dismissed H-1B Case: Business Administration

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 10, 2025 In Re: 35776673 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification 
for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to file a petition with U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 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 California Service Center Director denied the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 
(petition), concluding that the record did not establish that the offered position qualified as a specialty 
occupation. The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to 
demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act; Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de novo. 
Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will 
dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
The Act at Section 214(i)(l), 8 U.S.C. § 
l 184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: (A) the 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) is a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C .F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) adds a non-exhaustive list of fields of endeavor to the 
statutory definition. And the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii) requires that the offered position 
must also meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
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. 
The statute and the regulations must be read together to make sure that the offered position meets the 
definition of a specialty occupation. See K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) 
(holding that construction of language which takes into account the design of the statue as a whole is 
preferred); see also COIT Independence Joint Venture v. Fed. Sav. And Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 
( 1989); Matter of W-F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). Considering the statute and the regulations 
separately leads to scenarios where a Petitioner satisfies a regulatory factor but not the definition of 
specialty occupation contained in the statute. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 5th Cir. 
2000). The regulatory criteria read together with the statute gives effect to the statutory intent. See 
Temporary Alien Workers Seeking Classification Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 56 Fed. 
Reg. 61111, 61112 Dec. 2, 1991). 
So, we construe the term "degree" in 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 offered position supporting 
the statutory definition of specialty occupation. See Royal Siam C01p. 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"). USCIS' application of this standard has 
resulted in the orderly approval of H-1 B petitions for engineers, accountants, information technology 
professionals and other occupations, commensurate with what Congress intended when it created the 
H-lB category. 
And job title or broad occupational category alone does not determine whether a particular job is a 
specialty occupation under the regulations and statute. The nature of the Petitioner's business 
operations along with the specific duties of the offered job are also considered. We must evaluate the 
employment of the individual and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
See Defensor, 201 F.3d 384. So, a Petitioner's self-imposed requirements are not as critical as whether 
the position the Petitioner offers requires the application of a theoretical and practical body of 
knowledge gained after earning the required baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty 
required to accomplish the duties of the job. 
By regulation, the Director is charged with determining whether the petition involves a specialty 
occupation as defined in section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(2). The Director 
may request additional evidence in the course of making this determination. 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(8). 
In addition, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the petition and must continue to 
be eligible through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
2 
IT. THE OFFERED POSITION AND ITS PREREQUISITES 
The Petitioner provided an initial statement describing the offered position's duties and stated the 
following relating to the position's prerequisites: "This is a professional position requiring at a 
minimum a Bachelor's Degree in Business Administration. Such a degree is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into this position," and "[t]o successfully discharge the duties and 
responsibilities, the applicant must have completed coursework normally associated with a Bachelor's 
Degree in Business Administration with knowledge of purchasing and procurement." 
The Petitioner did not require a candidate to attain "knowledge of purchasing and procurement" either 
within an established curriculum necessary to perform the position's duties, nor through a specific 
number of years of experience. This is illustrated through a position opinion letter from I I
I I in which he stated: "Beyond a Bachelor's or higher Degree, the company requires candidates 
with an understanding and background in Business Administration, or related fields by virtue of 
relevant experience." As the petitioning organization sought Mr. I I opinion and provided him 
with the information to give his opinion, we note he did not indicate the Petitioner required any special 
concentration relating to the bachelor's curriculum, nor did he specify any specific amount of special 
training or experience. 
The Petitioner further indicated that the Beneficiary qualified for the position as his foreign degree 
combined with his work experience, was "an equivalent of a four-year Bachelor's degree in Business 
Administration in the US." In the initial cover letter from the Petitioner's immigration attorney, they 
only indicated the employer required "that the applicant to possess at least a bachelor's degree," and 
again that the Beneficiary was qualified for the offered position because his education and experience 
was "an equivalent of a four-year Bachelor's degree in Business Administration in the US." 
Returning to the opinion letter from Mr.I I we note it contains internal inconsistencies. Mr. 
repeatedly indicated the position required a bachelor's degree in business administration or a related 
field without any form of specialization. While the stated degree partly aligns with the Petitioner's 
and counsel's statements, Mr. I I opinion also differs from their statements as it allowed for a 
degree in a related field. This tends to reduce the value of the opinion letter. 
But more than that, Mr. I lalso did not offer specific details about what fields would be sufficiently 
related to a bachelor's degree in business administration. Lacking from this statement was any further 
detail or guidance regarding what Mr. I lwould consider a degree to be sufficiently related to a 
generalized bachelor's degree in business administration. We cannot intuit the breadth of the 
disciplines the opinion author would, or would not, consider to be sufficiently related. This illustrates 
an additional reason we ascribe diminished evidentiary value to this opinion letter. 
