sustained H-1B Case: Software Quality Assurance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 15, 2024 In Re: 33133911 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-IB nonimmigrant 
classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) . The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to 
file a petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 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 record did not 
establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. The Director denied a subsequent 
combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant 
to 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.3 and 103.5(a)(6). 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will sustain the appeal. 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires the "theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 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 section 214(i)(l) of the Act, but adds a non-exhaustive list of fields of 
endeavor. In addition, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires that the proffered position meet one of 
the following four 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) must be read with the statutory and regulatory 
definitions of a specialty occupation under section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
We construe 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. 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"). 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of 
proceedings at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). A motion may be granted if it satisfies 
these requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the requested benefit. See Matter of Coelho, 
20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the 
outcome). 
The question before us on appeal is whether the Director erred in dismissing the Petitioner's combined 
motions to reopen and reconsider the denial of the H-1 B petition. The Director's decision to dismiss 
the combined motions-and the initial decision to deny the petition-primarily relied on the Director's 
conclusion that the acceptable fields of study for entry into the proffered position are too disparate to 
constitute a "specific specialty" or a "body of highly specialized knowledge." Specifically, the 
Director found that the inclusion of engineering as an acceptable field of study precludes the position 
from being a specialty occupation because engineering is too broad to be considered a specific 
specialty. The Petitioner contends on appeal that the Director erred in dismissing the motion to 
reconsider because the motion established that the Director incorrectly characterized the Petitioner's 
degree requirement as "engineering" rather than "computer engineering," and also that the Director 
incorrectly applied the law because engineering is a sufficiently specialized field to be an acceptance 
field of study for a specialty occupation. The Petitioner also contends on appeal that the Director erred 
in dismissing its motion to reopen because the new facts, supported by documentary evidence, 
submitted on motion established cause to reopen the proceedings. 
Upon de novo review, we conclude that the Director erred in dismissing the Petitioner's motion to 
reconsider because the Petitioner established on motion that the decision to deny the H-1 B petition 
was incorrect at the time of the decision and the Petitioner has demonstrated eligibility for the 
requested benefit. 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary in the position of "Quality Assurance Engineer I." On 
the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the petition, the Petitioner classified the 
proffered position to be in the occupational category of "Software Quality Assurance Analysts and 
Testers" with Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 15-1253. The Petitioner states that the 
educational requirement for the position is a minimum of a bachelor's degree in computer science, 
computer engineering, information technology, or a related field. The Petitioner's degree requirement is 
consistent with the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) profile 
for the occupations of "Software Developers, Quality Assurance Analysts, and Testers," which states 
that these occupations typically require a bachelor's degree in computer and information technology 
or a related field, such as engineering or mathematics. See Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of 
Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Operations Research Analysts (April 17, 2024), 
2 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/software-developers.htm. The job 
duties for the proffered position further support the Petitioner's educational requirement, as they 
primarily relate to the design, development, and execution of manual and automated test solutions for 
large-scale, critical, and highly complex software; gathering and identifying solution testing 
requirements; and analyzing performance reporting to identify and act on solution malfunctions. 
We conclude that the job duties of the proffered position, particularly when viewed in context with 
the Handbook's guidance and with the scale and complexity of the Petitioner's business operations, 
demonstrate that the position requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly 
specialized knowledge and the attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in the specific specialty or 
its equivalent. Specifically, we conclude that the evidence of record establishes that the nature of the 
specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform the duties is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)( 4). We also note that although the Director concluded that the Petitioner 
will accept a bachelor's or higher degree in any engineering field for entry into the occupation, and 
that this degree requirement is too broad, the record shows that the Petitioner's degree requirement 
includes a bachelor's or higher degree in computer engineering specifically, rather than any 
engineering degree. 1 Because the Petitioner has demonstrated that its degree requirement includes 
computer engineering, rather than any engineering degree, as an acceptable field of study, we need 
not address the Petitioner's additional claim that the field of engineering by itself is sufficiently 
specialized to be an acceptance field of study for a specialty occupation. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 
429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on 
issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision). 
We therefore conclude that the Director erred in dismissing the Petitioner's motion to reconsider, 
because the Petitioner demonstrated that the Director's decision to deny the H-1 B petition was 
incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of the decision. Because we 
conclude that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the time of the decision, 
we need not decide whether the new facts and additional documentary evidence submitted on motion 
established cause to reopen the proceedings and whether the Director therefore erred in dismissing the 
motion to reopen. Id. We will sustain the appeal of the dismissal of the motion to reconsider; the 
appeal of the dismissal of the motion to reopen is now moot. 
The record establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the proffered position requires the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment of 
a bachelor's degree or higher in the specific specialty or its equivalent. It also establishes that the 
nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform the 
duties is usually associated with attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). The Petitioner has therefore established on appeal that the 
Director erred in dismissing the Petitioner's motion to reconsider. Based upon the foregoing, we will 
1 One of the job postings for similar positions submitted in response to the request for evidence (RFE) included 
"engineering" as an acceptable field of study. This job posting was the basis for the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner 
will accept "any" engineering degree for the proffered position. However, the Petitioner contends that the proffered 
position and the position in the job posting are not identical, and that computer engineering, rather than any engineering 
degree, is the acceptable field of study relevant here. 
3 
sustain the appeal, grant the Petitioner's motion to reconsider, and upon reconsideration conclude that 
the Petitioner has established that the proffered position constitutes a specialty occupation. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
4