dismissed H-1B Case: Business

(b)(6)
DATE: JUL 1 0 2015 
INRE : Petitioner : 
Beneficiary : 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office 
20 Massac husetts Ave., N. W ., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION RECEIPT#: 
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: 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Admini strative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. 
If you believe we incorrectly decided your case, you may file a motion requesting us to reconsider our 
decision and/or reopen the proceeding. The requirements for motions are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103 .5. 
Motions must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this 
decision. The Form l-290B web page (www.uscis.gov /i-290b) contains the latest information on fee, filing 
location, and other requirements. Please do not mail any motions directly to the AAO. 
Thank you, 
Ron Rosenberg , 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~JON 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
In the Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129), the petitioner describes itself as a retail 
business, with nine employees, established in In order to employ the beneficiary in what it 
designates as a financial analyst position, the petitioner seeks to classify him as a nonimmigrant 
worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to section 10l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
The Director denied the petition, finding that the evidence of record did not establish that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation nor did it establish that the beneficiary had the 
requisite qualifications . 
1 On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the Director's basis for denial was 
erroneous and contends that it satisfied all evidentiary requirements. 
The record of proceeding contains: (1) the Form I-129 and supporting documentation; (2) the 
Director's request for additional evidence (RFE) ; (3) the petitioner's response to the RFE; ( 4) the 
Director's letter denying the petition; and (5) the Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) and 
supporting documentation. We reviewed the record in its entirety before issuing our decision. 2 
For reasons that will be discussed below, we agree with the Director 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. 
II. SPECIALITY OCCUPATION 
The primary issue is whether the petitioner has provided sufficient evidence to establish that it will 
employ the beneficiary in a specialty occupation. 
1 The director also found that the beneficiary failed to maintain nonimmigrant status in the United States . On 
appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director en·ed in finding that the beneficiary had not maintained his 
nonimmigrant status. However, we have no jurisdiction over this matter, as issues surrounding the 
beneficiary's maintenance of nonimmigrant status are within the sole discretion of the director. Accordingly, 
we will not address this issue except to note that the beneficiary was in Fl status at the time of filing the 
instant Fonn 1-129 petition , not H-4 status, as was stated in the denial. 
2 We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis . See Soltane v. DO.!, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) . 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
A. Legal Framework 
For an H-IB petition to be granted, the petitioner must provide sufficient evidence to establish that it 
will employ the beneficiary in a specialty occupation position. To meet its burden of proof in this 
regard, the petitioner must establish that the employment it is offering to the beneficiary meets the 
applicable statutory and regulatory requirements of a specialty occupation. 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the tenn "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The 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 
meet one of the following criteria: 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the m1mmum 
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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
As a threshold issue, it is noted that 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must logically be read together 
with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.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 ofW­
F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). As such, the criteria stated in 8 C.F.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 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-1B 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, directly 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-IB visa category. 
To determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation , USCIS 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. Proffered Position 
As noted above, the petitioner describes itself a retail business, established in and employing 
nine people. In the letter submitted in support of the instant petition, the petitioner states that it is 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
"an acquisition, management and development firm, primarily in the business of fuel distribution and 
other retail sales operations." 
With respect to the proffered position, the petitioner states that the "minimum prerequisites for the 
offered position require a skilled professional with a Bachelor's degree in Business Administration , 
or a related field." The petitioner provides the following description and time allocation of the 
proffered position's duties:3 
35%- Analyzing procedures to devise most efficient methods of accomplishing 
company goals; Studying financial planning, organizational change & cost 
analysis of the organization; consulting with management to determine its 
assets, liabilities, cash flow, insurance coverage, tax status, and financial 
objectives[.] 
Create financial plans and forecasts for the company. Create and manage P&L, 
balance sheet, and cash flow models with regular updates with different scenarios 
and assumptions. Manage store payroll plans. Work with field management to 
ensure compliance with prescribed targets. Comply with due diligence requests 
related to lenders and other financial stakeholders. Create detailed annual 
financial plan for retail stores. Create and manage store-level plans and incentive 
requirements. Establish and implement policies, goals, objectives, and procedures 
for the financial operations. 
25% - Gathering and organizing information on problems or procedures 
including present operating procedures; Analyzing data gathered, developing 
information and proposing available solutions or alternative methods of 
proceedings to management. 
Gather information, assemble spreadsheets, write reports, and review all non-legal 
pertinent information about prospective deals. They examine the feasibility of a 
deal and prepare a plan of action based on financial analysis. Analyze financial 
results and identify areas for improvement. Work with information technology 
group to improve system-reporting abilities, and help ensure the capabilities of the 
company new retail system are maximized. Manage one direct report[.] 
