dismissed H-1B Case: Beauty Supplies

(b)(6)
U.S. Department of Homeland Securit�' 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Scrvicl: 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: MAY 0 1 2015 OFFICE: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCfiONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish 
agency policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law 
or policy to your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to 
reconsider or a motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or 
Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B 
instructions at http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and 
other requirements. See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Vermont service center director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner submitted a Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129) to the Vermont 
Service Center on April 29, 2014. On the Form I-129 visa petition, the petitioner describes itself 
as a wholesaler of beauty supplies, with 25 employees, established in In order to employ 
the beneficiary in what it designates as an administrative manager position, the petitioner seeks 
to classify him as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to section 
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
On August 18, 2014, the director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to establish 
that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation in accordance with the applicable 
statutory and regulatory provisions, and that the beneficiary qualifies for the position. 
The record of proceeding before us contains: (1) the Form I-129 and supporting documentation; 
(2) the director's request for evidence (RFE); (3) the petitioner's response to the RFE; (4) the 
director's notice of decision; and, (5) the Form I-290B and supporting documentation. We 
reviewed the record in its entirety before issuing our decision. 1 
For the reasons that will be discussed below, we agree with the director's decision that the 
petitioner has not established eligibility for the benefit sought. Accordingly, the director's 
decision will not be disturbed. The appeal will be dismissed, and the petition will be denied. 
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
The petitioner indicated on the Form I-129 and in supporting documentation that it seeks the 
beneficiary's services in a position titled "Administrative Manager," to work on a part-time basis 
at a salary of $32,000 per year. 
The petitioner submitted a Labor Condition Application (LCA) in support of the instant H-lB 
petition. The LCA designation for the proffered position corresponds to the occupational 
classification of "Administrative Services Managers" - SOC (ONET/OES) Code 11-3011, at a 
Level I (entry level) wage. 
In a letter of support, dated March 24, 2014, the petitioner explained that it is "one of the largest 
beauty supply wholesalers in the United States, and the company needs an experienced 
Administrative Manager who shall support our company's continuous market leading position by 
furnishing secured administrative service and office management." The petitioner stated that the 
beneficiary will be responsible for the following duties: 
1 We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). 
(b)(6)
Page3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
1. Analyze internal operating processes and recommend and implement 
procedural or policy changes to improve operations; 
2. Manage leasing of facility space and monitor the facility to ensure that it 
remains safe, secure and well-maintained; 
3. Maintain various corporate records including inventory of office equipment or 
furniture, customer lists, administrative services procedures manuals, and 
corporate documents; 
4. Review contracts which are related to office management and keep records to 
comply with the contracts; 
5. Cooperate with other departments for publishing corporate documents 
including various corporate brochures and product catalogs; 
6. Train and assign work to administrative staff; and 
7. Prepare financial reports for contracts, equipment and supplies purchasing. 
The petitioner also stated that "due to the nature of the duties to be performed, the position 
requires the incumbent to have at least a Bachelor's degree in related areas or equivalent 
experiences." The petitioner submitted copies of the beneficiary's degree, school transcripts and 
certificates. 
The director found the initial evidence insufficient to establish eligibility for the benefit sought, 
and issued an RFE on May 22, 2014. The director, in part, requested that the petitioner provide 
evidence to establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, including 
evidence that a bachelor's degree in a specific field of study is required to perform the duties of 
the position. The director also requested additional evidence of the beneficiary's qualifications. 
The director outlined some of the specific types of evidence that could be submitted. 
The director reviewed the petitioner's RFE response, but found it insufficient to establish 
eligibility for the benefit sought and denied the petition on August 18, 2014. The petitioner 
thereafter filed a timely appeal, which is the matter now before us for a decision. 
II. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
We will now address the director's determination that the proffered position is not a specialty 
occupation. Applying the preponderance of the evidence standard and based upon a complete 
review of the record of proceeding, we agree with the director and find that the evidence of 
record fails to establish that the position as described constitutes a specialty occupation. 
A. Law 
To meet the petitioner's burden of proof with regard to the proffered position's classification as 
an H-1B specialty occupation, the petitioner must establish that the employment it is offering to 
the beneficiary meets the following statutory and regulatory requirements. 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. §-1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(b)(6)
Page4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) states, in pertinent part, the following: 
Specialty occupation means an occupation which [(1)] requires theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in fields of human 
endeavor including, but not limited to, architecture, engineering, mathematics, 
physical sciences, social sciences, medicine and health, education, business 
specialties, accounting, law, theology, and the arts, and which [(2)] 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.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, a proposed position 
must also meet one of the following criteria: 
(1) 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. 
