gain through internships. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook. 2016-17 ed., 
"Computer Programmers," http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/ 
computer-programmers.htm#tab-4 (last visited Nov. 28, 2016). 
According to the Handbook. the occupation accommodates a wide spectrum of educational 
credentials, including less than a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. For example, the 
5 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 USC IS 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. 
6 
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: (I) that 
the Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that he 
will be closely supervised and his work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that he will receive 
specific instructions on required tasks and expected res.ults. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing 
Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://tlcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _I I_ 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 ofthe Petitioner's job opportunity. /d. 
4 
• 
Matter of I- LLC 
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 (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 a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the 
minimum requirement for entry into the occupation. The Handbook also reports that employers 
value computer programmers who possess experience, which can be obtained through internships. 
In addition, when comparing the duties of the proffered position to the types of positions located 
within this occupational category, it is important to consider the wage-level the Petitioner designated 
on the LCA. Again, the Petitioner has stated that it will pay the Beneficiary a Level I wage, which 
indicates that the Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, 
exercise of judgment; that he will be closely supervised and his work closely monitored and 
reviewed for accuracy; and that he will receive specific instructions on required tasks and expected 
results. Given the Handbook's implication that typical positions located within this occupational 
category do not necessarily require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, it appears unlikely 
that an entry-level position with these characteristics would have such a requirement. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the proffered position meets the first criterion of 8 C.F.R. 
214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), as a position for which a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation in the United 
States. The Petitioner further claims that the Dictionary of Occupational Titk'J' (DOT) lists 
programmer analyst occupations at 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. 7 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. 
The Appendix can be found at the following Internet site: 
/REFERENCES/DOT APPC. HTM. 
5 
http://www.oalj.dol.gov/PUBLIC/DOT 
Matter of 1- LLC 
r. 
Specific vocational training includes training given m 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); 
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 explanatio~ of the vanous 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 10 years 
Over 1 0 years 
Note: The levels of this 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 record of proceedings does not contain sufficient persuasive documentary evidence from any 
other relevant authoritative source establishing that the proffered position's inclusion within the 
computer programmers occupational category establishes the proffered position as, in the words of 
this criterion, a "particular position" for which "[a] baccalaureate or higher degree 'or its equivalent is 
normally the minimum requirement for entry." 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of I- LLC 
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. 
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 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 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 recruit only degreed 
individuals." 
The Petitioner did provide copies of three vacancy announcements placed on the internet by other 
organizations. They announce positions entitled "programmer analyst" and "application 
programmer analyst." 
One of those vacancy announcements states that the position it announces requires "an Associates 
degree in Business Administration, Computer Science, Information Technology, or related field 
and/or three to five years of relevant experience ." That position, therefore, does not require a 
minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent. 
Another vacancy announcements was placed by and another was placed by 
which do not appear to conduct business within the Petitioner's 
7 
Matter of I- LLC 
industry. In addition, both announcements state an experience requirement oftwo to three years. As 
such, they are not entry-level positions and their duties do not parallel the protiered position. For 
both reasons they are not directly relevant to the analysis pertinent to the first prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
Finally, even if all three of the vacancy announcements advertised parallel positiOns with 
organizations similar to the Petitioner and in the Petitioner's industry and stated a requirement for a 
minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent, we would still find that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated what statistically valid inferences, if any, could be drawn from so 
few announcements with regard to the common educational requirements for entry into parallel 
positions in similar organizations. 8 
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 in 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. 
The evidence of record also does not satisfy the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which provides that "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." A review of the 
record of proceedings finds that the Petitioner has not credibly demonstrated that the duties the 
Beneficiary will be responsible for or perform on a day-to-day basis constitute a position so complex 
or unique that it can only be performed by a person with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. Even when considering the Petitioner's general descriptions of the 
proffered position's duties, the evidence of record does not establish why a few related courses or 
industry experience alone is insufficient preparation for the proffered position. While a few related 
courses may be beneficial, or even required, in performing certain duties of the position, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated how an established curriculum of such courses leading to a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the 
8 USCIS ''must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true." Maller of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). As just discussed, the Petitioner has not established the relevance ofthe 
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). ! 
8 
Matter of 1- LLC 
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. 
