dismissed H-1B Case: Systems Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 27, 2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a global content delivery network firm, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 
as a systems engineer 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 higher degree in 
the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
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: 
Matter ofC-, Inc. 
(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). We have 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). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
In the H-1 B petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a systems engineer. In 
response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted a position description 
for the proffered position and listed the job duties for the position as follows: 
• Manage installation and hand off of networks systems and equipment 
• Script system administration tasks on behalf of Systems Engineering teams 
• Manage server policy 
• Provisioning system, and internal XenServer pools 
• Audit and correct new server configurations 
• Track capacity, usage, and availability of rack units, power, and system parts 
• Document and enforce best practices and standards 
• Manage regular inventory of system parts necessary for rapid deployment 
• Day to day administration of an advanced content delivery network consisting 
of 5000+ systems 
• Work closely with product development staff to solve problems and improve 
system performance 
• Work with NOC staff in resolving customer issues 
• Assist in the physical deployment of new system hardware 
• Work with contractors, vendors, and co-location site staff in performing site 
improvements and maintenance 
2 
Matter ofC-, Inc. 
• Offer expert advice to the organization on issues related to systems engineering 
and administration 
The Petitioner stated that the minimum entry requirement for the proffered position is at least a 
bachelor's degree in engineering, computer engineering, electronics engineering, or a closely related 
degree. 
III. ANALYSIS 
For the reasons set out below, we have determined that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. Specifically, the record (1) does not describe 
the position's duties with sufficient detail; and (2) does not establish that the job duties require an 
educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 1 
As a preliminary matter, we find that the record of proceedings lacks sufficient information 
regarding the proffered position. For H-lB 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. 
The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary will be employed in-house as a systems engineer; 
however, the Petitioner did not submit a job description to adequately convey the substantive work 
to be performed by the Beneficiary. The proffered position has been described in terms of 
generalized and generic functions that do not convey sufficient substantive information. For 
example, the Petitionerstated that the Beneficiary will "[ m ]anage server policy," "[a ]udit and correct 
new server configurations," "[t]rack capacity, usage, and availability of rack units, power, and 
system parts," "[ m ]anage regular inventory of system parts necessary for rapid deployment," 
"[w]ork closely with product development staff to solve problems and improve system 
performance," "[w]ork with NOC staff in resolving customer issues," and "[w]ork with contractors, 
vendors, and co-location site staff in performing site improvements and maintenance." The 
Petitioner's description does not convey the substantive nature of the work that the Beneficiary 
would actually perform, or any particular body of specialized knowledge that would have to be 
theoretically and practically applied to perform the work. 
In the RFE, the Director requested a more detailed job description, but the Petitioner provided the 
same general duties and a position description including general qualifications and skills. "Failure to 
1 
The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
Matter of C-, Inc. 
submit requested evidence which precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying 
the [petition]." 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14). 
In addition, we note that the record of proceedings lacks sufficient documentation regarding the 
Petitioner's business activities and the actual work that the Beneficiary will perform to substantiate 
the claim that the Petitioner has H-1 B caliber work for the Beneficiary for the period of employment 
requested in the petition. The Petitioner submitted several service orders invoiced to clients for 
services provided by the Petitioner. However, these service orders do not provide any information 
detailing the work to be performed by the Beneficiary or the Petitioner. It remains unknown whether 
the service orders are for proprietary products provided by the Petitioner to the clients, or for IT 
services being provided by the Petitioner to the clients. If the latter, the record does not identify who 
provides these services to the Petitioner's clients. 
