dismissed H-1B Case: It Consulting

(b)(6)
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: FEB 1 9 2015 OFFICE: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15 )(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
x
ou,
� 
7 c� 'y 
Ron osenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director (hereinafter "director") denied the nonimmigrant visa 
petition, and the matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will 
be dismissed. The petition will be denied. 
I. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND 
On the Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129), the petitioner describes itself as a 30-
employee "IT Consulting" firm established in In order to employ the beneficiary in what it 
designates as a full-time "Sr. Technical Specialist" position, the petitioner seeks to classify him as a 
nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(H)( i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to establish that it would employ 
the beneficiary in a specialty occupation position. On appeal, counsel asserted that the director's 
basis for denial was erroneous and contended that the petitioner satisfied all evidentiary 
requirements. 
As will be discussed below, we have determined that the director did not err in her decision to deny 
the petition on the specialty occupation issue. Accordingly, the director's decision will not be 
disturbed. The appeal will be dismissed, and the petition will be denied. 
We base our decision upon our review of the entire record of proceeding, which includes: (1) the 
petitioner's Form I-129 and the supporting documentation filed with it; (2) the service center's 
request for additional evidence (RFE); (3) the petitioner's response to the RFE; (4) the director's 
denial letter; and (5) the Form I-290B and the petitioner's submissions on appeal. 
II. THE LAW 
The issue before us is whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as 
a specialty occupation. 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, 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
physical sciences, social sciences, medicine and health, education, business 
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.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, a proposed position must 
also meet one of the following criteria: 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
(4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
As a threshold issue, it is noted that 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must logically be read together 
with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.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. Federal 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.F.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 F.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)(l) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.F.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 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular 
position"). Applying this standard, USCIS regularly approves H-1B petitions for qualified aliens 
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-1B 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 alien, 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 nor 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. 
We note that, as recognized by the court in Defensor, supra, where the work is to be performed for 
entities other than the petitioner, evidence of the client companies' job requirements is critical. See 
Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d at 387-388. 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. at 384. 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. 
III. EVIDENCE 
The Labor Condition Application (LCA) submitted to support the visa petition states that the 
proffered position is a "Sr. Technical Specialist" position, and that it corresponds to Standard 
Occupational Classification (SOC) code and title 15-1121, Computer Systems Analysts, from the 
Occupational Information Network (O*NET). The LCA further states that the proffered position is 
a Level II position. 
With the visa petition, the petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary received a bachelor's 
degree in physics, a master's degree in business administration, and a master's degree in computer 
applications, all from in India. An evaluation in the record states that 
the beneficiary's master's degree in computer applications is equivalent to a U.S. master's degree in 
computer science. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
The petitioner also submitted a letter, dated December 26, 2013, from signing as 
the petitioner's vice president for business development.1 It states the following as the duties of the 
proffered position: 
[The beneficiary] will be involved in the design, development and coding of several 
applications of the software in Customer Service Management and 
Sales & Distribution modules. He will perform the business analysis, requirement 
definition and business process implementation using the 
He will design and develop Interfaces for multiple types of business 
transactions and integrate them with system. He will participate in all 
phases of the product life cycle, including analysis, design, develop, test and 
documentations, post-production & on-going support. He will analyze high-level 
business initiatives/objectives, gather business requirements, relate them to system 
capabilities, define and build/develop end-to-end solutions according to overall IT 
strategy. He will provide troubleshooting support, interfacing with 
customers or vendors and working closely with end users for problem solving. He 
will develop interactive versions and UBEs from functional specifications following 
the OMW process of 
As to the educational requirements of the proffered position, Mr. stated: 
The position has a minimum requirement of a Bachelor's Degree in Computer 
Science, Electronics Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer Applications, 
Business Administration, or other related fields of study. 
On March 7, 2014, the service center issued an RFE in this matter. The service center requested, 
inter alia, evidence that the petitioner would employ the beneficiary in a specialty occupation. The 
service center provided a non-exhaustive list of items that might be used to satisfy the specialty 
occupation requirements. 
