dismissed H-1B Case: Budget Analysis

MATTER OF S-, LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 19,2017 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a law firm, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "budget analyst" under the 
H-1B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). The H-IB program allows a U.S. 
employer to temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a position that requires both (a) the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and (b) the attainment of 
a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for 
entry into the position. 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the Director erred in denying the petition. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.1 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
1 We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 
(AAO 2010). 
Matter of S-, LLC 
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: 
(I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an/ 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that 
knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We have consistently interpreted the term "degree" to mean not just 
any baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the 
proposed position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. 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 response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided the following job 
duties for the proffered position: 
o Direct the preparation of regular and special budget reports. -20% 
o Analyze monthly budgeting and accounting reports to maintain expenditure 
controls. -20% 
o Provide advice and technical assistance with cost analysis, fiscal allocation, and 
budget preparation. -5% 
o Examine budget estimates for completeness, accuracy, and conformance with 
procedures and regulations. 
o Summarize budgets and submit recommendations for the approval or disapprovill 
of funds requests. -5% 
o Review operating budgets to analyze trends affecting budget needs. -1 0% 
o Consult with managers to ensure that budget adjustments are made in accordance 
with operational changes. -5% 
o Compile and analyze accounting records and other data to determine the financial 
resources required to implement an operation. -15% 
2 
Matter of S-, LLC 
o Perform cost-benefit analyses to compare operating programs, review financial 
requests, or explore alternative financing methods. -10% 
o Interpret budget directives and establish policies for carrying out directives. -5% 
In its RFE response letter, the Petitioner stated that the position requires "at least a bachelor's degree 
in business, accounting or a related field." In another letter submitted in response to the RFE, the 
Petitioner indicated that the duties of the position "are so complex and so specialized that they 
cannot be adequately performed without the attainment of a bachelor's degree in accounting or 
related field of study." On appeal, the Petitioner provides a New York State Prevailing Wage 
Request for the position reflecting in Item 18 that the position requires a "BS or BA in Accounting 
or Business." 
III. ANALYSIS 
For the reasons set out below, we have determined that the proffered position does not qualify as a 
specialty occupation.2 Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties reqmre an 
educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation.3 
As a preliminary matter, the Petitioner's claim that a bachelor's degree in business 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 noted above, the Petitioner makes 
conflicting statements in the record regarding the specific degree required for the position, but the 
preponderance of the evidence indicates that a bachelor's degree in business would be sufficient. 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, 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). 
To prove that a job requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly 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 specialized field of study or its 
equivalent. As discussed, we interpret the degree requirement at 8 C.P.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. Royal Siam, 484 F.3d 
at 147. 
2 
Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
3 The Petitioner submitted documentation in support of the H-1 B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
3 
Matter of S-, LLC 
Again, the Petitioner in this matter claims that the duties of the proffered position can be performed 
by an individual with only a general-purpose bachelor's degree, i.e., a bachelor's degree in business. 
Without more, this assertion 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. However, we will nevertheless perform a complete specialty occupation analysis under 
each of the four, alternative 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)(J), 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.4 
On the labor condition application (LCA)5 submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Budget Analysts" corresponding 
to the Standard Occupational Classification code 13-2031.6 
The Handbook states "[e]mployers generally require budget analysts to have at least a bachelor's 
degree. . . . 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." Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of 
4 All of our references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not, however, maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant 
information. That is, the occupational category designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the 
general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered position, and we regularly review the Handbook on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 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. 
5 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to USCIS to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B worker the 
higher of either the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the "area of employment" or the actual wage 
paid by the employer to other employees with similar experience and qualifications who are performing the same 
services. See Matter ofSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 l&N Dec. 542, 545-546 (AAO 20 15). 
6 The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level I wage (the lowest of four assignable wage levels). We will 
consider this selection in our analysis of the position. The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" issued by 
the DOL provides a description of the wage levels. A Level I wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which 
the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding ofthe occupation. This wage rate indicates: (I) that 
the Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that he 
will be closely supervised and his work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that he will receive 
specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. 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 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. 
