dismissed H-1B Case: Systems Analysis

(b)(6)
DATE: JUN 0 5 2015 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION RECEIPT #: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
NO REPRESENTATIVE OF RECORD 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. 
If you believe we incorrectly decided your case, you may file a motion requesting us to reconsider our 
decision and/or reopen the proceeding. The requirements for motions are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. 
Motions must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this 
decision. The Form I-290B web page (www.uscis.gov/i-290b) contains the latest information on fee, filing 
location, and other requirements. Please do not mail any motions directly to the AAO. 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
On the Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129), the petitioner describes itself as a 16-
employee "Retail- Management, Development Operations" business established in In order 
to continue to employ the beneficiary in what it designates as a systems analyst position, the 
petitioner seeks to extend his classification as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation 
pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 110l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the proffered 
position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation in accordance with the applicable statutory 
and regulatory provisions. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director's basis for denial of the 
petition was erroneous and contends that it satisfied all evidentiary requirements. 
The record of proceeding before this office contains the following: (1) the Form I-129 and 
supporting documentation; (2) the director's request for additional evidence (RFE); (3) the 
petitioner's response to the RFE; (4) the director's letter denying the petition; and (5) a Notice of 
Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B), a brief, and supporting documentation. 
Upon review of the entire record of proceeding, we find that the evidence of record does not overcome 
the director's ground for denying this petition.1 Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed, and the 
petition will be denied. 
II. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
A. The 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) states, in pertinent part, the following: 
1 We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Specialty occupation means an occupation which [(1)] requires theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in fields of human 
endeavor including, but not limited to, architecture, engineering, mathematics, 
physical sciences, social sciences, medicine and health, education, business 
specialties, accounting, law, theology, and the arts, and which [(2)] requires the 
attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as 
a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, a proposed position 
must meet one of the following criteria: 
(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. 
As a threshold issue, it is noted that 8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must logically be read together 
with section 214(i)(1) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(ii). In other words, this regulatory 
language must be construed in harmony with the thrust of the related provisions and with the statute 
as a whole. SeeK Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) (holding that construction 
of language which takes into account the design of the statute as a whole is preferred); see also 
COlT Independence Joint Venture v. Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989); Matter 
of W-F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). As such, the criteria stated in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4 )(iii)(A) 
should logically be read as being necessary but not necessarily sufficient to meet the statutory and 
regulatory definition of specialty occupation. To otherwise interpret this section as stating the 
necessary and sufficient conditions for meeting the definition of specialty occupation would result 
in particular positions meeting a condition under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory 
or regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). To avoid this 
result, 8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must therefore be read as providing supplemental criteria that 
must be met in accordance with, and not as alternatives to, the statutory and regulatory definitions of 
specialty occupation. 
As such and consonant with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) consistently interprets the 
term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h )(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered 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"). Applying this standard, USCIS regularly approves H-lB petitions for qualified aliens 
who are to be employed as engineers, computer scientists, certified public accountants, college 
professors, and other such occupations. These professions, for which petitioners have regularly 
been able to establish a minimum entry requirement in the United States of a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
particular position, fairly represent the types of specialty occupations that Congress contemplated 
when it created the H-lB visa category. 
To determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCrS does not simply 
rely on a position's title. The specific duties of the proffered position, combined with the nature of 
the petitioning entity's business operations, are factors to be considered. users must examine the 
ultimate employment of the alien, and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. The critical element is not the title 
of the position nor an employer's self-imposed standards, but whether the position actually requires 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty as the minimum for entry 
into the occupation, as required by the Act. 
B. Proffered Position 
In an undated letter filed in support of the Form I-129, the petitioner described the duties of the 
systems analyst as follows: 
Asses[s] and analyze existing computer and database systems and vary our BPR 
(Business Process Review) information of our company, plan requirements of the 
company and model a computerized financial system based on the requirements 
analysis. Design Forms and Reports using relational database software package to 
upgrade business information systems. 
· 
Develop and ensure system so that budgets are adhered with deadlines being met will 
be critical for [the petitioner] moving forward. As the industry is in flux and new 
strategies are being developed to maximize production vitality. Budgets will be a 
very important part of the business system going forward to take advantage of new 
trends and minimize cost on existing products. 
With the development of an elaborate business system drawing up a testing schedule 
for the complete system will be necessary to keep all data base system up to date and 
maintained properly. All the task[s] above and all the tasks that will follow will be 
reliant on this task. We will only be able to carry out our due diligence if this task is 
fluent and transparent. 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Constant overseeing of implementation of a new system will be necessary to keep 
al[l] tasks in order and keep daily business operating with great attention to detail 
and daily proficiency. 
