dismissed H-1B Case: Software Development

MATTER OF S-S-, LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 31,2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The P~titioner, a custom software development company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 
as a "software engineer" under the H-1B 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, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
evidence of record does not establish that the Petitioner has specialty occupation work available for 
the Beneficiary, and thus, the pr,offered position does not qualify as a specialty occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the evidence of record establishes eligibility for the benefit sought. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
Matter of S-S-, LLC 
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). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has consistently 
interpreted the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any 
baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed 
position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. 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 H-lB petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a software engineer. In 
response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided the following job 
duties, with the percentage oftime spent on each duty, for the proffered position: 
• Design and develop technical framework for delivery of the software development 
products (10%). 
• Manage, design, develop, implement and maintain customized and browser-based 
business applications (1 0%). 
• Lead, review and validate output of the software development team (5%). 
• Analyze, design and support development efforts, negotiate and schedule with other 
development and quality assurance teams, conduct scope verification and change 
control and facilitate analysis and design meetings (25%). 
• Lead software developers to design and develop the components of the public 
employee retirement systerp applications (5%). 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-S-, LLC 
• Analyze the systems and software requirements, al}d design, develop and customize 
applications in a highly secured environment using advanced theoretical and practical 
concepts and knowledge of system analysis and system integration (20%). 
• Participate in software development life cycle, including gathering and analyzing 
requirements and tasks, defining and documenting the software specifications to 
detail the functionality, translating requirements from concept through coding, 
designing the object model of each of the major business objects, including hierarchy, 
dime'nsion, business perspective using structured analysis , data modeling, and 
information engineering, and identifying and resolving complex problems and 
processes related to enhancing and troubleshooting assigned product components 
across various platforms (25%). 
" 
According to the Petitioner, the position requires "a mm1mum of a Bachelor's degree or its 
equivalent in Computer Science, Engineering or another closely related discipline." 
The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary will work in-house at the branch office in 
Missouri, with periodic visits to another branch office in Kansas. 
III. ANALYSIS 
On appeal, the Petitioner indicates that the "preponderance of the evidence" standard is relevant to 
this matter, and that it established through credible evidence that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation and sufficient H -1 B caliber work exists for the Beneficiary for the entire requested 
period. 
The "preponderance of the evidence" · standard requires that the evidence demonstrate that the 
Petitioner's claim is "probably true," where the determination of "truth" is made based on the factual 
circumstances of each individual case. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 201 0) 
(citing Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec .. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989)). In evaluating the evidence, the 
truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. !d. Thus, in 
adjudicating the petition pursuant to the preponderance of the evidence standard, the Director must 
examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is 
probably true. 
Applying the preponderance of the evidence standard, we determine that the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. Specifically, the record 
(1) does not describe the position's duties with suffi<?ient detail; and (2) does not establish that the 
3 
Matter of S-S-, LLC 
job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty 
. I 
occupation. 
For H -1 B approval, the Petitioner must demonstrate a legitimate need for an employee exists and to 
substantiate that it has H-1 B caliber work for the Beneficiary for the period of employment 
requested in the petition. It is incumbent upon the Petitioner to demonstrate it has sufficient work to 
require the services of a person with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, to perform duties at a level that requires the theoretical and practical application of at 
least a bachelor's degree level of a body of highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty for 
the period specified in the petition. 
In this matter, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary will pe employed in-house as a software 
engineer. However, we find that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient, credible evidence to 
establish in-house employment for the Beneficiary for the validity of the requested H-1 B 
employment period. Specifically, the Petitioner did not submit a job description to adequately 
convey the substantive work to be performed by the Beneficiary. As reflected in the description of 
the position as quoted above, the proffered position has been described in terms of generalized and 
generic functions that do not convey sufficient substantive information to establish the relative 
complexity, uniqueness and/or specialization of the proffered position or its duties. 
For example, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will "design and develop technical framework 
for delivery of the software development products"; "manage, design, develop, implement and 
maintain customized and browser-based business applications"; "analyze, design and support 
development efforts, negotiate and schedule with other development and quality assurance teams"; 
"analyze the systems and software requirements, and design, develop and customize applications in 
a highly secured environment using advanced theoretical and practical concepts and knowledge of 
system analysis and system integration"; and, "participate in software development life cycle." The 
record of proceedings does not contain a more detailed description explaining what particular duties 
the _Beneficiary will perform on a day-to-day basis (e.g., what is meant by "design and develop 
technical framework"). Nor is there a detailed explanation regarding the demands, level of 
responsibilities, complexity, or requirements necessary for the performance of these duties (e.g., 
explain what specific systems and applications are involved, and what body of knowledge is 
required to perform the duties). The Petitioner's description is generalized and gerteric and does not 
convey the substantive nature of the work that the Beneficiary would actually perform, or any 
particular body of highly specialized knowledge that would have to be theoretically and practically 
applied to perform it. 
