remanded H-1B Case: Software Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-C-C-, LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 27,2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a cable, internet, and telephone service company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as an "engineer 3, software development & engineering" under the H-1 B nonimmigrant 
classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). The H-18 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 Petitioner did 
not establish, as required, that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of the proffered 
position. On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and contends that the petition should 
be approved. 
Upon de novo review, we note that a beneficiary's credentials to perform the duties of a particular 
position are relevant only when we find that the position qualifies for classification as a specialty 
occupation. 1 As we will discuss below, the current record of proceedings does not support a finding 
that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. Accordingly, we will withdraw the Director's 
decision and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 
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 
1 
Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 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]."). 
Matter of C-C-C-, LLC 
(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 
inust 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. Cherto.ff, 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 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as an "engineer 3, software development & 
engineering" and, on the labor condition application (LCA)2 submitted in support ofthe H-lB petition, 
designated the proffered . position under the occupational category "Software Developers, 
Applications" corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 15-1132.3 It provided 
the following job description in its support letter: 
2 The Petitioner is required to submit a ce1tified LCA 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 o.fSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 545-546 (AAO 20 15). 
3 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 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 
2 
.
Matter of C-C-C- , LLC 
In this role, [the Beneficiary] will plan and design new software and web 
applications; collaborate with project stakeholders to identify product and technical 
requirements; conduct analysis to determine integration needs; analyze, test, and 
assist with the integration of new applications; support applications under 
development, and customize current applications; assist with the software update 
process for existing applications, and roll-out of software releases; and work with the 
Quality Assurance team to determine if applications fit specification and technical 
requirements. He will also document all development activity; research, write, and 
edit documentation and technical requirements, including software designs, 
evaluation plans, test results, technical manuals and formal recommendations and 
reports; assist with training representatives and operations staff on internally 
developed software applications; and provide guidance throughout the design with 
regard to practices, procedures and techniques. 
In its support letter, the Petitioner stated that these duties require a minimum of a bachelor's degree 
in engineering, computer science, or a related technical field, or the equivalent , and prior experience 
developing new software and web applications. On appeal, the Petitioner indicates that these duties 
require a bachelor ' s degree in computer science, computer information systems, engineering , 
technology, mathematics, business, or a closely related field. 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the protTered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Specifically, ( 1) the record does not establish that the proffered position requires an educational 
background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation; and (2) we are unable to 
determine the substantive nature ofthe protTered position due to inconsistencies in the record.4 
As noted, the Petitioner indicates on appeal that a bachelor's degree in business would adequately 
prepare an individual to perform the duties of the proffered position. Specifically, the Petitioner 
submits an evaluation prepared by a professor at , who states 
that such is the case. 
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_!!_ 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 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. 
3 
Matter of C-C-C-, LLC 
However, a requirement for a bachelor's degree in business is inadequate to establish that a position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. A petitioner must demonstrate that the proffered position 
requires a precise and specific course of study that relates directly to the position in question. Since 
there must be a close correlation between the required specialized studies and the position, the 
requirement of a degree with a generalized title, such as business, without further specification, does 
not establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. at 
560. To prove that a job requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly 
specialized knowledge as required by section 214(i)(l) of the Act, a petitioner must establish that the 
position requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specialized field of study or its 
equivalent. As explained above, we interpret the degree requirement at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) to require a degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed 
position. We have consistently stated that, although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a 
degree in business administration, may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, 
requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify a finding that a particular position qualifies 
for classification as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. 
Setting this issue aside, we observe another issue that precludes a finding that the profiered position 
is a specialty occupation. Specifically, we find that the Petitioner has not demonstrated the 
reliability of its job description and, consequently, has not established the substantive nature of the 
proffered position and its constituent duties. Absent that foundational showing, we cannot determine 
whether the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
As noted, the Petitioner attested to DOL that the proffered position is a Level I, entry-level position. 
