dismissed H-1B Case: Software Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C- CORP. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 16,2016 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a software development and consulting company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "systems analyst" under the H-1 B nonimmigrant classification. See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The 
H-IB program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a 
position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the Petitioner 
did not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation in accordance with the 
applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits ·additional evidence and 
asserts that it has and continues to have specialty occupation work available for the Beneficiary and 
that the evidence ofrecord is sufficient to demonstrate that the instant visa petition should be approved. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
Matter of C- Corp. 
(I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that 
knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has consistently 
interpreted the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any 
baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed 
position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree 
requirement in a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a 
particular position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
We note that, as recognized by the court in Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88, where the work is to be 
performed for entities other than the petitioner, evidence of the client companies' job requirements is 
critical. The court held that the former Immigration and Naturalization Service had reasonably 
interpreted the statute and regulations as requiring the petitioner to produce evidence that a proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation on the basis of the requirements imposed by the entities 
using the beneficiary's se~vices. Id. Such evidence must be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate the 
type and educational level ofhighly specialized knowledge in a specific discipline that is necessary 
to perform that particular work. 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner identified the proffered position as a "systems analyst" on the H-I B petition. In a 
letter submitted in support of the petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will be working 
on a long-term, ongoing in-house project. The Petitioner stated that as a team member for its project 
requirements, the Beneficiary would be responsible for the following duties: 
• Analyze user requirements to determine the feasibility of design within time and 
cost constraints; 5% · 
• Design and build high level applications; 1 0% 
• Design, develop and implement database applications. 30% 
• Identify any requests outside the scope of the project. 10% 
• Design, build and support Oracle ODI development. 10% 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of C- Corp. 
• Develops and directs software system testing procedures , programming and 
documentation. 15% 
• Coordinate and guide installation of software system. 10% 
· • Install and maintain system administration. 10% 
Finally, the Petitioner claimed that the proffered .position required an individual who had attained "at 
least a Baccalaureate or higher Degree or its equivalent in Computer Science, Engineering , 
Electronics, Business Administration in Information Systems or a related field, and experience in 
business application development." 
III. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner stated that it wishes to employ the Beneficiary for a three year period; however, the 
record lacks documentation regarding the work that the Beneficiary would perform to sufficiently 
substantiate that it has H-.: 1 B caliber work for the requested period. The Petitioner claims to be a 
"full service consulting and integration company, specializing in custom software development. " 
However, aside from the vague statement of duties provided in both its letter of support and again in 
response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the record contains no documentation or 
discussion of any specific projects or assignments upon which the Beneficiary will work. 
For instance, while the Petitioner submitted a letter of intent ±rom a client, 
which identifies certain projects upon which the Petitioner will work for 
the client, no specific details or project specifications were submitted. Similarly, although the record 
includes a copy of the Petitioner 's business plan, which includes sales and marketing forecasts for a 
product identified as ' no documentation relating to this product was submitted prior 
to adjudication. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits for the . first time a copy of a document entitled ' 
This document , 
however, simply provides an overview of the product, indicating that it is a web portal intended to 
provide a platform for volunteer services. The Petitioner does not explain the significance of this 
document, nor does it assert that the Beneficiary will work on the development of this product. 
The Petitioner also submits an updated letter from which the Petitioner asserts "clearly states 
the acceptance of proposal and partnership in work on the basis of project of the petitioner." A 
review of this letter reveals little detail regarding any active projects upori which the Beneficiary 
would work. Specifically, this letter states: "Having carefully considered your proposals; I hereby 
state and represent that it is our intention to agree with your approach to your participation in 
providing IT development and services for corporate projects." This sentence suggests that various 
proposals were prepared by the Petitioner for review by however, no such proposals were 
submitted into the record. Moreover, although the letter identifies two proposed projects, namely, 
and no specific documentation 
regarding 
these projects, such as contracts, work orders, . statements of work, or any other documentation 
outlining the timeline and manpower needed for each such project was submitted. 
3 
Matter ofC- Corp. 
The lack of evidence to verify that specific projects exist for which the Beneficiary's services would 
be required, coupled with the lack of specificity and detail in the description of the Beneficiary's 
duties, renders it impossible to determine whether the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
While a generalized description may be appropriate when defining the range of duties that are 
performed within an occupation, such generic descriptions generally cannot be relied upon by the 
Petitioner when discussing the duties attached to specific employment for H -1 B approval. In 
establishing such a position as a specialty occupation, the description of the proffered position must 
include sufficient details to substantiate that the Petitioner has H-1 B caliber work for the 
Beneficiary. The description of duties does not provide any insight into the Beneficiary's actual 
duties and tasks. 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient details regarding the nature and scope of the Beneficiary's 
employment or substantive evidence regarding the actual work that the Beneficiary would perform. 
