remanded H-1B Case: Computer Science

/ 
o U.S. Citizenship 
"' and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-S-, INC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 9, 2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a software consulting, training, and clevelopment company, seeks to temporarily 
employ the Beneficiary as a "computer programmer" under the H -1 B nonimmigrant classification 
for specialty occupations. See 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, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director determined that the 
evidence of record did not establish that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform services in a 
specialty occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's 
decision was erroneous and overlooked previously submitted evidence. 
Upon de novo review, we will remand the matter to the Director. 
I. BENEFICIARY QUALIFICATIONS 
The Director denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that the BenefiCiary 
is qualified to perform the services in a specialty occupation. However, a beneficiary's credentials 
to perform a particular job are relevant only when the job is found to qualify as a specialty 
occupation. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is required to follow long-standing 
legal standards and determine first, whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation, and second, whether a beneficiary was qualified for the position at the time the 
nonimmigrant visa petition was filed. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assoc., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 
(Comm'r 1988) ("The facts of a beneficiary's background only come at issue after it is found that 
the position in which the petitioner intends to employ him falls within [a specialty occupation].") In 
the instant case, the record of proceedings does not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. Thus, the matter will be remanded to the Director for review and issuance of a 
new decision. 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-S-, Inc 
II. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
A. Legal Framework 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.P.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 bacca~aureate 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). USCIS has consistently interpreted the term "degree" in the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a 
specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Cherto_ff, 
484 F.3d 139, 14 7 (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). . 
B. Proffered Position 
In the H-1B petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a "computer 
programmer." In a letter of support, the Petitioner · explained that it is developing a new software 
product, and that the 
2 
Matter of S-S-, Inc 
( 
Beneficiary "will work solely" on this in-house project. The Petitioner stated that it "aims to bring 
this product suite to the market in late 2015 and is currently in the process of engaging with potential 
clients to solidify the systems requirements and conduct prototype building." The Petitioner further 
explained that it "forecasts a consistent need for IT resources including but not limited to Systems 
Analysts, [and] Programmer/ Analysts ... for the duration of this development effort and during the 
support and maintenance beyond 2015." 
In the same letter, the Petitioner submitted a lengthy list of duties for the proffered position, 
described as that of a "computer programmer analyst," which include "business process analysis and 
design responsibilities," "development responsibilities," "test planning and execution 
responsibilities," and "product support responsibilities." 
The Petitioner submitted a separate "Itinerary of Services" for the Beneficiary which listed the 
following job duties for the position titled "computer programmer analyst" (verbatim): 
• Review of Business requirements and technical specifications. 
• Preparation of test documentation and definition of test strategies. 
• Working with team members to define test objectives, design test cases, perform 
test execution, and manage defects. 
• Well versed with complete software development Life cycle (SDLC) and its 
integration With QA methodology. 
• Work with all stakeholders on the QA effort. 
• Preparing Product Backlog with user stories and generating the Release Backlog. 
• Preparation & Review of Test Plan, Test Design specification, Test Scenarios and 
Test Cases during Sprints and getting it signed-off from the User. 
• Perform Regression Testing, execute test cases/and analyze results. 
• Resolve the defects created by the Business & Testing teams. 
• Used Team Foundation Server for logging and tracking defects. 
• Actively participated with configuration team in meetings addressing user stories 
and involved in preparing Business Requirement Document. 
• Involved in daily Serum/Stand-up meetings after each sprint. 
·• Driven Defect Triage calls and coordinated with various cross-commit team in 
resolving defects. 
• Developed automated Regression test scripts for various SAP modules like MM, 
SD, CRM, HR, FIICO and PP modules using QTP. 
• Enhance QTP scripts by creating parameters, output values, Checkpoints, regular 
expressions and Descriptive programming. 
• Developing, , documenting, and revising system design procedures, testing 
procedures, and User training. 
• Perform Functional, Regression, User Acceptance, Integration, Load and 
Performance using Load Runner, QTP, and Quality Center. 
• Work with the development team ensuring that consistent design standards 
reflecting best practices applied. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-S-, Inc 
• Work with project teams and customer service teams as a technical resource and 
contribute to successful implementation. 
