dismissed H-1B Case: Software Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A- CORP. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 17,2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a software development business, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"programmer analyst" 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-1B program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a 
position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner had not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation 
position. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the evidence of 
record satisfies all evidentiary requirements. 
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.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 A- Corp. 
(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 Us] so specialized and complex that 
knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has consistently 
interpreted the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any 
baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed 
position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. 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). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
In the H-lB pet1t10n, the Petitioner stated that the proffered position is a programmer analyst 
position. In a letter submitted with the H-lB petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will 
perform the following duties (note: errors in the original text have not been changed): 
1. At (the Petitioner's] headquarters, (the Beneficiary] will perform detailed analysis 
of new software systems and an 
manual processes they use to access their internal applications. ( 40% of work time, 
out of a total 1 00%; based on her proposed 40 hours per work week) 
2. She will design a comprehensive software system, an software 
systems" to create a front-end cluster of Customer and Vendor systems as a 
user-friendly fa9ade, providing users with a single consistent access interface to these 
applications and shielding users from having to learn to use different software 
packages. Specifically, this will require her to: 
• Design software that is responsive to mobile and cross browser 
compatible, 
• Develop the web services to integrate the website data with backend 
software to exchange Purchase Order 
Acknowledgement data, 
2 
Matter of A- Corp. 
• Design software to exchange Invoices data and automate accounting 
functionalities payment reconciliation, AR and AP invoicing and 
management report 
• Design software to exchange Advanced Shipment Notices data. 
( 40% of his work time, out of total 1 00%; based on her. proposed 40 hours 
per work week) 
3. She will integrate these enterprise applications into the following Enterprise 
Application Interface functions: 
• Trading Partners, 
• Inbound Transactions, 
• Outbound Transactions, / 
Reports, 
I 
• 
• Dashboard, 
• User Administration 
(20% of his work time, out of total 1 00%; based on her proposed 40 hours per 
week) 
As to the educational requirement of the proffered position, the Petitioner stated, "Due to the highly 
analytical nature of this position, at least a related bachelor's degree is required to perform those 
duties adequately. [The Beneficiary] is well qualified for the position." 
In a letter submitted in response to a request for evidence (RFE) issued in this case, the Petitioner 
reiterated that duty description and stated, "The minimum educational requirement for this position 
is at least a.bachelor's degree (or equivalent ofthe same) in the occupational field of study." 
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 does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or 
its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 2 
Initially, we observe that the Petitioner has not established that the proffered position requires a 
minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. That is, in the letter 
1 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
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. 
3 
Matter of A- Corp. 
submitted with the H-1B petition, the Petitioner stated that the proffered position requires a "related" 
bachelor's degree. In the letter submitted in response to the RFE, the Petitioner stated that the 
proffered position requires a bachelor's degree "in the occupational field of study." However, the 
array of subjects that the Petitioner would include as "related" or within the salient "occupational 
field of study" is unclear. 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 degree, without further specification, does not establish the position 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."). Thus, 
while a general-purpose bachelor's degree may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, 
requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify a finding that a particular position qualifies 
for classification as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d at 147. 
Nevertheless, we will continue our analysis of whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation for the purpose of performing a comprehensive analysis. We will next discuss the record 
of proceedings in relation to the four criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
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.3 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-1B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Computer Systems Analysts" 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 15-1121. 4 
3 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/. We do not, however, maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant 
information. That is, the occupational category designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the 
general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered position, and USCIS regularly reviews the Handbook on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. To satisfY the first criterion, however, the 
burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position 
would normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
4 The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level I wage (the lowest of four assignable wage levels). We will 
consider this selection in our analysis of the position. The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" issued by 
the DOL provides a description of the wage levels. A Levell 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 she 
will be closely supervised and her work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that she will receive 
specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing 
4 
Matter of A- Corp. 
The Handbook describes the educational requirements of positions located within the computer 
systems analyst occupational category as follows: 
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. 
Education 
Most computer systems analysts have a bachelor's degree in a computer-related field. 
