dismissed H-1B Case: Software Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-S-, INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 31,2017 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a three-employee software developer and consulting company, seeks to temporarily 
employ the Beneficiary as a "programmer analyst" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for 
specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(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 the.oretical 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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that there is sufficient work available for the entire validity period requested; and as such, 
that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. On appeal, the Petitioner submits 
additional evidence and asserts that it has demonstrated eligibility. 
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 offered 
position must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
(I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
.
Matter of A-S-, Inc. 
(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). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
In response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner indicated that it would provide 
services to a number of different clients, listing the duties the Beneficiary may provide on each 
project as follows: 
• 
a. Software Development for [B-, Inc. 7 
[B-, Inc.] contracted for the Software Development· with [the Petitioner]. The 
Beneficiary's job duties include: Coding & Unit testing, system testing, deployment 
in productions for a project developing a SaaS, Web Application to provide 
Appointment reminders via email, text (sms) and automated voice calls and design, 
develop and deploy the SaaS web application to a production server provided by 
Customer. ' 
b. Consulting Services (or [H-D-, Inc. 7 
[H-D-, Inc.] contracted for the Consulting Services with [Petitioner] 
via two statements of work. The Beneficiary's job duties include: Coding & Unit 
testing, Deployment to sandbox/production, HHS development for approved 
enhancements, Testing support while UAT in progress, Fix issues reported from 
testing, Change to unit Workflow and work order, and Support Integration and Data 
Migration. 
2 
.
Matter of A-S-, Inc. 
c. Dedicated Resource Assignment (or [N-7 
[N-] contracted for the Dedicated Resource Assignment with [the Petitioner]. The 
Beneficiary's job duties include: Customer Support, Requirement Discussion, 
Coding & Unit testing, Systems testing, Deployment to sandbox/production, and 
Production support. 
d. Tasks & Feature Enhancements (or [V-, Inc.! 
[V-, Inc.] contracted for the Tasks & Features Enhancements with [the Petitioner]. 
The Beneficiary's job duties include: Understanding the requirements, Coding & 
Unit testing, Testing and Deployment, and Production Support. 
e. Implementation (or [F-C-&F-C-, Inc.! 
[F-C-&F-C-, Inc.] contracted for the Implementation with [the Petitioner]. 
Phase 1 
includes: SF Setup Users, Configuration, Integration of Emails with 
Activities, Test Data Import for Custom Objects, Integration of FCF 
website and Social Media with and Telephony Integration, Testing & QA, 
UAT Sign-off, Production Deployment and User Training. Phase 2 includes: 
SYSPRO Integration with SFDC Platform, Click2Dial Integration with VoiP 
Platform, UAT Sign-off, Production Deployment, and User Training . 
.f Implementation (or [S-F-L-, LLCZ 
[S-F-L-, LLC] contracted for the Implementation with [the Petitioner]. 
Phase 1 
includes: SF Setup of Users, Configuration, Integration of 
Platform with A200, Test S- Customer Data into SF Platform, Implementation of 
3.x Custom Objects, Testing & QA, UAT Sign-off, Production 
Deployment and User Training. Phase 2 
includes: S- Mobile Device Integration with 
SF Platform, S- DocuSign Implementation, UA T Sign-oft~ Production Deployment, 
and User Training. 
g. Software Development (or [G-7 
[G-] contracted for the Software Development and Support Services with [the 
Petitioner]. The Beneficiary's job duties: Coding & Unit testing, Data Loading, 
Design discussion and changes, Deployment to sandbox/production, Development 
Tasks (POS Development on top of and 
Configuration, 1 Mobile, Scribe integration support, 
Quotation process support, Pardot integration support, Telephony integration, 
Dispatch Module, and Ongoing support). 
3 
.
Matter of A-S-, Inc. 
Further, the Petitioner described the Beneficiary's duties as a programmer analyst as follows: 
• Coding & Unit testing; 
• Data Loading; 
• Design discussion and changes; 
• Deployment to sandbox/production; 
• Development Tasks from scope including: 
0 POS Development on top of and 
0 Configuration, 
0 1 Mobile, 
0 Scribe integration support, 
0 Quotation process support, 
0 Pardot integration support, 
0 Telephony integration, 
0 Dispatch Module, and 
0 Ongoing support 
• Participate in scope discussions; and 
• Review incremental deliverables . 
