dismissed H-1B Case: Accounting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 17852635 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : SEP. 15, 2021 
The Petitioner, an accounting firm, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "management 
analyst" under the H-lB 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-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 Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the evidence of record 
does not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. On appeal, the 
Petitioner contends that the Director erred. 
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 I&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 
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 .1 Lastly, 
1 8 C.F.R. § 2 l 4.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) must be read with the statutory and regulatory definitions of a specialty occupation under 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(]) states that an H-lB 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 
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. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a management analyst. The Petitioner provided two 
different job descriptions for the proffered position, which identified the primary duties and 
responsibilities of the Beneficiary. For the sake of brevity, we will not quote the job descriptions; 
however, we have closely reviewed and considered them. 
A. Specialty Occupation 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not established that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, 
commensurate with a specialty occupation. 2 We arrive at this conclusion on the basis of three separate 
determinations: that the Petitioner (1) has offered inconsistent information regarding the position's 
minimum entry requirements; (2) has not established that the proffered position requires a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent; and (3) has not established the substantive nature of 
the proffered position. 
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 Cmp. 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 The Petitioner submitted documentation to suppmt the H-lB 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. 
2 
1. Inconsistent Minimum Requirements 
At the outset of our analysis we observe that the Petitioner has offered inconsistent minimum entry 
requirements for the proffered position. At times, the Petitioner indicates that the proffered position 
requires at least a bachelor's degree in business, management, or related field. The record also 
indicates that the Petitioner considers a bachelor's degree in international business to be a qualifying 
field of study. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that a minimum of a bachelor's degree in business, 
management, or a related field is required. In the Petitioner's response to the Director's request for 
evidence (RFE), the Petitioner wrote that "[a]s a Management Analyst with an international business 
background in addition to his acquired expertise and specialized knowledge, his duties are .... "), thus 
it appears that the actual duties performed by the Beneficiary require an unspecified number of years 
of experience. 3 Finally, the Petitioner's RFE response, confusingly stated "[t]he SOC of Management 
Analyst may not have a degree that is specifically necessary ... but for the Beneficiary's ... position 
a business or management degree is necessary. This is based on ... the Petitioner is a Salesforce 
implementation company." At no other point in the record does the Petitioner describe itself as a 
"Salesforce implementation company" nor does the Petitioner explain how this fact would require the 
holder of the position to have a degree in a specific specialty. 
The Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies in the record with independent, objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). These are 
material inconsistencies, and unresolved material inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the 
reliability and sufficiency of other evidence submitted in support of the requested immigration benefit. 
Id. 
We cannot determine a proffered position's actual minimum entry requirements if a petitioner does 
not describe them consistently. 4 We therefore cannot conclude that the position proffered here is a 
specialty occupation, and for this reason alone the appeal therefore must be dismissed and the petition 
denied. 
2. Lack of a Requirement for a Bachelor's Degree in a Specific Specialty, or the Equivalent 
Though the Petitioner has not described the proffered position's minimum entry requirements 
consistently, it has stated repeatedly that a bachelor's degree in business, or the equivalent, would 
suffice. Thus, as a result of the Petitioner's own stated requirements, the proffered position does not 
meet the statutory and regulatory definitions of the term "specialty occupation." As noted, both 
definitions require the Petitioner to demonstrate that the proffered position requires: (1) the theoretical 
and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge; and (2) the attainment of a 
bachelor's degree in the spec[fic specialty. The record of proceedings demonstrates neither. 
The Petitioner states that an individual with a bachelor's degree in business, with no further 
specialization, would prepare an individual to perform the duties of the proffered position. This 
precludes a determination that the position involves a "body of highly specialized knowledge" or that 
3 As we will discuss later in this decision, this potential requirement for an unspecified amount of work experience also 
calls into question whether the labor condition application (LCA) corresponds to and supports the H-lB petition, as 
required. 
4 This inconsistency also raises significant questions as to the position's actual, substantive nature. 
3 
it requires the attainment of a bachelor's degree in a "specific specialty." The First Circuit Court of 
Appeals explained in Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147, that: 
The courts and the agency consistently have stated that, although a general-purpose 
bachelor's degree, such as a business administration degree, may be a legitimate 
prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not 
justify the granting of a petition for an H-1B specialty occupation visa. See, e.g., Tapis 
Int '! v. INS, 94 F.Supp.2d 172, 175-76 (D. Mass. 2000); Shanti, 36 F. Supp. 2d at 1164-
66; cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I & &N Dec. 558, 560 ([Comm'r] 1988) 
(providing frequently cited analysis in connection with a conceptually similar 
provision) . This is as it should be: elsewise, an employer could ensure the granting of 
a specialty occupation visa petition by the simple expedient of creating a generic (and 
essentially artificial) degree requirement. 5 
The record therefore satisfies neither the statutory nor the regulatory definitions of the term "specialty 
occupation." 
