dismissed H-1B Case: Software Consulting

MATTER OF S-I-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 23,2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a software consulting company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"programmer analyst" under the H-1 B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(l5)(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 of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had 
not established 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.1 
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. 
1 
We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in Matter o.fChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 
(AAO 2010). 
.
Matter of S-1-, Inc. 
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: 
(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 have consistently interpreted 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. PROFFERED POSITION 
In the initial submission, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a "programmer 
analyst" and presented the duties it claimed that the Beneficiary would perform. In response to the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted the following description of the 
Beneficiary's duties: 
I. Member of a design team responsible for high level and Low design for the 
(15%) 
2. Responsible for understanding the new requirements (in the form of BRD) and 
constructing Use Case, Sequence diagram etc. documents for the product. (25%) 
3. Leading the development team for responsible for construction 
(development), unit testing and QA, General release and Maintenance of 
(current version ofthe product). (40%) 
4. Involve in Development/Maintenance of the Administration module of 
(20%) 
2 
Matter ofS-1-, Inc. 
III. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that it would employ the Beneficiary in a specialty occupation. 
Specifically, the record does not (1) 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. 2 
A. Labor Condition Application 
We tum first to the labor condition application (LCA) 3 submitted in support ofthe H-lB petition, in 
which the Petitioner designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Computer 
Programmers" corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 15-1131 at a 
Level II wage level. In response to the RFE and on appeal, the Petitioner states that the "most 
closely aligned position to a Programmer Analyst is a Computer Systems Analyst, SOC code 15-
1121." 
While these occupational categories may have some general duties in common, they are distinct and 
separate occupational categories. When the duties of the proffered position involve more than one 
occupational category, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) provides guidance for selecting the 
most relevant Occupational Information Network (O*NET) code classification. The "Prevailing 
Wage Determination Policy Guidance" by DOL states the following: 
In determining the nature of the job offer, the first order is to review the requirements 
of the employer's job offer and determine the appropriate occupational classification. 
The O*NET description that corresponds to the employer's job offer shall be used to 
identify the appropriate occupational classification . . . . If the employer's job 
opportunity has worker requirements described in a combination of O*NET 
occupations, the [determiner] should default directly to the relevant O*NET -SOC 
occupational code-for the highest paying occupation. For example, if the employer's 
job offer is for an engineer-pilot, the [determiner] shall use the education, skill and 
experience levels for the higher paying occupation when making the wage level 
determination. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, 
Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://www.foreignlaborcert. 
doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC_Guidance_Revised_11_2009.pdf. 
2 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. 
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. See 
Matter ofSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 545-546 (AAO 20 15). 
3 
Matter ofS-1-, Inc. 
Thus, if the Petitioner believed its position was described as a combination of occupations, then 
according to DOL guidance, the Petitioner should have chosen the relevant occupational code for the 
highest paying occupation. The prevailing wage for "Computer Programmers" is lower than the 
prevailing wage for "Computer Systems Analysts." For instance, at the time the Petitioner's LCA 
was certified, the Level II prevailing wage for "Computer Systems Analysts" in the area of intended 
employment was $72,030 per year, while the Level II prevailing wage for "Computer Programmers" 
in the area of intended employment was $70,574 per year. Moreover, it is important to note that the 
offered wage to the Beneficiary is less than the prevailing wage for the "Computer Systems 
Analysts" occupational category. 
Under the H-IB program, a petitioner must offer the Beneficiary wages that are at least the actual 
wage level paid by the Petitioner to all other individuals with similar~ experience and qualifications 
for the specific employment in question, or the prevailing wage level for the occupational 
classification in the area of employment, whichever is greater, based on the best information 
available as of the time of filing the application. See section 212(n)(l )(A) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1182(n)(l)(A). 
As such, the Petitioner has not established (1) that it submitted a certified LCA that properly 
corresponds to the claimed occupation and duties of the proffered position; apd (2) that it would pay 
the Beneficiary an adequate salary for his work as required under the Act. These issues preclude the 
approval of the petition. 
