dismissed H-1B Case: Software Development

(b)(6)
MATTER OF S-S-, INC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 14,2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA 
SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a software consulting, training, and development company, seeks to temporarily 
employ the Beneficiary as a "computer programmer" under the H-1B 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)(l5)(H)(i)(b). The H-1B 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 determined that the 
evidence of record did not establish that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform services in a specialty 
occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's 
decision was erroneous and overlooked previously submitted evidence. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. THE PROFFERED POSITION 
In the H-1B petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a "computer 
programmer." In a letter of support, the Petitioner explained that it is developing a new software 
product, and that the 
Beneficiary "will work solely" on this in-house project. The Petitioner stated that it "aims to bring 
this product suite to the market in late 2015 and is currently in the process of engaging with potential 
clients to solidify the systems requirements and conduct prototype building." The Petitioner further 
explained that it "forecasts a consistent need for IT resources including but not limited to Systems 
Analysts, [and] Programmer/ Analysts ... for the duration of this development effort and during the 
support and maintenance beyond 2015." 
In the same letter, the Petitioner submitted a lengthy list of duties for the proffered position, 
described as that of a "computer programmer analyst," which include "business process analysis and 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-S-, Inc 
design responsibilities," "development responsibilities," "test planning and execution 
responsibilities," and "product support responsibilities." 
The Petitioner submitted a separate "Itinerary of Services" for the Beneficiary which listed the 
following job duties for the position titled "computer programmer analyst" (verbatim): 
• Analyzing business requirements, participating in business and technical 
discussions with business analysts and team members. 
• Create a project plan and Implement selected business processes by mapping and 
adapting it in SAP as per the requirement gathered from the client. 
• Present prototypes 
to steering Committee 
• Establish and maintain user rights, system access and authentication 
• Oversight and administration of SOX compliance. 
• Installation and Configuration of Solution Manager system 7.1 and ECC 6.0, 
GRC 10 SAP Net weaver java Portal, MDM, BI 7.3 on Oracle, Unix environment. 
• STMS configuration and transport btn SAP systems. 
• Integrate SAP ECC, Hadoop, SAP HCM and Net Weaver Process Integration (PI) 
• Publish I distribute products catalogue through an integrated SAP system for 
Hospitality Industry. 
• Configuration of SCOT in ABAP. 
• Analyzing SAP workloads and monitoring System logs lock entries and updates. 
• Work with the other members of development team ensuring that consistent 
design standards reflecting sound practices such as reusability, supportability, 
scalability, etc. are applied. 
• Work with project teams and customer service teams as a technical resource and 
contribute to successful implementation. 
• Monitor performance and tuning SAP systems and Java and Hadoop. 
• Proactive system monitoring to ensure smooth [sic] for client 
Presentations/Demos. 
In a letter submitted in respons,e to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner clarified 
that its system is a proprietary software technology targeting the hospitality industry. The 
letter, written by the Petitioner's CEO also confirmed that this is the project 
to which the Beneficiary will be assigned. further noted that the system is 
"an ideal solution for hotel chains as well as independent hotels, motels, resorts and Inns," and that 
in promoting its system, it has made "significant efforts to continue negotiating services contracts 
with major hotel chains such as etc.," noting specifically that it hoped to 
reach an agreement 
with in the coming months. 
II. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
We will first discuss whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. We are 
required to follow long-standing legal standards and determine first, whether the proffered position 
2 
Matter of S-S-, Inc 
is a specialty occupation, and second, whether the Beneficiary is qualified for the position at the time 
the nonimmigrant visa petition is filed. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 
(Comm'r 1988) ("The facts of a beneficiary's background only come at issue after it is found that 
the position in which the petitioner intends to employ him falls within [a specialty occupation]."). In 
this matter, it appears the Director did not properly analyze the proffered position to determine 
whether it meets the definition of a specialty occupation. 
A. 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.P.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) 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.P.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.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 proposed 
position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Cherto.IJ, 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). 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-S-, Inc 
B. Analysis 
We find that the evidence of record is insufficient to demonstrate that the duties of the proffered 
position are in fact associated with a specialty occupation. That is, the Petitioner has not submitted 
sufficient, credible evidence to establish that the project is a bona .fide in-house project of 
the Petitioner, and that the Beneficiary will be exclusively assigned to it. 
