dismissed H-1B Case: Software Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF G- LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 27,2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a software development, management, and testing company, seeks to temporarily 
employ the Beneficiary as an "e-business architect" under the H -1 B nonimmigrant classification for 
specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 1 01 ( a)(15)(H)(i)(b ), 
8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(15)(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 
protiered position is not 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 denying the petition. 
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. 
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 protiered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
Matter of G- LLC 
(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.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A). We have 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. Chertc?ff, 
484 F.3d 139, 14 7 (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, 387-88 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
In the H-1 B petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as an e-business architect. 
In its letter of support, and throughout the record, the Petitioner described the job duties of the 
proffered position as follows: 
• Deploy the release of new technologies as well as design, install, configure, 
maintain and perform system integration testing of E-Commerce systems. 
• Responsible for application configuration of E-Commerce systems. 
• Research, evaluate and recommend E-Commerce products. 
• Implement E-Commerce solutions for company's clients. 
• Develop the applications architecture and blueprints which reflect business logic 
of the line of business. 
• Consult with infrastructure, security, and application development projects to fit 
systems to architecture and identify when it is necessary to modify the technical 
architecture to accommodate project needs. 
• Oversee the evaluation and selection of hardware and software products. 
• Conduct reviews and analysis of needs and goals for the development and 
implementation of applications. 
• Document all technical architecture design and analysis work. 
• Understand, advocate, and augment the principles of information technology 
strategies. 
2 
Matter of G- LLC 
• Analyze business drivers to determine business information and technical 
architecture requirements. 
• Analyze technology industry and market trends and determine potential impact 
upon the line of business. 
• Create and maintain the architecture road map for the line of business. 
• Analyze current information technology environment to detect critical 
deficiencies and recommend solutions for improvement. 
• Provide technical guidance to the business solution teams. Consults on 
integration and design activities. 
• Identify organizational (skills, processes, structures, and culture) and financial 
impact of the application architecture. 
• Recommends redesign, replacement or redevelopment of applications. 
• Provide technology solution thought leadership and recommendations for 
business initiative projects for a line of business. 
• Develop a deep understanding of business objectives and strategies and ensure 
technology architectural vision is fully aligned with those objectives and 
strategies. 
• Anticipate future business challenges and bring innovative technology solutions 
and options to leadership. 
• Interface with solution vendors, all technology areas and the designated 
business line(s) to develop understanding of key strategies, business drivers and 
business objectives in order to research technology landscape and recommend 
technology strategy that will contribute to future success of the company. 
• Promote effective use of technology solutions to all levels of the company and 
functions as a design consultant with strong knowledge of best practices. 
The Petitioner stated that the minimum entry requirement for the proffered position is at least a 
bachelor's degree in computer science, or a related field, with a preference towards an advanced 
degree. 
III. ANALYSIS 
For the reasons set out below, we have determined that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. Specifically, the record (1) does not describe 
the actual proffered position with sufficient detail; and (2) does not establish that the job duties 
require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 1 
A crucial aspect of this matter is whether the Petitioner has sutliciently described the duties of the 
proffered position and whether the position actually requires the theoretical and practical application 
1 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 
Matter of G- LLC 
of a body of highly specialized knowledge attained through at least a baccalaureate degree in a 
specific discipline. Upon review, we find that the Petitioner has not done so. 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient insight into the specific tasks that the Beneficiary will 
perform. The proposed duties are 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. The abstract level of information provided 
about the proffered position and its constituent duties is exemplified by the Petitioner's assertion that 
the Beneficiary will "[ o ]versee the evaluation and selection of hardware and software products." 
Further, the Petitioner claimed in pertinent part that the Beneficiary will "[r]esearch, evaluate and 
recommend E-commerce products" and "[ c ]reate and maintain the architecture road map for the line 
of business." Notably, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how the performance of these duties, as 
described in the record, would require the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. 
The Petitioner also claimed the Beneficiary will "[ d]ocument all technical architecture design and 
analysis work" and "[ u ]nderstand, advocate, and augment the principles of information technology 
strategies." The Petitioner's statements do not convey any pertinent details as to the actual work 
involved in these tasks. The Petitioner did not convey how a baccalaureate level of education (or 
higher) in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, would be required to perform these tasks. Thus, the 
overall responsibilities for the proffered position contained generalized functions without providing 
sufficient information regarding the particular work and the associated educational requirements into 
which the duties would manifest themselves in their day-to-day performance within the Petitioner's 
business operations. 