25% - Organizing and documenting findings of studies and recommend to 
management on implementation of new systems, procedural changes, and 
company goals; Analyzing financial status of the company and developing 
financial plans based on analysis of data, and discussing financial options with 
the management. 
3 We note that the percentage of time spent on the enumerated duties does not add up to equal I 00%. 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
NON-PRECEDENTDEC§ION 
Prepare plans of action for investment based on financial analysis and Company's 
needs. Implement strategy and tactics. Planning, organizing , directing, 
controlling and evaluating the operations of financial operations. Development 
and Implementation of financial reports policies and systems. Establishment of 
performance standards. Preparation of various financial reports for senior 
managers. Come up with investment strategies to meet their financial goals. 
Provide financial forecasts and prepare budgets. Make recommendations on 
investment and investment timing [.] 
10% - Interacting with other managers and executives to assure smooth 
functioning of newly implemented systems and procedures. 
Analyze financials/statistics for benchmarking performance ; create and update 
reports useful to management. Meet with company officials to gain a better 
insight into the company's prospects and to determine its managerial 
effectiveness. 
The petitioner continues to describe the proffered position, adding: 
Financial Analysts are pillars to an organization or a step to the growth of an 
organization. [The beneficiary's] time will be spent setting up financial goals for 
the Petitioner, planning strategies to reach these goals, keeping a high check on 
profits and loss, preparing financial reports, investing funds, monitoring cash 
flows, advising the rest of on mergers and acquisitions , accounting and auditing, 
developing a certain kind of procedures in order to minimize financial risk and 
establishing lending criteria. . . Beneficiary will decide on how much of the 
company's profits should be returned into investment and also how much should 
be reinvested into the organization. To perform these functions, [the beneficiary] 
has to utilize high scale knowledge in the field of budgeting, forecasting, taxation, 
asset allocation, etc. These duties are duties that require prior knowledge and 
ability that can only be obtained through attainment of a baccalaureate level 
education. 
The petitioner submitted a Labor Condition Application (LCA) in support of the instant H-1 B. The 
petitioner indicates that the proffered position corresponds to the occupational category "Financial 
Analysts"-SOC (ONET/OES Code) 13-2051, at a Level I (entry level) wage. 
C. 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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDECmiON 
Page 7 
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. C.f Matter of Michael Hertz Associates, 19 I&N Dec. 558 (Comm'r 1988). 
To establish 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 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 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007).4 
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 
administration. 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. 
Moreover, it also cannot be found that the proffered position is a specialty occupation because the 
petitioner has not satisfied any of the supplemental, additional criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). These criteria are discussed in detail below. 
A baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is 
normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position 
We will now discuss the proffered position in relation 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 nom1ally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position. 
4 Specifically , the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit explained in Royal 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-1 B 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 1164-66; cf Matter of Michael Hertz 
Assocs., 19 I & N Dec. 558, 560 ([Comm'r] 1988) (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 8 
USCIS recognizes the U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an 
authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations 
that it addresses. 5 The petitioner asserts in the LCA that the proffered position falls under the 
occupational category "Financial Analysts." 
We reviewed the section of the Handbook covering "Financial Analysts ," including the section 
entitled "How to Become a Financial Analyst," which states the following: 
Financial analysts typically must have a bachelor's degree, but a master's degree 
is often 
required for advanced positions. 
Education 
Most positions require a bachelor's degree. A number of fields of study provide 
appropriate preparation , including accounting, economics, finance, statistics, 
mathematics , and engineering. For advanced positions , employers often require a 
master's in business administration (MBA) or a master ' s degree in finance. 
Knowledge of options pricing, bond valuation, and risk management are 
important. 
Licenses, Certifications, and Registrations 
The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) is the main licensing 
organization for the securities industry. It requires licenses for many financial 
analyst positions. Most of the licenses require sponsorship by an employer, so 
companies do not expect individuals to have these licenses before starting a job. 
Certification is often recommended by employers and can improve the chances 
for advancement. An example is the Chartered Financial Analyst (CF A) 
certification from the CF A Institute, which financial analysts can get if they have 
a bachelor's degree, 4 years of experience, and pass three exams. Financial 
analysts can also become certified in their field of specialty. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics , Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., 
Financial Analysts , available on the Internet at http://www. bls.gov/ooh/business-and­
financial/financial-analysts.htm (last viewed June 26, 20 15). 
