dismissed H-1B Case: Project Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8420463 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR . 27, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "project consultant" under the H-IB 
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 California Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish 
that: (1) the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation; (2) the Beneficiary would perform 
services in a specialty occupation for the duration of the requested employment period; and (3) an 
employer-employee relationship exists between the Petitioner and the Beneficiary. 
The petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 1 
The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) reviews the questions in this matter de nova. 2 Upon de 
nova 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: 
1 Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
2 See Matter of Christo 's Inc ., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . 
( 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. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We construe the term "degree" to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal 
Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in a 
specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular 
position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. ANALYSIS 
On the labor condition application (LCA)3 submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Logisticians" corresponding to the 
Standard Occupational Classification code 13-1081 at a Level II wage. On the Form 1-129, Petition for 
a Nonimmigrant Worker, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary will be deployed to work offsite. 
In its letter in support of the Jetition, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary will be assigned to work 
at its operations inl._ ___ _, Michigan. 4 
The Petitioner initially asserts that the duties of the proposed position "require a Masters degree in 
Computer Science, Business Management, Project Management or a closely related field."5 In response 
to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner claims "this position would not be offered to 
someone without a U.S. Master's Degree or equivalent in Computer Science," 6 but does not offer an 
explanation for the deletion of the previously acceptable degrees. 
3 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA 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. Section 212(n)(l) 
of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(a). 
4 In response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner clarified that the Beneficiary's work location is at its 
end-client's facility inl I Michigan. 
5 The Petitioner also claims, in the same letter, that it requires an individual to possess a minimum of a Master's degree in 
Computer Science, Business Management, Project Management or a closely related field and ·'at least 1 year of relevant 
employment experience." 
6 In the same response letter, the Petitioner provided bullet points for the proposed duties and listed its requirements to 
perform the various duties. Examples of the requirements include: advanced training and experience in the industry 
( computer science or related degree experience); requisite knowledge acquired by at least a bachelor's degree in computer 
2 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. Specifically, the record does 
not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with 
a specialty occupation. 
A First Criterion 
The criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(]), 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 consider the information contained in the U.S. Department of 
Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) regarding the duties and educational 
requirements of the wide variety of occupations it addresses. 7 
The Handbook's subchapter entitled "How to Become a Logistician" states that "[a] bachelor's degree 
is typically required for most positions, although an associate's degree may be sufficient for some 
logistician jobs" and "[i]n some cases, related work experience may substitute for education."8 The 
Handbook adds "[h ]owever, due to complex logistics and supply chains, companies prefer to hire workers 
who have at least a bachelor's degree" and that "[ m Jany logisticians have a bachelor's degree in business, 
systems engineering, or supply chain management, and that such "[b ]achelor' s degree programs often 
include coursework in operations and database management, and system dynamics." 9 Because the 
Handbook recognizes that this occupation may be performed by individuals with a range of degrees, 
including an associate' s degree or a bachelor's degree in the general field of business, 10 it does not support 
a conclusion that the "Logisticians" occupation comprises an occupational group for which a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position. That is, the Handbook does not describe the normal 
minimum educational requirement for the occupation in a categorical manner since some employers 
accept less than a bachelor's degree. Further, the Petitioner has not established that a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular 
position proffered here. 
science; formal studies in software maintenance and management (formal degree in computer science); studies in software 
management (formal education in computer science); and, master's degree in computer science. Thus, the Petitioner sets 
forth a number of requirements needed to perform the duties of the proffered position. 
7 We do not 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 we regularly review the Handbook on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of 
occupations that it addresses. Nevertheless, to satisfy the first criterion, the burden of proofremains 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. 
8 See Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Logisticians, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/logisticians.htm (last visited Mar. 27, 2020). 
9 Id. 
10 We have consistently stated that although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business, may be a 
legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify a conclusion that 
the particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. 
