dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 23, 2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a 12-employee information technology consulting firm, seeks to temporarily employ 
the Beneficiary as a "senior application developer'' under the H-1 B nonimmigrant classification for 
specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 
8 U.S.C. § 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 Director, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the Director erred in her findings. 
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 proffered 
position must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-, Inc. 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer nom1ally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position: or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that 
knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C .F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We have consistently interpreted the term "degree" 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. Chertofj; 
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"); Delensor v. Meissner, 
201 F.3d 384, 387-88 (5th Cir. 2000). 
We note that, as recognized by the court in Defensor, where the work is to be performed for entities 
other than the petitioner , evidence of the client companies' job requirements is critical. Defi.msor, 
201 F.3d at 387-88. The court held that the former Immigration and Naturalization Service had 
reasonably interpreted the statute and regulations as requiring the petitioner to produce evidence that 
a proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation on the basis of the requirements imposed by 
the entities using the beneficiary's services. !d. Such evidence must be sufficiently detailed to 
demonstrate the type and educational level of highly specialized knowledge in a specific discipline 
that is necessary to perform that particular work. 
II. PROFF ERED POSITION 
In response to the Director 's request for evidence (RFE) , the Petitioner submitted a description for 
the job responsibilities to be performed at its end client's facility and allocated the time the 
Beneficiary would spend on those job responsibilities as follows: 
I) Participate in all phases of the development lifecycle from initial requirements 
gathering, design, development and testing of web application. 10% of 
the time 
2) Work closely with Architects, User Experience Designers , DBA's in a highly 
collaborative development environment. I 0% of the time 
3) Translate business requirements into functional and technical specifications. 20% 
ofthe time 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter ofA-, Inc. 
4) Design and implement module and feature solutions following Agile 
methodology. 30% of the time 
5) Adhere to best practices and development standards with sprint wise test cases by 
the modules. 1 0% of the time 
6) Perform technical analysis and troubleshooting on complex web and database 
problems. 20% ofthe time 
Accordingly to the Petitioner, a "[b]achelor['s] degree m either computer science or information 
technology or related field is mandatory." 
III. ANALYSIS 
For the reasons set out below, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that it would employ the 
Beneficiary in a specialty occupation. Specifically, the record does not (I) describe the position's 
duties with sufficient detail; and (2) establish that the job duties require an educational background, 
or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation.' 
On the labor condition application (LCA) 2 submitted in support of the H-1 B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Computer Programmers" 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 15-1131. 3 
The Petitioner in this matter presents broadly stated duties for the proffered position which do not 
appear to include even general programming duties. Additionally, the record in response to the 
Director's RFE included a letter, dated August 1, 2016, signed by the end client's IT project 
manager who repeated the Petitioner's description of duties provided in response to the Director's 
RFE. The record in response to the Director's RFE also included a statement of work (SOW) 
between the Petitioner and the end client, for work to be performed by the 
1 
The Petitioner submitted documentation in support of the H-1 B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
2 
The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to USCIS 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 experience and qualifications who are performing the same 
services. See Matter ofSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 l&N Dec. 542, 545-46 (AAO 20 I 5). 
3 
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 1 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 she 
will be closely supervised and her work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that she will receive 
specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing 
Wage Determination Policv Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://tlcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _I I_ 2009.pdf A prevai I ing 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. 
3 
Matter of A-, Inc. 
"Systems Application Developer" between October 11, 2016, and October 2017. The SOW is dated 
March 12, 2016, and provides the same description ofjob responsibilities as listed by the Petitioner 
and repeated by the end client in its August 1, 2016, letter, but also adds responsibilities to these 
descriptions. 