As set forth in the DOL guidance cited above, a Level I wage-rate designation indicates that the 
Beneficiary will perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; that he will 
be closely supervised and his work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and that he will 
receive specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. According to this guidance, 
statements that a job offer is for a research fellow, a worker in training, or an internship are 
indicators that a Level I wage should be considered. The record, however, contains numerous 
statements and voluminous evidence suggesting that this is not a Level I, entry-level position. 5 
For example, the very title of the proffered position- engineer 3 - indicates at least two layers of 
lower-level engineers. The Petitioner's statements made in response to the Director's request for 
evidence (RFE) indicate further that such is the case. In part, the Petitioner stated the following 
when discussing the Beneficiary's place within its organization structure: "even the entry level 
(Engineer 1-level) network engineering positions at our company ... " (emphasis added). The 
position's job title and the Petitioner's statement distinguishing the proffered position from entry­
level positions indicate strongly that the position is not an entry-level position as attested in the 
LCA. 
5 This inconsistency raises questions as to whether the LCA actually corresponds to and supports this H-1 B petition as 
required under 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b). The Director should explore this issue as well. 
4 
Matter of C-C-C-, LLC 
Further, the Petitioner repeatedly emphasizes the complexity of the proffered position. In response 
to the RFE, the Petitioner asserts that "the modules that [the Beneficiary] will work on are highly 
complex" and that the Beneficiary "will be a key contributor." The Petitioner states that the 
Beneficiary "will work with limited supervision and direction." The Petitioner also adds that to 
perform such "complex technical tasks," the candidates for the proffered position must possess an 
"in-depth knowledge of a breadth of major technical ecosystems," and "extensive knowledge of how 
to build complex, detailed, and reliable algorithms." The Petitioner's description of the proffered 
position is inconsistent with characteristics· of a Level I position. 
In addition, the record contains voluminous evidence indicating that the proffered position is not an 
entry-level position. For example, while the Petitioner submitted job vacancy announcements 
indicating that they advertise "parallel positions," the language of these announcements suggests that 
these "parallel positions" are not Level I, entry-level positions. One of them contains the word 
"senior" in its title, which the DOL wage-level guidance referenced above states is an indicator that 
a Level III wage should be considered. In addition, all of the advertised positions require 
experience, some significant. Moreover, some of the advertisements contain requirements that 
appear to conflict with the Petitioner's Level I wage designation, such as requirements for the 
"[a ]bility to work independently" and "in a self-directed manner." If these job vacancy 
announcements in fact describe "parallel positions" as indicated, then the proffered position is not a 
Level I position, as claimed. 
Finally, the Petitioner specifies "prior experience developing new software and web applications" in 
its support letter and also its own advertisements also state a requirement for work experience, which 
further undermines its attestations in the LCA that the proffered position is an entry-level position. 
The Petitioner attested directly in the LCA that the proffered position is a Level I, entry-level 
position. 6 It then stated directly that the proffered is not an entry-level position and submitted 
evidence supporting that proposition. The Petitioner must resolve this inconsistency in the record 
with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 
582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). The Petitioner must resolve these inconsistencies with independent, 
objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Jd. Unresolved material inconsistencies may 
lead us to reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of other evidence submitted in support of the 
requested immigration benefit. /d. 
In any event, these inconsistencies in the Petitioner's job description undermine the reliability of the 
Petitioner's description of the proffered position and its constituent duties. Consequently, we are 
precluded from 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 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 
6 While we note that the Beneficiary's proffered salary may be higher, the Petitioner also did not provide consistent 
information regarding the Beneficiary's salary. 
5 
Matter of C-C-C-, LLC 
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. 
Because the Director did not address the specialty-occupation issue in her decision denying the 
petition, the matter will be remanded so that it may be fully explored. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. As such, 
there is no basis upon which to explore the issu~ of whether the Beneficiary qualifies to perform its 
duties and the matter will be remanded for further proceedings. 
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 ofC-C-C-, LLC, ID# 400497 (AAO July 27, 2017)