dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-T-A-S-INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 3, 2019 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an information technology and business process services company, seeks to 
temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an "IT support specialist" under the H-lB nonimmigrant 
classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
10l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(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 Vermont Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
established that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred and that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation. 1 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal.2 
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 
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 We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 
(AAO 2010). 
Matter of C-T-A-S- Inc. 
(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 proffered 
position must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
(]) 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 construe 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. Chertojf, 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"). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
On the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary 
will work offsite inl I South Carolina. The Petitioner also provided an itinerary indicating 
that the Beneficiary will work at the office of the Petitioner's client,I I In response to the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner noted that Beneficiary "will continue to support 
numerous projects that serve our clients in the manufacturing industry, primarily I t' ( end­
client). The Petitioner also briefly described three of the end-client's projects to which the Beneficiary 
would be assigned. The Petitioner described the proposed duties and allocated the Beneficiary's time 
as follows (bullet points added): 
• Support applications in production. 40% 
• Perform problem-solving exercise to ensure continued use of applications. 10% 
• Develop data extractions or develop reports from requests or requirements and 
investigate data-related issues. 5% 
• Track and appropriately escalate productions issues. 5% 
• Analyze production issues to determine root cause and provide fix 
recommendations to the development team. 10% 
2 
Matter of C-T-A-S- Inc. 
• Asist [sic] with planning and testing of applications, configuration, and database 
changes, installation of upgrades and patches, and update production support 
documentation. 10% 
• Monitor Level 2 issues and tickets opened internally and by customers for 
application issues, schedule and monitor nightly jobs, and support development and 
testing efforts in the lower environments. 10% 
• Assist the development and testing teams in setting up the server environments and 
parameters. 5% 
• Performing additional ad-hoc IT related duties as required. 5% 
The Petitioner also listed sub-duties under each of the above categories as the Beneficiary's day-to-day 
tasks. The Petitioner asserted that"[ d]ue to the depth of knowledge and skill required of our position, 
it would be untenable for us to employ an individual in the position of IT Support Specialist who 
lacked at least a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Information Systems, 
or directly related specialty IT field." 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. Specifically, the record 
does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, 
commensurate with a specialty occupation. 
Preliminarily, we note that the Petitioner provided a partial amendment to its master services 
agreement (MSA) with the end-client as evidence of its relationship with the end-client. The partial 
agreement does not include sufficient information to determine the end-date of the agreement. Nor 
does the partial agreement include scopes of work, work orders, statements of work, or other evidence 
of the particular projects to which the Petitioner claims the Beneficiary will be assigned. We have 
reviewed the end-client's letter submitted in support of the petition; however, the letter indicates that 
the current MSA is valid through December 31, 2018. Although the end-client also indicates that it 
expects the agreement to continue beyond the expiration date of the MSA, the record does not include 
any evidence of the continuation. The lack of underlying evidence establishing the proposed work 
raises questions regarding the existence of work for this particular Beneficiary for the requested 
employment period. 3 
Setting aside the inadequacy of the evidence substantiating the existence of work, the Petitioner has 
not established the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
3 The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the 
time of the filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). Moreover, speculative employment is not 
permitted in the H-IB program. See, e.g., 63 Fed. Reg. 30,419, 30,419-20 (proposed June 4, 1998)(to be codified at 
8 C.F.R. pt. 214). 
3 
Matter of C-T-A-S- Inc. 
A. First Criterion 
The criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I), 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 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. 4 
The Petitioner designated the position on the labor condition application (LCA) 5 as a Standard 
Occupation Classification (SOC) code 15-1121, "Computer Systems Analysts" occupation. The 
Petitioner seems to suggest that a computer systems analysts position is categorically a specialty 
occupation. We disagree. The Handbook indicates that many "Computer Systems Analysts" have 
technical degrees but does not specify the degree level ( e.g., associate, baccalaureate). The Handbook 
also states that many individuals in this occupational category have liberal arts degrees and have gained 
programming or technical expertise somewhere else, but does not indicate that such degree and expertise 
must be equivalent to at least a bachelor's degree. 6 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Handbook's recognition that individuals with liberal arts degrees 
who also have programming or technical expertise includes the possibility that the individuals gained 
sufficient skills to be the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in computer or information science. Although 
we recognize such a possibility, the Handbook, does not set forth any criteria for determining equivalency. 
