dismissed H-1B Case: Budget Analysis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-(USA), L.P. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 27, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a plastic raw material wholesaler, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"budget analyst" under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). TheH-1B program allows a 
U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a position that requires both (a) 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and (b) the 
attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum 
prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the pet1t10n. The Director concluded that the 
evidence of record did not establish the proffered position as a specialty occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation under the applicable statute and 
regulations. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 
(B) att(_linment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
Matter ojC-(USA), L.P. 
(I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that 
knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has consistently 
interpreted 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 proposed 
position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree 
requirement in a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a 
particular position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
In the initial letter of support, the Petitioner provided a description of the job duties the Beneficiary 
will perform in the position of a budget analyst. In response to the Director's request for evidence, 
the Petitioner reiterated the same job duties, and provided the percentage of time the Beneficiary will 
spend on each duty, as follows (verbatim): 
• Examines budget estimates for completeness, accuracy, and conformance with 
procedures and regulations. (10%) 
• Analyzes monthly department budgeting and accounting reports to maintain 
expenditure controls in order to improve efficiency and increase profits. (15%) 
• Analyzes accounting records to determine financial resources required and submit 
recommendation for budget allocations. (25%) 
• Provides advice and technical assistance with cost analysis, fiscal allocation, and 
budget preparation. (20%) 
• Reviews past and current operating budgets and research economic and financial 
developments that affect the company's spending. (10%) 
• Performs cost-benefit analyses to review financial requests, assess program 
trade-offs, and explore alternative funding methods. (15%) 
• Reviews reports and records to establish that funds have been spent as directed. 
(5%) 
2 
Matter ofC-(USA), L.P. 
According to the Petitioner, the proffered position requires at least a bachelor's degree in business 
administration or a related subject, or its equivalent. 
III. ANALYSIS 
As a preliminary matter, 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. 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 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 Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988), Royal 
Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d at 147.1 
We also cannot find that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation because the record 
does not describe the position's duties with sufficient detail. Here, the Petitioner's descriptions of 
the proffered job duties were recited almost verbatim from the Department of Labor's (DOL) 
Occupational Information Network (O*NET) Details Report for the occupational category "Budget 
Analysts," corresponding to Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 13-2031. See O*NET 
Online Details Report for "Budget Analysts," http://www.onetonline.org/link/details/13-2031.00 
(last visited May 26, 2016). This type of description may be appropriate when defining the range of 
duties that may be performed within an occupational category, but it does not adequately convey the 
substantive work that the Beneficiary will perform within the Petitioner's business operations and, 
thus, generally cannot be relied upon by a petitioner when discussing the duties attached to specific 
employment. 
In establishing a position as a specialty occupation, a petitioner must describe the specific duties and 
responsibilities to be performed by a beneficiary in the context of that petitioner's business 
operations, as well as demonstrate a legitimate need for an employee exists, and substantiate that it 
has H -1 B caliber work for the beneficiary for the period of employment requested in the 
petition. Simply submitting a generic job description that is not specific to the Beneficiary and the 
Petitioner's operations is insufficient to establish the substantive nature of the proffered position. 
Without more, the record does not describe the position's duties with sufficient detail to convey 
substantive information about the relative complexity, uniqueness and/or specialization of the 
1 A general degree requirement does not necessarily preclude a proffered position from qualifying as a specialty 
occupation. For example, an entry requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in business administration with a 
concentration in a specific field, or a bachelor's or higher degree in business administration combined with required 
relevant education, training, and/or experience may, in certain instances, quality the proffered position as a specialty 
occupation. In either case, it must be demonstrated that the entry requirement is equivalent to a bachelor's or higher 
degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 
at 147. 
3 
Matter ofC-(USA), L.P. 
proffered pos1t1on or its associated duties. Nevertheless, for the purpose of performing a 
comprehensive analysis of whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, we will 
discuss the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
A. First Criterion 
We turn first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which requires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. To inform this inquiry, we recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's 
(DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses.2 
On the labor condition application submitted in support of the H-1B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational classification "Budget Analysts" 
corresponding to SOC code 13-2031 at a Level I wage. 
