dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-S-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 8, 2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an information technology services firm, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a 
"Systems Administrator" under the H -1 B nonimmigrant classification. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) § 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The Director, 
California Service Center, denied the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. Upon de 
novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. ISSUES 
The issues before us are whether (1) the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation; and 
(2) the Labor Condition Application (LCA) corresponds to the visa petition. 
II. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
We will first address the specialty occupation basis for the Director's decision of denial. 
A. Legal Framework 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, 
and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) states, in pertinent part, the following: 
Specialty occupation means an occupation which [(1)] requires theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in fields of human 
endeavor including, but not limited to, architecture, engineering, mathematics, 
physical sciences, social sciences, medicine and health, education, business 
Matter of M-S-, Inc. 
specialties, accounting, law, theology, and the arts, and which [(2)] requires the 
attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as 
a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
Pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, a proposed position must 
meet one of the following criteria: 
(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 alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
(4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
As a threshold issue, it is noted that 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A) must logically be read together 
with section 214(i)(1) of the Act and 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). In other words, this regulatory 
language must be construed in harmony with the thrust of the related provisions and with the statute 
as a whole. SeeK Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) (holding that construction 
of language which takes into account the design of the statute as a whole is preferred); see also COlT 
Independence Joint Venture v. Fed. Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989); Matter ofW-F-, 
21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). As such, the criteria stated in 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) should 
logically be read as being necessary but not necessarily sufficient to meet the statutory and 
regulatory definition of specialty occupation. To otherwise interpret this section as stating the 
necessary and sufficient conditions for meeting the definition of specialty occupation would result in 
particular positions meeting a condition under 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory or 
regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 P.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). To avoid this 
result, 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must therefore be read as providing supplemental criteria that 
must be met in accordance with, and not as alternatives to, the statutory and regulatory definitions of 
specialty occupation. 
As such and consonant with section 214(i)( 1) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) consistently interprets the 
term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered position. See 
Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 P.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in 
a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular 
position"). Applying this standard, USCIS regularly approves H-1 B petitions for qualified 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of M-S-, Inc. 
individuals who are to be employed as engineers, computer scientists, certified public accountants, 
college professors, and other such occupations. These professions, for which petitioners have 
regularly been able to establish a minimum entry requirement in the United States of a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, directly related to the duties and 
responsibilities of the particular position, fairly represent the types of specialty occupations that 
Congress contemplated when it created the H -1 B visa category. 
To determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCIS does not simply 
rely on a position's title. The specific duties of the proffered position, combined with the nature of 
the petitioning entity's business operations, are factors to be considered. USCIS must examine the 
ultimate employment of the individual, and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. The critical element is not the title 
of the position or an employer's self-imposed standards, but whether the position actually requires 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty as the minimum for entry into 
the occupation, as required by the Act. 
B. The Proffered Position 
The Petitioner claims in the LCA submitted to support the visa petition that the proffered position 
corresponds to Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code and title 15-1142, Network and 
Computer Systems Administrators, from the Occupational Information Network (O*NET).
1 
In a letter dated October 23, 2014, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would be working on an 
in-house project and provided the following description of the duties to be performed by him: 
[The Beneficiary's] job duties will include Working through all phases of the 
software development life cycle, including analysis, design, implementation, testing. 
Analyze and address reported defects in a timely manner, solutions to these problems 
could include code changes, data updates, or configuration modifications[.] The 
following will be the breakdown of [the Beneficiary' [ s] work in percentages: 
System Analysis 
System Design 
System Administration 
20% 
20% 
40% 
1 
The Form l-129 indicates that the petition was filed for "New Employment" and that the Beneficiary does not currently 
reside in the United States. However, in the appeal brief, the Petitioner refers to the instant visa petition as an "extension 
petition" and indicates that the Petitioner is currently employing the Beneficiary in H-1 B employment. In that letter, the 
Petitioner stated (verbatim), "[A]s the record states, Petition currently is directly supervising the Beneficiary working on 
a day-to-day basis for the in-house & is being directly supervised by the Petitioner." As USCIS 
records contain no indication that the Beneficiary has ever been approved for employment with the Petitioner, we assume 
that the statements pertinent to the Petitioner's current employment of the Beneficiary pertain to a different beneficiary 
and were included in the appeal brief in error. 