B. Position Requirements 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has provided inconsistent information regarding the mm1mum 
requirements for the proffered position. The Petitioner initially stated that the proffered position 
requires an individual with advanced education in the field. The Petitioner did not provide any 
further specifications. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner claimed that a bachelor's degree in computer 
science/engineering or related field was required for the position. However, in response to the RFE, 
the Petitioner provided copies of its own job postings for the position of programmer analyst, which 
state varying requirements. For example, in some of the advertisements, the minimum educational 
requirement is an associate's degree. Notably, the Petitioner also provided a range of acceptable 
disciplines. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the position requires a degree in computer science, engineering, 
information technology or a closely related field. The Petitioner did not provide an explanation for 
the variances in its educational requirements for the position. 
4 
.
Matter ofS-1-, Inc. 
C. Job Location 
The Petitioner also has provided inconsistent information about the location of the Beneficiary's 
employment. While the Petitioner repeatedly claims in the record (including its letters and the LCA) 
that the Beneficiary will be employed on-site, we observe that the Petitioner submitted several of its 
own job postings for programmer analyst positions indicating otherwise. The Petitioner asserts that 
these postings are relevant to the matter here; however, these postings state that the programmer 
analysts: "Must be willing to work at unanticipated worksites." 
D. Job Description 
The Petitioner provided three separate job descriptions for the proffered position but it did not 
explain the reason for this inconsistency. 
Further, the duties provided for the Beneficiary are vague and do not convey the actual day-to-day tasks 
to be performed by the Beneficiary and the knowledge required to perform them. The Petitioner asserts 
that the Beneficiary will be assigned to development work related to its software. 
Although the duties make passing reference to the software, they provide little detail 
regarding the tasks the Beneficiary will perform 
. during the nearly. three year period of requested 
employment. For instance, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary will be responsible for "high and 
low level design," "constructing Use Case, Sequence diagram;" and construction, unit testing quality 
assurance, general release, and maintenance of the software. However, the Petitioner 
does not specifically describe the these referenced technologies, the specific tasks making up this work, 
nor the knowledge required to perform these tasks. 
The Petitioner has not established the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the 
Beneficiary, which therefore precludes a 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 detennines (1) the 
normal minimum educational requirement for entry into 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 pro tiered 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 ofspecialization and complexity of the 
specific duties, which is the focus ofcriterion 4. 
Nevertheless, assuming, for the sake of argument, that the proffered duties as described in the record 
would in fact be the duties to be performed by the Beneficiary, we will analyze them and the 
evidence of record to determine whether the proffered position as described qualifies as a specialty 
occupation pursuant to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
5 
Matter of S-1-, Inc. 
E. First Criterion 
We tum 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 U.S. Department of 
Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties 
and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses.4 
As previously noted, on the LCA 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 15-1131.5 The subchapter of the Handbook entitled 
"How to Become a Computer Programmer" states, in pertinent part, that "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." Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of 
Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Computer Programmers, (2016-17 ed.). 
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. 
In addition, the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) Summary Reports, referenced by the 
Petitioner, are also 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. The summary report provides general information regarding the occupation; however, it 
4 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 we regularly review 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 The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level II wage. 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 II wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to 
have a good understanding of the occupation, but who will only perform moderately complex tasks that require limited 
judgment. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. 
Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC_Guidance_Revised_ll_2009.pdf A prevailing wage determination starts 
with an entry level wage and progresses to a higher wage level after considering the experience, education, and skill 
requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. !d. 
6 
Matter ofS-1-, Inc. 
does not support the Petitioner's assertion regarding the educational requirements for these 
positions. For example, the Specialized ,Vocational Preparation (SVP) rating cited within O*NET's 
Job Zone designates this occupation as 7 < 8. An SVP rating of 7 to less than("<") 8 indicates that 
the occupation requires "over 2 years up to and including 4 years" of training. While the SVP rating 
indicates the total number of years of vocational preparation required for a particular position, it is 
important to note that it does not describe how those years are to be divided among training, formal 
education, and experience - and it does not specify the particular type of degree, if any, that a 
position would require. 6 
On appeal, the Petitioner cites to Tapis Int 'I v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 94 F. Supp. 
2d 172 (D. Mass. 2000) and Residential Finance Corp. v. USCIS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 
2012) and asserts that these cases stand for the proposition that "the knowledge and not the title of 
the degree" establishes a position as a specialty occupation. While we agree with the proposition, 
we do not find that these cases communicate that a position can qualify as a specialty occupation 
based solely on the claimed requirements of a petitioner. 
