dismissed H-1B Case: Accounting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8418912 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-1 B nonimmigrant 
classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
10l(a)(l5)(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 Petitioner did 
not sufficiently establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. On appeal, the 
Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Director erred in the decision. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec . 369, 375 (AAO 2010) . We review the 
questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 101(a)(l5)(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. 1 Lastly, 
1 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 construe the te1m "degree" to mean not just any 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(l) states that an H-lB classification may be granted to a foreign national 
who "will pe1:form 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 Beneficiaiy will perfmm in the position dete1mine: (1) the nmmal 
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 nmmally 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 dete1mining 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(6)(1). 
III. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner intends to employ the Beneficiaiy on a part-time basis as an "accountant" for the 
duration of the validity period requested. The Petitioner provided several descriptions of the job 
duties of the position. 2 For instance, in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) it 
provided a set of five job functions with the relative percentage of time the Beneficiary will devote to 
each job function, as follows (verbatim): 3 
baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal 
Siam Corp. v. Chertofj; 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 paiiicular position"). 
2 We acknowledge that the Petitioner submitted additional information for the job duties, which, for the sake of brevity, 
have not been included herein. However, this mate1ial has been closely reviewed and considered, as with all evidence in 
the record. For instance, the Petitioner also included a listing of the Beneficiary's previous coursework for the purpose of 
correlating the need for the Beneficiary's education with the associated job duties of the position. However, we are 
required to follow long-standing legal standards and determine first, whether the proffered position qualifies for 
classification as a specialty occupation, and second, whether the Beneficiary was qualified for the position at the time the 
nonimmigrant visa petition was filed. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 l&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988) ("The 
facts of a beneficiary's background only come at issue after it is found that the position in which the petitioner intends to 
employ him falls within [a specialty occupation]."). 
3 We observe that the first two job functions within the Petitioner's job descriptions largely quote from the Occupational 
Information Network (O*NET) summary report for "Accountants," https://www.onetonline.org/link/summa1y/l3-20l l .Ol 
(last visited May 29, 2020). 
2 
1. Prepare, examine, and analyze accounting records, financial statements, and other 
financial reports to ensure accuracy, completeness, and conformance to reporting 
and procedural standards by applying knowledge of US GAAP. (35%) 
2. Analyze business preparations, trends, costs, revenues, financial commitments, and 
obligations to project future revenues and expenses for planning purposes. (30%) 
3. Assist with the company's non-payroll related company's tax returns and internal 
and annual audit and Coordinate with CPA firm to handle tax issues. (15%) 
4. Review and analyze accounting records, such as accounts payable and receivable, 
and engage in customer relationship in connection with maintenance and 
discrepancies of accounts. (10%) 
5. Responsible for reconciliation of all company's bank accounts, including the 
company's main operating accounts. (10%) 
The Petitioner's initial letter submitted in support of the pet1t10n specified that the mm1mum 
requirement for the position is a bachelor's degree in accounting, finance, business administration or 
a related degree. In other material, the Petitioner specified that a bachelor's degree in accounting or 
finance was needed for entry into the position. 
III. 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 101 ( a )(l 5)(H)(i)(b ), 2 l 4(i)( I) 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 
From the outset, we conclude that the claimed requirement of a bachelor's degree in business 
administration without further specialization is inadequate to establish that the proposed position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. A petitioner must demonstrate that the proffered position requires 
a precise and specific course of study that relates directly and closely to the position in question. Since 
there must be a close con-elation between the required specialized studies and the position, the 
requirement of a degree with a generalized title, such as business administration, without further 
specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 
I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). To prove that a job requires the theoretical and practical 
application of a body of highly specialized know ledge as required by section 214(i)( 1) of the Act, a 
petitioner must establish that the position requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a 
specialized field of study or its equivalent. We interpret the degree requirement at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 2 l 4.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) to require a degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed 
4 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1B 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. 
3 
position. Although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business administration, 
may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will 
not justify a conclusion that a particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. 
Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007). See also Irish Help at Home LLC v. 
Melville, 13-cv-00943-MEJ, 2015 WL 848977 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2015), ajf'd, 679 F. App'x 634 (9th 
Cir. 2017). For this reason alone, the proffered position is not a specialty occupation, and this petition 
cannot be approved. 
Even ifwe set this foundational deficiency aside we would still conclude that the proffered position is 
not a specialty occupation, as the Petitioner has not sufficiently established the substantive nature of 
the proffered position so that we can discern whether the position actually requires the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge attained through at least a 
baccalaureate degree in a specific discipline. If we cannot determine what the Beneficiary would 
actually be doing, then we cannot ascertain the substantive nature of the proffered position, let alone 
determine whether it is a specialty occupation. 
