dismissed H-1B Case: Software Development

MATTER OF I-S- LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 2, 2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an IT consulting and software development company, seeks to temporarily employ 
the Beneficiary as a "programmer analyst" under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification. 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-IB 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 was insufficient to establish ( 1) that the Petitioner has specialty occupation work 
available for the Beneficiary; and (2) that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that it has and continues to have specialty occupation work available for the Beneficiary, and 
that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
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: 
(b)(6)
Matter of 1-S- 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). 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). 
We note that, 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 
The Petitioner identified the proffered position as a "programmer analyst" on the H-1B petition. In a 
letter 
submitted in support of the petition, the Petitioner claimed that it has been providing advanced 
technology services since 2004, and that it is a "principal provider of comprehensive solutions for 
customers in the Financial Services, Technology, Telecom and Utilities markets." In response to the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner described the Beneficiary's job duties and 
responsibilities as follows: 
• Create/write Functional/System!UAT test cases, utilizing business scenarios; 20% 
• Using to create functional/system/UAT test cases; 20% 
• Knowledge of any healthcare/finance/auto/utilities industry 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of 1-S- LLC 
• Create test plans, writing test scripts and executing the test scripts for system and 
user acceptance testing for a web-based application using QTP; 15% 
• Develop and create various scenarios based on the database transactions; 15% 
• Develop QTP frame work for WebSphere Portal Applications and N tiered web 
application architecture for effective testing; 10% ' 
• Create testing metrics for the upper level management and participate in high 
level defect meetings with business owners; 10% 
• Review documentation of software, defects and assign software developers to 
investigate and resolve the issues. lb% 
The Petitioner further claimed that the Beneficiary would be working in-house on two projects 
during the duration of his employment. The first project, 
is a claimed proprietary software currently in development by the Petitioner to assist golf 
professionals and facilities to manage golf course functions. The second project, 
is a software development project upon which the Beneficiary will work 
pursuant to the Petitioner's agreement with 
Finally, the Petitioner stated that the minimum requirement for this position is a "Bachelor's degree 
in Computer Science, a related analytic of scientific discipline, or its equivalent in education or work 
related experience." 
III. ANALYSIS 
For H-lB approval, the Petitioner must demonstrate a legitimate need for an employee exists and to 
substantiate that it has H-IB 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 be employed in-house as a 
programmer analyst. However, upon review of the record of proceedings, we concur with the 
Director's finding that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient, credible evidence to establish 
in-house employment for the Beneficiary for the validity of the requested H-lB employment period. 
First, we find that 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 th<? proffered position or its duties. For example , the Petitioner 
stated that the Beneficiary will spend the majority of his time "[ u ]sing to create 
functional/system!UAT test cases" and creating/writing "[f]unctional/system!UAT test cases, 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of I-S- LLC 
utilizing business scenarios." Although each of these duties is' allocated 20% of the Beneficiary 's 
time, it is unclear exactly what these responsibilities include or how they will be implemented in the 
two projects upon which the Beneficiary will work. Moreover, the list of duties includes additional 
tasks such as "create testing metrics for the upper level management and participate in high-level 
defect meetings with business owners," yet it is unclear exactly who these business owners are or 
what the nature of their meetings will entail. The Petitioner's description is generalized and generic 
in that the Petitioner 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. 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. 
Moreover, while the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary will be tasked to work on two software 
development projects, one of which is claimed to be an internal, proprietary product, there is 
insufficient evidence to establish the exact nature of the Beneficiary's role on these projects. As 
noted by the Director, the evidence of record does not identify the resources needed for each project, 
nor does it outline the expected duration or timeline of each project. Although the project between 
the Petitioner and identifies a "period of performance" from April 5, 2015, through 
July of2018 in the statement of work (SOW), the SOW also identifies the project as a "public-facing 
Internet site." In addition, the Petitioner provides copies of invoices for this project on appeal, 
which it claims serve as evidence of the existence of the project and that the project is in "Phase 2." 