Preliminarily, we note discrepancies and concerns regarding the documentary evidence submitted by 
the Petitioner. The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary will be employed as a computer 
programmer on its project, which it claims is specifically tailored to the hospitality industry, 
and which will benefit large hotel chains as well as smaller, independent outlets such as motels, inns, 
and resorts. In support of this assertion, the Petitioner submitted a document entitled "Technical 
Handbook," which it claims is the "Blue Print" for its system. A large portion of this 
document, however, is not tailored specifically toward the hospitality industry as claimed by the 
Petitioner, but rather appears to pertain to the hospital/healthcare industry. 
For example, section 1.1.9, "Guest operation," states in part "[p]atients, family members and guests 
can enjoy the Internet from most patient rooms at Hospital." Section 1.2.6, "Expense management," 
states that "[t]rained 'Professional Financial Advocates' work proactively with patients to explain 
their insurance benefits, ensure that [a]ll paperwork is organized and explained, help resolve any 
billing or claims issues that arise, and facilitate bill [p]ayment." Section 1.2.8 discusses "[t]he 
mission of every public hospital in Nigeria." Section 1.2.9 discusses "a local area network which 
communicates between the School of Medicine and the Hospital which . . . [has] access to the 
These sections' contents do not correspond to 
the Petitioner's description of its system, and have no apparent relationship to the 
hospitality industry. 
Notably, section 1.2.6 references a solution entitled which public records reveal is a 
proprietary medical expense management service solution that targets the healthcare industry, 
developed by the company The Petitioner has not explained or documented its 
relationship to in this matter. Moreover, the entire section 1.2.6 in the Petitioner's 
"Technical Handbook" appears to have been copied virtually verbatim from 
whitepaper available at website.2 
These aspects of the Petitioner's documentation greatly undermine the validity of the Petitioner's 
claims regarding the true nature of the intended work for the Beneficiary, and preclude us from 
determining that bona fide in-house H-1 B caliber work exists for the Beneficiary for the requested 
1 
For more information, visit which demonstrates that is a proprietary technology 
platform developed nearly two decades ago by another company. 
2 The whitepaper can be accessed at website, available at 
(last visited Sept. 7, 
20 16). 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-S-, Inc 
validity period, or that such work constitutes specialty occupation employment. "Doubt cast on any 
aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and 
sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition." Matter of Ho, 19 I&N 
Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). 
Further, although the Petitioner submitted additional documentation with respect to the 
project, the documents do not sufficiently establish that specialty occupation work is available for 
the duration of the Beneficiary's requested employment period. Specifically, the Petitioner did not 
submit credible, objective documentation corroborating its claims regarding the Beneficiary's 
assignment to the project. In particular, the document "Software Product Development and 
Support for contains no 
references to the Beneficiary or to the proffered position. In fact, this document contains a table 
entitled "Phase I Budget" listing the resources needed for "Phase I" of the project. However, this 
table does not include a computer programmer or computer programmer analyst position as one of 
the required resources. 3 The document also does not contain schedule, budget, or resource 
information beyond "Phase I," which is expected to end on February 17,2016. The absence ofthis 
information is significant, in that the Petitioner requested employment dates from September 12, 
2015, until September 11, 2018. 
Without additional, reliable information regarding the specific project to which the Beneficiary will 
be assigned that covers the duration of the period of employment requested, we are not able to 
ascertain what the Beneficiary will do, where the Beneficiary will work, as well as how this will 
impact circumstances of his relationship with the Petitioner. "[G]oing on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings." Matter of Sojjici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure 
Craft ofCal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972). 
