dismissed H-1B Case: Accounting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 17441995 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 23, 2021 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-lB nonirnrnigrant classification 
for specialty occupations. 1 The H-lB 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 Vermont Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform services in a specialty occupation. 2 In these 
proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. 3 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 4 
I. BENEFICIARY'S QUALIFICATIONS 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary would be qualified to 
perform the duties of the proffered position of staff accountant. 5 In the decision, the Director discussed 
1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). 
2 Although the Director requested further evidence to establish the proffered position is a specialty occupation, the Director 
did not refer to the issue of specialty occupation in their decision. Upon our de nova review, we conclude that the record 
does not establish that more likely than not the proposed position is a specialty occupation . 
3 See section 291 of the Act; Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
4 See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
5 The Petitioner, an accounting finn, initially provided a broad overview of the Beneficiary's proposed duties as a staff 
accountant. The Petitioner claimed that the generally described duties required a bachelor's degree in accounting or finance 
in order to perform them. We note that this requirement conflicts with the Petitioner's requirements to perform these same 
duties as set out in its advertisement for the position posted June 16, 2020 and provided in response to the Director's 
request for evidence. The Petitioner's advertisement for the position requires a bachelor 's degree in accounting or business 
and some undefined amount of knowledge of financial and managerial accounting , etc. The Petitioner must resolve this 
ambiguity in the record with independent , objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 
582, 591-592 (BIA 1988). We note here that if the Petitioner accepts a bachelor 's degree in business as adequate to perform 
the duties of the position, such acceptance strongly suggests that the position is not a specialty occupation. We have 
the lack of evidence in the record, noting that the record at the time of the decision did not contain 
documentation of state licensure, accounting classes, tax preparation courses, seminars, or other 
coursework in accounting which may qualify the Beneficiary for the proffered position. Upon 
consideration of the entire record, including the evidence submitted and arguments made on appeal, 
we adopt and affirm the Director's decision with the comments below. See Matter of P. Singh, 
Attorney, 26 I&N Dec. 623 (BIA 2015) (citing Matter of Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872,874 (BIA 1994)); 
see also Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 7-8 (1st Cir. 1996) ("[I]f a reviewing tribunal decides that the facts 
and evaluative judgments prescinding from them have been adequately confronted and correctly 
resolved by a trial judge or hearing officer, then the tribunal is free simply to adopt those findings" 
provided the tribunal's order reflects individualized attention to the case). Here we note that the 
Director may request additional evidence in the course of making a determination regarding eligibility 
for a visa classification. 6 Where, as here, a petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the 
evidence and has been given an opportunity to respond to that deficiency, we will not accept evidence 7 
offered for the first time on appeal. x The appeal will be adjudicated based on the record of proceedings 
before the Director. 
The Director's request for evidence (RFE) specifically requested evidence of the Beneficiary's 
credentials. The Director first noted that the initial record included evidence of the Beneficiary's U.S. 
master's degree which included only one course in accounting. The Director also noted that the Petitioner 
referred to the Beneficiary's foreign undergraduate degree but did not provide copies of any diploma 
issued or transcript(s) of the courses taken. Nor did the initial record include a credential evaluation of 
the foreign degree. The Director provided a list of evidence that might establish the Beneficiary's 
qualifications including, among other things, an advisory evaluation of the Beneficiary's foreign 
educational credentials by a credential evaluation service specializing in evaluating foreign degrees, or 
other evidence that the foreign education is equivalent to the U.S. bachelor's degree required by the 
proffered position. The Petitioner did not submit such evidence but rather listed some of the courses it 
claimed the Beneficiary had taken as a foreign undergraduate. Based on the insufficient evidence of the 
Beneficiary's qualifications to perform duties that the Petitioner claimed required a bachelor's degree in 
accounting or finance, the Director denied the petition. 