Because these analysts also are heavily involved in the business side of a company, it 
may be helpful to take business courses or major in management information 
systems. 
Some employers prefer applicants who have a master's degree in business 
administration (MBA) with a concentration in information systems. For more 
technically complex jobs, a master's degree in computer science may be more 
appropriate. 
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 technical expertise elsewhere. 
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 Oct. 14, 20 16). 
The Handbook does not support the assertion that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for these positions. This section of the 
narrative begins by stating that a bachelor's degree in a related field is not a requirement. The 
Handbook continues by stating that there is a wide-range of degrees that are acceptable for positions 
in this occupation, including general-purpose degrees such as business and liberal arts. While the 
Handbook indicates that a bachelor's degree in a computer or information science field is common, 
it does not report that such a degree in normally a minimum requirement for entry. 
According to the Handbook, many individuals working in positions located within the systems 
analysts occupational category have liberal arts degrees and have gained programming or technical 
Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _II_ 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. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of A- Corp. 
expertise elsewhere. It further reports that many analysts have technical degrees. We observe that 
the Handbook does not specify a degree level (e.g., associate's degree, baccalaureate) for these 
technical degrees. Moreover, it specifically states that such a degree is not always a 
requirement. Thus, the Handbook does not support the claim that the computer systems analyst 
occupational category is one for which ·normally the, minimum requirement for entry is a 
baccalaureate degree (or higher) in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent. Even if it did, the record 
lacks sufficient evidence to support a finding that the particular position proffered here, an entry­
level position within the computer systems analyst occupational category, would normally have such 
a minimum, specialty degree requirement or its equivalent. · 
The Petitioner submitted an evaluation of the proffered position prepared by 
an associate professor at 
stated that the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree or 
its equivalent "in a relevant technical field, such as Computer Science, Information Systems, 
Electronic Engineering, or [a] related discipline." 
There is no indication that possesses in-depth knowledge of the proffered 
position. He does not discuss the duties of the proffered position in any substantive detail. Further, 
he does not demonstrate or assert in-depth knowledge of the 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 is no indication that visited the Petitioner's 
business, observed the Petitioner's employees, interviewed them about the nature of their work, or 
documented the knowledge that they apply on the job. To the contrary, he indicates that his 
knowledge of the position comes solely from the Petitioner's H-18- support letter submitted to 
USCIS, which we have reviewed and con:;idered. 
asserts a general educational standard for programmer analyst positions without 
referencing any supporting authority or any empirical basis for the pronouncement. Likewise, he 
does not relate his conclusion to specific, concrete aspects of the Petitioner's business operations to 
demonstrate a sound factual basis for the conclusion about the educational requirements for the 
particular position here at issue. The factual foundation of his conclusions, therefore, is not clear. 
Furthennore , there is no indication that the Petitioner advised that it 
characterized the proffered position as an entry-level computer systems analyst position, for a 
beginning employee who has only a basic understanding of the occupation (as indicated by the 
wage-level on the LCA) relative to other positions within the occupational category. 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 job duties and responsibilities. 
In summary, and for each and all of the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the evaluation 
rendered by does not establish the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. The conclusions reached by lack the requisite specificity and detail 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of A- Corp. 
and are not supported by independent, objective evidence demonstrating the manner in which he 
reached such conclusions. There is an inadequate factual foundation established to support the 
opinion and we find that the opinion is not in accord with other information in the record. As such, 
neither findings nor his ultimate conclusions are worthy of any deference, and his 
opinion letter is not probative evidence towards satisfying any criterion of the regulation at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A). ' 
We may, in our discretion, use advisory opmwn statements submitted as expert testimony. 
However, wher~ an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we 
are not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Matter of Caron International, 
19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988). As a reasonable exercise of our discretion we discount the 
advisory opinion letter as not probative of any criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). For 
efficiency's sake, we hereby incorporate the above discussion and analysis regarding the opinion 
letter into each of the bases in this decision for dismissing the appeal. 