In response, the petitioner submitted, inter alia, (1) copies of vacancy announcements the petitioner 
placed on its website; (2) copies of the petitioner's 2010, 2011, and 2012 Form 1065, U.S. Returns of 
Partnership Income; (3) a document entitled, "Internal Project Details, 2013-2014, 
"; ( 4) a description of the 
- application; (5) a coe.y of an e-mail, dated November 1, 2011, from 
director of and (6) a letter, dated April 11, 2014, 
from counsel. 
The descriptions of the petitioner's internal projects and the applications do not 
reveal the duties the beneficiary would perform if the visa petition were approved. They do indicate 
1 The petitioner submitted another December 26, 2013 letter from Mr. 
"Sr. VP, Strategy & Operations." 
signing as the petitioner's 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
that the petitiOner "is a full-service service 
for installing, maintaining, and servicing 
application also states: 
provider," and that it is therefore approved by 
products. The description of the 
using standard 
to maintain. 
is a very advanced batch process scheduling tool developed 
------. Setup is easy and needs very minim,al knowledge 
In his November 1, 2011 e-mail, thanked 
demonstration of a solution, and outlined steps necessary for 
for a presentation and 
validation of that program. 
In his April 11, 2014 letter, counsel did not elaborate on the educational requirements of the 
proffered position, but stated: 
All the [petitioner's] technical positions, including the [proffered position] all [sic] 
require technical expertise and skills since the Petitioner is a specialized firm in 
technologies. The Beneficiary must possess skill of Technologies. The 
beneficiary was recruited by the Petitioner because of his skills and experience in 
Technologies. 
The director denied the petition on May 3, 2014, finding, that the petitioner is a staffing firm and had 
not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a position in a specialty occupation by 
virtue of requiring a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
On appeal, the petitioner submitted (1) additional copies of evidence previously provided; (2) 
evidence pertinent to an agreement to provide services to Sound Transit, and (3) a brief. 
One document pertinent to is headed, "On-Call Information Technology Support 
Services Agreement." It is dated March 13, 2014 and was executed by and a 
representative of of which is 
apparently a part. That agreement indicates that the petitioner would provide services to 
during the term of that agreement, which is one year from the effective date of that contract. 
That agreement also states, "Total compensation for this agreement will not exceed $100,000.00." 
Another document pertinent to puq:>Orts to be a letter, dated March 13, 2014, from a 
contracts supervisor at to the attention of · 
at the petitioner's address. It is headed, "Notice to Proceed." Identifying numbers on that letter and 
on the services agreement previously discussed indicate that this letter refers to the previously 
described service agreement. It purports to authorize the petitioner to proceed pursuant to the terms 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
of the service agreement. It states that its term is one year with four additional one-year options. 
Handwritten on that letter is the phrase, "Sample of Contract. "2 
In the appeal brief, counsel did not argue that the petitioner had provided contracts or similar 
evidence sufficient to show that the petitioner has sufficient work to employ the beneficiary as a 
systems analyst throughout the period of requested employment? Rather, counsel stated, "The 
Petitioner has experienced a rapid business development in the recent years," and: 
In addition, the Petitioner's business development and its business model shows [sic] 
that the Petitioner has sufficient work for the period of intended employment, which 
does not depend on a particular customer or customer work order. 
Counsel cited the petitioner's tax returns as evidence that the petitioner has sufficient specialty 
occupation work to which to assign the beneficiary. Counsel also disputed the director's finding that 
the petitioner is a staffing firm. 
IV. ANALYSIS 
As a preliminary matter, we observe that asserted, in his December 26, 2013 
letter, that an otherwise unspecified bachelor's degree in business administration would be a 
sufficient educational qualification for the proffered position. A degree with a generalized title, such 
as business administration, without further specification, is not a degree in a specific specialty. Cf. 
