dismissed H-1B Case: Accounting

MATTER OF SMJC-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 14,2017 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a four-employee construction company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as 
an "accountant" under the H -1 B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition. The Petitioner appealed the denial, 
which we dismissed finding that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The matter is before us on a motion to reconsider and motion to reopen. In its combined motions, 
the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that our decision was erroneous. We will deny 
the motions. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A motion to reopen is based on documentary evidence of new facts, and a motion to reconsider is 
based on an incorrect application of law or policy. The requirements of a motion to reopen are 
located at 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.5(a)(2), and the requirements of a motion to reconsider are located at 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates 
eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
II. ANALYSIS 
Upon review, we find that the Petitioner's documents and assertions on motion do not demonstrate 
eligibility for the benefit sought. 
Under the specialty occupation criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J), the Petitioner disagrees 
with our determination that its acceptance of a general purpose business administration degree, 
without further concentration, indicates that the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. The 
.
Matter ofSMJC- , Inc. 
Petitioner claims that, first, it never made such a statement, and second, that business administration 
degrees are not general degrees. 
In its job advertisement , the Petitioner listed the educational requirements of the proffered position as 
a "bachelor's degree in accounting or business administration." Similarly, in its initial letter of 
support, the Petitioner stated that the proffered position requires "a baccalaureate degree -in 
Accounting, Business Administration or closely related field." Despite the Petitioner's claim that "it 
is clear that the Petitioner expects a business administration degree to be ' clearly related ' to an 
accounting degree," these documents d!d not clearly state such a qualification or otherwise explain 
that the business administration degree must be in any specific concentration. 
We are not persuaded by the Petitioner's contention that business administration degrees are 
specialized degrees. In support of this assertion, the Petitioner submits program descriptions from 
the websites of multiple colleges that offer bachelor's degrees in business administration.
1 
However, 
thesematerials support our determination that business administration degrees are typically general­
purpose degrees. For instance, the website for indicates that its 
business administration program "helps adults achieve college-level competence in business and the 
arts and sciences." This particular business administration degree encompasses many wide-ranging 
areas of study including accounting, healthcare management, human resources/organizational 
management, and marketing. Similarly, the description from indicates that its 
business administration program requires coursework "in both business and the liberal arts," and 
offers functional concentrations in . wide-ranging areas of study including accounting, law, 
management information systems, and marketing. Even the print-out from - where 
the Beneficiary obtained his degree - states that its bachelor of business administration program 
consists of three majors (finance, international business, and actuarial studies) "pursued within the 
strong liberal arts education required of all students at 2 Thus, while we 
acknowledge that business administration degree programs may vary among schools, these submitted 
materials nevertheless indicate that business administration degrees typically encompass disparate 
fields of study, and as such, are properly considered general-purpose degrees. See Royal Siam Corp. 
v. Cherto_ff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (acknowledging a business administration degree as 
"a general-purpose bachelor's degree"). 
Under the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) and (4), the Petitioner asserts that the 
"extensive documentation offered as evidence of the job duties to be performed " should distinguish 
this position from a bookkeeper position and demonstrate that the proffered position is more 
complex, unique, or specialized than other positions that can be performed by persons without at 
least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. On motion the Petitioner 
1 
The Petitioner points out that these schools offer bachelor of science - not bachelor of arts - degrees , but does not 
explain the significance of this distinction. 
2 
To clarify , we consider the nature of degree program only to the extent that it exemplifies, along with 
other record evidence , a typical business administration degree program. 
2 
Matter of SMJC-, Inc. 
supplements the record with additional examples of the Beneficiary's work products (e.g., bidding 
proposals, construction cost estimates, and invoices). 
From the evidence of record, we remain unpersuaded that the Beneficiary's job duties are all 
accounting duties of specialty occupation caliber. For one, the record reflects that the Beneficiary is 
responsible for performing all financial functionS', including lower functions such as invoicing, 
expenditures, accounts payable, accounts receivable, and billing. The Petitioner is a four-employee 
construction company and stated, for example, that "[ w ]ith [the Beneficiary] taking charge of all our 
financial matters, the rest of our company can spend the spare time on other urgent matters such as 
negotiating contracts and overseeing construction sites." The Petitioner also stated that the 
Beneficiary's work "involves issuing receipts and payments to all of[its] workers," "calculating and 
issuing of invoices," and "mak[ing] the appropriate adjustments to the receipts for our 
subcontractors." We find that these duties are non-qualifying bookkeeping or junior accounting 
functions that can be performed by persons without at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. 
Additionally, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how the Beneficiary's duties of calculating 
construction costs and putting together construction bidding proposals require at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. To this end the Petitioner simply states that these 
tasks require "a basic understanding in accounting and mathematics . . . [and] in database 
management." This explanation still does not explain such aspects as how an established curriculum 
of courses leading up to a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is 
necessary to perform those duties. 
Even if the Beneficiary's non-qualifying duties comprise "a minor component of job duties" as the 
Petitioner contends, there is no provision in the law for specialty occupations that permits the 
performance of non-qualifying duties. While we view the performance of duties that are incidenta13 
to the primary duties of the proffered position as acceptable when they are unpredictable, 
intermittent, and of a minor nature, anything beyond such incidental duties (e.g., predictable, 
recurring, and substantive job responsibilities) must be specialty occupation duties or the proffered 
position as a whole cannot be approved as a specialty occupation. Considering the Petitioner's 
operations and job descriptions, these non-qualifying duties are not incidental duties that we can 
overlook. 
Further, the record still does not distinguish the proffered position as unique from or more complex 
than other junior accounting positions. That is, the Petitioner has not reconciled the Level I wage 
rate that it selected on the labor condition application with its claims about the position's "highly 
specialized and complex duties." In particular, the Petitioner explains that it did not choose a Level 
II (or higher) wage level because the proffered position does not require "some special skills," and 
3 
The two definitions of "incidental" in Webster's New College Dictionary are "I. Occurring or apt to occur as an 
unpr~dictable or minor concomitant ... [and] 2. Of a minor, casual, or subordinate nature .... " Incidental, Webster's 
New College Dictionary (3d ed. 2008). . 
3 
.
Matter of SMJC-, Inc. 
submits its completed wage level worksheet showing that it entered "0" for Step 4, "Special Skills 
and Other Requirements." However, this explanation conflicts with earlier statements the Petitioner 
made about the proffered position, such as that "this position requires one to perform a specialized 
set of tasks not available to other accountants" and that "[its] accountant position requires one to go 
one step further than a normal accountant and engage in financial analytics."4 
Under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3), the Petitioner relies on the Beneficiary's 
transcript from However, this evidence is insufficient to demonstrate the 
Petitioner's normal employment practices for the proffered position, which is the focus of this 
particular criterion. As indicated in our prior decision, without evidence of the Petitioner's 
previously employed accountants, if any, there is no metric to demonstrate the Petitioner's normal 
employment requirements for this position. 
The Petitioner also references the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook 
(Handbook) as establishing that "the proffered position of accountant is more often than not a 
specialty occupation." There is no further explanation of this statement and the Handbook's 
applicability to this particular criterion. 
Overall, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation, and accordingly, that we erred in dismissing its appeal. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the requirements for a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter o.fSMJC-, Inc., ID# 606918 (AAO Aug. 14, 2017) 
4 
The Petitioner disputes our finding that th~ Beneficiary will perform financial analyst job duties, claiming that "the 
proffered position does not involve any investments and securities." But we note that the Petitioner's initial job 
description stated that the Beneficiary will spend 20% of his time on "financial analysis," including the specific duty of 
"maximizing return on invested funds." 
4