Matter of M-S-, Inc. 
Quality Assurance 
Implementation and Documentation 
10% 
10% 
As to the educational requirements of the proffered position, that letter states that it requires, "at least 
a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science, or a closely related field." 
In a letter dated November 4, 2014, the Petitioner provided the following description of the duties of 
the proffered position: 
In the position of Systems Administrator, [the Beneficiary] will be responsible for 
developing and programming software systems using various hardware and operating 
systems. This will include converting symbolic statements of scientific, engineering, 
and other technical problem formulations and administrative data to detailed logical 
flow charts for coding into computer language. He will develop and write computer 
programs to store, locate, and retrieve specific documents, data, and information, in 
addition to developing or modifying restart procedures and writing macros and sub­
routines to be used by other programming personnel. 
Using his knowledge of software development, program construction, distributed 
processing and familiarity of debugging tools, he will assist in analyzing business 
procedures and problems to redefine data and convert them into programmable forms 
of EDP, along with planning and preparing technical reports, memoranda, and 
instructional manuals to document program development. 
[The Beneficiary] will be responsible for the development and maintenance of 
required system documentation, reports, system tables, and process flows within 
assigned areas of primary responsibility and serve as a support/backup resource for 
other areas as assigned within specified departments. 
[The Beneficiary] may also be called upon to handle the following duties: 
~ Developing and programming computer software applications using various 
software and interface with the technical staff in the complex programming 
needs and document modification concerning the systems software; - 30% 
~ Responsible for improvements in software computer utilization and determine 
necessity for modifications; - 1 0% 
~ Reviewing software programs for compliance with company standards and 
requirements and assisting in identifying deficiencies of computer runs and 
perform specialized programming assignments; - 5% 
~ Developing and enhancing the software systems for wider applications and 
customize it for specific requirements; - 5% 
4 
Matter of M-S-, Inc. 
~ Using RDBMS to log system change orders and analyze, develop and 
implement new applications with GUI and analyze software requirements to 
determine feasibility of design with time and cost constraints; - 15% 
~ Identifying deficiencies, troubleshooting problems and supporting user needs 
with professional knowledge for test planning, defect tracing and provide 
assistance in use ofRDBMS; - 10% 
~ Analysis and Design of system which includes Preparation of Process Flow 
Diagrams, Entity Relationship Diagrams, File design, Program Specification 
and Design Document; - 1 0% 
~ Database and application analysis/design and logical and physical database; -
5% 
~ Interacting with other technical staff in researching and interpreting technical 
data;- 5% 
~ Assisting as part of team to resolve technical problems requiring good 
judgement and creativity in developing solutions.- 5% 
As to the educational requirements of the position, the Petitioner stated that it requires: "either a 
Bachelor's or a Master's degree in Computer Science, Information Systems, Management 
Information Systems, Electrical/Electronics Engineering, Physics, or a closely related field .... " 
In a letter dated February 25, 2015, the Petitioner provided the following list of the duties of the 
proffered position: 
[The Beneficiary's] job duties will include Working through all phases of the 
software development life cycle, including analysis, design, implementation, testing. 
Analyze and address reported defects in a timely manner, solutions to these problems 
could include code changes, data updates, or configuration modifications[.] 
The following will be the breakdown of [the Beneficiary' [ s] work in percentages: 
System Analysis 
VM/Infrastructure 
Quality Assurance 
Implementation and Documentation 
20% 
50% 
20% 
10% 
As to the educational requirements of the proffered position, that letter states that the Petitioner's 
requirements "includes at least a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science, or a closely related field." 