5 Id. But see India House, Inc. v. McAleenan , 449 F. Supp. 3d 4, 2020 WL 1479519 (D.R.l. 2020) . In India House the 
court distinguished Royal Siam on factual grounds but did not dispute its central reasoning: that a position whose duties 
can be fulfilled by an individual with a general-purpose bachelor 's degree in business is not a specialty occupation. Instead , 
it distinguished Royal Siam on factual grounds. Here, the Petitioner specifically recognizes an unspecialized bachelor's 
degree in business as being one of the degrees it considers as providing an adequate preparation to perform the duties of 
the proffered position . 
The agency has longstanding concerns regarding general-purpose bachelor 's degrees in business or business administration 
with no additional specialization. For example, in Matter of Ling, 13 I. & N. Dec. 35 (Reg'! Comm'r 1968), the agency 
stated that attainment of a bachelor 's degree in business administration alone was insufficient to qualify a foreign nation al 
as a member of the professions pursuant to section 10l(a)(32) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(32) . Twenty years later, the 
agency looked to the nature of the position itself and clarified that a requirement for a degree with a generalized title, such 
as business administration , without further specification, was insufficient to qualify the position as one that is profession al 
pursuant to section 10l(a)(32) of the Act. Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. at 560. See also Matter of Caron Int '/, 
Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988) (vice president for manufacturing in a textile company was not a professional 
position because individual holding general degree in business, engineering or science could perform its duties). 
Congress created the modern H-lB program as part of the Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649, 104 Stat. 4978. 
In doing so, it pivoted away from the prior H-1 standard of whether a position was "professional." Instead , petitioners 
were now required to demonstrate that a proffered position qualified as a "specialty occupation." Section 
IO I ( a)( l 5)(H)(i)(b) of the Act. In the final rule setting forth the requirements for the revamped H-1 B program , the agency, 
responding to commenters suggesting that the proposed regulatory "specific specialty" requirement "was too severe and 
would exclude certain occupations from classifications as specialty occupations ," stated that "[t]he definition of specialty 
occupation contained in the statute contains this requirement." Temporary Alien Workers Seeking Classification Under 
the Immigration and Nationality Act, 56 Fed. Reg. 61111, 61112 (Dec. 2, 1991). 
The agency's concerns regarding a general-purpose , non-specific degree in business , or business administration, continued 
under the revamped H-lB program . See, e.g., Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151 (D. Minn. 1999); Royal Siam , 484 
F.3d at 147; 2233 Paradise Road, LLC v. Cissna, No. l 7- cv- 01018- APG- VCF, 2018 WL 3312967 (D. Nev. , July 3, 
2018); XiaoTong Liu v. Baran, No. 18-00376-NS , 2018 WL 7348851 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 21 , 2018); Parzenn Partners v. 
Baran, No . 19-cv-11515-ADB, 2019 WL 6130678 (D. Mass., Nov . 19, 2019) ; Vision Builders, LLC v. USCIS, No. 19-
3159, 20 WL 5891546 , at *4 (D.D.C. Oct. 5, 2020). 
To the extent the Petitioner is arguing that a bachelor's degree in business , with no further specialization ( or the equivalent), 
is a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, then consistent with agency history and federal case law, we must disagree . 
4 
As the Petitioner has not met the threshold requirement of satisfying the statutory and regulatory 
definitions of the term "specialty occupation," it cannot satisfy any of the supplemental specialty­
occupation criteria enumerated at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4) because, again, we must 
consider those criteria in harmony with the thrust of the related regulatory provisions and with the 
statute as a whole. In other words, we must construe those criteria's references to the term "degree" 
as meaning not just any baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly 
related to the proffered position. 6 For example, the Petitioner cannot satisfy the supplemental 
specialty-occupation criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l) because even if it establishes, in the 
words of this criterion, that "a baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the 
minimum requirement for entry into the particular position," we would still 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 proffered position. And as discussed above, the Petitioner would not be able to make 
that demonstration. 
The same would be true of the remaining three criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2)-( 4): because 
the Petitioner does not require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, it would 
not be able to satisfy any of those criteria because we would interpret each reference to a "degree" to 
mean not just any baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related 
to the proffered position. We therefore will not consider the Petitioner's arguments, and the evidence 
it submits, in support of its contention that it satisfies the supplemental specialty-occupation criteria 
enumerated at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4). 