As a threshold issue, it is noted that 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must logically be read together 
with section 214(i)(1) of the Act and 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). In other words, this regulatory 
language must be construed in harmony with the thrust of the related provisions and with the 
statute as a whole. SeeK Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) (holding that 
construction of language which takes into account the design of the statute as a whole is 
preferred); see also COlT Independence Joint Venture v. Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 489 
U.S. 561 (1989); Matter of W-F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). As such, the criteria stated in 8 
C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) should logically be read as being necessary but not necessarily 
sufficient to meet the statutory and regulatory definition of specialty occupation. To otherwise 
interpret this section as stating the necessary and sufficient conditions for meeting the definition 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
PageS 
of specialty occupation would result in particular positions meeting a condition under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory or regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 
F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). To avoid this result, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must therefore 
be read as providing supplemental criteria that must be met in accordance with, and not as 
alternatives to, the statutory and regulatory definitions of specialty occupation. 
As such and consonant with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(h)(4)(ii), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) consistently 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 proffered 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"). Applying this standard, USCIS regularly approves H-lB petitions for 
qualified aliens who are to be employed as engineers, computer scientists, certified public 
accountants, college professors, and other such occupations. These professions, for which 
petitioners have regularly been able to establish a minimum entry requirement in the United 
States of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent direct! y related 
to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position, fairly represent the types of specialty 
occupations that Congress contemplated when it created the H-lB visa category. 
To determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, US CIS does not simply 
rely on a position's title. The specific duties of the proffered position, combined with the nature 
of the petitioning entity's business operations, are factors to be considered. USCIS must examine 
the ultimate employment of the alien, and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. The critical element is not the 
title of the position nor an employer's self-imposed standards, but whether the position actually 
requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and 
the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty as the minimum for 
entry into the occupation, as required by the Act. 
B. Analysis 
As a preliminary matter, the petitioner's claim that a bachelor's degree is a sufficient minimum 
requirement for entry into the proffered position 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. There must be a close correlation between the required specialized studies 
and the position; thus, the mere requirement of a degree, without further specification, does not 
establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Associates, 19 I&N 
Dec. 558 (Comm'r 1988) ("The mere requirement of a college degree for the sake of general 
education, or to obtain what an employer perceives to be a higher caliber employee, also does not 
establish eligibility."). Thus, while a general-purpose bachelor's degree 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. See Royal 
Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d at 147. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
The petitioner asserts that its minimum requirement for the proffered position is only a bachelor's 
degree, without further requiring that that degree be in any specific specialty. Without more, the 
petitioner's statement alone indicates that the proffered position is not in fact a specialty 
occupation. The director's decision must therefore be affirmed and the appeal dismissed on this 
basis alone. 
We will now discuss the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(1), which is satisfied by 
establishing that a baccalaureate or higher degree, or its equivalent, in a specific specialty is 
normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position. 
We 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 it addresses. 2 As noted above, the petitioner submitted an LCA in support 
of this position certified for a job offer falling within the "Administrative Services Manager" 
occupational category. 
We reviewed the chapter of the Handbook titled "Administrative Services Managers" including 
the sections regarding the typical duties and requirements for this occupational category. 
However, as will now be discussed, 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 this occupational group. Accordingly, the proffered position's inclusion in this occupational 
group would not be in itself sufficient to satisfy the first criterion of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h) (4)(iii)(A). 
The subsection of the Handbook entitled "How to Become an Administrative Services Manager" 
states, in pertinent part, the following: 
Educational requirements vary by the type of organization and the work they do. 
They must have related work experience. 
Education 
A high school diploma or a General Educational Development (GED) diploma is 
typically required for someone to become an administrative services manager. 
However, administrative services managers typically enter the occupation with a 
bachelor's degree. Those with a bachelor's degree typically study business, 
engineering, or facility management. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., 
"Administrative Services Managers," http://www .bls.gov/ooh/management/administrative­
services-managers.htm#tab-4 (last visited on April 29, 2015). 