Matter of Michael Hertz Associates, 19 I&N Dec. 558 (Comm'r 1988). As such, an educational 
requirement that may be satisfied by an otherwise undifferentiated bachelor's degree in business 
administration is not a requirement of a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its 
equivalent. The assertion that an otherwise unspecified bachelor's degree in business administration 
would be a sufficient educational qualification for the proffered position is tantamount, therefore, to 
an admission that the proffered position does not require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty or its equivalent and, therefore, does not qualify as a specialty occupation position. 
The appeal must be denied and the visa petition dismissed on this basis alone. Never theless, for the 
purpose of performing a comprehensive analysis of whether the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation, we turn next to the criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2( h)(4)(iii)(A). 
December 26, 2013 letter contains a list of duties the beneficiary would 
purportedly perform. However, as will be explained below, the petitioner has not demonstrated with 
sufficient documentary evidence that it has either in-house application development projects or work 
to perform for other companies that would entail the performance of those listed duties and keep the 
2 Whether that document was meant to be effective or was merely provided with the services 
agreement, as an example of the form in which might issue work authorizations, is 
unclear. 
3 The petitioner proposes to employ the beneficiary from December 26, 2013 to December 25, 2016. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
beneficiary employed at those specified duties full-time throughout the period of requested 
employment. 
The 2011 e-mail from suggests that the petitioner developed an in-house 
project, either before or during 2011, which it presented to However, whether the petitioner 
has continued to develop such projects through the present and, more to the point, will continue to 
have such projects to develop in the future, throughout the period of requested employment, is not 
demonstrated by the evidence. 
The petitioner's 2010, 2011, and 2012 tax returns are in the record and do, in fact, show that the 
petitioner's gross receipts have almost doubled in that short span. They do not reveal, however, the 
type or complexity of the work the petitioner has to which it could assign the beneficiary if the 
instant visa petition were approved. Those tax returns are insufficient to show that the proffered 
position is a specialty occupation position. 
The evidence pertinent to the petitioner's agreement with also fails to make clear the 
type and complexity of the work the petitioner has to which it could assign the beneficiary. Further, 
the services agreement is dated March 13, 2014. It is not an indication that, when the petitioner filed 
the instant visa petition on December 31, 2013, it had any work to which it could assign the 
beneficiary. The petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the nonimmigrant visa 
petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). A visa petition may not be approved at a future date after the 
petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligibie under a new set of facts. Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 
17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. Comm'r 1978). Evidence that the petitioner acquired work after it filed the 
visa petition cannot be considered in the determination of whether the visa petition was approvable 
when it was submitted. 
Further still, the term of the agreement between and the petitioner is one year 
beginning on March 13, 2014. Although the service agreement in the record indicates that 
has the option of renewing that agreement annually, there is insufficient evidence in the 
record that has exercised that option. Even if it were evidence of specialty occupation 
work to which the petitioner could assign the beneficiary, it would not be evidence of work that 
would continue through to the end of the requested employment, i.e., December 25, 2016. 
Other evidence indicates that the petitioner is an service provider, that is, that it 
installs, maintains, and services products with consent. However, 
documentation pertinent to the application states, "Setup is easy and needs very 
minimal knowledge to maintain." The assertion that the work the petitioner has that pertains to 
products would require the performance of the services described in 
December 26, 2013 letter is uncorroborated. 
As such, the substantive nature of the work the beneficiary would perform if the visa petition were 
approved has not been established. The petitioner's failure to establish the substantive nature of the 
work to be performed by the beneficiary precludes a finding that the proffered position is a specialty 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
occupation under any criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), because it is the substantive nature 
of that work that determines (1) the normal minimum educational requirement for the particular 
position, which is the focus of criterion 1; (2) industry positions which are parallel to the proffered 
position and thus appropriate for review for a common degree requirement, under the first alternate 
prong of criterion 2; (3) the level of complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position, which is the 
focus of the second alternate prong of criterion 2; ( 4) the factual justification for a petitioner 
normally requiring a degree or its equivalent, when that is an issue under criterion 3; and (5) the 
degree of specialization and complexity of the specific duties, which is the focus of criterion 4. The 
appeal must be dismissed and the visa petition denied for this reason. 