Instead, we must examine the actual employment requirements, and, on the basis of that 
examination, determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. See generally 
Defensor, 201 F. 3d 384. In this pursuit, the critical element is not the title of the position, or the fact 
that an employer has routinely insisted on certain educational standards, but whether performance of 
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 a specific specialty as the 
minimum for entry into the occupation as required by the Act. However, the Petitioner does little in 
this matter to demonstrate that the duties of the position require a body of highly specialized 
knowledge and the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty as the 
minimum for entry. Indeed, as we have discussed, the Petitioner has . stated inconsistent 
requirements for the position and has not provided a sufficiently detailed duty description for the 
position. 
In any event, the Petitioner has furnished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition 
are analogous to those in Tapis or Residential. We also note that, in contrast to the broad 
precedential authority of the case law of a United States circuit court, we are not bound to follow the 
published decision of a United States district court in matters arising even within the same 
district. See Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715, 719-20 (BIA 1993). Although the reasoning 
underlying a district judge's decision will be given due consideration when it is properly before us, 
the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of law. !d. 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation from a probative source to substantiate its 
assertion regarding the minimum baccalaureate degrees in a specific specialty required for entry into 
6 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/help/ 
online/svp. 
Matter ofS-1-, Inc. 
this particular positiOn. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
F. Second Criterion 
The Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
The second criterion presents two alternative prongs: "The degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or. in the alternative, an employer may 
show that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong 
concentrates upon the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
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)). 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook, or another authoritative source, reports a requirement for at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. We incorporate by reference the previous discussion on the 
matter. 
In support of this criteria, the Petitioner provided several job announcements for programmer analyst 
positions with other companies. However, we are unable to determine that these companies are 
similar to the Petitioner. For instance, the companies operate in dissimilar industries, including 
education and medicine. The Petitioner did not submit additional evidence or supplement the record 
to establish that these advertising organizations are similar. . 
When determining whether the Petitioner and the organization share the same general 
characteristics, such factors may include information regarding the nature or type of organization, 
and, when pertinent, the particular scope of operations, as well as the level of revenue and staffing 
(to list just a few elements that may be considered). It is not sufficient for the Petitioner to claim that 
an organization is similar and in the same industry without providing a basis for such an assertion. 
8 
.
Matter ofS-1-, Inc. 
Further, many of the advertisements do not appear to be for parallel positions. For example, some of 
the positions appear to be for more senior, experienced employment than the proffered position. For 
instance, the advertisement for the requires a bachelor's degree plus 
"3 to 5 years of experience in software engineering." In addition, the position for is for a 
"senior" programmer analyst. More importantly, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that 
the primary duties and responsibilities of the advertised positions are parallel to the proffered 
. . 7 
position. 
Additionally, not all of the postirigs require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty (or its 
equivalent). For example, states a preference for a degree in computer science or computer 
information systems. We note that a preference is not an indication of a requirement. 
\ 
As the documentation does not establish that the Petitioner has met this prong of the regulations, 
further analysis regarding the specific information contained in each of the job postings is not 
necessary.8 That is, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. 
As the record does not include probative evidence that a "degree requirement" (i.e., a require~ent 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 satisfied the first alternative 
prong of 8 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. 
7 
It must be noted that even if all of the job postings indicated that a requirement of .a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations (which they do not), the Petitioner 
" has not demonstrated what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be 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 ofSocial Research 186-228 (1995). Moreover, given that there is no indication that 
the advertisements were randomly selected, the validity of any such inferences could not be accurately determined even 
if the sampling unit were sufficiently large. See id. at 195-196 (explaining that "[r]andom selection is the key to [the] 
process [of probability sampling]" and that "random selection offers access to the body of probability theory. which 
provides the basis for estimates of population parameters and estimates of error"). 
8 
The Petitioner did not provide m1y independent evidence of how representative the job postings are of the particular 
advertising employers' recruiting history for the type of job advertised. As the advertisements are only solicitations for 
hire, they are not evidence of the actual hiring practices of these employers. 
9 
Matter ofS-1-, Inc. 
The Petitioner has designated the proffered position as a Level II position on the LCA, indicating 
that it is a position requiring 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., supra. Therefore, it does not appear that the position is one with 
complex or unique duties relative to other computer programmer positions, as such a higher-level 
position that would likely be classified at a Level Ill (experienced) or Level IV (fully competent) 
wage level, requiring a significantly higher prevailing wage. 