On the labor condition application (LCA) 5 submitted in support of the H-IB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Accountants and Auditors" 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 13-2011. According to DOL's 
Occupational Information Network (O*NET), the core duties of accountants include "[a]nalyze 
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." 6 
The Petitioner was established in 2015 as a subsidiary of a company located abroad, and "is engaged 
in promoting and marketing the core products of our [parent] Company, including motorcycle parts 
and accessories for ATV, Dirt Bike, Mini Dirt Bike, Karting and Camper Trailer." Its "products are 
made available through Amazon/eBay store and other social media formats." The Petitioner notes 
that it is "currently in its start-up stage of expansion," and needs "additional services of an [ a ]ccountant 
to provide solid data to render recommendation for all of our further expansion." However, the 
Petitioner's claim that it intends to expand its business operations in the future is not sufficient to 
demonstrate that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. A petitioner must establish 
eligibility at the time of filing the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(1 ). A petition may not be approved 
at a future date after the Petitioner or Beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter 
o_f Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. Comm'r 1978). 7 The Petitioner has not done so here. 
5 A petitioner submits the LCA to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) to demonstrate that it will pay an H-IB 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 duties, experience, and qualifications. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 
C.F.R. § 655.73l(a). 
6 O*NET Summa1y Report for "Accountants," https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/13-201 l.Ol (last visited May 29, 
2020). 
7 The H-1 B classification is not intended as a vehicle for employers to bring in temporaty workers to meet possible 
workforce needs arising from potential business expansions or the expectation of potential new customers or contracts. 
63 Fed. Reg. 30419, 30419 - 30420 (June 4, 1998). 
4 
The Petitioner secured two residential leases in Texas; one for office space where the Beneficiary is 
to be employed, and another for warehousing space for its products. 8 The Petitioner submitted an 
organization chart which reflects that it employs two individuals as warehouse personnel, and the 
chairman of the organization who works from China and the United States. Other positions within the 
organization chart, including an HR manager, sales manager/staff, a marketing specialist, and the 
proffered position - accountant, are all marked as positions "to hire." Even though the Petitioner 
asserts that the Beneficiary will "analyze financial reports, and evaluate and analyze monthly financial 
data and operation supplies' cost, review journal entries and maintain different types of financial 
records," and will "submit his findings/analysis and reports to the [c]hairman and CPA," the record 
does not include sufficient evidence of what these duties actually entail within the Petitioning entity's 
organizational construct. 
For instance, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary "will provide assistance and will be under the 
direction of the [c]hairman and the CPA," and that the chai1man will provide "off-site" supervision 
over the Beneficiary "through regular emails, phone calls, weekly video calls and site visitations (as 
needed) and/or CPA as needed." The Petitioner states that it employs a CPA on a "contractual basis," 
and has submitted tax returns indicating that they were prepared by an accounting firm. However, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that it employs a CPA to perform ongoing accounting for the 
organization. 
Moreover, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary will spend at least 30% of his time "analyz[ing] 
business preparations, trends, costs, revenues, financial commitments, and obligations to project future 
revenues and expenses for planning purposes," but the record does not reflect that the Petitioner will 
employ staff to perform basic bookkeeping and accounting tasks for the "staii-up" organization, other 
than the Beneficiary. There is no provision in the law for specialty occupations that permits the 
performance of non-qualifying duties. While we will view the performance of duties that are 
incidental to the primary duties of the proffered position as acceptable when they are unpredictable, 
intermittent, and of a minor nature, anything beyond such incidental duties, e.g., predictable, recurring, 
and substantive job responsibilities, must be specialty occupation duties or the proffered position as a 
whole cannot be approved as a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts "the duties of the position being offered is NOT a bookkeeper and 
account clerk position," noting "[ s Jome [b ]ookkeeper and account clerks may have the same title of 
an "[a]ccountant," but that does not mean that [it] is similar to an [a]ccountant position." However, 
many of the proffered position's job duties appear to be in line with the general duties of the 
occupational category "Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks" corresponding to the 
Standard Occupational Classification code 43-3031.00. According to O*NET, the core duties of this 
category include "Compute, classify, and record numerical data to keep financial records complete. 
Perform any combination of routine calculating, posting, and verifying duties to obtain primary 
financial data for use in maintaining accounting records. May also check the accuracy of figures, 
g Notably, each residential lease stipulates "[t]he demised premises shall be used and occupied by Lessee exclusively as a 
private single family residence, and neither the premises nor any part thereof shall be used at any time during the term of 
this lease by Lessee for the purpose of carrying on any business, profession, or trade of any kind, or for any purpose other 
than a private single family residence." 