4 
Matter of S-, LLC 
Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Budget Analysts (2016-17 ed.). The Handbook does not 
support a finding that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is required for entry into this 
occupation. Instead, the Handbook indicates that the occupational category accepts a wide variety of 
degrees, including disparate fields such as public administration, political science, and sociology. 
It also indicates that "budget-related or finance-related work experience can be substituted for formal 
education," but does not state that such work experience must be equivalent to at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty. The Handbook, therefore, does not support a claim that "Budget 
Analysts" comprise an occupational group for which at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation. 
We have also reviewed the Petitioner's reference to the Occupational Information Network 
(O*NET) OnLine's assignment of a Job Zone "Four" rating to the budget analysts occupation, which 
groups it among occupations for which "most ... require a four-year bachelor's degree, but some do 
not." O*NET OnLine Summary Report for "13-2031.00 Budget Analysts," 
http:/ /www.onetonline.org/link/summary/13-2031.00 (last visited July 11, 20 17). However, O*NET 
OnLine does not indicate that four-year bachelor's degrees that may be required by Job Zone Four 
occupations must be in a specific speciafty directly related to the occupation. Therefore, the O*NET 
OnLine information is not probative of the proffered position being a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner makes reference to Residential Finance Corp. v. USCIS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 
985 (S.D. Ohio 2012) and several non-precedent cases issued by this office. The Petitioner ~sserts 
that these cases reject the requirement of a specific academic major to qualify as a specialty 
occupation. The Petitioner contends that "all that matters is that the job title requires a bachelor's 
degree in one of several fields of study referred to above as long as each of these fields itself 
qualifies as a specialty field of study." 
We do not concur with the Petitioner's assessment. 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 two 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 essentially an 
amalgamation of these different specialties. Section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act (emphasis added). For 
the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner has not met its burden to establish that the particular 
position offered in this matter requires a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, directly related to its duties in order to perform those tasks. 
Further, if we are to accept the Petitioner's assertion that each of the bachelor's degrees identified as 
5 
Matter of S-, LLC 
required for the position would itself qualify the position as a specialty occupation, it appears that 
the Petitioner is stating that a degree in business alone would qualify the proffered position as a 
specialty occupation. However, as we have discussed, the requirement of a degree with a 
generalized title, such as business, without further specification, does not establish the position as a 
specialty occupation. Cf Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. at 558, 560. 
In addition, the Petitioner has furnished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition 
are analogous to those in Residential Finance.7 We also note that, in contrast to the broad 
precedential authority of the case law of a United States circuit court, we are not bound to follow the 
published decision of a United States district court in matters arising even within the same 
district. See Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715, 719-20 (BIA 1993). Although the reasoning 
underlying a district judge's decision will be given due consideration when it is properly before us, 
the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of law. !d. Likewise, with respect to the 
Petitioner's reference to non-precedent decisions of this office, the Petitioner has not established that 
the facts of this petition are analogous to those in the unpublished decisions. While 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3(c) provides that our precedent decisions are binding on U.S Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS), unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. 
Lastly, we also acknowledge that the Petitioner has submitted information from several career 
websites addressing the educational requirements for budget analyst positions. However, similar to 
the Handbook, these career websites reflect that bachelor's degrees in various fields would be 
sufficient for entry into a budget analyst position, as opposed to a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty. For instance, the websites refer to bachelor's degrees in accounting, business 
administration, management, economics, finance, public administration, statistics, political science, 
and sociology. As such, the career website evidence provided by the Petitioner also does not indicate 
that budget analyst positions require at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, 
for minimum requirement for entry into the occupation. 
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 
7• It is noted that the district judge's decision in that case appears to have been based largely on the many factual errors 
made by the Director in the decision denying the petition. We further note that the Director's decision was not appealed 
to us. Based on the district court's findings and description of the record, if that matter had first been appealed through 
the available administrative process, we may very well have remanded the matter to the service center for a new decision 
for many of the same reasons articulated by the district court if these errors could not have been remedied by us in our de 
novo review of the matter. 
