dismissed H-1B Case: Accounting

MATTER OF A-F-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 29,2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a wholesale grocery provider, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an 
"accountant" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had 
not established that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and asserts that the Director erred in her conclusion. Upon 
de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 1 
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 
We decline the Petitioner's request for oral argument. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(b). 
Matter of A-F-, Inc. 
(I) 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). We have consistently interpreted 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. Cherto,[f, 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 3 84, 3 87 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary in a full-time positiOn variously identified as 
"accountant" or "accounting consultant." On the labor condition application (LCA)2 submitted in 
support of the H-1 B petition, the Petitioner designated the proffered position under the occupational 
category "Accountants and Auditors" corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification 
(SOC) code 13-2011. 
The Petitioner's response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) provided the following as a 
"detailed summary setting forth the Beneficiary's proposed duties and responsibilities" as "an 
accounting consultant," with the weekly hours projected for each of them (note: errors in the original 
text have not been changed): 
a. Prepare reports that summarize and forecast business activities and [the 
Petitioner's] financial position in the areas of income, expenses, and earnings 
based on present and expected transactions in order to develop a budgeting system 
to control expenditures. - 10 hours 
2 
The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 8 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 2015). 
2 
Matter of A-F-, Inc. 
b. Analyze financial information to determine the various costs involved in 
operating the business of the company[,] and check financial records for 
mismanagement, waste, and/or fraud in order to reduce expenses and increase the 
profitability ofthe company.- 10 hours. 
c. Compile and analyze financial information to prepare entries to accounts and 
prepare balance sheets and budgets statements. 
d. Analyze changes in the volume of goods provided, to determine effects on costs 
and prepare periodic reports compiling monthly sales and purchase volumes. - 5 
hours. 
e. Make recommendations with respect to financial conditions and applications of 
funds with a view towards improving operations and the financial position of the 
corporation. Streamline and improve financial operations and perform business 
planning and financial management. - 5 hours 
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. 
Specifically, the record does not corroborate the Petitioner's characterization of the proffered 
position and establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, 
commensurate with a specialty occupation.3 
In reaching our conclusion, we fully considered the duties and job responsibilities presented by the 
Petitioner, and we did so in the context of all of the record's information about the particular position 
for which the petition was filed. 
A. Evidence Regarding the Proffered Position 
We are not able to determine the substantive nature of the position based on the evidence in the 
record. We will state specific conclusions we have reached that are factors in our deliberation on the 
proper outcome of this appeal. 
1. The Petitioner 
The record does not provide very detailed information about the Petitioner's organization, 
operations, and day-to-day business activities. 
Entries on the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, indicate that, as of the petition's 
filing, the Petitioner's had five employees and a gross annual income of$3,305,918. 
3 
The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 8 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 
Matter of A-F-. Inc. 
The Petitioner's letter replying to the Director's RFE includes statements that the Petitioner: 
• Is "a wholesale grocery supplier having several operations" run from its head office in 
California; 
• Is undergoing "quick and substantial growth [that] requires it to streamline its operations 
in order to obtain a healthy profit[-]margin ratio and organize and computerize [its] 
financial documents and procedures"; 
• Anticipates that it "will continue to grow rapidly in the near future"; 
• Requires the proffered "accounting consultant" position as "an absolute necessity,'' 
because it has "modernized [its] operations and services"; 
• "[C]ompetes in a market that is extremely volatile," and so "its survival and growth 
depend on its ability to successfully manage its finances"; 
2. Business Records 
In our review of the entire record, we have of course considered all of the documentary evidence, 
including the submitted business records, which here include: (1) the Petitioner's federal tax returns, 
showing gross sales or receipts of $3,305,919 for 2014, reduced to $2,676,399 for 2015; and 
(2) employment-related tax records and payroll records that show a relatively small number of 
employees. We found no other finance-related document of consequence to proper disposition of 
the appeal. 