In a letter submitted in response to the Directpr 's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner clarified 
that its system is a proprietary software technology targeting the hospitality industry. The 
Petitioner also submitted an affidavit by Account Manager of the Petitioner, who 
confirmed that this is the project to which the Beneficiary will be assigned. further 
noted that the' system is "an ideal solution for hotel chains as well as independent hotels, 
motels, resorts and Inns," and that in promoting its system, it has made "significant efforts to 
continue negotiating services contracts with major hotel chains such as 
etc.," noting specifically that it hoped to reach an agreement with in the coming months. 
C. ·Analysis 
We find that the evidence of record is insufficient to demonstrate that the duties of the proffered 
position are in fact associated , with a specialty occupation. That is; the Petitioner has not submitted 
sufficient, credible evidence to establish that the project is a bona fide in-house project of 
the Petitioner, and that the Beneficiary will be exclusively assigned to it. 
Preliminarily, we note discrepancies and concerns regarding the documentary evidence submitted by 
the Petitioner. The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary will be employed as a computer 
programmer on its project, which it claims is specifically tailored to the hospitality industry, 
and which will benefit large hotel chains as well as smaller, independent outlets such as motels, inns, 
and resorts. In support of this assertion, the Petitioner submitted a document entitled "Technical 
Handbook," which it claims is the "Blue Print" for its system. A large portion of this 
document, however, is not tailored specifically toward the hospitality industry as claimed by the 
Petitioner, but rather appears to pertain to the hospital/healthcare industry. 
For example, section 1.1.9, "Guest operation," states in part "[p ]atients, family members and guests 
can enjoy the Internet from most patient rooms at Hospital." Section 1.2.6, "Expense management," 
srates that "[t]rained 'Professional Financial Advocates ' work proactively with patients to explain 
their insurance benefits, ensure that [a]ll paperwork is organized and explained, help resolve any 
billing or claims issues that arise, and facilitate bill [p]ayment." Section 1.2.8 discusses "[t]he 
mission of every public hospital in Nigeria." Section 1.2.9 discusses "a local area network which 
communicates betwee~ the School of Medicine and the Hospital which . . . [has] access to the 
National Research Network in France)." These sections' contents do not correspond to 
the Petitioner's description of its system, and have no apparent relationship to the 
hospitality industry. 
Notably, section 1.2.6 references a solution entitled which public records reveal is a 
proprietary medical expense management service solution that targets the healthcare industry, 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-S-, Inc 
developed by the company 
relationship to in this matter. 
"Technical Handbook" appears to have 
whitepapcr 
The Petitioner has not explained or documented its 
Moreover, the entire section 1.2.6 in the Petitioner's 
been copied virtually verbatim from 
available at website. L 
These aspects of the Petitioner's documentation greatly undermine the validity of the Petitioner' s 
claims regarding the true nature of the -intended work for the Beneficiary, and preclude us from 
determining that bona fide in-house H-1 B caliber work exists for the Beneficiary for the requested 
validity period, or that such work constitutes specialty occupation employment. "Doubt cast on any 
aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and 
sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition." Matter of Ho, 19 I&N 
Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). 
Further, although the Petitioner submitted additional documentation with respect to the 
project, the documents do not sufficiently establish that specialty occupation work is available for 
the duration of the Beneficiary's requested employment period. Specifically, the Petitioner did not 
submit credible, objective documentation corroborating its claims regarding the Beneficiary's 
assignment to the project. In particular, the document · 
contains no 
referenc.es to the Beneficiary or to the proffered position. In fact, this document contains a table 
entitled "Phase I Budget" listing the resources needed for "Phase I" of the project. However, this 
table does not include a computer programmer or computer p'rogrammer analyst position as one of 
the required resources} The document also does no~ contain schedule, budget, or resource 
information beyond "Phase I," which is expected to end on February 17, 2016. The absence of this 
information is signifi~ant, in that the Petitioner requested employment dates from September 12, 
2015, until September,11 , 2018. 
Without additional, reliable information regarding the specific project to .which the Beneficiary will 
be assigned that covers the duration of the period of employment requested, we are not able to 
ascertain what the Beneficiary will do, where the Beneficiary will work, as well as how this will 
impact circumstances of his relationship with the Petitioner. "[G]oing on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings." Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter ofTreasure 
CraftofCal., 14:I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972). 