On appeal, the Petitioner adds that experience and familiarity with various platforms and 
technologies are part of the proposed job responsibilities. However, the Petitioner's experience 
requirements while informative do not detail the actual tasks the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to 
perform. Moreover, as noted above, the end client" s requirements relating to the proposed work are 
critical. In that regard, on appeal, the Petitioner submits a revised SOW changing the start elate of 
the proposed employment but then repeating the job responsibilities of the SOW submitted in 
response to the Director's RFE. Also on appeal, the Petitioner submits a September 1, 2016, letter 
signed by the IT project manager for its end client, which paraphrases some of the duties on the 
SOW, but also adds responsibilities to the revised SOW, and lists experience and familiarity with 
technologies as part of the job duties. The Petitioner has not explained the different versions of the 
proposed duties and has not submitted sutlicient detail to determine that the proposed duties 
correspond to its characterization of the proffered position as a computer programmer position on the 
LCA. 4 "[l]t is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve the inconsistencies by independent objective 
evidence." Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). Any attempt to explain or reconcile 
such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. ld. at 591-92. Upon review of the totality of the record, the record 
does not include sufficient consistent detail to ascertain the nature of the proffered job and whether 
the Beneficiary will be performing the duties of a computer programmer, as certified on the LCA. 
Further, even upon review of the different versions of the Beneficiary's proposed duties in the 
record, the descriptions are generic and lack the detail necessary to convey the Beneficiary's actual 
day-to-clay tasks. Thus, we are unable to ascertain whether the proffered position requires duties 
which will incorporate the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, as the minimum for entry into the occupation as required by section 
214(i)(l) of the Act. Without additional information and documentation establishing the specific 
duties the Beneficiary would perform, we are unable to discern the substantive nature of the position 
and whether the proffered position indeed qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Consequently, we are precluded from finding that the proffered position satisfies any criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), because it is the substantive nature of that work that determines: (1) 
4 The Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) reports that ''[c]omputer programmers write 
and test code that allows computer applications and software programs to function properly" and ·'[t]hey turn the 
program designs created by software developers and engineers into instructions that a computer can follow.'' U.S. Dep't 
of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., Computer Programmers, 
https: I lwww. b ls.gov I oohlcomputer -and-information-tech no I ogy I computer -programmers. htm#tab-2 (last visited Feb. 22, 
20 17). The Petitioner's generic description is insufficient to place the proffered position within this occupation. 
4 
Matter ofA-, Inc. 
the normal mmnnum educational requirement for the particular position, which is the focus of 
criterion 1; (2) industry positions which are parallel to the protTered position and thus appropriate for 
review for a common degree requirement, under the first alternate prong of criterion 2: (3) the level 
of complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position, which is the focus of the second alternate 
prong of criterion 2; (4) the factual justification for a petitioner normally requiring a degree or its 
equivalent, when that is an issue under criterion 3; and (5) the degree of specialization and 
complexity of the specific duties, which is the focus of criterion 4. 
As the Petitioner has not established that it satisfies any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A), it cannot be found that the protTered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation and the appeal must be dismissed on this basis alone. We will nevertheless perform a 
complete specialty occupation analysis under each of the four, alternative criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) for the occupation of computer programmer, the occupation certified on the 
LCA. 
A. First Criterion 
We turn first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which requires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. To inform this inquiry, we recognize the Handbook as an 
authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations 
that it addresses. 5 
The subchapter of the Handbook entitled "How to Become a Computer Programmer" states, 111 
relevant part, the following: 
Most computer programmers have a bachelor's degree in computer science or a 
related subject; however, some employers hire workers with an associate's degree. 
Most programmers specialize in a few programming languages. 
Education 
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 
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. 
5 
Matter of A-, Inc. 
in computer programming. In addition, employers value experience, which many 
students gain through internships. 
Most programmers learn a few computer languages while in school. However, a 
computer science degree gives students the skills needed to learn new computer 
languages easily. During their classes, students receive hands-on experience writing 
code, testing programs, fixing errors, and doing many other tasks that they will 
perform on the job. 