The percentage of time to be spent on each of the above mentioned duties cannot be 
determined with specificity and the percentage will depend of the circumstances, 
needs and requirements of our business and that of our clients from time to time as 
well as other relevant and pertinent factors. However the percentage of time to be 
spent by the beneficiary will be divided between the above mentioned duties on a 
reasonably equal amount of time.. This is merely an estimate and the exact 
percentages cannot be precisely determined as set out above. 
It is to be noted that the duties are primarily analytical and design oriented rather 
than coding. This is further borne[ sic] out by the high level of compensation which 
far exceeds what could be paid to an individual primarily engaged in coding. 
The petitioner also stated that "[i]t would not be possible for an individual to attend to and perform 
the job functions offered unless such an individual was in possession, as a minimum, of a 
Bachelor['] s Degree in Commerce or equivalent." 
The Labor Condition Application (LCA) filed in support of the petition was certified for use with a 
job prospect within the "Computer Systems Analysts" occupational classification, SOC 
(O*NET/OES) Code 15-1121 at a Level I (entry level) wage. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner claimed that it "own[ s] two other similar businesses in North 
Carolina" and the beneficiary "handles the computer needs for all [its] stores." The two other 
businesses are ' , " a branded gas station with convenience store, and ' 
" a small grocery/convenience store with ice cream shop. 
The petitioner also provided a new job description for the proffered position as follows2: 
2 Notably, the wording of the above duties as provided by the petitioner for the proffered position is virtually 
verbatim from the occupation "Computer Systems Analysts" Code 15-1121 as described in the Occupational 
Information Network (O*NET) Code Connector. This type of generalized description may be appropriate 
when defining the range of duties that may be performed within an occupational category, but it fails to 
adequately convey the substantive work that the beneficiary will perform within the petitioner's business 
operations and, thus, cannot be relied upon by a petitioner when discussing the duties attached to specific 
employment. In establishing a position as a specialty occupation, a petitioner must describe the specific 
duties and responsibilities to be performed by a beneficiary in the context of the petitioner's business 
operations, demonstrate a legitimate need for an employee exists, and substantiate that it has H -1B caliber 
work for the beneficiary for the period of employment requested in the petition. 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
• Expand or modify system to serve new purposes or improve work flow. 
• Test, maintain, and monitor computer programs and systems, including 
coordinating the installation of computer programs and systems. 
• Develop, document and revise system design procedures, test procedures, and 
quality standards. 
• Provide staff and users with assistance solving computer related problems, such 
as malfunctions and program problems. 
• Review and analyze computer printouts and performance indicators to locate 
code problems, and correct errors by correcting codes. 
• Consult with management to ensure agreement on system principles. 
• Read manuals, periodicals, and technical reports to learn how to develop 
programs that meet staff and user requirements. 
• Coordinate and link the computer systems with back office to insure information 
can be shared. 
• Determine computer software or hardware needed to set up or alter system. 
The petitioner also provided a breakdown of the beneficiary's daily work schedule, in part: 
9: 00am: Upon start of a work day, first priority is to attend to necessary phone calls 
or emails which need immediate attention. This can range from minute challenges to 
something grand such as resetting an entire system which could take hours. But 
typically, provide staff and users with assistance solving computer related problems, 
such as malfunctions and program problems. 
lO: OOam: Mter immediate problems are resolved there are usually tests, 
maintenance, and monitor computer programs and systems, including coordinating 
the installation of computer programs and systems. The later portion (installation of 
computer programs and systems) is case by case[sic] situation and carried out when 
necessary. Making sure all of the programs are on line and corresponding within 
back office computer is vital element in this process as it must coordinate and link 
the front office computer system with the back office computer system so that 
information can be shared. 
The petitioner stated that the "duties of the position are fully professional in that they require the 
application of a specific body of knowledge normally obtained in an academically recognized course 
of study leading to at least a Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science or related (or equivalent)." 
C. Analysis 
1. A baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally 
the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
We will first discuss the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)( 1 ), which is satisfied by 
establishing that a baccalaureate or higher degree, or its equivalent, in a specific specialty is 
normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position. 
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 it addresses.3 As noted above, the petitioner indicated in the LCA that the proffered 
position corresponds to the occupational category of "Computer System Analysts." 
The Handbook states the following with regard to the educational requirements necessary for 
entrance into this field: 
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 of 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. 
