dismissed H-1B Case: Business Administration

MATTER OF 7S-I-, INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 23, 2015 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a retail store, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an "administrative 
manager" under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
§ 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied 
the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
I. ISSUES 
The issues before us are whether (1) the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation; and 
(2) the Beneficiary is qualified to serve in a specialty occupation position in accordance with the 
applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. 1 
II. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
A. 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 aminimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.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 
1 
We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. Matter of Simeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542 (AAO 20 15); see 
also 5 U.S.C. § 557(b) ("On appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would 
have in making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 
I 002 n.9 (2d Cir. 1989). 
Matter of7S-I-, Inc. 
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.F.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 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. 
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. Fed. 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 wo~ld 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 
2 
Matter of7S-I-, Inc. 
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-lB petitions for qualified 
individuals 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-lB 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 individual, 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 or 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. The Proffered Position 
On the Form I-129, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would be employed as a part-time 
administrative manager. 2 In the letter of support dated June 18, 2014, the Petitioner stated that the 
Beneficiary would perform the following job duties in the proffered position: 
DESCRIPTION TIME 
% 
Organizing office operations and procedures 15% 
Maintaining and updating on computer, company's internal records and 20% 
company's knowledge bases 
Planning and directing sales promotions and advertising policies and 10% 
programs for [the Petitioner's] subsidiaries 
Preparing office budgets and expenses reports for the President of [the 20% 
Petitioner] 
Assisting in planning and devising employee compensation, recruitment, 25% 
personnel policies, and regulatory compliance 
2 
It must be noted that on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), the Petitioner stated that the proffered position is a 
full-time position. No explanation for this inconsistency was provided. "[I]t is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve 
the inconsistencies by independent objective evidence." Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). Any attempt 
to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. !d. at 591-92 
3 
Matter of7S-I-, Inc. 
I Devising methods to improve efficiency of workflow in the office 10% 
Organizing office operations andprocedures -- 15% 
This job function more specifically includes: The beneficiary maintammg and 
updating the Company and its subsidiaries' financial records, ensuring all health and 
regulatory permits are current, filing and organizing all invoices. (As retail 
operations, Texas requires certain health, tobacco, alcohol and other permits to be 
current.) 
Maintaining and updating on computer, company's internal records and 
company's knowledge bases -- 20% 
This job function more specifically includes: The beneficiary is responsible for 
ensuring Company and its subsidiaries records and transaction reports and updating 
employee information databases. Maintaining employee and company information 
files. The beneficiary is also responsible for processing paperwork by collecting 
information for wage reports and forwarding to Company's accountant on a monthly 
basis, all financial statements to be forwarded to the necessary parties, follow up with 
the Company's accountant to ensure that all government reporting is done in a timely 
manner, ensure all leases are updated and track any lease changes, correspond with 
the landlord and governmental agencies or those inquiring about the Company or its 
subsidiaries. 
Planning and directing sales promotions and advertising policies and programs for 
[the Petitioner's] subsidiaries --10% 
This job function more specifically includes: The beneficiary will work with existing 
vendors to obtain perks and discounts to promote certain products, authorizing 
advertising invoices and budgeting for advertising expenses with the advice of the 
President. 
Preparing office budgets and expenses reports for the President of [the Petitioner]­
-20% 
This job function more specifically includes the following duties: prepare budgets for 
· advertising, expenses, office expenses, retail location expenses, prepare sales and 
expense reports by retail location, authorized expense payments. 
Assisting in planning and devising employee compensation, recruitment, personnel 
policies, and regulatory compliance-- 25% 
4 
Matter of7S-I-, Inc. 
This job function more specifically includes the following duties: assist in planning 
and devising employee compensation packages, develop personnel hiring and 
discharge policies and ensure regulatory compliance with health department, work 
with various health insurance carriers to obtain and offer employees a comprehensive 
and low cost insurance package, work with the Company's accountant to set up 401K 
plans and other compensation packages, make sure that all benefits are current and 
employee information is updated on a regular basis with the subsidiaries; and 
communicating with employees to maintain rapport and obtain current employee 
information. 
Devising methods to improve efficiency of workflow in the office-- 10% 
This job function more specifically includes the following duties: ensure all 
computers, fax, copiers and other electronic equipment is working properly in the 
office, call for technical support for troubleshooting electronic problems, ensure all 
accounts payables are timely paid, prepare schedules, excel worksheets, and check 
lists to ensure all work is done on a timely and cost efficient basis. 
In addition, the Petitioner stated that the proffered position required "a skilled professional with a 
Bachelor's degree in Business Administration, or a related field." 
C. Analysis 
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, the 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 above, 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. Thus, as a preliminary matter, we note that 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. 
