Home › Case law › Innova Solutions v. Baran

Innova Solutions v. Baran: a bachelor's degree "typically needed" is a bachelor's degree "normally" requiredInnova Solutions, Inc. v. Baran, 983 F.3d 428 (9th Cir. 2020)

Wang Law Firm, LLC · David Wang, Managing Attorney · Attorney-reviewed · Updated October 2026

In brief: On December 16, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that when the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH) says most computer programmers have a bachelor's degree and that a bachelor's degree is "typically" needed for entry, there is no difference from the H-1B regulatory standard that a bachelor's degree is "normally" required; USCIS's finding that the position was not a specialty occupation because "some employers also hire people with associate degrees" was arbitrary and capricious. The H-1B modernization rule effective January 17, 2025 also states in the regulations that "normally" does not mean "always."

The case at a glance

Item	Details
Case name	Innova Solutions, Inc. v. Kathy A. Baran, Director, California Service Center, USCIS
Court	U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (9th Cir.)
Docket number and citation	No. 19-16849; 983 F.3d 428 (9th Cir. 2020)
Decision date	Argued and submitted November 20, 2020; decided December 16, 2020
Panel	Circuit Judges Paez and Owens and Senior District Judge England (sitting by designation); opinion by Judge Owens
Provisions involved	INA 214(i)(1) (8 U.S.C. 1184(i)(1), definition of specialty occupation); 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(1); Administrative Procedure Act (APA) "arbitrary and capricious" standard
Subject	H-1B specialty occupation determinations; the role of the OOH in adjudication
Current status	Valid Ninth Circuit precedent (as of October 2026), binding on federal courts within that circuit; "normally does not mean always" was written into the regulations effective January 17, 2025
Decision text	Ninth Circuit opinion (PDF)

Background

The H-1B applies only to a "specialty occupation": the statute requires that the position call for theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, with a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty (or its equivalent) as the minimum requirement for entry. The former regulation, 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), listed four criteria, any one of which was sufficient; the first was that a bachelor's or higher degree is "normally" the minimum requirement for entry into the position.

In applying the first criterion, USCIS often consults the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH). In March 2017, USCIS rescinded a 2000 memo that had recognized computer programmers as generally a specialty occupation, citing in part the OOH's statement that some employers also hire programmers with only an associate degree. After that, H-1B petitions for computer programmers and similar positions faced more challenges.

Facts

Innova Solutions, a technology company providing cloud storage and data analytics services, petitioned to employ an Indian national with a bachelor's degree as a computer programmer in H-1B status for three years. Relying on the OOH, USCIS denied the petition, finding the position was not a specialty occupation. Innova sued in federal district court under the Administrative Procedure Act; the district court sided with USCIS, and Innova appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

At the time, the OOH's description of computer programmers said, in substance, that most computer programmers have a bachelor's degree in computer science or a related field, but some employers hire workers with an associate degree; the OOH listed a bachelor's degree as the "typical" entry-level education.

Issues

When the OOH says an occupation "typically" needs a bachelor's degree, does that satisfy the regulatory standard that a degree is "normally" the minimum requirement?
Can the OOH's mention that "some employers" hire people with less education support a finding that a degree is not "normally" required?

How the court ruled

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court and remanded. The court held that "typically" and "normally" are synonyms, writing:

"There is no daylight between typically needed, per the OOH, and normally required, per the regulatory criteria."

The court further noted:

USCIS's conclusion rested on a distinction between "typically" and "normally," but the two words mean the same thing, and the OOH material USCIS cited did not support its conclusion.
That some programmers are hired without a bachelor's degree does not mean a degree is not "normally" the minimum requirement.
USCIS also misstated the OOH: it said most programmers have a bachelor's or associate degree, while the OOH actually says most have a bachelor's degree. Since the level of education was the core issue in the case, and USCIS relied solely on the OOH, this error was not harmless.
USCIS failed to consider the OOH's statement on "typical entry-level education," which was itself an independent ground for setting aside the denial.

USCIS's denial was therefore arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.