Absent more specific details regarding the requirements and resources for this project, it is unclear 
how the development of a website for a single company will constitute continuous specialty 
occupation work for the three-year requested period . 
Finally, we note that the record of proceedings lacks documentation regarding the Petitioner 's 
business activities and the actual work that the Beneficiary will perform in-house 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. For example , while the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary 
will work on the development of its proprietary software, the Director noted that numerous 
similar products currently exist, and there is no evidence of a verified customer base for such a 
project. This fact, coupled with the Petitioner 's omission of any details and timelines with regard to 
this project, falls short of explaining how a programmer analyst would assist on this project. 
Moreover, no documentation provided in support of the petition specifically name the Beneficiary as 
personnel on this project, or on the project. Thus, the Petitioner did not provide 
documents to substantiate its ongoing projects for the H-1B validity period. A petitioner 's 
unsupported statements are of very limited weight and normally will be insufficient to carry its 
burden of ·proof, particularly when supporting documentary evidence would reasonably be 
available. See Matter of Sofjici, 22 I&N Dec. 15 8, 165 (Comm 'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure 
CraftofCal ., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972). 
4 
Matter of 1-S- LLC 
As observed above, USCIS in this matter must review 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 classification as a specialty occupation. To 
accomplish that task in this matter, US CIS must analyze· the actual duties in conjunction with the 
specific project(s) to which the Beneficiary will be assigned. To allow otherwise, results in generic 
descriptions of duties that, while they may appear (in so'me 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 regarding 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 an:d 
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 education of 
highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. 
The Petitioner has not established the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the 
I 
Beneficiary, which therefore precludes a finding that the proffered position satisfies any criterion at 
8 C.P.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. 
Taken as a whole, the record of proceedings does not contain sufficient, reliable evidence 
demonstrating the substantive nature of the proffered position and its constituent duties.' 
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. 2 To that end and to make our determination as to whether the employment 
described above qualifies as a specialty occupation, we turn to the criteria at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
1 Further, without full disclosure, we are unable to determine whether the requisite employer-employee relationship with 
exist between the Petitioner and Beneficiary. 
2 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. · 
5 
Matter of 1-S- LLC 
A. First Criterion 
We will first review the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which requires that a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position. To inform this inquiry, we recognize the U.S. 
Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source 
on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses.3 
The Petitioner attested on the required labor condition application (LCA)4 that the occupational 
classification for the position is "Computer Systems Analysts," corresponding to the Standard 
Occupational Classification code 15-1121 at a Level I wage.5 
The Handbook subchapter entitled "How to: Become a Computer Systems Analyst" states, in 
pertinent part: "A bachelor's degree in a computer or information science field is common, although 
not always a requirement. Some firms hire analysts with business or liberal arts degrees who have 
skills in information technology or computer programming." U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., "Computer Systems Analysts," 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-systems-analysts.htm#tab-
4 (last visited Nov. 1, 2016). The Handbook also states: "Although many computer systems 
analysts have technical degrees, such a degree is not always a requirement. Many analysts have 
liberal arts degrees and have gained programming or technica1 expertise elsewhere." !d. 
3 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 USC IS 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. 
4 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to USCIS to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B worker the 
higher of either the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the "area of employment" or the actual wage 
paid by the employer to other employees with similar experience and qualifications who are performing the same 
services. See Matter ofSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 545-546 (AAO 20 15). 
5 We will consider the Petitioner's classification of the proffered position at a Levell wage (the lowest of four assignable 
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: (1) 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 
instructio11s 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://tlcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _:_1 1_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 Level I wage should be considered for research fellows, workers 
in training, or internships. !d. 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of 1-S- LLC 
The Handbook indicates that a bachelor's degree in a computer or information science field may be 
common, but not that it is a requirement for entry into these jobs. In fact, this chapter reports that 
"many" computer systems analysts may only have liberal arts degrees and programming or technical 
experience, but does not further qualify the amount of experience needed. The Handbook also notes 
that many analysts have technical degrees, but does not specify a degree level (e.g., associate's 
degree) for these technical degrees. The Handbook further specifies that such a technical degree is 
not always a requirement. Thus, this passage o(the Handbook reports that there are several paths for 
entry into the occupation. 