Moreover, even if it were established that the Beneficiary will be assigned to the project, the 
evidence still does not sufficiently describe the duties to be performed by the Beneficiary. That is, 
while the Petitioner submitted a lengthy list of job duties in its initial support letter, the "Itinerary of 
Services" contains only a fraction of those job duties (i.e., only those duties listed as "development 
responsibilities"). The Petitioner has not explained why its support letter and itinerary contain 
different lists of duties. "[I]t is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve the inconsistencies by 
independent objective evidence." Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. Furthermore, of the job duties 
that appear in both the support letter and the itinerary, we observe that several of them are vaguely 
worded, such as "Work with the other development team ensuring that consistent design standards 
reflecting sound practices such as reusability, 
supportability, scalability, etc. are applied," and 
"Work with project teams and customer service teams as a technical resource and contribute to 
successful implementation." These job duties, as presently stated, do not adequately convey the 
3 
The Petitioner interchangeably refers to the proffered position as a "computer programmer" and a "computer 
programmer analyst." 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-S-, Inc 
actual tasks the Beneficiary will perform within the context of the 
such tasks, and the knowledge necessary to perform them. 
project, the complexity of 
Consequently, we find that the evidence of record does not demonstrate the substantive nature of the 
proffered position and its constituent duties.4 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 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 criterion 3; and (5) the degree 
of specialization and complexity of the specific duties, which is the focus of criterion 4. 
Nevertheless, we will review the Petitioner's general description of duties and the evidence of record 
to determine whether the proffered position as described would qualify for classification as a 
specialty occupation. 5 
1. First Criterion 
To that end and to make our determination as to whether the employment described above qualifies 
as a specialty occupation, 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 ofthe wide variety of occupations that it addresses.6 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Computer Programmers," 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 15-1131 at a Level I wage. 7 The 
4 
Further, without full disclosure, we are unable to determine whether the requisite employer-employee relationship with 
exist between the Petitioner and Beneficiary. 
5 
The Petitioner submitted documentation to support 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. ' 
6 
All of our references are to the 2016-17 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 USCIS regularly reviews the Handbook on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. To satisfy the first criterion, however, the 
burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position 
would normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
,
7 
We will consider the Petitioner's classification of the proffered position at a Level I wage (the lowest of four assignable 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-S-, Inc 
Handbook subchapter entitled "How to Become a Computer Programmer" states in pertinent part: 
"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."8 The Handbook indicates that a 
bachelor's degree in computer science may be common, but not that it is a requirement for entry into 
these jobs, indicating that associate's degrees are also acceptable prerequisites. 
In support of the appeal, the Petitioner submits a letter from associate professor 
of computer applications and information systems at the In his letter, 
(1) describes the credentials that he asserts qualify him to opine upon the nature of the 
proffered position, which he refers to as a "computer programmer analyst"; (2) lists the duties 
proposed for the Beneficiary; and (3) states that these duties require at least a bachelor's degree in 
computer science, engineering, or a related area (or the equivalent). We carefully evaluated 
assertions in support of the instant petition but, for the following reasons, determined his 
letter does not have significant weight in this matter. 
First, expertise regarding current industry degree requirements for computer programmer 
or computer programmer analyst positions is not established in the record. His supporting 
documentation indicates that most of his experience over the past 30 years has been in an academic 
setting as a faculty member within a university's school of business. Other than briefly stating that 
he has "had the opportunity over the years to become familiar with" industry and recruitment 
standards, has not provided additional, detailed information to establish the source of his 
expertise in the field. opinion letter does not cite specific instances in which his past 
opinions have been accepted or recognized as authoritative on this particular issue. There is no 
indication that he has conducted any research or studies pertinent to the current educational 
requirements for such positions (or parallel positions) in the Petitioner's industry for similar 
organizations, and no indication of recognition by professional organizations that he is an authority 
on those specific requirements. Without further clarification and evidence, it is unclear how his 
education, training, skills or experience would render him an "expert" in the field. 
Moreover, indicates that his assessment is based upon a position description provided by 
wage levels) 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 I wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which the 
Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the occupation. This wage rate indicates: (I) that the 
Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that he will be 
closely supervised and his work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that he will receive specific 
instructions on required tasks and expected results. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage 
Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http:llflcdatacenter.comldownload/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _11_ 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. A Levell wage should be considered for research fellows, workers 
in training, or internships. !d. 
8 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., "Computer 
Programmers," http :I lwww. b Is. gov I oohl computer-and-in formation-tee hno I ogy I comp uter-programmers.htm#tab-4 (last 
visited Sept. 7, 2016). 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-S-, Inc 
the Petitioner. But does not demonstrate in-depth knowledge of the Petitioner's 
operations, its specific project, and how the duties of the proffered position would actually 
be performed in the context of this project. For example, the record does not indicate whether 
was aware of the Petitioner's plagiarized "Technical Handbook," a significant factor casting 
doubt on this project's credibility. Overall, even if could be considered an "expert" in the 
field, the Petitioner still has not demonstrated that possessed the requisite information to 
adequately assess the nature of the position and appropriately determine the position's minimum 
educational requirement. 
