dismissed H-1B Case: Wholesale And Retail

(b)(6)
JUN 1 7 2015 
DATE: 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION RECEIPT #: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigr ation Service 
Administra tive Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachus etts 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 : 
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.P.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 . 
Thank you, 
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 1-129), the petitioner describes itself as a 5-
employee, "Wholesale and Retail" business, established in In order to employ the beneficiary 
in what it designates as a computer systems analyst position, the petitioner seeks to classify her 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. § 1101(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. 
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.P.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.P.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.P.R. § 214.2(b)( 4)(iii)(A) must logically be read together 
with section 214(i)(1) of the Act and 8 C.P.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.P.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.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory 
or regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 P.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). To avoid this 
result, 8 C.P.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)(1) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) consistently interprets the 
term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.P.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, USCIS 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 a letter of support dated November 15, 2013, the petitioner stated that it is a "fast growing food 
retailer[ sic] company providing over hundreds of food products including categories of rice, oodles, 
tea, drinks, preserved herbs, beans, sauce, oil, vinegar, cooking wine, [and] frozen foods," and also 
gasoline services. The petitioner described the duties of the systems analyst as follows: 
• Formulate and define immediate system problem resolutions based on 
thorough understanding and analysis of applicable business systems and 
company operations. 5% of the time will be devoted to this task; 
• Integrate its company's internal computer systems for better numerous 
engineering, business analysis and record management. 10% of the time will 
be devoted to this task; 
• Manage and maintain computer network system; maintains hardware and 
software with business owners outside systems. 15% of the time will be 
devoted to this task; 
• Manage the implementation of back office hardware and software system, 
including installing applications, setting up database, establishing and using 
spreadsheets. 10% of the time will be devoted to this task; 
• Defines the problem, and develops system requirements and program 
specifications. 10% of the time will be devoted to this task; 
• Manage and process business data, including collecting, compiling, and 
analyzing sales data. 10% of the time will be devoted to this task; 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
• Install accounting software QuickBooks Pro 2010 Premier, Tax Software 
such as ProSystem Fx Tax for Business, and statistic application software 
such as SPSS statistical analysis. 10% of the time will be devoted to this 
task; 
• Operate accounting and tax software, and run statistic application, and 
prepare statistic report for management. 10% of the time will be devoted to 
this task. 
The petitioner also stated that "[t]o be qualified for the position , we require a minimum of a B.S. in 
Computer Science or Information System or related." 
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 provided the same duties, but added the following: 
• Design and develop e-commerce system to offer online users with more 
customized product and services. 20% of the time will be devoted to this 
task; 
The petitioner also stated that the position of Systems Analyst is "clearly a specialty occupation 
because it involved sophisticated profession-level job duties in the areas of computer science and 
information management with good IT technical skills." 
C. Analysis 
A baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is 
normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position 
We will first discuss the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)(l), 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. 2 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: 
2 
The Handbook, which is available in printed form, 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)
Page 6 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
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. 
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 June 10, 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 these positions . This section of the 
narrative begins by stating that a bachelor's degree in a related field is not a requirement. The 
Handbook continues by stating that there are a wide-range of degrees that are acceptable for 
positions in this occupation, including general-purpose degrees such as business and liberal arts. 
While the Handbook indicates that a bachelor's degree in a computer or information science field is 
common, it does not report that such a degree is normally a minimum requirement for entry. 
According to the Handbook, many systems analysts have liberal arts degrees and have gained 
programming or technical expertise elsewhere. It further reports that many analysts have technical 
degrees. We observe that the Handbook does not specify a degree level (e.g., associate's degree, 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
baccalaureate) for these technical degrees. Moreover, it specifically states that such a degree is not 
always a requirement. Thus, the Handbook does not support the claim that the occupational 
category of computer systems analyst is one for which normally the minimum requirement for entry 
is a baccalaureate degree (or higher) in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Even if it did, the 
record lacks sufficient evidence to support a finding that the particular position proffered here, an 
entry-level computer systems analyst position (as indicated on the LCA), would normally have such 
a minimum, specialty degree requirement or its equivalent. 
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 has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(1). 
The requirement of a baccalaureate 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 Shantz: Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 
1999) (quotingHird!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. Furthermore, the 
petitioner did not submit any letters or affidavits from similar firms or individuals in the petitioner's 
industry attesting that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." Thus, 
based upon a complete review of the record of proceeding, we find that the petitioner has not 
satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by 
an individual with a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
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. 
In support of its assertion that the proffered posttlon qualifies as a specialty occupation, the 
petitioner submitted some financial documents 
including appraisal report, quarterly tax returns and 
utility bills. While the documents provide some insight into the petitioner's business operations, we 
find that the petitioner has not established 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. 
