remanded H-1B Case: Software Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
MATTER OF 1010L- INC. DATE: SEPT. 26, 2016 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a software development company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"quality assurance analyst - test lead" under the H-1B 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-IB 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 concluded that the 
Beneficiary is not qualified to perform services in a specialty occupation. The Petitioner appealed 
the Director's decision to our office and we summarily dismissed the appeal. The Petitioner 
subsequently filed a motion to reopen and a motion to reconsider. 
Upon review, we will grant the motion for the purpose of withdrawing our decision to summarily 
dismiss the appeal. However, as we will explain below, the Petitioner has not established that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation position. Therefore, the matter is remanded to 
the Director for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new 
decision. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A. Overarching Requirement for Motions by a Petitioner 
The provision at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) includes the following statement limiting a USCIS 
officer's authority to reopen the proceeding or reconsider the decision to instances where "proper 
cause" has been shown for such action: "[T]he official having jurisdiction may, for proper cause 
shown, reopen the proceeding or reconsider the prior decision." 
Thus, to merit reopening or reconsideration, the submission must not only meet the formal 
requirements for filing (such as, for instance, submission of a Form I-290B that is properly 
completed and signed, and accompanied by the correct fee), but the Petitioner must also show proper 
cause for granting the motion. As stated in the provision at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4), "Processing 
Matter of 101 OL- Inc. 
motions in proceedings before the Service," "[a] motion that does not meet applicable requirements 
shall be dismissed." 
B. Requirements for Motions to Reopen 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2), "Requirements for motion to reopen," states: "A motion to 
reopen must [(1)] state the new facts to be provided in the reopened proceeding and [(2)] be 
supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence." 
This provision is supplemented by the related instruction at Part 4 of the Form I-290B, which states: 
"Motion to Reopen: The motion must state new facts and must be supported by affidavits and/or 
documentary evidence that establish eligibility at the time the underlying petition or application was 
filed." 1 
Further, the new facts must possess such significance that, "if proceedings ... were reopened, with 
all the attendant delays, the new evidence offered would likely change the result in the case." Matter 
of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992); see also Maatougui v. Holder, 738 F.3d 1230, 1239-
40 (lOth Cir. 2013). 
C. Requirements for Motions to Reconsider 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3), "Requirements for motion to reconsider," states: 
A motion to reconsider must [(1)] state the reasons for reconsideration and [(2)] be 
supported by any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the decision was 
based on an incorrect application of law or Service policy. A motion to reconsider a 
decision on an application or petition must [(3)], [(a)] wheri filed, also [(b)] establish 
that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the 
initial decision. 
These provisions are augmented by the related instruction at Part 4 of the Form I-290B, which states: 
Motion to Reconsider: The motion must be supported by citations to appropriate 
statutes, regulations, or precedent decisions when filed and must establish that the 
decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy, and that the decision 
was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of decision. 
1 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.2(a)(l) states in pertinent part : 
Every benefit request or other document submitted to DHS must be executed and filed inaccordance 
with the form instructions, notwithstanding any provision of 8 CFR chapter I to the contrary, such 
instructions are incorporated into the regulations requiring its submission. 
2 
Matter of I 0 I OL- Inc. 
A motion to reconsider contests the correctness of the prior decision based on the previous factual 
record, as opposed to a motion to reopen which seeks a new hearing based on new facts. Compare 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3) and 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). 
A motion to reconsider should not be used to raise a legal argument that could have been raised 
earlier in the proceedings. See Matter of Medrano, 20 I&N Dec. 216, 219 (BIA 1990, 1991) 
("Arguments for consideration on appeal should all be submitted at one time, rather than in 
piecemeal fashion."). Rather, any "arguments" that are raised in a motion to reconsider should flow 
from new law or a de novo legal determination that could not have been addressed by the affected 
party. Matter of 0-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) (examining motions to reconsider under a 
similar scheme provided at 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)); see also Martinez-Lopez v. Holder, 704 F.3d 169, 
171-72 (1st Cir. 2013). Further, the reiteration ofprevious arguments or general allegations of error 
in the prior decision will not suffice. Instead, the affected party must state the specific factual and 
legal issues raised on appeal that were decided in error or overlooked in the initial decision. See 
Matter ofO-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. at 60. 
