dismissed H-1B Case: Business Administration

u.s. c~ tizenshi p 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF W-5-, INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 18,2016 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a parcel delivery company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "business 
administrator" under the H-1 B 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)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-lB 
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 petition. The Director concluded that the 
proffered position is not 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. 
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. 
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 of W-5-, Inc. 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that 
knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. 
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 H-1 B pet1t10n, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a "business 
administrator." In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided the 
following job duties for the position: 
The primary role of the Business Administrator is to lead, control, and organize the 
activities of our business including activities such as closing deals for the business, 
recruiting staff and services, and assisting with public relations and after-sales care. 
The specific duties and responsibilities, as well as the percentage of time spent on 
each duty, are as follows: 
(1) Analyzing financial statements, sales reports, and other performance 
indicators to ensure company is up-to-date and on track to meet financial 
goals for the fiscal year (20%); 
(2) Establishing and assisting company in reaching goals and objectives related 
to sales, productivity, and profitability (10%); 
(3) Ensuring compliance with laws, regulations, and company policies (1 0%); 
( 4) Overseeing the finances of the company to effectively develop, analyze and 
execute budget (20%); 
( 5) Assessing the performance of the department to ensure that all resources 
remain within budget ( 1 0% ); 
2 
l. __ 
Matter of W-5-, Inc. 
(6) Consolidate departmental budgets into comprehensive financial reports 
(10%); 
(7) Identifying places to cut costs without affecting the quality of our service 
and improve performance, policies, and programs (5%); 
(8) Managing daily operations of the department to ensure that the company 
meets and/or exceeds the expectations of our contractors ( 5% ); 
(9) Hiring, training, and recruiting employees (5%); [and] 
(10) Motivating workers through incentives and positive feedback (5%)[.] 
According to the Petitioner, the position requires a bachelor's degree in business administration or a 
related field and some relevant work experience. 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 1 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or 
its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation? 
As a preliminary matter, the Petitioner's claim that a bachelor's degree in business administration, or 
a related field, is a sufficient minimum requirement for entry into the proffered position is 
inadequate to establish that the proposed position qualifies as a specialty occupation. In response to 
the RFE, the Petitioner's letter stated that the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree in 
business administration, or a related field, "with an emphasis in the areas of accounting, 
administration, and management, as well as relevant work experience in the areas of accounting, 
administration, and management." However, the Petitioner initially stated that the proffered position 
only requires a bachelor's degree in business administration or a related field. Also, one of the 
position descriptions submitted in response to the RFE stated that the minimum qualifications for the 
proffered position include a bachelor's degree in business administration or a related field, "with 
coursework involving areas of accounting, administration, and management, plus some relevant 
work experience." In the second position description submitted in response to the RFE, and again on 
appeal, the Petitioner reiterated its first statement that the minimum qualifications for the proffered 
position include a bachelor's degree in business administration or a related, plus some relevant work 
expenence. 
Aside from the fact that the Petitioner has been inconsistent about its m1mmum education 
requirements 'for the proffered position, briefly referencing coursework in a particular subject is not 
sufficient to establish that the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 
1 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support 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 W-5-, Inc. 
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. C{ 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 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. 
Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007). 3 
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 qualifies as a specialty occupation as 
the Petitioner has not satisfied any of the supplemental, additional criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)( A). 
A. First Criterion 
We tum 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 ofLabor's 
3 Specifically, the judge explained in Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147, that: 
The 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 lnt 'I 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., 191 & &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. 
4 
Matter ofW-5-, Inc. 
(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) submitted in support of the H-1B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Budget Analysts" corresponding 
to the Standard Occupational Classification code 13-2031.5 
The Handbook states the following with regard to the educational qualifications necessary for 
entrance into positions located within this occupational category: 
A bachelor's degree is typically required to become a budget analyst, although some 
employers prefer candidates with a master's degree. 
Education 
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 .... 
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 I ooh/business-and- financial/budget -analysts.htm#tab-4 (last 
visited Nov. 15, 2016). 
4 All of our references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the 1ntemet 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. 
5 The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level II wage. 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 II wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to 
have attained, either through education or experience, a good understanding of the occupation, but who will only perform 
moderately complex tasks that require limited judgment. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing 
Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://tlcdatacentt~r.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. 