1 For more information , visit which demonstrates that is a proprietary technology 
rlatform developed nearly two decades ago by another company. 
The whitepaper can be accessed at website, available at 
(last visited Sept. 7, 
2016) . 
3 The Petitioner interchangeably refers to the proffered position as a "computer programmer " and a "computer 
programmer analyst." 
\ 5 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-S-, Inc 
Moreover, even if it were established that the Beneficiary will be assigned to the project, the 
evidence still does not sufficiently describe the duties to be performed by the Beneficiary. That is, 
while the Petitioner submitted a lengthy list of job duties in its initial support letter, the "Itinerary of 
Services" contains only a fraction of those job duties (i.e., only those duties listed as "development 
responsibilities"). The Petitioner has not explained why its support letter and itinerary contain 
different lists of duties. "[I]t is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve the inconsistencies by 
independent objective evidence." Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. Of the job duties that appear 
in both the support letter and the itinerary, we observe that several of them are vaguely worded, such 
as "Work with the development team ensuring that consistent design standards 
reflecting best 
practices_applied," and "Work with project teams and customer service teams as a technical resource 
and contribute to successful implementation." These job duties, as presently stated, do not 
adequately convey the actual tasks the Beneficiary will perform within the context of the 
project (e.g., what is meant by the phrase "work with"), the complexity of such tasks, and the 
knowledge necessary to perform them. 
Consequently, we find that the evidence of record does not demonstrate the substantive nature of the 
proffered position and its constituent duties.4 The Petitioner has not established the substantive 
nature of the work to be performed by the Beneficiary, which therefore precludes a finding that the 
proffered position satisfies any criterion at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)( A), because it is the 
substantive nature of that work that determines ( 1) the normal minimum educational requirement for 
entry into the particular position, which is the focus of criterion 1; (2) industry positions which are 
parallel to the proffered position and thus appropriate for review for a common degree requirement, 
under the first alternate prong of criterion 2; (3) the. level of complexity or uniqueness of the 
proffered position, which is the focus of the second alternate prong of criterion 2; (4) the factual 
justification for a petitioner normally requiring a degree or its equivalent, when that is an issue under 
criterion 3; and (5) the degree of specialization and complexity of the specific duties, which is the 
focus of criterion 4. 
Nevertheless, we will review the Petitioner's general description of duties and the evidence of record 
to determine whether the proffered position as described would qualify for classification as a 
specialty occupation. 5 
1. First Criterion 
To that end and to make our determination as to whether the employment described above qualifies 
as a specialty occupation, we tum first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)~ which 
requires that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the 
4 Further, without full disclosure, we are unable to determine whether the requisite employer-employee relationship with 
exist between the Petitioner and Beneficiary. 
5 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-S-, Inc 
minimum requirement for entry into the particular position. To inform this inquiry, we recognize the 
U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative 
source on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it 
addresses.6 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-1 B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Computer Programmers," 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 15-1131 at a Level I wage. 7 The 
Handbook subchapter entitled "How to Become 'a Computer Programmer" states in pertinent part: 
"Most computer programmers have a bachelor's degree in computer science o~ a related subject; 
however, some employers hire workers with an associate's degree."8 The Handbook indicates that a 
bachelor's degree in computer science may be common, but not that it is a requirement for entry into 
these jobs, indicating that associate's degrees are also acceptable prerequisites.9 
In support of the appeal, the Petitioner submits a letter from associate professor 
of computer applications and information systems at the In his letter, 
(1) describes the credentials that he asserts qualify him to opine upon the nature of the 
proffered position, which he refers to as a "computer programmer analyst"; (2) lists the duties 
proposed for the Beneficiary; and (3) states that these duties require at least a bachelor's degree in 
computer science, engineering, or a related area (or the equivalent). We carefully evaluated 
assertions in support of the instant petition but, for the following reasons, determined his 
letter does not have significant weight in this matter. 
6 All of our references are to the 2016-17 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 USC IS regularly reviews the Handbook on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations thatit 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. 