D. Analysis 
Here, the Petitioner provided "new" facts in support of its motion to reopen and motion to 
reconsider. The Petitioner submitted supporting documents for the appeal to the wrong address, and 
our office received them after we summarily dismissed the appeal. However, we will grant the 
motion to withdraw our decision to summarily dismiss the appeal and address the merits of the H -1 B 
petition. 
We note that 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 p~oceedings 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. 
II. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
A. Legal Framework 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the terin "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
3 
Matter of 101 OL- Inc. 
(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 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 ot 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.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has consistently 
interpreted the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.P.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. Chertoff, 484 P.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). 
B. Proffered Position 
In the H -1 B petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a "quality assurance 
analyst - test lead." In the support letter, the Petitioner provided the following job duties for the 
position: 
• Define and implement the role testing plays within our organizational structure; 
• Define the scope of testing within the context of each release/delivery of existing 
and new projects; 
• Deploy and manage the appropriate testing framework to meet the testing 
mandate; 
• Implement the projected measurements and metrics; 
4 
Matter of JOJOL- Inc. 
• Plan, deploy, and manage the testing effort for any given engagement/release; 
• Manage and develop Testing assets required for meeting the testing mandate; 
• Design and Define the Test Plan and Strategy; 
• Provide Test Estimation; 
• Select and retain skilled testing personnel. 
According to the Petitioner, the position requires ~'a minimum of Bachelor's degree with prior 
experience in the related field." 
C. Analysis 
A review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation.2 
Specifically, the record (1) does not describe the position's duties with sufficient detail; and (2) does 
not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate 
with a specialty occupation.3 
1. First Criterion 
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 minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. To inform this inquiry, we recognize the U.S. Department ofLabor'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.4 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-1B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Computer Occupations, All 
Other" corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 15-1199.5 
2 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
3 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. 
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 USC IS regularly reviews 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 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 
will be closely supervised and his work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that he will receive 
5 
----------- -------------------------------------------
Matter of JOJOL- Inc. 
We note that there are occupational categories which are not covered in detail by the Handbook, as 
well as occupations for which the Handbook does not provide any information. The Handbook 
states the following about these occupations: 
Although employment for hundreds of occupations 1s covered in detaii in the 
Occupational Outlook Handbook, this page presents summary data on additional 
occupations for which employment projections are prepared but detailed occupational 
information is not developed. For each occupation, the Occupational Information 
Network (O*NET) code, the occupational definition, 2014 employment, the May 
2015 median annual wage, the projected employment change and growth rate from 
2014 to 2024, and education and training categories are presented. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook. 2016-17 ed., 
"Data for Occupations Not Covered in Detail," http://www.bls.gov/ooh!About/Data-for­
Occupations-Not-Covered-in-Detail.htm (last visited S_ept. 21, 2016). 
Thus, the narrative of the Handbook reports that there are some occupations for which only summary 
data is prepared but detailed occupational profiles are not developed. 6 The Handbook suggests that 
for at least some of the occupations, little meaningful information could be developed. 
Accordingly, in certain instances, the Handbook is not determinative. When the Handbook does not 
support the proposition that a proffered position is one that meets the statutory and regulatory 
provisions of a specialty occupation, it is the Petitioner's responsibility to provide probative 
evidence (e.g., documentation from other objection, authoritative sources) that indicates whether the 
particular position in question qualifies as a specialty occupation. Whenever more than one 
authoritative source exists, we will consider and weigh all of the evidence presented to determine 
whether the particular position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Upon review of the record, we find that the Petitioner has not done so in the instant case. That is, the 
Petitioner has not submitted probative evidence that normally the minimum requirement for 
positions falling under the "Computer Occupations, All Other" occupational category is at least a 
specific instructions on required tasks and·expected results. U.S. Dep'tof Labor, 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. 
6 We note that occupational categories for which the Handbook only includes summary data includes a range of 
occupations, including for example, postmasters and mail superintendents; agents and business managers of artists, 
performers, and athletes; farm and home management advisors; audio-visual and multimedia collections specialists; 
clergy; merchandise displayers and window trimmers; radio operators; first-line supervisors of police and detectives; 
crossing guards; travel guides; agricultural inspectors, as well as others. 