Specifically, the duties comprising the proffered position lack sufficient detail and concrete explanation 
to establish the substantive nature of the work and associated applications of specialized knowledge 
that their actual performance would require within the context of the petitioner's particular business 
operations. For example, the beneficiary will "manage and maintain computer network system"; 
"manage the implementation of back office hardware and software system"; and "operate accounting 
and tax software." However, the petitioner does not provide any information regarding the computer 
network system or the back office hardware and software system or the tax software. The evidence of 
record contains neither substantive explanation nor documentation showing the substantive nature of 
the work and associated applications of specialized knowledge that would be involved in the 
referenced tasks. 
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. 3 This wage level indicates that the beneficiary is only required to have a basic 
understanding of the occupation; that she will be expected to perform routine tasks that require 
limited, if any, exercise of judgment; that she will be closely supervised and her work closely 
3 
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]. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and that she 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. 4 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. "5 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. 
As the evidence of record does not 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 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). 
The employer normally requires a baccalaureate or higher 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 
4 The issue here is that the petitioner's designation of this positiOn as a Level I, entry-level position 
undermines its claim that the position is particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other 
positions within the same occupation. Nevertheless, it is important to note that a Level I wage-designation 
does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty occupation. In certain occupations 
(doctors or lawyers, for example), an entry-level position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designation 
would not reflect that an occupation qualifies as a specialty occupation if that higher-level position does not 
have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. That is, a 
position's wage level designation may be a consideration but is not a substitute for a determination of 
whether a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 
5 
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 10 
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.6 
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)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) 
(defining the term "specialty occupation"). 
To satisfy this criterion, the evidence of record must show that the specific perfor111ance 
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. USCIS 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. 
The petitioner did not provide any information regarding the prior history of hiring individuals in 
the proffered position. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that this is a new position. Therefore, 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.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)(J). 
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 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 
6 
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 11 
is usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty or 
its equivalent. 
The petitioner claims that the nature of the duties of the position is so specialized and complex that 
the knowledge required to perform them is usually associated with the attainment of a bachelor's 
degree. We reviewed the petitioner's statements regarding the proffered position and its business 
operations. However, relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed 
by the petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. That is, the proposed duties have not been 
described with sufficient specificity to establish that they are more specialized and complex than 
positions that are not usually associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. 7 
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). 
III. ADDITIONAL BASIS 
In the LCA, the petitioner indicated that the prevailing wage for the occupational category 
"Computer Systems Analyst" at Level I was $24.21 per hour (or $25,178 per year at 20 hours per 
7 
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 12 
week). The wage source is listed as OFLC (Office of Foreign Labor Certification) Online Data 
Center. The LCA was certified by DOL on November 1, 2013. 
Upon review, we note that the prevailing wage for this occupational category at Level I was $26.08 
per hour (or $27,123 per year).8 The proffered wage of $24.21 per hour as stated on the Form I-
129 is below the prevailing wage of $26.08 per hour for the occupational classification in the area 
of intended employment by $1,945 per year. 
Under the H-1B program, a petitioner must offer a beneficiary wages that are at least the actual 
wage level paid by the petitioner to all other individuals with similar experience and qualifications 
for the specific employment in question, or the prevailing wage level for the occupational 
classification in the area of employment, whichever is greater, based on the best information 
available as of the time of filing the LCA.9 See section 212(n)(1)(A) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1182(n)(1)(A); Patel v. Boghra, 369 Fed. Appx. 722, 723 (ih Cir. 2010). The LCA 
serves as the critical mechanism for enforcing section 212(n)(1) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(n)(1). 
See 65 Fed. Reg. 80110, 80110-80111 (indicating that the wage protections in the Act seek "to 
protect U.S. workers' wages and eliminate any economic incentive or advantage in hiring temporary 
foreign workers" and that this "process of protecting U.S. workers begins with [the filing of an 
LCA] with [DOL]"). 
In this case, the petitioner has not established that it will pay the beneficiary an adequate wage for 
her work if the petition were approved. As a result, even if it were determined that the petitioner 
overcame the other independent reasons for the denial of the petition (which it has not), the petition 
could still not be approved. 
IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 
An application or petition that does comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by this office even if the service center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the 
initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. 
Cal. 2001), affd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d at 145 (noting 
that we conduct appellate review on a de novo basis). 
The appeal is 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 
8 For more information, see http://www .flcdatacenter .com/OesQuickResults.aspx? code= 15-
1121 .year=14&source=1 (June 10, 2015). 
9 The prevailing wage rate is defined as the average wage paid to similarly employed workers in a specific 
occupation in the area of intended employment. The required wage rate means the rate of pay which is the 
higher of the actual wage for the specific employment in question or the prevailing wage rate for the 
occupation in which the beneficiary will be employed in the geographic area of intended employment. See 
20 C.F.R. § 655.715. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.