2 The Handbook, which is available in printed form, may also be accessed online at 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh. The references to the Handbook are from the 2014-15 edition available online. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
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 this occupation. The Handbook 
indicates that the educational requirements for the occupational category vary by the type of 
organization and the work performed. According to this passage of the Handbook, employees in 
this occupation must have related work experience. 
Further, the Handbook reports that a high school diploma or a General Educational Development 
(GED) diploma is typically required for an administrative services manager. Thus, the 
Handbook indicates that less than a bachelor's degree is acceptable for entry into this occupation. 
Moreover, the Handbook indicates that while some administrative services managers need at 
least a bache lor's degree, it continues by stating that employees study subjects in a range of 
fields-typically business, engineering, or facility management. The fact that only some 
employees in this occupation need a bachelor's degree (and that a range of disparate disciplines is 
acceptable) is not sufficient to establish that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry.3 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner states that according to DOL, the Education and Training 
Code (ETC) for administrative services managers is "4," which requires work experience, plus a 
bachelor's higher or higher degree.4 However, we find that ETC of "4" is not particularly useful 
in determining whether a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is a 
requirement for a given position, as this does not mention the specific field of study from which 
a degree must come. As was noted previously, we interpret the term "degree" in the criteria at 
8 C.P.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 proffered position. Thus, a designation of ETC 
"4" does not demonstrate that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is normally the 
minimum requirement for entry, 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.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
On appeal, the petitioner contends that duties for administrative managers as indicated in the 
Handbook is a basic job description for the position but the position offered to the beneficiary 
3 In general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry and biochemistry, a minimum of a 
bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty is recognized as satisfying the "degree in the 
specific specialty (or its equivalent)" requirement of section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act. In such a case, the 
required "body of highly specialized knowledge" would essentially be the same. Since there must be a 
close correlation between the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" and the position, however, 
a minimum entry requirement of a degree in disparate fields, such as philosophy and engineering, would 
not meet the statutory requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)," unless 
the petitioner establishes how each field is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
particular position such that the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" is essential ly an 
amalgamation of these different specialties. Section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act (emphasis added). 
4 For more information about Education and Training Codes, see 
http://www.flcdatacenter.com!frainingCodes.aspx (last visited April 29, 2015). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISiON 
Page 8 
"will also be responsible for a much larger scale of business act1v1ty than the norm." The 
petitioner states that the "average Administrative Services Manager does not, for example, have 
to manage a 4,000-strong customer list, nor is the average administrative services manager 
position required to coordinate with different office branches across the country to create 
brochures and other product publications." Although the petitioner claims that the proffered 
position is more advanced than the position outlined in the Handbook, the petitioner submitted 
an LCA certified for a job prospect with a wage-level I. This designation is indicative of a 
comparatively low, entry-level position relative to others within the occupation.5 That is, in 
accordance with the relevant DOL explanatory information on wage levels, this Level I wage 
rate is only appropriate for a position in which the beneficiary is required to have a basic 
understanding of the occupation and would be expected to perform routine tasks that require 
limited exercise of judgment. DOL guidance indicates that a Level I designation is appropriate 
for a research fellow, a worker in training, or an internship. This designation suggests that the 
beneficiary will not serve in a high-level or leadership position relative to others within the 
occupational category. 
When, as here, the Handbook does not support the proposttlon that the proffered pos1t10n 
satisfies this first criterion of 8 C. P. R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A), it is incumbent upon the petitioner to 
provide persuasive evidence that the proffered position otherwise satisfies the criterion, 
notwithstanding the absence of the Handbook's support on the issue. In such case, it is the 
petitioner's responsibility to provide probative evidence (e.g., documentation from other 
authoritative sources) that supports a favorable finding with regard to this criterion. The 
regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iv) provides that "[a]n H-lB petition involving a specialty 
occupation shall be accompanied by [ d]ocumentation . . . or any other required evidence 
sufficient to establish . . . that the services the beneficiary is to perform are in a specialty 
occupation." Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 
5 The wage levels are defined in DOL's "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance." A Level I 
wage rate is describes as follows: 
Level I (entry) wage rates are assigned to job offers for beginning level employees who 
have only a basic understanding of the occupation. These employees perform routine 
tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment. The tasks provide experience and 
familiarization with the employer's methods, practices, and programs. The employees 
may perform higher level work for training and developmental purposes. These 
employees work under close supervision and receive specific instructions on required 
tasks and results expected. Their work is closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy. 
