dismissed H-1B Case: Accounting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF L-H- LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 29,2016 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, the owner/operator of a hotel and conference center, seeks to extend the Beneficiary's 
temporary employment as an "accountant" under the H -1 B nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 110l(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, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the Petitioner 
had not established the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and additional 
evidence, and asserts that the Director erred when determining the proffered position is not 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: 
(b)(6)
Matter of L-H- LLC 
(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 
baccalaureate 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"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner claims to be a 29-employee hospitality business , and explained in its initial letter of 
support that it does business as The Petitioner stated that its 
facility has over 142 guest rooms, banquet and meeting rooms, and a lounge and restaurant. The 
Petitioner further stated that it continues to require the services of the Beneficiary, who has worked 
for the Petitioner in H-1B status since October 2012, to perform the following job duties in her 
proffered "accountant" position: 
• Analyze , interpret, and present reports on the accounting records as well as expenses 
• Prepare reports regarding assets, net worth, liabilities, income and expenditures for 
both management and creditors 
• Make recommendations with respect to the financial condition and operations of our 
company 
• Analyze and prepare balance sheets and profit and loss statements 
• Provide financial . planning services, cost and budget comparisons and tax planning, 
payroll and tax return preparation 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner expanded on the Beneficiary' s 
list of responsibilities and included the approximate percentage of time spent on the duties as follows: 
2 
Matter of L-H- LLC 
• Analyze, interpret, and present reports on the accounting records as well as expenses 
and develop control of records, reservations, receipts and expenditures. (1 0 
hours/week) 
• Prepare reports regarding assets, net worth, liabilities, income and expenditures for 
both management and creditors for both business planning and budgeting and 
compliance with legal and credit requirements. ( 16 hours/week) 
• Make recommendations with respect to the financial condition and operations of our 
company to improve profitability and limit any losses[.] (4 hours/week) 
• Analyze and prepare balance sheets and profit and loss statements to determine 
financial status ofbusiness and make future projections[.] (6 hours/week) 
• Provide financial planning services, cost and budget comparisons and tax planning, 
payroll and preparation of various state local and federal tax returns[.] 4 
hours/week) 
According to the Petitioner, to successfully perform thes~ duties it requires the person in the offered 
position to possess a bachelor's degree in accounting, or its equivalent, and accounting experience. 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record, we find that the Petitioner has provided insufficient descriptions of the 
proffered position and its constituent job duties, which subsequently precludes us from finding that 
the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
To ascertain the intent of a petitioner, USCIS must look to the Form I-129 and the documents filed 
in support of the petition. It is only in this manner that the agency can determine the exact position 
offered, the location of employment, the proffered wage, and other salient aspects of the proposed 
employment. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(9)(i), the director has the responsibility to consider all 
of the evidence submitted by a petitioner and such other evidence that he or she may independently 
require to assist his or her adjudication. Further, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iv) 
provides that "[a ]n H -1 B petition involving a specialty occupation shall be accompanied by 
[ d]ocumentation ... or any other required evidence sufficient to establish ... that the services the 
beneficiary is to perform are in a specialty occupation." 
On the labor condition application (LCA) 1 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 13-2011.2 Upon review of the 
1 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to USC IS to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B 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 experience and qualifications who are performing the same 
services. See Matter ofSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 545-546 (AAO 20 15). 
2 The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level II wage. 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 "qualified'' positions for employees who have a good 
3 
Matter of L-H- LLC 
general description of duties, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence of what the 
Beneficiary will actually do in the proposed position so that we may analyze and ascertain the 
educational requirements required to perform those duties. 