Without a standard specified in the Handbook regarding the required equivalency and establishing that 
the standard satisfies the pertinent regulatory criteria regarding equivalency for a missing academic year 
of bachelor-level study, 7 a possibility is insufficient to establish a normal requirement. This statement in 
the Handbook is not helpful in establishing that a normal minimum requirement for a "Computer Systems 
Analysts" position is a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
The Petitioner also points out that the Handbook recognizes that for more technically complex jobs, a 
master's degree in computer science may be appropriate. We agree that there are some complex jobs 
within this occupation that may require a master's degree, however, the Petitioner here does not claim 
that its proffered position is so complex that it requires a master's degree in any specialty. Thus, the 
relevance of the Petitioner's point is unclear. Upon review, the Handbook does not support a claim that 
the occupational category of "Computer Systems Analysts" is one for which normally the minimum 
requirement for entry is a baccalaureate degree ( or higher) in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Rather, 
the Handbook recognizes that there are a range of disparate degrees that may be suitable for entering into 
the occupation. 
4 The Handbook may be accessed at https://www.bls.gov/ooh. 
5 A petitioner is required to submit an LCA to the Depaitment of Labor to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B worker the 
higher of either the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the area of employment or the actual wage paid 
by the employer to other employees with similar duties, experience, and qualifications. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 
20 C.F.R. § 655.73 l(a). 
6 See Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Computer Systems Analysts, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-systems-analysts.htm (last visited Aug. 28, 
2019). 
7 See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D). 
4 
Matter of C-T-A-S-Inc. 
The Petitioner also references the DOL's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) summary 
report for "Computer Systems Analysis" listed as SOC code 15-1121. The summary report provides 
general information regarding the occupation; however, it does not support the Petitioner's assertion 
regarding the educational requirements for these positions. For example, the Specialized Vocational 
Preparation (SVP) rating cited within O*NET's Job Zone designates this occupation as 7 < 8. An SVP 
rating of 7 to less than ("<") 8 indicates that the occupation requires "over 2 years up to and including 
4 years" of training. While the SVP rating indicates the total number of years of vocational preparation 
required for a particular position, it is important to note that it does not describe how those years are 
to be divided among training, formal education, and experience - and it does not specify the particular 
type of degree, if any, that a position would require. 8 
Further, the summary report provides the educational requirements of "respondents," but does not 
account for 100% of the "respondents." Even so, the graph in the summary report indicates of those 
surveyed only 33 percent held a bachelor's degree, 29 percent an associate's degree, and 14 percent a 
master's degree, while an additional 24 percent are unreported. Moreover, the respondents' positions 
within the occupation are not distinguished by career level (e.g., entry-level, mid-level, senior level). 
Further, the O*NET does not indicate that the "education level" for the respondents, must be in a 
specific specialty. 