In addition, the Petitioner referenced the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) OnLine 
Summary Report for the· occupational category "Computer Systems Analysts" to support the 
assertion that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The Petitioner stated that the 
O*NET assigns a designation of Job Zone 4 to computer systems analyst positions and, therefore, it 
is clear that the position is a specialty occupation. A Job Zone 4 indicates that a position requires 
considerable preparation. It does not, however, demonstrate that a bachelor's degree in any specific 
specialty is required, and does not, therefore, demonstrate that a position so designated is in a 
specialty occupation as defined in section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). The 
O*NET OnLine Help Center provides a discussion of the Job Zone 4 designation and explains that 
this zone signifies only that most, but not all of the occupations within it, require a bachelor's 
degree. See O*NET OnLine Help Center at http://www.onetonline.org/help/online/zones. Further, 
the Help Center discussion confirms that a designation of Job Zone 4 does not indicate any 
requirements for particular majors or academic concentrations. Therefore, despite the Petitioner 's 
assertion to the contrary, the O*NET Summary Report is not probative evidence that the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Finally, the Petitioner submitted a letter from associate professor of computer 
applications and information systems at the stated that he was 
· asked to evaluate the degree requirements expected for the professional position of programmer 
analyst for the Petitioner. concluded that the proffered position requires preparation at the 
Bachelor's Degree level in computer information systems or a related area at a minimum. 
We reviewed the opinion letter in its entirety; however, we find that the letter from is not 
persuasive in establishing the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation positiOn. 
Specifically, provides a brief, general description of the Petitioner's business activities; 
however, he does not demonstrate or assert in-depth knowledge of the Petitioner's specific business 
operations or how the duties of the position would actually be performed in the context of the 
Petitioner's business enterprise. For instance, there no evidence that he visited the Petitioner's 
premises, observed the Petitioner's employees, interviewed them about the nature of their work, or 
; documented the knowledge that they apply on the job. 
"7 
(b)(6)
Matter of 1-S- LLC 
There is also no indication that the Petitioner advised that it characterized the proffered 
position as a low, entry-level computer systems analyst position.6 In accordance with the relevant 
DOL explanatory information on wage levels, a Level I position is indicative that, relative to other 
positions falling under the occupational category, the Beneficiary is expected to only have a basic 
understanding of the occupation. The wage-rate indicates that the Beneficiary will be expected to 
perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; that he will be closely 
supervised and his work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and that he will receive 
specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. It appears that would have 
found this information relevant for his opinion letter. Moreover, without this information, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that possessed the requisite information necessary to 
adequately assess the nature of the Petitioner's position and appropriately determine parallel 
positions based upon the job duties and responsibilities. We therefore consider this a significant 
OmiSSIOn. 
In short, does not provide a substantive, analytical basis for his opinion and ultimate 
conclusion. · His opinion does not relate his conclusion to specific, concrete aspects of this 
Petitioner's business operations to demonstrate a sound ·factual basis for the conclusion 
about the 
educational requirements for the particular position here at issue. He has not provided sufficient 
facts that would support the assertion that the proffered position requires at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty (or its equivalent). 
. . 
For the reasons discussed, we find that the opinion letter lends little probative value to the matter 
here. Matter of Caron Int '!, 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 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)(l). 
B. 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 
6 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)(l) of the Act. 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter of 1-S- LLC 
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. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by 
USCIS include: whether the Handbook reports that the industry re,quires 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) (quoting Hird!Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. 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 
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. 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner submitted copies of job announcements placed by other 
employers. However, upon review ofthe documents, we find that the Petitioner's reliance on the job 
announcements is misplaced. First, we note that the job posting by a Catholic and 
Jesuit University, does not appear to involve an organization similar to the Petitioner. When 
determining whether the Petitioner and the organization share the same general characteristics, such 
factors may include information regarding the nature or type of organization, and, when pertinent, 
the particular scope of operations, as well as the level of revenue and staffing (to list just a few 
elements that may be considered). It is not sufficient for the Petitioner to claim that an organization 
is similar and in the same industry without providing a legitimate basis for such 
an assertion. 