Statements that the job offer is for a research fellow, a worker in training, or an internship 
are indicators that a Level I wage should be considered. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, 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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. 
Comm'r 1972)). 
In support of the assertion that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, the 
petitioner submitted a document entitled "Specialty Occupation Evaluation" from Professor 
Assistant Professor and Director of Graduate Program 
stated, "[i]t is my opinion that the position of Administrative Manager is clearly a specialty 
position, and requires the services of someone with advanced training through a Bachelor's 
program in Business Administration, or a closely related field." We reviewed the letter in its 
entirety. However, as discussed below, the letter from is not persuasive in establishing 
that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation position. 
As a preliminary matter, 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. As mentioned, the 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 correlation 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 Matter of Michael Hertz Associates, 19 I&N Dec. 558. 
To prove that a job requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly 
specialized knowledge 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. As discussed supra, USCIS interprets the degree requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to require a degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the 
proposed 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 finding that a particular position qualifies for classification as a 
specialty occupation. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d at 147. 6 
6 Specifically, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit explained inRoyal Siam that: 
!d. 
[t]he courts and the agency consistently have stated that, although a general-purpose 
bachelor's degree, such as a business administration degree, may be a legitimate 
prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not 
justify the granting of a petition for an H-lB specialty occupation visa. See, e.g., Tapis 
Int'l v. INS, 94 F.Supp.2d 172, 175-76 (D.Mass.2000); Shanti, 36 F. Supp.2d at 11 64-66; 
cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I & N Dec. 558, 560 ([Comm'r] 19 88) (providing 
frequently cited analysis in connection with a conceptually similar provision). This is as it 
should be: elsewise, an employer could ensure the granting of a specialty occupation visa 
petition by the simple expedient of creating a generic (and essentially artificial) degree 
requirement. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
Further, we note that provided a bullet point list of the job duties, which is virtually 
verbatim from the petitioner's job duties. Upon review of the opinion letter, there is no 
indication that possesses any knowledge of the petitioner's proffered position and its 
business operations beyond the information provided by the petitioner. does not 
demonstrate or assert in-depth knowledge of the petitioner's specific business operations or how 
the duties of the position would actually be performed in the context of the petitioner's business 
enterprise. For instance, there is no evidence that has visited the petitioner's business, 
observed the petitioner's employees, interviewed them about the nature of their work, or 
documented the knowledge that they apply on the job. 
asserts a general industry educational standard for administrative services manager 
positions without referencing any supporting authority or any empirical basis for the 
pronouncement. Likewise, he does not provide a substantive, analytical basis for his opinion and 
ultimate conclusion. His opinion does not relate his conclusion 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 here at issue. Accordingly, the very fact 
that he attributes a degree requirement to such a generalized treatment of the proffered position 
undermines the credibility of his opinion. 
'In the opinion letter, does not cite specific instances in which his past opinions have 
been accepted or recognized as authoritative on this particular issue. There is no indication that 
he has published any work or conducted any research or studies pertinent to the educational 
requirements for such positions (or parallel positions) in the petitioner's industry for similar 
organizations, and no indication of recognition by professional organizations that he is an 
authority on those specific requirements. 
Furthermore, there is no indication that the petitioner advised that the petitiOner 
characterized the proffered position as a low, entry-level administrative service manager, who 
has only a basic understanding of the occupation (as indicated by the wage-level on the LCA). 
The wage-rate indicates that the beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require 
limited exercise of judgment. It appears that would have found this information 
relevant for his opinion letter. Without this information, the petitioner has not demonstrated that 
possessed the requisite information necessary to adequately assess the nature of the 
petitioner's position and appropriately determine the educational requirements based upon the job 
duties and responsibilities. 
In summary, and for each and all of the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the opinion 
letter rendered by is not probative evidence to establish the proffered position as a 
specialty occupation. The conclusion reached by lacks the requisite specificity and 
detail and is not supported by independent, objective evidence demonstrating the manner in 
which he reached such conclusion. There is an inadequate factual foundation established to 
support the opinion and the opinion is not in accord with other information in the record. 
Therefore, the letter from does not establish that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
We may, in our discretion, use as 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 efficiency's sake, we hereby incorporate the above discussion and 
analysis regarding the opinion letter into each of the bases in this decision for dismissing the 
appeal. 