For the reasons discussed, we find that opinion letter lends little probative value to the 
matter here. Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (The service is not 
required to accept or may give less weight to an advisory opinion when it is "not in accord with 
other 
information or is in _any way questionable."). 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation from a probative source to substantiate its 
assertion regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. Thus, the 
Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)(J). 
2. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs: "The degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may 
show that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong 
contemplates common industry 
practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
a. 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. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by 
USCIS include: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the 
industry's professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether 
letters or affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms "routinely employ 
and recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 
1999)(quotingHird/BlakerCorp. v. Sava, 712F. Supp.1095, 1102(S.D.N.Y.1989)). 
As discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which the 
Handbook, or another authoritative source, reports an industry-wide requirement for at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. We incorporate by reference our previous 
Matter of S-S-, Inc 
discussion on the matter. Also, there are no submissions from the industry's professional association 
indicating that it has made a degree a minimum entry requirement. Furthermore, the Petitioner did 
not submit any letters or affidavits from similar firms or individuals in the Petitioner's industry 
attesting that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." See id. Therefore, 
based upon a complete review of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not satisfied the first 
alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
b. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.P.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. 
Upon review, we find that the Petitioner has not sufficiently developed relative complexity or 
uniqueness as an aspect of the proffered position. 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 it may believe are so complex and 
unique. 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. 
Moreover, the general descriptions of the proffered duties do not identify any tasks that are . so 
complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. Rather, the 
duties the Petitioner ascribed to the proffered position indicate a need for a range of technical 
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 (or its 
equivalent) as minimally necessary to attain such knowledge. 
Further, the LCA submitted by the Petitioner indicates that the proffered position is a Level I (entry) 
wage, which, as noted above, is the lowest of four assignable wage levels.9 Without additional 
evidence, the record of proceedings does not indicate that the proffered position is so complex or 
unique, as such a position would likely be classified at a higher-level, which requires a significantly 
9 The Petitioner's designation ofthis position as a Level I, entry-level position indicates that it is a comparatively low­
level position compared to other positions within the same occupation. Nevertheless, a Level I wage-designation does 
not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty occupation, just as a Level IV wage-designation does 
not definitively establish such a classification. In certain occupations (e.g., doctors or lawyers), a Level I, entry-level 
position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for 
entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designation would not reflect that an occupation qualifies as a specialty 
occupation if that higher-level position does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. That is, a position's wage level designation may be a relevant factor but is not itself 
conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)(J) of the Act. 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-S-, Inc 
higher prevailing wage. For all of the above reasons, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second 
alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
3. 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 Petitioner states that it was established in 2004, and currently employs over 30 IT professionals. 
The Petitioner has not specified how many of its 30 plus employees are in a computer programmer 
or computer programmer analyst position, and how many such individuals the company has 
employed in the past. Thus, it is not possible to determine how representative this claimed number 
of employees is of the Petitioner's employment practices for the proffered position. 
The Petitioner further claims that it currently employs five "Computer Program Analysts in H-lB 
status, developing Despite the Petitioner's claim that they are assigned to the same 
project upon which the Beneficiary will work, the record does not include sufficient evidence of the 
specific project assignments the individuals granted H-lB approval were given, and does not include 
evidence of the specific work these individuals performed. The record also does not include 
corroborating evidence of these individuals' claimed educational credentials. Accordingly, we do 
not have sufficient information to compare the proffered position to the positions previously 
approved for H-lB employment. In any event, a prior approval does not compel the approval of a 
subsequent petition or relieve the Petitioner of its burden to provide sufficient documentation to 
establish current eligibility for the benefit sought.10 Temporary Alien Workers Seeking 
Classification Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 55 Fed. Reg. 2,606, 2,612 (Jan. 26, 1990) 
(to be codified at 8 C.F.R. pt. 214). 