3 
We also reviewed the position evaluation prepared by I I Professor, Department of 
Computer Science and Engineering, University of1 I for insight into the particular position 
and the academic requirements to perform those duties. 11 1 !repeats the Petitioner's description 
of the proposed duties and lists 18 "knowledge areas" discussed in the 2013 Curriculum Guidelines.for 
Undergraduate Programs in Computer Science, published by the Association for Computing Machinery 
(ACM). 12 I I refers to 3 of the 18 knowledge areas as a few areas of core computer science 
competence that are required to perform the proposed job duties. He also states "[i]n my opinion, any of 
the duties listed for the position could be matched to a corresponding knowledge area, suggesting a high 
degree of competence necessary to perform them" and that "if any of the job duties require competence 
in a major knowledge area, it stands to reason that the whole of the job's responsibilities could not be 
performed satisfactorily without Bachelor-level competence in Computer Science or a related technical 
field." 
'---~u--JJ however, does not discuss the current relevance of guidelines published in 2013 to the rapidly 
changing technology environment. He does not refer to the Handbook's more recent information on this 
occupation or attempt to distinguish the Handbook's report that associate' s or general bachelor's degrees, 
or an undefined amount of experience would suffice to perform a Logistician' s duties, the occupation 
designated on the certified LCA. He also appears unaware that the Petitioner stated that the position 
requires a master's degree. Other than referring to the "wide adoption of the ACM's Curriculum 
Guidelines," he does not discuss relevant research, studies, or authoritative publications he utilized as part 
of his review and foundation for his opinion. I I does not offer a cogent analysis of the duties and 
a comprehensible explanation of why the duties require "Bachelor-level competence in Computer Science 
or a related technical field." The record does not include sufficient probative evidence corroborating his 
conclusion regarding the minimum entry requirements for this occupation. Without a more thorough 
analysis indicatine I O Ii s aware of and has considered more recent publications and the Petitioner's 
own requirements, his opinion has little probative value. 13 
If the generally described position is a "Logistician," as designated on the certified LCA, the record does 
not include sufficient probative evidence to establish that the normal minimum requirement for entry into 
the particular position is a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
11 Service records show that I I used a template with little analysis to support his conclusions. Similar templates 
with the same language, organization, cited source, and similar conclusory statements regarding different occupations and 
also without supporting analysis have been submitted on behalf of other petitioners. The similarity in conclusions, without 
cogent analysis, strongly suggests that the authors of the opinions were asked to confirm a preconceived notion as to the 
required degrees, not objectively assess the proffered position and opine on the academic education required to perform it. 
12 These guidelines for potential curriculums are far too broad to establish that a particular position requires a body of 
highly specialized knowledge resulting in a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Neither the 
Petitioner nor I I provides a comprehensible analysis of the relevance of such guidelines, if any, to establish the 
particular position proffered here is a specialty occupation. We also note that pertinent excerpts of the document were not 
provided for the record and for our review. 
13 Where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we are not required to accept or 
may give less weight to that evidence. Matter of Caron Int'/, Inc., 19 T&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). 
4 
B. First Prong of the 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[.]" 14 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong concentrates upon 
the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific 
position. 
To satisfy the first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" ( e.g., a requirement of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. We generally 
consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there is such a common degree requirement: 
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 establish 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) (considering these "factors" to 
inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
The Petitioner submitted three job postings for consideration in support of the first prong of this 
criterion. 15 On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that there is no legal correlation between a petitioning 
employer's nature, scope and size and whether the beneficiary will perform the duties set forth by a 
petitioner. However, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) specifically identifies "similar 
organizations" as a key element to satisfy the first prong of this criterion. However, even if all the 
advertising companies were similar to the Petitioner in terms of type, size, and scope, which they are 
not, 16 the advertisements do not support a conclusion that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty 
is common to the Petitioner's industry for parallel positions. 
For example, one of the job postings provides a lengthy description of the proposed duties, many of 
which are quite different than the generally described duties for the proffered position. The two other 
advertisements offer broadly stated duties and it is not possible to determine important aspects of these 
advertised jobs, such as the day-to-day responsibilities, complexity of the job duties, supervisory 
duties (if any), and independent judgment required, or the amount of supervision received. All the job 
postings submitted require experience in addition to a degree. The required experience ranges from 
three to ten years. The Petitioner, in this matter, designated the proffered position as requiring only a 
Level II wage. A Level II wage is appropriate for a position that requires two and up to three years of 
experience. For the proffered position to be parallel to positions requiring three or more years of 
14 We will discuss the second prong in section D below. 
15 On appeal, the Petitioner refers to several advertisements submitted to establish this criterion but the only advertisements 
submitted are the ones submitted in response to the Director's RFE which we will briefly discuss. The Petitioner also 
claims that it is submitting several testimonial letters from industry experts; however the record includes only! l's 
position evaluation. 