This is further evidenced by the LCA submitted by the Petitioner in support of the instant 
petition. As noted above, the Petitioner attested on the submitted LCA that the wage level for the 
proffered position is a Level I (entry-level) wage. Such a wage level is for a position which only 
requires the performance of routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; close 
supervision and work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and the receipt of specific 
instructions on required tasks and expected results, and is contrary to a position that requires the 
performance of complex duties.9 It is, instead, a position for an employee who has only basic 
understanding of the occupation. 
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 etlect that 
there is a spectrum of degrees acceptable for such positions, including degrees that are less than a 
bachelor's degrees and degrees that are 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 iri the United States, it cannot be concluded that the Petitioner has satisfied the second 
alternative prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the positiOn, and references his 
qualifications repeatedly. 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 did not sufficiently 
develop relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position, and it did not 
identify any tasks that are so complex or unique 'that only a specifically degreed individual could 
9 
The issue here is that 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, ii 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)( I) of the Act. 
9 
Matter of I- LLC 
perform them. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. 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. In 
our analysis pertinent to this criterion, we usually review a petitioner's past recruiting and hiring 
practices, as well as information regarding employees who hold or previously held the position. 
The Petitioner provided evidence pertinent to the education of some of its workers. However, the 
evidence is insufficient to establish that they work in Level I positions. As such, they have not been 
established to be in the same position as that proffered in the instant petition, and their education has 
not been shown to be directly relevant to the analysis of the criterion of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
Further, on the H-1 B petition, the Petitioner stated that it was established in 2011 and that it has 46 
workers in the United States. Neither the number of Level I programmer analysts employed by the 
Petitioner nor their educational qualifications has been demonstrated. The Petitioner has not, 
therefore, demonstrated that it normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, for the position, and has not, therefore, satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)(3). 10 
D. 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. 
In the instant case, relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by 
the Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. We again refer to our earlier comments and 
findings with regard to the implication of the Petitioner's designation of the proffered position in the 
10 While a petitioner may believe or otherwise assert that a proffered position requires a degree in a specific specialty, 
that opinion alone without corroborating evidence cannot establish the position as a specialty occupation. Were USCIS 
limited solely to reviewing a petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, then any individual with a bachelor's 
degree could be brought to the United States to perform any occupation as long as the employer at1ificially 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, 20 I F. 3d at 387. In other words, if a 
petitioner's degree requirement is only symbolic and the proffered position does not in fact require such a specialty 
degree or its equivalent to perform its duties, the occupation would not meet the statutory or regulatory definition of a 
specialty occupation. See section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty 
occupation"). 
10 
Matter of 1- LLC 
LCA as a Level I (the lowest of four assignable levels) wage. That is, the Level I wage designation 
is indicative of a low, entry-level position relative to others within the occupational category, and 
hence one not likely distinguishable by relatively specialized and complex duties. 11 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. 
In other words, the proposed duties have not been described with sufficient specificity to show that 
they are more specialized and complex than computer programmer positions that are not usually 
associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
For the reasons discussed above, the evidence of record does not satisfy the fourth criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
E. Remaining Issues 
We do not find the Petitioner's remaining assertions convincing .. 
1. The Terry Way Memo 
The Petitioner claims that most computer programmer positions are specialty occupations and cites 
the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) memorandum from the Nebraska Service 
Center Director, Terry Way, and Matter o.f Precision Programming, Inc., EAC 90 202 51006 (AAU 
Apr. 22, 1993). 
We find that the Petitioner's reliance on this memorandum is misplaced, as it is irrelevant to these 
proceedings. By its very terms, the memorandum was issued by the then-Director of the Nebraska 
Service Center (NSC) as an attempt to "clarify" an aspect of NSC adjudications; and, framed as it 
was, as a memorandum to NSC adjudications officers, it was addressed exclusively to NSC 
personnel within that Director's chain of command. As such, it has no force and effect upon the 
present matter, which was initially adjudicated by the Vermont Service Center and is now before us 
on appeal. 
It is also noted that the memorandum cited by the Petitioner does not bear a "P" designation. 
According to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) § 3.4, "correspondence is advisory in nature, 
intended only to convey the author's point of view .... " AFM § 3.4 goes on to note that examples 
of correspondence include letters, memoranda not bearing the "P" designation, unpublished AAO 
decisions, USCIS and DHS General Counsel Opinions, etc. 