Here, the record of proceedings is insufficient to establish that the Petitioner normally requires a 
bachelor's or 
higher degree in the specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the proffered position. The 
Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
10 
While a petitioner may believe or otherwise assert that a proffered position requires a degree in a specific specialty, 
that opinion alone without corroborating evidence cannot establish the position as a specialty occupation. Were USCIS 
limited solely to reviewing a petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, then any individual with a bachelor's 
degree could be brought to the United States to perform any occupation as long as the employer artificially created a 
token degree requirement, whereby all individuals employed in a particular position possessed a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in the specific specialty or its equivalent. See Defensor 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 section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty 
occupation"). 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-S-, Inc 
4. 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. 
In the instant case, relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by 
the Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. The Petitioner does not establish how the duties 
of its computer programmer elevate the proffered position to a specialty occupation. We again refer 
to our comments regarding the insufficient evidence of the Beneficiary's job duties and assignment, 
as well as to the implications of the Petitioner's designation of the proffered position at a Level I 
(entry) wage level. The evidence of record does not satisfy the fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
established that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 11 
III. BENEFICIARY QUALIFICATIONS 
The Director found that the Beneficiary was not qualified to perform the duties of the proffered 
position. However, a beneficiary's credentials to perform a particular job are relevant only when the 
job is found to be a specialty occupation. As discussed in this decision, the evidence of record does 
not establish that the proffered position requires a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. However, in order to address the Director's decision, we will discuss 
11 The Petitioner noted that USCIS approved other petitions that had been previously filed ori behalf of five other 
employees for its project. The Director's decision does not indicate whether the prior approvals of the other 
nonimmigrant petitions were reviewed. If the previous nonimmigrant petitions were approved based on the same 
unsupported and contradictory assertions that are contained in the current record, the approvals would constitute material 
and gross error on the part of the Director. We are not required to approve petitions where eligibility has not been 
demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See Matter of Church Scientology Int'l, 
19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm 'r 1988). It would be "absurd to suggest that [USC IS] or any agency must treat 
acknowledged errors as binding precedent." Sussex Eng'g, Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d I 084, I 090 (6th Cir. 1987). 
Again, a prior approval does not compel the approval of a subsequent petition or relieve the Petitioner of its burden to 
provide sufficient documentation to establish current eligibility for the benefit sought. Temporary Alien Workers 
Seeking Classification Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 55 Fed. Reg. 2,606, 2,612 (Jan. 26, 1990) (to be 
codified at 8 C.F.R. pt. 214). A prior approval also does not preclude USCIS from denying an extension of an original 
visa petition based on a reassessment of eligibility for the benefit sought. See Tex. A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 F. App'x 
556 (5th Cir. 2004). Furthermore, our authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a 
court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director had approved the nonimmigrant petitions on behalf 
of a beneficiary, we would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of a service center. See La. Philharmonic 
Orchestra v. INS, 44 F. Supp. 2d 800, 803 (E.D. La. 1999). 
11 
Matter of S-S-, Inc 
whether the evidence submitted was sufficient to demonstrate that the Beneficiary was qualified to 
perform the duties of the proffered position as described. 
Section 214(i)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(2), states that an individual applying for 
classification as an H-lB nonimmigrant worker must possess: 
(A) full state licensure to practice in the occupation, if such licensure is required to 
practice in the occupation, 
(B) completion of the degree described in paragraph ( 1 )(B) for the occupation, or 
(C) (i) experience in the specialty equivalent to the completion of such 
degree, and 
(ii) recognition of expertise in the specialty through progressively 
responsible positions relating to the specialty. 
/In implementing section 214(i)(2) of the Act, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C) states 
that a beneficiary must also meet one of the following criteria in order to qualify to perform services 
in a specialty occupation: 
r 
(1) Hold a United States baccalaureate or higher degree required by the specialty 
occupation from an accredited college or university; 
(2) Hold a foreign degree determined to be equivalent to a United States 
baccalaureate or higher degree required by the specialty occupation from an 
accredited college or university; 
(3) Hold an unrestricted state license, registration or certification which 
authorizes him or her to fully practice the specialty occupation and be 
immediately engaged in that specialty in the state of intended employment; or 
( 4) Have education, specialized training, and/or progressively responsible 
experience that are equivalent to completion of a United States baccalaureate 
or higher degree in the specialty occupation, and have recognition of expertise 
in the specialty through progressively responsible positions directly related 
to the specialty. 