We have also reviewed the opinion prepared by ssociate Professor of Computer 
Applications and Information Systems, School of Business,.__ _________ __. and the 
Petitioner's assertion that I I opinion clarifies the Handbook's report. In that regard we have 
reviewed! I opinion that the Petitioner is a company that would clearly be among the 
companies that would require its computer systems analysts to have a bachelor's level preparation at 
a minimum and that the Petitioner cannot afford to hire a candidate without at least a bachelor's degree 
to ensure developed applications and systems are functional. However, I I conclusory 
statement does not include an adequate explanation of what sets the Petitioner apart from companies 
that do not require a bachelor's degree in a specific discipline to perform this occupation. All 
companies desire a candidate who will ensure that their developed applications and systems are 
functional. Here, I ldoes not offer an analysis of the duties of the particular position and does 
not explain why the Petitioner's particular position requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent. That is, he does not distinguish the Petitioner and the proposed position from other 
companies and positions that do not require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
Nor is the case law the Petitioner cites sufficient to satisfy the first criterion. The Petitioner cites Next 
Generation Tech., Inc. v. Johnson, 328 F. Supp. 3d 252 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) as relevant here. This case 
arises out of a different jurisdiction than the instant matter. 9 Nevertheless, even if we considered the 
logic underlying the matter, we find that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position 
here is a specialty occupation. The court in Next Generation Tech., Inc. discussed our reading of the 
Handbook's discussion of the entry requirements for positions located within a different and separate 
8 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/help/online/svp. 
9 In contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case law ofa United States circuit court, we are not bound to follow 
the published decision of a United States district court in matters arising even within the same district. See K-S-, 20 l&N 
Dec. at 719-20. Although the reasoning underlying a district judge's decision will be given due consideration when it is 
properly before us, the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of law. Id. 
5 
Matter of C-T-A-S- Inc. 
occupational category "Computer Programmers" rather than the "Computer Systems Analysts" 
category designated by the Petitioner in the LCA relating to this case. As noted above, the Handbook 
discusses different ways to enter into this occupation and does not include standards or criteria 
describing how those different paths should be considered the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty. Moreover, the court in Next Generation Tech., Inc. relied in part on a U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) policy memorandum regarding "Computer Programmers" 
indicating generally preferential treatment toward computer programmers, and "especially" toward 
companies in that particular petitioner's industry. However, USCIS rescinded the policy 
memorandum cited by the court in Next Generation Tech. Inc. 10 The record does not demonstrate that 
the position here is analogous to the computer programmer position discussed in the Next Generation 
Tech., Inc. case. 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation from a probative source to substantiate its 
assertion regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. Thus, the 
Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I). 
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 concentrates 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. 
Here and as already discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for 
which the Handbook ( or other independent, authoritative sources) 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. 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted six job postings to demonstrate that a 
degree in a specific specialty is a common requirement of the industry for parallel positions among 
similar organizations. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director improperly characterized the 
educational requirements for the advertised positions. We have reviewed the advertisements and agree 
10 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0142, Rescission of the December 22, 2000 ''Guidance memo on HJB 
computer related positions" (Mar. 31, 2017), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/nativedocuments/PM-6002-
0142-H- l BComputerRelatedPositionsRecission.pdf. 
6 
Matter of C-T-A-S- Inc. 
that the job postings do not refer to bachelor's degrees in management information systems, data 
management, statistics, or mathematics as referenced by the Director. However, we do not find that 
the advertised positions are parallel to the proffered position. For example, several of the 
advertisements indicate that "equivalent experience" or a combination of experience and education is 
acceptable, in lieu of a specific degree. The advertisers do not delineate their standard for determining 
equivalency and without that essential detail, we cannot ascertain what the advertisers require for a 
missing academic year of bachelor-level study in a particular discipline. One advertisement appears 
to accept a general bachelor's degree with strong computer skills in Microsoft office, Microsoft 
project, and various databases to perform the advertised position. However, a general bachelor's 
degree does not qualify under the definition for a specialty occupation. The Petitioner does not 
advance its claim when comparing the proffered position to those positions advertised. 