What this means for you

Computer programmers and other IT positions: when the OOH states that an occupation typically needs a bachelor's degree for entry, that can be strong evidence for meeting the first criterion. USCIS cannot find a position is not a specialty occupation merely because "some employers do not require a degree."
Geographic reach: this case binds federal courts in the Ninth Circuit (including California, Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Nevada and others). USCIS may not necessarily follow it in nationwide adjudications, but it can be cited in petitions and in court litigation.
Matching the degree to the position: the case resolved whether a bachelor's degree is "normally" required; it did not remove the separate requirement that the degree be in a specific specialty related to the position. That point matters even more under the new rule; see below.

Later developments: the 2025 H-1B modernization rule

The Department of Homeland Security published the H-1B modernization final rule (89 FR 103054) on December 18, 2024, effective January 17, 2025. It amended the definition and criteria for specialty occupation; the points relevant to this case include:

The meaning of "normally" spelled out: the rule states that, in the specialty occupation criteria, "normally" does not mean "always." This is consistent with the reasoning in this case.
"Directly related" specialties: the required degree must be in a specific specialty "directly related" to the position, meaning there is a logical connection between the degree (or its equivalent) and the duties of the position. A general degree (for example, a bachelor's degree in any field) is not enough to establish a specialty occupation.
Multiple fields allowed: a position may accept degrees in several different fields, but each must be directly related to the duties of the position. The rule also deleted the former regulation's specific references to "business administration" and "liberal arts" degrees, stressing the actual connection between the degree and the duties rather than the degree's title alone.
Third-party placements: when an employee is placed with a third party and staffed to a position within the third party's organization, the third party's requirements for the position are the most relevant basis for deciding whether it is a specialty occupation.

In the rule's preamble, DHS said these changes were intended to reflect USCIS's current adjudication practice. After the rule took effect, the dispute over whether a degree is "normally" needed has a clearer answer at the regulatory level, but scrutiny has shifted toward whether the degree field is directly related to the position.

In addition, in 2024 the Supreme Court overruled Chevron deference in Loper Bright v. Raimondo; courts must now exercise independent judgment on the meaning of statutes, which may affect how courts review USCIS's interpretation of the statutory definition of specialty occupation in the future. The validity of the regulations themselves is a separate question, judged under the standards for reviewing regulations.

Practical tips

Cite the OOH in full: submit the OOH's discussion of typical entry-level education in full, rather than excerpting only the one sentence that helps you.
Spell out the link between degree and duties: make the job description specific, listing the specialized knowledge required and the corresponding fields of study, and avoid wording like "any bachelor's degree."
Do not rely only on the first criterion: also prepare evidence of industry practice, the employer's consistent hiring requirements, the complexity of the position and the like, to cover the other criteria.
Options after a denial: consider a motion to reopen or reconsider, an appeal to the AAO, or a suit in federal court under the Administrative Procedure Act; in the Ninth Circuit, this case is directly citable precedent.

Frequently asked questions

If the OOH says an occupation "typically needs" a bachelor's degree, will the H-1B definitely be approved?

Not necessarily. It only shows the position may meet the first of the four specialty occupation criteria. USCIS will also review the specific duties, whether the degree field is directly related to them, wages, the LCA and other requirements.

My position accepts degrees in computer science, electrical engineering, mathematics and other fields. Is it still a specialty occupation?

It can be, provided each accepted field is directly related to the duties of the position. If the position accepts a bachelor's degree in "any field," it is usually hard to show it is a specialty occupation.

I am not in the Ninth Circuit. Does this case help me?

The case binds only federal courts in the Ninth Circuit, but its reasoning remains persuasive in petitions and litigation elsewhere, and "normally does not mean always" has been written into nationwide regulations effective in 2025.

USCIS denied my petition as "not a specialty occupation." Can I go straight to court?

Generally you can sue under the Administrative Procedure Act, or you can first appeal to the AAO or file a motion. Which path to take depends on timing, cost and the specific evidence in the case; have an attorney assess it.