To keep up with changing technology, computer programmers may take continuing 
education and professional development seminars to learn new programming 
languages or about upgrades to programming languages they already know. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., 
Computer Programmers, https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer­
programmers.htm#tab-4 (last visited Feb. 22, 20 17). 
According to the Handbook, the requirements to perform the duties of the computer programmer 
occupation incorporate a wide spectrum of educational credentials, including less than a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty. For example, the Handbook states that some employers hire workers 
who have an associate's degree. Furthermore, while the Handbook's narrative indicates that most 
computer programmers obtain a degree (either a bachelor's or 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. Here, however, the Petitioner designated the proffered position 
as a Level I wage position on the LCA. As noted above, in designating the proffered position at a 
Level I wage, the Petitioner has indicated that the proffered position is a comparatively low, 
entry-level position relative to others within the occupation. Given the Handbook's implication that 
positions located within this occupational category do not 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. 
In addition, we note that the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) Summary Reports, 
referenced by the Petitioner, are insufficient to establish that the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation normally requiring at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. O*NET OnLine does not state a requirement for a bachelor's degree for this 
occupation. Rather, it assigns this occupation a Job Zone "Four" rating, which groups it among 
occupations for which "most ... require a four-year bachelor's degree, but some do not.'' O*NET 
OnLine Summary Report for "15-1131.00 Computer Programmers," 
http://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/15-1131.00 (last visited Feb. 22, 2017); O*NET OnLine 
Help- Job Zones, http://www.onetonline.org/help/online/zones (last visited Feb. 22. 2017). Further. 
O*NET OnLine does not indicate that 4-year bachelor's degrees required by Job Zone Four 
6 
Matter of A-, Inc. 
occupations must be in a specific specialty directly related to the occupation. Therefore, O*NET 
OnLine information is not probative of the profTered position being a specialty occupation. 
In this case, the Petitioner has not established that the proffered position falls under an occupational 
category for which the Handbook, or other authoritative source, indicates that normally the 
minimum requirement for entry is at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. The record lacks sufficient evidence to support a finding that the duties and 
requirements of the position, as described, is one for which a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry. 
Upon review of the totality of the record, 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 tirst 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 tirst 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. 
When 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 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. 
7 
(b)(6)
A1aller of A-, Inc . 
We have reviev.red the advertisements the Petitioner submitted to establish that its requirements to 
perform the proffered position are an industry standard. We note that the three advertisers appear 
to 
be consulting or staffing companies that are hiring to fill third party positions. As the record does 
not identify the third party companies with any specificity, we are unable to determine that these 
companies are similar to the Petitioner or to the Petitioner's end client. Additionally, upon review of 
the proposed positions in the advertisements , they do not appear to be parallel to the protJered 
position , except generally as technology positions. Further of the three advertisements submitted, 
only one references an academic requirement of a bachelor 's degree in computer science or 
management information systems as necessary to perfonn the duties it generally described. The 
other two advertisements reference (1) a general bachelor's degree and 4 to 8 years of general 
experience, and (2) a bachelor's degree in an unspecified technology field. Upon review, the 
information provided is insufficient to demonstrate that these advertising organizations or their 
clients, are similar in type , scope, and size to this Petitioner. Additionally , the advertisements do not 
otTer a consensus on the type of degree that is required or whether experience that the advertising 
company deems comparable to a bachelor 's degree is acceptable. Upon review , the job 
advertisements do not establish that similar organizations to the Petitioner routinely employ 
individuals with degrees in a specific specialty , in parallel positions in the Petitioner's industry. 
As the record does not include probative evidence that a "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 , the Petitioner has not satistied the 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. 
In this matter, the evidence of record does not distinguish the proffered position as unique from or 
more complex than other computer programmer positions that can be performed by persons without 
at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty , or its equivalent. As determined above, the record 
does not credibly demonstrate exactly what the Beneficiary will do on a day-to-day basis such that 
complexity or uniqueness can even be determined. 