The record of proceedings does not establish that the proffered position requires both: (1) the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge; and (2) the attainment 
of a bachelor's degree in the specific specialty. The Petitioner, therefore, has satisfied neither the 
statutory definition of a "specialty occupation" at section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act nor the regulatory 
definition of a specialty occupation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). As the Petitioner had not satisfied 
that threshold requirement, it cannot satisfy any of the supplemental specialty-occupation criteria 
enumerated at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4). The Petitioner, therefore, has not established that 
the proffered position is a specialty occupation. For this additional reason, the petition cannot be 
approved. 
3. Substantive Nature 
Finally, even if we were to set the deficiencies discussed above aside, we would still be unable to 
conclude that the proffered position is a specialty occupation because the Petitioner has not established 
the substantive nature of the position. At the outset, we incorporate here by reference our previous 
discussion of the Petitioner's inconsistent iterations of the position's minimum entry requirements. 
Inconsistencies on such a foundational matter raise significant questions as to the position's actual, 
substantive nature. 
6 Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147; Caremax, 40 F.Supp.3d at 1187-88; Payjoy v. Cuccinelli, No. 19-cv-03977-HSG, 2019 
WL 3207839 at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2019) (statutory and regulatory text appear to support USCIS 's interpretation that 
the degree requirement must be read in conjunction with the "specific specialty" requirement). 
5 
Next, the Petitioner provided a list of (initially) six and then ten job duties but did not allocate what 
percentage of time the Beneficiary would devote to each one. As such, we are unable to determine 
which of the listed duties to which the Beneficiary will primarily devote his time. This omission 
creates ambiguity regarding the position's key tasks and leads to ambiguity regarding the substantive 
nature of the position. The initial set of duties included six duties, which are ambiguous and lack 
detail. 7 In addition, the Petitioner initially couches the duties of the position by describing that the 
position will "specialize in logo business management to help farther develop strategies and 
understand our clients' business needs." 8 In the Petitioner's response to the request for evidence (RFE 
response), the Petitioner listed ten duties, five of which focus on the real estate market, and no 
explanation was provided for this change of focus from logo business to the real estate market. 9 
Furthermore, on appeal the Petitioner omits any mention of real estate when it describes that the 
position's general overview is focused on providing small and medium sized businesses with business 
consulting, financial analysis, and tax preparation as well as assisting Latin American companies 
seeking to relocate to the U.S. by providing financial accounting and tax services. These 
inconsistencies prevent us from discerning the substantive nature of the proffered position because we 
can not ascertain what the position will be focused on and whether it is specialty occupation caliber 
work. 
In addition, there is ambiguity in the record regarding the overall business operations that the Petitioner 
engages in. For example, the Petitioner does not provide an organizational chart to establish where 
the proffered position fits within the Petitioner's business operations. The record is also unclear as to 
who the proffered position is aimed at serving. The Petitioner appears to explain that the position 
focuses on providing services to client's outside the Petitioner's business operations whereas other 
duties focus the position on assisting the Petitioner in providing services internally to improve its 
human resources, recruiting, structure, and efficiency. 10 The Petitioner provides printouts of its 
business website, 11 which appear to show that its main business operations are providing financial 
analysis, business consulting, tax preparation, payroll solutions, and bookkeeping. With the exception 
of business consulting, none of the Petitioner's other main services are the focus of a management 
analyst's work. Moreover, the business consulting section of the Petitioner's website reiterates that 
its consulting practices provides financial analysis, tax preparation, bookkeeping, and payroll solutions 
once the client's company settles in the Texas area. 12 Based on a review of this evidence, we are 
unable to ascertain the focus of the Petitioner's business operations. Overall, the lack of clarity as to 
7 For example, the initial duties included: "Advise on business operations and activities including matters related to 
recruiting, operations, sales, marketing, personnel reduction, and HR solutions." The broad range of activities and duties 
encompassed in this generic duty leaves open the question of what, on a day to day basis, the Beneficiary will be required 
to perform. 
8 See the Petitioner May 21, 2020 letter. 
9 See the Petitioner November 17, 2020 letter. 
10 The Petitioner's May 2L 2020 letter explains that the position is focused on assisting clients once they have settled in 
the U.S. from overseas by providing "strategic recommendations for their operating solutions ... ". However. two duties: 
(1) reviewing, formulating and suggesting new policies and procedures for the real estate area of the company and 
restructuring current policies and procedures considered inefficient in order to improve efficiency in the field; and (2) 
determining whether the company's management is properly resolving any problems or potential problems with clients 
and meeting with and convening with clients to discuss preferences and needs, appear focused on improving the 
Petitioner's operations. The confusion and lack of clarity regarding the actual duties of the position creates ambiguity in 
the record re ardin the substantive nature of the position. 