For instance, although the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary has been and will continue to 
perform the duties of an "accountant," we find that several of her job duties are bookkeeping duties. 3 
According to the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) and the U.S. Department of Labor's 
(DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) -both of which we consider as authoritative 
sources on the duties of the wide variety of occupations that they address - bookkeepers compile and 
produce routine financial reports such as balance sheets, accounts payable and receivable, profit and 
loss, and expenditures. More specifically, O*NET lists the core duties of bookkeepers, accounting, and 
auditing clerks as including "[ c ]om pile statistical, financial, accounting, or auditing reports and tables 
pertaining to such matters as cash receipts, expenditures, accounts payable and receivable, and profits 
and losses."4 Likewise, the Handbook states that bookkeeping, accounting, and auditing clerks perform 
duties such as "[p ]roduce reports, such as balance sheets (costs compared with income), income 
statements, and totals by account." 5 Specific to bookkeeping clerks or bookkeepers, the Handbook 
states that they "are responsible for some or all of an organization's accounts, known as the general 
ledger" and "produce financial statements and other reports for supervisors and managers. "
6 
Several of the Petitioner's descriptions of the proffered duties directly correspond with a 
bookkeeper's typical duties, as described in both O*NET and the Handbook. For example, the 
Petitioner specifically stated in its initial support letter that the Beneficiary's duties include "prepare 
balance sheets and profit and loss statements" and "prepare reports regarding assets, net worth, 
liabilities, income and expenditures." In response to the RFE, the Petitioner indicated that these 
duties involving preparing financial reports and preparing balance sheets comprise a significant 
percentage of the Beneficiary's time (16 hours and 6 hours per week, respectively). 
Thus, despite the Petitioner's use of the title "accountant" to describe the proffered position, we find 
that several of the proffered duties are more appropriate for a bookkeeper position than an 
accountant position. As previously stated, USCIS does not simply rely on a position's title to 
determine the nature of a proffered position. 
understanding of the occupation but who will only perform moderately complex tasks that require limited judgment. See 
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_ll 
_2009.pdf 
3 As previously noted, the LCA submitted to support the visa petition states that the proffered position is an "accountant" 
under the "Accountants and Auditors" occupational classification, corresponding to SOC code 13-20) I. The bookkeeper 
duties we reference correspond to SOC code and title 43-3031, "Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks." 
4 O*NET Details Report for "Bookkeepers, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks," http://www.onetonline.org/link/details/43 
-3031.00 (last visited Nov. 29, 20 16). 
5 U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 Edition, "Bookkeeping, 
Accounting, and Auditing Clerks," http://www.bls.gov/ooh/office-and-administrative-support/print/bookkeeping­
accounting-and-auditing-clerks.htm (last visited Nov. 29, 20 16). 
6 /d. 
4 
Matter of L-H- LLC 
We also must question what duties the Beneficiary will actually be performing when we consider the 
unclear scope and nature of the Petitioner's business operations. In this matter, the Petitioner has 
claimed that it employs 29 employees to run its entire hotel and conference center operations. But 
the Petitioner has not identified and documented which of its employees, if any, perform the 
bookkeeping and other related non-qualifying duties to relieve the Beneficiary from performing such 
duties. A petitioner's unsupported statements are of very limited weight and normally will be 
insufficient to carry its burden of proof. See Matter of So.ffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 
1998) (citing Matter ofTreasure Craft ofCal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)); see also 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). The Petitioner must support its assertions 
with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
In this matter, it is reasonable to assume that the size and scope of the Petitioner's operations have an 
impact on the claimed duties of a particular position. See EG Enters., Inc. v. Dep 't of Homeland 
Sec., 467 F. Supp. 2d 728 (E.D. Mich. 2006). The size and scope of a petitioner may reasonably be 
considered as a component of the nature of the petitioner's business, as the size and scope impact 
upon the actual duties of a particular position. Here, the Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary has 
been and will only be performing qualifying accounting duties, and will not perform non-qualifying 
bookkeeping or other clerical functions. Yet the record lacks sufficient evidence to demonstrate that 
the Petitioner's organization can support the Beneficiary in this capacity, i.e., to perform only 
qualifying accounting duties. 
