dismissed H-1B Case: Web Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10002136 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-1B) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG . 28, 2020 
The Petitioner, a shipping business, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "web developer" 
under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. 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-1B 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 record did not 
establish that proffered position qualified as a specialty occupation. The matter is now before us on 
appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate el igibi I ity 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 Christa's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(I) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(I), 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: 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
(4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We construe the term "degree" 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"). 
11. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a "web developer." The Petitioner provided the 
following job duties of the proffered position as follows: 
I Design of the overall architecture of the web application 
I Implementation of a robust set of services and APls to power the web application 
I Building reusable code and libraries for future use 
I Optimization of the application for maximum speed and scalability 
I Implementation of security and data protection 
I Conferring with support team to resolve problems, and prioritize all needs[] 
I Create web models or prototypes that include physical, interface, logical, or data 
models[] 
I Create back up as required for Web sites to local directories for instant recovery in 
case of problems 
I Evaluating code and check validity and efficiency to ensure it meets industry 
standards, is properly structured, and is compatible with browsers, devices, or 
operating systems[] 
I Determining customer's needs by analyzing technical requirements and identify 
problems uncovered by customer feedback and testing, and fix them correctly 
I Develop and document style guidelines for web site content 
I Document test plans, testing procedures, or test results 
The March 2019 Petitioner support letter states the education requirement for an individual "who 
focuses on back-end web development" is a bachelor's degree. The Petitioner further states that they 
require a degree in computer engineering or computer science. 
2 
Ill. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine 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. 
A. First Criterion 
We turn first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(1), 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 will consider the information contained 
in the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) regarding the 
duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations it addresses.1 
On the labor condition application (LCA) 2 submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Web Developers" corresponding 
to the standard occupational classification code 15-1134 from the Occupational Information Network 
(O*NET). The Handbook's subchapter "How to Become a Web Developer" states, in pertinent part, 
that the requirements range from a high school diploma to a bachelor's degree, and an associate's 
degree in web design or a related field is the most common requirement. 3 According to the Handbook, 
some employers prefer workers who have at least a bachelor's degree in computer science, 
programming, or a related field, for more specialized developer positions, such as back-end web 
developers (emphasis added). 4 Because the Handbook recognizes a number of paths to enter the web 
developer occupation, including those that do not require a bachelor's degree, it is not categorically a 
specialty occupation. The Handbook does not establish that a degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, is normally required for positions within the occupational category. 
On appeal, the Petitioner cites Next Generation Tech, Inc. v. Johnson, (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2017) as 
relevant here. We find that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation. 
1 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. Nevertheless, to satisfy the first criterion, 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 A petitioner submits the LCA to DOL to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1B 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 duties, experience, and qualifications. Section 212(n)(1) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(a). 
3 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Web Developers 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/web-developers.htm#tab-4 (last visited Aug. 27, 2020). 
4 Id. 
3 
First, we are not bound to follow the published decision of a United States district court. See Matter 
of K-S-, 20 l&N Dec. 715, 719-20 (BIA 1993). However, even if we were to consider the logic 
underlying Next Generation Tech., Inc., we would still conclude that the Petitioner had not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
As recognized by another court, while the Handbook may satisfy the first regulatory criterion for some 
professions, it does not for other occupations in such a categorical manner. 5 For example, "[the 
Handbook's] description for the Computer Programmer occupation does not describe the normal 
minimum educational requirements of the occupation in a categorical fashion."6 "Accordingly, [the 
Petitioner] could not simply rely on [the Handbook's] profile, and instead had the burden to show that 
the particular position offered to [the Beneficiary] was among the Computer Programmer positions 
for which a bachelor's degree was normally required."7 
Moreover, the court in Next Generation Tech., Inc. relied in part on a USCIS policy memorandum 
regarding "Computer Programmers" indicating generally preferential treatment toward positions 
located within that occupational category, and "especially" toward companies in that particular 
petitioner's industry. However, USCIS rescinded the policy memorandum cited in Next Generation 
Tech., lnc.8 
The Handbook does not describe the normal minimum educational requirement for positions located 
within the "Web Developers" occupational category in a categorical manner since it states that "an 
associate's degree in web design or related field is the most common requirement" and that even for 
the "more specialized developer" positions, some employers only prefer workers who have at least a 
bachelor's degree in computer science, programming, or a related field" 9 (emphasis added). Further, 
the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position. 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation from a probative, authoritative source to 
substantiate its assertion regarding the normal 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 
5 Such categorically-described professions would include, for example, surgeons or attorneys, which indisputably require 
at least a bachelor's degree for entry into the occupation. See lnnova Sols., Inc. v. Baran, 2019 WL 3753334, at *8 (N.D . 