5 
Matter of M-S-, Inc. 
C. Analysis 
A baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is 
normally the minimum requirement.for entry into the particular position 
We will first discuss the record of proceedings in relation to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which requires that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position. 
As was noted above, the Petitioner claims in the LCA that the proffered position corresponds to SOC 
code and title 15-1142, Network and Computer Systems Administrators, from O*NET. The LCA 
further states that the proffered position is a wage Level I, entry-level, position. 
We recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an 
authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations 
that it addresses.2 The Handbook states the following with regard to the duties of Network and 
Computer Systems Administrators: 
What Network and Computer Systems Administrators Do 
Computer networks are critical parts of almost every organization. Network and 
computer systems administrators are responsible for the day-to-day operation of these 
networks. They organize, install, and support an organization's computer systems, 
including local area networks (LANs), wide area networks (WANs), network 
segments, intranets, and other data communication systems. 
Duties 
Network and computer systems administrators typically do the following: 
• Determine an organization's network and computer system needs 
before setting one up 
• Install all network hardware and software and make needed upgrades 
and repairs 
• Maintain network and computer system security and ensure that all 
systems are operating correctly 
• Collect data in order to evaluate and optimize network or system 
performance 
• Add users to a network and assign and update security permissions on 
the network 
2 The Handbook, which is available in printed form, may also be accessed on the Internet, at http://www.bls.gov/oco/. 
Our references to the Handbook are to the 2016-2017 edition available online. 
Matter of M-S-, Inc. 
• Train users in the proper use of hardware and software 
• Interpret and solve problems when a user or an automated monitoring 
system alerts them that one exists 
Administrators manage an organization's servers and desktop and mobile equipment. 
They ensure that email and data storage networks work properly. They also make sure 
that employees' workstations are working efficiently and stay connected to the central 
computer network. Some administrators manage telecommunication networks. 
In some cases, administrators help network architects design and analyze network 
models. They also participate in decisions about buying future hardware or software 
to upgrade their organization's network. Some administrators provide technical 
support to computer users, and they also may supervise computer support specialists 
who help solve users' problems. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., 
"Network and Computer Systems Administrators," http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and­
information-technology/network-and-computer-systems-administrators.htm#tab-2 (last visited Feb. 
3, 2016). 
The duty descriptions the Petitioner provided do not correspond to the Handbook description of the 
duties of network and computer systems administrators. They contain insufficient indication that the 
Beneficiary would determine network and system needs; set up networks and systems; install, 
maintain, and upgrade hardware and software; add and train users; etc. We find that the proffered 
position is not a network and systems administrator position as described in the Handbook. 3 
However, the Handbook describes the duties of systems analysts as follows: 
What Computer Systems Analysts Do 
Computer systems analysts study an organization's current computer systems and 
procedures and design information systems solutions to help the organization operate 
more efficiently and effectively. They bring business and information technology (IT) 
together by understanding the needs and limitations of both. 
3 Even if the proffered position were established as being that of a network and computer systems administrator, a review 
of the Handbook does not indicate that, as a category, such a position qualifies as a specialty occupation in that the 
Handbook does not state a normal minimum requirement of a U.S. bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty or 
its equivalent for entry into the occupation. That is, the Petitioner designated the proffered position as a wage Level I, 
entry-level Network and Systems Administrator position, and the Handbook indicates that workers with only a 
postsecondary certificate, rather than a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent, may fill 
lower-level network and systems administrator positions. Thus, the Handbook is not probative evidence of the 
occupational category "network and systems administrators" being a specialty occupation. 
Matter of M-S-, Inc. 