The Petitioner stated that "a qualified applicant must possess a minimum [of] a bachelor's degree or 
equivalent in computers, engineering, or a related 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 
Specifically, the record (1) does not describe the position's duties with sufficient detail; (2) does not 
demonstrate that non-speculative work has been secured; and (3) does not establish that the job 
duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty 
. 2 
occupatiOn. 
As a preliminary matter, the duties provided for the Beneficiary are vague and do not convey the actual 
day-to-day tasks to be performed and the knowledge required to perform them. First, the Petitioner 
does not indicate, at minimum, the initial project(s) and client(s) to which the Beneficiary would be 
assigned, but instead submitted documentation "as an example of the projects that the Beneficiary 
would work on" and the type of work he may perform. Further, the provided duties are general and 
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 We withdraw the Director's comments that "the position of Programmer Analyst is traditionally considered a specialty 
occupation." The Director has not provided any persuasive reasoning nor cited to any authoritative sources to support 
such a conclusion. 
4 
.
Matter of A-S-, Inc. 
only reference technology and technical aspects of these projects without explaining the demands, level 
of responsibility, complexity, or requirements necessary for their performance. For instance, the 
duties make reference to numerous types of technology and processes without explanation, such as 
"deployment to sandbox/production," "POS Development on top of and 
"Scribe Integration Support," "Pardot Integration Support," "Telephony 
integration," amongst many others. Beyond these technological references, the Petitioner only 
provides vague duties such as "Customer Support," "Coding and Unit Testing," "Data Loading," 
"Design discussion and changes," "participat[ion] in scope discussions," and "review [of] 
incremental deliverables." The Petitioner did not provide a more detailed description explaining 
what particular duties the Beneficiary would perform on a day-to-day basis, nor is there a detailed 
explanation regarding the nature of the referenced technology, processes, tools, and processes, and 
what body of knowledge is required to perform the duties. 
It is notable the Petitioner submits evidence indicating that it is a new venture in the United States, thus 
leaving question as to whether it would have sufficient work for the Beneficiary for the entire requested 
period, and if so, the nature of that work. For instance, the Petitioner provides a business plan dated in 
December 2014 reflecting that the company had just commenced operations in the United States. Its 
2013 IRS Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return, shows that the company did not earn any 
income or pay any wages or salaries during that year 
The Petitioner does not sufficiently alleviate this uncertainty with supporting evidence of its local 
operations. It provides several statements of work and work orders executed with clients from 2014 
through 2016. However, none of these contractual documents reference the engagement of, or the need 
for, a programmer analyst or the Beneficiary in particular, and the Petitioner does not otherwise explain 
in detail how this evidence demonstrates the specific need for the Beneficiary's position throughout the 
entire requested period of employment. This lack of detail regarding the Beneficiary's position is 
particularly notable since several of the documents clearly outline the Petitioner's personnel and the 
positions required for various client projects, including references to project managers, project leads, 
account managers, junior and senior developers, engagement managers, architects, quality assurance 
employees, and senior analysts/consultants. Again, none of these contractual documents substantiate a 
need for a programmer analyst, and the Petitioner does not articulate the specific project(s) and client(s) 
to which the Beneficiary would actually be assigned. 
In addition, the durations of the provided statements of work raise further question regarding the 
availability of work since they range from around one month to one year, much less than the nearly 
three year period of requested employment. Further, most of the submitted statements of work were 
executed after this petition's filing date. Therefore, in sum, the Petitioner's lack of detail regarding the 
Beneficiary's assignment, the company's apparent lack of local operations, and the questions raised by 
the submitted contractual documentation, leave significant question as to whether there would be 
sufficient work available for the entire requested period of employment and whether that work would be 
of specialty occupation caliber. · 
5 
Matter of A-S-, Inc. 
Therefore, we find that the Petitioner has not established non-speculative3 work for the Beneficiary at 
the time of the petition's filing for the entire period requested. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) regulations affinnatively require a petitioner to establish eligibility for the benefit 
it is seeking at the time the petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 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 Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg'l 
Comm'r 1978). 
We also find that 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). 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. As the Petitioner has not 
established that it has satisfied any ofthe 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. 
The Petitioner also has not demonstrated that the proffered position, as described, qualifies as a 
specialty occupation under any of the specialty occupation criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 4 
3 The agency made clear long ago that 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 
specific bachelor's degree. See section 214(i) ofthe 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 B classification. Moreover, there is no 
assurance that the alien will engage in a specialty occupation upon arrival in this country. 