It is also not possible to determine important aspects of the advertised jobs, such as the day-to-day 
responsibilities, complexity of the job duties, supervisory duties (if any), and independent judgment 
required or the amount of supervision received. The Petitioner has not established that the advertised 
positions are parallel to the proffered position in terms of primary duties and responsibilities. Thus, 
the advertisements do not assist in establishing a common bachelor's degree requirement in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent in its industry for positions that are parallel to its entry-level position. 11 
We have again reviewed the opinion prepared byl lin relation to this criterion. In support of 
the first prong of this criterion,! !claims that "[i]t is standard for a company such as [the 
Petitioner] to hire an IT Support Specialist and require that individual to have attained at least a 
Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science, or a related area." I I however, does not support his 
conclusory statement with any foundational evidence. For example, I ldoes not provide the 
results of formal surveys, research, statistics, or other objective quantiftng information to substantiate 
what is typical in the industry with objective evidence. Although lmay have anecdotal 
evidence regarding the hiring preferences of companies that visit his university, he has not offered 
sufficient foundational evidence or analysis to establish that similar companies to the Petitioner in the 
IT industry commonly require successful candidates to possess a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty to enter into an IT support specialist position. Without evidence or analysis, I I 
opinion does not assist in establishing this prong of this criterion. 
The record does not satisfy the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
11 Even if all of the job postings indicated that a requirement of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is common to 
the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations (which they do not), the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be draV1rn from the advertisements with regard to determining the common 
educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice 
of Social Research 186-228 (1995). Moreover, given that there is no indication that the advertisements were randomly 
selected, the validity of any such inferences could not be accurately determined even if the sampling unit were sufficiently 
large. See id. at 195-196 (explaining that "[r]andom selection is the key to [the] process [of probability sampling]" and 
that "random selection offers access to the body of probability theory, which provides the basis for estimates of population 
parameters and estimates of error"). 
7 
Matter of C-T-A-S- Inc. 
2. Second Prong 
The second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) is satisfied if the Petitioner shows 
that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with 
at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director did not consider and off er an explanation for why 
the revision of the duties provided in response to the Director's RFE were not considered complex or 
unique. We have reviewed the expansion of the duties of the proffered position offered in response to 
the Director's RFE and again on appeal. The day-to-day tasks listed indicate that the Beneficiary will 
support, participate in, validate, monitor, and be involved in various activities, using third party 
technology. The record, however, does not include sufficient information about the end-client's 
projects, the project teams, or the Petitioner's scope of work regarding these projects to ascertain the 
level of responsibility required to perform the duties generally described. Additionally, the 
Beneficiary appears to be responsible for troubleshooting incidents, ensuring that middleware 
applications are stable and available, and performing other support type duties. Again, the duties are 
not sufficiently described within the context of particular projects to determine that the Beneficiary's 
responsibilities are more than routine, technical support tasks. The duties, as described, are 
insufficient to substantiate the nature and level of responsibility of the proposed position. 
Using the Petitioner's specific example, the Petitioner states that "Setting up MQ traces and Message 
broker traces at the message flow level in debugging issues" is a particular task ignored by the Director. 
The Petitioner asserts that this particular duty requires knowledge of JAVA, and IBM Middleware 
tools. The Petitioner also appears to contend that knowledge such as this can be gained in object 
oriented programming. The Petitioner also notes "that to understand the performance of an IT 
application in the production environment, bachelor's degree courses such as Operations Systems and 
Computer Organization are needed to provides [sic] knowledge on Performance Analysis and 
Contention Resolution." The Petitioner claims that these courses are fundamental and essential to 
perform these duties and indicates that these courses, and others, are available in a bachelor's degree 
program in computer science. However, the duties and the Petitioner's assertions regarding the duties 
are jargon-heavy and do not provide a comprehensible understanding of why the duties require specific 
courses, let alone a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 
The Petitioner continues to provide examples of the Beneficiary's courses taken in both her bachelor's 
and master's degree programs as courses that have prepared her to perform the duties of the position. 
However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the skill set or education of a 
proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself qualifies as a specialty occupation. The Petitioner 
has not demonstrated how an established curriculum of 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. 