Duties 
Computer systems analysts typically do the following: 
• Consult with managers to determine the role of IT systems in an 
organization 
• Research emerging technologies to decide if installing them can 
increase the organization's efficiency and effectiveness 
• Prepare an analysis of costs and benefits so that management can 
decide if IT systems and computing infrastructure upgrades are 
financially worthwhile 
• Devise ways to add new functionality to existing computer systems 
• Design and implement new systems by choosing and configuring 
hardware and software 
• Oversee the installation and configuration of new systems to 
customize them for the organization 
• Conduct testing to ensure that the systems work as expected 
• Train the systems' end users and write instruction manuals 
Computer systems analysts use a variety of techniques such as data modeling to 
design computer systems. Data modeling allows analysts to view the processes and 
data flows even before programs have been written. 
Once programs have been written, analysts conduct in-depth tests and analyze 
information and trends in the data to increase a system's performance and efficiency. 
Analysts calculate requirements for how much memory and speed the computer 
system needs. They prepare flowcharts or other kinds of diagrams for programmers or 
engineers to use when building the system. Analysts also work with these people to 
solve problems that arise after the initial system is set up. Most analysts do some 
programming in the course of their work. 
Most computer systems analysts specialize in certain types of computer systems that 
are specific to the organization they work with. For example, an analyst might work 
predominantly with financial computer systems or engineering computer systems. 
Systems analysts help other IT team members understand how computer systems can 
best serve an organization by working closely with the organization's business 
leaders. 
In some cases, analysts who supervise the initial installation or upgrade of IT systems 
from start to finish may be called IT project managers. They monitor a project's 
progress to ensure that deadlines, standards, and cost targets are met. IT project 
Matter of M-S-, Inc. 
managers who plan and direct an organization's IT department or IT policies are 
included in the profile on computer and information systems managers. 
Many computer systems analysts are general-purpose analysts who develop new 
systems or fine-tune existing ones; however, there are some specialized systems 
analysts. The following are examples of types of computer systems analysts: 
Systems designers or systems architects specialize in helping organizations choose 
specific types of hardware and software systems. They translate the long-term 
business goals of an organization into technical solutions. Analysts develop a plan for 
the computer systems that will be able to reach those goals. They work with 
management to ensure that systems and the IT infrastructure are set up to best serve 
the organization's mission. 
Software quality assurance (QA) analysts do in-depth testing and diagnose problems 
of the systems they design in order to make sure that critical requirements are met. 
They also write reports to management recommending ways to improve the systems. 
Programmer analysts design and update their system's software and create 
applications tailored to their organization's needs. They do more coding and 
debugging than other types of analysts, although they still work extensively with 
management and business analysts to determine what business needs the applications 
are meant to address. Other occupations that do programming are computer 
programmers and software developers. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., 
"Computer Systems Analysts," http://www. bls. gov I oohl computer -and-information­
technology/computer-systems-analysts.htm#tab-4 (last visited Feb. 3, 2016). 
The various duties the Petitioner attributes to the proffered position conform closely to the duties of 
a computer systems analyst. That is, the Beneficiary's duties with respect to software development 
would include "analysis, design, implementation, [and] testing." Even more specifically, as the 
duties described include programming, testing, and debugging, the duties appear to include the 
duties of a programmer analyst and a system QA analyst, both of which positions are described in 
the Handbook chapter pertinent to computer systems 'analysts. On the balance, we find that the 
proffered position is a computer systems analyst position as described in the Handbook. 
The Handbook states the following about the educational requirements of computer systems analyst 
positions: 
9 
Matter of M-S-, Inc. 
Education 
Most computer systems analysts have a bachelor's degree in a computer-related field. 
Because these analysts also are heavily involved in the business side of a company, it 
may be helpful to take business courses or major in management information 
systems. 
Some employers prefer applicants who have a master's degree in business 
administration (MBA) with a concentration in information systems. For more 
technically complex jobs, a master's degree in computer science may be more 
appropriate. 
Although many computer systems analysts have technical degrees, such a degree is 
not always a requirement. Many analysts have liberal arts degrees and have gained 
programming or technical expertise elsewhere. 