6 
Matter of S-, LLC 
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 
casts its gaze upon the 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. 
We generally consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there is such a common 
degree requirement: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the 
industry's professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether 
letters or affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry establish that such firms "routinely 
employ and recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 
(D. Minn. 1999) (quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) 
(considering these "factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
As already discussed, the Petitioner has not established that the proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook (or other independent, authoritative sources) 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. In addition, there are no submissions from the 
industry's professional association indicating that it has made a degree a minimum entry 
requirement. 
In support of its assertion that the degree requirement is common to the Petitioner's industry in 
parallel positions among similar organizations, the Petitioner submitted job postings in response to 
the Director's RFE and now provides additional job postings on appeal. However, we are unable to 
determine that these companies are similar to the Petitioner or that the submitted positions are 
parallel to the proffered position. The Petitioner indicates that it is a law firm with only three 
employees, while provided job postings appear to be from large corporations in various fields such 
as finance and accounting, nonprofit, healthcare, education, staffing, defense, federal government 
and consulting. The Petitioner merely indicates that it should not be discriminated due to its small 
size; however this assertion appears to acknowledge that the submitted announcements are not from 
similar organizations. 8 In addition, the vast majority of the provided job advertisements require prior 
experience, with some requiring five or more years of experience. This is in contrast to the proffered 
8 While USC IS should not limit its review to the size of a petitioner and must consider the actual responsibilities of the 
proffered position, we find that it is reasonable to assume that the size of an employer's business has or could have an 
impact on the claimed duties of a particular position. See EG Enters., Inc. v. Dep 't of Homeland Sec., 467 F. Supp. 2d 
728 (E.D. Mich. 2006). The size of a petitioner may be considered as a component of the nature of the petitioner's 
business, as the size impacts upon the actual duties of a particular position. 
7 
Matter of S-, LLC 
position which is designated as a Level I wage, indicating that it requires little or no experience. 
Accordingly, it is not possible to conclude that the positions are parallel to the proffered position. 
The job advertisements do not establish that organizations similar to the Petitioner routinely employ 
individuals with degrees in a specific specialty, in parallel positions in the Petitioner's industry. 
Further, even if the provided job advertisements were deemed parallel to the proffered position, they 
do not reflect that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is commonly required. For instance, 
some job announcements state that less than a bachelor's degree could be sufficient, and some do not 
identify a specific bachelor's degree requirement, while others indicate that a bachelor's degree in 
business or business administration would be sufficient. As such, the job advertisements do not 
reflect that a specific bachelor's degree requirement is common amongst budget analyst positions. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion of the first alternative prong of 
8 C.F.R. § 2142(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that "the nature, scope and specific duties of the proffered position 
[are] so specialized, so distinctive, so complex and so exceptional that it requires the services of an 
individual with a bachelor degree in a specific field of study." However, the submitted evidence 
does not distinguish the proffered position as unique from or more complex than other budget 
analyst positions that can be performed by persons without at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. 
Upon review of the Petitioner's description of the proffered position, we observe that the duties of 
the position are identical to O*NET's list of tasks for the occupational category "Budget Analysts." 
Providing generic job duties for a proffered position from O*NET or another Internet source, 
however, is generally insufficient to establish H-lB eligibility. 9 C.f Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 
724 F. Supp. 11 03 (E.D .N.Y. 1989), aff d, 905 F 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990) (Specifics are an important 
indication of the nature of the Beneficiary's duties, otherwise meeting the requirements would 
simply be a matter of providing a job title or reiterating the regulations.) While this type of 
description may be appropriate when defining the range of duties that may be performed within an 
9 On the Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker, the Petitioner is required to provide the job title, occupational 
code for the position, and describe the proposed duties. 
8 
Matter of S-, LLC 
occupational category, it does not adequately convey the substantive work that the Beneficiary will 
perform on a day-to-day basis. 10 The duties themselves provide the nature of the employment. !d. 