The Handbook subchapter entitled "How to Become a Budget Analyst" states, in pertinent part: 
Employers generally require budget analysts to have at least a bachelor's degree. 
However, some employers may require candidates to have a master's degree. 
Because developing a budget requires strong numerical and analytical skills, courses 
in statistics or accounting are helpful. Federal, state, and local governments have 
varying requirements, but usually require a bachelor's degree in one of many areas, 
such as accounting, finance, business, public administration, economics, statistics, 
political science, or sociology. 
Sometimes, budget-related or finance-related work experience can be substituted for 
formal education. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., 
"Budget Analysts," http://www. bls.gov/ooh/business-and- financial/budget -analysts.htm#tab-4 (last 
visited May 26, 20 16). 
A review of the Handbook does not indicate that, simply by virtue of its occupational classification, 
a budget analyst position qualifies as a specialty occupation. More specifically, while the Handbook 
reports that budget analysts typically have a bachelor's degree, and some have a master's degree, the 
2 All of our references are to the 2016-17 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
http://www.b1s.gov/ooh/. We do not, however, maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant 
information. That is, the occupational category designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the 
general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered position, and USC IS regularly reviews the Handbook on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. To satisfy the first criterion, however, the 
burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position 
would normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
4 
Matter ofC-(USA), L.P. 
Handbook does not specify that the bachelor's or master's degrees must be in a specific specialty. 
The Handbook also reports that budget or finance-related work experience can be substituted for 
formal education, but does not specify the amount of work experience or the type of formal 
education that can be substituted. Thus, the Handbook does not support the claim that the proffered 
position falls under an occupational group for which normally the minimum requirement for entry is 
a baccalaureate degree (or higher) in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Handbook's statement that budget or finance-related work 
experience can be substituted for formal education "does not mean that a degree is not required." In 
support ofthis assertion, the Petitioner cites the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D), which is 
relevant to determining a beneficiary's work experience equivalency to an academic degree. This 
regulation, however, is not relevant to our interpretation of the Handbook for purposes of 
determining a position's normal minimum entry requirements. As previously indicated, work 
experience equivalency specifications are not included in the Handbook's report on the educational 
and training requirements for budget analysts. 
On appeal, the Petitioner also points out that two out of five budget analysts work in federal, state, or 
local governments. However, the Petitioner is not a government entity; thus, the Handbook's 
statement regarding the usual degrees for government budget analysts is not relevant to the 
Petitioner's budget analyst position. Even if this statement were relevant, it is not readily apparent 
that the listed fields of study for government budget analysts (e.g., public administration, political 
science, or sociology) are all closely related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular 
position proffered such that these fields of study could be recognized as meeting the "degree in the 
specific specialty (or its equivalent)" requirement of section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act. 3 
The Petitioner has not provided documentation from a probative source to substantiate its assertion 
regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. Thus, the Petitioner has 
not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)(l). 
B. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs: "The degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may 
show that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong 
3 In general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., accounting and finance, 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 
accounting and sociology, 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 essentially an amalgamation of these 
different specialties. Section 214(i)( I )(B) of the Act (emphasis added). The Petitioner has not done so here. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter ofC-(USA), L.P. 
contemplates common industry· practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
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) (quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S;D.N.Y. 1989)). 
As discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which the 
Handbook or another authoritative source reports an 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 to their employment and recruitment practices. 
We have reviewed the opinion letter by Adjunct Professor at 
Upon review of letter, we do not find a sufficient basis to accord deference to her 
opinion with regard to the minimum educational requirement for the performance of the particular 
position that is the subject of this petition. Even considered in the aggregate, 
professional, academic, and educational experiences do not show that she has published, conducted 
research, run surveys, or engaged in any enterprise, pursuit, or employment - academic or otherwise 
- to provide her with expertise in the particular area upon which she opines. Instead, 
bases her opinion on her educational and professional background in the broad fields of business 
administration, marketing, accounting, computer information science, criminal justice, hospitality 
· management, international business and management. While may have anecdotal 
information regarding the minimum educational requirements for budget analysts, she has not 
supplied sufficient research, studies, surveys, or other authoritative publications as part of her review 
and/or as a foundation for her opinion. 