!d. at http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-systems-analysts. 
htm#tab-4 (last visited Feb. 3, 2016). 
The Handbook makes clear that computer systems analyst positions do not, as a category, require a 
minimum of a bachelor's degree or the equivalent, as it indicates that many systems analysts have a 
liberal arts degree and programming knowledge, rather than a degree in a specific specialty directly 
related to systems analysis. 
When the Handbook does not support the proposition that a proffered position is one that meets the 
statutory and regulatory provisions of a specialty occupation, it is incumbent upon the Petitioner to 
provide persuasive evidence that the proffered position more likely than not satisfies this or one of 
the other three criteria, notwithstanding the absence of the Handbook's support on the issue. In such 
cases, it is the Petitioner's responsibility to provide probative evidence (e.g., documentation from 
other objective, authoritative sources) that supports a finding that the particular position in question 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. Whenever more than one authoritative source exists, an 
adjudicator will consider and weigh all of the evidence presented to determine whether the particular 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. However, we note that the Petitioner has not cited any 
objective, authoritative source. 
Further, we find that, to the extent that they are described in the record of proceedings, the numerous 
duties that the Petitioner ascribes to the proffered position indicate a need for a range of knowledge 
in the computer/IT field, but do not establish any particular level of formal, postsecondary education 
leading to a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty as minimally necessary to attain such 
knowledge. 
The Handbook does not support the claim that the occupational category of computer systems 
analysts is one for which normally the minimum requirement for entry is a baccalaureate degree (or 
10 
Matter of M-S-, Inc. 
higher) in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Even if it did, the record lacks sufficient evidence to 
support a finding that the particular position proffered here would normally have such a minimum, 
specialty degree requirement or its equivalent. 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)(l). 
The requirement of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel 
positions among similar organizations 
Next, we will review the record of proceedings with regard to the first of the two alternative prongs 
of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). This prong alternatively calls for a petitioner to establish that a 
requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common for 
positions that are: (1) in the petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered position, and also (3) 
located in organizations that are similar to the petitioner. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by 
USCIS include: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the 
industry's professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether 
letters or affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms "routinely employ 
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)). 
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." 
Thus, the evidence of record does not establish that a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to parallel positions with organizations that are in 
the Petitioner's industry and otherwise similar to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has not, therefore, 
satisfied the criterion of the first alternative prong of 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)(2). 
11 
Matter of M-S-, Inc. 
The particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by 
an individual with a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent 
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 ofthe 
record of proceedings indicates that the Petitioner has not credibly demonstrated that the duties the 
Beneficiary will be responsible for or perform on a day-to-day basis constitute a position so complex 
or unique that it can only be performed by a person with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. 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 
duties of the proffered position. The description of the duties does not specifically identify any tasks 
that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. The 
record lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish the proffered position as more complex 
or unique from other positions that can be performed by persons without at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
Therefore, the evidence of record does not establish that this position is significantly different from 
other positions in the occupation such that it refutes the Handbook's information to the effect that 
there is a spectrum of degrees acceptable for such positions, including degrees not in a specific 
specialty. As the Petitioner did not demonstrate how the proffered position is so complex or unique 
relative to other positions within the same occupational category that do not require at least a 
baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for entry into the occupation in the 
United States, it cannot be concluded that the Petitioner has satisfied the second alternative prong of 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The employer normally requires a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position 
The third criterion of 8 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. To 
this end, we usually review a petitioner's past recruiting and hiring practices, as well as information 
regarding employees who previously held the position. 
In its October 23, 2014, and February 25, 2015, letters the Petitioner asserted that it requires a 
bachelor's degree in computer science or a closely related field for the proffered position. In its 
November 4, 2014, letter, the Petitioner asserted that it believes that the proffered position requires a 
12 
Matter of M-S-, Inc. 
minimum of a bachelor's degree in computer science, information systems, management information 
systems, electrical/electronics engineering, physics, or a closely related field. 