5 
Matter ofW-5-, Inc. 
The Handbook does not support a finding that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is required 
for entry into this occupation. The Handbook states that "[ e ]mployers generally require budget 
analysts to have at least a bachelor's degree" but it does not indicate that at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty or its equivalent is normally the minimum requirement for entry into this 
occupation. Accordingly, in certain instances, the Handbook is not determinative. When the 
Handbook does not support the proposition that a proffered position is one that meets the statutory 
and regulatory provisions of a specialty occupation, it is incumbent upon the Petitioner to provide 
persuasive evidence that the proffered position more likely than not satisfies this or one of the other 
three criteria, notwithstanding the absence of the Handbook's support on the issue. In such case, it is 
the Petitioner's responsibility to provide probative evidence (e.g., documentation from other 
objective, authoritative sources) that supports a finding that the particular position in question 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. Whenever more than one authoritative source exists, an 
adjudicator will consider and weigh all of the evidence presented to determine whether the particular 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
In that regard, we have reviewed the Petitioner's reference to 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 Nov. 15, 2016). 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 specialty directly 
related to the occupation. Therefore, the O*NET OnLine information is not probative of the 
proffered position being a specialty occupation. 
As noted above, the Petitioner accepts a general bachelor's degree in business administration or a 
related field, with no specialty identified, as the minimum requirement to perform the job duties 
described. However, a petitioner must demonstrate that the proffered position requires a precise and 
specific course of study that relates directly and closely to the position in question. There must be a 
close correlation between the required specialized. studies and the position; thus, the mere 
requirement of a business administration degree, without further specification, does not establish the 
position as a specialty occupation. C.f Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 
(Comm'r 1988). The Petitioner's acceptance of a four-year degree in business administration as 
sufficient to perform the duties of the proffered position undermines its assertion that the proffered 
position is a specialty occupation. 
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 
6 
Matter of W-5-, Inc. 
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. 
As stated earlier, 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)). 
Here, and 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. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not submit any letters or affidavits from similar firms 
or individuals in the Petitioner's industry attesting that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only 
degreed individuals." 
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 three copies of 
advertisements for positions as budget analysts and a budget analyst I. 6 None of the advertisements 
submitted provide sufficient information regarding the advertising organizations to establish that the 
advertising organizations are similar to the Petitioner. That is, the record does not demonstrate that 
the advertising organizations are similar in type, scope, and size to this Petitioner. Further, the first 
advertisement requires a bachelor's degree in finance or acco).lnting and at least five years of 
experience; the second advertisement requires a bachelor's degree in business administration, 
finance, public administration, or a related field and at least three years of experience; and the third 
advertisement does not require any degree but specifically states that candidates for the position 
must have "the knowledge of theories, principles, and concepts typically acquired through the 
completion of a [b]achelor's degree in business administration, accounting, finance or a closely 
related field" and at least two years of experience in accounting or a related field. 
6 We note that the Petitioner's appeal brief states that it is submitting four budget analyst position advertisements; 
however, the record only contains three advertisements at Exhibit C. 
7 
Matter ofW-5-, Inc. 
Here, while two of the advertisements generally require a bachelor's degree in business 
administration, finance, accounting, or public administration, they also require experience of at least 
three to five years in addition to the bachelor's degree. The Petitioner here has designated the 
proffered position as a wage Level II on the LCA, a wage level that only requires limited experience, 
which is in contrast to two of the advertised positions that are for more senior positions. The third 
advertised position does not even require any bachelor's degree; therefore, it, too, does not 
demonstrate that a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, is common to parallel positions with organizations that are in the Petitioner's industry 
and otherwise similar to the Petitioner. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion of the first alternative prong of 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(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. 
In this matter, the evidence of record 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. 
It does not credibly demonstrate relative complexity or uniqueness as aspects of the proffered position. 
Specifically, it is unclear how the proffered position, as described, necessitates the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge such that a person who has attained a 
bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent is required to perform them. Rather, 
we find that, as reflected in· this decision's earlier quotation of the duty description from the record 
of proceeding, the evidence of record does not distinguish the proffered position from other positions 
falling within the "Budget Analysts" occupational category, which, the Handbook indicates, do not 
necessarily require a person with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent 
to enter those positions. 