7 We will consider the Petitioner's classification of the proffered position at a Level I wage (the lowest of four assignable 
wage levels) in our analysis of the position. The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" issued by the DOL 
provides a description of the wage levels. A Level I wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which the 
Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the occupation. This wage rate indicates: (I) that the 
Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that he will be 
closely supervised and his work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that he will receive specific 
instructions on required tasks and expected results. U.S. Dep't of J_,abor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage 
Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _11_ 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. A Level I wage should be considered for research fellows, workers 
in training, or internships. !d. 
8 U.S. Dep't of Labor, 'Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., "Computer 
Programmers," http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-programmers.htm#tab-4 (last 
visited Sept. 7, 2016). 
9 We will withdraw the Director's comment that "[a]s the proffered position is a computer programmer, the beneficiary 
must possess a baccalaureate degree, or its equivalent, in computer science as noted in [the Handbook]." 
7 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-S-, Inc 
First, expertise regarding current industry degree requirements for computer programmer 
or computer programmer analyst positions is not established in the record. His supporting 
documentation indicates that most of his experience over the past 30 years has been in an academic 
setting as a faculty member within a university's school of business. Other than briefly stating that 
he has "had the opportunity over the years to become familiar with" industry and recruitment 
standards, has not provided additional, detailed information to establish the source of his 
expertise in the field. opinion letter does not cite specific instances in which his past 
opinions have been accepted or recognized as authoritative on this particular issue. There is no 
indication that he has conducted any research . or studies pertinent to the current educational 
requirements for such positions (or parallel positions) in the Petitioner's industry for similar 
organizations, and no indication of recognition by professional organizations that he is an authority 
on those specific requirements. Without further clarification and evidence, it is unclear how his 
education, training, skills or experience would render him an "expert" in the field. 
Moreover, indicates that his assessment is based upon a position description provided by 
the Petitioner. But does not demonstrate in-depth knowledge of the Petitioner's 
operations, its specific project, and how the duties of the proffered position would actually 
be performed in the context of this project. Even if could be considered an "expert" in the 
field, the Petitioner still has not demonstrated that possessed the requisite information to 
adequately assess the nature of the position and appropriately determine the position's minimum 
educational requirement. 
For the reasons discussed, we find that opinion letter lends little probative value to the 
matter here. Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (The service is not 
required to accept or may give less weight to an advisory opinion when it is "not in accord with 
other information or is in any way questionable."). 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation from a probative source to substantiate its 
assertion regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. Thus, the 
Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
2. 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 common industry practi,ce, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
8 
Matter of S-S-, Inc 
a. 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 
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 
I 
and recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 
1999) (quoting Hird!Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
As discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which the 
Handbook, or another authoritative source, reports an industry-wide requirement for at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. We incorporate by reference our 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." See id. Therefore, 
based upon a complete review of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not satisfied the first 
alternative prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
b. 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 find that the Petitioner has not sufficiently developed relative complexity or 
uniqueness as an aspect of the proffered position. For instance, the Petitioner did not submit 
information relevant to a detailed course of study leading to a specialty degree and did not establish 
how such a curriculum is necessary to perform the duties it may believe are so complex and 
unique. While a few related courses may be beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated how an established curriculum of such courses leading to a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the 
duties of the proffered position. 
Moreover, the general descriptions of the proffered duties do not identify any tasks that are so 
complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. Rather, the 
duties the Petitioner ascribed to the proffered position indicate a need for a range of technical 
knowledge in the computer/IT field, but do not establish any particular levet of formal, 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-S-, Inc 
postsecondary education, leading to a bachelor's or higher degree m a specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as minimally necessary to attain such knowledge. 
Further, the LCA submitted by the Petitioner indicates that the proffered position is a Level I (entry) 
wage, which, as noted above, is the lowest of four assignable wage levels. 10 Without additional 
evidence, the record of proceedings does not indicate that the proffered position is so complex or 
unique, as such a position would likely be classified at a-higher-level, which requires a significantly 
higher prevailing wage. For all of the above reasons, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second 
alternative prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
3. 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. 
The Petitioner states that it was established in 2004, and currently employs over 30 IT professionals. 
The Petitioner has not specified how many of its 30 plus employees are in a computer programmer 
or computer programmer analyst position, and how many such individuals the company has 
employed in the past. Thus,. it is not possible to determine how representative this claimed number 
of employees is of the Petitioner's employment practices for the proffered position. 