16 Two of the three advertisements are by companies in the healthcare and construction business, companies that are not 
in the same industry as the Petitioner, a management services company. 
5 
experience, the Petitioner would be required to increase the wage level on the certified LCA, in order 
for the LCA to correspond to and support the petition. 17 Thus, the advertised positions appear to be 
for more senior positions than the position proffered here. The Petitioner has not established that the 
advertised positions are parallel to the proffered position, in terms of experience, and in terms of 
primary duties and responsibilities. The advertisements do not assist in establishing a common 
bachelor's degree requirement in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, in its industry for positions that 
are parallel to its entry-level position. 18 Thus it has not satisfied the first prong of the regulation 
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. 
The record must establish that a petitioner's stated degree requirement is not a matter of preference 
for high-caliber candidates but is necessitated instead by performance requirements of the position. 
See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. Were we limited solely to reviewing a petitioner's claimed 
self-imposed requirements, an organization could bring any individual with a bachelor's degree to the 
United States to perform any occupation as long as the petitioning entity created a token degree 
requirement. Id. Evidence provided in support of this criterion may include, but is not limited to, 
documentation regarding the Petitioner's past recruitment and hiring practices, as well as information 
regarding employees who previously held the position. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that it normally requires a degree for this position as evidenced by its 
previous hiring practices. The record, however, does not include evidence of the individuals employed 
in this position and evidence of their credentials. The Petitioner did include two of its advertisements 
for a project manager consultant and a project consultant. The advertisement created March 11, 2019, 
for a project manager consultant included a brief job description and indicated that a successful 
candidate should have a bachelor's or master's degree in business, IT or engineering. A second 
advertisement for a project consultant created May 20, 2019, provided a lengthier, though still general 
description, and listed the same academic requirements but added that the Petitioner was looking for 
someone with 3-7 years of experience in project management. Although it is not clear that these 
advertisements, created around the time of filing the instant petition, are for the same position 
proffered here, the wide difference in the Petitioner's requirements undermines its claim that it has a 
standard minimum requirement for the same or similar position. We cannot conclude based on the 
17 See U.S. Dep't of Labor. Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. 
Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009). 
18 Even if all of the job postings indicated that a requirement of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is common to 
the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations, the Petitioner has not demonstrated what statistically valid 
inferences, if any. can be drawn from the advertisements with regard to determining the common educational requirements 
for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 
186-228 (1995). Moreover. given that there is no indication that the advertisements were randomly selected. the validity 
of any such inferences could not be accurately determined even if the sampling unit were sufficiently large. Sec id. at 
195-196 ( explaining that "[r]andom selection is the key to [the] process [of probability sampling]" and that "random 
selection offers access to the body of probability theory, which provides the basis for estimates of population parameters 
and estimates of error"). 
6 
evidence in the record that the Petitioner normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, for the position proffered here. 
D. Second Prong of Second Criterion and Fourth Criterion 
As noted above, the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), is satisfied if the 
Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by 
an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the duties of the proffered position are specialized and complex 
or unique and refers to its descriptions of the duties previously submitted. We reviewed the overview 
of the proffered position, and the Petitioner's assertions regarding the type of knowledge it believed 
necessary to carry out the duties. We observe that the duties are so generally described it does not 
appear that the duties described are tasks that fall within the "Logistician" occupation designated on 
the certified LCA. Without a detailed description and analysis, we cannot conclude that the certified 
LCA supports the position described in the petition. The duties as described also do not demonstrate 
their specialization, complexity, or uniqueness. 
For example, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary would interact with software technical teams 
to participate in the definition of software project and system requirements; translate business needs 
into technical data, update and track program status, assess software issues and risks pertaining to 
projects and changes, and communicate effectively across the organization. 19 The Petitioner noted 
that these tasks require advanced training and experience in the industry. 20 The Petitioner does not 
adequately explain how these tasks are specialized and complex or unique, or how they differ from 
the routine tasks of a non-degreed occupation. 