On appeal, the Petitioner provided a brief description of some software products ofTered by the 
Petitioner, but it does not provide a detailed understanding of the Beneficiary's responsibilities with 
1 
The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 8 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. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter ofS-S-, LLC 
working on these products. On appeal, the Petitioner also stated that 1t 1s working on the 
trademarked pension administration software and systems, but the Petitioner's job 
description does not specifically discuss any of these software products. The responsibilities for the 
proffered position contain generalized functions without providing sufficient information regarding 
the particular work, and associated educational requirements, into which the duties would manifest 
themselves in their day-to-day performance. 
Furthermore, in the RFE, the Director requested a more detailed job description and the product to 
be developed or the service to be provided; however, in response, the Petitioner provided the same 
general duties and added the percentage breakdown for each duty. "Failure to submit requested 
evidence which precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the [petition]." 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14). 
The record of proceedings also lacks documentation regarding the Petitioner's business activities and 
the actual work that the Beneficiary will perform to sufficiently substantiate the claim that the 
Petitioner has H -1 B caliber work for the Beneficiary for the period of employment requested in the 
petition. In response to the RFE, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will primarily be working 
on a project with the 
from the Petitioner's offices. The Petitioner submitted a letter from the executive secretary of 
to confirm that it has an "ongoing agreement with [the Petitioner] to upgrade, develop, 
and administer its retiryment benefits management system that will continue after the current 
contract term ends on July 31, 2016." The letter also states that expects to "continue 
the agreement for additional phases of this project after the current phase to continue through 
September 30, 2019." Upon review, the letter does not indicate a need for a software engineer and 
does not state how a software engineer would assist on this project, or specifically name the 
Beneficiary as personnel to assist with this project. In addition, the project summary is very brief 
and vague and does not clearly explain how the additional phase will take 3 more years to complete. 
The Petitioner also did not submit any contracts or corroborating evidence that this project will 
continue until September 2019, and that there are sufficient funds to continue for the entire duration 
of the project. In response to the RFE, /the Petitioner also stated that it has two other clients in the 
area and it expects the Beneficiary to work on "multiple project as needed." However, the Petitioner 
did not provide any information regarding the projects for the additional clients, or evidence that the 
work provided by the Beneficiary will be utilized on these projects. Thus, the Petitioner did not 
provide documents to substantiate its ongoing project for the requested H-1B validity period.2 
2 The agency made clear long ago that spec~lative employment is not permitted in the H-1 B program. For example, a 
1998 proposed rule documented this position as follows: 
Historically, the Service has not granted H-1 B classification on the basis of speculative, or 
undetermined, prospective employment. The H-1 B classification is not intended as a vehicle for an 
alien to engage in a job search within the United States, or for employers to bring in temporary foreign 
workers to meet possible workforce needs arising from potential business expansions or the 
expectation of potential new customers or contracts. to determine whether an alien is properly 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-S-, LLC 
Furthermore, upon review of the "maintenance and support service level agreement" between the 
Petitioner and , section 2.4. states that "[aJs the parties d~velop projects to be governed 
by the Agreement, they shall enter in Statements of Work which shall contain the detailed terms of 
each project." In the current Petition, the Petitioner did not submit any statement of works that lists 
the project details or the need for the Beneficiary's services. Without additional information and 
documentation establishing what projects have been seeured, the specific duties the Beneficiary will 
perform on these projects, and the required knowledge perform these duties, we. are unable to discern: 
the substantive nature of the position and whether the position indeed qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. As recognized by the court in Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88, where the work is to be 
performed for entities other than the petitioner , evidence of the client companies' job requirements is 
critical. The court held that the former Immigration
1 
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 basi~ of the requirements imposed by the entities 
using the beneficiary's services. ld. Such evidence m~st be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate the 
type and educational level of highly specialized knowl~dge in a specific discipline that is necessary 
to perform that particular work. The record of proceedings does not contain such evidence here. 
As observed above, USCIS ·in this matter must revieiw the actual duties the Beneficiary will be 
expected to perform to ascertain whether those duties! require at least a baccalaureate degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, as required for dlassification as a specialty occupation. To 
accomplish that task in this matter, USCIS must analyze the actual duties in conjunction with the 
specific project(s) to which the Beneficiary will be assi~ gned. To allow otherwise, results in generic 
descriptions of duties that, while they may appear (in .some instances) to comprise the duties of a 
specialty occupation , are not related to any actual services the Beneficiary is expected to provide. 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient details regar~ing the nature and scope of the Beneficiary's 
employment or any substantive evidence regarding the actual work that the Beneficiary would 
perform. Without a meaningful job description, the record lacks evidence sufficiently concrete and 
informative to demonstrate that the proffered position requires a specialty occupation's level of 
knowledge in a specific specialty. The tasks as described do not communicate (1) the actual work 
that the Beneficiary would perform, (2) the complexity, uniqueness and/or specialization of the 
classifiable as an H-1 B nonimmigrant under the statute, the Service must first examine the duties ofthe 
position to be occupied to ascertain whether the duties : of the position require the attainment of a 
specific bachelor ' s degree. See section 214(i) of the lmm;igration and Nationality Act (the " Act"). The 
Service must then determine whether the alien has the appropriate degree for the occupation . In the 
case of speculative employment, the Service is unable to perform either part of this two-prong analysis 
and, therefore , is unable to adjudicate properly a request for H-1 B classification . Moreover, there is no 
assurance that the alien will engage in a specialty occupation upon arrival in this country. 