3. Conclusions 
Taking all of the above-mentioned aspects of the record into account, as well as all of the record's 
comments and documents about the Petitioner's business operations, aspirations, and the duties and 
responsibilities of the proffered position, we conclude that the record lacks sufficiently specific and 
substantial information about the particular tasks and matters that would engage the Beneficiary as 
an accountant for the Petitioner. Instead, we are presented with a range of generalities, such as 
assertions of the Petitioner's being a wholesale grocery supplier "having several operations,'' 
competing in a volatile market, needing to "streamline its operations" in order to obtain a healthy 
profit[-]margin ratio," and having "modernized" its operations and services. The Petitioner asserts 
that the Beneficiary will have to prepare reports "that summarize and forecast business activities and 
its financial position in the areas of income, expenses, and earnings based on present and expected 
transactions in order to develop a budgeting system to control expenditures," but the record does not 
convey concrete information sufficient to show whatever level of accounting knowledge would be 
required for such reports. The Petitioner does not specify - and the record's documentation does not 
exhibit- any particular substantive aspects of its finances, tax liabilities, growth, or any aspect of its 
business upon which the Beneficiary would work that would appear to require the Beneficiary to 
apply at least a bachelor's degree level of highly specialized accounting knowledge in order to 
perform any of the duties and responsibilities which the record so generally describes. 
4 
Matter of A-F-. Inc. 
In sum, we conclude that the record's information about the proposed duties and responsibilities and 
the business context in which they would be performed lacks sufficient substantive detail to establish 
that the performance of the proffered position would require a particular minimum level of 
education, or education equivalency, in any specific specialty. 
The Petitioner has therefore not established the substantive nature of the work to be performed by 
the Beneficiary, which therefore precludes a conclusion that the proffered position satisfies any 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), because it is the substantive nature of that work that 
determines (1) the normal minimum educational requirement for entry into the particular position, 
which is the focus of criterion 1; (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. 
Accordingly, as the Petitioner has not established that it has satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it cannot be found that the proffered position qualifies for classification as a 
specialty occupation. 
With the above discussion as background and incorporated into each section of the remainder of this 
decision, we shall now specifically discuss the specialty-occupation provisions at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A). 
B. The Regulatory Provisions at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
1. First Criterion 
To satisfy the first alternate criterion, at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), the evidence must 
establish 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 will look to the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook 
Handbook (Handbook), which we recognize as an authoritative source on the duties and educational 
requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses.4 Before we do so, we emphasize that 
our focus must be on what the Handbook may convey on the question of whether there is a 
4 All of our references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed in print or 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 we regularly review the Handbook on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. Nevertheless, to satisfy the first criterion, 
the burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to submit sufficient evidence to support a conclusion that its particular 
position would normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
5 
Matter of A-F-, Inc. 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, that is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry "into the particular position" for which the petition was filed. 
We have reviewed the Handbook's relevant chapter, "Accountants and Auditors." In pertinent part, 
this Handbook chapter states that "[ m ]ost accountant and auditor positions require at least a 
bachelor's degree in accounting or a related field." It also notes that "[i]n 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." 5 
Thus, 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 the "Accountants and Auditors" 
occupation. Rather, the Handbook indicates that this occupation accommodates those with 
associate's degrees as well as bookkeepers and accounting clerks who meet the education and 
experience requirements set by their employers. 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. 
The Petitioner cites to the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) and, in particular, the Specific 
Vocational Preparation (SVP) rating DOL has assigned to positions located within this occupational 
category. An SVP rating of 7 to less than ("<") 8 - the rating assigned to this category - indicates 
that the occupation requires "over 2 years up to and including 4 years" of training. While the SVP 
rating indicates the total number of years of vocational preparation required for a particular position, 
it is important to note that it does not describe how those years are to be divided among training, 
experience, and formal education.6 The SVP rating also does not specify the particular type of 
degree, if any, that a position would require. For all of these reasons, we are not persuaded by the 
Petitioner's citation to the SVP rating. 
We acknowledge the Petitioner's citations and assertions related to the definitions of the terms 
"profession" and "professional." However, those definitions are not relevant here, as they relate to 
immigrant visa petitions and whether the beneficiaries of those petitions were members of the 
professions as defined in section 101(a)(32) ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(32).7 The issue before us 
is whether the Petitioner's proffered position qualifies as a nonimmigrant H -1 B specialty occupation 
- not whether it is a profession. 
5 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Accountants and Auditors (20 16-17 
ed.). 
6 For additional information regarding SVP ratings, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at 
http://www.onetonline.org/help/online/svp. 
7 The primary difference between qualifying as a profession and qualifying as a specialty occupation is that specialty 
occupations require the U.S. bachelor's or higher degree to be in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, while an 
occupation may be specifically identified as qualifying as a profession as defined in section I 0 I (a)(32) of the Act, it 
would not necessarily qualify as a specialty occupation unless it met the definition of that term at section 214(i)( I) of the 
Act. 