Many systems analysts continue to take classes throughout their careers so that they 
can learn about new and innovative technologies and keep their skills competitive. 
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 background or coursework in health 
management, and an analyst working for a bank may need to understand finance. 
3 The Handbook, which is available in printed f orm, may also be accessed online at 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh. The references to the Handbook are from the 2014-15 edition available online. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics .. Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., 
Computer Systems Analysts, available on the Internet at http://www .bls.gov/ooh/computer-and­
information-technology/computer-systems-analysts.htm#tab-4 (last viewed May 27, 2015). 
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 entry into this occupation. While the 
Handbook's narrative indicates that a bachelor's degree in computer or information science field is 
common, it also states that it is not always a requirement. The Handbook reports that some firms 
hire analysts with business or liberal arts degrees who have skills in information technology or 
computer programming. The Handbook continues by stating that many computer systems analysts 
have technical degrees (it does not specify the level of such degrees, i.e., associate's, baccalaureate, 
master's), but the Handbook does not report that it is normally the minimum requirement for entry. 
According to the Handbook, many analysts have liberal arts degrees and have gained programming 
or technical expertise elsewhere. 
In the instant case, the duties and requirements of the position as described in the record of 
proceeding do not indicate that this particular position proffered by the petitioner is one for which a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry. Thus, the petitioner did not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(J). 
2a. 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 
Next, we will review the record regarding the first of the two alternative prongs of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). This prong alternatively calls for a petitioner to establish that a 
requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common for 
positions that are identifiable as being (1) in the petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered 
position, and also (3) located in organizations that are similar to the petitioner. 
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. 2 d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 
1999) (quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)}. 
As previously discussed, the petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook, or other authoritative source, reports a standard 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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
In support of its assertion that the degree requirement is common to the petitioner's industry in 
parallel positions among similar organization, the petitioner provided two job advertisements. 
However, upon review of the evidence, we find that the petitioner's reliance on the job announcements 
is misplaced. 
For the petitioner to establish that an organization is similar, it must demonstrate that the petitioner 
and the organization share the same general characteristics. Without such evidence, documentation 
submitted by a petitioner is generally outside the scope of consideration for this criterion, which 
encompasses only organizations that are similar to the petitioner. When determining whether the 
petitioner and the advertising organization share the same general characteristics, such factors may 
include information regarding the nature or type of organization, and, when pertinent, the particular 
scope of operations, as well as the level of revenue and staffing (to list just a few elements that may 
be considered). It is not sufficient for the petitioner to claim that an organization is similar and in 
the same industry without providing a legitimate basis for such an assertion. 
On the Form I-129, the petitioner stated that it is a "retail- management, development operations" 
business with 16 employees, established in It further indicated that its gross annual income is 
approximately $651,198. 
We reviewed the job advertisements submitted by the petitioner. Notably, the petitioner did not 
provide any independent evidence of how representative these job advertisements are of the 
particular advertising employer's recruiting history for the type of job advertised. Further, as they 
are only solicitations for hire, they are not evidence of what qualifications were ultimately required 
for the positions. Moreover, upon review of the documents, we find that they do not establish that a 
requirement for a bachelor' s degree, in a specific specialty, is common to the petitioner's industry in 
similar organizations for parallel positions to the proffered position. 
For example, the advertisements include positions with (furniture industry) and (a 
multi-billion dollar retailer with over 200 stores and more than 60,000 employees, ranked 
largest privately held company in the country). Without further information, the advertisements 
appear to be for organizations that are not similar to the petitioner, and the petitioner has not 
provided any probative evidence to suggest otherwise. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure 
Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm'r 1972)). 
Further, the petitioner has not established that the advertisements are for parallel positions. For 
example, the petitioner did not demonstrate how the primary duties and responsibilities of the 
advertised positions are parallel to the proffered position. Moreover, based upon the information 
provided in the job postings, the advertised positions appear to be for more senior position than the 
proffered position. For example, the position from requires "5+ years" and is categorized as a 
"Level IV." As discussed, petitioner has designated the proffered position as a Level I position, 
indicating that it is an entry-level position. Thus, the job-vacancy advertisements do not establish that 
the advertised positions are "parallel" to the proffered position. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
As the documentation does not establish that the petitioner has met this prong of the regulations, 
further analysis regarding the specific information contained in each of the job postings is not 
necessary. That is, as the evidence does not establish that similar organizations in the same industry 
routinely require at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for paraiJel 
positions, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. 4 
Thus, the petitioner has not satisfied the first of the two alternative prongs of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A )(2), as 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 for positions sharing 
all three characteristics of being (1) within the petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered 
position, and also (3) located in organizations that are similar to the petitioner. 