To begin with, the record does not credibly demonstrate exactly what the Beneficiary will do on a 
day-to-day basis such that complexity or uniqueness can even be determined. That is, while the 
Petitioner claims that the position involves "budgetary and management responsibilities," the 
Petitioner does not demonstrate how the business administrator's duties described require the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge such that a bachelor's 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform them. 
For instance, in response to the RFE, the Petitioner identified seven courses, including Basic 
Accounting, Informatics,.Financial Mathematics, Managerial Costs, Human Resource Management I 
8 
Matter ofW-5-, Inc. 
& II, and Corporate Law as providing the Beneficiary with the "theoretical knowledge" to carry out 
his duties as its business administrator. If these courses are sufficient to provide the Beneficiary the 
necessary background to perform the duties of the position, it is not clear that a four-year bachelor's 
level course of study in a specific discipline is required. Moreover, it is important to note that a 
position may not qualify as a specialty occupation based solely on either a preference for certain 
qualifications for the position or the claimed requirements of a petitioner. See Defensor v. Meissner, 
201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). Instead, the record must establish that the performance of the 
duties of the proffered position requires both the theoretical and practical application of a body of 
highly specialized knowledge and the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree iri a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, as the minimum for entry into the occupation. See section 214(i)(l) of 
the Act; 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(ii) (defining the term "specialty occupation"). While related courses 
may be beneficial, or even essential, in performing certain duties of a budget analyst 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. 
This is further evidenced by the LCA submitted by the Petitioner in support of the instant petition. 
Again, the LCA indicates that, relative to other positions located within the "Budget Analysts" 
occupational category, the Beneficiary would perform only moderately complex tasks that require 
only limited judgment. Without further evidence, the evidence does not demonstrate that the 
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.7 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." 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. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position, and references his 
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 
7 The issue here is that the Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level II position undermines its claim that the 
position is particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same 
occupation. Nevertheless, it is important to note that a Level II wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position 
from classification as a specialty occupation. In certain occupations (doctors or lawyers, for example), such a 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 consideration but is not a substitute for a determination 
of whether a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)( I) of the Act. 
9 
Matter of W-5-, Inc. 
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.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 Petitioner has not expressly asserted eligibility, nor submitted evidence under this criterion and 
explicitly stated that this is the first time it is hiring for this position. While a first-time hiring for a 
position is certainly not a basis for precluding a position from recognition as a specialty occupation, 
it is unclear how an employer that has never recruited and hired for the position would be able to 
satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3), which requires a demonstration that it 
normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for the 
position. We cannot conclude that the Petitioner has satisfied the third criterion of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 8 
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 asserts that the job duties of the proffered position are specialized and complex. We refer 
to our earlier comments and.findings with regard to the implication of the Petitioner's designation ofthe 
proffered position in the LCA as a Level II wage, and hence one not likely distinguishable by relatively 
specialized and complex duties.9 We have also reviewed the Petitioner's description of duties for the 
proffered position, including the Petitioner's expanded version of the description submitted in response 
to the Director's RFE and again on appeal. While we understand that the Beneficiary must have 
8 While a petitioner may believe or otherwise assert that a proffered position requires a degree in a specific specialty, 
that opinion 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 employer artificially created a 
token degree requirement, whereby all individuals employed in a particular position possessed a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in the specific specialty, or its equivalent. See Defensor v. Meissner, 20 I F. 3d at 387. In other words, if a 
petitioner's degree requirement is only symbolic and 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 section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty 
occupation"). 
9 As noted above, the Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level II, limited experience position undermines its 
claim that the position is particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same 
occupation. 
10 
Matter of W-5-, Inc. 
technical knowledge in order to perform these duties, 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. Upon review of the totality of the record, 
the record does not include probative evidence that the duties require more than technical proficiency in 
the business administration field. 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). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
As discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. 
The burden is on the Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter o.fOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden 
has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter o.fW-5-, Inc., ID# 202490 (AAO Nov. 18, 2016) 
II