Without a meaningful job description, the record lacks evidence sufficiently concrete and 
informative to demonstrate that the proffered position requires a specialty occupation's level of 
knowledge in a specific specialty. The tasks as described do not communicate (1) the actual work 
that the beneficiary would perform; (2) the complexity, uniqueness and/or specialization of the tasks; 
and/or (3) the correlation between that work and a need for a particular level education of highly 
specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. 
The Petitioner thus 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), because it is the substantive nature of that work that determines (1) 
the normal minimum educational requirement for entry into the particular position, which is the 
focus of criterion I; (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 ofcriterion 
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. 
However, even if the Petition.er had shown that it would employ the Beneficiary as a junior systems 
engineer, we still would not find that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, as 
explained below. 
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 
4 
Matter ofC- Corp. 
(DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses.' 
The Petitioner attested on the required labor condition application (LCAi that the occupational 
classification for the position is "Computer Systems Analysts," corresponding to the Standard 
Occupational Classification code 15-1121 at a Level I wage. 3 
The Handbook subchapter entitled "How to Become a Computer Systems Analyst" states, in 
pertinent part: "A bachelor's degree in a computer or information science field is common, although 
not always a requirement. Some firms hire analysts with business or liberal arts degrees who have 
skills in information technology or computer programming." U.S. Dep 't of Labor, Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook. 2016-17 ed., "Computer Systems Analysts," 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-systems-analysts.htm#tab-
4 (last visited November 16, 2016). The Handbook also states: "Although many computer systems 
analysts have technical degrees, such a degree is not always a requirement. Many analysts have 
liberal arts degrees and have gained programming or technical expertise elsewhere." Id. 
The Handbook indicates that a bachelor's degree in a computer or information science field may be 
common, but not that it is a requirement for entry into these jobs. In fact, this chapter reports that 
"many" computer systems analysts may only have liberal arts degrees and programming or technical 
experience, but does not further qualify the amount of experience needed. The Handbook also notes 
that many analysts have technical degrees, but does not specify a degree level (e.g., associate's 
1 All of our references are to the 2016-17 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not, however, maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant 
information. That is, the occupational category designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the 
general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered position, and USC IS regularly reviews the Handbook on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. To satisfy the first criterion, however, the 
burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position 
would normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
2 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to USCIS to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B worker the 
higher of either the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the "area of employment" or the actual wage 
paid by the employer to other employees with similar experience and qualifications who are performing the same 
services. See Matter ofSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 l&N Dec. 542, 545-546 (AAO 2015). 
3 
We will consider the Petitioner's classification of the proffered position at a Levell wage (the lowest of four assignable 
wage levels) in our analysis of the position. The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" issued by the DOL 
provides a description of the wage levels. A Level I wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which the 
Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the occupation. This wage rate indicates: (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. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage 
Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _II_ 2009.pdf. A prevailing w~ge determination starts 
with an entry level wage and progresses to a higher wage level after considering th~ experience, education, and skill 
requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. !d. A Levell wage should be considered for research fellows, workers 
in training, or internships. !d. 
5 
Matter of C- Corp. , 
degree) for these technical degrees. The Handbook further specifies that such a technical degree is 
not always a requirement. Thus, this passage of the Handbook reports that there are several paths for 
entry into the occupation. 
The Petitioner has not provided documentation from a probative source to substantiate its assertion 
regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. Thus, the Petitioner has 
not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
B. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs: "The degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may 
show that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong 
contemplates common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
In determining whether there. is such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by 
USCIS include: whether the Handbook reports that the industry 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 Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 
1999)(quotingHird/BlakerCorp. v. Sava, 712F. Supp.1095, 1102(S.D.N.Y.1989)). · 
As discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which the 
Handbook, or another authoritative source, reports an industry-wide requirement for at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. We incorporate by reference our previous 
discussion on the matter. Also, there are no submissions from the industry's professional association 
indicating that it has made a degree a minimum entry requirement. Furthermore, the Petitioner did 
not submit any letters or affidavits from similar firms or individuals in the Petitioner's industry 
attesting that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." See id. 
" 
The Petitioner submits a number of job advertisements for positions it claims are parallel to the 
proffered position within the Petitioner's industry. 
Upon review, we find the job advertisements unpersuasive. First, all of the advertisements appear to 
be "blind" listings, posted with the headings of "IT Professionals" or "IT Positions." The postings 
6 
Matter ofC- Corp. 
simply identify available positions in a specific geographic area, but provide no detail regarding the 
hiring entity such that we can determine that those entities are similar to that of the Petitioner within 
its industry. Moreover, several of these advertisements solicit multiple job titles (i.e., systems 
analyst & computer programmer), yet list the same general requirements for all posted positions. 