11 See https: / last visited Se tember 13, 2021). 
12 
See https: ~--------------~ (last visited September 13, 2021). 
6 
the Petitioner's overall business operations and how the Beneficiary's position fits into them, leads to 
ambiguity regarding the substantive nature of the position, which precludes us from evaluating 
whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation under the regulatory and statutory authority. 
On appeal, the Petitioner mentions a job duty chart several times. However, there is no job duty chart 
in the record. Instead, the Petitioner's November 17, 2020 letter contains a list of bulleted duties on 
pages 5 and 6. Each bulleted duty contains a generic description (for example, "Advice in matters 
related to: recruiting, operations, sales, marketing, personnel reduction, among other") and then an 
explanatory paragraph ( or two) describing what the generic duty entails. We note that throughout the 
bulleted list, the position is referred to as a "management consultant" as opposed to a "management 
analyst," which creates ambiguity in the record regarding the substantive nature of the position. While 
a management consultant and a management analyst may have overlapping duties, the Petitioner's 
bulleted list also includes reference to the Beneficiary as a woman (for example, "As a management 
consultant she ... "), thus it appears as though the bulleted list may have been copied from another 
document and does not represent a true and accurate account of what the Beneficiary is being tasked 
to do. 
The Petitioner has submitted inconsistent descriptions and insufficient evidence concerning the 
proposed position. These deficiencies create ambiguity regarding the actual 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). This is material 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. 
Upon review of the totality of the record, we cannot ascertain the focus of the Petitioner's business 
operations, the Beneficiary's actual assignment for the validity period requested, his actual day-to-day 
duties, or whether those duties encompass specialty occupation work. Accordingly, the record does 
not establish that the duties of the proposed position satisfy the statutory and regulatory definitions of 
a specialty occupation. 
B. LCA does not appear to correspond to the Petition 13 
On the LCA submitted in support of the H-1 B petition, the Petitioner designated the proffered position 
13 The LCA serves as the critical mechanism for enforcing section 212(n)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 182(n)(l). See Labor 
Condition Applications and Requirements for Employers Using Nonimmigrants on H-lB Visas in Specialty Occupations 
and as Fashion Models; Labor Certification Process for Permanent Employment of Aliens in the United States, 65 Fed. 
Reg. 80,110, 80,110-11 (proposed Dec. 20, 2000) (to be codified at 20 C.F.R. pts. 655-56) (indicating that the wage 
protections in the Act seek "to protect U.S. workers' wages and eliminate any economic incentive or advantage in hiring 
temporary foreign workers" and that this "process of protecting U.S. workers begins with [the filing of an LCA] with 
[DOL ]."). According to section 2 l 2(n)( I )(A) of the Act, an employer must attest that it will pay a holder of an H-1 B visa 
7 
under the occupational category "Management Analysts," corresponding to the Standard Occupational 
Classification (SOC) code 13-1111. The Petitioner's evidence suggests that the wage level on the 
LCA is inaccurate and that therefore, the LCA does not correspond to the petition. 
The Petitioner designated the position at a Level I wage. Under the DOL's guidance, which provides 
a five-step process for determining the appropriate wage level for LCAs, 14 step four focuses on 
"Special Skills and Other Requirements." 15 Here, a review of the tasks, work activities, knowledge, 
and job zone examples in the O*NET report for "Management Analysts" does not reveal any foreign 
language-related aspects. 16 However, the record suggests that the proffered position could only be 
performed by an individual with foreign language fluency (specifically, Spanish). The job duty 
requiring the Beneficiary to "confer with management to ensure changes for the clients are working," 
which is farther developed to explain that "[ o ]nee a client is settled in the U.S. . . . [ the Beneficiary] 
will provide strategic, unbiased and objective advisory and consulting services which assist clients in 
improving productivity and overall performance ... ". This duty suggests that the Beneficiary will 
provide consultancy to the Petitioner's clients prior to their relocation to the U.S. and upon relocation. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner's website makes clear that its client services are provided to companies in 
Spanish and Portuguese speaking countries. 17 As a result, it appears more likely than not that the 
Petitioner should also have increased the wage level on the LCA due to a foreign language requirement 
in its position. 