Importantly, states that she "based[d] [her] assessment that a Budget Analyst would 
require specialized knowledge and experience after conducting a thorough review of employment 
websites including www.monster.com, www.jobs.com and www.careerbuilder.com." 
then gives examples of five advertisements for budget analysts from these websites, and asserts that 
"[t]he aforementioned employment listings clearly 
demonstrate that a Bachelor's degree is the 
(b)(6)
Matter of C-(USA), L.P. 
industry-standard requirement for such a position." However, does not further quantify 
her search results, either by number or actual result. Thus, she has not demonstrated how 
representative and statistically significant these five advertisements are to support her conclusion 
regarding "the industry-standard requirement" for the position.4 
Moreover, does not indicate whether she visited the Petitioner's business premises or 
spoke with anyone affiliated with the Petitioner, so as to ascertain and base her opinion upon the 
substantive nature and educational requirements of the proposed duties as they would be actually 
performed. In this regard, states that she "base[ d] [her] assessment on the fact that the job 
requires specialized knowledge to perform the following duties," and then recites the same list of job 
duties the Petitioner provided. reliance upon these generally stated duties, which were 
copied from O*NET, further diminishes the evidentiary value of her opinion regarding the 
"specialized" nature of the position. 
Furthermore, confirms that the proffered position requires the attainment of a bachelor's 
degree in business administration, or its equivalent. As previously discussed, 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 Assocs., 19 I&N 
Dec. at 560. Therefore, the letter from does not support the finding that the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of 
Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). 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. !d. For the reasons discussed above, opinion letter is 
not probative evidence towards satisfying 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), or any other criterion at 
8 C.P.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. 
The Petitioner seems to assert that the five advertisements summarized by constitute 
evidence under this criterion. The record does not, however, include copies of the actual 
advertisements referenced. Thus, we are unable to ascertain the accuracy of summaries. 
Moreover, we are unable to ascertain the duties of the five advertised positions and the general 
characteristics of the advertising organizations to establish that these advertisements are for parallel 
positions within organizations similar to the Petitioner and in the Petitioner's industry.5 "[G]oing on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden 
4 See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 (7th ed. 1995). 
5 When determining whether a petitioner and an advertising 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). 
Matter ofC-(USA), L.P. 
of proof in these proceedings." Matter of So.ffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing 
Matter ofTreasure Craft ofCal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
Based upon a complete review of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not satisfied the 
first alternative prong of 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
Upon review, we find that the Petitioner has not sufficiently developed relative complexity or 
uniqueness as an aspect of the proffered position. Again, the record does not describe the position's 
duties with sufficient detail to convey substantive information about the relative complexity, 
uniqueness and/or specialization of the proffered position or its associated duties. We hereby 
incorporate our previous discussion on the matter. 
The Petitioner asserts that the proffered position is a "professional" position and that the Handbook's 
description of the nature of a budget analyst's work demonstrates the duties are complex and 
unique.6 The Petitioner, however, has not offered sufficient analysis establishing why the duties it 
describes for its budget analyst requires a detailed course of study in a specific discipline in order to 
perform those duties. For instance, the Petitioner did not submit information relevant to a detailed 
course of study leading to a specialty degree, and did not establish how such a curriculum is 
necessary to perform the duties it may believe are so complex and unique. While a few related 
courses may be beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated how an established curriculum of such courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the duties of the proffered 
. position. In any event, the Handbook does not support the Petitioner's assertion that the nature of a 
budget analyst's work is so complex and unique such that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, is required. As previously discussed, the Handbook indicates that an otherwise 
unspecified bachelor's degree is the typical educational requirement for budget analyst positions. 