Petitioning Requirements for the H Nonimmigrant Classification, 63 Fed. Reg. 30,419 , 30,419-20 (proposed June 4, 
1998) (to be codified at 8 C.F.R. pt. 214). While a petitioner is eertainly permitted to change its intent with regard to 
non-speculative employment , e.g., a change in duties or job loc~tion , it must nonetheless document such a material 
change in intent through an amended or new petition in accordance ' with 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(E). 
6 
Matter of S-S-, LLC 
tasks, and/or (3) the correlation between that work and a need for a particular level education of 
highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. 
The Petitioner has not established the substantive nilture 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 substal'ltive nature of that work that determines (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 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 criterio,n 3; and (5) the degree of specialization 
and complexity of the specific duties, which is the focus of criterion 4. 
As the Petitioner has not established that it has satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A): it cannot be found that the proffered position qualities as a specialty 
occupation. 
Finally, the Director's decision also noted that the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to 
establish that it has valid office space to house the Beneficiary. The Petitioner submitted the lease 
agreement and photographs of the office. On appeal, the Petitioner also submits a letter from the 
landlord confirming that the Petitioner leased an office 'space of "20 10 square foot office space for 8 
offices and 1 support space, and 990 square foot of activity space for conferences . . . . " In 
I 
reviewing the organizational chart of the branch office location where the Beneficiary will work, it 
has 20 employees. Thus, it is still not clear if the Petitioner has sufficient office space for the 
Beneficiary when the lease is for 8 offices and 1 support space. 
IV. EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP 
Finally, we will briefly address the issue of whether: or n9t the Petitioner qualifies as an H-1B 
employer. The United Stat\s Supreme Court determined that where federal law fails to clearly 
define the term "~mployee," courts should conclude that the term was "intended to describe the 
conventional master-servant relationship as understood by common-law agency doctrine." 
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318, 322-23 (1992) (quoting Cmty. for Creative 
Non-Violencev. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989)). The Supreme Court stated: 
"In determining whether a hired party is an employee under the general common law 
of agency, we consider the hiring party's right to control the manner and means by 
which the product is accomplished. Among the other factors relevant to this inquiry 
are the skill required; the source of the instrum~ntalities and tools; the location of the 
work; the duration of the relationship between, the pmiies; whether the hiring party 
has the right to assign additional projects to the hired party; the extent of the hired 
party's discretion over when and how long to work; the method of payment; the hired 
7 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-S-, LLC 
party's role in hiring and paying assistants; whether the W~)fk is part of the regular 
business of the hiring party; whether the hiring party is in business; the provision of 
employee benefits; and the tax treatment of the hired party." 
ld.; see also Clackamas Gastroenterology Assocs .. P.O v. Wells, 538 U.S. 440,445 (2003) (quoting 
Darden, 503 U.S. at 323). As the common-law test contains "no shorthand formula or magic phrase 
that can be applied to find the answer, ... all of the incidents of the relationship must be assessed 
and weighed with no one factor being decisive." Darden, 503 U.S. at 324 (quoting NLRB v. United 
Ins. Co. of Am., 390 U.S. 254,258 (1968)). 
As such, while social security c,ontributions, worker's! compensation contributions, unemployment 
insurance contributions, federal and state income taf withholdings, and other benefits are still 
relevant factors in determining who will control the Btfneficiary, other incidents of the relationship, 
e.g., who will oversee and direct the work of the Beneficiary, who will provide the instrumentalities 
and tools, where will the work be located, and who hds the right or ability to affect the projects to 
which the Beneficiary is assigned, must also be assessed and weighed in order to make a 
determination as to who will be the Beneficiary's employer. As discussed above, the record of 
I 
proceedings lacks sufficient documentation evidencing exactly what the Beneficiary would do for 
the period of time requested. Given this specific lack of evidence, the Petitioner has not established 
who has or will have actual control over the Beneficiary's work or duties, or the condition and scope 
of the Beneficiary's services. We also note that the reqord does not include a statement of work for 
the client or contractual evidence of work for other clients if the project ends. Without 
full disclosure of all of the relevant factors, we cannot conclude that the requisite employer­
employee relationship will exist between the Petitibner and the Beneficiary. Therefore, the 
Director's decision is affirmed, and the appeal is dismis'sed for this additional reason. 
V. CONCLUSION 
The burden is on the Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that burden has not beert met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of S-S-, LLC, ID# 263572 (AAO Jan. 31, 20 17) 
8