6 
Matter of JOJOL- Inc. 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner provided a print-out of the 
O*NET summary report for "software quality assurance engineers and testers" suggesting that the 
proffered position corresponds to this occupational category. The O*NET states that most software 
quality assurance engineers and tester occupations require a four-year bachelor's degree, and this 
occupation falls in the Job Zone Four which requires considerable preparation needed. However, 
O*NET does not indicate that four-year bachelor's degrees required by Job Zone Four occupations 
must be in a specific specialty directly related to the occupation. Therefore, O*NET information is 
not probative evidence to establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. Even if it 
did, the record lacks sufficient evidence to support a finding that the particular position proffered 
here would normally have such a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent. 
In addition, the Petitioner stated in the support letter that the minimum requirement for the proffered 
position is a "minimum of Bachelor's degree and prior experience in the related field." However, a 
petitioner must demonstrate that the proffered position requires a precise and specific course of study 
that relates directly and closely to the position in question. There must be a close correlation 
between the required specialized studies and the position; thus, the mere requirement of a degree, 
without further specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of 
Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988) ("The mere requirement of a college 
degree for the sake of general education, or to obtain what an employer perceives to be a higher 
caliber employee, also does not establish eligibility."). Thus, while a general-purpose bachelor's 
degree 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. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d at 147. Again, the Petitioner states that its 
minimum requirement for the proffered position is only a bachelor's degree, without further 
requiring that that degree be in any specific specialty. Without more, the Petitioner's statement 
alone indicates that the proffered position is not in fact a specialty occupation. 
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 
casts its gaze upon the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
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. 
7 
(b)(6)
Matter of JOJOL-lnc. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by 
USCIS include: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the 
industry's professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether 
letters or affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms "routinely employ 
and recruit only degreed individuals." See 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)). 
Here and as already discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for 
which the Handbook (or other independent, authoritative source) reports an industry-wide 
requirement for at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. Thus, we 
incorporate by reference the previous discussion .on the matter. Also, there are no submissions from 
the industry's professional association indicating that it has made a degree a minimum entry 
requirement. 
The Petitioner submitted several job advertisements but they do not satisfy this alternative prong of 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), either. That is, neither the job-vacancy announcements 
themselves, nor any other evidence within . the record of proceedings, establish that those 
advertisements pertain to positions that meet all of the criterion's elements of being in the Petitioner's 
industry, in organizations similar to the Petitioner, and also parallel to the proffered position, as 
required for evidence to merit consideration under this first alternative prong. In this regard, we 
make several specific findings. 
When determining whether the Petitioner and the organization share the same general 
characteristics, such factors may include information regarding the nature or type of organization, 
and, when pertinent, the particular scope of operations, as well as the level of revenue and staffing 
(to list just a few elements that may be considered). It is not sufficient for the Petitioner to claim that 
the organizations are similar and in the same industry without providing a legitimate basis for such 
an assertion. 
In the H-IB petition, the Petitioner stated that it is a software development business with two 
employees. We reviewed the job advertisements submitted by the Petitioner. Notably, the Petitioner 
did not provide any independent evidence of how representative these job advertisements are of the 
particular advertising employer's recruiting history for the type of job advertised. Further, as they 
are only solicitations for hire, they are not evidence of what qualifications were ultimately required 
for the positions. 
We note that although the Petitioner has designated the proffered position as a Level I position, 
indicating that it is a position for an entry-level position, it has provided several job announcements that 
appear to be for more senior positions. For example, the posting for a software quality assurance lead 
(no company name listed) requires "Bachelors or Master's Degree with 5 years working experience in 
utility industry"; another positon is also advertising for a quality assurance lead engineer for 
and requires a bachelor's degree and "5+ years of Software Development and/or Software Quality 
· Assurance experience"; and, is advertising for a QA Test Lead that requires a Bachelor's or 
Master's degree and "3-5 years plus of testing experience with strong understanding of test 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter of JOJOL- Inc. 
methodology and reporting." Thus, the job vacancy advertisements do not establish that the 
advertised positions are "parallel" to the proffered position. 
Further, several job advertisements do not provide information for the advertising companies in 
order to determine if they are similar to the Petitioner. Without further information, the 
advertisements appear to be for organizations that are not similar to the Petitioner, and the Petitioner 
has not provided additional information to suggest otherwise. "(G]oing on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in 
these proceedings." Matter of Sojjici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of Cal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
Thus, 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. · 
In support of its assertion that the proffered pos1t10n qualifies as a specialty occupation, the 
Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will be assigned to the project and it provided 
project details. The project details do not specifically outline the duties the Beneficiary will 
perform. While the document provides some insight into the project, the Petitioner has not 
explained how the documents establish that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can 
only be performed by an individual with a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. 