The Handbook does not support the assertion that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into this occupation. Rather, the 
Handbook indicates that most positions require a bachelor's degree and it states there are a wide 
5 All references are to the 2014-2015 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
http://www.bls.gov/OCO/. The excerpts of the Handbook regarding the duties and requirements of the 
referenced occupational category are hereby incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
range of degrees that are acceptable for positions in this occupation. To demonstrate 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 specific specialty, or its equivalent. users 
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. 
In response to the Director's RFE, the petitioner submits information from Occupational Information 
Network (O*NET) Summary Reports for positions with the classification 13-2051.00 - Financial 
Analysts. We note that the O*NET reports are insufficient to establish that the proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation normally requiring at least a bachelor's degree or its equivalent in 
a specific specialty. Contrary to the petitioner's assertions, O*NET does not state a requirement for 
a bachelor's degree. Rather, it assigns this occupation a Job Zone "Four" rating, which groups it 
among occupations of which "most," but not all, "require a four-year bachelor's degree." Further, 
O*NET does not indicate that four-year bachelor's degrees required by Job Zone Four occupations 
must be in a specific specialty directly related to the occupation. Therefore, O*NET information is 
not probative evidence to establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
In the instant case, the petitioner has not established that the proffered position falls under an 
occupational category for which the Handbook, or other authoritative source, indicates that normally 
the minimum requirement for entry is at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. Thus, the petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
The requirement of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty , 
or its equivalent , is common to the industry in parallel 
positions among similar organizations 
Next, we will review the record regarding 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 that 
are identifiable as being (1) in 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) (quoting Hird/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 independent, 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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
the industry's professional association indicating that it has made a degree a mm1mum entry 
requirement. 
The petitioner submitted copies of job advertisements in support of the assertion that the degree 
requirement is common to its industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. However, 
upon review of the documents, we find that the petitioner's reliance on the job announcements is 
misplaced. 
In the Form I-129 petition, the petitioner states that it is a retail business,6 established in with 
nine employees in the United States. The petitioner states that it has annual gross revenue of $10 
million and a net annual income of $75,000. The petitioner designated its business operations under 
the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 447110, which corresponds to 
"Gasoline Stations with Convenience Stores." 7 
For the petitioner to establish that an organization is similar, it must demonstrate that the petitioner 
and the organization share the same general characteristics. Without such evidence, documentation 
submitted by a petitioner is generally outside the scope of consideration for this criterion, which 
encompasses only organizations that are similar to the petitioner. 
We will briefly note that, without more, the job postings do not appear to be from organizations 
similar to the petitioner. 8 When determining whether the petitioner and the 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). It is not sufficient for the 
petitioner to claim that an organization is similar and in the same industry without providing a 
legitimate basis for such an assertion. 
6 Based on the evidence in the record, it appears that the petitioning company may operate three locations 
under various trade names . The petitioner submitted copies of its financial documents , with the addresses 
Louisiana ; " 
Louisiana; and ' . _ _ _ _ . 
Louisiana. The · location is where the petitioner states the beneficiary will be employed. 
7 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) is used 
to classify business establishments according to type of economic activity and each establishment is classified 
to an industry according to the primary business activity taking place there. See 
http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/ (last visited June 26, 20 15). 
8 Moreover, the petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how representative the job postings 
are of the particular advertising employers' recruiting history for the type of job advertised . As the 
advet1isements are only solicitations for hire, they are not evidence of the actual hiring practices of these 
employers. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
More specifically , the advertisements include positions with . a company with 
1,471 plus stores ranging in size from 20,000 to 50,000 square feet, and sales of approximately $11 
billion in 2012; a company that owns 350 specialty retail stores in the United 
States and Canada ; which operates stores; 
supplier of fashion jewelry and accessories in markets in 39 countries; _ a leading 
specialty retailer of diamond and other jewelry with over 1,600 stores in the United States and 
Puerto Rico; and a Fortune 500 company that markets it a gasoline brand through over 
5,000 retail outlets in the United States. The petitioner also provided advertisements that do not 
provide sufficient information regarding the employers, although the petitioner asserts that these 
employers were in "similar industry" (namely 
. The petitioner did not supplement the record of proceeding with additional information 
or state which aspects or traits it shares with the advertising organizations . Without further 
information , the advertisements appear to be for organizations that are not similar to the petitioner. 
Further, the petitioner has not established that the advertisements are for parallel positions. For 
example, the position with requires "five to seven years of related 
experience in Finance, Accounting or related field, demonstrating increasing levels of 
responsibility." The posting from requires "5-7 years of progressive experience in 
FP&A or Business Analysis ," while the posting from requires "8+ years of 
progressive experience in a Senior Finance or Accounting position." As previously discussed, the 
petitioner designated the proffered position on the LCA through the wage level as a Level I (entry 
level) position relative to others within the occupation. The advertised positions appear to be for 
more senior positions than the proffered position . More importantly , the petitioner has not 
sufficiently established that the primary duties and responsibilities of the adve1iised positions are 
parallel to the proffered position. 