Petitioning Requirements for the H Nonimmigrant Classification, 63 Fed. Reg. 30,419, 30,419-20 (proposed June 4, 
1998) (to be codified at 8 C.F.R. pt. 214). While a petitioner is certainly permitted to change its intent with regard to 
non-speculative employment, e.g., a change in duties or job location, it must nonetheless document such a material 
change in intent through an amended or new petition in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(E). 
4 
Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
Matter of A-S-, Inc. 
A. First Criterion 
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 of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 5 
On the labor condition application (LCA)6 the Petitioner presented in support of this petition, it 
classified the proffered position under the occupational title "Computer Systems Analysts," 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 15-1121 at a Level I wage rate. 7 
The Handbook's subchapter entitled "How to Become a Computer Systems Analyst" states that "[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." 8 The Handbook also states that "[a]lthough 
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 technical expertise 
elsewhere. "9 
The Handbook does not indicate that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its 
equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for these positions. As noted, the Handbook states 
that a bachelor's degree in a computer-related field is "not always a requirement." 10 Rather, the 
Handbook states that many computer systems analysts may only have liberal arts degrees and 
programming or technical experience, but does not further specify the amount of experience needed. 
5 We do not, however, maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. All of our references 
are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. 
6 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to USC IS 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 of Simeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 545-546 (AAO 20 15). 
7 
We will further consider the Petitioner's selection of the Level I wage rate (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: (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. DOL, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy 
Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/ 
NPWHC_Guidance_Revised_ll_2009.pdf A wage determination starts with an entry level wage and progresses to a 
higher wage leveJ after considering the experience, education, and skill requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. 
!d. 
8 See Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Computer Systems Analysts 
(20 16-17 ed.). 
9 !d. 
10 !d. 
Matter of A-S-, Inc. 
It also notes that many analysts have technical degrees, but does not specify a degree level (e.g., 
associate's degree) for these degrees, and indicates that such a technical degree is not always a 
requirement. Thus, the Handbook reports that there are several paths for entry into the occupation. 11 
Further, we note that the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) Summary Report for 
"Computer Systems Analysts," briefly referenced by the Petitioner, is also insufficient to establish 
that the position qualifies as a specialty occupation normally requiring at least a bachelor's degree in 
a computer-related degree. While O*NET indicates that a computer systems analyst position 
requires "considerable preparation" and that most employers require a four-year bachelor's degree, it 
does not, however, demonstrate that a bachelor's degree in any spec(fic specialty is required. 
O*NET does not, therefore, demonstrate that a position so designated is a specialty occupation as 
defined in section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(ii). 
The Petitioner also submits USCIS' Fiscal Year 2014 Annual Report to Congress on the 
Characteristics of H1B Specialty Occupation Workers; however its reliance of this document is 
'misplaced. The report, referring to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii), states that specialty occupations "may 
include" computer systems analysts (among other occupations). However, a review of that 
regulation does not include a specific reference to computer systems analysts. Moreover, the report 
discusses the characteristics of broad categories of occupations. When making a determination in 
regard to a specific case, we must address the actual duties of the specific employment in order to 
analyze and ascertain whether the proffered position actually requires the theoretical and practical 
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment of a baccalaureate or 
higher degree in a specific specialty as the minimum for entry into the occupation, as required. As 
discussed above, the Petitioner has not provided this sufficient detail regarding the proffered 
position. 
The Petitioner's reliance on the outdated, inaccurate policy memorandum by Terry Way is also 
misplaced, as this memorandum has now been rescinded. See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-
0142, Rescission of the December 22, 2000 "Guidance memo on HI B computer related positions·· 
(Mar. 31, 20 17), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/nativedocuments/PM-6002-
0 142-H-1 BComputerRelatedPositionsRecission.pdf. 
11 In addition, the Handbook indicates that baccalaureate degrees in various fields (e.g. computer or information science, 
or liberal arts) may be adequate for entry into this occupation. In general, provided the specialties are closely related 
(e.g., computer and information science), a minimum of a bachelor's degree in more than one specialty is recognized as 
satisfying the "degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)" requirement of section 2 I 4(i)(l )(B) of the Act. In such 
a case, the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" would essentially be the same. 