Therefore, to qualify a beneficiary for classification as an H -1 B nonimmigrant worker under the Act, 
the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary possesses the requisite license or, if none is 
required, that he or she has completed a degree in the specialty that the occupation requires. 
Alternatively, if a license is not required and if the beneficiary does not possess the required U.S. 
degree or its foreign degree equivalent, the petitioner must show that the beneficiary possesses both 
12 
Matter of S-S-, Inc 
(1) education, specialized trammg, and/or progressively responsible experience in the specialty 
equivalent to the completion of such degree, and (2) recognition of expertise in the specialty through 
progressively responsible positions relating to the specialty. 
Here, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary qualifies for the proffered position based on a 
combination of his education and progressively responsible experience. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4) requires a demonstration that the Beneficiary's 
education, specialized training, and/or progressively responsible experience is equivalent to the 
completion of a United States baccalaureate or higher degree in the specialty occupation, and that the 
Beneficiary also has recognition of that expertise in the specialty through progressively responsible 
positions directly related to the specialty. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D), equating a 
beneficiary's credentials to a United States baccalaureate or higher degree under 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4) is determined by at least one ofthe following: 
(1) An evaluation from an official who has authority to grant college-level credit 
for training a~d/or experience in the specialty at an accredited college or 
university which has a program for granting such credit based on an 
individual's training and/or work experience; 
(2) The results of recognized college-level equivalency examinations or special 
credit programs, such as the College Level Examination Program (CLEP), or 
Program on Noncollegiate Sponsored Instruction (PONSI); 
(3) An evaluation of education by a reliable credentials evaluation service which 
specializes in evaluating foreign educational credentials; 12 
( 4) Evidence of· certification or registration from a nationally-recognized 
professional association or society for the specialty that is known to grant 
certification or registration to persons in the occupational specialty who have 
achieved a certain level of competence in the specialty; 
(5) A determination by the Service that the equivalent of the degree required by 
the specialty occupation has been acquired through a combination of 
education, specialized training, and/or work experience in areas related to the 
specialty and that the alien has achieved recognition of expertise in the 
specialty occupation as a result of such training and experience. 
12 
The Petitioner should note that, in accordance with this provision, we will accept a credentials evaluation service's 
evaluation of education only, not experience. 
13 
(b)(6)
t 
Matter ofS-S- , Inc 
In its support letter, the Petitioner states that it requires "a Bachelor's degree in Engineering, 
Computer Science, or directly related field or the equivalent" for the proffered position. In response 
to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted an evaluation dated September 11, 2015, by 
an evaluator at Upon review, we find that 
evaluation 
does not satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(l), as the evidence of record does 
not establish that he possesses the authority to grant college-level credit for training and/or 
experience in the specialty at an accredited college or university which has a program for granting 
such credit based on an individual's training and/or work experience. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a second evaluation dated March 3, 2016, from 
concluding that based upon his combined education and experience, the Beneficiary has attained the 
equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in computer information systems. With regard to the 
Beneficiary's progressive work experience, does not discuss the employment verification 
letters in detail and provides no insight into to how he determined that the Beneficiary's experiences 
with his former employers were progressive. 13 Therefore , the evaluation submitted by is 
not probative evidence toward demonstrating that the Beneficiary possesses a foreign equivalent of a 
U.S. degree. 
Based on the deficiencies noted, we do not find the evaluations submitted by the Petitioner 
persuasive. We may, in our discretion, use advisory opinion statements submitted by the petitioner 
as expert testimony. Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. at 795. Therefore, the Petitioner did not 
satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(l). 
No evidence has been submitted to establish , and the Petitioner does not assert, that the Beneficiary 
satisfies 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(2) , which requires submission of the results of recognized 
college-level equivalency examinations or special credit programs , such as the College Level 
Examination Program (CLEP), or Program on Noncollegiate Sponsored Instruction (PONSI). 
Nor does the Beneficiary qualify under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(3). As was the case under 
8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(l) and (2), the Beneficiary is unqualified under this criterion because 
he did not earn a baccalaureate or higher degree from an accredited college or university in the 
United States and does not possess a foreign degree that has been determined to be equivalent to a 
baccalaureate or higher degree from an accredited college or university in the United States. 
