dismissed H-1B Case: Accounting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 15277012 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUNE 2, 2021 
The Petitioner, a sports nutrition wholesale and retail company , seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as an accountant under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. 
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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. On appeal, the Petitioner 
asserts that the Director erred . 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 1 
We review the questions in this matter de novo .2 Upon de novo 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. 3 Lastly, 
1 Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,375 (AAO 2010). 
2 See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
3 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must be read with the statutory and regulatory definitions ofa specialty occupation under 
section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). We constiue the term "degree" to mean not just any 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(J) states that an H-IB 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 
l; (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). 
By regulation, the Director is charged with determining whether the petition involves a specialty 
occupation as defined in section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(2). The Director 
may request additional evidence in the course of making this determination. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(8). 
In addition, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the petition and must continue to 
be eligible through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
II. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently established 
the services in a specialty occupation that the Beneficiary would perform during the requested period 
of employment, which precludes a determination of whether the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation under sections 10l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(l), 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) and (iii)(A).4 
Specifically, inconsistencies and lack of detail concerning the scope and substantive nature of the 
proffered position's job duties in relationship to the Petitioner's operations prevent us from being able 
to determine (1) whether the Beneficiary will perform services of a specialty occupation and (2) if the 
labor condition application (LCA) properly corresponds to the petition. 5 
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"). 
4 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered position 
and its business operations. Although we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered 
each one. 
5 A petitioner submits the LCA to DOL to demonstrate that it will pay an H-lB worker the higher of either the prevailing 
wage for the occupational classification in the area of employment or the actual wage paid by the employer to other 
2 
First, the record does not sufficiently establish the scope of the Petitioner's business operations and 
the lack of information about its operations undermines the job duties describled by tr Petitioner. The 
Petitioner described itself as a "global nutrition company headquartered in CA with offices 
throughout the world." 6 The Petitioner indicated that it was established in 2017 and has one employee. 
The Director noted that it was not clear how the Beneficiary would perform duties such as "provide 
budget control and management advices to the management team" as the company only had one 
employee, and that without an organization chart and a management team, it is unusual for a small 
business to employ an accountant and justify a need for one. 7 
On appeal, the Petitioner explains that despite being a "one-man company" it determined "that it is 
reasonable and economically efficient to hire an in-house accountant, rather than outsourcing its 
financial/accounting business to external accounting firms" due to actual business necessity. It 
justified this claim by referring to its response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) where it 
stated the Beneficiary will provide budgetary advice "[ w ]henever the company plans to initiate or 
undertake a new project or a new investment portfolio" because in the past it "had to tum to CPA firms 
or consulting companies for [such] general advice," which was "inefficient" and "sometimes 
significantly impaired the company's actions." It also stated that "as the company's business grows 
significantly and the need to diversify its investment" grew, it decided to hire an in-house accountant. 
On appeal, the Petitioner elaborated that although it has only one person on its payroll, it has various 
"independent contractual relationship[ s] with individuals and entities to ensure the running of its 
business" such as those it has had in the past relating to the outsourcing of "logistics and courier 
services to a number of shipping companies in the United States and in Asian countries to satisfy the 
customers' orders." However, it did not provide sufficient evidence of these business relationships 
that would substantiate its business necessity. Further, the Petitioner did not provide an organizational 
chart or adequately explain who it considered to be part of its management team. 
This lack of information calls into question the nature of the proffered position's duties because the 
expanded duty descriptions submitted with the Petitioner's RFE response directly relate to the 
Petitioner's organizational structure and appear inconsistent with the Petitioner being a "one-man 
company." For example, the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary's services are needed to develop 
long-term budget strategies including relating to "the cost of employee benefit programs ( e.g. 
healthcare coverage)" and "retirement health care costs." It further states that the Beneficiary will be 
responsible for developing various corporate systems including a "payroll and benefit system." In 
addition to coordinating payment, the Petitioner's explanation does not demonstrate why it would also 
need an accountant to assist with the planning and payment of benefits such as healthcare and 
retirement for outside entities. The record does not establish business necessity for an in-house 
employees with similar duties, experience, and qualifications. While DOL certifies the LCA, U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services determines whether the LCA's content corresponds with and supports the H-IB petition. See 20 
C.F.R. § 655.705(b) ("OHS determines whether the petition is supported by an LCA which corresponds with the petition 
.... "). See also Matter of Simeio Solutions, 26 I&N Dec. 542,546 n.6 (AAO 2015). 
