dismissed H-1B Case: Accounting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF G-&G-1-, INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 9, 2016 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a convenience store, seeks to extend the Beneficiary's temporary employment as an 
accountant under the H-1B 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-1B 
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, Vermont Service Center, denied the petitiOn. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish that the job offered qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 
(B) 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 this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
Matter ofG-&G-1-, Inc. 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that 
knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has consistently 
interpreted the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any 
baccalaureat~ or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed 
position. See Royal 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"); Defonsor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000): 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
In the H-IB petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as an accountant. In the 
support letter, the Petitioner provided the following job duties for the position: 
• Compiling and analyzing financial information and preparing financial reports by 
applying principles of generally accepted accounting standards; 
• Preparing entries and reconciling general ledger accounts, documenting 
transactions, and summarizing current and projected financial position; 
• Setting up policies and procedures and implementing safeguards in check cashing 
operations to minimize financial losses and preparing entries and reconciling 
general ledger; 
• Auditing orders, contracts, individual transactions and preparing depreciation 
schedules to apply to capital assets; 
• Preparing compliance reports for taxing authorities; and, Analyzing operating 
statements, review cost control programs, and make strategy recommendations to 
management. 
According to the Petitioner, the position requires "a skilled professional with a Bachelor's degree in 
Business Administration, Accounting, Finance, or a related field." 
2 
Matter ofG-&G-1-, Inc. 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 1 
Specifically, the record (1) does not describe the position's duties with sufficient detail; and (2) does 
not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate 
with a specialty occupation. 2 
A. First Criterion 
We tum first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J), which requires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. To inform this inquiry, we recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's 
(DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses.3 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-1B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Accountants and Auditors" 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 13-2011.4 
We reviewed the chapter of the Handbook entitled "Accountants and Auditors," including the 
sections regarding the typical duties and requirements for this occupational category. However, the 
Handbook does not indicate that "Accountants and Auditors" comprise an occupational group for 
1 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 B 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 All of our references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do n~t, however, maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant 
information. That is, the occupational category designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the 
general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered position, and USC IS regularly reviews the Handbook on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. To satisfy the first criterion, however, the 
burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position 
would normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
4 The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level I wage (the lowest of four assignable wage levels). We will 
consider this selection in our analysis of the position. The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" issued by 
the DOL provides a description of the wage levels. A Level I wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which 
the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding ofthe occupation. This wage rate indicates: (1) that 
the Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that he 
will be closely supervised and his work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that he will receive 
specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing 
Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _11_ 2009.pdf A prevailing wage determination starts 
with an entry level wage and progresses to a higher wage level after considering the. experience, education, and skill 
requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. /d. 
3 
-------·- -------
Matter ofG-&G-1-, Inc. 
which at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the occupation. 
The subchapter of the Handbook entitled "How to Become an Accountants or Auditor" states the 
following about this occupational category: 
Most accountant and auditor positions require at least a bachelor's degree in 
accounting or a related field. Some employers prefer to hire applicants who have a 
master's degree, either in accounting or in business administration with a 
concentration in accounting. 
A few universities and colleges offer specialized programs, such as a bachelor's 
degree in internal auditing. In some cases, those with associate's degrees, as well as 
bookkeepers and accounting clerks who meet the education and experience 
requirements set by their employers, get junior accounting positions and advance to 
accountant positions by showing their accounting skills on the job. 
The Handbook does not indicate that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into this occupation. Rather, _the 
occupation accommodates other paths for entry, including less than a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty. While the Handbook states that most accountants and auditors need at least a bachelor's 
degree in accounting or a related field, it does not indicate that such a degree is a normal minimum 
requirement. Specifically, the Handbook states that those with associate's degrees as well as 
bookkeepers and accounting clerks who meet the education and experience requirements set by their 
employers obtain junior accounting positions and advance to accountant positions by showing their 
accounting skills on the job. Accordingly, individuals who have less than a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, can obtain junior accounting positions and advance to accountant 
positions. Furthermore, the Handbook does not indicate that the education and experience 
requirements set by the employers must be the equivalent to at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty. 