Upon review of the totality of the evidence in the entire record of proceeding, the petitioner has 
not established that the proffered position falls under an occupational category for which the 
Handbook, or other authoritative source, indicates that a requirement for at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally required for entry into the occupation. 
Furthermore, the duties and requirements of the proffered position as described in the record of 
proceeding do not indicate that this particular position proffered by the petitioner is one for 
which a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the 
minimum requirement for entry. Thus, the petitioner failed to satisfy the first criterion of 
8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
Next, the petitioner has not satisfied the first of the two alternative prongs of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). This prong alternatively calls for a petitioner to establish that a 
requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common 
for positions sharing all three characteristics of being (1) within the petitioner's industry, 
(2) parallel to the proffered position, and also (3) located in organizations that are similar to the 
petitioner. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by 
USCIS include: 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) (quotingHird!Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
As previously discussed, the petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for 
which the Handbook, or other authoritative source, reports a standard industry-wide 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. 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 such firms "routinely employ and recruit 
only degreed individuals." Thus, based upon a complete review of the record of proceeding, we 
find that the petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)(2). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
Next, we find that the job-vacancy announcements submitted by counsel do not satisfy this 
alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), either. That is, neither the job-vacancy 
announcements themselves, nor any other evidence within the record of proceeding, establish 
that those advertisements pertain to positions that meet all of the criterion's elements of being in 
the petitioner's industry, in organizations similar to the petitioner, and also parallel to the 
proffered position, as required for evidence to merit consideration under this first alternative 
prong. In this regard, we make several specific findings. 
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 the organizations are similar and in the same industry without 
providing a legitimate basis for such an assertion. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190). 
In the Form I-129, the petitioner stated that it is a "wholesaler of beauty supplies" business, with 
25 employees, that was established in and had a gross annual income of $22 million. 
We reviewed the job advertisements submitted by the petitioner. Notably, the petitioner did not 
provide any independent evidence of how representative these job advertisements are of the 
particular advertising employer's recruiting history for the type of job advertised. Further, as 
they are only solicitations for hire, they are not evidence of what qualifications were ultimately 
required for the positions. Moreover, upon review of the documents, we find that they do not 
establish that a requirement for a bachelor's degree, in a specific specialty, is common to the 
petitioner's industry in similar organizations for parallel positions to the proffered position. 
For example, the advertisements include positions with (food and beverage 
retailer); _ _ _ (technology and capital equipment leasing company); 
(computer software industry); (orthodontist); and a 
staffing company. Without further information, the advertisements appear to be for 
organizations that are not similar to the petitioner, and the petitioner has not provided any 
probative evidence to suggest otherwise. On appeal, the petitioner contends that the 
is similar to the petitioner because it is a food and beverage retailer that is in charge 
of distribution of beer and both are wholesaler distributors working with retailers. However, the 
petitioner failed to supplement the record of proceeding to establish that the employers are 
similar to it. For example, there is no information in the record of proceeding regarding 
revenue or staffing. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is 
not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of 
Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm'r 1972)). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
In addition, on appeal, the petitioner submits a new job announcement for a company that 
manufactures and distributes beauty products; however, the position is for a Sales Administration 
Manager, who is mainly in charge of sales operations rather than the administration operations. 
In addition, the job posting is for an experienced individual with 2 to 5 years of experience which 
differs from the Level I wage requirement established by the petitioner for the proffered position. 
Further, we note that although the petitioner has designated the proffered position as a Level I 
position, indicating that it is an entry-level position, it has provided job announcements for positions 
requiring extensive experience. For example, the job announcement from and 
_ 
requires 2 to 5 years of related experience. Further, ' 
requires "a minimum of 5 years of office experience," and requires "a 
minimum of 5-10+ years progressive administrative or office management experience." Thus, the 
job-vacancy advertisements do not establish that the advertised positions are "parallel" to the 
proffered position. 
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. That is, as the evidence does not establish that similar organizations in the same 
industry routinely require at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for 
parallel positions, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. 7 
Thus, the petitioner has not satisfied the first of the two alternative prongs of 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), as the evidence of record does not establish that a requirement of a 
bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common for positions 
sharing all three characteristics of being (1) within the petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the 
proffered position, and also (3) located in organizations that are similar to the petitioner. 
Next, the evidence of record does not satisfy the second alternative prong of 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which provides that "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." 
7 It must be noted that even if all of the job postings indicated that a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations 
(which they do not), the petitioner fails to demonstrate what inferences, if any, can be drawn from these 
advertisements 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). 