On a eal the Petitioner submits a January 4, 2021 opinion prepared by the~ I 
and a January 7, 2021 opinion prepared by I : , I i----,__ ________ ____J 
.__ _ __.. The Petitioner does not explain why these documents were not obtained and provided for the 
Director's review, despite being specifically requested in the Director's RFE. 9 As noted above, where, 
consistently stated that, although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business, may be a legitimate 
prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify a conclusion that a pa11icular 
position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. 
6 See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8). 
7 On appeal, the Petitioner provides "additional information" relating to the coursework and evaluation of the Beneficiary's 
foreign degree. 
8 See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533,537 (BIA 
1988). 
9 The regulations indicate that the Petitioner shall submit additional evidence as the Director, in his or her discretion, may 
deem necessary in the adjudication of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(8), 214.2(h)(9)(i). The purpose of the request 
for evidence is to elicit further information that clarifies whether eligibility for the benefit sought has been established, as 
of the time the petition is filed. See id. §§ 103.2(b)(l), 103.2(b)(8), 103.2(b)(l2). ··Failure to submit requested evidence 
which precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the [petition]." Id. § 103.2(b)(l4). 
2 
as here, a petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given an 
opportunity to respond to that deficiency, we will not accept evidence offered for the first time on 
appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 
19 T&N Dec. 533, 53 7 (BIA 1988). If the Petitioner had wanted the submitted evidence to be 
considered, it should have submitted the documents in response to the Director's RFE. Id. Under the 
circumstances, we need not and do not consider the sufficiency of the evidence submitted for the first 
time on appeal. 10 
As the Director concluded, the Beneficiary's master's degree in business includes one accounting 
course. This is insufficient to establish that the Beneficiary's degree is in an accounting or finance 
specialty, the specialties the Petitioner claims relate most closely to the performance of the duties. 
Thus, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of a staff 
accountant by the Petitioner's own, albeit inconsistent, standards. Although we need not examine the 
issue of specialty occupation, for thoroughness we will briefly discuss the Petitioner's failure to 
establish that the proffered position, as described, is a specialty occupation. 
II. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
A. Legal Framework 
The regulations require that before filing a Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, a 
petitioner obtain a certified labor condition application (LCA) from the Department of Labor (DOL) 
in the occupational specialty in which the H-lB worker will be employed. 11 Additionally, a petitioner 
submits the LCA to the DOL to demonstrate that it will pay an H-lB 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 duties, experience, and qualifications. 12 
Section 10 I (a)( l 5)(H)(i)(b) of the Act defines an H-1 B nonimmigrant as a foreign national "who is 
coming temporarily to the United States to perform services ... in a specialty occupation described in 
section 214(i)(l) ... "(emphasis added). Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the 
term "specialty occupation" as an occupation that requires "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) provides that the 
proffered position must meet one of four criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation position. 13 Lastly, 
10 As this documentation is not under consideration, we will not address the deficiencies in each of the documents, which 
even if considered would be insufficient to establish the Beneficiary's qualifications. 
11 See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B). 
12 See section 212(n)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(n)(l)(A); 20 C.F.R. § 655.73l(a). 
13 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 C01p. 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"). 
3 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(J) states that an H-IB classification may be granted to a foreign national 
who "will perform services in a specialty occupation ... " ( emphasis added). 