An additional internal conflict within Mr. I I opinion emerges when he stated the offered position 
"requires the theoretical and practical application of an advanced, highly specialized body of 
knowledge in the field of Finance, Business Management, or a closely related field, and thus the 
attainment of at least a Bachelor's or higher degree or its equivalent is the minimum requirement for 
entry into the occupation." After this statement, and without an explanation, Mr.I I reverted to his 
initial opinion that the position required a bachelor's degree in business administration or a related 
field without any form of specialization. 
3 
As a final note, we observe Mr. I I indicated the Beneficiary's education and work experience 
equated to a U.S. bachelor's-level degree in business administration. The Petitioner must resolve these 
inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence demonstrating its actual position requirements. 
Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
III. ANALYSIS 
The H-lB program's statutory and regulatory framework offers no alternative other than denial of the 
petition before us. The Petitioner's acceptance of a general business degree without specialization 
does not satisfy the statutory and regulatory definition of a specialty occupation, and that acceptance 
alone mandates the petition's denial. Stemming from that fatality is this Petitioner's inability to 
demonstrate eligibility under any of the four criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4). 
A General Degree Requirement. 
The offered position does not meet the statutory or regulatory definition of the term "specialty 
occupation." The Petitioner has not satisfied the requirement that the offered position require the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and that the position 
requires attainment of a bachelor's degree in the specific specialty to perform the job duties. The 
record contains the Petitioner's stated requirements for the offered position: a bachelor's degree in 
business administration. 
Historically, the agency has consistently disfavored a general-purpose bachelor's degree in business 
administration with no additional specialization in accordance with the statutory and regulatory 
requirements. For example, in Matter of Ling, 13 I&N Dec. 35 (Reg'l Comm'r 1968), the agency 
stated that attainment of a bachelor's degree in business administration alone was insufficient to 
qualify a foreign national as a member of the professions pursuant to section 101 (a)(32) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(32). In Matter ofMichael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558 (Comm'r 1988), the 
agency clarified that a requirement for a degree with a generalized title, such as business 
administration, without further specification, was insufficient to qualify the position as one that is 
professional upon an examination of the nature of the position itself pursuant to section 101(1)(32) of 
the Act. And in Matter of Caron Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988), a vice presidential position 
for manufacturing in a textile company was deemed to not be a professional position because an 
individual holding a general degree in business, engineering, or science could perform its duties. 
When Congress revised the H-1 B program as part of the Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 
101-649, 104 Stat. 4978, it shifted its focus from the prior H-lB standard's examination of whether an 
offered position was professional and instead required petitioners to demonstrate that a position was a 
specialty occupation. 
Even after this adjustment, the agency's concerns with a general-purpose bachelor's degree in business 
administration with no additional specialization did not falter. See e.g. Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. 
Supp. 2d 1151 (D. Minn. 1999); 2233 Paradise Road, LLCv. Cissna, No. l 7-cv-01018-APG-VCF, 
2018 WL 3312967 (D. Nev., July 3, 2018); XiaoTong Liu v. Baran, No. 18-00376-JVS, 2018 WL 
7348851 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 21, 2018); Parzenn Partners v. Baran, No. 19-cv-11515-ADB, 2019 WL 
4 
6130678 (D. Mass., Nov. 19, 2019); Vision Builders, LLC v. USCIS, No. CV 19-3159 (TJK), 2020 
WL 5891546, at *5 (D.D.C. Oct. 5, 2020); Xpress Group v. Cuccinelli, No. 3:20-CV-00568-DSC, 
2022 WL 433482 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 10, 2022). 
As the First Circuit Court of Appeals explained in Royal Siam, 484 F .3d at 147: 
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 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. 1 
If a position is a "specialty occupation" under the statute and regulations, it is one which involves a 
"body of highly specialized knowledge" attained after completing a bachelor's degree or higher in a 
"specific specialty." A general degree requirement like a bachelor's degree in business or business 
administration, standing alone without any further specialization, is not a requirement for a degree in 
a specialty. 2 And this excludes any offered position accepting such a degree as a minimum 
requirement for entry into the position, like the Petitioner's procurement purchasing manager position, 
from consideration as a specialty occupation. 
A requirement for a bachelor's degree in business without further specialization is so broad that it 
could apply to a position in finance as well as general business operations and management in a variety 
of endeavors. So, it cannot provide an individual with the "body of highly specialized knowledge" 
required to perform the duties of a specialty occupation. A bachelor's degree in business with no 
further specialization is not a degree in a specific specialty and the fact that the Petitioner would accept 
such a degree as a minimum qualification for entry to the offered position does not satisfy the statutory 
and regulatory definitions of specialty occupation. On that basis alone, we could dismiss the appeal 
in alignment with longstanding agency policy without any further discussion. 