As such, even if the job announcements supported the finding that the position required a bachelor's or 
higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent (for organizations in the same industry that are 
similar to the petitioner), it cannot be found that such a limited number of postings that appear to have 
been consciously selected outweigh the findings of the Handbook published by the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics that such a position does not normally require at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
In support of its assertion that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, the 
petitioner submitted various documents relating to its business including tax returns, photographs 
of the premises, and catalogs. While the petitioner submitted documents regarding its business 
operations, the petitioner did not explain how the documents relate to the beneficiary's duties, 
and the evidence does not establish the relative complexity or uniqueness of the proffered 
position. 
Further, upon review of the proffered duties, the record of proceeding presents the duties 
comprising the proffered position in terms of relatively abstract and generalized functions. More 
specifically, they lack sufficient detail and concrete explanation to establish the substantive nature 
of the work and associated applications of specialized knowledge that their actual performance 
would require within the context of the petitioner's particular business operations. For example, the 
beneficiary will "analyze internal operating processes and recommend and implement procedural 
or policy changes to improve operations"; "manage leasing of facility space and monitor the 
facility to ensure that it remains safe, secure and well-maintained"; "maintain various corporate 
records including inventory of office equipment or furniture, customer lists, administrative 
services procedures manuals, and corporate documents"; "review contracts which are related to 
office management and keep records to comply with the contracts"; "cooperate with other 
departments for publishing corporate documents including various corporate brochures and 
product catalogs"; and "prepare financial reports for contracts, equipment and supplies 
purchasing." The petitioner stated that the beneficiary will analyze internal operating processes 
but did not provide any information of the organizational structure or the operational functions of 
the business. The evidence of record contains neither substantive explanation nor documentation 
showing the substantive nature of the work and associated applications of specialized knowledge 
that would be involved in the referenced tasks. 
In addition, on appeal, the petitioner provided additional details regarding proposed job duties such 
as the beneficiary will manage "our extensive product list, which showcases over 10,000 unique 
products and 20,000 SKUs"; and "manage a massive sales and distribution network in a self-guided 
and efficient manner"; and "managing and growing" a customer list of over 4,000 customers. On 
appeal, it appears that the duties of the proffered position now involve duties related to sales and 
marketing which was not listed in the initial petition. On appeal, a petitioner cannot offer a new 
position to the beneficiary, or materially change a position's title, its level of authority within the 
organizational hierarchy, or the associated job responsibilities. The petitioner must establish that 
the position offered to the beneficiary when the petition was filed merits classification as a 
managerial or executive position. Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248, 249 (Reg. 
Comm. 19 78). A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a 
deficient petition conform to CIS requirements. See Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 17 6 
(Assoc. Comm. 1998). 
Upon review, we find that the petitioner has not sufficiently developed relative complexity or 
uniqueness as an aspect of the proffered position. On appeal, the petitioner stated that 
beneficiary's "Bachelor of Arts in Legal Studies from University qualifies him for the 
positon of Administrative Services Manager because the coursework involved in the degree is 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
directly related to the duties and industry in which our position is situated." The pet itioner goes 
on to state some of the courses taken by the beneficiary that are relevant to this position. 
However, 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 necess ary to perform the 
duties it may believe are so complex and unique. While a few related courses may be beneficial, 
or even required, in performing certain duties of the position, the petitioner has failed to 
demonstrate 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 description of the duties does not specifically identify any tasks that are so 
complex or unique that only a specifically de greed individual could perform them. 8 
The petitioner has indicated that the beneficiary's educational background and prior work 
experience will assist him in carrying out the duties of the proffered position. The petitioner 
asserts that the beneficiary has a 15 year career, "slowly moving up through progressively 
responsible positions directly related to Administrative Services Management." However, the 
test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the skill set or education of a proposed 
beneficiary, but whether the position itself qualifies as a specialty occupation. In the instant 
case, the petitioner has not established which of the duties, if any, of the proffered position 
would be so complex or unique as to be distinguishable from those of similar but non-degreed or 
non-specialty degreed employment. The petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong 
of 8 C.F.R. § 21 4.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
We turn next to the criterion at 8 C. F.R. § 21 4.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3), which entails an employer 
demonstrating that it normally requires a bachelor 's degree in a specific specialty or its 
equivalent for the position. 