6 However, the record does not establish whether and to what extent the Petitioner operates and maintains offices 
internationally or at other addresses in the United States. 
7 It is reasonable to assume that the that 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 (E.D. Mich. 2006). Thus, 
the size of a petitioner may be considered as a component of the nature of the petitioner's business, as the size impacts 
upon the actual duties of a particular position. 
3 
accountant to develop both a payroll and benefit system for a company with only one employee. Even 
considering pay and benefits for the Beneficiary, this duty appears inconsistent with the Petitioner's 
operations at the time of filing. 
Similarly, the Petitioner states in the expanded duty descriptions that the Beneficiary will "attend the 
company's routine meetings" and "listen to other departments proposal[s] and suggestion[s] in their 
field of endeavor." It goes on to state that in "addition to attending routine meetings, [the Beneficiary] 
shall also constantly communicate with her supervisor ... to update the major financial indicators"; 
"coordinate with all levels of management to gather, analyze, summarize and prepare 
recommendations regarding complex financial transactions"; and, "be responsible for presentation 
materials for Board of Directors, monthly business reviews, and financial report meetings." Thus, 
these duties appear to suggest that the Petitioner's organization includes multiple employees across 
various departments and levels of management. However, other than the Petitioner's president, who 
is also the company's owner, it is not clear to whom these duties are referring. Again, without further 
explanation, the Beneficiary's duties relating to interactions with other employees appear inconsistent 
with the Petitioner's operations. 
Relatedly, we also note that despite claiming to have outsourced financial, accounting, and general 
budgetary advice duties to CP As and consulting firms in the past, the Petitioner did not provide 
sufficient evidence to corroborate this claim. The only evidence of such outsourced work were copies 
of tax returns from 2019 and 2020 which were prepared by two separate accounting firms. The 
Petitioner also provided copies of a billing invoice it received for a j I' 
a billing invoice for shipping fees relating to unidentified cargo sent via Korean Air, and a licensing 
agreement awarding another company the exclusive rights to development of the Petitioner's brand in 
Cambodia. The tax returns and invoices demonstrate the need for tax preparation and bill payment 
services. Although the licensing agreement suggests the Petitioner may benefit from general financial 
planning and investment advice relative to the development of its brand in Cambodia, it does not 
actually demonstrate that the Petitioner is currently doing business or otherwise financially involved 
in that country. More significantly, neither the invoices nor the licensing agreement indicate outside 
accountants or financial consultants were needed or hired to respond to and provide advice concerning 
those business dealings. As such, other than for tax preparation services, the record lacks sufficiently 
detailed and persuasive evidence to support the Petitioner's claims that it has had to hire CPAs and 
consulting companies in the past or that it suffered from inefficiencies and significant impairments as 
a result. This lack of evidence raises questions about the Petitioner's claims that it needs an accountant 
due to business growth, the existence of sufficient in-house accounting work, and the scope of the 
position's duties generally. Additionally, we note that the Petitioner's tax returns suggest it may be 
operating at a loss which further contradicts its assertions regarding business growth. 
Considering the discrepancies relating to the duties discussed above and the Petitioner's current 
operations, the nature and scope of the Beneficiary's role in budget management and business 
development in relationship to the Petitioner's larger organization is not sufficiently established. 
Therefore, we are prevented from determining whether the Beneficiary's services qualify as a specialty 
occupation. 