When considering the Handbook, we must also consider the Petitioner's designation of the proffered 
position as a Level I (entry) wage level, which is the lowest of four assignable wage levels.7 In 
6 The Petitioner asserts that the budget analyst position "is considered a member of the profession" and cites to section 
10 I (a)(32) of the Act, 8 U .S.C. § II 0 I (a)(32). The issue before us is whether the Petitioner's proffered position qualifies 
as a nonimmigrant H-1 8 specialty occupation and not whether it is a profession. 
7 
For more information about wage levels, see U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage 
Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://tlcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _II_ 2009.pdf. 
8 
Matter of C-(USA), L.P. 
designating the proffered position at a Level I (entry) wage, the Petitioner has indicated that the 
proffered position is a comparatively low, entry-level position relative to others within the 
occupation. Based upon the Petitioner's designation of the proffered position as a Level I (entry) 
position under the "Budget Analysts" occupational category, it does not appear that the Beneficiary 
will perform duties that are so complex or unique that can be performed only by an individual with 
at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. In other words, the record does 
not establish that this position is significantly different from other budget analyst positions such that 
it refutes the Handbook's information to the effect that this position can be performed by persons 
without at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 8 
The Petitioner has indicated that the Beneficiary's educational background will assist her in carrying 
out the duties of the proffered position, and takes particular note of the Beneficiary's master's degree 
in business administration and the specific courses she completed to attain her master's degree. 
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.9 The 
Petitioner does not sufficiently explain or clarify 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. Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative 
prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it 
normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. 
The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" issued by the DOL describes a Level I wage rate as generally 
appropriate for positions for which the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the 
occupation. !d. This wage rate indicates: (1) that the Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require 
limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that she will be closely supervised and her work closely monitored and 
reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that she will receive specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. /d. A 
prevailing wage determination starts with an entry level wage and progresses to a higher wage level after considering the 
experience, education, and skill requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. !d. A Level I wage should be 
considered for research fellows, workers in training, or internships. !d. 
8 The Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position undermines its claim that the position is 
particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation. Nevertheless, a 
Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty occupation, just as a 
Level IV wage-designation does not definitively establish such a classification. In certain occupations (e.g., doctors or 
lawyers), a Level I, entry-level position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent, for entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designation would not reflect that an occupation qualifies 
as a specialty occupation if that higher-level position does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. That is, a position's wage level designation may be a relevant factor but is not 
itself conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 
9 
For this reason, the Petitioner's statements distinguishing the facts of this case from Matter of Ling, 13 I&N Dec. 35 
(Reg'! Comm'r 1968) are not relevant to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which relates to the proffered 
position's qualification as a specialty occupation, not to the Beneficiary's qualification to perform services in a specialty 
occupation. 
9 
Matter ofC-(USA), L.P. 
On appeal, the Petitioner references two individuals whom it claims were previously employed as 
budget analysts. The Petitioner submits copies of their resumes and 2014 W-2 forms. 10 However, 
the resumes do not list any prior or current employment with the Petitioner, and the Petitioner does 
not include a description of the duties these individuals purportedly performed while briefly in its 
employment. Nor does the Petitioner submit copies of their transcripts or degrees to establish their 
educational qualifications. Accordingly, the record of proceedings is insufficient to establish 
eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
D. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature 
of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. 
In the instant case, relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by 
the Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. Under this criterion, the Petitioner repeats the 
initially described duties and the allocation of the Beneficiary's time to those duties, but does not 
offer an analysis of how these generally described duties for its plastic resin distribution business 
elevate the proffered position to a specialty occupation. We again refer to our comments regarding 
the generalized position description, as well as to the Petitioner's attestation that the proffered 
position is for a Level I (entry) position. The record does not establish that a Level I, entry-level, 
budget analyst position such as this is likely distinguishable by relatively specialized and complex 
duties. Upon review of the totality of the record, the Petitioner has not satisfied the fourth criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), and has not 
established that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 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. 
Cite as Matter ofC-(USA), L.P., ID# 17253 (AAO May 27, 2016) 
10 The W-2 fonns show that one individual earned $688 for the year, and the second earned $1,200 for the year. 
10