Cal. Aug . 8, 2019) (declining to follow Next Generation Tech., Inc.). 
6 Id.; see also Xiaotong Liu v. Baran, 2018 WL 7348851 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2018). 
7 See lnnova Sols., Inc. 2019 WL 3753334, at *8. 
8 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0142, Rescission of the December 22, 2000 "Guidance memo on HlB 
computer related positions" (Mar . 31, 2017), https://www .uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/nativedocuments/PM-6002-
0142-H-lBComputerRelatedPositionsRecission.pdf. 
9 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Web Developers 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/web-developers.htm#tab-4 (last visited Aug. 27, 2020). 
4 
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. 
We generally consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there is such a common degree 
requirement: 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 establish that such firms "routinely employ and 
recruit only degreed individuals."10 
The Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which the Handbook (or other 
independent, authoritative sources) 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 response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE , the Petitioner submitted three letters from: 
I I a Lead Applications Developer at 
I I of I 11 nsti tute of Tech no I ogy; and ========-=--=--=--=--=-~,-o-f-=_-=_-=_-=_-_ ..... _ ...... __.-,---U-n i-v-er_s_i ty __ ___.l n 
sum, each of the authors describes his experience within the industry and states that it is common for 
positions similar to the one proffered here to require at least a bachelor's degree.11 However, none of 
the letters are supported by evidence or the necessary information to determine that it is common for 
the industry to routinely employ or recruit only specifically degreed individuals. 
Specifically, in I d's letter, the writer asserts that (1) the proffered position is similar to the 
roles in his position at a company in the same industry, and (2) a master's degree is required to 
perform the duties. We careful! evaluated! l·s assertions in support of the instant petition 
but find them insufficient. 's osition is not similar to the proffered position. The Petitioner 
provided a job description of ~-------:-:,.......·s position of Lead Applications Developer. The Lead 
Application job duties indicate application software development, "full systems life cycle 
management," and budgeting duties that are beyond the scope of the proffered position. The job 
description also includes leading application development project activities and "junior team 
members," which are not found in the proffered position. Further, this letter does not provide any 
substantive evidence why a master's level degree is necessary to perform the duties of a web developer 
position, nor indicate what field this degree should be in. Moreover, if a master's degree were required 
10 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[ Cconsjdering these "factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
11 We note the letters from I andl !attempt to argue that a master's degree is required for the 
proffered position. 
5 
for the proffered position, then we would question whether the LCA corresponds to and supports the 
H-1B petition, as required.12 
Likewise,.___ _____ _.s andl l's letters do not sufficiently explain why at least a 
bachelor's degree is necessary for a parallel position in the industry. I I suggests the 
proffered position is similar to web developers at other shipping companies and that this "type of Web 
Developer job requires a higher level of sophisticated skills," but does not provide any probative 
evidence supporting his opinion. I ts letter does not provide any evidence besides a 
general statement that the Beneficiary's skills are "reflective of the qualifications similar companies 
require within the industry." As such, we find that all three letters are not sufficient to satisfy the first 
prong. 
