dismissed H-1B Case: Accounting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF L-D- INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 20, 2019 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a dental office, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an "accounting 
specialist/clerk" under the H-1B nonirnmigrant 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 of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the evidence of record 
does not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and contends that the petition should be approved . Upon de 
nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
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 : 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is nonnally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
Matter of L-D- Inc. 
(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). We construe the term "degree" to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal 
Siam 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 stated that the Beneficiary will serve as an "accounting specialist/clerk." In its letter of 
support and in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided a job 
description for the proffered position, along with the approximate percentage of time the Beneficiary 
will spend on each duty. According to the Petitioner, the proffered position requires a bachelor's 
degree in accounting, finance, or a related field. 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons discussed below, we have determined that 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 1 
Specifically, we conclude that the record 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)(l), 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 generally 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 
1 The Petitioner submitted documentation in support of the H-IB petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
2 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
3 We do not maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source ofrelevant information. That is, the occupational category 
2 
Matter of L-D- Inc. 
In the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-1 B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Bookkeeping, Accounting, and 
Auditing Clerks" corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 43-3031. 4 
Thus, we reviewed the Handbook's subchapter entitled "How to Become a Bookkeeping, Accounting, 
or Audit Clerk," which states, in pertinent part, that "[ e ]mployers generally require bookkeeping, 
accounting, and auditing clerks to have some postsecondary education, particularly coursework in 
accounting. However, some candidates can be hired with just a high school diploma. "5 The Handbook 
states that a high school diploma may be sufficient for entry into bookkeeping, accounting, and 
auditing clerk positions. The Handbook, therefore, does not support the assertion that at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
these positions. 
The Petitioner also referenced DOL's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) summary report 
for "Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks" listed as SOC code 43-3031 for our 
consideration under this criterion. The Summary Report states that the "Bookkeeping, Accounting, 
and Auditing Clerks" occupational category has a designation of Job Zone 3, which indicates that 
medium preparation is needed. It also states that most occupations in this zone require training in 
vocational schools, related on-the-job experience, or an associate's degree. 6 This submission therefore 
strengthens our determination that the position does not satisfy this criterion. Even if the occupation 
has received a Job Zone 4 or higher designation, we would still find the O*NET information 
insufficient to establish that the position qualifies as a specialty occupation normally requiring at least 
a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Even when it indicates that a bachelor's 
degree, or its equivalent, is necessary, the O*NET does not normally specify that a bachelor's degree 
in any spec[fic specialty is required, and does not, therefore, demonstrate that a position so designated 
qualifies as a specialty occupation as defined in section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii). Therefore, despite the Petitioner's assertion to the contrary, the O*NET is not 
probative evidence that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
In the instant matter, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation from a probative, 
authoritative 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). 
designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered 
position, and we regularly review 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 ofproofremains 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 is required to submit a certified LCA 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. Section 2 l 2(n)(l) 
ofthe Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.73l(a). 
5 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Logisticians, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/office-and-administrative-support/bookkeeping-accounting-and-auditing-clerks.htm#tab-4 (last 
visited Sept. 18, 2019). 
6 See O*NET OnLine Help Center, available at http://www.onetonline.org/help/online/zones, for a discussion of Job 
Zone 3. 
3 
Matter of L-D- Inc. 
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 contemplates 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. 
We generally consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there is such a common degree 
requirement: 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 and recruit 
only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 1999) 
(quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (considering these 
"factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook, or other authoritative source, reports a 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. 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner submitted copies of two job announcements placed by other 
employers. However, upon review of the documents, we find that the Petitioner's reliance on the job 
announcements is misplaced. First, we note that the job postings do not appear to involve 
organizations similar to the Petitioner. For example, the Petitioner is a dental office with a revenue of 
approximately $1.6 million, whereas the advertising organizations are not-for-profit organizations in 
the healthcare industry with revenues of over $80 million and $13 billion. The Petitioner did not 
supplement the record of proceedings to establish that these advertising organizations are similar. 
When determining whether the Petitioner and the organization share the same general 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 an organization is similar 
and conducts business in the same industry without providing a legitimate basis for such an assertion. 