While a petitioner may believe or otherwise assert that a proffered position requires a specific 
degree, 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 petitioner artificially created a token degree requirement, 
whereby all individuals employed in a particular position possessed a baccalaureate or higher degree 
in the specific specialty or its equivalent. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d at 388. In other 
words, if a petitioner's stated degree requirement is only designed to artificially meet the standards 
for an H-lB visa and/or to underemploy an individual in a position for which he or she is 
overqualified and if the proffered position does not in fact require such a specialty degree or its 
equivalent to perform its duties, the occupation would not meet the statutory or regulatory definition 
of a specialty occupation. See § 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(ii) (defining the term 
"specialty occupation"). 
Although the Petitioner stated that it was established in 2003 and has 12 employees, it provided 
insufficient evidence to show that it has ever employed anyone in the proffered position. While a 
first-time hiring for a position is certainly not a basis for precluding a position from recognition as a 
specialty occupation, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3) requires a demonstration that the Petitioner 
normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for the position. 
It is unclear how an employer could satisfy the criterion without providing evidence of people it has 
previously employed in the proffered position. We cannot conclude that the Petitioner has satisfied 
the third criterion of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
The nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature 
of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. 
We reviewed the Petitioner's statements regarding the proffered pos1twn; however, relative 
specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by the Petitioner as an aspect of 
the proffered position. That is, the proposed duties have not been described with sufficient 
specificity to establish that they are more specialized and complex than positions that are not usually 
associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. For these 
reasons, the evidence of record does not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
13 
Matter of M-S-, Inc. 
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. 
III. NON-CORRESPONDING LCA 
The remaining basis for the decision of denial is the Director's finding that the LCA submitted has 
not been demonstrated to correspond to the proffered position. 
A. Legal Framework 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(l) stipulates the following: 
Before filing a petition for H -1 B classification in a specialty occupation, the 
petitioner shall obtain a certification from the Department of Labor that it has filed a 
labor condition application in the occupational specialty in which the alien(s) will be 
employed. 
While the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) is the agency that certifies LCAs before they are 
submitted to USCIS, the DOL regulations note that it is within the discretion of the U.S. Department 
of Homeland Security (DHS) (i.e., its immigration benefits branch, USCIS) to determine whether the 
content of an LCA filed for a particular Form 1-129 actually supports that petition. See 20 C.F.R. 
§ 655.705(b), which states, in pertinent part: 
For H-1B visas ... DHS accepts the employer's petition (DHS Form I-129) with the 
DOL certified LCA attached. In doing so, the DHS determines whether the petition is 
supported by an LCA which corresponds with the petition, whether the occupation 
named in the [LCA] is a specialty occupation or whether the individual is a fashion 
model of distinguished merit and ability, and whether the qualifications of the 
nonimmigrant meet the statutory requirements of H -1 B visa classification .... 
[Italics added] 
B. Analysis 
The LCA was submitted for a Network and Computer Systems Administrator position. For the 
reasons explained in detail above, we have found the proffered position to be a Computer Systems 
Analyst position. We therefore find that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the LCA submitted 
corresponds to the visa petition. The appeal will be dismissed for this additional reason. 
14 
Matter of M-S-, Inc. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
When we deny a petition on multiple alternative grounds, a plaintiff can succeed on a challenge only 
if it shows that we abused our discretion with respect to all of the enumerated grounds. See Spencer 
Enters., Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1037; see also BDPCS, Inc. v. FCC, 351 F.3d 1177, 
1183 (D.C. Cir. 2003) ("When an agency offers multiple grounds for a decision, we will affirm the 
agency so long as any one of the grounds is valid, unless it is demonstrated that the agency would 
not have acted on that basis if the alternative grounds were unavailable."). 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each 
considered as 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; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013) (citing Matter of 
Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493, 495 (BIA 1966)). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of M-S-, Inc., ID# 15626 (AAO Feb. 8, 2016) 
15