Moreover, the submitted articles from ZipRecruiter and Software Engineer Insider and the brochure 
froml I Institute of Technology do not demonstrate a degree requirement in a specific specialty 
is common for parallel positions in the industry. The provided articles are specific to Personal Home 
Page Tools (PHP) developers in general and does not discuss the educational requirements in the 
Petitioner's specific industry. Also, the articles' general description of the PHP developers do not 
allow a "parallel" comparison of the level of responsibility and scope of duties to the proposed 
position. The school brochure provides information on the software engineering master's degree 
program but does not provide any substantive information that a web developer occupation requires 
such a degree ore that it is common for the industry to routinely employ or recruit only specifically 
degreed individuals for this occupation. 
As the complete review of the record does not establish that the Petitioner has met this prong of the 
regulations, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that a bachelor's degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(i i i)(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 determine that the Petitioner has not sufficiently developed relative complexity or 
uniqueness as an aspect of the proffered position. The job duties provided are generic and routine, 
including duties such as "[d]esign of the overall architecture of the web application" and 
12 O*NET classifies SOC 15-1134 - Web Developers as a Job Zone 3 occupation. Occupations in Job Zone 3 require 
"training in vocational schools, related-on-the-job experience, or an associate's degree." O*NET Online, O*NET Online 
Help - Job Zones, http://www.onetonline.org/help/online/zones#zone3 (last visited on Aug. 27, 2020). A requirement for 
a master's degree would necessitate a two-level increase in a Job Zone 3 occupation's prevailing wage. However, in the 
instant case, the Petitioner classifies the proffered position at a Level 11 wage on the LCA. As the proffered position is not 
a specialty occupation we will not address the LCA further, other than to advise the Petitioner that it should be prepared 
to address the matter in any future H-1B filings. 
6 
"[o]ptimization of the application for maximum speed and scalability." These tasks do not convey 
sufficient substantive information to establish how these duties are more complex or unique than a 
web developer position that requires only an associate's degree. The Petitioner's job tasks of 
"[c]onferring with support team to resolve problems, and prioritize all needs" and "[d]evelop and 
document style guidelines for web site content" without additional information also do not appear to 
be duties that would require a bachelor's degree. The record does not establish which of the duties, if 
any, of the proffered position would be so complex or unique as to be distinguishable from those of 
similar but non-degreed or non-specialty degreed employment. 
We also observe that some of the duties of the proffered position, as described by the Petitioner, 
paraphrase or copy tasks from O*NET Online Summary Report for this occupation.13 For example, 
the Petitioner's job duties include "[c]reate back up as required for Web sites to local directories for 
instant recovery in case of problems," and "[e]valuating code and check validity and efficiency to 
ensure it meets industry standards, is properly structured, and is compatible with browsers, devices, 
or operating systems," which are paraphrased or copied from the web developers O*NET tasks of 
"[b]ack up files from Web sites to local directories for instant recovery in case of problems" and 
"[e]valuate code to ensure that it is valid, is properly structured, meets industry standards, and is 
compatible with browsers, devices, or operating systems."14 This type of 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, generally cannot be relied upon by the Petitioner when 
demonstrating duties attached to its specific employment. 
When 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 its business operations, as well 
as 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. In the instant case, the 
Petitioner has not detailed the actual work to be performed for this position rather than describing the 
occupation. The basic and routine tasks of this particular occupation, as discussed above, do not 
require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, and the Petitioner does not identify 
any tasks that are so complex or unique that establish otherwise. 
We now turn to the position evaluation provided bY~----~of I f University. In his 
letter.I I (1) describes the credentials that he asserts qualify him to opine upon the nature 
of the proffered position; (2) lists the evidence he reviewed for assessment; and (3) states the position 
is specialized and requires at least a bachelor's degree or it's equivalent in computer science, computer 
engineering, or a related field.I Is assertions are not persuasive. 
First.I !states that his assessment is partly based upon the March 2019 Petitioner support 
letter and the Beneficiary's detailed resume. When discussing the Petitioner's business activities, 
I !copies almost verbatim the Petitioner's description from the March 2019 support 
13 O*NET Online Summary Report for "15-1134.00 - Web Developers," https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/15-
1134.00 (last visited Aug. 27, 2020). 
