dismissed H-1B Case: Accounting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8997428 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 28, 2020 
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 
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-IB 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 of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the evidence of 
record does not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation . 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec . 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the 
questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Act defines an H-lB 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 
tenn "specialty occupation" as an occupation that requires "theoretical and practical application of a 
body of highly specialized know ledge, 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 . 1 Lastly, 
1 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must be read with the statutory and regulatory definitions ofa 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 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(I) states that an H-lB classification may be granted to a foreign national 
who "will pe1:form 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 Beneficiaiy will perfmm in the position dete1mine: (1) the nmmal 
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 nmmally 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. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
By regulation, the Director is charged with dete1mining whether the petition involves a specialty 
occupation as defined in section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(2). The Director 
may request additional evidence in the course of making this determination. 8 C.F .R. § 103.2(b )(8). 
In addition, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the petition and must continue to 
be eligible through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(6)(1). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a "staff accountant." In its initial letter submitted 
in support of the petition, the Petitioner described the duties and responsibilities of the proffered 
position as follows: 
In this capacity, [the Beneficiary] will provide timely, relevant and accurate reporting 
and analysis of the results of the division's performance against historical, budgeted, 
forecasted and strategic planning results to facilitate decision-making toward the 
achievement of the budget and strategic planning; cash reconciliation, payment date 
accounting, monthly reporting and report production, daily modeling, analysis and 
reporting and financial analysis; responsible for day to day general accounting and 
reconciliation, financial reporting and analysis for the assigned functional areas; 
maintain and develop various financial models and standard templates distributed for 
use by all of finance during the planning processes, ensuring quality, accuracy and 
focused analytic review. 
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"). 
2 
In its response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) and on appeal, the Petitioner states that 
the job duties can be categorized into the following areas:2 
• Budgeting and Forecasting/Accounting 
• Reporting 
• Service and Product Differentiations 
The Petitioner asserted that it requires a bachelor's degree m accounting, finance, business 
administration, or a related field for the proffered position. 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we conclude that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 3 
From the outset, we conclude that the claimed requirement of a bachelor's degree in business 
administration without further specialization is inadequate to establish that the proposed position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. 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 administration, without further 
specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 
I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). To prove that a job requires the theoretical and practical 
application of a body of highly specialized know ledge as required by section 214(i)(l) of the Act, a 
petitioner must establish that the position requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a 
specialized field of study or its equivalent. We interpret the degree requirement at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 2 l 4.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) to require a degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed 
position. Although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business administration, 
may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will 
not justify a conclusion that a particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. 
Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 14 7 (1st Cir. 2007). See also Irish Help at Home LLC v. 
Melville, 13-cv-00943-MEJ, 2015 WL 848977 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2015), ajf'd, 679 F. App'x 634 (9th 
Cir. 2017). For this reason alone, the proffered position is not a specialty occupation, and this petition 
cannot be approved. 
Even if we set this foundational deficiency aside, we would still conclude that the proffered position 
is not a specialty occupation, as the Petitioner has not sufficiently established the substantive nature 
of the proffered position such that we can discern whether the position actually requires the theoretical 
and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge attained through at least a 
baccalaureate degree in a specific discipline. If we cannot determine what the Beneficiary would 
2 We acknowledge that the Petitioner submitted additional information for the job duties, which, for the sake of brevity, 
have not been included herein. However, we have closely reviewed and considered them. 
3 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1B 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. 
3 
actually be doing, then we cannot ascertain the substantive nature of the proffered position, let alone 
determine whether it is a specialty occupation. 
On the labor condition application (LCA)4 submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Accountants and Auditors" 
cmresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 13-2011. According to THE 
U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Infmmation Network (O*NET), the core duties of 
accountants include "[a]nalyze financial information and prepare financial reports to determine or 
maintain record of assets, liabilities, profit and loss, tax liability, or other financial activities within an 
organization." 5 
However, many of the duties, although described in a general nature, appear to be in line with the 
general duties of the occupational category "Budget Analysts" corresponding to the SOC code 13-
2031.00. According to O*NET, the core duties of this categmy include "[e]xamine budget estimates 
for completeness, accuracy, and conformance with procedures and regulations. Analyze budgeting and 
accounting reports" 6 For instance, the proffered position's duties include "perform P&L variance 
analysis, provide detailed analysis and forward-looking impact of the current trend," "analyze all the 
operations and therefore translate the strategies into budgets," and "analyzing the volume and mix 
impact on margin and overall profitability of the company." These duties appear to be budget analyst 
duties. 
While the proffered pos1t10n includes other duties, which may be accounting duties, such as 
"developing tax plan," the record does not include sufficient evidence of what these duties actually 
entail. The generalized descriptions included in the record do not adequately convey any particular 
details regarding the demands, level of responsibilities, and requirements necessary for the 
performance of the duties. Such generalized information does not in itself establish a necessary 
cmrelation between any dimension of the proffered position and a need for a particular level of 
education, or educational equivalency, in a body of highly specialized knowledge in a specific 
specialty. For example, the Petitioner does not explain what the Beneficiary would be doing while 
she performs the duties of "general accounting and reconciliation" or "financial reporting and 
analysis." They are not sufficient to establish the actual, substantive nature of this position. 
Moreover, the Petitioner does not provide sufficient information with regard to the order of importance 
and/or frequency of occurrence (e.g., regularly, periodically, or at irregular intervals) with which the 
Beneficiary will perform the functions and tasks. Thus, the record does not specify which tasks are 
major functions of the proffered position. 
Further, the Petitioner provided copies of financial analysis reports "created by current or prior 
employees in similar positions" as the proffered position. However, we are unable to determine the 
4 A petitioner submits the LCA to 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, expe1ience, and qualifications. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655. 731 (a). 
5 O*NET Summary Repmi for "Accountants," https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/13-2011.01 (last visited July 22, 
2020). 
6 O*NET Summary Report for "Budget Analysts," https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/13-2031.00 (last visited July 
22, 2020). 
4 
level of complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position based on these documents alone. That is, 
the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained why the preparation of these documents require a 
baccalaureate ( or higher degree) in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
Finally, the Petitioner also claims that the Beneficiary is well qualified for the position and references 
her qualifications. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the 
education or experience of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. In order to establish that the position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation, the description must sufficiently describe the actual work the 
Beneficiary will perform, and the correlation between that work and the need for a particular level of 
knowledge in a specific specialty. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000) (a 
"common sense reading" of the regulations indicates an intention to fully implement the definition of 
"specialty occupation"). In this matter, the Petitioner provides a broad overview of the position and 
does not sufficiently substantiate the duties of the position. 
The Petitioner has not established the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the 
Beneficiary, which therefore precludes a conclusion 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, 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. For this additional reason, the petition cannot be approved. 
Accordingly, as the Petitioner has not established that it has satisfied 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. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The record does not demonstrate that the proffered position qualifies for classification as a specialty 
occupation. 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. 
5