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. Cherto.ff, 484 F.3d at 147.3 
3 Specifically, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit explained in Royal Siam 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 8 
specialty occupation visa. See, e.g., Tapis Int '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., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 
([Comm'r] 1988) (providing frequently cited analysis in connection with a conceptually similar 
5 
Matter of7S-I-, 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. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Associates, 19 I&N 
Dec. 558 (Comm'r 1988). For this reason alone, the position does not qualify as a specialty 
occupation and the petition cannot be approved.4 
Nevertheless, for the purpose of performing a comprehensive analysis of whether the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation, we now tum to the criteria at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). 
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 first discuss the record of proceeding 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 normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position. 
USCIS recognizes the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook 
(Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety 
of occupations that it addresses. The Petitioner attested in the LCA that the proffered position falls 
under the "Administrative Services Managers" occupational category. 5 
We reviewed the chapter of the Handbook entitled "Administrative Services Managers," including 
the sections regarding the typical duties and requirements for this occupational category.6 The 
!d. 
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 
A general degree requirement does not necessarily preclude a proffered position from qualifying as a specialty 
occupation. For example, an entry requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in business administration with a 
concentration in a specific field, or a bachelor's or higher degree in business administration combined with relevant 
education, training, and/or experience may, in certain instances, qualify the proffered position as a specialty 
occupation. In either case, it must be demonstrated that the entry requirement is equivalent to a bachelor's or higher 
degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 
at 147. 
5 
The occupational category designated by a petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the general tasks and 
responsibilities of a proffered position, and USCIS regularly reviews the Handbook on the duties and educational 
requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. However, to satisfy the first criterion, 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. 
6 
The Handbook, which is available in printed form, may also be accessed on the Internet, at http:// 
www.stats.bls.gov/oco/. Our references to the Handbook are to the 2014-2015 edition available online. We hereby 
6 
Matter of 7S-I-, Inc. 
subchapter of the Handbook entitled "How to Become an Administrative Services Manager" states 
the following about this occupational category: 
Education 
A high school diploma or a General Educational Development (GED) diploma is 
typically required for someone to become an administrative services manager. 
However, administrative services managers typically enter the occupation with a 
bachelor's degree. Those with a bachelor's degree typically study business, 
engineering, or facility management. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., 
Administrative Services Managers, http://www. bls. gov I ooh/business-and-financial/management­
analysts.htm#tab-4 (last visited Dec. 15, 2015). 
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 these positions. The 
Handbook reports that a high school diploma or a GED diploma is sufficient for entry into this 
occupation. Thus, the Handbook does not support the assertion that jobs falling within the 
"Administrative Services Managers" occupational category normally require at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty. Although the Handbook reports that administrative services managers 
typically enter the occupation with a bachelor's degree, the Handbook further indicates that those 
with bachelor's degrees typically study business, engineering, or facility management. We note that 
the fields of study that the Handbook indicates are typically studied are in a wide-variety of disparate 
fields. 7 The Handbook does not conclude that normally the minimum requirement for entry into 
these positions is at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
The Petitioner also submitted a copy of the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) OnLine 
Summary Report for the "Administrative Services Managers" occupational category. The Summary 
Report states that the "Administrative Services Managers" occupational category has a designation 
of Job Zone 3, which indicates that medium preparation is needed. It also states that most 
occupations in this zone require training in vocational schools, related on-the-job experience, or an 
associate's degree. See O*NET OnLine Help Center, available at 
http://www.onetonline.org/help/online/zones, for a discussion of Job Zone 3. This submission 
therefore strengthens our determination that the position does not satisfy this criterion. Even if the 
incorporate into the record of proceeding the chapter of the Handbook regarding "Administrative Services Managers." 
7 
Since there must be a close correlation between the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" and the position, a 
minimum entry requirement of a degree in disparate fields would not meet the statutory requirement that the degree be 
"in the specific specialty," unless the Petitioner establishes how each field is directly related to the duties and 
responsibilities of the particular position such that the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" is essentially an 
amalgamation of these different specialties. Section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). In addition, as previously 
noted, although a general-purpose bachelor's degree 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 at 147. 
7 
Matter of?S-1-, Inc. 
occupation has received a Job Zone 4 or higher designation, we would still find the O*NET 
information insufficient to establish that the position qualifies as a specialty occupation normally 
requiring at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Even when it indicates 
that a bachelor's degree, or its equivalent, is necessary, the O*NET does not normally specify that a 
bachelor's degree in any specific specialty is required, and does not, therefore, demonstrate that a 
position so designated qualifies as a specialty occupation as defined in section 214(i)(l) of the Act 
and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). Therefore, despite the Petitioner's assertion to the contrary, the 
O*NET is not probative evidence that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
In the instant case, the duties and requirements of the position as described in the record of 
proceeding do not indicate that this particular position proffered by the Petitioner is one for which a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)( 1). 
