sustained H-1B

sustained H-1B Case: Computer Science

๐Ÿ“… Date unknown ๐Ÿ‘ค Company ๐Ÿ“‚ Computer Science

Decision Summary

The director denied the petition after concluding that the proffered position of programmer analyst was not a specialty occupation. The AAO sustained the appeal, determining that the petitioner successfully established one of the four required criteria under 8 C.F.R. ยง 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), thus qualifying the position as a specialty occupation.

Criteria Discussed

Normal Minimum Requirement Of A Bachelor'S Degree Degree Requirement Is Common To The Industry Employer Normally Requires A Degree Duties Are Specialized And Complex

Sign up free to download the original PDF

View Full Decision Text
Iden~rptne data 
pmvefit clearly unwarranted 
invasion of pm~n~l p~vaey 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: WAC 03 219 54176 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: JAPd 2 0 2006 
IN RE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1 10 1 (a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, 
WAC 03 219 54176 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director denied the nonimrnigrant visa petition and the matter is now before 
the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be sustained. The petition will be 
approved. 
The petitioner is a fabric importer and that seeks to employ the beneficiary as a programmer analyst. The 
petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a nonirnrnigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to 
section 10l(a)(l S)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101(a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition because the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. On appeal, 
counsel submits a brief. 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1184(i)(l), defines the terrn "specialty occupation" as an occupation 
that requires: 
(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. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, the position must meet one of 
the following criteria: 
(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. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) interprets the terrn "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 proffered position. 
The record of proceeding before the AAO contains: (1) Form 1-129 and supporting documentation; (2) the 
director's request for additional evidence; (3) the petitioner's response to the director's request; (4) the 
director's denial letter; and (5) Form I-290B and supporting documentation. The AAO reviewed the record in 
its entirety before issuing its decision. 
WAC 03 219 54176 
Page 3 
The petitioner is seeking the beneficiary's services as a prograrnmerlanalyst. Evidence of the beneficiary's 
duties includes: the 1-129 petition; the petitioner's July 7, 2003 letter in support of the petition; and the 
petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence. According to this evidence, the beneficiary would 
perform duties that entail, in part: analyzing requirements to plan a data processing system that will provide 
the capability required for the projected workload; designing, analyzing, reviewing and altering programs to 
increase operational efficiency; creating, managing and reformatting data; ensuring the accuracy and usability 
of the data filed; creating appropriate programming routines to accomplish tasks and provide reports and 
information required in the system; updating, installing and maintaining hardware and software; configuring 
operating systems to meet the petitioner's needs; entering data into the computer to store, retrieve and 
manipulate data for analysis of required system capabilities; providing technical support, maintenance, 
troubleshooting, modification and upgrade of systems to adapt to new company requirements; preparing 
charts and manuals after the system has been developed to describe installation and operating procedures; 
designing test data and training of personnel in utilization and maintenance of programs/systems; evaluating 
the petitioner's existing system and proposing proper recommendations; maintaining and monitoring the 
performance of the computer network; projecting the future technical needs of the company; developing 
programs for business or technical applications; outlining steps required to develop programs using structures 
analysis and design; preparing flowcharts and diagrams to illustrate the sequence of steps, which have to be 
followed; describing logical operations involved; planning, developing, testing and documenting computer 
programs; and applying knowledge of programming techniques and computer systems. The petitioner stated 
that a qualified candidate for the position would possess a bachelor's degree in computer science or its 
equivalent. 
The director found that the proffered position was not a specialty occupation and that the petitioner failed to 
establish any of the criteria found at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
On appeal, counsel states that the director erred in finding that the proffered position, a combination of a 
systems analyst and a computer programmer, is not a specialty occupation. Counsel states that the director 
determined that the position was a computer support specialist and systems administrator without providing 
any supporting explanation. Counsel asserts that the petitioner, as an international company, has a specialized 
need for a programerlanalyst to develop programs to meet its particular requirements. Counsel further 
asserts that the duties of the proffered position are more complex than those of a computer support specialist, 
or systems administrator. Counsel states that a programmer/analyst is a specialty occupation and that the 
Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) states that most employers put a 
premium on formal college education. 
Upon review of the record, the petitioner has established one of the four criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. 
$ 2 14.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Therefore, the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
The AAO turns first to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I) and (2): a baccalaureate or higher 
degree or its equivalent is the normal minimum requirement for entry into the particular position; a degree 
requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations; or a particular 
position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree. 
WAC 03 219 54176 
Page 4 
Factors often considered by CIS when determining these criteria 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 
fms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 
1 165 (D. Minn. 1999) (quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Suva, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1 102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
The AAO routinely consults the Handbook for its information about the duties and educational requirements of 
particular occupations. CIS looks beyond the title of the position and determines, from a review of the duties 
of the position and any supporting evidence, whether the position actually requires the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment of a baccalaureate degree 
in a specific specialty as the minimum for entry into the occupation as required by the Act. The AAO concurs 
with counsel that the position is a programmer analyst. The Handbook indicates that because employers' 
needs are varied, the educational requirements for the position are also varied, with some positions requiring a 
baccalaureate degree, while others will only require a two-year degree. 
As noted above, CIS interprets the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(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 proffered 
position. The Handbook states that for programmer analysts, "many employers seek applicants who have a 
bachelor's degree in computer science, information science, or management information systems (MIS). . . . 
Despite the preference towards technical degrees, persons with degrees in a variety of majors find 
employment in computer-related occupations." There is no indication that the profession requires that an 
individual have a bachelor's degree, or that a degree must be in a specific specialty. 
The petitioner submitted three Internet job listings in response to the director's request for evidence. There is 
no evidence, however, to show that the employers issuing those postings are similar to the petitioner, or that 
the advertised positions are parallel to the instant position. None of the positions appear to be with small 
import companies, and the duties for these positions appear to be far more complex than the proffered 
position. Thus, the advertisements have little relevance. 
The record does not include any evidence from professional associations regarding an industry standard, or 
documentation to support the complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position. The petitioner has, thus, not 
established the criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l) or (2). 
The AAO now turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 9 2 14.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3) - the employer normally requires a 
degree or its equivalent for the position. The position is newly created, and the petitioner is not able to meet this 
criterion. 
Finally, the AAO turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(h)(iii)(A)(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. 
The duties of the proffered position are so specialized and complex as to require the highly specialized 
knowledge associated with a baccalaureate or higher degree, or its equivalent, in a specific specialty. The 
WAC 03 219 54176 
Page 5 
beneficiary will be required to develop and implement new computer programs to meet the petitioner's 
specialized needs. He will also be required to prepare analyses for the petitioner's management and to 
analyze, review and alter programs to increase operating efficiency. Therefore, the evidence establishes that 
the proffered position is a specialty occupation under 8 C.F.R. tj 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
The petitioner stated that the position requires an individual with a baccalaureate degree in computer science 
or its equivalent. The beneficiary has a foreign bachelor's degree in computer science, which a credentials 
evaluation company determined to be equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree in computer science. Therefore, 
the beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of the specialty occupation. 
As related in the discussion above, the petitioner has established that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation and that the beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of the specialty occupation. The burden 
of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 1361. The 
petitioner has sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. The petition is approved. 
Using this case in a petition? Let MeritDraft draft the argument →

Use this winning precedent in your petition

MeritDraft analyzes sustained AAO decisions like this one to generate petition arguments that mirror what actually gets approved.

Build Your Winning Petition →

No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.