14 Id. 
7 
letter.15 He does not discuss how the duties of the position would actually be performed within the 
context of the Petitioner's business enterprise. 
Second.I Is opinion letter contains conclusory statements regarding the complexity of 
the duties and the educational level required to perform them. I I does not discuss the 
principles and methods he used to reach his conclusion and he does not offer a discussion of how he 
applied any principles and methods in reaching his conclusion. For example, I I does 
not indicate he has published, conducted research, ran surveys, or engaged in any enterprise or 
employment regarding the minimum education requirements for positions such as the position 
proffered here. He also does not discuss any relevant research, studies, or authoritative publications 
he utilized as part of his review and foundation for his opinion that the web developer occupation 
requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent to perform the described duties. 
The professor did not list or provide copies of the research resources upon which he partly based his 
opinion. This further diminishes the weight his opinion letter garners within these proceedings. Where 
an opinion letter does not cite to the source of its contents, is not corroborated by other probative 
evidence, but instead generally offers conclusory and unsubstantiated statements, USCIS is justified 
in determining that such material is not persuasive. 16 
Also, the professor did not discuss why other methods could not lead to a sufficiently similar 
knowledge set. For example, the professor did not consider whether this knowledge set could be 
attained through several years of experience building the necessary skills and understanding to perform 
the position, or through an associate's degree. Notably the professor does not address the Handbook's 
report that an associate's degree is the most common requirement for this occupation. The professor 
did not account for obvious alternative explanations. A lack of sufficient consideration of alternatives 
is a basis that can adversely affect the evidentiary weight of such an opinion. 
Additional ly,I Is and I l's letters do not provide any additional evidence for 
this prong. Neither letter discusses all the duties of the proffered position or the duties complexity or 
uniqueness. As such, none of the letters are supported by evidence or the information to determine 
the 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. 
For the reasons stated, the aforementioned opinion letters are insufficient to establish the nature of the 
actual position and thus assist in establishing the position as a specialty occupation. As a matter of 
discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory.17 However, we will 
reject an opinion or give it less weight if it is not in accord with other information in the record or if it 
is in any way questionable.18 
We also reviewed the Petitioner's submissions of the (1) Beneficiary's schedule, (2) the Beneficiary's 
future projects, (3) documentation from one of the Petitioner's vendors, and (4) the Beneficiary's work 
15 When describing the Petitioner's business operations. I l's letter states, "Our services run the spectrum of 
customs brokerage, freight shipping, customs clearance, and warehousing services" (emphasis added). This statement is 
copied verbatim form the Petitioner's March 2019 support letter. 
16 Sagarwala v. Cissna, 387 F. Supp. 3d 56, 65-66 (D.D.C. 2019). 
17 Matter of Caron lnt'I, Inc., 19 l&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). 
1s Id. 
8 
samples to provide additional evidence for this prong. First, the Beneficiary's schedule does not 
provide details to demonstrate the proffered position is complex. The duties described on the schedule, 
such as "[g]o thorough Email and do required Follow ups," "[g]o to Task Management Tool ASANA 
and update tasks (Respond to any questions asked by other team members or create new tasks based 
on new requirements or follow up on any existing task)," and "quick daily meeting for current tasks 
updates with other developers" are insufficiently detailed to demonstrate complexity or uniqueness. 
Although the Beneficiary's future projects provide more details about the proffered position's duties, 
it does not provide informative evidence that the proffered position is more complex or unique than 
the routine tasks of a Job Zone Three web developer occupation. Likewise, the vendor documentation 
includes a contract for the Petitioner to build a web payment function linking to the vendor website, 
and an e-mail thread describing work on this payment function. Neither of these documents 
demonstrate why this position is more complex and unique than other web developers. 