Moreover, the advertisements do not appear to involve parallel positions. For example, the positions 
appear to be for more senior, experienced employment than the proffered position. Further, the 
postings do not include sufficient information about the tasks and responsibilities for the advertised 
4 
Matter of L-D- Inc. 
pos1t10ns. Thus, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the pnmary duties and 
responsibilities of the advertised positions are parallel to the proffered position. 
In addition, one of the postings does not indicate that at least a bachelor's degree in a directly related 
specific specialty ( or its equivalent) is required. 7 Specifically, the posting placed by Partners 
Healthcare(PHS) states that a bachelor's degree is required, but it does not state that a specific specialty 
is required. Overall, the job postings suggest, at best, that although a bachelor's degree is sometimes 
required for these positions, a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty ( or its equivalent) is not. 8 
As the documentation does not establish that the Petitioner has met this prong of the regulations, 
further analysis regarding the specific information contained in each of the job postings is not 
necessary. 9 That is, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. 
The Petitioner also submitted a letter froml.._ ____ _.L a professor of accounting atl.__ ____ _. 
University, for our consideration under this criterion. In his letter, I ki) describes the 
credentials that he asserts qualify him to opine upon the nature of the proffered position; (2) lists the 
duties proposed for the Beneficiary; and (3) states that these duties require at least a bachelor's degree 
in accounting, finance, or related fields. We carefully evaluated! ts assertions in support of 
the instant petition but, for the following reasons, determined his letter is not persuasive. 
First, we note that I ldoes not discuss the duties of the proffered position in any substantive 
detail. Rather, he restates the same duties listed in the Petitioner's letter of support and RFE response. 
He does not discuss them in the specific context of the Petitioner's business. There is no indication 
that he possesses any knowledge of the Petitioner's proffered position beyond this job description, 
e.g., visited the Petitioner's business, observed the Petitioner's employees, interviewed them about the 
nature of their work, or documented the knowledge that these workers apply on the job prior to 
documenting his opinion regarding the proffered position. His level of familiarity with the actual job 
duties as they would be performed in the context of the Petitioner's business has therefore not been 
substantiated. 
7 As discussed. the degree requirement set by the statutory and regulatory framework of the H-IB program is not just a 
bachelor's or higher degree, but a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the duties of the 
position. See section 2 l 4(i)(l )(b) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). Further, a preference for a degree in a field is 
not necessarily an indication of a minimum requirement. 
8 It must be noted that even if all of the job postings indicated that a requirement of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations (which they do not), the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be draV1rn from the adve1iisements with regard to 
determining the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. See generally 
Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 (1995). Moreover, given that there is no indication that the 
advertisements were randomly selected, the validity of any such inferences could not be accurately determined even if the 
sampling unit were sufficiently large. See id. at 195-196 (explaining that "[r]andom selection is the key to [the] process 
[ of probability sampling]" and that "random selection offers access to the body of probability theory, which provides the 
basis for estimates of population parameters and estimates of error"). 
9 The Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how representative the job postings are of the particular 
advertising employers' recruiting history for the type of job advertised. As the advertisements are only solicitations for 
hire, they are not evidence of the actual hiring practices of these employers. 
5 
Matter of L-D- Inc. 
Moreover, the record does not include evidence that I I has published, conducted research, 
run surveys, or engaged in any enterprise, pursuit, or employment - academic or otherwise - regarding 
the minimum education requirements for the performance of the duties of the proffered position. 
While he may have anecdotal information regarding recruitment by employers for students who study 
accounting, the record does not include any relevant research, studies, surveys, or other authoritative 
publications as part of his review and/or as a foundation for his opinion . 
.__ ___ __.lcites the Handbook and O*NET; however, as previously discussed, the Handbook and 
O*Net do not state that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required for a 
bookkeeping, accounting, or auditing clerk position. In addition, I !references the 
indeed.com website and lists three job announcements. However, he does not provide printouts of 
these job vacancy announcements. 10 The record does not contain the job announcements (including, 
for instance the job descriptions), thus, aside from the job titles, there is no evidence that the positions 
are for =arallel positions and a substantive determination cannot legitimately be made. Notably, □ 
I J indicates that one of the advertisements state a requirement for a bachelor's degree in 
accounting, finance, or business administration. 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. Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147. 
For the reasons discussed, we conclude that the opinion letter froml I is insufficient to satisfy 
this criterion. Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (The service is not 
required to accept or may give less weight to an advisory opinion when it is "not in accord with other 
information or is in any way questionable."). 11 
Without more, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations. 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. 
