dismissed H-1B Case: Software Development

MATTER OF S-C-T- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 11,2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FORA NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a software development company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
programmer analyst under the H-1 B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a 
qualified foreign worker in a position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application 
of a body of highly specialized knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or hig~er degree in 
the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director of California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the proffered position 
is not a specialty occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. It: its appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in 
denying the petition. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
.
,. 
i 
' 
Matter ofS-C-T- Inc. 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position ; or 
(4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that 
knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. · 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We have consistently interpreted the term "degree" in the criteria at 
8C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a 
specitic specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertofj; 
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-1 B petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a programmer analyst. In 
response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted a letter from its 
claimed end-client , describing the duties of the 
proffered position as follows: 
The tasks for the Business Support Programmer include, but are not limited to, the 
following: 
• Provide production support maintammg , troubleshooting, and problem solving 
with existing business programs and systems. 
• Develop project plans and detailed schedules. 
• Code programs per technical and user 
requirement specifications. 
• Use industry and/or mandated standard coding techniques and testing 
processes to ensure quality. · 
• Document all programming work per standards. 
• Enhance existing systems to meet 
new business requirements. 
• Explain and/or document complex problems and solutions in an understandable 
manner to both technical and non-technical personnel. 
• Present technical solutions 
and alternatives to management and decision makers at 
a level of understanding commensurate with the audience. 
2 
.
Matter ofS-C-T-lnc. 
• Configure, build and maintain the production run processes. 
• Solve problems that arise with database data, production runs and/or the systems 
products (on-line screens, reports files or interfaces). 
• Tuning and optimization of programs and systems. 
• Maintenance of system documentation. 
• Troubleshoot, Identify and correct reported or suspected errors with code, logic 
and/or data. 
• Apply necessary and discretionary system changes and/or fixes, making system 
enhancements as required by IT management, business units, statutes, contracts or 
the system's underlying architecture and/or technology as authorized by 
IT management. 
• Helpdesk related activities for Policy system related problems and issues. 
• Create ne\v applications, programs and/or interfaces in order to resolve problems. 
• Technical Lead or assistant with development teams. 
• Share knowledge, mentor and train staff, on a regular and ongoing 
basis through the program as well 
as shadowing and consistent transfer of information form [sic] Consultants to 
project team members. 
The Petitioner submitted a letter where the claimed mid-vendor, 
confirms all but two of the duties listed in letter for the pro tiered position. In 
the letter, states that the minimum entry requirement for the proffered position is a 
bachelor's degree and technical and analytical skills to perform the job duties.' 
III. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
Upon review, we have determined that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. 2 Specifically, the record does not establish that the job 
duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty 
occupation. 3 
A. First Criterion 
We turn 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 
1 
We note that the Petitioner did not provide its own statement pertaining to the educational minimum entry requirements 
to perform the duties of the proffered position. 
~Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
·' 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 qfS-C-T-lnc. 
(DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and 
educational requirements ofthe wide variety of occupations that it addresses.
4 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-1 B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Computer Systems Analysts" 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 15-1121.5 
The Handbook states the following with regard to the educational qualifications necessary for 
entrance into positions located within this occupational category: 
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. 
4 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 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 criteriqn, however, the 
burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to submit sufficient evidence to supp01t a finding that its particular position 
would normally have .a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
5 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 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 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., Prevailil1'~ 
Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available ~t 
http://tlcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised_ I I_ 2009.pdf A prevailing wage determination sta1ts 
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. 
4 
.
Matter ofS-C-T- Inc. 
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 . 
Many systems analysts continue to take classes throughout their careers so they can 
learn about new and innovative technologies. Technological advances come so 
rapidly in the computer field that continual study is necessary to remain competitive. 
Systems analysts must understand the business field they are working in. For 
example, a hospital may want an analyst with a thorough · understanding of health 
plans and programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, and an analyst working for a 
bank may need to understand finance. Having knowledge of their industry helps 
systems analysts communicate with managers to determine the role of the information 
technology (IT) systems in an organization. 
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 Apr. 10, 20 17). 
Upon review of the educational requirements for a computer systems analyst as reported in the 
Handbook, the Handbook indicates at most that a bachelor's or higher degree in a computer or 
information science field may be a common preference, but not a standard occupational , entt)' 
requirement. In tact, this chapter notes that many computer systems analysts only have liberal arts 
degrees and programming or technical experience. See id. Thus, the Handbook' s report is insufficient 
to conclude that simply by virtue of its occupational classification the position qualities as a specialty 
occupation. 