Notably, the Petitioner designated the proffered pos1t10n as an entry-level position within the 
occupational category (by selecting a Level I wage). This designation further suggests that this 
particular position is not so complex or unique relative to other quality assurance analysts that the 
duties can only be performed by an individual with a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. 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 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. 
In support of the petition, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position, 
and references his qualifications. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation 
is not the education or experience of a proposed Beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires 
at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner did not 
sufficiently develop relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position, and 
it did not identify any tasks that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual 
9 
Matter of JOJOL- Inc. 
could perform them. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 
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 did not submit evidence to establish this criterion and 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. 
The evidence of record contains neither substantive explanation nor documentation showing the 
substantive nature of the work apd associated applications of specialized knowledge that would be 
involved in the referenced tasks. The description of the duties does not specifically identify any tasks 
that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. That 
is, the Petitioner did not sufficiently establish how the Beneficiary's responsibilities and day-to-day 
duties are so complex or unique that the position can be performed only by an individual with a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
For example, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary will "implement the role testing plays," 
"define the scope of testing within the context of each release," and "design and define the test plan 
and strategy." However, the Petitioner did not further elaborate on the specific tasks, methodologies, 
and applications of knowledge that would be required in furtherance of these overarching duties. 
Without a meaningful job description, the record lacks evidence sufficiently concrete and 
informative to demonstrate that the proffered position requires a specialty occupation's level of 
knowledge in a specific specialty. The tasks as described does not sufficiently communicate (1) the 
actual work that the Beneficiary would perform on a day-to-day basis, (2) the complexity,· 
uniqueness and/or specialization of the tasks, and/or (3) the correlation between that work and a need 
for a particular level education of highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. 
We also incorporate our earlier discussion and analysis regarding the duties of the proffered position, 
and the designation of the position in the LCA as a Level I position (the lowest of four assignable 
wage-levels) relative to others within the same occupational ~ategory.
7 
The Petitioner has not 
7 The Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position undermines its claim that the position is 
particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation. Nevertheless, a 
Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty occupation, just as a 
10 
Matter of JOJOL- Inc. 
demonstrated in the record that its proffered position is one with duties sufficiently specialized and 
complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
III. LCA 
Further, we find that the LCA does not correspond to the petition. On the LCA, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Computer Occupations, All 
Other" corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 15-1199, as Level I, entry­
level. However, the Petitioner submitted a job advertisement for the proffered position that requires 
a bachelor's degree plus three years of experience. In addition, the Petitioner indicated that the 
proffered position is a "lead" of quality assurance testing, who will "manage the testing effort" and 
"manage and develop testing assets." This indicates that the LCA, certified for an entry-level 
position, is at odds with the Petitioner's claims regarding the proffered position, and does not 
correspond to the petition. 
While DOL is the agency that certifies LCA applications before they are submitted to USCIS, DOL 
regulations note that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (i.e., its immigration benefits 
branch, USCIS) is the department responsible for determining whether the content of an LCA filed 
for a particular Form I-129 actually supports that petition. See 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b), which states, 
in pertinent part (emphasis added): 
For H-1B visas ... DHS accepts the employer's petition (DHS Form I-129) with the 
DOL-certified LCA attached. In doing so, the DHS determines whether the petition 
is supported by an LCA which corresponds with the petition, whether the occupation 
named in the [LCA] is a specialty occupation or whether the individual is a fashion 
model of distinguished merit and ability, and whether the qualifications of the 
nonimmigrant meet the statutory requirements for H -1 B visa classification. 
The regulation at 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b) requires that USCIS ensure that an LCA actually supports 
the H -1 B petition filed on behalf of the Beneficiary. Here, the Petitioner has not submitted a valid 
LCA that corresponds to the proffered position. 
IV. 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. 
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 LevellY 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 
Matter of IOJOL- Inc. 
The Director may request any additional evidence considered pertinent to the new determination. 
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. 
The burden is on the Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden 
has not been met. 
ORDER: The motion is granted, and 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 of JOJOL- Inc., ID# 124942 (AAO Sept. 26, 2016) 
12