dismissed H-1B Case: Adult Residential Care

&" Ie1aTQ" 
prevent dearly unwarranted 
'nq;-rirnv OF ne)*~nn~I nriyasy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave. N.W., Rrn. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Inmigration 
FILE: WAC 03 125 50610 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 1 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned 
to the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 03 125 50610 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and the matter is now before the 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. The petition will be 
denied. 
The petitioner is an adult residential facility that seeks to employ the beneficiary as a budget analyst. The 
petitioner, therefore, endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a nonimrnigrant worker in a specialty 
occupation pursuant to section lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. g 1 lOl(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition on the basis that the petitioner had failed to establish that the proposed 
position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. 
The record of proceeding before the AAO contains (1) the Form 1-129 and supporting documentation; 
(2) the director's request for additional evidence; (3) the petitioner's response to the director's request; 
(4) the director's denial letter; and (5) the Form I-290B and supporting documentation. The AAO reviewed 
the record in its entirety before issuing its decision. 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (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 term "specialty occupation" is further defined at 8 C.F.R. $214.2(h)(4)(ii) as: 
[A]n occupation which requires theoretical and practical application of a body of highly 
specialized knowledge in fields of human endeavor including, but not limited to, 
architecture, engneering, mathematics, physical sciences, social sciences, medicine and 
health, education, business specialties, accounting, law, theology, and the arts, and which 
requires the attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2@)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, the position must meet one of 
the following criteria: 
(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 
, 
WAC 03 125 50610 
Page 3 
(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. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) interprets the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
$ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty 
that is directly related to the proposed position. 
The petitioner's February 28,2003 letter of support stated that the beneficiary would analyze and seek new 
ways of improving efficiency and increasing profits; provide advice and technical assistance in the 
preparation of annual budgets; examine budget estimates by management for completeness, accuracy, and 
conformance with established procedures, regulations, and organizational objectives; examine past and 
current budgets and research economic and financial developments that affect the organization's spending; 
consolidate budgets and submit summaries containing supporting statements that support or argue against 
funding requests; submit proposed plans to management, which would then analyze the plan and devise 
possible alternatives if projected results are unsatisfactory; and monitor the budget by reviewing reports and 
accounting records to determine whether allocated funds have been spent as specified, and write reports 
explaining the causes of the variations along with recommendations for new or revised budget procedures. 
In determining whether a proposed position qualifies as a specialty occupation, CIS looks beyond the title 
of the position and determines, from a review of the duties of the position and any supporting evidence, 
whether the position actually requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly 
specialized knowledge, and the attainment of a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty, as the 
minimum for entry into the occupation as required by the Act. The AAO routinely consults the 
Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (the Handbook) for its information about the 
duties and educational requirements of particular occupations. 
The AAO has reviewed the Handbook and finds that the duties of the proposed position fall within those 
noted for budget analysts. The Handbook states that private and governmental firms generally require 
candidates for budget analyst positions to hold a bachelor's degree, but many prefer or require a master's 
degree. Within the Federal Government, a bachelor's degree in any field is sufficient for an entry-level 
position. State and local governments have varying requirements, but a bachelor's degree in one of many 
areas - accounting, finance, business or public administration, economics, political science, statistics, or a 
social science such as sociology may qualify for entry into the occupation. Other employers may prefer a 
degree in a field closely related to that of the employing industry or organization, such as engineering or 
business. Many government employers may prefer candidates with strong analytical and policy analysis 
backgrounds that may be obtained through such majors as political science, economics, public 
administration, or public finance. Occasionally, budget-related or finance-related work experience can be 
substituted for formal education. The Handbook is clear, however, that a degree in a specific specialty is 
not normally required for entry into an occupation as a budget analyst, as degrees in a wide range of 
educational disciplines will suffice for positions requiring a college education. 
As such, the proposed position does not qualify for classification as a specialty occupation under 8 C.F.R. 
$ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I), which requires a demonstration that a baccalaureate or higher degree or its 
equivalent is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position. As conveyed earlier in 
this decision, CIS interprets the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just 
any baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a speczjk specialty that is directly related to the proposed 
position. 
WAC 03 125 50610 
Page 4 
When a range of degrees, e.g., the liberal arts, or a degree of generalized title without further 
specialization, e.g., business administration, can perform the duties, the position does not qualify as a 
specialty occupation. See Matter of Michael Hertz Associates, 19 I&N Dec. 558 (Comm. 1988). To 
prove that a job requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of specialized knowledge as 
required by Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, a petitioner must establish that the position requires the 
attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific course of study. 