When the Handbook does not support the proposition that a proffered position is one that meets the 
statutory and regulatory provisions of a specialty occupation, it is incui11bent upon the Petitioner to 
provide persuasive evidence that the proffered position more likely than not satisfies this or one of the 
other three criteria, notwithstanding the absence of the Handbook' s support on the issue. In such case, it 
is the Petitioner's responsibility to provide probative evidence (e.g., documentation from other 
objective, authoritative sources) that supports a finding that the particular position in question qualities 
as a specialty occupation. Whenever more than one authoritative source exists, an adjudicator will 
consider and weigh all of the evidence presented to determine whether the particular position qualifies 
as a specialty occupation. 
Here, the letter from the claimed mid-vendor, specifically states that the minimum entry 
requirement for the proffered position is a bachelor's degree and technical and analytical skills. The 
letter does not identify a specific specialty or any course of study required for the position . The 
letter also does not explain what "technical and analytical skills" would be required in addition to the 
unspecified bachelor's degree. As recognized in Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88, it is necessary for the 
end-client to provide the minimum educational requirements necessary to perform those duties. As 
5 
Matter ofS-C-T- Inc. 
the nurses in that case would provide services to the end-client hospitals and not to the petitioning 
staffing company, the Petitioner~provided job duties and alleged requirements to perform those 
duties were irrelevant to a specialty occupation determination. See id. Here, it is not clear that the 
end-client requires that the person in this position have a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 
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 U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (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 degreed individuals." See ,%anti. 
Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. S upp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 1999) (quoting Hird!Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. 
Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
Here and as already discussed, the Petitioner has 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. In addition, 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." In fact, in its letter of support, and again in 
response to the RfE, the Petitioner specifically stated that "there is no sense in printing thousands of job 
postings as it is well establishing that a computer systems analyst/programmer analyst requires a 
bachelor's degree and USCIS is well aware that the majority of I-129 H-1 b applications filed by 
inforn1ation technology firms hire individuals with a bachelor's degree."6 
6 We note here, that at issue is not whether the proffered position simply requires a bachelor's degree, but whether it 
requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 
6 
Matter ofS-C-T- Inc. 
The Petitioner does not submit probative evidence that demonstrates the degree requirement is 
common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. Therefore, the Petitioner 
has not satisfied the criterion ofthe first alternative prong of8 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. 
The record here does not credibly demonstrate relative complexity or uniqueness as aspects of the 
P.roffered position. The evidence of record does not distinguish the proffered position as unique from 
or more complex than other programmer analyst or computer systems analyst 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. 
Again, the LCA indicates that, relative to other positions located within the "Computer Systems 
Analysts" occupational category, the Beneficiary would perform only routine tasks that require 
limited exercise of judgment and that he will be closely supervised, monitored, and reviewed for 
accuracy. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determinathm Policy 
Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009). Without further evidence, the 
evidence does not demonstrate that the proffered position is complex or unique as such a position 
falling under this occupational category would likely be classified at a higher-level, such as a Level 
III (experienced) or Level IV (fully competent) position, requiring a significantly higher prevailing 
wage. 7 For example, a Level IV (fully competent) position is designated by the DOL for employees 
who "use advanced skills and diversified knowledge to solve unusual and complex problems." The 
evidence of record does not establish that this position is significantly different from other positions 
in the occupational category such that it refutes the Handbook's information that a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is not required for the proffered position. 
Therefore, 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). 
7 
The issue here is that the Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I position undermines its claim that the 
position is particularly complex, speciali.zed, or unique compared to other positions within the same 
occupation. Nevertheless, it is important to note that a Levell wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position 
from classification as a specialty occupation. ln certain occupations (doctors or lawyers, for example), such a 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)( 1) of the Act. 
Matter C!f S-C- T- Inc. 
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 has not submitted any evidence of previous or current employees in the same position 
as the Beneficiary's proffered position. In its letter of support, and again in response to the RFE, the 
Petitioner simply stated that it has "had numerous h-1 b approvals by USCIS for programmer 
analysts. This in itself shows that USCIS agrees we hire programmer analysts with bachelor's 
degrees .... This in itself proves that it is a specialty occupation based on USC IS approvals of our 
previous and current petitions." The Petitioner then submitted a list of names and USCIS receipt 
numbers; however, the Petitioner did not submit any evidence of the individuals' actual 
employment, position titles and descriptions, or educational credentials. 
The Petitioner noted that USCIS approved other petitions that had been previously filed on behalf of 
programmer analyst positions. The Director's decision does not indicate whether the prior approvals 
of the other nonimmigrant petitions were reviewed. If the previous nonimmigrant petitions were 
approved based on the same unsupported assertions that are contained in the current record, the 
approvals would constitute material and gross error on the part of the Director. We are not required 
to approve petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals 
that may have been erroneous. See Matter qf Church Scientolo&ry Int 'l, 19 l&N Dec. 593, 597 
(Comm'r 1988). It would be "absurd to suggest that [USCIS] ·or any agency must treat 
acknowledged errors as binding precedent." Sussex Eng 'g. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 
1090 (6th Cir. 1987). 