Thus, the Handbook does not support the claim that the occupational category of accountants is one 
for which normally the minimum requirement for entry is a baccalaureate degree (or higher) in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. Even if it did (which it does not), the record lacks sufficient 
evidence to support a finding that the particular position proffered here (an entry-level accountant 
position relative to others within the occupation- as indicated on the LCA), would normally have 
such a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent. 
Furthermore, there are several inconsistencies in the job duties that will be performed by the 
Beneficiary. For example, on appeal, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary supervises individuals 
who perform routine bookkeeping services. However, the submitted organizational chart indicates 
that the Petitioner employs a president, manager, assistant retail manager, and two cashier/clerks, in 
addition to the Beneficiary. Thus, it is not clear who performs bookkeeping services. In addition, 
the organizational chart is notconsistent with the Form 941, Quarterly Wage Report, for the third 
4 
Matter ofG-&G-1-, Inc. 
quarter of 2015 that indicates four employees rather than six, and the Form I -129 that states the 
Petitioner employs three individuals. Also on appeal, the Petitioner states that it is "engaged in the 
business of purchasing convenience stores and other retail sales operations," and the Beneficiary will 
advise management in financial investment decisions and investment strategies. However, the 
Petitioner did not provide any documentation evidencing that it is expanding or investing in other 
operations. "[l]t is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve the inconsistencies by independent 
objective evidence." Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). Any attempt to explain or 
reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective 
evidence pointing to where the truth lies. !d. at 591-92. 
The Petitioner also provided inconsistent educational requirements for the proffered position. For 
example, the Petitioner in the support letter stated that the minimum requirement for the proffered 
position is a "skilled professional with a Bachelor's degree in Business Administration, Accounting, 
Finance, or a related field." However, on appeal, the Petitioner states several times that a 
"Bachelor's degree in Business Administration or the equivalent provides the student with the core 
competencies and skills needed for an Accountant position with the responsibilities listed above." 
The Petitioner's claim that a bachelor's degree in business administration is a sufficient minimum 
requirement for entry into the proffered position 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 Matter of 
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 
knowledge 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. As discussed supra, USCIS interprets the degree requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(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 finding that a particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. 
' 5 Royal Siam Corp. v. Chert off, 484 F .3d at 14 7. 
5 Specifically, the judge 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-1 8 specialty 
occupation visa. See, e.g., Tapis lnt 'I 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., 191 & &N Dec. 558,560 ([Comm'r] 1988) 
(providing frequently cited analysis in connection with a conceptually similar provision). This is as it 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter ofG-&G-1-, Inc. 
Again, the Petitioner in this matter claims that the duties of the proffered position can be performed 
by an individual with only a general-purpose bachelor's degree, i.e., a bachelor's degree in business 
administration. Without more, this assertion alone indicates that the proffered position is not in fact 
a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner also referenced O*NET to indicate the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
The O*NET states that most accountant occupations require a four-year bachelor's degree, and this 
occupation falls in the Job Zone Four which requires considerable preparation needed. However, 
O*NET OnLine is insufficient to establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. Infact, O*NET does not state a requirement for a bachelor's degree. Specifically, it 
assigns this occupation a Job Zone "Four" rating, which groups it among occupations of which 
"most," but not all, "require a four-year 
bachelor's degree." Further, O*NET does not indicate that 
four-year bachelor's degrees required by Job Zone Four occupations must be in a specific specialty 
directly related to the occupation. Therefore, O*NET information is not probative evidence to 
establish thatthe proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
In support of the H-IB petition, the Petitioner also submitted a letter from PhD, 
"presently serving as an Ad Hoc Reviewer for the section of the 
stated "it is my professional and experienced opinion that the 
described job duties are of a professional nature and require preparation at the Bachelor's Degree 
level in Accounting or a related area at a minimum." However, letter has limited 
probative value in demonstrating that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
For example, provided a list of the job duties, which is virtually verbatim from the 
Petitioner's job duties. Upon review of the opinion letter, there is no indication that 
possesses any knowledge of the Petitioner's proffered position and its business operations beyond the 
information provided by the Petitioner. does not demonstrate or assert in-depth knowledge 
of the Petitioner's specific business operations or how the duties of the position would actually be 
performed in the context of the Petitioner's business enterprise. There is no evidence that 
has visited the Petitioner's business, observed the Petitioner's employees, interviewed them about the 
nature of their work, or documented the knowledge that they apply on the job. 