In addition, some job postings do not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a directly related specific 
specialty is required. For example, _ and 
require a bachelor's degree, but do not indicate a specific specialty. The job 
advertisement from for a Financial Analyst does not mention a degree 
requirement at all. As discussed, the degree requirement set by the statutory and regulatory 
framework of the H-1B program is not just a bachelor's or higher degree, but such a d egree in a 
specific specialty that is directly related to the specialty occupation claimed in the petition. 
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.9 That is, as the evidence does not establish that similar organizations in the same industry 
9 
Even if all of the job postin gs 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 
does not 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 Resear ch 186-228 ( 1995) . 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
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. 
The petitioner has not established that a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the petitioner's industry in positions that are (1) in the 
petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered position, and also (3) located in organizations that 
are similar to the petitioner. For the reasons discussed above, the petitioner has not satisfied the first 
alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by 
an individual with a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent 
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. 
In support of its assertion that the proffered pos1t10n qualifies as a specialty occupation, the 
petitioner submitted various documents, including evidence regarding its business operations such as 
incorporation documents, product invoices, and purchase receipts. We reviewed the record in its 
entirety and find that the petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation to support a claim that 
its particular position is so complex or unique that it can only be performed by an individual with a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
This is further evidenced by the LCA submitted by the petitioner in support of the instant petition. 
The LCA indicates a wage level at a Level I (entry) wage, which is the lowest of four assignable 
wage levels. 10 Without further evidence, the record of proceeding does not indicate that the 
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. 
The wage levels are defined in DOL's "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance." A Level I wage 
rate is described 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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
Page 13 
proffered position is complex or unique as such a position falling under this occupational category 
would likely be classified at a higher-level , such as a Level III (experienced) or Level IV (fully 
competent) position, requiring a significantly higher prevailing wage.11 For example, a Level IV 
(fully competent) position is designated by DOL for employees who "use advanced skills and 
diversified knowledge to solve unusual and complex problems." 12 The evidence of record does not 
establish that this position is significantly different from other positions in the occupational category 
such that it refutes the Handbook's information that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its 
equivalent is not required for the proffered position. 
Upon review, we find that the petitioner has not sufficiently developed relative complexity or 
uniqueness as an aspect of the proffered position. For instance, the petitioner did not submit 
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 
Levell 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 _II_ 2009.pdf. 
Thus , in accordance with the relevant DOL explanatory information on wage levels , this wage rate indicates 
that the beneficiary is only required to have a basic understanding of the occupation and carries expectations 
that the beneficiary perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; that he would be 
closely supervised ; that his work would be closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy ; and that he would 
receive specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. DOL guidance indicates that a Level I 
designation should be considered for positions in which the employee will serve as a research fellow , worker 
in training, or an intern. 
11 
The issue here is that the petitioner's designation of this pos1t10n as a Level I, entry-level position 
undermines its claim that the position is particularly compl ex, speci alized , or unique compared to other 
positions within the same occupation. Nev ertheless, it is important to note that a Level I wage-d esignation 
does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty occupation . In certain occupations 
(doctors or lawyers , for example), an 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-l evel 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 consideration but is not a substitute for a determination of whether 
a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 
12 
For additional information regarding wage levels as defined by DOL , 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://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov /pdf/NPWHC Guidance Revised II - - - -
2009.pdf 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECED ENT DECISION 
Page 14 
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. 
In its support letter, the petitioner asserts that in order to perform the specified duties, the 
beneficiary: 
[H]as to utilize high scale knowledge in the field of budgeting, forecasting , 
taxation, asset allocation, etc. These duties are duties that require prior 
knowledge and ability that can only be obtained through the attainment of a 
baccalaureate level of education. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner further stated: 
A bachelor['s] degree provides the necessary skills and abilities such as decision­
making, problem solving, and analytical thinking. These skills required to direct 
and coordinate operational procedure and formulate sales promotion activities are 
often taught in bachelor and advanced level business administration programs. 
While certain skills may be beneficial, or even required, in performing specific duties of the position, 
the evidence does not demonstrate that these skills can only be gained through an established 
curriculum leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, nor 
has the petitioner demonstrated that such a degree 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 degreed individual could perform them. The record lacks sufficiently 
detailed information to distinguish the proffered position as more complex or unique from other 
positions that can be performed by persons without at least a b achelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. 