We have reviewed the position evaluation prepared by Ph.D., an associate professor 
of computer applications and information systems in the School of Business at the 
paraphrased the Petitioner's list of job responsibilities submitted on appeal 
and opines that a bachelor 's degree in computer information systems, or a related area, .or the 
equivalent, is the minimum requirement to perform the duties of the proffered position. Upon 
review, we find this evaluation insufficient to establish the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation. does not demonstrate in-depth knowledge of the Petitioner 's specific business 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-. Inc. 
operations, and what duties would actually be performed in the context of the Petitioner or its end 
client's business. For example, states that the duties described ''are not those of a lower 
level employee," refers to the position as a ''highly skilled leadership role,'" and that "after 
examining the responsibilities of this Senior Application Developer position in detail, it is evident 
that the position falls under the job category of 'Software Developer' in the [Handbook].'" He does 
not appear to be av,rare that the Petitioner characterized the position as a lmv, entry-level computer 
programmer position, on the certified LCA submitted in support of the petition. 6 The Petitioner's 
designation of the proffered position as a "computer programmer,"' not a software developer 
position, on the LCA and as a position requiring only a basic understanding of the occupation, as 
indicated by the wage level on the LCA conflicts with perception and understanding of 
the actual position under review. 
As a matter of discretion, we may use opmwn statements submitted by the Petitioner as 
advisory. Matter of Caron Int '!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, we will 
reject an opinion or give it less weight if it is not in accord with other information in the record or if 
it is in any way questionable. !d. In this instance, opinion has little probative value in 
establishing the proffered position as a specialty occupation. 
We note that while a few related courses may be beneficial in performing certain duties of the 
position, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how an established curriculum of such courses leading 
to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform 
the duties of the proffered position. Upon review, 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. 7 
Again, the LCA indicates that, relative to other positions located within the "Computer 
Programmers" occupational category, the Beneficiary would perform routine tasks that require only 
a basic understanding and require limited, if any, exercise of judgment. Without further evidence, 
the record does not demonstrate that the proffered position is complex or unique as such a position 
falling under this occupational category would likely be classified at a higher-level, such as a Level 
6 
If the proffered position is that of a senior software developer, the LCA submitted in support of the position would not 
be valid and would also result in a dismissal of the appeal. 
7 The issue here is that the Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I position undermines its claim that the 
position is particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same 
occupation. Nevertheless, a Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position tl·om classification as a 
specialty occupation, just as a LevellY wage-designation does not definitively establish such a classification. In certain 
occupations (e.g., doctors or lawyers), a Level I, entry-level position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. for entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designation would not 
reflect that an occupation qualifies as a specialty occupation if that higher-level position does not have an entry 
requirement of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. or its equivalent. That is. a position's wage-level 
designation may be a relevant factor but is not itself conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements 
of section 214(i)( I) of the Act. 
9 
Matter of A-, Inc. 
III (experienced) or Level IV (fully competent) position, requiring a significantly higher prevailing 
wage. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position, and repeatedly 
references her formal education and experience as evidence that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation. 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. Here, the Petitioner did not sufficiently develop 
relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position, and it did not identity 
any tasks that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform 
them. Thus, 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). 
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. 8 We 
note here that the Petitioner submits a list of 10 employees, which includes the Beneficiary and her 
position, on appeal. The list identifies the employees by name, title, visa-type, and education level. 
The titles include sharepoint administrator, senior sharepoint developer, sharepoint developer, lead 
data analyst, data analyst, business analyst, and the Beneficiary's claimed position of senior 
application developer. The list also identities all the individuals as holding a master's of science 
degree in computer science or information technology or systems, except for the Beneficiary who 
the Petitioner shows as holding a general bachelor's of science degree. Upon review, the record of 
proceeding does not include sufficient evidence to establish that the Petitioner employs only 
individuals who possess a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty to perform the duties of the 
proffered position. That is, none of the referenced titles correspond to the Beneficiary's proposed 
title and the record does not include descriptions of the actual duties performed by any of the 
claimed employees. Moreover, the Petitioner has not submitted probative evidence that it actually 
employs the individuals referenced. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the third criterion. 