Nevertheless, we continue our analysis of the criteria of 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). This 
additional analysis will be based on the assumption, made arguendo, that the duties attributed to the 
proffered position in December 26, 2013 letter are the duties the beneficiary 
would actually perform if the visa petition were approved, notwithstanding that the evidence in the 
record is insufficient to support that assumption. 
We turn to the criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l) and (2): a baccalaureate or higher degree 
in a specific specialty or its equivalent is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the 
particular position; and a degree requirement in a specific specialty is common to the industry in 
parallel positions among similar organizations or a particular position is so complex or unique that it 
can be performed only by an individual with a degree in a specific specialty. Factors we consider 
when determining these criteria include: whether the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational 
Outlook Handbook (Handbook) on which we routinely rely for the educational requirements of 
particular occupations, reports the industry requires a degree in a specific specialty; whether the 
industry's professional association has made a degree in a specific specialty a minimum entry 
requirement; and whether letters or affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that 
such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. 
Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D.Minn. 1999) (quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 
(S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
We will first address the requirement under 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(i): A baccalaureate or 
higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular 
position. We recognize the Handbook as an authoritative source on the duties and educational 
requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses.4 
The petitioner claims in the LCA that the proffered position corresponds to SOC code and title 
15-1121, Computer Systems Analysts, from O*NET. We reviewed the chapter of the Handbook 
entitled "Computer Systems Analysts," including the sections regarding the typical duties and 
requirements for this occupational category. The Handbook states the following with regard to the 
duties of computer systems analysts: 
4 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 2014 - 2015 edition available online. 
(b)(6)
Page 10 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISIOJ. 
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. 
Duties 
Computer systems analysts typically do the following: 
• Consult with managers to determine the role of the IT system 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 information systems and computing infrastructure 
upgrades are financially worthwhile 
• Devise ways to add new functionality to existing computer 
systems 
• Design and develop 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 system's end users and write instruction manuals 
Computer systems analysts use a variety of techniques to design computer systems 
such as data-modeling, which create rules for the computer to follow when 
presenting data, thereby allowing analysts to make faster decisions. 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 systems. 
(b)(6)
Page 11 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Because systems analysts work closely with an organization's business leaders, they 
help the IT team understand how its computer systems can best serve the 
organization. 
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 
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 a 
specific type of hardware and software system. 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 of the systems they 
design. They run tests and diagnose problems in order to make sure that critical 
requirements are met. QA analysts write reports to management recommending ways 
to improve the system. 
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 Outl ook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., 
"Computer Systems Analysts," http://www .bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/ 
computer-systems-analysts.htm#tab-2 (last visited Feb. 18, 2015). 
Some of the duties attributed to the proffered position are too abstractly phrased to permit a 
meaningful analysis of whether they are computer systems analyst duties. For instance, a position in 
which one is "involved in the design, development and coding of ... applications" may be, but is not 
necessarily, a systems analyst position. Systems analysts are certainly involved in the design, 
development and coding of applications, but so are computer programmers and computer software 
developers. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
Similarly, although systems analysts "participate in . . . analysis, design, develop[ment], 
test[ing], ... documentation[], .. . [and] support," so do programmers and developers. Without a 
more concrete description of the analysis, design, development, coding, testing, documentation, and 
support duties the beneficiary would perform if the visa petition were approved, we are unable to 
determine that the proffered position is a systems analyst position, rather than, for instance, a 
programmer or developer position. 
However, for the purpose of continuing the analysis of whether the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation position pursuant to any of the criteria of 8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A), we will 
assume, again, arguendo, that the proffered position has been shown to be a computer systems 
analyst position. 
The Handbook states the following about the educational requirements of computer systems analyst 
positions: 
How to Become a Computer Systems Analyst 
A bachelor's degree in a computer or information science field is common, although 
not always a requirement. Some firms hire analysts with business or liberal arts 
degrees who have skills in information technology or computer programming. 
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. 
Many systems analysts continue to take classes throughout their careers so that they 
can learn about new and innovative technologies and keep their skills competitive. 