The petitioner claims that the beneficiary is well qualified for the position. 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 establish that its particular position is so complex or unique 
that it can only be performed by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty , 
or its equivalent. Therefore, the petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The employer normally requir es a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty , or its equivalent, for the position 
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. To 
this end, we review the petitioner's past recruiting and hiring practices, as well as information 
regarding employees who previously held the position , and any other documentation submitted by a 
petitioner in support of this criterion of the regulations . 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
To merit approval of the petition under this criterion, 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 performance requirements of the position. While a petitioner may assert that a 
proffered position requires a specific degree, that statement alone without corroborating evidence 
cannot establish the position as a specialty occupation. 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 petitioner 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, 
201 F.3d at 388. In other words, if a petitioner's stated degree requirement is only designed to 
artificially meet the standards for an H-1 B visa and/or to underemploy an individual in a position for 
which he or she is overqualified and if the proffered position does not in fact require such a specialty 
degree or its equivalent, to perform its duties, the occupation would not meet the statutory or 
regulatory definition of a specialty occupation . See§ 214(i)(l) ofthe Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) 
(defining the term "specialty occupation"). 
To satisfy this criterion, the evidence of record must show that the specific performance 
requirements of the position generated the recruiting and hiring history. A petitioner's perfunctory 
declaration of a particular educational requirement will not mask the fact that the position is not a 
specialty occupation. USCIS must examine the actual employment requirements, and, on·the basis 
of that examination, determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. See 
generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. In this pursuit, the critical element is not the title of 
the position, or the fact that an employer has routinely insisted on certain educational standards, but 
whether performance of 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. 
The petitioner stated in the Form I-129 that it has nine employees and that it was established in 2011. 
The petitioner asserts on appeal: 
Due to complexity of the voluminous transactions taking place, [the petitioner] 
strongly believes that having an in-house full-time Financial Analyst will be 
efficient, cost-effective, and highly beneficial for the company. The Financial 
Analyst position at the Petitioner has always been filled with education and 
experience equivalent to a U.S. Bachelor's degree in Business Administration, or 
a related degree which requirements have remained consistent in our staffing of 
[the beneficiary] . 
However, the petitioner has not provided evidence, such as resumes and educational documents of 
its former employees, to support the assertion that the petitioner normally requires a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent , for the position. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRE CEDENT DECISION 
Page 16 
Therefore, the petitioner has not established a prior history of recruiting and hiring for the proffered 
position only persons with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty , or its equivalent, and 
has not satisfied the third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
The nature of the specffic duties is so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment Q[ a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty , or its equivalent 
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. 
Upon review of the record of the proceeding , we note that the petitioner has not provided probative 
evidence to satisfy this criterion of the regulations . In the instant case, relative specialization and 
complexity have not been sufficiently developed by the petitioner as an aspect of the proffered 
position. That is, the proposed duties have not been described with sufficient specificity to establish 
that they are more specialized and complex than positions that are not usually associated with at least 
a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
We further incorporate our earlier discussion and analysis regarding the duties of the proffered 
position, and the designation of the proffered position in the LCA as a Level I position (the lowest of 
four assignable wage-levels) relative to others within the occupational category. Without more , the 
position is one not likely distinguishable by relatively specialized and complex duties. That is, 
without further evidence , the petitioner's has not demonstrated that its proffered position is one with 
specialized and complex duties as such a position falling under this occupational category would 
likely be classified at a higher-level, such as a Level III (experienced) or Level IV (fully competent) 
position, requiring a substantially higher prevailing wage. 13 
The petitioner has submitted insufficient evidence to satisfy this criterion of the regulations. We, 
therefore, conclude that the petitioner did not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R . 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)( 4). 
For the reasons related in the preceding discussion , the petitioner has not established that it has 
satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) and, therefore , it cannot be found that 
the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
III. BENEFICIARY QUALIFICATIONS 
13 
As previously discussed , a Level IV (fully competent) position is designated by DOL for employees who 
"use advanced skill s and diversified knowledge to solve unusual and compl ex problems" and requires a 
significantly higher wage. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 17 
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. 
As discussed in this decision, the petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence regarding the 
proffered position to determine whether it will require a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent. Absent this determination that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty or its equivalent is required to perform the duties of the proffered position, it also 
cannot be determined whether the beneficiary possesses that degree or its equivalent. 
IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 
In visa petition proceedings , it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOti ende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met.14 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
14 Since the identified bases for denial are dispositive of the petitioner's appeal , we will not address other 
grounds of ineligibility we observe in the record of proceeding.