10 Tfl lwished for us to review the job announcements, he should have provided printouts from the websites. We 
are not required to attempt to locate the various advertisements by searching the Internet for these links. Notably. the 
content of the link may have changed sincd !accessed the site. 
11 We hereby incorporate our discussion of .__ ___ _. letter into our discussion of the other 8 C.F.R. 
§ 2 l 4.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) criteria. 
6 
Matter of L-D- Inc. 
The Petitioner submitted a list of job duties and the percentage of time the Beneficiary would devote 
to certain tasks, along with the academic courses required to complete the job duties. However, the 
record does not demonstrate how the duties of the proffered position as described 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. For instance, 
the Petitioner did not submit information relevant to a detailed course of study leading to a specialty 
degree and did not establish how such a curriculum is necessary to perform the duties of the proffered 
position. 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. In fact, the duties as described by the Petitioner, which includes tasks 
such as "prepares and analyze monthly income and cash flow with budget variance analysis,""[ e ]nsure 
timely close of the accounting system and oversee the timely reporting, review and distribution of 
monthly, quarterly and annual financial reports," and"[ w ]ork with outside CPA firms and prepare for 
all phases of audit work through issuance of audited financial statements and for [the Petitioner's] 
compliance with all federal, state, payroll and other applicable taxes" do not appear to be so complex 
or unique such that a degree in a specific specialty would be necessary to perform them. 
The Petitioner also submitted samples of the Beneficiary's work products as evidence that the job 
duties are complex. However, the Petitioner does not sufficiently explain why the preparation of these 
reports require a baccalaureate ( or higher degree) in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
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's 
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 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)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it normally 
requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. 
The record must establish that a petitioner's stated degree requirement is not a matter of preference 
for high-caliber candidates but is necessitated instead by performance requirements of the position. 
See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. Were we limited solely to reviewing a petitioner's claimed self­
imposed requirements, an organization could bring any individual with a bachelor's degree to the 
United States to perform any occupation as long as the petitioning entity created a token degree 
requirement. Id. Evidence provided in support of this criterion may include, but is not limited to, 
documentation regarding the Petitioner's past recruitment and hiring practices, as well as information 
regarding employees who previously held the position. 
7 
Matter of L-D- Inc. 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner submitted a copy of its online advertisement for a senior 
accounting position. The advertisement states that the position requires a bachelor's degree in 
accounting. In addition, the Petitioner submitted the academic credentials and the 2011 W-2 and 
Earnings Summary of its previously employed accounting specialist. Upon review of the W-2, it 
appears that the individual was paid substantially less than the salary offered to the Beneficiary. Thus, 
this strongly suggests that this individual was employed in a different position than the one offered to 
the Beneficiary. The Petitioner does not provide an explanation for the variances in the wages. 
Moreover, the Petitioner did not provide the job duties and day-to-day responsibilities of this 
individual that it claims served in a position that is the same as the proffered position. The Petitioner 
did not provide any information regarding the complexity of the job duties, supervisory duties (if any), 
independent judgment required, or the amount of supervision received. Accordingly, the Petitioner 
has not established that the duties and responsibilities of this individual were the same as the 
Beneficiary's in the proffered position. 
We conclude that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient documentary evidence to support the 
assertion that it normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, 
directly related to the duties of the position. The Petitioner has not satisfied the third criterion of 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
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 references the letter frornl I however, as previously discussed, the 
letter does not merit probative weight towards satisfying any criterion at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A) 
or establishing the proffered position as a specialty occupation. 
Upon review, we conclude that relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently 
developed by the Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. The Petitioner does not establish 
how the generally described duties are so specialized and complex that the proffered position qualifies 
as a specialty occupation. While the evidence submitted demonstrates that the position may require 
that the Beneficiary possess some skills and knowledge in order to perform these duties, the Petitioner 
has not sufficiently explained how these tasks require the theoretical and practical application of a 
body of highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the 
specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation. 
In sum, the record does not include sufficient probative evidence that the duties require more than 
skills and knowledge in the field. Thus, 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). 
8 
Matter of L-D- Inc. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied any 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 appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and 
alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner 
has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of L-D- Inc., ID# 4573120 (AAO Sept. 20, 2019) 
9