remanded H-1B Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship' 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF V-T- LTD 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of th~. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 24, 2017 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a computer consulting firm, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"computer systems analyst" under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(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 evidence of 
record does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform services in a specialty 
occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Director erred when 
determining that the Beneficiary is not qualified to perform the services of its computer systems 
analyst position. 
We conduct de novo review on appeal, but a threshold matter must be resolved before we may 
address the merits of the Director's decision and the Petitioner's appeal. Specifically, a beneficiary's 
credentials to perform a particular job are relevant only when the job is found to be a specialty 
occupation. As will be discussed, the record does not establish that the proffered position requires a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Accordingly, the matter will 
be remanded to the Director for further review of the record and a new decision. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l) ofthe 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 
.
Matter of V- T- Ltd 
(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: 
(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" 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 an in-house "computer 
systems analyst" working on the · project for its client 1 
In response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner provided the Beneficiary's job 
duties in the proffered position, along with the approximate percentage of time the Beneficiary will 
spend on each duty, as follows (verbatim): 
1 The Petitioner mistakenly and repeatedly references the Beneficiary in the masculine pronoun case in the letter of 
support. In addition, the Petitioner references the proffered position as a "computer programmer" rather than the job title 
provided to us of computer systems analyst. The record provides no explanation for these inconsistencies. Thus, we 
must question the accuracy of the letter of support and whether the information provided is correctly attributed to this 
particular Beneficiary and position. 
2 
Matter of V-T- Ltd 
Sr. No Task Name %time 
Spent 
1 Interact with managers & end users of software systems to 22% 
prepare user specifications; Utilize user specifications to 
analyze, conceptualize and design Graphical User 
Interfaces ("GUis") whose are appropriate to user 
requirements; consult with users to identify current 
operating procedures); 
2 Apply principles and techniques of computer sciences and 12% 
quantitative methodology, techniques to determine 
feasibility of design within the time and cost constraints; 
3 Plan, develop, test and document computer programs 42% 
applying knowledge or programmmg techniques and 
computer systems; Create test plans and test data, conduct 
and evaluate unit testing to verify correct implementation 
of program/module specifications; create user , reference, 
training manuals and task guides, Code user specifications 
and requirements utilizing programming languages 
4 Analyze, review, and alter program to increase operational 12% 
efficiency or adapt to new requirement; 
5 Review, repair and modify software programs to ensure 12% 
technical accuracy and reliability of programs; 
According to the Petitioner, the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree in computer science, 
or a related field, along with "proficiency in software programming languages with at least two years 
actual job experience as a software professional or in lieu thereof, graduate coursework." 
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.2 Specifically, the record does not establish 
that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a 
specialty occupation.3 
2 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
3 The Petitioner submitted documentation in support of 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. 
3 
Matter of V-T- Ltd 
A. First Criterion 
We tum first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J), 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 recognize the U.S. Department of 
Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative sourse on the 
duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses.4 
On the labor condition application (LCA)5 submitted in support of the H-1 B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Computer Systems Analysts" 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 15-1121.6 
The Handbook subchapter entitled "How to Become a Computer Systems Analyst" states, in 
pertinent part: "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." U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., "Computer Systems Analysts," 
http :I lwww. b Is. gov I oohl computer-and-information-techno logy I computer-systems-anal ysts.htm#tab-
4 (last visited Apr. 20, 2017). The Handbook also states: "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." !d. 
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 is required to submit a certified LCA to us 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 I&N Dec. 542, 545-546 (AAO 20 15). 
6 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 ofthe 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, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://tlcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _II_ 2009.pdf A prevailing wage determination starts 
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. 
4 
Matter of V-T- Ltd 
The Handbook indicates that a bachelor's degree in a computer or information science field may be 
common, but not that it is a requirement for entry into these jobs. In fact, this chapter reports that 
"many" computer systems analysts may only have liberal arts degrees and programming or technical 
experience, but does not further qualify the amount of experience needed. The Handbook also notes 
that many analysts have technical'degrees, but does not specify a degree level (e.g., associate's 
degree) for these degrees. The Handbook further specifies that such a technical degree is not always 
a requirement. Thus, this passage of the Handbook reports that there are several paths for entry into 
the occupation. 
The Petitioner has not provided 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)(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 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 by us 
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)(quotingHird/BlakerCorp. v. Sava, 712F. 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 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." Nor is there any other evidence 
5 
Matter of V-T- Ltd 
relevant to this prong. 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.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 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
We reviewed the Petitioner's statements regarding the proffered position; however, the Petitioner 
does not assert that it satisfies this prong of the second criterion. Further, the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently developed relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the proffered position. 
Thus, 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. 
Upon review of the record, we find that the Petitioner did not submit information regarding 
employees who currently or previously held the position. The· record does not establish that the 
Petitioner 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 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. 
In the instant case, relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by 
the Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. The Petitioner does not establish how the 
generally described duties elevate the proffered position to a specialty occupation. We again refer to 
our comments regarding the implications of the Petitioner's designation of the proffered position at a 
Level I wage level. 7 
7 
Nevertheless, a low wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty 
occupation, just as a high wage-designation does not definitively establish such a classification. In certain occupations 
(e.g., doctors or lawyers), a Level II position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, 
6 
Matter ofV-T- Ltd 
Upon review of the totality of the record, the Petitioner has not established that the nature of the 
specific duties is 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. For the reasons discussed above, the evidence of record does not satisfy the fourth 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
As the Pe~itioner was not previously accorded the opportunity to address the deficiencies in the 
record regarding the specialty occupation nature of the proffered position, we will remand the record 
for further review of this issue. The Director may request any additional evidence considered 
pertinent to the new determination. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for further 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision. 
Cite as Matter ofV-T- Ltd, ID# 308213 (AAO Apr. 24, 2017) 
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 relevant factor but 
is not itself conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)( I) of the Act.