The Petitioner also submitted copies of e-mails and troubleshooting tickets performed by the 
Beneficiary as a junior systems engineer. However, none of the documentation establishes that the 
Beneficiary will work in-house directly for the Petitioner. Further, it appears that some of the e-mail 
messages are directly to or from the Petitioner's clients. Thus, the Petitioner did not provide 
documents to demonstrate that the Beneficiary will perform work in-house directly for the Petitioner 
or substantiate that it has an ongoing project for the H -1 B validity period? The Petitioner must 
support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N 
Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
Consequently, we are precluded from 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: (I) 
the normal minimum educational requirement for the particular position, which is the focus of 
2 The agency made clear long ago that speculative employment is not permitted in the H-1 B program. For example, a 
1998 proposed rule documented this position as follows: 
Historically, the Service has not granted H-1 B classification on the basis of speculative, or 
undetermined, prospective employment. The H-1 B classification is not intended as a vehicle for an 
alien to engage in a job search within the United States, or for employers to bring in temporary foreign 
workers to meet possible workforce needs arising from potential business expansions or the 
expectation of potential new customers or contracts. To determine whether an alien is properly 
classifiable as an H-1 B nonimmigrant under the statute, the Service must first examine the duties of the 
position to be occupied to ascertain whether the duties of the position require the attainment of a 
specific bachelor's degree. See section 214(i) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act (the ''Act"). The 
Service must then determine whether the alien has the appropriate degree for the occupation. In the 
case of speculative employment, the Service is unable to perform either part of this two-prong analysis 
and, therefore, is unable to adjudicate properly a request for H-1 B classification. Moreover, there is no 
assurance that the alien will engage in a specialty occupation upon arrival in this country. 
Petitioning Requirements for the H Nonimmigrant Classification, 63 Fed. Reg. 30,419, 30,419-20 (proposed June 4, 
1998) (to be codified at 8 C.F.R. pt. 214 ). While a petitioner is certainly permitted to change its intent with regard to 
non-speculative employment, e.g., a change in duties or job location, it must nonetheless document such a material 
change in intent through an amended or new petition in accordance with 8 C.F.R. ~ 214.2(h)(2)(i)(E). 
4 
Matter ofC-, Inc. 
criterion 1; (2) industry positions which are parallel to the proffered position and thus appropriate for 
review for a common degree requirement, under the first alternate prong of criterion 2; (3) the level 
of complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position, which is the focus of the second alternate 
prong of criterion 2; ( 4) the factual justification for a petitioner normally requiring a degree or its 
equivalent, when that is an issue under criterion 3; and (5) the degree of specialization and 
complexity of the specific duties, which is the focus of criterion 4. 
As the Petitioner has not established that it satisfies any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it cannot be found that the proffered position qualities as a specialty 
occupation and the appeal must be dismissed on this basis alone. We will nevertheless perform a 
complete specialty occupation analysis under each of the four, alternative criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) for the occupation of "Computer Occupations, All Other, " the occupation title 
certified on the labor condition application (LCA).3 
A. First Criterion 
The criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J) requires that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the 
particular position.· To inform this inquiry, we recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) 
Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and educational 
requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses.4 
As noted above, the Petitioner designated the proffered position under the occupational category 
"Computer Occupations, All Other" which corresponds to the Standard Occupational Classification 
code 15-1199.5 We reviewed-the information in the Handbook regarding the occupational category 
3 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA 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, 545-46 (AAO 20 15). 
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 we regularly review 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. 
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 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, No'nagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://tlcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC __ Guidance_ Revised _II_ 2009.pdf A prevailing wage determination starts 
5 
Matter of C-, Inc. 
"Computer Occupations, All Other" and note that this occupation is one for which the Handbook 
does not provide detailed data. More specifically, the Handbook does not provide the typical duties 
and responsibilities for this category. Moreover, the Handbook does not provide any information 
regarding the academic and professional requirements for these positions. The Handbook states the 
following about these occupations: 
Data for Occupations Not Covered in Detail 
Although employment for hundreds of occupations is covered in detail in the 
Occupational Outlook Handbook, this page presents summary data on additional 
occupations for which employment projections are prepared but detailed 
occupational information is not developed. For each occupation, the Occupational 
Information Network (O*NET) code, the occupational definition, 2014 
employment, the May 2015 median annual wage, the projected employment change 
and growth rate from 2014 to 2024, and education and training categories are 
presented. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook. 2016-17 ed., Data 
for Occupations Not Covered in Detail, http://www.bls.gov/ooh/About/Data-for-Occupations-Not­
Covered-in-Detail.htm (last visited Feb. I, 2017). 