Further, we find that, to the extent that they are described in the record of proceedings, the numerous 
duties that the Petitioner ascribes to the proffered position indicate a need for a range of 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 is normally the minimum requirement 
for entry into the 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 
individual with a degree[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong 
casts its gaze upon 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. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by USCIS 
include: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the industry's 
professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether letters or 
affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms "routinely employ and recruit 
only de greed 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)). 
7 
Matter of A- Corp. 
Here and as already discussed, the Petitioner ~s not established that its proffered position is one for 
which the Handbook (or other independent, authoritative source) reports an industry-wide requirement 
for at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. Thus, we incorporate by 
reference the 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." 
The Petitioner provided three vacancy announcements placed by other companies advertising 
positions entitled "Programmer Analyst': and "Professional Programmer Analyst." 
Two of the vacancy announcements are almost identical and were placed by the same company. 
Both state that the position requires a master's degree in computer science or engineering, and two 
years of experience. However, the field of engineering is a very broad category that covers 
numerous and various disciplines, some of which are only related through the basic principles of 
science and mathematics, e.g., petroleum engineering and aerospace engineering. A requirement of 
a degree in engineering, without specifying a particular branch of engineering, is not a requirement 
of a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. For this reason, those 
two vacancy announcements do not state a requirement of a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty or its equivalent. 
Further, as was noted above, the Petitioner has designated the proffered position to be a Level I, 
entry-level, position. As noted, both vacancy announcements require a master's degree and prior 
experience, which suggests that the advertised positions are not entry-level positions. As such, they 
do not appear to be positions parallel to the proffered position. 
For all of these reasons, these two vacancy announcements are outside the scope of analysis under 
this criterion. 
The remaining vacancy announcement states a requirement for a bachelor's degree, and states that a 
bachelor's degree in computer science, mathematics, or a related field is "preferred." However, a 
"preference" is not necessarily a minimum recruiting and hiring requirement. Accordingly, that 
vacancy announcement does not state a requirement for a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty or its equivalent, either. 
None of the three vacancy announcements constitutes persuasive evidence that a requirement of a 
minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent is common to positions 
parallel to the proffered position in similar organizations within the Petitioner's industry. 
Finally, even if all three of those vacancy announcements announced parallel positions with 
organizations similar to the Petitioner and in the Petitioner's industry and stated a requirement for a 
minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equ~valent, we would still find that the 
8 
Matter of A- Corp. 
Petitioner has not demonstrated what statistically valid inferences, if any, could be drawn from so 
few announcements with regard to the common educational requirements for entry into parallel 
positions in similar organizations. 5 
Thus, the evidence of record does not establish that a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to parallel positions with organizations that are in 
the Petitioner's industry and otherwise similar to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has not, therefore, 
satisfied the criterion ofthe first alternative prong of8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
A review of the record of proceedings finds that the Petitioner has not credibly demonstrated that the 
duties the Beneficiary will be responsible for or perform on a day-to-day basis constitute a position 
so complex or unique that it can only be performed by a person with at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. Even when considering the Petitioner's general descriptions of 
the proffered position's duties, the evidence of record does not establish why a few related courses 
or industry experience alone is insufficient preparation for the proffered position. While a few 
related courses may be beneficial, or even required, 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 ofthe proffered position. The description of the duties does not specifically identify any tasks 
that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. The 
record lacks sufficiently detailed inform.ation to distinguish the proffered position as more complex 
or unique from other positions that can be performed by persons without at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
This is further evidenced by the LCA submitted by the Petitioner in support of the instant 
petition. As noted above, the_ Petitioner attested on the submitted LCA that the wage level for the 
proffered position is a Level I (entry-level) wage. Such a wage level is for a position which only 
requires a basic understanding of the occupation; the performance of routine tasks that require 
limited, if any, exercise of judgment; close supervision and work closely monitored and reviewed for 
5 USCIS "must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true." Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). As just discussed, the Petitioner has not established the relevance ofthe 
job advertisements submitted to the position proffered in this case. Even if their relevance had been established, the 
Petitioner still would not have demonstrated what inferences, if any, can be drawn from these few job postings with 
regard to determining the common ~ducational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations in 
the same industry. See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 (I 995). 