The Petitioner further claims that it currently employs five "Computer Program Analysts in H -1 B 
status, developing Despite the Petitioner's claim that they are assigned to the same 
project upon which the Beneficiary will work, the record does not include sufficient evidence of the 
specific project assignments the individ~als granted H-IB approval were given, and does not include 
evidence of the specific work these individuals performed. The record also does not include 
corroborating evidence of these individuals' claimed educational , credentials. Accordingly, we do 
not have sufficient information to compare_ the proffered position to the positions previously 
approved for H-IB employment. In any event, a prior approval does not compel the approval of a 
subsequent petition or relieve the Petitioner of its burden to provide sufficient documentation to 
establish current eligibility for the benefit sought.11 Temporary Alien Workers Seeking 
10 
The Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position indicates that it is a comparatively low­
level position compared to other positions within the same occupation Nevertheless , a Level I wage-designation does 
not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty occupation, just as a Level IV wage-designation does 
· not definitively establish such a classification. In certain oc·cupations (e.g., doctors or lawyers), a Level I, 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 relevant factor but is not itself 
conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 
11 While a petitioner may believe or otherwise assert that a proffered position requires a degree in a specific specialty, 
that opinion alone without corroborating evidence cannot establish the position as a specialty occupation. Were USCIS 
limited solely to reviewif!g 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 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-S-, Inc 
Classification Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 55 Fed. Reg. 2,606, 2,612 (Jan. 26, 1990) 
(to be codified at 8 C.F.R. pt. 214). 
Here, the record of proceedings is insufficient to establish that the Petitioner normally requires a 
bachelor's or 
higher degree in the specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the proffered position. The 
Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
4. 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 duties 
of its computer programmer elevate the proffered position to a specialty occupation. We again refer 
to our comments regarding the insufficient evidence of the Beneficiary's job duties and assignment, 
as well as to the implications of the Petitioner's designation of the proffered position at a Level I 
(entry) wage level. 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 any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
established that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation.12 For this reason, the 
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 degree requirement is only symbolic and the proffered position does not in fact require such a specialty 
degree or its equivalent to perform its duties, the occupation would not meet the statutory or regulatory definition of a 
specialty occupation. See section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty 
occupation"). 
12 
The Petitioner noted that USCIS approved other petitions that had been previously filed on behalf of five other 
employees for its project. The Director's decision does not indicate whether the prior approvals of the other 
nonimmigrant petitions were reviewed. If the previous nonimmigrant petitions were approved based on the same 
unsupported and contradictory assertions that are contained in the current record, the approvals would constitute material 
and gross error on the part of the Director. We are not required to approve petitions where eligibility has not been 
demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See Matter of Church Scientology lnt'l, 
19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). It would be "absurd to suggest that [USCIS] or any agency must treat 
acknowledged errors as binding precedent." Sussex Eng 'g, Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d I 084, I 090 (6th Cir. 1987). 
' 
Again, a prior approval does not compel the approval. of a subsequent petition or relieve the Petitioner of its burden to 
provide sufficient documentation to establish current eligibility for the benefit sought. Temporary Alien Workers 
Seeking Classification Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 55 Fed. Reg. 2,606, 2,612 (Jan. 26, 1990) (to be 
codified at 8 C.F.R. pt. 214). A prior approval also does not preclude USCIS from denying an extension of an original 
visa petition based on a reassessment of eligibility for the benefit sought. See Tex. A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 F. App'x 
556 (5th Cir. 2004). Furthermore, our authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a 
II 
Matter of S-S-, Inc 
petition as currently constituted cannot be approved and this matter must be remanded to the 
Director for issuance of a new decision. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As discussed, the evidence of record does not demonstrate that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation. Consequently, the matter will be remanded to the Director for further review and 
issuance of a new decision in accordance with the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. 
The Director may request any additional evidence considered pertinent to the new determination. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director, California Service Center, is withdrawn. The matter is 
remanded to the Director, California Service Center, for further proceedings 
consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision. 
Cite as Matter ofS-S-, Inc, ID# 17927 (AAO Sept. 9, 2016) 
court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director had approved the nonimmigrant petitions on behalf 
of a beneficiary, we would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of a service center. See La. Philharmonic 
Orchestra v. INS, 44 F. Supp. 2d 800, 803 (E.D. La. 1999). 
12