We have reviewed the sample work product which includes: (1) Auto Pay Settings, (2) I I 
.___ _ _.I Account Change, (3) Check Remote Area Surcharge Conditions, (4) Fedex Billing - Clearance 
Fee Issue, (5) Client Invoice Preference Page, (6) Stopover shipment VAT Calculation, (7) Billing 
Flow with Screenshots, (8) QA Testing, and (9) Create Label Flow. The work product is without 
specific context and reveal few details about the duties involved in each task. Taken together, the 
sample work product and the Petitioner's brief descriptions do not convey an understanding of the 
uniqueness or complexity of the creation of the work product. 
With the work product description, the Petitioner also provides a list of courses the Beneficiary 
completed and asserts these courses prepared her to perform the duties of the proffered position. 
However, whether or not the Beneficiary in this case has completed a specialized course of study directly 
related to the proffered position is irrelevant to the issue of whether the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation, i.e., whether the duties of the proffered position require the theoretical and practical 
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and the attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent.19 Although the Petitioner claims that the beneficiary is well­
qualified and her coursework will assist her in carrying out the duties of the proffered position, the test 
to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education or experience of a particular 
beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent. 
Also, the Petitioner's LCA indicates a wage level 11 was assessed for the proffered position. A level 
11 designation when read in combination with the evidence presented and the Handbook's account of 
the requirements for this occupation, indicates that this particular position is not so complex or unique, 
relative to other positions located within the occupational category, that the duties could only be 
performed by an individual with a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
In other words, if typical positions located within the occupational category do not require a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, as in this matter, then it is unclear how a position with 
19 Section 214(i)(I) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) 
9 
wage level 11 characteristics would, regardless of the Petitioner's assertions. 20 The record lacks 
sufficiently detailed and informative evidence to distinguish the proffered position as unique from or 
more complex than other closely related positions that can be performed by persons without at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
In light of all the above, 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.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. Evidence 
provided in this criterion may include, but is not limited to, an organizational chart showing the 
Petitioner's hierarchy and staffing levels with corresponding and experience requirements for this 
position, as well as documentary evidence of past employment practices for the position. 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner provided a letter from the Chief Executive Officer (CEO); a 
copy of an H-1B petition for a former employee; and an organization chart. The documents show in 
April 2017, the Petitioner submitted an H-1B petition for a "computer systems engineer'' for the former 
employee which was approved. 21 Notably, the "computer system engineer" job duties are not 
consistent with the Petitioner's job duties for the proffered position as stated in its letter of support.22 
The duties of the previous position include troubleshooting the whole computer system and training 
and assisting new developers as opposed to developing web sites and web applications. 
We conclude that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient documentary evidence to support the 
assertion that it normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, 
directly related to the duties of the position. Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
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 
20 As noted earlier, SOC 15-1134, Web Developers is a Job Zone 3 occupation, in which most occupations require an 
associate's degree. A Level 11 wage is the absolute minimum wage an H-lB petitioner could offer to a web developer 
while maintaining a minimum requirement of at least a bachelor's degree. See generally DOL, Emp't & Training Adm in., 
Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://www. foreign laborcert.doleta.gov/pdf /N PWH C _Guidance_ Revised_ 11 _ 2009. pdf. 
21 The CEO explains that the former employee was later laid off, and the Beneficiary assumed some of the "computer 
systems engineer" duties. The CEO further states the Beneficiary's job as a "web developer" includes some of work done 
by the former employee. As the Beneficiary is performing the additional duties of the "computer systems engineer," it is 
unclear if the assigned SOC 15-1134, Web Developers, on the LCA accurately reflects the duties of the proffered position. 
22 The CEO argues these two positions are similar since the previous "computer systems engineer" is the same as the 
current "web developer" position with added tasks and duties. However, it is the additional duties of another occupation 
that demonstrate the positions are not the same. 
10 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. The Petitioner does not challenge the Director's decision on this criterion and we agree 
that the record does not demonstrate that the 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 set forth above, we conclude that the evidence of record does not establish, more likely than not, 
that the proffered position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. Accordingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
11