Matter of A-F-, Inc. 
For all of these reasons, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the proffered 
position is located within an occupational category for which the Handbook, or any other relevant, 
authoritative source, indicates that the normal minimum entry requirement is at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent. Moreover, the Petitioner has not provided 
documentation from another probative source to substantiate its assertion regarding the minimum 
requirement for entry into this particular position. The Petitioner therefore has not satisfied the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J). 
2. 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 common industry practice with regard to positions that are "parallel" to the one under 
consideration, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific position. 
a. 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)). 
Here and as already discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for 
which the Handbook (or another independent, authoritative source) reports an industry-wide 
requirement for at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. We incorporate by 
reference our 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 affidavits from similar firms or individuals 
in the Petitioner's industry attesting, that, for positions parallel to the one in question, such firms 
"routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
Matter of A-F-, Inc. 
b. Second Prong 
The second alternative prong of 8 C,F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)(2) 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. 
We refer the Petitioner to our earlier comments about the record's deficiency of detailed substantive 
information about the actual matters upon which performance of the position would focus. As those 
comments reflect, the Petitioner has not sufficiently developed this position to satisfy the complexity 
or uniqueness requirements of this second alternative prong of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
Even if this deficiency were not present, we would still find that the record did not satisfy this prong. 
As noted, the Petitioner designated the proffered position as an entry-level position within the 
occupational category (by selecting a Level I wage). 8 This designation, when read in combination 
with the Petitioner's job description and the Handbook's account of the requirements for this 
occupation, suggests that this particular position is not so complex or unique relative to other 
computer systems analysts that the duties can only be performed by an individual with a bachelor's 
degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
In other words, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the duties of the proffered position as 
described in the record 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 example, the Petitioner did not submit information 
relevant to a detailed course of study leading to a specialty degree and establish how such a 
curriculum would be necessary to perform the duties it believes are so complex and unique. While a 
few related courses may be beneficial, or even required, in performing certain duties of the position, 
we conclude that 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. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the pos1t10n, and references his 
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. 
8 A wage detennination 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. DOL, Emp't & Training Admin., 
Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _11_2009.pdf 
0 
Matter of A-F-, Inc. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
3. 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. As 
the record indicates that the Petitioner has not previously employed a person in the proffered positon, 
and as the Petitioner does not argue it as a basis for appellate relief, this criterion is not relevant to 
the appeal. 
The Petitioner contends that "[t]he fact that a company may not have hired professionals in this position 
in the past is irrelevant." We agree that the lack of a prior history of recruiting and hiring for the 
position does not preclude classification of a proffered position under the other three specialty­
occupation criteria. However, it is unclear how a petitioner who has never filled a position would be 
able to demonstrate that it normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, for the position in order to satisfy this criterion. In any event, we do not find the 
Petitioner's assertion persuasive. It has not satisfied the third criterion of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)( A). 
4. 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. 
The Petitioner has not established the requisite level of specialization and complexity as an aspect of 
the proffered position. We here incorporate our earlier discussions regarding the generality of the 
descriptions of the position's duties and responsibilities, the record's limited information about the 
particular nature of the business matters upon which the Beneficiary, the lack of evidence about the 
substantive nature of the specific duties that the Beneficiary would perform, and so, too, the 
particular aspects of those duties that would be so specialized and complex that their performance 
would require the application of at least a bachelor's degree level of highly specialized knowledge in 
a specific specialty. 
As the Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative specialization and complexity as an aspect of 
the duties ofthe position, it has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
9 
Matter of A-F-, Inc. 
IV. BENEFICIARY'S QUALIFICATIONS 
As the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the proffered position is a specialty occupation, we need 
not fully address other issues evident in the record. That said, we wish to identify an additional issue 
to inform the Petitioner that this matter should be addressed in any future proceedings. 
Specifically, the record does not currently demonstrate that the Beneficiary's combined education 
and work experience is the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. While the 
claimed equivalency is based in part on experience, the record does not establish (1) that the 
evaluator has authority to grant college-level credit for training or experience in the specialty at an 
accredited college or university with a program for granting such credit, or (2) that the Beneficiary's 
expertise in the specialty is recognized through progressively responsible positions directly related to 
the specialty. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4) and (D)(J). 
V. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-F-, Inc. ID# 845060 (AAO Dec. 29, 2017) 
10