4 
Moreover, the inconsistencies also prevent us from determining whether the Petitioner submitted an 
LCA which corresponds to and supports the H-lB petition. 8 As presently constituted, even if the 
Petitioner were able to adequately address the above concerns, the record still does not establish that 
the LCA corresponds with and supports the petition due to further inconsistencies relating to the SOC 
code and wage level designated. On the certified LCA, the Petitioner designated the proffered position 
as a part-time position with a Level I wage under the occupational category "Accountants" 
corresponding to Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 13-2011.01. Comparing the 
Petitioner's duties to those provided in DOL's Occupational Information Network (O*NET), while 
the duties correspond generally to the designated SOC code, the expanded duty descriptions from the 
RFE response appear to go beyond the scope of the normal O*NET tasks for "Accountants." As such, 
the Petitioner's duty descriptions undermine its assertions concerning the substantive nature of the 
position. 
First, to determine whether the SOC code identified corresponds to the duties of the proffered position, 
we reviewed information about this occupation found in the DOL's Occupational Outlook Handbook 
(Handbook) and O*NET summary reports. As noted by the Petitioner, the Handbook indicates that 
accountants "Examine financial statements to ensure that they are accurate and comply with laws and 
regulations," "Compute taxes owed, prepare tax returns, and ensure that taxes are paid properly and 
on time," "Inspect account books and accounting systems for efficiency and use of accepted 
accounting procedures," "Organize and maintain financial records," "Assess financial operations and 
make best-practices recommendations to management," and, "Suggest ways to reduce costs, enhance 
revenues, and improve profits."9 O*NET, at the time of filing, indicated that they "Analyze financial 
information and prepare financial reports to determine or maintain record of assets, liabilities, profit 
and loss, tax liability, or other financial activities within an organization." 10 While the Petitioner 
indicates that the proffered position involves such general financial analysis and record preparation 
duties, the extent of responsibility relating to financial analysis, investment planning, and budget 
management appears inconsistent with the SOC code designated. 
For example, the Petitioner indicates the Beneficiary will "constantly research the financial strategies 
of other companies in the industry"; "learn the site operations that drive financials; identify, measure 
and track key performance indicators (KPis) and other operational and financial metrics"; "analyze 
and interpret financial statements, market trends and microeconomic conditions in order to offer 
recommendations on potential business deals and decisions"; "research and analyze financial data in 
the industry domestically and internationally"; "monitor the status of the industry-related development 
and changes and analyze how these developments and changes would affect [the Petitioner]"; "monitor 
fundamental economics, industrial and corporate development by analyzing information from 
financial publications and services, investment bank firms, government agencies, trade publications, 
company sources, or personal interviews"; "advise the management on topics such as fund raising 
from banks, venture capitals or individual investors, asset acquisitions when appropriate, and other 
8 See 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b) ("DHS determines whether the petition is supported by an LCA which corresponds with the 
petition .... "); see also Matter ofSimeio Solutions , 26 I&N Dec. at 546 n.6. 
9 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Accountants and Auditors, available 
at https://www.bis.gov /ooh/business-and-financial/accountants-and-auditors.htm#tab-2 (last visited June 2, 2021) . 
10 Summary Report for: 13-2011.01 Accountants , O*NET OnLine Archives , 
https:/ /www.onetonline.org / Archive_ ONET-SOC _ 201 O _Taxonomy_ 09_2020/link/summary / 13-2011.01 (last visited 
June 2, 2021). 
5 
financial/investment related issues"; "conduct research and analysis on different financial markets in 
terms of geographic locations, policy restrictions and limitations, cultural distinctions, and economic 
trends, use the data collected to build up statistics pool for company's business expansion and 
investment references"; and, "Based on the professional analysis, calculation, financial investigation, 
examination and evaluation . . . inform and recommend the company with sound and legitimate 
taxation advice, investing strategy, optimal portfolio for company's financial activities, provide 
warnings as to financial risks that the company is facing at, and prepare financial reports and statistics 
to interpret the company's financial status." 
The Petitioner's operational structure at the time of filing is again relevant considering the Beneficiary 
will be the only other employee besides the Petitioner's president which suggests that she will likely 
have significant responsibilities and authority. This higher-level authority is further demonstrated by 
the Petitioner's statements that the Beneficiary will play "a role as 'protector' of the corporation's 
financial and investment actions, preventing it from entering into agreements with others that might 
cause risks to the corporation or resulting irrecoverable harm to the company" and that "[ w ]henever 
the company plans to initiate or undertake a new project or a new investment portfolio, the 
management will always consult [the Beneficiary] for budgetary advice as well as other accounting 
and financial opinions" ( emphasis added.) 