Technological advances come so rapidly in the computer field that continual study is 
necessary to remain competitive. 
(b)(6)
Page 13 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Systems analysts must understand the business field they are working in. For 
example, a hospital may want an analyst with a background or coursework in health 
management, and an analyst working for a bank may need to understand finance. 
Advancement 
With experience, systems analysts can advance to project manager and lead a team of 
analysts. Some can eventually become information technology (IT) directors or chief 
technology officers. For more information, see the profile on computer and 
information systems managers. 
Important Qualities 
Analytical skills. Analysts must interpret complex information from various sources 
and be able to decide the best way to move forward on a project. They must also be 
able to figure out how changes may affect the project. 
Communication skills. Analysts work as a go-between with management and the IT 
department and must be able to explain complex issues in a way that both will 
understand. 
Creativity. Because analysts are tasked with finding innovative solutions to computer 
problems, an ability to "think outside the box" is important. 
!d. at http://www .bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-systems-
analysts.htm#tab-4 (last visited Feb. 18, 2015). 
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. 
Where, as here, the Handbook does not support the proposition that the proffered position satisfies 
this first criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it is incumbent upon the petitioner to provide 
persuasive evidence that the proffered position otherwise satisfies this criterion by a preponderance 
of the evidence standard, notwithstanding the absence of the Handbook's support on the issue. In 
such a case, it is the petitioner's responsibility to provide probative evidence (e.g., documentation 
from other authoritative sources) that supports a favorable finding with regard to this criterion. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iv) provides that "[a]n H-lB petition involving a specialty 
occupation shall be accompanied by [ d]ocumentation ... or any other required evidence sufficient 
to establish ... that the services the beneficiary is to perform are in a specialty occupation." Again, 
going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting 
the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. In this case, the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
Handbook does not support the proposition that the proffered pos1t10n satisfies 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), and the record of proceeding does not contain persuasive documentary 
evidence from any other relevant authoritative source establishing that the proffered position's 
inclusion in this occupational category would be sufficient in itself to establish that a bachelor's or 
higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent "is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into [this] particular position." 
Further, we find that, even assuming that the duties of the proffered position have been accurately 
described, to the extent that they are described in the record of proceeding, they 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. 
As the evidence of record does not establish that the particular position here proffered is one for 
which the normal minimum entry requirement is a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or the equivalent, the petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
Next, we find that the petitioner has not satisfied 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 identifiable as being (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 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 at 1165 (quoting 
Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. at 1102. 
In the instant case, the petitioner has not established that the proffered position falls under an 
occupational category for which the Handbook, or other reliable and authoritative source, indicates 
that there is a standard, minimum entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent. Also, there are no submissions from professional associations, 
individuals, or similar firms in the petitioner's industry attesting that individuals employed in 
positions parallel to the proffered position are routinely required to have a minimum of a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for entry into those positions. 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 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, and does 
not satisfy the criterion of the first alternative prong of 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
The evidence of record also does not satisfy the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which provides that "an employer may show that its particular position is so 
complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree." A review of the 
record indicates that the petitioner has failed to credibly demonstrate that the duties that comprise the 
proffered position, even if they were accurately described in the December 26, 2013 letter from 
, entail such complexity or uniqueness as to constitute a position so complex or 
unique that it can be performed only by a person with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty. 
Specifically, the petitioner failed to demonstrate how the duties that collectively constitute the 
proffered position require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge such that a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is 
required to perform them. For instance, the petitioner did not submit information relevant to a 
detailed course of study leading to a specialty degree and did not establish how such a curriculum is 
necessary to perform the duties of the proffered position. While related courses may be beneficial, 
or even required, in performing certain duties of the proffered position, the petitioner has failed to 
demonstrate 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 particular 
position here. 