8 
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 artificially created a 
token degree requirement, whereby all individuals employed in a particular position possessed a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in the specific specialty, or its equivalent. See Defensor, 20 I F. 3d at 387-88. 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)( I) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(i i) (defining the term ''specialty occupation''). 
10 
Matter of A-, Inc. 
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. 
The Petitioner asserts that the job duties of the proffered position are specialized and complex and 
provides a generic description of r~sponsibilities and expands the description on appeal to include 
familiarity and experience with difterent technological platforms and applications it expects from the 
Beneficiary. As determined abovy, the Petitioner has not described the duties of the proffered 
position with any specificity as tho~e duties specifically relate to its business operations or the end 
client's project. We find that the Pe~itioner has not sufficiently developed relative specialization and 
complexity as an aspect of the proffered position. In other words, the proposed duties have not been 
described with sufficient specificiuy 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. We also incorporate our earlier discussion and analysis 
regarding the duties of the proffered position, and the designation of the position in the LCA as a 
Level I position (the lowest of four assignable wage-levels) relative to others within the same 
occupational category. 
Upon review of the totality of the record, it does not include probative evidence that the duties as 
generally described require more th~n technical proficiency in the information technology field. The 
Petitioner has not demonstrated in tlle record 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). 
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 po'sition qualifies as a specialty occupation. The appeal will be 
dismissed for this reason. 
IV. ADDITIONAL ISSUES 
As the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the proffered position is a specialty occupation, \Ve need 
not fully address other issues evident in the record. That said, we wish to identify additional issues 
to inform the Petitioner that these issues should be addressed in any future proceedings. 
A. LCA Does Not Correspond to the Petition 
As noted above, the record in this matter does not include a certified LCA that corresponds to the 
petition. The job title and occupation code on the LCA submitted with the petition is for a 
"Computer Programmer,'" certified for SOC code 15-1131. 
II 
Matter of A-, Inc. 
While DOL is the agency that certifies LCA applications before they are submitted to USCIS, DOL 
regulations note that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (i.e., its immigration benefits 
branch, USCIS) is the department responsible for determining whether the content of an LCA tiled 
for a particular Form I-129 actually :supports that petition. See 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b), which states, 
in pertinent part (emphasis added): 
For H-lB visas ... DHS accepts the employer's petition (DHS Form 1-129) with the 
DOL-certified LCA attached. In doing so, the DHS determines whether the petition 
is supported by an LCA which corre.sponds· with the petition, whether the occupation 
named in the [LCA] is a sp~cialty occupation or whether the individual is a fashion 
model of distinguished m~rit and ability, and whether the qualifications of the 
nonimmigrant meet the statutory requirements for H-1 B visa classification. 
The regulation at 20 C.F.R. § 655. 705(b) requires that USC IS ensure that an LCA actually supports 
the H-lB petition filed on behalf ofthe Beneficiary. As the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
proffered position is a computer prqgrammer position, the Petitioner has not submitted a valid LCA 
that has been certified for the proper occupational classification, and the petition is not approvable 
for this additional reason. 
B. Beneficiary Qualifications 
The record also does not currently qemonstrate that the Beneficiary's combined education and work 
experience is the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. While the claimed 
equivalency is based in part on experience, the record does not include copies of the Beneficiary's 
experience letters. Accordingly, th~re is no basis upon which to review the evaluator's conclusions 
or to establish that the Beneficiary':s expertise in the specialty is recognized through progressively 
responsible positions directly related to the specialty. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4) and 
(D)(l). 
V. CONCLUSION 
The burden is on the Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofA-, Inc., ID# 207865 (AAO Feb. 23, 2017) 
12