5 
calculations, and postings pertaining to business transactions recorded by other workers." 9 Here, the 
proffered position's duties include "resolving all bank reconciliation issues," "[a]dministering the 
recordkeeping for the company's bank account and trust account and deposit and disperse funds and 
required," "[c]onduct[ing] daily invoicing functions, resolving billing errors, and updating financial 
databases," "check all data (sales data and inventory data)," and "[p]erform collection functions, 
processing incoming payments, monitoring accounts to identify [when] overdue payments [are] 
received." Therefore, we are left to question the validity of the Petitioner's assertions, and the 
remainder of the Beneficiary's claimed duties. The Petitioner must resolve these inconsistencies with 
independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-
92 (BIA 1988). Unresolved material inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the reliability and 
sufficiency of other evidence submitted in support of the requested immigration benefit. Id. 
While the proffered position may include duties which comport, in part, with duties associated with 
the "Accountants and Auditors" occupational category, such as "collecting, analyzing and organizing 
accounting data, adjusting general ledger accounts to conduct month/annual end close activities," the 
record does not include sufficient evidence of what these duties actually entail. For instance, the 
Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary will "run different types of reports by different ways to gather 
certain information which the Financial Controller needs," but the Petitioner has not demonstrated that 
it actually employs a financial controller. The Petitioner provides copies of "sample work results," 
which appear to be product invoices for customers, retail sales reports, and a basic income statement. 
However, the Petition did not specifically identify financial reporting requirements within its 
organization that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform 
them. That is, the Petitioner failed to establish how the Beneficiary's responsibilities and day-to-day 
duties are so complex or unique that the position can be performed only by an individual with a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The duties as presented within the context 
of the Petitioner's business operations are not sufficient to establish the actual, substantive nature of 
this position. 
The letter from Professor S- does not cure this deficiency. In his letter, the professor describes the 
credentials that he asserts qualify him to opine upon the nature of the proffered position. We carefully 
evaluated the professor's assertions in support of the instant petition but determine that the Petitioner's 
reliance on his letter is misplaced. For instance, the professor opines "[b ]ased on my experience in 
the business and accounting field, I am able to confirm that the position of [a]ccountant with [the 
Petitioner] is unquestionably a specialty occupation requiring the services of someone with at least a 
[b]achelor's degree in accounting or a related field." Notably, the professor does not discuss the 
9 O*NET Summary Report for "Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks," 
https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/43-3031.00 (last visited May 29, 2020). We also observe that that the 
"Bookkeeping. Accounting, and Auditing Clerks" occupations are Job Zone Three occupations as desc1ibed in the O*NET. 
The O*NET mateiial about the education level for Job Zone Three states "[m]ost occupations in this zone require training 
in vocational schools, related on-the-job experience, or an associate's degree." See O*NET Online Help, 
https://www.onetonline.org/help/online/zones#zone3 (last visited May 29, 2020). According to the O*NET, these 
occupations do not require at least a bachelor's degree. 
6 
applicability of the Petitioner's initial position requirements which specified that a bachelor's degree 
in business administration would suffice for entry into the position. 10 
We also note that the professor provided a list of the job duties, which he quotes verbatim from the 
job duties presented in the petition, which we have previously discussed. There is no indication that 
he possesses any knowledge of the Petitioner's proffered position beyond the Petitioner's job 
descriptions that seem to include many basic bookkeeping and accounting clerical duties. The 
professor does not discuss the duties in the specific context of the Petitioner's business, and thus, his 
level of familiarity with the actual job duties as they would be performed in the context of the 
Petitioner's business has not been substantiated. For instance, the professor does not relate his 
conclusions to specific, concrete aspects of the Petitioner's business operations to demonstrate a sound 
factual basis for the conclusion about the educational requirements for the particular position at issue. 
Moreover, 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. Therefore, we must question 
the basis of his ultimate conclusion about the minimum educational requirement for this particular 
position. 
We may, in our discretion, use advisory opinion statements submitted as expert testimony. However, 
where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we are not 
required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N 
Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988). As a reasonable exercise of our discretion we discount the advisory opinion 
letter as not probative of any criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). For the sake of brevity, we 
will not address other deficiencies within the professor's analyses of the proffered position. 
To qualify for an H-1B visa, the Petitioner must establish that its proffered position is a specialty 
occupation. Here, the record does not establish the substantive nature of the proffered position, 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 dete1mines (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 4.11 
III. CONCLUSION 
' 0 As previously discussed, the Petitioner's claim that a bachelor's degree in business administration is a sufficient 
minimum requirement for entry into the proffered position is inadequate to establish that the proposed position qualifies 
as a specialty occupation. 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 conclusion 
that a particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F .3d 
139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007). 
11 As the lack of probative and consistent evidence in the record precludes a conclusion that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation and is dispositive of the appeal, we will not further discuss the Petitioner's assertions on appeal. 
7 
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 here, and the petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8