remanded H-1B Case: User Interface Design

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF B-, INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 27, 2017 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a three-employee cloud software business, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "User Interface and User Experience Designer" under the H-lB 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, Vennont Service Center, denied the petition. The Director denied the petition concluding 
that the Petitioner had not established that it had sufficient specialty occupation work for the intended 
employment period. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred when 
determining that it did 'not have sufficient specialty occupation work for the intended employment 
period and submits evidence in support of this assertion. 
We conduct de novo review on appeal. Upon review of the evidence submitted on appeal, we find that 
the Petitioner has established that it is an active company and that more likely than not it has sufficient 
work to employ the Beneficiary in the proffered position. However, 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. Moreover, the record does not establish that the certified labor condition 
application (LCA) corresponds to the petition. Accordingly, we withdraw the Director's statement that 
a user interface and user experience designer is traditionally a specialty occupation and remand the 
matter to the Director for further development 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 tenn "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
Matter of B-, 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.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 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" 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 propo_sed 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, 387-88 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
In the H-1 B petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as its "user interface and 
user experience designer." The Petitioner described the duties of the position as follows: 
• Design user interface and navigation for the web application, Apple iPhone and 
iPad app. 
• Maintain a responsive and consistent web design. 
• Define screen based design to ensure user interface visually communicates user 
path and company vision. 
• Develop and explore user task flows, screen designs and wireframes. 
• Work closely with the development team to prepare the team product and 
enterprise product. 
2 
Matter ()[ B-, Inc. 
• Collaborate on design process to deliver rapid prototypes, concept sketches, 
interactive and visual design. 
• Apply digital tools skills including Slack, Trello and Moqups to interface design. 
According to the Petitioner, the minimum requirements to perform these tasks "include the 
attainment of a Bachelor's degree, or equivalent, in Digital Arts, Interactive Design, Graphic and 
Digital Design or a related field." 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided the following 
allocation of time to the Beneficiary's proposed tasks: 
• Design user interface and navigation for the web application, Apple iPhone and 
iPad app (50%) 
• Maintain a responsive and consistent web design (35%) 
• Work closely with the development team to prepare the team product and 
enterprise product (I 0%) 
• Apply digital tools skills including Slack, Trello and Moqups to interface design 
"" (5%). 
The Petitioner provided a narrative to further describe the nature of a user interface and user 
experience designer in the context of its business operations. The Petitioner also referenced the three 
initially stated duties omitted from the initial description, but did not allocate any of the 
Beneficiary's time for the performance of those tasks. 
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 (1) describe 
the position's duties with sufficient detail; and (2) establish that the job duties require an educational 
background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 1 
On the LCA2 submitted in support of the H-IB petition, the Petitioner designated the proffered 
position under the occupational category "Multimedia Artists and Animators'' corresponding to the 
Standard Occupational Classification code 27-1014.3 
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. 
2 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified 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 ofSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 545-46 (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 
3 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
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. 4 The Handbook reports generally that "[m]ultimedia artists and 
animators create two- and three-dimensional models, animation, and visual effects for television, 
movies, video games, and other forms of media." See U.S. Dep't of L1bor, Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., "Multimedia Artists and Animators," 
https ://www. bls. gov I ooh! mis-and -design/multimedia -artists-and -ani mators.htm#tab- 2 (last visited 
Feb. 17, 2017). 
We have reviewed the Petitioner's description of duties and other information in the record to 
determine whether the proffered position falls within the parameters of the occupation designated on 
the certified LCA. Upon review, there is insut1icient evidence to demonstrate that the protTered 
position is primarily a multimedia artist and animator occupation. The Petitioner has not described 
duties that relate to or include animation, visual effects for television, movies, video games, or other 
forms of media. The Petitioner has not provided probative evidence that demonstrates that its user 
interface/user experience (UIIUX) designer corresponds most closely to that of a multimedia artist or 
animator. Given that the LCA submitted in support of the petition is certified for an occupational 
cla~sification that does not appear to be in accord with the proffered job duties, it must therefore be 
concluded that the LCA does not correspond to the petition. Accordingly, the petition cannot be 
approved for this reason. 
Moreover, even if the described duties fall within the occupation certified on the LCA, the 
Handbook's discussion of the academic requirements to perform the duties of a multimedia artist and 
animator occupation does not support a claim that this occupation is a specialty occupation. In the 
Handbook's subchapter on "How to Perform the Duties of a Multimedia Artist and Animator," it 
reports that "[ e ]mployers typically require a bachelor's degree,'' and that those in the occupation 
"typically have a bachelor's degree in tine art, computer graphics, animation, or a related field." See 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., 
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 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 _I I_ 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 
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 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 tinding that its patiicular position 
would normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
4 
Matter of B-. Inc. 
