dismissed H-1B Case: Web Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 8913967 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : WL Y 20, 2020 
The Petitioner, a company engaged in construction staffing and referrals, seeks to temporarily employ 
the Beneficiary as a web developer, under the H-IB 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)(15)(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 of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the 
questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the entire record, for the reasons set out below, we have determined that the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 1 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. In her decision, the Director thoroughly discussed the Petitioner's failure to 
meet any of the four regulatory criteria at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)( 1) - ( 4). Upon consideration 
of the entire record, including the evidence submitted and arguments made on appeal, we adopt and 
affirm the Director's decision with the comments below. See Matter of P. Singh, Attorney , 
26 I&N Dec. 623 (BIA 2015) (citing Matter of Burbano, 20 I&N Dec . 872, 874 (BIA 1994)); see also 
Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 7-8 (1st Cir. 1996) ("[I]f a reviewing tribunal decides that the facts and 
1 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-lB petition , including evidence regarding the proffered position 
and its business operations. Although we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered 
each one. 
evaluative judgments prescinding from them have been adequately confronted and correctly resolved 
by a trial judge or hearing officer, then the tribunal is free simply to adopt those findings" provided 
the tribunal's order reflects individualized attention to the case). 
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. 2 On appeal, the Petitioner states that the Handbook states that "most 
common degree is an associate's degree, but the OOH would not add the extra language that a 
bachelor's degree can be a normal requirement for web developers if that were not so." According to 
the Handbook, the occupation accommodates a wide spectrum of educational credentials, including 
less than a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. The Handbook states that an associate's degree 
in web design or a related field "is the most common requirement." It also indicates that a high school 
diploma is acceptable in certain settings. Furthermore, while the Handbook's narrative indicates that 
some employers prefer web designers with a bachelor's degree, the Handbook does not report that 
such bachelor's degrees are normally required. We note that an employer's preference for degreed 
workers is not the same as a requirement of such. 
A petitioner must demonstrate that the proffered position requires a precise and specific course of 
study that relates directly to the position in question. Since there must be a close correlation between 
the required specialized studies and the position, the requirement of a bachelor's degree without further 
specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz 
Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). To prove that a job requires the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge as required by section 214(i)(l) of the 
Act, a petitioner must establish that the position requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher 
degree in a specialized field of study or its equivalent. We interpret the degree requirement at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to require a degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed 
position. 
We do not 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner also provided additional job advertisements for web developer positions. 
However, upon review of the documents, we find that the Petitioner's reliance on the job 
announcements is misplaced. The Petitioner provided a brief explanation for each job posting as to 
2 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 ofrelevant 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. 
2 
how the companies are similar to the Petitioner. However, although the Petitioner states that the 
advertising companies are working with similar systems and platforms, it did not provide sufficient 
evidence of the similarities of the companies. 
Further, the Form I-129 stated that the Petitioner employs one individual. However, the Petitioner 
submitted an organizational chart that indicated six employees. The Petitioner did not explain this 
discrepancy. 
II. CONCLUSION 
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. The Petitioner has not met that burden here, 
and the petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3