We have also reviewed I I opinion in regards to this criterion. I repeats the 
Petitioner's version of the proposed duties provided in response to the Director's RFE without the 
addition of the sub-duties. Thus, it is unclear whether I lhas reviewed the Petitioner's foll 
description of the proposed duties. Regarding the duties he reviewed,! bpines "it is apparent 
8 
Matter of C-T-A-S- Inc. 
that a minimum of a Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science, or a related area, or the equivalent 
provides the student with the core competencies and skills needed for an IT Support Specialist 
position." He also lists 14 various courses that could be taken in a Computer Science program that 
would correspond to the duties and prepare a student for the responsibilities of the position. He later 
refers to two specific courses, systems programming and software quality management, as particular 
courses that will prepare a student for the responsibilities of the proffered position. However, D I I does not offer a meaningful analysis of why the particular duties are so specialized and complex 
or unique, that the position itselfrequires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 
We understand that an individual who takes one or several computer science courses may be prepared 
to perform the duties of this position; again, however, the test to establish a position as a specialty 
occupation is not the skill set or education of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. Thus, whether or not the Beneficiary in this case has completed a 
specialized course of study directly related to the proffered position is irrelevant to the issue of whether 
the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, i.e., whether the duties of the proffered 
position require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge 
and the attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Section 
214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
The record lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish the proffered pos1t10n 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. There is insufficient evidence in the record to support 
a conclusion that the knowledge to perform the duties of an IT support specialist position, as described 
by the Petitioner, can only be gained from a bachelor's degree, or equivalent, in a specific specialty. 
The record, including I I opinion, 12 does not include probative evidence establishing that the 
proposed position is so complex or unique that a only an individual with a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty can perform the position. 
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. Evidence 
provided in support of this criterion may include, but is not limited to, documentation regarding the 
Petitioner's past recruitment and hiring practices, as well as information regarding employees who 
previously held the position. 
The Petitioner does not include documentary evidence of other employees previously employed in the 
proffered position and cites confidentiality concerns with regards to this evidence. Although a 
12 As the Director noted, we may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter 
of Caron Int'!, Inc., 19 l&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, where an opinion is not in accord with other 
information or is in any way questionable, we are not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Id. Here 
the opinion presented does not offer a cogent analysis of the duties and why the duties require a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty. 
9 
Matter of C-T-A-S- Inc. 
petitioner may always refuse to submit confidential commercial information if it is deemed too 
sensitive, the Petitioner must also satisfy the burden of proof and runs the risk of a denial. Cf Matter 
of Marques, 16 I&N Dec. 314 (BIA 1977) (holding the "respondent had every right to assert his claim 
under the Fifth Amendment[; however], in so doing he runs the risk that he may fail to carry his burden 
of persuasion with respect to his application."). 13 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 Skirball 
Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). 
The Petitioner requests that we review its job postings for the proffered position in lieu of evidence 
establishing its normal hiring requirements. The Petitioner offers two job postings for positions of a 
Level 3 production support position, two job postings for a production support position, a job posting 
for a systems support analyst, and two job postings for an ETL developer. 14 On appeal, the Petitioner 
compares the proposed position to the Level 3 production support position and asserts that this position 
has duties that are the same or similar to the proposed position. We have reviewed the Level 
3 production support job postings as well as the production support position advertisements. Both of 
these positions require a bachelor's of science or undergraduate degree in computer science. One 
position requires between 3 to 5 years of experience and the other requires 5 years of experience. The 
Petitioner here does not state that experience is required to perform the duties of the proffered position. 
Moreover, if more than 3 years of experience is required in addition to a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, the Petitioner has not provided a certified LCA that corresponds to and supports the petition. 