These consulting and financial management duties appear to go beyond the general financial support 
role of "Accountants" and correspond more closely with the higher-level duties of "Financial 
Analysts" SOC code 13-2051.00 and "Treasurers and Controllers" SOC code 11-3031.01. For 
instance, O*NET indicates that "Financial Analysts" "Inform investment decisions by analyzing 
financial information to forecast business, industry, or economic conditions"; "Prepare plans of action 
for investment, using financial analyses"; "Present oral or written reports on general economic trends, 
individual corporations, and entire industries"; "Monitor fundamental economic, industrial, and 
corporate developments by analyzing information from financial publications and services, investment 
banking firms, government agencies, trade publications, company sources, or personal interviews"; 
and, "Monitor developments in the fields of industrial technology, business, finance, and economic 
theory." 11 Likewise, O*NET indicates that "Treasurers and Controllers" "Monitor financial activities 
and details, such as cash flow and reserve levels, to ensure that all legal and regulatory requirements 
are met"; "Develop internal control policies, guidelines, and procedures for activities, such as budget 
administration, cash and credit management, and accounting"; "Coordinate and direct the financial 
planning, budgeting, procurement, or investment activities of all or part of an organization"; "Prepare 
or direct preparation of financial statements, business activity reports, financial position forecasts, 
annual budgets, or reports required by regulatory agencies"; "Analyze the financial details of past, 
present, and expected operations to identify development opportunities and areas where improvement 
11 SummaJJ' Report for: 13-2051.00 Financial Analysts, O*NET OnLine Archives, 
https://www.onetonline.org/ Archive_ ONET-SOC _ 201 O _Taxonomy_ 09 _ 2020/link/details/ 13-2051.00 (last visited June 2, 
2021). 
6 
is needed"; and, "Maintain current knowledge of organizational policies and procedures, federal and 
state policies and directives, and current accounting standards." 12 
Where multiple SOC codes correspond with the duties of a proffered position, the SOC code with the 
higher prevailing wage should be selected. 13 Although there is some overlap between the 
"Accountants" occupation and the "Financial Analysts" and "Treasurers and Controllers" occupations, 
the latter occupations all command higher prevailing wages. 14 The record does not include clarifying 
information or evidence distinguishing the proffered position from the higher paying occupations. 
Due to this lack of clarity and the inconsistencies in the record, we are unable to ascertain the nature 
and level ofresponsibility of the proposed position from the Petitioner's broad descriptions, including 
whether the duties as described correspond to the occupation designated on the LCA. 
We note that the Petitioner submitted an opinion letter from a finance professor atl.__ _____ _. 
University whose citation to the O*NET report for "Accountants" would appear to support the 
selection of the designated SOC code. However, we question whether the professor was sufficiently 
familiar with the Petitioner's organization and the substantive nature of the proffered position. 
Although the professor references the job duties as described by the Petitioner's initial support letter, 
he did not discuss or otherwise appear to be aware of the expanded job duty descriptions such as those 
which we have cited to above. Likewise, his analysis does not suggest sufficient familiarity with the 
specific duties of the proffered position. Although the professor opines that any "Accountant or 
Accounting Specialist" position requires an education commensurate with a specialty degree, he does 
not discuss other possible related SOC codes or distinguish between specialty occupations related to 
finance. Moreover, he describes the Petitioner as a "global nutrition company . . . with offices 
throughout the world" that is working on building "up more professional teams." Such a 
characterization of the Petitioner's organization suggests that the professor is unaware of the fact that 
it has only one employee. Given this evidence of lack of familiarity with the proffered position and 
the Petitioner's organization, we conclude that the professor's opinion lacks sufficient probative 
weight to overcome the discrepancies and concerns discussed above relative to the job duties and SOC 
code selection. 15 
Alternatively, if we were to find the SOC code to be correct, we would still question whether the Level 
12 Summary Report for: 11-3031.01 Treasurers and Controllers, O*NET Online Archives, 
https://www.onetonline.org/ Archive_ ONET-SOC _ 201 O _Taxonomy_ 09 _ 2020/link/details/11-3031.01 (last visited June 2, 
2021). 