Finally, one of the postings requires at least five years of experience in addition to its stated 
academic requirements, suggesting that the position advertised is more senior than that of the 
proffered position, which, as previously noted, is a Level 1, entry-level position. 
Therefore, based upon a complete review of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not 
satisfied the 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. 
Upon review, we find that the Petitioner has not sufficiently developed relative complexity or 
uniqueness as an aspect of the proffered position. For instance, the Petitioner did not submit 
information relevant to a detailed course of study leading to a specialty degree and did not establish 
how such a curriculum is necessary to perform the duties it may believe are so complex and 
unique. While a few related courses may be beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated how an established curriculum of such courses leading to a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the 
duties of the proffered position. 
In this matter, the Petitioner's vague descriptions of its operations, without specifically relating the 
duties of the proffered position to its operations and any active client projects, is insufficient to 
establish relative complexity or uniqueness as aspects of the proffered position. The general 
descriptions of the proffered duties do not identify any tasks that are so complex or unique that only 
a specifically degreed individual could perform them. Rather, the duties the Petitioner ascribed to 
the proffered position indicate a need for a range of technical knowledge in the computer/IT field, 
but do not establish any particular level of formal, postsecondary education leading to a bachelor's 
or higher degree in a specific specialty (or its equivalent) as minimally necessary to attain such 
knowledge. 
Further, the LCA submitted by the Petitioner indicates that the proffered position is a Level I (entry) 
wage, which, as noted above, is the lowest of four assignable wage levels. Without additional 
evidence, the record of proceeding does not indicate that the proffered position is so complex or 
unique, as such a position would likely be classified at a higher-level, which requires a significantly 
7 
(b)(6)
Matter of C- Corp. 
higher prevailing wage.4 For all of the above reasons, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second 
alternative prong of8 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. 
Here, the Petitioner submits documentation pertaining to one other individual it claims is employed 
as a systems analyst for the Petitioner. The Petitioner submits a copy of his diploma and copies of 
his paystubs and Forms W-2 from 2014 and 2015 in support of its assertion that it routinely hires 
only specialty-degreed systems analysts. 
Upon review, we find that the Form W-2 indicates that he was compensated $47,327.89 in 2014, 
which is significantly less than the salary offered to the Beneficiary. Thus, this strongly suggests 
that he was employed in a different position. The Petitioner did not provide an explanation for the 
variances in the wages. Without more, the documentation does not establish that the Petitioner 
satisfied this criterion of the regulations. 
Furthermore, without additional evidence regarding this individual's job duties and position, it is not 
possible to discern if this individual performs the same or similar duties with similar levels of 
responsibilities as the proffered position. There is insufficient evidence to establish that this 
individual is employed in the same capacity as the proffered position, which is the relevant inquiry 
under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). The record does not include sufficient 
evidence of any specific projects or client assignments this individual was given, anq does not 
include evidence of the specific work this individual performed. 5 The record also does not include 
corroborating evidence of this individual's claimed educational credentials. 
Here, the record of proceedings is insufficient to establish that the Petitioner normally requires a 
bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the proffered position. The 
Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
4 Nevertheless, a Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty 
occupation, just as a Level IV wage-designation does not definitively establish such a classification. In certain 
occupations (e.g., doctors or lawyers), a Level I, entry -level position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designation would not 
reflect that an occupation qualifies as a specialty occupation if that higher-level position does not have an entry 
requirement of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. That is, a position's wage level 
designation may be a relevant factor but is not itself conclusive evidence that a: proffered position meets the requirements 
of section 214(i)(l) ofthe Act. 
5 It must be noted for the record that this individual is not working out of the Petitioner 's office in Pennsylvania. 
His W-2s and paystubs indicate that his residence is in Florida, but works in New Jersey. 
8 
Matter of C- Corp. 
D. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R.. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature 
of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
·its equivalent. 
In the instant case, relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by 
the Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. The Petitioner does not establish how the 
generally described duties of its systems analyst elevate the proffered position to a specialty 
occupation. We again refer to our comments regarding the insufficient evidence of the Beneficiary's 
job duties and assignment, as well as to the implications of the Petitioner's designation of the 
proffered position at a Level I (entry) wage level. 
Upon review of the totality of the record, the Petitioner has not established that the nature of the 
specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform the duties is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. For the reasons discussed above, the evidence of record does not satisfy the fourth 
criterion at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation .. 
The burden is on the Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden 
has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofC- Corp., ID# 49300 (AAO Nov. 16, 2016) 
9