Accordingly, to determine whether the Beneficiary will be employed in a specialty occupation, we 
look to the record to ascertain the services the Beneficiary will perform and whether such services 
require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge attained 
through at least a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty or its equivalent. Without 
sufficient evidence regarding the duties the Beneficiary will perform, we are unable to determine whether 
the Beneficiary will be employed in an occupation that meets the statutory and regulatory definitions of 
a specialty occupation and a position that also satisfies at least one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). The services the Beneficiary will perform in the position determine: (1) the normal 
minimum educational requirement for entry into the particular position, which is the focus of criterion 
l; (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, 
when 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. 14 
B. Analysis 
Upon review of the record in its totality, we conclude that the Petitioner has not adequately established 
the services the Beneficiary will perform, which precludes a determination that the proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation under sections 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(l), 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) and (iii)(A). 15 
The Petitioner initially provided a broad overview of the Beneficiary's proposed duties as a staff 
accountant. In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner provided a ten-bullet point list of tasks 
and an allocation of the Beneficiary's time to those tasks. The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary 
will spend 70 percent of her time performing the following: 
• Process / manage payroll & payroll taxes using QuickBooks software for over 50 
business clients within 6 different states. Payroll tax filing includes Federal/State 
Withholding Tax, & Federal/State Unemployment Tax [20%] 
• Prepare other returns such as Sales Tax, Quarter Tax Returns, Annual Reports and 
W2/W3 [20%] 
• Prepare individual and business tax returns which includes Form 1040, 1065,1120 
(including consolidated tax return), & 1120S, using ProSeries software [30%] 
The Petitioner does not explain why preparing tax returns and reports using readily available software 
requires a bachelor's degree in accounting or finance. Although the position will require some basic 
training in third-party accounting software to correctly input data, the record does not include 
14 See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
15 The Petitioner submitted documentation in the underlying record to support the H-lB petition, including evidence 
regarding the proffered position and its business. Although we may not discuss every document submitted, we have 
reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
probative evidence that this knowledge is gained through bachelor's-level study in a specific discipline 
rather than through certifications in the third-party software or experience in the industry. These duties 
do not provide sufficient insight into the level of complexity or demands associated with such duties 
or the specialized knowledge required to perform them. The redacted tax returns submitted as the 
Beneficiary's work product do not appear significantly complex but rather appear to be the product of 
commonly used software. That the Beneficiary may be required to input the data is not the question, 
rather it is whether performing these tasks require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. In this matter, the Petitioner has not established that the proposed work requires a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
Similarly, the allocation of the Beneficiary's remaining time does not include sufficient details 
regarding the nature and scope of the Beneficiary's employment or any evidence regarding the actual 
work that the Beneficiary would perform. The Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary will prepare 
general ledger entries and reconcile accounts, prepare monthly financial reports and profit and loss 
statements using Quick Books software, communicate with the IRS, meet with clients, answer 
accounting and financial questions by researching and interpreting data, draft audit reports, and 
provide tax and accounting related consulting services for corporations in China. These duties are not 
sufficiently detailed to distinguish them from bookkeeping tasks, or other administrative functions. 
The duties as described do not include sufficient information to conclude that the duties would require 
the theoretical and practical application of highly specialized knowledge and attainment of at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
Without a meaningfoljob description, the record lacks evidence sufficiently probative and informative 
to demonstrate that the proffered position requires a specialty occupation's level of knowledge in a 
specific specialty. Here, the job description does not communicate ( l) the actual work the Beneficiary 
would perform on a day-to-day basis; (2) the complexity, uniqueness and/or specialization of the tasks; 
or (3) the correlation between that work and a need for a particular level of education of highly 
specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. The duties are so broadly described we cannot ascertain 
either the application of knowledge needed to perform the position, or the occupation and wage level 
required. We have reviewed the totality of the record, including the Petitioner's business operations 
and organizational chart. The limited information in the record regarding the Beneficiary and her role 
and responsibility within the company is insufficient to conclude that more likely than not, the 
proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
Without sufficient evidence establishing the duties the Beneficiary will perform or the minimum degree 
required for entry into the occupation, we are unable to conclude that the Beneficiary will be employed 
in an occupation that meets the statutory and regulatory definitions of a specialty occupation and a 
position that also satisfies at least one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). For this additional 
reason, the petition may not be approved. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Upon review of the totality of the evidence submitted, the Petitioner has not established that the 
Beneficiary is qualified to perform services in a specialty occupation that would require a finance or 
accounting degree. Additionally, the record does not establish, that more likely than not, the proffered 
position is a specialty occupation under any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), or that the 
5 
Petitioner has satisfied the statutory and regulatory definitions of specialty occupation. The record 
here does not establish the Petitioner's or the Beneficiary's eligibility for this nonimmigrant visa 
benefit. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered an 
independent and alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's 
burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6