1 But see India House, Inc. v. McAleenan, 449 F.Supp 3d 4 (D.R.I. 2020). In India House the court distinguished Royal 
Siam on factual grounds but did not dispute its central reasoning that a position whose duties can be fulfilled by an 
individual with a general-purpose bachelor's degree in business administration is not a specialty occupation. Instead, it 
distinguished Royal Siam on factual grounds. Here, the Petitioner specifically recognizes an unspecialized bachelor's 
degree in business and business administration as being one of many degrees it considers as providing an adequate 
preparation to perform the duties of the offered position. 
2 But see InspectionXpert C01poration v. Cuccinelli, 2020 WL 1062821 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 5, 2020). In InspectionXpert the 
court considered whether the educational requirement of an engineering degree without further specialization was too 
broad for a quality engineer position. While the court found that a generalized engineering requirement did comprise a 
specialty, it also distinguished engineering from other broad degrees, such as liberal arts or business administration degrees. 
Id. at *24. Our holding today therefore does not conflict with InspectionXpert. 
5 
B. The Petitioner's Assertions on Appeal 
The record contains the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook), to 
support the Petitioner's assertion that its position requires a bachelor's degree in a specific field of 
study comprising a body of specialized knowledge or a specialty required to perform the duties of the 
position. But, as we discuss below, the supplemental criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4) 
cannot be satisfied without the express requirement of a baccalaureate or higher degree providing the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge. 
Before we explain why the failure to satisfy the specialty occupation definition precludes meeting any 
of the criteria, we identify one last inconsistency in the petition filing. In response to the Director's 
request for evidence-and again within the appeal-the Petitioner provided the Handbook profile for 
Purchasing Managers, Buyers, and Purchasing Agents and the Occupational Information Network 
(O*NET) printout for the Purchasing Managers occupation associated with the 11-3061 standard 
occupational classificational code. 
But that is not the occupation the Petitioner listed on the Department of Labor's ETA Form 9035 & 
9035E, Labor Condition Application for Nonimmigrant Workers, which was the General and 
Operations Managers occupation relating to the 11-1021 standard occupational classificational code. 
The Petitioner offered this apparently erroneous Handbook and O*NET evidence in support of its 
claims that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the 
minimum requirement for entry into the particular position. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). This 
errant evidence introduces additional inconsistencies within this petition further diminishing the 
Petitioner's eligibility claims. 
The Petitioner also offers new evidence in support of the appeal claiming that a precedent decision 
from this office permits new evidence within an appeal. However, the cited case is distinguished from 
the present one because the regulation mandated we allow that party an opportunity to respond to a 
new decision. T he cited case only allowed new material after reopening the matter and because this 
office intended to issue an adverse determination on the reopened case, the regulation required we 
"give the affected party 30 days after service of the motion to submit a brief." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(5)(ii). 
Here, because both the regulation and the Director's request for evidence put the Petitioner on notice 
and gave it a reasonable opportunity to provide this evidence, we will not consider it for the first time 
on appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(ll) (requiring all requested evidence be submitted together at one 
time); Matter of Furtado, 28 I&N Dec. 794, 801-02 (BIA 2024) ( declining to consider new evidence 
on appeal when the filing party was put on notice of the required evidence and given a reasonable 
opportunity to provide it for the record before the denial); see also Matter ofSoriano, 19 I&N Dec. 
764, 766 (BIA 1988); Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 53 7 (BIA 1988). 
Without the express requirement of a baccalaureate or higher degree providing the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, the supplemental regulatory criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4) cannot be satisfied. 
6 
The supplemental regulatory criteria are read together within the related regulations and the statute as 
a whole. So, where the regulations refer to the term "degree," we interpret that term to mean a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty related to the offered position. See Royal Siam, 
484 F.3d at 147. The word "degree" is mentioned in each prong of the supplemental regulatory criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(])-(4). And where, as here, a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty is not required as a minimum requirement of entry, it follows that each prong under 
8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h )( 4)(iii)( A)(])-( 4) remains unsatisfied. The Petitioner has not established that the 
position is a specialty occupation. 
C. We Reserve Other Eligibility Determinations 
Because the identified basis for the petition's denial is dispositive of this appeal, we decline to reach 
and hereby reserve the Petitioner's remaining appellate arguments. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 
24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which 
is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of Larios-Gutierrez De Pablo & 
Pablo-Larios, 28 I&N Dec. 868, 877 n.8 (BIA 2024) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal 
where a filing party is otherwise ineligible). Those reserved arguments relate to the supplemental 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(])-(4). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and 
alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is a petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7