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. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position, and references his 
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 identify 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). 
G. 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 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services limited solely to 
reviewing the Petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, then any individual with a bachelor's 
degree could be brought to the United States to perform any occupation as long as the Petitioner 
created a token degree requirement. !d. 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. 
As noted, the Petitioner asserts that it normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in computer 
science or a related field. On appeal, the Petitioner submits evidence of ten employees it states are 
employed in the position of programmer analyst, along with copies of their degrees and IRS Form 
W-2, Wage and Tax Statements. Notably, this evidence represents only a small number of its 
10 
.
Matter of S-1-, Inc. 
programmer analysts since the Petitioner claims that it employs 89 programmer analysts. Moreover, 
the evidence does not establish that these individuals were hired into positions that are the same or 
similar to the one offered to the Beneficiary. For example, the Petitioner did not provide the job 
duties and day-to-day responsibilities for these individuals. The Petitioner also did not submit any 
information regarding the complexity of the job duties, supervisory duties (if any), independent 
judgment required or the amount of supervision received. Accordingly, it is unclear whether the 
duties and responsibilities of these individuals are the same or similar to the proffered position. 
Additionally, based on a review of the 2015 W-2 forms that the Petitioner provided, it appears that 
eight out of ten individuals are paid a significantly higher salary than the one offered to the 
Beneficiary of $70,574 per year. For example, the other claimed programmer analysts were shown 
to earn the following salaries: = $81,911; = $131,828; 
$103,811; = $140,766; = $119,538; = $86,830; = $90,071; and, 
= $98,330. Thus, this strongly suggests that these individuals are employed in a more senior 
position than the proffered position. In addition, two employees were paid significantly less than the 
salary offered to the Beneficiary, with annual salaries of $28,950 and $49,748. Again, this indicates 
that they are employed in different positions. The Petitioner did not provide an explanation for these 
variances in the wages. 
In addition, while the Petitioner also provides a listing of all of its programmer analysts along with 
their education levels, it is noteworthy that some of these employees are shown to have only general 
bachelor's degrees in science, without any specific specialty. In addition, several others are shown 
to have varying bachelor's degrees including degrees in mechanical engineering, engineering, 
applied physics, and mathematics. 
In general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry and biochemistry, a minimum 
of a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty is recognized as satisfying the "degree in 
the specific specialty (or its equivalent)" requirement of section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act. In such a 
case, the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" would essentially be the same. Since 
there must be a close correlation between the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" and 
the position, however, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in two disparate fields, such as 
mechanical engineering and computer science, would not meet the statutory requirement that the 
degree be "in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)," unless the Petitioner establishes how each 
field is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position such that the 
required "body of highly specialized knowledge" is essentially an amalgamation of these different 
specialties. Section 214(i)(1)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). 
In other words, while the statutory "the" and the regulatory "a" both denote a singular "specialty," 
we do not so narrowly interpret these provisions to exclude positions from qualifying as specialty 
occupations if they permit, as a minimum entry requirement, degrees in more than one closely 
related specialty. see section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). This also includes 
even seemingly disparate specialties providing, again, the evidence of record establishes how each 
acceptable, specific field of study is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular 
position. 
1 I 
Matter ofS-1-, Inc. 
The record reflects that several different bachelor's degree have sufficed for programmer analyst 
positions, including general degrees in science. While a general-purpose bachelor's degree may be a 
legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not 
justify a finding that a particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. Royal 
Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d at 147. 
Therefore, we conclude that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient documentary evidence to 
support the assertion that it normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent, directly related to the duties of the position. Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied 
the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
H. 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. 
Although the Petitioner generally refers to the Beneficiary's duties as "specialized," we find that the 
Petitioner has not sufficiently developed relative specialization and complexity as an aspect of the 
proffered position. The Petitioner only provides a generic description of duties and responsibilities, 
including familiarity and experience with different technological platforms and applications it 
expects from the Beneficiary. The proposed duties have not been described with sufficient 
specificity to show that they are more specialized and complex than other 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 II position, and not as 
the higher Level III (referring to "special skills or knowledge") or Level IV (referring to "complex or 
unusual problems") wage levels. 
Thus the Petitioner has not demonstrated that its proffered position is one with duties sufficiently 
specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
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 position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofS-1-, Inc., ID# 411048 (AAO Aug. 23, 2017) 
12