Thus, the narrative of the Handbook reports that there are some occupations for which only summary 
data is prepared but detailed occupational profiles are not developed. It appears that for at least 
some of the occupations, little meaningful information could be developed. 
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 incumbent 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 qualifies 
as a specialty occupation. Whenever more than one authoritative source exists, we will consider and 
weigh all of the evidence presented to detennine whether the particular position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. 
The Petitioner claims that a bachelor's degree in engineering, computer engineering, electronics 
engineering, or a closely related field is required, as it is common in the industry; however, the 
Petitioner has not provided sufficient 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)(J). 
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. 
6 
Matter ofC-, Inc. 
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 
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) (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 the instant matter, the Petitioner simply stated in its 
letter of support that a bachelor's degree in engineering, ) computer engineering, electronics 
engineering, or a closely related field is required. In the position description, under 
"qualifications/skills," the Petitioner further stated that "2+ years of experience administering Linux 
or other Unix systems in a 24x7 production environment" is also a requirement, along with 
undefined experience and familiarity in specifically listed technologies. However, the Petitioner did 
not submit any letters or affidavits from similar firms or individuals in the Petitioner's industry 
attesting that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals.'' 
The Petitioner 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 of the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
Matter of C-. Inc. 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
The Petitioner described the proffered position in relatively generalized and abstract terms that do 
not relate substantial details about either the position or its constituent duties. For example, the 
Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will "[ m ]anage installation and hand oft' of networks systems 
and equipment," "[ s ]cript system administration tasks on behalf of Systems Engineering teams," 
"[ m ]anage server policy," and perform "[ d]ay to day administration of an advanced content delivery 
network consisting of 5000+ systems" without providing specific tasks associated with managing 
and administering. Nor did the Petitioner provide details regarding the types of network systems, 
equipment, documents, policies, or standards the Beneficiary wo~ld use and the steps he would take 
in performing the listed duties. The Petitioner also did not explain the Beneficiary's specific role in 
working with the "systems engineering teams" or "contractors, vendors, and co-location site staff' 
and what duties are involved in assisting these other positions. 
Considering the totality of all of the Petitioner's duty descriptions, we find that the evidence of 
record does not establish the depth, complexity, or level of specialization, or substantive aspects of 
the matters upon which the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary will engage. Such generalized 
information does not in itself establish a correlation between any dimension of the proffered position 
and a need for a particular level of education, or educational equivalency, in a body of highly 
specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. Therefore, it is not evident that the proposed duties as 
described in the record of proceedings, and the position that they comprise, merit recognition of the 
proffered position as a specialty occupation. The duties as described give very little insight to actual 
tasks that the Beneficiary would perform on a day-to-day basis. 
Although the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well qualified for the position, and references 
his qualifications, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education or 
experience of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative 
complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position, and it did not identify any tasks 
that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it 
normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. The 
Petitioner did not submit any evidence of previous or current employees in the same position as the 
Beneficiary's proffered position. Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J). 
8 
Matter of C-, 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. 
The Petitioner asserts that the job duties of the proffered position are specialized and complex. We 
refer to our earlier comments and findings' with regard to the implication of the Petitioner's 
designation of the proffered position in the LCA as a Level I wage, and hence one not likely 
distinguishable by relatively specialized and complex duties. We have also reviewed the Petitioner'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. Upon review of the 
totality of the record, the record does not include probative evidence that the duties require more 
than technical proficiency in the systems engineering 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. CONCLUSION 
As discussed above, the Petitioner 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. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter o.fC-, Inc., ID# 252674 (AAO Feb. 27, 201 7) 
9