Such generalized information does not in itself establish a necessary correlation between any 
dimension of the proffered position and a need for a particular level of education, or educational 
equivalency, in a body of highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. It is not evident that 
the proposed duties and the position that they comprise, merit recognition of the pro±Iered position 
as a specialty occupation. To the extent that they were described, the proposed duties did not 
provide a sufficient factual basis for conveying the substantive matters that would engage the 
Beneficiary in the actual performance of the proffered position for the entire 3-year period requested, 
so as to persuasively support the claim that the position's actual work would require the theoretical 
and practical application of any particular educational level of highly specialized knowledge in a 
specific specialty directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the pro±Tered position. 
Moreover, although the Petitioner provided service agreements and a purchase order between itself 
and various clients, the Petitioner has not specifically explained the duties and role of the proffered 
position in the context of any of these projects. That is, nowhere is the Beneficiary's name or the 
proffered position title mentioned in these documents. Notably, one of the agreements was executed 
after the filing of the H-1 B petition. The Petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of tiling the 
nonimmigrant visa petition and must continue to be eligible for the benefit through adjudication. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter ofG- LLC 
8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(1 ). A visa petition may not be approved at a future date after the Petitioner or 
Beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N 
Dec. 248, 249 (Reg'l Comm'r 1978). 
We further note that the agreements and purchase order indicate that the services will end prior to 
the end of the requested H-IB validity period. For instance, the Petitioner provided copies of two 
Subcontractor Agreements with spanning from October 22, 2015, to 
May 2, 201 7, and continuously claimed that the contract will be renewed in May of 2017 on a yearly 
basis for multiple years. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a letter from stating that 
the Beneficiary is providing services to its end client, through the Petitioner. A letter from 
states that it contracted for services and confirms that the Beneficiary, an 
employee of the Petitioner, is performing those services. The letter from further states that 
the duration of its project is ongoing with the possibility of regular extensions. However, the 
Petitioner did not submit a copy of contract with to show the dates for 
completion of the services or the terms of the contract pertaining to who provides those services? 
It appears here, that the Petitioner has a contract with through May 2, 2017, for the 
Beneficiary to provide the services of the proffered position to its end client. Although the Petitioner 
claims that the contract will be renewed on a yearly basis thereafter, we cannot conclude that the 
proffered position will continue to exist after May 2, 2017. Further, although letter states 
that its project is ongoing with the possibility of regular extensions, its contract is with 
not the Petitioner. assumptions about the extensions of its contract with 
do not translate to contract with the Petitioner. Furthermore, the Petitioner's 
statements that the Beneficiary will be placed on a different contract or will provide services on 
another contract should its contract with meet completion (or not be renewed), is 
insufficient to establish that the proffered position will continue to exist after May 2, 2017. Again, 
we cannot conClude that the proffered position will translate to another contract for the Petitioner 
or 
that the job duties listed for the instant proffered position . will apply to any other position the 
Petitioner may have available at the time. Rather than establish definitive, non-speculative 
employment for the Beneficiary for the entire period requested, the Petitioner simply claimed that it 
would extend its contract with for the proffered position or place the Beneficiary on a 
different contract 
that may be available. 
A petition must be filed for non-speculative work for the Beneficiary, for the entire period requested, 
that existed as of the time of the petition's filing. The regulations affirmatively require a petitioner 
to establish eligibility for the benefit it is seeking at the time the petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. 
1 03.2(b )(1 ). Again, a visa petition may not be approved based on speculation of future eligibility or 
after the Petitioner or Beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Michelin Tire, 17 
I&N Dec. at 249. 
2 On appeal, the Petitioner stated that 
concerns. 
declined to provide a copy of its contract with its client for privacy 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter ~~ G- LLC 
Furthermore, although the Petitioner submits letters from and the letters do 
not describe the particular duties of the Beneficiary in detail. They, list the same general and vague 
duties as provided by the Petitioner. The letters do not further explain what each of these duties 
specifically entails, and how each duty specifically relates to the project. · 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient details regarding the nature and scope of the Beneficiary's 
employment or 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 
tasks; and/or (3) the correlation between that work and a need for a particular level of knowledge in 
a specific specialty. 
As the Petitioner has not established the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the 
Beneficiary, this 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 ofthat work that determines (1) the normal 
minimum educational requirement for the particular position, which is the focus of criterion 1; 
(2) industry positions which are parallel to the proffered position and thus appropriate for review for 
a common degree requirement, under the first alternate prong of criterion 2; (3) the level of 
complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position, which is the focus of the second alternate prong 
of criterion 2; ( 4) the factual justification for a petitioner normally requiring a degree or its 
equivalent, when that is an issue under criterion 3; and (5) the degree of specialization and 
complexity of the specific duties, which is the focus of criterion 4. 
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 .. The appeal will be 
dismissed for this reason. 
IV. 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 been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofG- LLC, ID# 215896 (AAO Feb. 27, 2017)