The requirement of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a spec(fic 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 the 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 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 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 the assertion that the proffered position is a specialty occupation under this criterion of 
the regulations, the Petitioner submitted copies of job advertisements. However, upon review of the 
documents, we find that the Petitioner's reliance on the job announcements is misplaced. 
8 
Matter of 78-1-, Inc. 
On the Form 1-129, the Petitioner stated that it is a retail business with four employees. The 
Petitioner also reported its gross annual income as approximately $2.4 million, and its net annual 
income as approximately $26,000. The Petitioner designated its business operations under the North 
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 44512.8 This NAICS code is designated for 
"Convenience Stores."9 The U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau website describes this 
NAICS code by stating, "This industry comprises establishments known as convenience stores or 
food marts (except those with fuel pumps) primarily engaged in retailing a limited line of goods that 
generally includes milk, bread, soda, and snacks." U.S. Dep't of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, 
2012 NAICS Definition, 445120 - Convenience Stores, available at http://www.census.gov/cgi­
bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch (last visited Dec. 15, 2015). 
For the Petitioner to establish that an organization in its industry is also similar under this criterion of 
the regulations, it must demonstrate that the Petitioner and the organization share the same general 
characteristics. Without such information, evidence submitted by the 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 involve organizations 
similar to the Petitioner. 10 When determining whether the Petitioner and the 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. "[G]oing on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient 
for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings." In re So.ffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 
165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of Cal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 
1972)). 
We further observe that some of the advertisements do not appear to involve parallel positions. For 
example, one of the postings is for the position of regional administrative manager, which requires a 
degree and "[a] minimum of 3-5 years management experience in a health care, telemarketing, or 
business administrative setting." The Petitioner also submitted an advertisement, which requires a 
degree and five years of experience in a supervisory role. The Petitioner designated its proffered 
8 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 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 Dec. 15, 2015). 
9 A search of the code 44512 results in the description for "Convenience Stores" listed under the code 445120. 
10 
The postings include the following: (1) companies in the healthcare industry; (2) a company in the computer software 
industry; (3) a provider of uniform and linen rental items; (4) companies in the management consulting services industry; 
(5) a provider of therapeutic products; (6) a public accounting and consulting firm; (7) a company in the energy and 
utilities industry; and (8) a provider of custom window treatments. It does not appear that the advertisements are from 
companies engaged primarily in retail. 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter of7S-I-, Inc. 
position as a wage level I (entry level) position on the LCA. 11 The advertised positions therefore 
appear to involve more senior positions than the proffered position. More importantly, the Petitioner 
has not sufficiently established that the primary duties and responsibilities of the advertised positions 
are parallel to those of the proffered position. 
In addition, some postings do not indicate that at least a bachelor's degree in a directlyrelated 
specific specialty (or its equivalent) is required. 12 For instance, the postings from the following 
organizations state that a degree is necessary, but they do not state that a specific specialty is 
required: 
• • 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The job postings suggest, at best, that although a bachelor's degree is sometimes required for 
administrative services manager positions, a bachelor's degree in a spec~fic specialty (or its 
equivalent) is not.13 
11 
The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" issued by DOL provides a description of the wage levels. A 
Level I wage rate is described by DOL 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 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 Level I 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 _11_ 2009 .pdf. 
12 As discussed, the degree requirement set by the statutory and regulatory framework of the H-1 B program is not just a 
bachelor's or higher degree, but a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the duties of the 
position. See section 214(i)(l)(b) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). In addition, a desire or preference for a 
degree in a field is not necessarily an indication of a minimum requirement. 
13 
It must be noted that even if all of the job postings 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 Research 186-228 (1995). 
10 
Matter of7S-I-, Inc. 
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. 14 That is, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. 
Thus, based upon a complete review of the record, 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 
spec(fic 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 positiOn qualifies as a specialty occupation, the 
Petitioner described the proffered position and its business operations. 15 Upon review, we find that 
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. 
14 
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 advertisements are only solicitations for 
hire, they are not evidence of the actual hiring practices of these employers. 
15 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that it plans to expand and upgrade its services. However, the Petitioner did not 
provide probative documentation to support the claim (e.g., a business plan; documentation substantiating the expansion 
of physical facilities; plans to hire staff; evidence substantiating that the petitioner intends to establish branch, subsidiary 
or affiliate offices; probative evidence substantiating investments or new revenue sources; or other documentation 
regarding development/expansion plans). Again, "going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings." In re Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
The Petitioner's claim that it intends to expand its business operations in the future is insufficient to demonstrate that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. A petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the 
nonimmigrant visa petition. 8 C.F.R. § I 03.2(b )(1 ). A visa petition may not be approved at a future date after the 
Petitioner or Beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 
248, 249 (Reg'! Comm 'r 1978). The H-1 B classification is not intended as a vehicle for employers to bring in temporary 
foreign workers to meet possible workforce needs arising from potential business expansions or the expectation of 
potential new customers or contracts. The agency made clear long ago that speculative employment is not permitted in 
the H-1 B program. See Petitioning Requirements for the H Nonimmigrant Classification, 63 Fed. Reg. 30,419, 30,419-
II 
Matter of7S-I-, Inc. 