Likewise, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will support the activities for the "Infotainment 
Sync Software" for its automotive client by coordinating the program milestones and deliverables with 
cross functional system and application teams in a timely manner. The Petitioner indicated that these 
tasks require advanced managerial knowledge and experience with technology and the Petitioner's 
operations; but again, does not offer an analysis of why these duties require specialized knowledge 
attained through a bachelor's-level degree in a specific discipline. We also understand that the 
Beneficiary will use third party project software to assist her in creating software project plans and 
maintaining schedules, but the Petitioner does not offer evidence supporting its conclusion that this 
"managerial knowledge is typically gained through formal studies in Software Maintenance and 
Management." Without information detailing what more is involved in this particular task, the 
Petitioner also has not distinguished this duty from duties that may be performed with a tutorial in 
third-party software and some experience. 
19 The Petitioner does not explain how these duties are the duties of a "Logistician" rather than some other occupation. 
20 Although the Petitioner added that it would not offer this position to an individual without computer science or related 
degree experience, it does not state that these duties require a bachelor's-level degree in computer science. Instead, it 
appears the Petitioner believes that experience and training in project management would be sufficient to perform these 
duties. 
7 
Similarly, the Beneficiary appears to perform some oversight in ensuring the work stream is consistent 
with programs and will use several third party tools to track program status and coordinate tasks, but 
these duties are not described so that we may conclude that they require specialized and complex or 
unique knowledge such that a bachelor's degree or a bachelor's degree in a specific discipline, or its 
equivalent, would be required. The Petitioner's indication that the Beneficiary will provide guidance 
in developing work plans and schedules is also not sufficiently detailed to demonstrate the 
Beneficiary's level of responsibility and how this requires more than general managerial knowledge 
and some industry experience. The Petitioner also indicated that the Beneficiary will analyze overall 
improvement for specific software, develop error proof methods for new vehicle software, as well as, 
update and report hardware and software changes and improve cost reduction analysis to reduce impact 
and increase efficiency of the hardware and software development. These tasks are so broadly stated, 
we cannot ascertain whether the tasks are primarily administrative reporting tasks or require advanced 
analytical knowledge. The Petitioner does not expound upon the actual day-to-day duties that will 
engage the Beneficiary at the end-client's facility and does not describe her level of responsibility 
within any project team. The Petitioner does not develop the specialization, complexity, or uniqueness 
aspect of its particular position. 
We are aware that the Beneficiary has a U.S. master's degree in computer science. However, neither 
the Petitioner's desire to employ a high-caliber candidate nor the Beneficiary's master's degree, 
establishes that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. The test to establish a position as a 
specialty occupation is not the Petitioner's desire or the skill set or education of a proposed beneficiary, 
but whether the position itself qualifies as a specialty occupation. Here, the Petitioner has not 
established that a foll curriculum of courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the duties of the proffered position. The Petitioner 
has not developed the complexity and specialization, or uniqueness of the position proffered here. 21 
Upon review of the totality of the evidence submitted, the Petitioner has not established that more 
likely than not, the proffered position is a specialty occupation under any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Moreover, the record does not establish that the duties of the proffered position 
require the theoretical and practical application of highly specialized knowledge and attainment of at 
least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. See section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty occupation). 
Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and 
hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the establishment of services in a 
specialty occupation and its employer-employee relationship with the Beneficiary. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues 
the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N 
21 We again reviewed I l's position evaluation for insight into the proffered position and how and why the duties 
of the Petitioner's project consultant position, designated as a "Logistician" occupation on the certified LCA, incorporated 
specialized and complex or unique duties such that a bachelor's degree in computer science would be required to perform 
them. Again, however.I l's evaluation which concludes broadly that 3 knowledge areas in core computer science 
competence is required to perfonn the proposed job duties, does not appear to consider the Petitioner's own albeit 
ambiguous requirements, its designation of the position as a "Logistician" on the LCA, and the Handbook's discussion of 
the normal requirements to enter into this occupation. Thus, his opinion which does not appear to acknowledge and 
consider relevant evidence, has little evidentiary value. 
8 
Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is 
otherwise ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
9