2b. The 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 
Next, the evidence of record does not satisfy the second alternative prong of 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which provides that "an employer may show that its particular 
position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual \Vith a degree." 
In support of its assertion that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, the 
petitioner submitted some documents, including evidence regarding its business operations such as 
its financial report, employee list, and a printout from Wikipedia on "Point of Sale." We reviewed 
the record in its entirety and find that the petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation to 
support a claim that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can only be performed by 
an individual with a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. For 
example, while the petitioner claims that it owns two other stores in North Carolina and the 
beneficiary is responsible for handling computer needs for all stores, the petitioner did not submit 
documentary evidence to substantiate that it owns two other stores or its computer systems. 
Therefore, the petitioner has not established that its particular position is so complex or unique that 
it can be performed only by an individual with a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 
4 It must be noted that even if all of the job postings indicated that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations (which they do 
not), the petitioner does not demonstrate what inferences, if any, can be drawn from these advertisements 
with regard to determining the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar 
organizations. See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 ( 1995). 
As such, even if the job announcements supported the finding that the position required a bachelor's or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent (for organizations in the same industry that are similar to the 
petitioner), it cannot be found that such a limited number of postings that appear to have been consciously 
selected outweigh the findings of the Handbook published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics that such a 
position does not normally require at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for 
entry into the occupation in the United States. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
This is further evidenced by the LCA submitted by the petitioner in support of the instant petition. 
The LCA indicates a wage level at a Level I (entry) wage, which is the lowest of four assignable 
wage levels.5 This wage level indicates that the beneficiary is only required to have a basic 
understanding of the occupation; that he will be expected to perform routine tasks that require 
limited, if any, exercise of judgment; that he will be closely supervised and his work closely 
monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and that he will receive specific instructions on required tasks 
and expected results. 
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. For example, a Level IV (fully competent) position is 
designated by DOL for employees who "use advanced skills and diversified knowledge to solve 
unusual and complex problems. "6 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. 
The petitioner therefore has not established that the beneficiary's responsibilities and day-to-day 
duties comprise a position so complex or unique that the position can be performed only by an 
individual with a bachelor's degree, or the equivalent, in a specific specialty. 
As the evidence of record therefore fails to establish that the beneficiary's responsibilities and day­
to-day duties comprise a position so complex or unique that the position can be performed only by 
5 
The Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance (available at 
http://www .foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov /pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _11_ 2009 .pdf) (last visited Aug. 12, 
2014) issued by DOL states the following with regard to Level I wage rates: 
Level I (entry) wage rates are assigned to job offers for beginning level employees who have 
only a basic understanding of the occupation. These employees perform routine tasks that 
require limited, if any, exercise of judgment. The tasks provide experience and 
familiarization with the employer's methods, practices, and programs. The employees may 
perform higher level work for training and developmental purposes. These employees work 
under close supervision and receive specific instructions on required tasks and results 
expected. Their work is closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy. Statements that the 
job offer is for a research fellow, a worker in training, or an internship are indicators that a 
Level I wage should be considered [emphasis in original]. 
6 For additional information regarding wage levels as defined by DOL, see U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & 
Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. 
Nov. 2009), available at http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta. gov/pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _11_ 
2009.pdf. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent, the petitioner 
has not satisfied the second alternative prong at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) either. 
3. The employer normally requires at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position 
We turn next to the criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3), which entails an employer 
demonstrating that it normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent 
for the position. 
To satisfy this criterion, the record must contain documentary evidence demonstrating that the 
petitioner has a history of requiring the degree or degree equivalency, in a specific specialty, in its prior 
recruiting and hiring for the position. Additionally, the record must establish that a petitioner's 
imposition of a degree requirement is not merely a matter of preference for high-caliber candidates but 
is necessitated by the performance requirements of the proffered position.7 
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 baccalaureate 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 assertion of a particular degree requirement is not necessitated by the actual 
performance requirements of the proffered position, the position would not meet the statutory or 
regulatory definition of a specialty occupation. See § 214(i)(1) of the Act; 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii) 
(defining the term "specialty occupation"). 