the Petitioner has not sufficiently developed relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the 
proffered position. For instance, the Petitioner did not submit information relevant to a detailed 
course of study leading to a specialty degree and did not establish how such a curriculum is 
necessary to perform the duties it may believe are so complex and unique. While a few related 
courses may be beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated how an established curriculum of such courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the duties of the proffered 
position. 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.16 
The record does not establish which of the duties, if any, of the proffered position would be so 
complex or unique as to be distinguishable from those of similar but non-degreed or non-specialty 
degreed employment. 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 her 
qualifications. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education 
or experience of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner has not satisfied the second 
alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The employer normally requires 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 
20 (proposed June 4, 1998) (to be codified at 8 C.F.R. pt. 214). Thus, a petition cannot be approved to meet potential 
business expansions or the expectation of new customers or contracts. 
16 
Again, the Petitioner designated the proffered position on the LCA at a Level I (entry level) wage level, which is the 
lowest of four assignable wage-levels. This designation indicates that the proffered position is a low-level, entry position 
relative to others within the "Administrative Services Managers" occupational category. 
The Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position undermines its claim that the position is 
particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation. Nevertheless, a 
Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty occupation, just as a 
Level IV wage-designation does not definitively establish such a classification. In certain occupations (e.g., doctors or 
lawyers), a Level I, entry-level position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent, for entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designation would not reflect that an occupation qualifies 
as a specialty occupation if that higher-level position does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. That is, a position's wage level designation may be a relevant factor but is not 
itself conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)( I) of the Act. 
12 
Matter of 78-1-, Inc. 
regarding employees who previously held the position, and any other documentation submitted by a 
petitioner in support of this criterion of the regulations. 
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-lB 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 section 214(i)(l) of the 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. To interpret 
the regulations any other way would lead to absurd results: if US CIS were constrained to recognize 
a specialty occupation merely because the Petitioner has an established practice of demanding 
certain educational requirements for the proffered position - and without consideration of how a 
beneficiary is to be specifically employed- then any individual with a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty could be brought into the United States to perform non-specialty occupations, so long as 
the employer required all such employees to have baccalaureate or higher degrees. See id. at 388. 
The Petitioner stated in the Form I-129 that it was established in 2002 (approximately 12 years prior 
to the filing ofthe H-IB petition) and that it has four employees. Upon review of the record, we find 
that the Petitioner did not submit information regarding employees who currently or previously held 
the position. The record does not establish that the Petitioner normally requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, directly related to the duties of the position. Thus, 
the Petitioner has not satisfied the third criterion of 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A). 
13 
Matter of7S-l-, Inc. 
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 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. 
The Petitioner claims that tl}e nature of the specific duties of the position in the context of its 
business operations 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. We reviewed the Petitioner's statements regarding the duties of the proffered position 
and its business operations. However, 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 (of 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 has not demonstrated that its proffered position is one with 
specialized and complex duties as such a position 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. 17 
Although the Petitioner asserts that the nature of the specific duties is specialized and complex, the 
record lacks sufficient evidence to support this claim. Thus, the Petitioner has submitted inadequate 
probative evidence to satisfy the criterion of the regulations 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. The appeal will be dismissed and the 
petition denied. 
17 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" and requires a significantly higher wage. 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/N PWHC _Guidance_ Revised _II_ 2009 .pdf. 
14 
Matter of7S-I-, Inc. 
III. BENEFICIARY QUALIFICATIONS 
The Director also found that the Beneficiary would not be qualified to perform the duties of the 
proffered position if the job had been determined to be a specialty occupation. However, a 
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 proffered position does not require a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Therefore, we need not and 
will not address the Beneficiary's qualifications further, except to note that the combined evaluation 
of the Beneficiary's education and work experience submitted by the Petitioner is insufficient to 
establish that the Beneficiary possesses the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in any specific 
specialty. Specifically, the claimed equivalency was based in part on experience; however, there is 
no evidence that the evaluator has authority to grant college-level credit for training and/or 
experience in the specialty at an accredited college or university which has a program for granting 
such credit based on an individual's training and/or work experience, and that the Beneficiary also 
has recognition of expertise in the specialty through progressively responsible positions directly 
related to the specialty. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4) and (D)(l). 
IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal will be dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of7S-I-, Inc., ID# 15531 (AAO Dec. 23, 2015) 
15