To satisfy this criterion, the record must contain documentary evidence demonstrating that the 
petitioner has a history of requiring the degree or degree equivalency, in a specific specialty, in its 
prior recruiting and hiring for the position. Additionally, the record must establish that a petitioner's 
imposition of a degree requirement is not merely a matter of preference for high-caliber candidates 
but is necessitated by the performance requirements of the proffered position.9 
Were USCIS limited solely to reviewing a petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, then 
any individual with a bachelor 's degree could be brought to the United States to perform any 
occupation as long as the employer artificially created a token degree requirement, whereby all 
individuals employed in a particular position possessed a baccalaureate or higher degree in the 
specific specialty or its equivalent. See Defensor v. Meissner, 20 1 F. 3d at 387. In other words, 
if a petitioner 's assertion of a particular degree requirement is not necessitated by the actual 
8 Again, we note that the petitioner designa ted the proffered positio n on the LCA at a Level I wage level. 
Th is desig nation indic ates that the proffered positio n is a low -level, entry position relative to others 
with in the occu pational category "A dmini strative Services Managers ." 
9 Any such assertion would be unde rm ined in this particu lar case by the fact that the petition er's 
submission of an LCA certified for a Level I prev ail ing-wage sig nifi es assessment of the proffered 
positio n as a comp aratively low, entry- level position relative to others wit hin the same occupa tion . 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 16 
performance requirements of the proffered position, the position would not meet the statutory or 
regulatory definition of a specialty occupation. See § 214(i)( l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty occupation"). Here, the petitioner stated that the 
position of Administrative Service Manager is a new job and does not any evidence of past 
hiring practice for this position. On appeal, the petitioner stated that it required a bachelor 's 
degree for the position of Purchasing Manager, Marketing Manager and Accounting Manager 
and offered evidence that "three of our managers at similar responsibility levels in the 
organization were hired with a Bachelor's degree as a requirement." However, the petitioner did 
not submit any documentation to establish their employment and the degrees. Further, the 
petitioner also did not submit evidence to establish that these managers are in a similar level in 
the organizational hierarchy as the proffered position. 
As the record of proceeding does not demonstrate that the petitioner normally requires at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for the proffered position, it does not 
satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A )(3 ). 
Next, the evidence of record does not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4), 
which requires the petitioner to establish that the nature of the proffered 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 higher degree in the specific specialty or its equivalent. 
For context, we again refer the petitioner to the Handbook and the pertinent sections that we have 
quoted from it. The Handbook's information does not indicate that the performance 
requirements of the duties of Administrative Services Managers occupational group are usually 
associated with attainment of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 
As reflected in this decision's earlier comments and findings with regard to the proposed duties 
as presented in the record - which we here incorporate into the present analysis - the evidence of 
record does not establish the nature of the proposed duties as so specialized and complex that 
their performance would require knowledge usually associated with a particular level of 
education in a specific specialty. While the petition relates many and varied duties and functions 
that the beneficiary would have to perform, it does not show that even the aggregate of such 
duties is usually associated with a particular level of educational attainment in any specific 
specialty. Thus, the evidence in the record of proceeding fails to establish that the proposed 
duties-meet the specialization and complexity threshold at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
Additionally, we find that both on its own terms and also in comparison with the three higher 
wage-levels that can be designated in an LCA, by the submission of an LCA certified for a wage­
level I, the petitioner effectively attests that the proposed duties are of relatively low complexity 
as compared to others within the same occupational category. This fact is materially inconsistent 
with the level of complexity required by this criterion. By virtue of this submission the 
petitioner effectively attested that the proffered position is a low-level, entry position relative to 
others within the occupation, and that, as clear by comparison with DOL's instructive comments 
about the next higher level (Level II), the proffered position did not even involve "moderately 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 17 
complex tasks that require limited judgment" (the level of complexity noted for the next higher 
wage-level, Level II). 
For all of these reasons, the evidence in the record of proceeding fails to establish that the 
proposed duties meet the specialization and complexity threshold at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)( 4). 
As the petitioner has not satisfied at least one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it 
cannot be found that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. Further, we do not need to 
examine the issue of the beneficiary's qualifications, because the petitioner has not provided 
sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. In other 
words, the beneficiary's credentials to perform a particular job are relevant only when the job is 
found to be a specialty occupation. Therefore, we need not address the beneficiary's 
qualifications. 
III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each 
considered as 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; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.