remanded H-1B Case: Software Quality Assurance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 03, 2024 In Re: 32951675 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary under the H-lB 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-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 of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner's proffered job qualified as a specialty occupation under section 
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Act. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
I. LAW 
"Specialty Occupation" is defined as an occupation that requires: (A) the 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. See section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l) . 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) adds a non-exhaustive list of fields of endeavor to the 
statutory definition. And the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires that the proffered 
position must also 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 pos1t10ns 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. 
USCIS analyzes the employer's prior practice, as well as the industry norm for parallel positions, to 
assure that a petitioner's requirements do not merely state a degree requirement or its equivalent in a 
specific specialty when such a degree is not actually required to perform the proffered job duties. 
See Matter of Caron International, Inc., 191 I&N Dec. 791, 793-794 (BIA 1988) The burden of 
proof to establish eligibility under the statute and regulation is squarely a petitioner's alone. See Royal 
Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 145 (1st Cir. 2007) ("The burden of proving that a particular 
position comes within this taxonomy (and thus qualifies as a specialty occupation) is on the 
applicant."). 
Moreover, job title or broad occupational category alone does not determine whether a particular job 
is a specialty occupation under the regulations and statute. The nature of a petitioner's business 
operations along with the specific duties of the proffered job are also considered. We must evaluate 
the employment of the individual and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384 (5th Cir. 2000). So, a petitioner's self-imposed 
requirements are not as critical as whether the nature of the offered position requires the application 
of a theoretical and practical body of knowledge gained from earning the required baccalaureate or 
higher degree in the specific specialty required to accomplish the duties of the job. 
The statute and regulations must be read together to ensure the proffered position meets the definition 
of a specialty occupation. See K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) (holding that 
construction of language which takes into account the design of the statute as a whole is preferred); 
see also COIT Independence Joint Venture v. Fed. Sav. And Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989); 
Matter of W-F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). Considering the statute and the regulations separately 
could lead to scenarios where a petitioner satisfies a regulatory factor, but not the definition of 
specialty occupation contained in the statute. See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387. The regulatory criteria 
read together with the statute gives effect to the statutory intent. See Temporary Alien Workers 
Seeking Classification Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 56 Fed. Reg. 61111, 61112 (Dec. 
2, 1991). 
So, we construe the term "degree" in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any baccalaureate 
or higher degree or its equivalent, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered 
position supporting the statutory definition of specialty occupation or its equivalent. See Royal Siam 
Corp., 484 F.3d at 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"). USCIS' 
application of this standard has resulted in the orderly approval of H-lB petitions for engineers, 
certified public accountants, information technology professionals, and other occupations 
commensurate with what Congress intended when it created the H-lB category. 
2 
II. ANALYSIS 
We conclude that a remand is warranted in this matter. The 
Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary 
as a quality assurance analyst. It submitted a labor condition application (LCA) certified for a position 
in the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) Software Quality Assurance Analysts and Testers 
standard occupational category (SOC) 15-1253.00. The Petitioner stated the position requires a 
bachelor's degree in computer engineering, computer science, closely related IT field, or its 
equivalent. The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) because the duties comprising the 
proffered quality assurance analyst position "do not require a bachelor's degree or higher or its 
equivalent in a specific specialty to perform them." The Director denied the petition and the 
Petitioner's subsequently filed combined motion to reopen and reconsider. This appeal follows. For 
the below reasons, we withdraw the Director's decision and remand this matter for them to enter a 
new decision consistent with the following analysis. 
The record at the time of filing did not plainly describe and establish the requirements of specialty 
identified by the Petitioner to perform the job duties of the proffered quality assurance analyst position. 
So, the Director correctly issued a request for additional evidence (RFE) to provide an opportunity for 
the Petitioner to address the petition's deficiency. 
The Petitioner's response to the RFE contained a printout from the U.S. Department of Labor's 
Occupational Outlook Handbook (the Handbook) entry for "Software Developers, Quality Assurance 
Anal sts, and Testers," job advertisements from other em lo ers, an expert letter authored by Dr. 
______________________ the USCIS Fiscal Year 2018 report 
of approved H-lB petitions by employer, a copy of the Petitioner's job postings for other positions, 
copies of degrees and evaluations reports pertaining to other individuals employed by the Petitioner, 
copies of specimen letters issued and received by the Petitioner, copies of documents describing the 
Petitioner's products, excerpted AAO non-precedent decisions, a description of the Petitioner's project 
requiring the Beneficiary's services in the proffered quality assurance analyst position, the 
Beneficiary's resume with education and experience evaluation and supporting education document, 
and USCIS Policy Manual excerpts. 1 
The Director's decision evaluated all of the submitted evidence, but concluded the Petitioner's 
proffered job could not qualify as a specialty occupation because the Petitioner would accept any 
engineering degree as a minimum qualification for entry to the proffered quality assurance analyst 
position. Whilst the Director is correct that the record supports the Petitioner would accept any 
engineering degree without specialization in other positions, the record does not support a conclusion 
that the Petitioner maintains the same generalized degree requirement for the proffered quality 
assurance analyst position. Instead, the record reflects the Petitioner requires, amongst other related 
degree fields, a bachelor's degree in computer engineering as a minimum requirement for entry to the 
proffered position. The critical inquiry in the petition is the eligibility of the proffered quality 
assurance analyst position for classification as a specialty occupation, and not the other positions the 
Petitioner employs individuals to occupy. The Director should consider the evidence in the record 
together with the Petitioner's stated minimum requirement of a bachelor's degree in computer 
1 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 
engineering, computer science, closely related IT field, or its equivalent for entry to the proffered 
position of quality assurance analyst. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Director's decision is hereby withdrawn, and the matter is remanded for further action. The 
Director should conduct a first-line review of whether the Petitioner's proffered job meets the 
requirements of the statute at section 214(i)(l) of the Act and at least one of the criteria contained at 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) as a specialty occupation consistent with the proffered position's actual 
minimum requirements. We express no opinion regarding this petition's ultimate disposition. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4