Finally, as was noted above, the petitioner has designated the proffered position as a Level II 
position on the LCA, indicating that it is a position for an employee who performs 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 _1 1_ 
2009.pdf. Even if the proffered position had been demonstrated to be a computer systems analyst 
position, in order to attempt to show that parallel positions require a minimum of a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty or its equivalent, the petitioner would be obliged to demonstrate that other 
Level II systems analyst positions, positions performing moderately complex tasks that require 
limited judgment, require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent, 
the proposition of which is not supported by the Handbook or by any other authority. 
Therefore, even if the proffered position is assumed to be a computer systems analyst position, the 
evidence of record does not establish that this position is significantly different from other systems 
analyst positions 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. In other 
words, the record lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish the proffered position as 
unique from or more complex than positions that can be performed by persons without at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. As the petitioner fails to demonstrate how 
the proffered position is so complex or unique relative to other positions within the systems analyst 
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.P.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 16 
We will next address the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3), which may be satisfied if the 
petitioner demonstrates that it normally requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent for the proffered position.5 
The petitioner provided copies of vacancy announcements it has placed for various positions, 
including positions the petitioner designates as Technical Lead, Senior Programmer Analyst, and 
Software Engineer positions. None are for positions the petitioner designates as "Sr. Technical 
Specialist," as it designates the proffered position. Further, none has a duty description sufficient to 
designate that it is a position similar to the proffered position. As such, the evidence does not show 
that the educational requirements of those positions are relevant to the issue of the educational 
requirements the petitioner places on the proffered position. Further, the record contains insufficient 
evidence pertinent to anyone the petitioner has previously hired to fill a Senior Technical Specialist 
position. The petitioner has not, therefore, provided any evidence for analysis under the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2( h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
Finally, we will address the alternative criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4), which is 
satisfied if the petitioner establishes that the nature of the specific duties is so specialized and 
complex that knowledge required to perform them is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
Again, relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by the petitioner 
as an aspect of the proffered position. The duties of the proffered position, such as being involved in 
the design, development and coding of applications; performing business analysis, requirement 
definition and business process implementation; designing and developing interfaces; participating 
in analysis, design, development, testing, documentation, and support; analyzing business initiatives 
and objectives; gathering business requirements and relating them to system capabilities; defining, 
developing, and building IT solutions; providing troubleshooting support; working closely with 
customers, vendors, and end-users; and developing interactive versions and UBEs from functional 
specifications contain insufficient indication of a nature so specialized and complex they require 
knowledge usually associated with attainment of a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent. 
5 While a petitioner may believe or otherwise assert that a proffered position requires a 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 employer 
artificially created a token degree requirement, whereby all individuals employed in a particular position 
possessed a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. See Defensor v. Meissner, 
201 F. 3d at 387. In other words, if a petitioner's degree requirement is only symbolic and the proffered 
position does not in fact require such a specialty degree or its equivalent to perform its duties, the occupation 
would not meet the statutory or regulatory definition of a specialty occupation. See § 214(i)(1) of the Act; 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty occupation"). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 17 
In other words, even assuming that the duties described demonstrate the proffered position to be a 
systems analyst position, they have not been described with sufficient specificity to show that they 
are more specialized and complex than the duties of systems analyst positions that are not usually 
associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 6 The evidence of 
record does not, therefore, satisfy the criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii )(A)(4). 
The petitioner has failed to establish that it has satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) and, therefore, it cannot be found that the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. The appeal will be dismissed and the petition denied for this reason. 
V. CONCLUSION 
The director's decision will be affirmed and the petition will be denied for the above stated reasons. 
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). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied. 
6 The petitioner contends on appeal that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation on the basis 
that its duties are so specialized and complex. However , the duties as described lack sufficient specificity to 
distinguish the proffered position from other positions for which a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is not required to perform their duties. 
Further, the petitioner has designated the proffered position as a Level II position on the submitted 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 Determina tion Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. 
Nov. 2009), available at http://www.foreignlaborcert .doleta.gov/pdf/ 
NPWHC_Guidance_Revised_l 1_2009.pdf. Therefore, it is not credible that the position is one with 
specialized and complex duties, as such a higher-level position would likely be classified as a Level III or IV 
position, requiring a signif icantly higher prevailing wage.