remanded H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M- LTD. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 22,2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an IT services company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an 
"associate consultant" under the H-1 B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-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 California 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 associate consultant 
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, so as to qualify as a specialty 
occupation. 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) 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 
.
Matter of M- 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 protlered 
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 "associate consultant," 
and would be working onsite at the offices of its client, M- Corp., in Washington. In a 
letter of support submitted with the petition, the Petitioner described the duties of the proffered 
position as follows: 
In the specialty occupation the Beneficiary will leverage his background in computer 
information systems to perform computer systems analysis on a project with our 
client [M- Corp.]. [M- Corp.] has engaged [the Petitioner] to improve [its] client 
management-related technologies in the areas of applications, tool development, 
client imaging, and testing. The Beneficiary will be responsible for in-depth analysis, 
design, and development for the client's applications in order to drive business 
improvements that will enhance efficiency and reduce cost for rolling out products 
and services. To this end, the Beneficiary will understand business and technical 
requirements in order to propose solutions for well-designed, developed, and tested 
2 
Matter of M- Ltd. 
applications. The Beneficiary [will] utilize his background in engineering and 
technology to lead strategy and design, and will develop case specifications by 
understanding the requirements and technical risks associated with the module. He 
will leverage strong expertise in database management and lead analytical reporting 
through multiple platforms using high level skills in mathematics and information 
ordering. The Beneficiary will also be responsible for automation and release 
management. He will perform systems analysis by driving quality assurance to test 
and diagnose design flaws and recommend improvements. He will perform complex 
critical thinking for automation and tool development, as well as buildouts of the 
server and automation for hardware and application performance. The 
[B]eneficiary's expertise in software technologies, development, testing, and 
operating systems will be critical to ensuring delivery of the project, leading to 
increased revenue and user base for the client. 
According to the Petitioner, the proffered position "requires at least a Bachelor's degree or its 
equivalent in the fields of Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Information Systems, 
Information Technology, Electrical Engineering, Mathematics or a related, quantitative analytical 
field." 
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. Specifically, the record does not establish that 
the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty 
. I 
occupatiOn. 
As recognized by the court in Def£msor, 201 F.3d at 387-388, where the work is to be perfom1ed for 
entities other than the petitioner, evidence of the client companies' job requirements is critical. The 
court held that the former Immigration and Naturalization Service had reasonably interpreted the statute 
and regulations as requiring the petitioner to produce evidence that a proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation on the basis of the requirements imposed by the entities using the beneficiary's 
services. !d. at 384. Such evidence must be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate the type and 
educational level of highly specialized knowledge in a specific discipline that is necessary to perform 
that particular work. 
Here, the record of proceedings is devoid of sufficient infmmation from the end-client, M- Corp. 
The evidence in the record indicates that the Petitioner has an agreement with M- Corp. executed in 
December 2014, which sets out general terms pursuant to which the Petitioner might provide workers 
to M- Corp. specified in work orders to be issued subsequently. Although the record also contains a 
1 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 M- Ltd. 
Statement of Work (SOW) valid through June 2017,~ which confirms that the Petitioner will provide 
data management and operation support and incident management (OSIM) services to M- Corp., this 
document does not specifically identify the Beneficiary as being one of the individuals assigned to the 
project to provide either of these services. 
Again, the Petitioner claims it will employ the Beneficiary as an "associate consultant" who will 
perform systems analysis. The SOW, however, does not identifY this position as being one of the 
resources required for this project. Instead, the SOW indicates that 28 resources are required to provide 
data management services in the positions of BI Arch lead, BI Dev 3, BI Dev Lead, and SDET Lead, 
and 28 resources are required to provide OSIM services in the positions of BI Tech PM lead, Platform 
Support Dev Ops 3, BI Dev ops lead, and BI Dev ops 3. It is unclear if the Beneficiary, in the position 
of "associate consultant," is included in this list of required resources. There is no indication that the 
Beneficiary will perform the duties outlined in the SOW, and there is no independent evidence from 
M- Corp. verifying the Beneficiary's assignment to this project and outlining the specific duties and 
educational requirements it would impose for his position. 
That the Petitioner did not establish the substantive nature of the work to be performed .by the 
Beneficiary precludes a finding that the proffered position is a specialty occupation under any criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), because it is the substantive nature ofthat work that determines (1) the 
normal minimum educational requirement for 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. To that end and to make our determination as to whether the employment 
described above qualifies as a specialty occupation, we turn to the criteria at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)( A)? 
A. First Criterion 
We turn 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 minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. To inform this inquiry, we recognize the U.S. Department of 
Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 3 
2 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
3 
All of our references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
4 
Matter of M- Ltd. 
On the Labor Condition Application (LCA),4 the Petitioner designated the proffered position under 
the occupational category "Computer Systems Analysts," corresponding to the Standard 
Occupational Classification code 15-1121, at a Level I wage rate, indicating the position it is a 
comparatively low, entry-level position for an employee who has only basic understanding of the 
occupation. 5 A Level I wage rate further indicates: (1) 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. 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." Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't 
of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook. Computer Systems Analysts (2016-17 ed.). 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." I d. 
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). 
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. 
4 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 2015). 
5 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_ll_2009.pdf 
6 See id. 
5 
Matter of M- Ltd. 
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)(quoting Hird/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 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 
relevant to this prong. Thus, based upon a complete review of the record of proceedings, we find 
that the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of8 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. 
6 
Matter of M- Ltd. 
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 
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). 
7 
The issue here is that the Petitioner's designation of this position as a Levell undermines any claim that the position is 
relatively complex, unique, or specialized than other positions within the same occupation. Nevetiheless, 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 occupations (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 degr~e 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. 
Matter of M- Ltd. 
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 Petitioner 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 of M- Ltd., ID# 4 77943 (AAO Aug. 22, 20 17) 
8