asserts a general industry educational standard for accountant positions without 
referencing any supporting authority or any empirical basis for the pronouncement. His opinion 
does not relate his conclusion to specific, concrete aspects of the Petitioner's business operations to 
demonstrate a sound factual basis for the conclusion about the educational requirements for the 
particular position here at issue. In addition, does not cite specific instances in which his 
past opinions have been accepted or recognized as authoritative on this particular issue. There is no 
indi,cation that he has published any work or conducted any research or studies pertinent to the 
educational requirements for such positions (or parallel positions) in the Petitioner's industry for 
should be: elsewise, an ~mployer could ensure the granting of a specialty occupation visa petition by 
the simple expedient of creating a generic (and essentially artificial) degree requirement. 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter ofG-&G-1-, Inc. 
similar organizations, and no indication of recognition by professional organizations that he is an 
authority on those specific requirements. 
In addition, there is no indication that the Petitioner advised that the proffered position is 
characterized as a low, entry-level accountant, who has only a basic understanding of the occupation 
(as indicated by the wage-level on the LCA). The wage-rate indicates that th~ Beneficiary will be 
expected to perform routine tasks that require limited exercise of judgment. It appears that 
may have found this information relevant for his opinion letter. 
In summary, and for each and all of the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the opinion letter 
rendered by is not probative evidence to establish the proffered position as a specialty 
occupation. The conclusion reached by lafks the requisite specificity and detail and is not 
supported by independent, objective evidence demonstrating the manner in which he reached such 
conclusion. There is an inadequate factual foundation established to support the opinion and the 
opinion is not in accord with other information in the record. Therefore, the letter from 
~does not establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
We may, in our discretion, use advisory opinion statements submitted as expert testimony. 
However, where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we 
are not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Matter of Caron International, 
19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988). As a reasonable exercise of our discretion we discount the 
advisory opinion letter as not probative of any criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). For 
efficiency's sake, we hereby incorporate the above discussion and analysis regarding the opinion 
letter into each of the bases in this decision for dismissing the appeal. 
Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
B. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs: "The degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may 
show that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong 
casts its gaze upon the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higqer degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
I~ determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by 
USCIS include: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the 
7 
(b)(6)) 
Matter ofG-&G-1-, Inc. 
industry's professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether 
letters or affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms "routinely employ 
and recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 
1999) (quotingHird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095,1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
Here and as already discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for 
which the Handbook (or other independent, authoritative source) reports an industry-wide 
requirement for at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. Thus, we 
incorporate by reference the previous discussion on the matter. Also, there are no submissions from 
the industry's professional association indicating that it has made a degree a minimum entry 
requirement. 
The Petitioner submitted several job advertisements but they do not satisfy this alternative prong of 
8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), either. That is, neither the job-vacancy announcements 
themselves, nor any other evidence within the record of proceedings, establish that those 
advertisements pertain to positions that meet all of the criterion's elements ofbeing in the Petitioner's 
industry, in organizations similar to the Petitioner, and also parallel to the proffered position, as 
required for evidence to merit consideration under this first alternative. prong. In this regard, we 
make several specific findings. 
When determining whether the Petitioner and the organization share the same g~neral 
characteristics, such factors may include information regarding the nature or type of organization, 
and, when pertinent, the particular scope of operations, as well as the level of revenue and staffing 
(to list just a few elements that may be considered). It is not sufficient for the Petitioner to claim that 
the organizations are similar and in the same industry without providing a legitimate basis for such 
an assertion. 
In the H-1 B petition, the Petitioner stated that it is a retail business with 3 employees. We reviewed 
the job advertisements submitted by the Petitioner. Notably, the Petitioner did not provide any 
independent evidence of how representative these job advertisemen~s are of the particular advertising 
employer's recruiting history for the type of job advertised. Further, as they are only solicitations for 
hire, they are not evidence of what qualifications were ultimately required for the positions. 