To satisfy this criterion, the evidence of record must show that the specific performance 
requirements of the position generated the recruiting and hiring history. A petitioner's perfunctory 
declaration of a particular educational requirement will not mask the fact that the position is not a 
specialty occupation. users must examine the actual employment requirements, and, on the basis 
of that examination, determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. See 
generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. In this pursuit, the critical element is not the title of 
the position, or the fact that an employer has routinely insisted on certain educational standards, but 
whether performance of the position actually requires the theoretical and practical application of a 
body of highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the 
specific specialty as the minimum for entry into the occupation as required by the Act. 
On appeal, the petitioner stated that the "only person we have ever hired to perform the duties of 
Systems Analyst is [the beneficiary]." However, the employment of the beneficiary alone does not 
7 Any such assertion would be undermined in this particular case by the fact that the petitioner submitted an 
LCA that had been certified for a Level I wage-level, which is appropriate for use with a comparatively low, 
entry-level position relative to others within the same occupation. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
provide sufficient evidence that the petitiOner has a history of requiring the degree or degree 
equivalency, in a specific specialty, in its prior recruiting and hiring for the position. 
Upon review of the record of proceeding, the petitioner has not established a prior history of 
recruiting and hiring for the proffered position only persons with at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. As the record of proceeding does not demonstrate that the 
petitioner normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for 
the proffered position, it does not satisfy 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4) (iii)(A)(3). 
4. 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 
Next, the evidence of record does not satisfy the criterion at 
8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4), which requires the petitioner to establish that the nature of the 
proffered position's 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 the specific specialty or 
its equivalent. 
In the instant case, the petitioner submitted a description of the proffered position, along with 
documentation regarding its business operations. Upon review of the record of the proceeding, we 
find that the petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to satisfy this criterion of the 
l . 
8 regu atwns. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that it provided a daily, hourly breakdown of the duties, as well as a 
description of Point of Sale technology from Wikipedia. We note that the beneficiary's daily duties 
include possibly "resetting an entire system which could take hours" or "provid[ing] staff and users 
with assistance solving computer related problems." However, the petitioner did not provide 
documentary evidence of its computer systems. The petitioner's description of POS system is 
verbatim from Wikipedia. In other words, while this petition is filed as an extension request, a 
continuation of previously approved employment without change with the same employer, the 
8 For H-1B approval, the petitioner must demonstrate a legitimate need for an employee exists and to 
substantiate that it has H -1B 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. Going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
petitiOner did not provide evidence of existing POS technology or computer systems that the 
beneficiary has handled for its stores since 2011. 9 
Further, we reiterate 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). That is, the proffered position's Level I wage designation is indicative of a low, 
entry-level position relative to others within the occupational category of "Computer Systems 
Analysts," and hence one not likely distinguishable by relatively specialized and complex duties. 
As noted earlier, DOL indicates that a Level I designation is appropriate for "beginning level 
employees who have only a basic understanding of the occupation." Without further evidence, it is 
not credible that the petitioner's proffered position is one with specialized and complex duties as 
such a position 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. For instance, 
as previously mentioned, a Level IV (fully competent) position is designated by DOL for employees 
who "use advanced skills and diversified knowledge to solve unusual and complex problems." 
Thus, the petitioner has not established that the duties of the position are 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. We, therefore, conclude that 
the petitioner did not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)( 4). 
9 The petitioner noted that USCIS approved one other petition that had been previously filed on behalf of the 
beneficiary. The director's decision does not indicate whether the service center reviewed the prior approval 
of the other nonimmigrant petition. If the previous nonimmigrant petition was approved based on the same 
unsupported and contradictory assertions that are contained in the current record, the approval 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, 
e.g. Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&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 Engg. 
Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
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. 55 Fed. Reg. 2606, 
2612 (Jan. 26, 1990). A prior approval also does not preclude USCIS from denying an extension of an 
original visa petition based on a reassessment of eligibility for the benefit sought. See Texas A&M Univ. v. 
Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556, 2004 WL 1240482 (5th Cir. 2004). Furthermore, 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 the beneficiary, we would not 
be bound to follow the contradictory decision of a service center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 
2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), affd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
III. BENEFICIARY'S QUALIFICATIONS 
As the petitioner has not satisfied at least one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it 
cannot be found that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. We do not need to examine 
the issue of the beneficiary's qualifications, because the petitioner has not provided sufficient 
evidence to demonstrate that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. In other words, the 
beneficiary's credentials to perform a particular job are relevant only when the job is found to be a 
specialty occupation. Therefore, we need not address the beneficiary's qualifications further. 
IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 
The appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to 
establish 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.10 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied. 
10 
As this matter is dispositive of the petitioner's appeal, we will not address any of the additional deficiencies 
we have identified on appeal