"Multimedia Artists and Animators," https://vvww.bls.gov/ooh/atis-and-design/multimedia-artists­
and-animators.htm#tab-4 (last visited Feb. 17, 20 17). The Handbook's recognition that a bachelor's 
degree in fine arts, a degree of general applicability, is sufficient to perform the duties of the 
occupation, indicates that this occupation is not a specialty occupation. 5 
Furthermore, it appears more likely than not that the Beneficiary's proposed duties fall within the 
occupation of a web developer/designer. For example, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary will 
spend 50 percent of her time designing a portion of its web application for the Apple iPhone and 
iPad and an additional 35 percent of her time maintaining a responsive and consistent web design. 
The Handbook reports that an individual in the web developer occupation designs and creates 
websites and is responsible for the look of the site. See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., "Web Developers,?' 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/web-developers.htm#tab-2 (last 
visited Feb. 17, 2017). It appears that a UIIUX designer position in this instance may be a 
subcategory of a web developer/designer occupation. 6 The Handbook indicates that the academic 
qualification for a web developer/designer is typically an associate's degree in web design or a 
related field. See !d. at https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/web­
developers.htm#tab-4 (last visited Feb. 17, 2017). 
We note here that the record does not include the Petitioner's organizational chart depicting the titles 
of its three employees or any evidence ofthe actual responsibilities of its three employees. We have 
reviewed the Petitioner's outline of key milestones for its project submitted on appeal and note that it 
divides the key milestones between its designer and engineers. However, this document does not 
elaborate upon their duties, beyond the general outline. Accordingly, we are unable to ascertain how 
the proposed position will actually fit within the Petitioner's development team. Because of the 
generalized description of the proffered position and the lack of evidence in the record distinguishing 
the Beneficiary's responsibilities from others, we are unable to determine that the proffered position 
falls within either a multimedia artist or animator or even the web developer/designer occupation. 
Moreover, as discussed above, neither of these occupations requires a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty. 
We have also reviewed the advertisements submitted by the Petitioner for the position of a UIIUX 
designer. The advertisements confirm that employers generally do not require a bachelor's degree in 
a specific specialty to perform the duties of this occupation. For example, some advertisers only 
prefer a bachelor's degree and rely on the individual's experience. Additionally, when the 
advertisers specify a degree as either preferred or required, they recite a variety of fields as 
5 "Fine Arts" include painting, sculpture, architecture, music, and poetry. Pursuant to some definitions, it also includes 
drama, dance, painting, sculpture, music, and photography. However broadly or narrowly defined, the term "Fine Arts" 
includes a wide array of subjects and does not, per se, constitute a specific specialty. 
6 
We reviewed the Petitioner's submission of an article providing an overview of the occupation of a user interface and 
user experience designer. The article, while informative, does not sufficiently distinguish a UIIUX designer from a web 
developer/designer position or indicate that a UIIUX designer position requires a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, to perform. 
5 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
qualifying the candidate to perform the duties of a UIIUX designer. The fields identified in the 
various advertisements include bachelor's degrees in computer science, web design and 
development, human-computer interaction, interaction design, psychology, interactive or visual 
design, visual arts, graphic design, liberal arts, accounting, business, engineering, information 
engineering, and social science. 7 Some of the advertisers require only a general bachelor's degree 
with no specific discipline identified and some also accept an unspecified amount of experience they 
deem equivalent to a bachelor's degree. Again, the wide range of acceptable experience and degrees 
to perform the duties of a UIIUX designer indicates that this occupation is not a specialty 
occupation. 
Also, the Petitioner has provided a generalized description of the Beneficiary's proposed duties 
which does not convey sufficient substantive information to establish the relative complexity, 
uniqueness and/or specialization of the proffered position or its duties. Without this information we 
are unable to discern the nature of the actual position and whether the tasks described entail the need 
for a particular level of education, or educational equivalency, in a body of highly specialized 
knowledge in a specific specialty. There is insufficient evidence to identify the occupation of the 
proffered position and to determine whether the duties, as described, require the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge such that a bachelor's or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform them. 
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, \Vhen 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. 
Accordingly, as the Petitioner has not established that it has satistied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A), it cannot be found that the proffered position qualifies for classification as a 
specialty occupation and the petition could not b~ approved on this basis alone. 
7 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. 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 Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N 
Dec. 558, 560 (Comm 'r 1988). 
6 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Director in this matter improperly concluded that a user interface and user experience designer 
occupation is a specialty occupation and we withdraw that conclusion. The Petitioner has not been 
accorded the opportunity to address the deficiencies in the record regarding the specialty occupation 
nature of the proffered position on appeal or to offer evidence that its UI/UX designer falls within 
the parameters of a multimedia artist and animator occupation as designated on the certified LCA. 
Accordingly, we will remand the record for further development of these issues. 
On remand, the Director should afford the Petitioner an opportunity to submit additional evidence 
and legal argument on these issues. 
As always in these proceedings, the burden of proof rests with the Petitioner. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director, Vermont Service Center, is withdrawn. The matter is 
remanded to the Director, Vermont Service Center, for further proceedings consistent 
with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision. 
Cite as Matter of B-. Inc., ID# 220149 (AAO Feb. 27, 2017)