We note that although the Petitioner has designated the proffered position as a Level I position, 
indicating that it is a position for an entry-level position, it has provided several job announcements that 
appear to be for more senior positions. For example, advertisement is for a senior accountant 
and requires "5+ years in accounting/finance" in addition to a bachelor's degree in accounting; 
is also advertising for a senior accountant and requires a bachelor's degree and "3-5 years' 
experience either in industry accounting position or public accounting firm"; and Accounting 
Principles' position is for a senior accountant and requires "at least 3+ years' experience" and a 
bachelor's degree. Moreover, several advertisements are for the position of financial analyst rather 
than accountant. Thus, the job vacancy advertisements do not establish that the advertised positions 
are "parallel" to the proffered position. 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter ofG-&G-1-, Inc. 
Further, several job advertisements do not provide information of the advertising companies in order 
to determine if they are similar to the Petitioner. In addition, several advertisements are for 
companies that appear to differ from the retail business of the Petitioner, such as 
corporate 
office, and to name a few. Without further information, the 
advertisements appear to be for organizations that are not similar to the Petitioner, and the Petitioner 
has not provided additional information to suggest otherwise. "[G]oing on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in 
these proceedings." Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of Cal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). · 
Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
In support of its assertion that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, the 
Petitioner 
submitted various business documents such as tax return, invoices, and financial reports 
compiled by the Beneficiary. We reviewed the record in its entirety and find that while the 
documents provide some insight into the Petitioner's business operations, the Petitioner has not 
explained how the documents establish that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can 
only be performed by an individual with a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. 
Notably, the Petitioner designated the proffered position as an entry-level positiOn within the 
occupational category (by selecting a Level I wage). This designation, when read in combination 
with the Petitioner's job description and the Handbook's account of the requirements for this 
occupation, further suggests that this particular position is not so complex or unique relative to other 
accountants that the duties can only be performed by an individual with ·a ~achelor's degree or 
higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. While a few related courses may be beneficial in 
performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how an established 
curriculum of courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, is required t9 perform the duties of the proffered position. 
In support of the petition, the Petitioner 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'~ degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner did not 
sufficiently develop relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position, and 
it did not identify any tasks that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual 
9 
Matter ofG-&G-1-, Inc. 
could perform them. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(lii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it 
normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. The 
Petitioner did not submit evidence to establish this criterion and has not satisfied the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
D. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature 
of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that its most "lucrative part of the business is its check cashing 
services," and since it "handles large amounts of cash, it is imperative that it employs a professional 
accountant who can oversee this transfer by cash by ensuring that the Company has sufficient 
liquidity, preparing/reconciling ledger entries, preparing financial reports, reconciling accounts, 
auditing transactions and advising President on methods to protect Company from defaults and NSF, 
working with taxing authorities for compliance reporting since large sums of cash are monitored 
closely by governmental agencies." The Beneficiary's duties regarding the check cashing services 
was only brought up on appeal and was not previously mentioned. On appeal, the Petitioner cannot 
offer a new position to the Beneficiary, or materially change a position's title, its level of authority 
within the organizational hierarchy, the associated job responsibilities, or the requirements of the 
position. The Petitioner must establish that the position offered to the Beneficiary when the petition 
was filed merits classification for the benefit sought. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N 
Dec. 248, 249 (Reg'l Comm'r 1978). A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an 
effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N 
Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). 
Further, we find that the description of the duties does not specifically identify any tasks that are so 
complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. That is, the 
Petitioner has not established how the Beneficiary's responsibilities and day-to-day duties are so 
complex or unique that the position can be performed only by an individual with a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
We also incorporate our earlier discussion and analysis regarding the duties of the proffered position, 
and the designation of the position in the LCA as a Level I position (the lowest of four assignable 
10 
Matter ofG-&G-1-, Inc. 
wage-levels) relative to others within the same occupational category.6 The Petitioner has not 
demonstrated in the record that its proffered position is one with duties sufficiently specialized and 
complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one ofthe criteria at .8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)( A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The burden is on the Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden 
has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofG-&G-1-, Inc., ID# 17567 (AAO Sept. 9, 2016) 
6 The Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position undermines its claim that the position is 
particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation. Nevertheless, a 
Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty occupation, just as a 
Level IV wage-designation does not definitively establish such a classification. In certain occupations (e.g., doctors or 
lawyers), a Level I, entry-level position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent, for entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designation would not reflectthat an occupation qualifies 
as a specialty occupation if that higher-level position does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. That is, a position's wage-level designation may be a relevant factor but is not 
itself conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 
11