dismissed H-1B Case: Software Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF P-I-, INC. 
Non,. Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 27,2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a software services and consulting company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as an "associate architect" 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)(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 of the California Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
record does not demonstrate, as required, the nature of the services to be performed for the end­
client, and thus, that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and copies of previously submitted evidence, and asserts 
that the record is sufficient to demonstrate the Beneficiary's job duties for the end-client. 
Upon de novo review, we will dis~iss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
, occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
.
Matter of P-1-, Inc. 
(I) A ,baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirementfor 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). 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. Cherto.ff, 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). 
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 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 basis of the requirements imposed by the entities using the 
beneficiary's services. !d. Such evidence must be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate the type and 
educational level of highly specialized knowledge in a specific discipline that is necessary to 
perform that particular work. 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
On the H-lB petition and supporting documentation, the Petitioner, which IS located in Texas, 
indicated that the Beneficiary would work off-site for the end-client located in Ohio. The 
Petitioner requested a validity period from August 2016 through July 2019. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would 
work as an associate architect at the end-client's Ohio location "until 07/28/2017." The Petitioner 
further clarified that, although the Beneficiary's "external job title will remain an Associate 
Architect[,] ... internally at the client site [] he is referred to as a Lead Architect." 
2 
Matter of P-1-, Inc. 
According to the Petitioner, the Beneficiary's job duties would be as follows: 
• Technical consulting and development of applications in Java, J2EE, Spring & 
HTML. 
• Analyze the business requirements and determining technical feasibility of 
implementing them. 
• Participate in the design review with the development team and provide review 
comments. 
• Identify gaps in the backend core services layer for achieving desired 
functionality 
• Defect fixes for issues found in continuous integration of iterative application 
builds 
• Schedule and identify project development milestones and tracking progress 
against these milestones. 
• Coordinate with offshore team to implement the design for new requirements. 
• Conduct meetings with offshore team and provide regular updates to the client 
across various phases. 
• Coordinate with the Integration test teams in planning and executing the end to 
end QA and product testing. 
• Provide warranty support for the project after production deployment. 
• Coordinate in fixing the reported issues found in production. 
Also according to the Petitioner, the proffered position "is a specialty occupation that always 
requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree." 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as .a specialty occupation. 1 That 
is, the Petitioner has not established that, at the time of filing, it has secured definite, non-speculative 
specialty occupation work for the Beneficiary for the entire validity period requested. 2 
1 
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. 
2 Speculative 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 
classifiable as an H-1 B nonimmigrant under the statute, the Service must first examine the duties of the 
position to be occupied to ascertain whether the duties of the position require the attainment of a 
3 
.
Matter of P-1-, Inc. 
In this matter, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary would only work for the end-client in 
Ohio as an "associate architect," alternatively titled "lead architect." To support the 
petition, the Petitioner submitted, inter alia, an amendment to the master agreement between the 
Petitioner and the end-client effective October 2015 ("schedule 1 "), and another amendment 
effective March 2016 ("schedule 2"). However, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how either of 
these documents relates to the Beneficiary. Schedule I lists all the Petitioner's assigned resources, 
but none of them is the Beneficiary. Schedule 2 lists the roles and locations of all the Petitioner's 
assigned resources; while there are two "lead architect" roles, none of them are located in 
Ohio. Instead, the only two positions located in Ohio are a "java developer" and a "lead 
java developer." 
Moreover, schedule 2 requires all services and deliverables to be delivered "no later than July 28, 
2017." The Petitioner also confirmed that the Beneficiary would work for the end-client "until 
07/28/2017." Yet the Petitioner requested a validity period ending in July 2019. The Petitioner has 
not explained what the Beneficiary would do, for whom, and from where, for the remainder of the 
requested validity period. 
The Petitioner also submitted a letter from the end-client. This letter identifies the Beneficiary as a 
"consultant." It further states that the end-client "has engaged the services of [the Petitioner] to 
provide IT consulting services. As a part of this agreement, [the Petitioner] places IT professionals 
at [the end-client's] work site." This letter provides no additional relevant information about the 
Beneficiary's assignment, such as his specific job duties, position title, work location, or length of 
assignment. 
Thus, while the Petitioner provided a description of job duties for the Beneficiary, there is 
insufficient evidence directly from the end-client corroborating the Petitioner's description. The 
record does not contain other letters, contracts, 
or other documentation directly from the end-client 
detailing the specific terms and conditions of the Beneficiary's assignment. As noted above, where 
the work is to be performed for entities other than the Petitioner, evidence of the client companies' 
job requirements is critical. See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. The record is missing this critical 
evidence. 
Accordingly, we find the record insufficient to demonstrate the substantive nature of the work the 
Beneficiary would perform for the end-client (or any other entity) during the requested validity 
period. This therefore precludes a finding that the proffered position satisfies any criterion at 
specific bachelor's degree. See section 214(i) of the Immigration 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 8 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). 
4 
Matter of P-1-, Inc. 
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. 
Accordingly, 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 qualifies for classification as a 
specialty occupation. 
Finally, we are also precluded from finding that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation by virtue of the position's minimum educational requirement. The record is missing 
evidence from end-client regarding the proffered position's minimum educational requirement as 
well. While the Petitioner stated that it requires at least "a bachelor's degree" for the proffered 
position, there is no documentation directly from the end-client confirming such a requirement. 3 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that it has secured work for the Beneficiary for the entire validity 
\ 
period requested, and that such work qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of P-1-, Inc., ID# 328707 (AAO Apr. 27, 2017) 
3 Even if the end-client were to confirm the Petitioner's educational requirement, this alone would be sufficient reason to 
find that the proffered position does not qualify as a specialty occupation. 
A petitioner must demonstrate that the proffered position requires a precise and specific course of study that relates 
directly and closely to the position in question. There must be a close correlation between the required specialized 
studies and the position. Thus, the mere requirement of a general degree, without further specification, does not establish 
the position as a specialty occupation. See Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147 (a requirement for a general-purpose bachelor's 
degree, without more, will not justify a finding that a particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty 
occupation). Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm 'r 1988) ("The mere requirement of a 
college degree for the sake of general education, or to obtain what an employer perceives to be a higher caliber 
employee, also does not establish eligibility."). 
5