That is, a requirement of more than 3 years of experience for a Job Zone Four occupation requires an 
increase in the wage level on the certified LCA. 15 
We also note that these positions are for positions in different locations than the proffered position. It 
is not possible to ascertain whether the advertised positions are for different clients than the position 
offered here and whether those clients and their projects have different educational and experience 
requirements. The Petitioner's submission of these job postings and assertion that these positions are 
comparable to the entry-level position as designated on the LCA creates ambiguity in the record. The 
inconsistencies in requirements raise significant questions regarding the Petitioner's actual 
requirements for the proffered position. The Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
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 
13 Both the Freedom oflnformation Act and the Trade Secrets Act provide for the protection of a petitioner's confidential 
business information when it is submitted to USCIS. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(6)(4), 18 U.S.C. § 1905. Additionally, the 
petitioner may request pre-disclosure notification pursuant to Executive Order No. 12,600, "Predisclosure Notification 
Procedures for Confidential Commercial Information." Exec. Order No. 12,600, 52 Fed. Reg. 23,781 (June 23, 1987). 
14 It is not possible to conclude from the duties described in the job postings for the systems support analyst and the ETL 
developer that the positions are similar to the duties of the proposed position. Although the duties include a reference to 
ETL load failures and validating ETL application, the description does not focus on ETL development. Additionally, the 
advertisements for both of these positions also include an experience requirement. 
15 U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance. Nonagric. 
Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009). 
10 
Matter of C-T-A-S- Inc. 
associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
However, the Petitioner does not develop relative specialization and complexity as an aspect of the 
proffered position. 
We have reviewed the Petitioner's initial description of duties and subsequent elaboration of those duties. 
The additional duties of supporting third party applications, ensuring third party applications stability and 
availability, checking connectivity, conducting gap analysis, identifying load failures, supporting or 
executing testing efforts, managing incident activities, troubleshooting and monitoring incidents and 
issues, root cause analysis follow-ups, and assisting third party interfaces do not illuminate the substantive 
application of knowledge involved or any particular educational requirement associated with such duties. 
The Petitioner here does not distinguish the duties of its proposed position from the duties of a general 
"Computer Systems Analysts" position, to show that it is more specialized and complex when compared 
to other positions within the same occupation. 16 The Petitioner has not described the proposed duties 
sufficiently to demonstrate that they are more specialized and complex than other IT support specialist 
positions that are not usually associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
We have again reviewed I I opinion, and again do not find it persuasive. I I does not 
present a descriptive analysis that supports his ultimate conclusion that the duties described are 
specialized, requiring a bachelor's degree in computer science, or a related area, as a minimum. The level 
of responsibility as depicted in the record and the ambiguities presented by the Petitioner's own job 
postings and the proffered position, have not been addressed byl lso that it is clear that he has an 
understanding of the Beneficiary's actual position and role within the Petitioner's organization. Again 
where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we are not required 
to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Matter of Caron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. at 795. Here 
the opinion presented does not offer a cogent analysis of the duties and why the duties require a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty. 
The record does not include a meaningful discussion of the requirements of the proposed position, rather 
than conclusory statements and references to the Beneficiary's coursework. The Petitioner has not 
described a position that requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge in order to perform it. Upon review, the record lacks sufficiently detailed information to 
distinguish the proffered position as more specialized and complex from other positions that can be 
performed by persons without at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that its proffered position is one with duties sufficiently specialized and 
complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
Upon review of the totality of the evidence submitted, the Petitioner has not established that more likely 
than not, the proffered position is a specialty occupation under any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
16 The Petitioner has designated the proffered position as a Level TT position on the submitted Labor condition application 
(LCA), indicating that it is a position for an employee who has a good understanding of the occupation but who will only 
perform moderately complex tasks that require limited judgment. See 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 Therefore, it does not appear that 
the position is one with specialized and complex duties, as such a higher-level position would be classified as a Level III 
or Level IV position, requiring a significantly higher prevailing wage. 
11 
Matter of C-T-A-S- Inc. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Moreover, the record does not establish that the Petitioner satisfied the statutory 
definition of specialty occupation. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and 
alternative basis for the decision. 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. The Petitioner 
has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofC-T-A-S-Inc., ID# 4742272 (AAO Sept. 3, 2019) 
12