To establish eligibility, the Petitioner must describe the specific duties and responsibilities to be 
performed by the Beneficiary in the context of its business operations, demonstrate that a legitimate 
need for an employee exists, and substantiate that it has H-1 B caliber work for the Beneficiary for 
the duration of the employment period requested in the petition. See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387 (A 
"common sense reading" of the regulations indicates an intention to fully implement the definition of 
"specialty occupation"); see generally 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(l), (iii)(B)(2), and (iv)(A). Here, 
the job description does not communicate: ( 1) the tasks that the Beneficiary would perform on a day­
to-day basis; (2) the complexity, uniqueness and/or specialization of those responsibilities; and (3) 
the correlation between that work and a need for highly specialized knowledge and a particular level 
of education in a specific specialty. See generally section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) and (4). 
Moreover, the Petitioner has designated the proffered position as an entry-level position within the 
occupational category (by selecting a Level I wage). This designation, when read in combination 
with the Petitioner's job description and the Handbook's account of the requirements for this 
occupation, further suggests that this particular position is not so complex or unique relative to other 
budget analysts that the duties can only be performed by an individual with a bachelor's degree or 
higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 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 courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, is required to perform the duties of the proffered position. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position, and references her 
qualifications. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education 
or experience of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative 
complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position, and it did not identify any tasks 
that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
10 DOL guidance states that for a wage level determination, it is important that the job description include "sufficient 
information to determine the complexity of the job duties, the level of judgment, the amount and level of supervision, 
and the level of understanding required to perform the job duties." 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 _I I_ 2009 .pdf 
9 
Matter of S-, LLC 
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 
record must establish that a petitioner's stated degree requirement is not a matter of preference for 
high-caliber candidates but is necessitated instead by performance requirements of the position. See 
Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. If we were limited solely to reviewing the 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 Petitioner created a token degree 
requirement. !d. Evidence provided in support of this criterion may include, but is not limited to, 
documentation regarding the Petitioner's past recruitment and hiring practices, as well as 
information regarding employees who previously held the position. 
On appeal, the Petitioner acknowledges that it has not previously employed any budget analysts, but 
asserts that this does not necessarily indicate that the position does not require a bachelor's degree in 
a specific specialty for minimum erttry. The Petitioner notes that it has hired law clerks and lawyers 
in the past with bachelor's degrees. However, it is not clear how the hiring of law clerks and 
lawyers with bachelor's degree would demonstrate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty 
would, in tum, be required for the proffered budget analyst position. In fact, it would logically 
follow that lawyers would be required to have a juris doctorate degree, a degree unrelated to the 
proffered position. 
I 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that it normally requires at least a 
bachelor's degree, or the equivalent, in a specific specialty for the proffered position. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
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. 
The Petitioner states on appeal that it has submitted adequate evidence to demonstrate that the duties of 
the position are specialized and complex. More specifically, the Petitioner refers to the proposed work 
of the position as "overwhelming" and notes that it requires "communication skills," "critical thinking," 
and "persuasion techniques." It is not clear from the Petitioner's assertions how the duties of the 
position are more specialized or complex in comparison to other budget analyst positions. Indeed, we 
reasonably conclude that many budget analyst positions require "communication skills," "critical 
thinking," and "persuasion techniques." The Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how these duties 
require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the 
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. We again note that the duties are identical to the tasks 
10 
Matter of S-, LLC 
in O*NET's summary report for "Budget Analysts." They have not been sufficiently developed by 
the Petitioner to establish that they are more specialized and complex than budget analysts positions 
that are not usually associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
In addition, we refer to our earlier comments and findings with regard to the implication of the 
Petitioner's designation of the proffered position in the LCA as a Level I wage, and hence one not likely 
distinguishable by relatively specialized and complex duties. The Petitioner has not demonstrated in the 
record that its proffered position is one with duties sufficiently specialized and complex to satisfY 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
l 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofS-, LLC, ID# 561718 (AAO July 19, 2017) 
II