Since there must be a close correlation between the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" and the position, 
however, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in disparate fields (e.g., computer science and liberal arts) would not 
meet the statutory requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)," unless the Petitioner 
establishes how each field is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position such that the 
required body of highly specialized knowledge is essentially an amalgamation of these different specialties. Section 
2 I 4(i)( I )(b) of the Act. The Petitioner has not done so here. 
Matter of A-S-, Inc. 
The Petitioner has not provided documentation from a probative source to substantiate the assertions 
regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. Therefore, it 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 
individual with a degree .... " 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong 
concentrates on the 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. 
We generally consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there is such a common 
degree requirement: 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 establish 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) 
(considering these "factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook, or another authoritative source, reports a requirement for at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. We incorporate by reference the previous discussion on the 
matter. 
The Petitioner submits several job advertisements from other companies meant to demonstrate that 
there 'is a minimum bachelor's degree requirement for the position .. However, we are unable to 
determine that these companies are similar to the Petitioner or that the submitted positions are 
parallel to the proffered position. For instance, the Petitioner provides little information on the size 
and revenue of these companies and how they compare to the Petitioner. Further, the Petitioner does 
not articulate or support how these companies are similar and the companies appear to operate in 
differing industries such as emergency services, laboratory services, aviation, and medical services. 
We acknowledge that the submitted job postings state that at least a bachelor's degree in computer 
science, information systems, or computer engineering is required for the positions. However, the 
Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the duties or the requirements for these positions are 
9 
Matter of A-S-, Inc. 
parallel to the proffered position. The submitted job advertisements reflect varying job titles that 
appear to differ from the proffered position, including higher level positions such as "programmer 
analyst III" and "programmer/analyst II," as opposed to the entry-level Level I position offered to 
the Beneficiary. In fact, most of the positions require more than three years of prior experience, 
again inconsistent with the Level I wage designation on the LCA contemplating an employee with 
only a basic understanding of the occupation who performs routine tasks requiring limited judgment. 
Therefore, the submitted positions appear to be more senior and of greater responsibility than the 
f
'h d . . 12 pro 1ere position. 
As the record does not include probative evidence that a "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, 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. 
In support of its assertion that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, the 
Petitioner submitted a job description for the proffered position and information regarding its 
business operations. However, as discussed, the Beneficiary's duties were vague, general tasks, not 
specific to his proposed assignment to the end-client. Therefore, the Petitioner did not sufficiently 
develop relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position, and it did not 
identify any tasks that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could 
perform them. 
Moreover, the Petitioner's designation of the proffered position as a Level I entry-level position 
within the "Computer Systems Analyst" occupational category does not support its claim that the 
position is particularly complex, specialized, unique compared to other positions within the same 
occupation. Therefore, it does not appear that the position is one with complex or unique duties 
relative to other computer systems analyst positions requiring a significantly higher prevailing wage, 
as such a Level III (experienced) or Level IV (fully competent) wage level. 13 
12 
In addition, it is not apparent what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from this limited number of job 
postings with regard to the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. 
See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 ( 1995). 
13 The Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position undermines its claim that the position is 
particularly complex, unique, and specialized 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 
10 
Matter of A-S-, Inc. 
We note that 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. Upon review, the record lacks sufficiently detailed information 
to distinguish the proffered position as more complex or unique than other computer systems analyst 
positions that can be performed by persons without at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position, and references his 
education and experience as evidence that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. However, 
the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education or experience of a 
proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itselr'requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, 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. The 
Petitioner did not submit any evidence of previous or current employees in the same position as the 
Beneficiary's proffered position. Therefore, 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. 
Again, as previously mentioned, the Beneficiary's duties are stated invague, general terms that are 
not specific to any client or project. Therefore, the job description submitted by the Petitioner does 
not establish that the proffered duties are more specialized and complex than the duties of positions 
that are not usually associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. We refer to our earlier comments and findings with regard to the implication of the 
Petitioner's designation of the proffered position in the LCA as a Level I wage, and hence one not 
likely distinguishable by relatively specialized and complex duties. 
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)( I) of the Act. 
II 
Matter of A-S-, Inc. 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence that the duties, as generally described, require 
more than technical proficiency in the information technology field. The Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that its proffered position is one with duties sufficiently specialized and complex to 
satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
l 
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. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed .. 
Cite as Matter of A-S-, Inc., ID# 571259 (AAO Aug. 31, 2017) 
12