13 DOL guidance indicates, "If the employer's job opportunity has worker requirements described in a combination of 
O*NET occupations, the NPWHC should default directly to the relevant O*NET-SOC occupational code for the highest 
paying occupation. For example, if the employer's job offer is for an engineer-pilot, the NPWHC shall use the education, 
skill and experience levels for the higher paying occupation when making the wage level determination." Emp't & Training 
Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009) (DOL 
guidance), available at http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdfiNPWHC _Guidance_ Revised_ 11 _ 2009 .pdf (providing 
guidance for selecting the correct SOC code and prevailing wage). 
14 The Petitioner's LCA certifies that the Level I prevailing wage for "Accountants" is $23.83 per hour. Conversely, in 
the area and for the time period when the petition was filed, the Level I prevailing wage would be $29.74 per hour for 
"Financial Analysts" and $40.97 per hour for "Treasurers and Controllers." To determine prevailing wages and for more 
information, see the Foreign Labor Certification Data Center's Online Wage Library, available at 
https://www.flcdatacenter.com (last visited June 2, 2021 ). 
15 We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron Int'!, Inc., 
7 
I wage designation properly corresponds to the petition. As discussed by the Petitioner, in order to 
determine if the wage level listed on an LCA corresponds to the petition, USCIS applies DO L's five 
step process for determining the appropriate wage level. 16 In summary, a prevailing wage 
determination starts with an entry level wage and progresses to a higher wage level after considering 
the experience, education, special skills, and supervisory requirements of the petitioner's job 
opportunity. After the first step of confirming that the proffered position corresponds to the SOC code 
designated, the next four steps require comparison of the petitioner's unique requirements to the 
generic duties generally required for the occupation in O*NET. Under step four of this process, if the 
proffered position includes special skills and other requirements that go beyond those of an entry­
level worker and are not listed in the O*NET report for the occupation, then a wage level increase may 
be needed. 
Here, the Petitioner asserts that an Level I, entry-level wage is correct because, "[t]he proffered 
position ... requires a bachelor's degree, no prior experience, no special skills and no supervisory 
duties." However, this characterization of the position appears to be at odds with the higher-level 
financial consulting and management duties discussed above and other special skill requirements. For 
example, the Petitioner claims that its "business extends to different countries, therefore involving 
international trade" which in tum results in "a lot of financial and accounting actions, risks, and 
taxation issues." It goes on to explain that"[ d]ue to the increasing businesses, broadening of the scope, 
deepening of the complexity, and the diversification of demands, [it] has to find appropriate personnel 
to specifically [target] ... these newly emerged accounting and financing issues/tasks" because 
"accounting firms normally do not handle such internal ... issues , which are not only particular and 
individualized, but also sometimes sensitive and confidential." Considering the evidence discussed, 
the Level I wage calls into question the substantive nature of the position and appears inconsistent with 
the degree of specialized knowledge and experience the Petitioner states is required. 
Without more specific and consistent evidence regarding the nature and scope of the proffered position's 
duties in relationship to the Petitioner's organization, and to any special skill requirements, the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated the substantive nature of the proffered position such that we can conclude that the 
Petitioner has satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii), (iii)(A) and section 214(i)(l) of 
the Act. Therefore, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established the proffered position's duties or the 
educational background required to perform those duties is commensurate with a specialty occupation. 
Further, the record is insufficient to establish that the certified LCA corresponds to and supports the 
petition as required by 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons relating to inconsistencies and lack of detail 
in the record relating to the nature of the position's duties relative to the Petitioner's operations. The 
Petitioner has not sufficiently met its burden to establish that the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation and is supported by a corresponding LCA. The petition will remain denied. 
19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). 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. Id. 
16 See DOL guidance. 
8 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
9