No evidence has been submitted to establish , and the Petitioner does not assert, that the beneficiary 
satisfies 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(4), which requires that the beneficiary submit evidence of 
certification or registration from a nationally-recognized professional association or society for the 
13 For example , references the letters from and 
which the Petitioner submitted in response to the RFE. However, these letters do not provide any 
information regardin g the Beneficiary's duties and responsibil ities. 
14 
Matter of S-S-, Inc 
specialty that is known to grant certification or registration to persons in the occupational specialty 
who have achieved a certain level of competence in the specialty. 
It is always worth noting that, by its very terms, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5) is a matter strictly 
for USCIS application and determination, and that, also by the clear terms of the rule, experience 
will merit a positive determination only to the extent that the record of proceeding establishes all of 
the qualifying elements at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5)- including, but not limited to, a type of 
recognition of expertise in the specialty occupation. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5) states the following with regard to USCIS 
... analyzing an alien's qualifications: 
For purposes of determining equivalency to a baccalaureate degree in the specialty, 
three years of specialized training and/or work experience must be demonstrated for 
each year of college-level training the alien lacks .... It must be clearly demonstrated 
that the alien's training and/or work experience included the theoretical and practical 
application of specialized knowledge required by the specialty occupation; that the 
alien's experience was gained while working with peers, supervisors, or subordinates 
who have a degree or its equivalent in the specialty occupation; and that the alien has 
recognition of expertise in the specialty evidenced by at least one type of 
documentation such as: 
(i) Recognition of expertise in the specialty occupation by at least two 
recognized authorities in the same specialty occupation; 14 
(ii) Membership in a recognized foreign or United States association or 
society in the specialty occupation; 
(iii) Published material by or about the alien in professional publications, 
trade journals, books, or major newspapers; ,.. 
(iv) Licensure or registration to practice the specialty occupation in a 
foreign country; or 
(v) Achievements which a recognized authority has determined to be 
significant contributions to the field of the specialty occupation. 
14 
Recognizedauthority means a person or organization with expertise in a particular field, special skills or knowledge in 
that field, and the expertise to render the type of opinion requested. A recognized authority's opinion must state: (I) the 
writer's qualifications as an expert; (2) the writer's experience giving such opinions, citing specific instances where past 
opinions have been accepted as authoritative and by whom; (3) how the conclusions were reached; and (4) the basis for 
the conclusions supported by copies or citations of any research material used. See 8 C.F.R. § 2 14.2(h)(4)(ii). 
15 
Matter of S-S-, Inc 
Although the record contains some information regarding the Beneficiary's work history, it does not 
establish that his work experience included the theoretical and practical application of specialized 
knowledge required by the proffered position; that it was gained while working with peers, 
supervisors, or subordinates who held a bachelor's degree in the field, or its equivalent; and that the 
Beneficiary achieved recognition of his expertise in the field as evidenced by at least one of the five 
types of documentation delineated in 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5)(i)-(v). 
Accordingly, the Beneficiary does not qualify under any of the criteria set forth at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5)(i)-(v) and therefore does not qualify to perform the duties of a specialty 
occupation under 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4). As such, the Petitioner did not establish that the 
Beneficiary qualifies to perform the duties of a specialty occupation. 15 · 
V. CONCLUSION 
We may deny an application or petition that does not comply with the technical requirements of the 
law even if the Director does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enters., Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001). 
Moreover, when we deny a petition on multiple alternative grounds, a plaintiff can succeed on a 
challenge only if it shows that we abused our discretion with respect to all of the enu~erated 
grounds. See Spencer Enters., Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1037; see also BDPCS, Inc. 
v. FCC, 351 F.3d 1177, 1183 (D.C. Cir. 2003) ("When an agency offers multiple grounds for a 
decision, we will affirm the agency so long as any one of the grounds is valid, unless it is 
demonstrated that the agency would not have acted on that basis if the alternative grounds were 
unavailable."). 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed 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. 
Cite as Matter ofS-S-, Inc, ID# 17928 (AAO Sept. 14, 2016) 
15 
As stated above, we have determined that the proffered position does not quality as a specialty occupation. However, 
we have discussed the Beneficiary's qualifications in order to address the Director's decision. 
16