For instance, the record is devoid of a business plan, organizational chart, or other documentation 
which would identify the titles, job duties, or roles of its other employees within the organizational 
hierarchy. Although the Petitioner claimed in response to the RFE that the Beneficiary is assisted by 
an accounts payable clerk, no documentation to support this assertion has been provided. In 
addition, while the Petitioner also claimed that it has "a large staff to perform client services," 
including an assistant general manager, a sales manager, eight front desk guest service personnel, 
and the housekeeping stafi, the Petitioner likewise provided no documentary evidence to support this 
claim. Finally, we note that the Petitioner did not identify any personnel allocated to operate its 
restaurant and lounge, such as chefs, kitchen staff, wait staff, or bartenders. Again, a petitioner's 
unsupported statements are of very limited weight and normally will be insufficient to carry its 
burden of proof. See Matter of Soj]ici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. The Petitioner must support its 
assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 
376. The record thus lacks probative evidence that the Petitioner employs other individuals who 
perform the bookkeeping and other related routine tasks necessary to the operation of the Petitioner's 
business, in order to relieve the Beneficiary of such duties. Collectively, this brings into question 
how much of the Beneficiary's time can actually be devoted to accounting duties. 
Overall, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient and consistent details regarding the nature and 
scope of the Beneficiary's employment. Without a meaningful job description, the record lacks 
evidence sufficiently concrete and informative to demonstrate that the proffered position requires a 
specialty occupation's level of knowledge in a specific specialty. The tasks as described do not 
sufficiently communicate (1) the actual work that the Beneficiary will perform; (2) the complexity, 
5 
Matter of L-H- LLC 
uniqueness and/or specialization of the tasks; and/or (3) the correlation between that work and a 
need for a particular level education of highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. 
We realize that this is an extension petition. However, we are not required to approve petitions 
where eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been 
erroneous. See Matter of Church Scientology Int '!, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). If any of 
the previous nonimmigrant petitions were approved based on the same conflicting and unsupported 
assertions that are contained in the current record, they would constitute material and gross error on 
the partofthe Director. 
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 qualities as a specialty occupation.· 
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. 7 
Nevertheless, for the sake of argument and assuming that the Beneficiary will perform the duties of 
an accountant/auditor as designated on the LCA, we will analyze the position and the evidence of 
record to determine whether the proffered position as described would qualify for classification as a 
specialty occupation. To that end and to make our determination as to whether the employment 
described above qualifies as a specialty occupation, we turn to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). 
A. First Criterion 
We turn 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 Handbook as an 
authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations 
that it addresses. 8 
Even if the proffered position had been sufficiently detailed to establish it as being that of an 
accountant/auditor, a review of the Handbook does not indicate that such a position qualities as a 
7 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. 
8 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 not, 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. 
Matter of L-H- LLC 
specialty occupation in that the Handbook does not state a normal minimum requirement of a U.S. 
bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for entry into the occupation. 
Specifically, the Handbook states that "[m]ost accountant and auditor positions require at least a 
bachelor's degree in accounting or a related field." U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., "Accountants and Auditors," 
http :1 lwww. bls. gov I ooh/business-and- financial/ accountants-and-auditors. htm#tab-4 (last visited 
Nov. 29, 2016). In addition, the Handbook indicates that some with an associate's degree, as well as 
bookkeepers and accounting clerks, may "advance to accountant positions by showing their 
accounting skills on the job." !d. Finally, while the Petitioner's broad description of the proposed 
duties incorporates some duties that may fall within the parameters of an accountant, the duties also 
include the duties of a bookkeeping or accounting clerk.9 
The Petitioner has not pr~>Vided sufficient documentation from a probative source to substantiate its 
assertion regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. 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 
focuses 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 higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
In 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 
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 
9 A bookkeeping position does not require a bachelor's degree, or higher in a specific field of study. Rather, according to 
the Handbook, employers generally require bookkeeping, accounting, and auditing clerks to have some postsecondary 
education, particularly coursework in accounting, but some candidates can be hired with just a high school diploma. See 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., "Bookkeeping, 
Accounting, and Auditing Clerks," http://www.bls.gov/ooh/office-and-administrative-support/bookkeeping-accounting­
and-auditing-clerks.htm#tab-4 (last visited Nov. 29, 20 16). 