11 Again, the Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position. ~ndermines its claim that the 
position is particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation. 
II 
Matter C!f I- LLC 
Even if we were bound by this memorandum either as a management directive or as a matter of law, 
it was issued nearly two decades ago, during what the NSC Director perceived as a period of 
"transition" for certain-computer related occupations. In addition, this memorandum referred to now 
outdated versions of the Handbook (the latest of those being the 2000-01 edition), and also relied 
partly on a perceived line of relatively early unpublished (and unspecified) decisions in the area of 
computer-related occupations, which did not address the computer-related occupations as they have 
evolved since those decisions were issued. 12 In any event, the memorandum reminds adjudicators 
that a specialty occupation eligibility determination is not based on the proffered position's job title 
but instead on the actual duties to be performed. For all of the reasons articulated above, the 
memorandum is immaterial to this discussion regarding the job duties of the Petitioner's proffered 
position and whether the Petitioner has satisfied its burden of establishing that this particular position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The fact that a person may be employed in a position designated as that of a computer programmer 
and may be involved in using information technology (IT) skills and knowledge to help an enterprise 
achieve its goals in the course of his or her job is not in itself sufficient to establish the position as 
one that qualifies as a specialty occupation. Thus, it is incumbent on the Petitioner to provide 
sufficient evidence to establish that the particular position that it proffers would necessitate services 
at a level requiring the theoretical and practical application of at least a bachelor's degree level of a 
body of highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iv) provides that "[a]n H-1B petition involving a specialty occupation shall be 
accompanied by [ d]ocumentation ... or any other required evidence sufficient to establish ... that 
the services the beneficiary is to perform are in a specialty occupation." A petitioner's unsupported 
statements are of very limited weight and normally will be insufficient to carry its burden of 
proof. See Matter o.fSo_ffzci, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter o[Treasure Cra.fi 
of Cal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)); see also Matter ol Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 
376 (AAO 2010). The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. See Matter o.lChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
In the instant case, the Petitioner has not established that the proffered position falls under an 
occupational category for which the Handbook, or other reliable and authoritative source, indicates 
that there is a standard, minimum entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. Furthermore, the duties and requirements of the proffered position as 
described in the record of proceedings and as initially stated by the Petitioner and its client do not 
indicate that position is one for which a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry. On the contrary, and as discussed in 
greater detail supra, the Petitioner's initial attestations regarding the requirements for the position 
indicate at most that a general bachelor's degree may be required but not one in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent. · · 
12 While 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c) provides that our precedent decisions are binding on all USCIS employees in the 
administration of the Act, unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. 
12 
Matter of 1- LLC 
2. Unpublished AAO Decisions 
The Petitioner refers to unpublished decisions in which we determined that the positions proffered in 
those matters qualified as a specialty occupation. When "any person makes application for a visa or 
any other document required for entry, or makes application for admission, ... the burden of proof 
shall be upon such person to establish that he is eligible" for such benefit. Section 291 of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. § 1361; see also Matter of Treasure Craft ofCal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'! Comm'r 1972). 
Furthermore, any suggestion that USCIS must review unpublished decisions and possibly request 
and review each case file relevant to those decisions, while being impractical and inetTicient, would 
also be a shift in the evidentiary burden in these proceedings from the Petitioner to USCIS, which 
would be contrary to section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Accordingly, neither the Director nor 
our office was required to request and/or obtain a copy of the unpublished decisions cited by the 
Petitioner. 
If a petitioner wishes to have unpublished decisions considered by USCIS in the adjudication of a 
petition, the petitioner is permitted to submit copies of such evidence that it either obtained itself 
through its own legal research and/or received in response to a Freedom of Information Act request 
filed in accordance with the applicable regulations. Otherwise, "[t]he non-existence or other 
unavailability ofrequired evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility." 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.2(b )(2)(i). 
In the instant case, the Petitioner did not submit a copy of the unpublished decisions. As the record 
of proceedings does not contain any evidence of the unpublished decisions, there were no underlying 
facts to be analyzed and, therefore, no prior, substantive determinations could have been made to 
determine what facts, if any, were analogous to those in these proceedings. 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. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C. F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)( A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The 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 of!- LLC, ID# 13737 (AAO Nov. 30, 2016) 
13