Accordingly, the proposed position does not meet the first criterion required for classification as a specialty 
occupation under 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
Nor does the proposed position qualify as a specialty occupation under either prong of 8 C.F.R. 
6 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). The first prong of this regulation requires a showing that a specific degree 
requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
On appeal, counsel submits several job postings to satisfy this prong of the second criterion. Counsel, 
however, has failed to consider the specific requirements at 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) for establishing 
a baccalaureate or higher degree as an industry norm. To meet the burden of proof imposed by the regulatory 
language, a petitioner must establish that its degree requirement exists in parallel positions among similar 
organizations. 
No evidence has been submitted to establish that any of these job postings are fiom organizations similar in 
size or scope of operations to the petitioner. The unnamed company advertising its vacancy through 
Hudson Global Resources is a financial services company, and no information was submitted regarding 
Kforce or The Judge Group, Inc. 
The AAO is presented with no basis to conclude that any of the job postings submitted by counsel are 
fiom organizations that may be considered "similar" to the petitioner, an adult residential care facility, in 
size or scope of operations. 
Moreover, the postings do not verify that there is an industry-wide requirement for a degree in a specialty. 
For example, the job posting from Kforce does not state that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is 
required. As noted previously, CIS interprets the term "degree" to mean not just any degree in any field, 
but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. When a range of degrees, 
e.g., the liberal arts, or a degree of generalized title without further specification, e.g., business 
administration, can perform a job, the proposed position does not qualify as a specialty occupation. See 
Matter of Michael Hertz Associates at 558. 
Accordingly, the proposed position does not qualify as a specialty occupation under the first prong of 
8 C.F.R. 9 2 14.20(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The second prong of 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) requires the petitioner to prove that the duties of the 
proposed position are so complex or unique that only an individual with a degree can perform them. Again, 
the Handbook reveals that the duties of the proposed position are analogous to those of budget analysts as 
outlined in the Handbook, which does not require a degree in a specific specialty. The record contains no 
evidence that would support a finding that the position proposed here is more complex or unique than such 
positions at organizations similar to the petitioner. 
WAC 03 125 50610 
Page 5 
Therefore, counsel has not established that the proposed position qualifies for classification as a specialty 
occupation under either prong of 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The AAO next turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 2 14.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3), which requires that the petitioner 
demonstrate that it normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position. To determine a 
petitioner's ability to meet the third criterion, the AAO normally reviews the petitioner's past 
employment practices, as well as the histories, including the names and dates of employment, of those 
employees with degrees who previously held the position, and copies of those employees' diplomas. 
None of these items were submitted. 
Accordingly, the proposed position does not qualie as a specialty occupation under 8 C.F.R. 
0 214.2@)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
The fourth criterion, 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4), requires the petitioner to establish that the nature of the 
proposed position's duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or hgher degree in the specialty. The petitioner 
states on the Form 1-129 that it is an adult residential facility with gross annual income of $450,000 and 12 
employees. Evidence of record indicates that the petitioner operates four residences for the developmentally 
disabled with a combined total bed capacity of 23. This evidence does not indicate that a degree in a specific 
specialty is required to perform the job. As previously discussed, the Handbook indicates that employers do 
not normally require a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty for budget analysts, and no evidence has 
been submitted to demonstrate that the duties of the proposed position are more specialized and complex than 
those performed by budget analysts in other, similar companies. Thus, the proposed position does not qualie 
for classification as a specialty occupation under 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2@)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
Finally, the AAO will accord no weight to the information counsel submits from the O*Net, as it is not a 
persuasive source of information regarding whether a particular job requires the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as a minimum for entry into the 
occupation. The assessment (the S.V.P. rating) it provides is meant to indicate only the total number of 
years of vocational preparation required for a particular position. It does not describe how those years are 
to be divided among training, formal education, and experience, and it does not specify the particular type 
of degree, if any, that a position would require. 
The proposed position does not qualify for classification as a specialty occupation under any of the 
criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. $8 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I), (2), (3), and (4). As the proposed position is not a 
specialty occupation, the beneficiary's qualifications to perform its duties are immaterial. Accordingly, 
the AAO will not disturb the director's denial of the petition. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
5 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.