Moreover, many of the advertisements do not appear to be for parallel positions. For example, some 
of the positions appear to be for more senior positions than the proffered position. All of the posted 
positions require prior work experience within the industry, with one posting requiring at least "5 to 
10 years' experience in java development and support." Given that the proffered position in the 
instant petition is a Level I, entry-level position, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that 
the primary duties and responsibilities of the advertised positions are parallel to the proff~red 
position. 
9 
Matter of I-S- LLC 
In addition, some of the postings do not indicate that at least a bachelor's degree in a directly related 
specific specialty (or its equivalent) is required. 7 The job postings suggest, at best, that although a 
bachelor's degree is sometimes required for programmer analyst positions, a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty (or its equivalent) is not.8 
As the documentation does not establish that the Petitioner has met this prong of the regulations, 
further analysis regarding the specific information contained in each of the job postings is not 
necessary.9 That is, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. 
Without more, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions 
among similar organizations. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
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 
7 As discussed, the degree requirement set by the statutory and regulatory framework of the H-1 B program is not just a 
bachelor's or higher degree, but a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the duties of the 
position. See section 214(i)(l)(b) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). Further, a desire or preference for a degree 
in a field is not necessarily an indication of a minimum requirement. 
8 It must be noted that even if all of the job postings indicated that a requirement of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations (which they do not), the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from the advertisements with regard to 
determining the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. See 
generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 (1995). Moreover, given that there is no indication that 
the advertisements were randomly selected, the validity of any such inferences could not be accurately determined even 
if the sampling unit were sufficiently large. See id. at 195-196 (explaining that "[r]andom selection is the key to [the] 
process [of probability sampling]" and that "random selection offers access to the body of probability theory, which 
provides the basis for estimates of population parameters and estimates of error"). 
9 The Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how representative the job postings are of the particular 
advertising employers' recruiting history for the type of job advertised. As the advertisements are only solicitations for 
hire, they are not evidence of the actual hiring practices of these employers. 
10 
Matter of 1-S- LLC 
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. Without additional 
evidence, the record of proceeding 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 
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). 
C. 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. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner claimed that it has a past practice of hiring individuals with a 
least a baccalaureate degree, and provided a list of five individuals it claims have been or are 
currently employed by the Petitioner as programmer analysts. It also provides their degrees as well 
as a corresponding· USC IS petition receipt number, suggesting that these individuals likely are 
employed in H-lB status. 
Without additional evidence regarding these individuals' job duties and positions, it is not possible 
to discern if the five individuals identified by the Petitioner perform the same or similar duties with 
similar levels of responsibilities as the proffered position. For instance, as the Petitioner has 
designated the proffered position as a Level I entry position, we cannot determine, absent additional 
documentation, whether these five individuals are employed in the same capacity as the proffered 
position. 
In addition, although the Petitioner asserts that all of these individuals are or have previously been its 
employees, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to support this assertion. There is no 
documentation in the record to establish the terms and conditions of the employment of these 
individuals. Even if payroll records or other such documentation was submitted, this would still not 
establish that these individuals are employed in the same capacity as the proffered position, which is 
the relevant inquiry under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
11 
Matter of 1-S- LLC 
Here, the record of proceedings is insufficient to establish that the Petitioner normally requires a 
bachelor's or higher degree in a 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). 
D. 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 
generally described duties of its programmer analyst 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. , I 
Upon review of the totality of the record, the Petitioner has not established that the nature of the 
specific duties is 'SO specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform the duties is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. For the reasons discussed above, the evidence of record does not satisfy the fourth 
criterion at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The burden is on the 
Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of 1-S- LLC, ID# 12527 (AAO Nov. 2, 2016) 
12