A prior approval does not compel the approval of a subsequent petition or relieve the Petitioner of its 
burden to provide sufficient documentation to establish current eligibility for the benefit 
sought. Temporary Alien Workers Seeking Classification Under the Immigration and Nationality 
Act, 55 Fed. Reg. 2,606, 2,612 (Jan. 26, 1990) (to be codified at 8 C.F.R. pt. 214). Fmihermore, our 
authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a court of appeals and a 
district court. Even if a service center director had approved the nonimmigrant petitions on behalf of 
a beneficiar)', we would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of a service center. See 
La. Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 44 F. Supp. 2d 800, 803 (E.D. La. 1999). 
As such, the Petitioner does not submit probative evidence that demonstrates the academic 
qualifications of individuals previously or currently employed in a similar programmer analyst or 
computer systems analyst position. Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J). 
8 
.
Matter of S-C- T- Inc. 
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, in this matter, the Petitioner does not specifically discuss the proffered position's duties or 
claim that the duties are so complex that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is required. We 
refer to our earlier comments· with regard to 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. We have also reviewed the claimed 
mid-vendor's and claimed end-client's description of duties 
for the proffered position. While we understand that the Beneficiary must have technical knowledge in 
order to perform these duties, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how these duties require the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the 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 record does not include probative evidence that the duties require 
more than technical proficiency in the information technology field. The Petitioner has not 
demonstrated in the record 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). 
IV. SPECULATIVE EMPLOYMENT 
Finally, beyond the decision of the Director, we find that the record of proceedings lacks sufficient 
evidence that the petition was filed for non-speculative work for the Beneficiary. For H-1 B 
approval, the Petitioner must demonstrate a legitimate need for an employee exists and to 
substantiate that it has H-1 B 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. 
On the Form I-129, the Petitioner requested that the Beneficiary be granted H-IB classification from 
October 1, 2016, to August 31, 2019. In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted an itinerary 
indicating that the Beneficiary will be employed by the Petitioner but physically working at in 
California for the entire duration of the requested H-1 B status period, through its mutual vendor 
The Petitioner submitted a letter from dated October 4, 2016, stating that 
the Beneficiary "will be providing technical services as a contractor under an agreement between 
[the Petitioner] and for our client " The letter also stated that "[t]he current 
assignment is an ongoing project with possibility of extensions to follow." The letter further stated 
that the Petitioner retains full and ultimate control over the Beneficiary's day-to-day activities 
9 
.
Matter of S-C-T- Inc. 
including salary, hiring, benefits, expenses, supervisiOn, and termination. The Petitioner also 
submitted a letter from dated October 3, 2016, stating that the Beneficiary "will be performing 
services on a project at in connection with a contract between and under 
which has arranged [the Beneficiary's] placement through his employer [the Petitioner]." 
The letter also stated that the Beneficiary is an employee of the Petitioner, and not of or 
and that the contract between and for the Beneficiary's services "wi.ll 
be in effect October 24, 2016, providing [the listed] services for an ongoing project." 
Although the Petitioner provided a letter from the claimed mid-vendor and the claimed end-client, it 
did not provide evidence of contracts or other agreements for the services of the proffered position. 
The Petitioner did not provide evidence of any contracts with or between and 
As such, even though both letters from and from state that the Beneficiary 
will be working on an "ongoing project," we cannot conclude that the proffered position will 
continue to exist for the duration of the requested H-1 B status period. The terms and duration of the 
Petitioner's contract with and the terms and duration oflntelliswift's contract with 
are unknown. 
As such, we find that the Petitioner has not established that the petition was filed for non-speculative 
work for the Beneficiary, for the entire period requested, that existed as of the time of the petition's 
filing. USCIS regulations affirmatively require a petitioner to establish eligibility for the benefit it is 
seeking at the time the petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. § 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 Cmp ., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg' I 
Comm'r 1978).8 The petition will be denied for this additional reason. 
8 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 theduties 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 Nation ality 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 pa11 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 chanoe its intent with reoard to 
I . "' "' non-specu attve 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). 
10 
Matter ofS-C-T- Inc. 
V. CONCLUSION 
As discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualities as a 
specialty occupation and the petition was filed for non-speculative work for the Beneficiary. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofS-C-T- Inc., ID# 286092 (AAO Apr. 11, 2017) 
11