Additionally, the Petitioner's evidence highlights the Beneficiary's "15 years of relevant work 
experience, handling multiple business development activities ... ," which, as stated above, confuses 
the minimum qualifications for the position and suggests that the Level I wage on the LCA is too low 
to account for the level of responsibility required by the proffered position. We do not have an 
organizational chart or other evidence to show the position's level of responsibility within the 
Petitioner's business structure, however it appears that the Beneficiary's 15 years of experience are 
required in order to perform this role. In general, a position requiring a bachelor's degree and 15 years 
the higher of the prevailing wage in the "area of employment" or the amount paid to other employees with similar 
experience and qualifications who are performing the same services. See 20 C.F.R. § 655.731 (a); Venkatraman v. REI 
Sys., Inc., 417 F.3d 418, 422 & n.3 (4th Cir. 2005); Patel v. Boghra, 369 F. App'x 722, 723 (7th Cir. 201 O); Michal 
Vojtisek-Lom & Adm 'r Wage & Hour Div. v. Clean Air Tech. Int'/, Inc., No. 07-97, 2009 WL 2371236, at *8 (Dep't of 
Labor Admin. Rev. Bd. July 30, 2009). 
14 See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. 
Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
https://www.flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised_ 11 _ 2009 .pdf. 
15 Step 4 provides the following instrnctions, "[i]n situations where the employer's requirements are not listed in the O*NET 
[Occupational Information Network] Tasks, Work Activities, Knowledge, and Job Zone Examples for the selected 
occupation, then the requirements should be evaluated to determine if they represent special skills." If the skills required 
for the job are generally encompassed by the O*NET position description, no wage level point should be added to the 
prevailing wage rate. The guidance continues "[h ]owever, if it is determined that the requirements are indicators of skills 
that are beyond those of an entry level worker, consider whether a point should be entered on the worksheet in the Wage 
Level Column." 
16 See O*NET summary report for: 13-1111.00 Management Analysts, O*NET Online, 
https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/13-l 111.00 (last visited September 13, 2021 ). 
17 See The Petitioner's website at https:/A I (last visited September 13 2021 ). The Petitioner's 
website states "rwle are a comnanv that snecializes in offerimr business solutions forl 
l By doing so we will be able to generate jobs in the state Texas." 
8 
of work experience is not properly designated as a Level I position. 18 As such, the combination of 
the foreign language requirement and the responsibility required by the position would appear to 
necessitate a wage level wage increase. 
We note, too, that the job postings 19 provided by the Petitioner to establish that "parallel positions" 
require minimum educational credentials commiserate with a specialty occupation, indicate that these 
positions also require several years of experience, which also indicates that the wage level on the LCA 
is too low and that thus, the LCA does not correspond to the petition. 
For all of these reasons, the record as it currently stands does not appear to establish that the LCA 
corresponds to and supports the H-1 B petition. 20 
C. Other considerations 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the holding in Innova Sols., Inc. v. Baran, 983 F.3d 428 (9th Cir. 
2020) supports a finding that the position is a specialty occupation under the first criterion of 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Specifically, the Petitioner cites to the Handbook's entry for Management 
Analysts, which states that "[m]anagement analysts typically need at least a bachelor's degree ... "21 
and argues that the Innova Sols., Inc. court's ruling supports finding the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation. 22 The Petitioner's reliance on the holding in Innova Sols., Inc. however is 
misplaced because the substantive nature of the proffered position was not an issue in that case, as it 
is in this case. An analysis of whether the Petitioner's position qualifies as a specialty occupation 
under the Innova Sols., Inc. standard would be premature, since the Petitioner has not established the 
position's actual, substantive nature. In other words, we are unable to determine whether the 
Handbook's entry for Management Analysts is even relevant. Thus, we decline to evaluate the petition 
under the standard set out in Innova Sols., Inc. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Upon review of the totality of the evidence submitted, we conclude that the Petitioner has not 
established the substantive nature of the position, which precludes us from determining if the position 
is a specialty occupation under any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Moreover, the 
record does not establish that the Petitioner satisfied the statutory and regulatory definitions of 
specialty occupation because it's minimum qualification requirements are too general. Finally, the 
record does not establish that the LCA supports the petition. 
18 See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. 
Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
https://www.flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised_ 1 l _ 2009 .pdt: pages 6-7. 
19 The Petitioner's submitted job postings require a range of experience from 2 to 5 years in addition to the bachelor's 
degree in education. 
20 It also raises yet more questions as to the actual, substantive nature of the position. 
21 See https://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/management-analysts.htm (last visited September 13, 2021 ). 
22 The Innova Sols., Inc. comt ruling rested on whether the Handbook's entry for Computer Programmer occupation 
qualified as a specialty occupation. Specifically, the comi found that the regulatory requirement that a position normally 
requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent is met when the Handbook's entry states that an 
occupation typically requires a bachelor's degree because normally and typically are synonymous terms. 
9 
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. 
10