Matter of L-H- LLC 
and recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti. Inc. v. Reno, ~6 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 
1999)(quotingHird/BlakerCorp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095,1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
Here and as already discussed, the Petitioner has not established that the proffered position is one for 
which the Handbook (or other independent, authoritative sources) 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. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not submit any letters or af1idavits from similar tirms 
or individuals in the Petitioner's industry attesting that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only 
degreed individuals." Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 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 this matter, although the Petitioner indicates that the proffered position's duties are so complex that a 
bachelor's degree is required, the Petitioner does not demonstrate how its accountant's duties require 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge such that a 
bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform them. 
Upon review, the record does not include sufficient probative information relevant to a detailed 
course of study leading to a specialty degree and the Petitioner has not established how such a 
curriculum is necessary to perform the duties it claims are so complex. 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 such courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the duties of the proffered position. 
Finally, we recall that the Petitioner has designated the proffered position as a Level II position on 
the submitted LCA, indicating that it is a "qualified" position for an employee who has obtained a 
good understanding of the field but who will only perform moderately complex tasks. 10 Therefore, it 
10 Nevertheless, a low wage-design~tion does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty 
occupation, just as a high wage-designation does not definitively establish such a classification. In certain occupations 
(e.g., doctors or lawyers), a Level II 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 reflect that an occupation 
qualifies as a specialty occupation ifthat 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)( I) of the Act. 
8 
Matter of L-H- LLC 
is simply not credible that the position is one with specialized and complex duties, as such a 
higher-level position would be classified as a Level IV position, requiring a significantly higher 
prevailing wage. 
Consequently, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner has 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)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it 
normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. Here, 
the Petitioner makes no assertion that it has previously employed specialty-degreed individuals in 
the proffered position. 
We note the Petitioner's reliance upon its past employment of the Beneficiary in the proffered 
position as evidence that it normally requires a specialty degree for its accountant position. While a 
petitioner may assert that a proffered position requires a degree in a specific specialty, that statement 
alone without corroborating evidence cannot establish the position as a specialty occupation. Were 
USCIS limited solely to reviewing a petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, then any 
individual with a bachelor's degree could be brought to the United States to perform any occupation 
as long as the employer artificially created a token degree requirement, whereby all individuals 
employed in a particular position possessed a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d at 387. In other words, if a 
petitioner's degree requirement is only symbolic and the proffered position does not in fact require 
such a specialty degree, or its equivalent, to perform its duties, the occupation would not meet the 
statutory or regulatory definition of a specialty occupation. See section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 
C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(ii) (defining the term "specialty occupation"). 
Here, the Petitioner has not established the referenced criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J) 
based on its normal hiring practices. 
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. 
We have reviewed the Petitioner's description of duties for the proffered position, and the nature of 
its operations. While we note that USCIS should not limit its review to the size of a petitioner and 
must consider the actual responsibilities of the proffered position, we find that it is reasonable to 
assume that the size of an employer's business has or could have an impact on the claimed duties of 
a particular position. See EG Enters., Inc. v. Dep 't of Homeland Sec., 467 F. Supp. 2d 728. Thus, 
9 
Matter of L-H- LLC 
the size of a petitioner may be considered as a component of the nature of the petitioner's business. 
Additionally, as with the matter at hand, when the job description provided only identifies general 
,duties that could fall within the occupations of several occupations that do not require a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty to perform them, a review of the nature of the petitioning organization 
may assist in determining a realistic need for the beneficiary to perform specialty-occupation level 
duties. Here, we have reviewed the totality of the record to determine whether the Petitioner has 
more likely than not established that the profiered position is a specialty occupation. 
Upon our review, the record is absent probative documentary evidence to support a finding that the 
duties to be performed by the Beneficiary in relation to the Petitioner's claimed operations are 
sufficiently complex and specialized to require the theoretical and practical application of a body of 
highly specialized knowledge, and the services of an individual with 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 record lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish the proffered position as 
more complex or specialized than positions that can be performed by persons without at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Upon review ofthe totality of the record, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated 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 of the 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 o.fOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter o.fL-H- LLC, ID# 92495 (AAO Nov. 29, 2016) 
10