9 
Matter of A- Corp. 
accuracy; and the receipt of specific instructions on required tasks and expected results, and IS 
contrary to a position that requires the performance of complex duties. 6 
Therefore, the evidence of record does not establish that this position is significantly different from 
other positions in the occupation such that it refutes the Handbook's information to the effect that 
there is a spectrum of degrees acceptable for such positions, including degrees not in a specific 
specialty, and possibly degrees that are less than a bachelor's degree. In other words, the record 
lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish the proffered position as unique from or more 
complex than positions that can be performed by persons without at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. As the Petitioner did not demonstrate how the proffered position 
is so complex or unique relative to other positions within the same occupational category that do not 
require at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for entry into the 
occupation in the United States, it cannot be concluded that the Petitioner has 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 provided evidence pertinent to the education of nine of its 
employees, which it characterized as evidence pertaining to "other employees in the similar 
position." Most of the diplomas submitted are bachelor's degrees in the fields of electronics and 
,communication engineering, electrical and electronics engineering, and computer science and 
technology. One diploma is a master's degree in computer applications. 
The Petitioner also provided copies of vacancy announcements it placed in multiple newspapers for 
various positions. Some state that travel and relocation to various unanticipated locations throughout 
the United States would be required. These announcements therefore do not appear to relate to the 
proffered position, which is in-house. 
Further, some of the announcements state that the positions require either a bachelor's degree and 
five years of experience, or a master's degree and three years of experience. Those positions, 
therefore, do not appear to be Level I, entry-level, positions as the Petitioner claims the proffered 
6 The issue here is that the Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position undermines its claim 
that the position is particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same 
occupation. Nevertheless, it is important to note that a Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position 
from classification as a specialty occupation. In certain occupations (doctors or lawyers, for example), an 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 consideration but is not a substitute for 
a determination of whether a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)( I) of the Act. 
10 
Matter of A- Corp. 
position to be. In fact, it is not clear whether any of the vacancy announcements advertise a Level I 
position located within the computer systems analyst occupational category. Further, none of the 
vacancy announcements state that the positions require a bachelor's degree in any specific specialty. 
For all of those reasons, these vacancy announcements do not establish that the Petitioner normally 
requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for the proffered 
position. 
Further, the Petitioner stated in the H-lB petition that it was established in 1996 and has 24 workers. 
It is not clear how many Level I cmpputer systems analysts it employs now and has employed 
previously, and what their education~! qualifications were. The Petitioner has not, therefore, 
demonstrated that it normally requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its 
equivalent for the proffered position. 7 
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. We again 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 (the lowest of four assignable levels) wage. Thaf is, the Level I wage designation 
is indicative of a low, entry-level position relative to others within the occupational category, and 
hence one not likely distinguishable by relatively specialized and complex duties. 8 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. 
7 While a petitioner may believe or otherwise assert that a proffered position requires a degree in a specific specialty, 
that opinion alone without corroborating evidence cannot establish the position as a specialty occupation. Were USCIS 
limited solely to reviewing a petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, then any individual with a bachelor's 
degree could be brought to the United States to perform any occupation as long as the employer artificially created a 
token degree requirement, whereby all individuals employed in a particular position possessed a bac~alaureate or higher 
degree in the specific specialty or its equivalent. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d at 387. In other words, if a 
petitioner's degree requirement is only symbolic and the proffered position does not in fact require such a specialty 
degree or its equivalent to perform its duties, the occupation would not meet the statutory or regulatory definition of a 
specialty occupation. See section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty 
occupation"). 
8 Again, the Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position undermines its claim that the 
position is particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation. 
1 I 
Matter of A- Corp. 
For the reasons discussed above, the evidence of record does not satisfy the fourth criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4J(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 A- Corp., ID# 10179 (AAO Oct. 17, 2016) 
12