dismissed H-1B Case: Business Analysis

MATTER OF I-F- CO. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 30, 2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a commercial credit company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"business analyst" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). 
The H-IB program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a 
position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge and (b) the attainment' of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner had not established it had specialty occupation work for the Beneficiary to perform. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred 
because she did not raise the issue of the proffered position in her request for evidence (RFE). The 
Petitioner maintains that it was not given an opportunity to establish that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation. The Petitioner claims that the district court decision in Residential Finance 
Corp. v. USCIS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012), should be applied directly to this case. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
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. 
Matter of 1-F- Co. 
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: 
(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.F.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.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 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 petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a "business analyst." In a 
letter submitted in support of the petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary "will be 
responsible for using quantitative analysis and methods to conduct and coordinate product, market, 
operational, and related research to support strategic and business planning within the company." 
The Petitioner also provided a list of the job responsibilities for the position, including the following: 
• Use quantitative analysis and methods to conduct and coordinate product, ~arket, 
operational, and related research to support strategic and business planning within 
the company. 
• Advise and recommend to management on areas of products management, 
products channels and placement, leads generation, customers management, 
customers retention and operations management planning and requirements, 
execution and coordination[.] 
• Plan and coordinate the development of primary and secondary market research 
studies in support of strategic planning and specific marketing initiatives. 
2 
Matter of 1-F- Co. 
• Prepare reports and assessments for management review. 
• Interpret, evaluate, and interrelate research data, and develop integrated business 
analyses and projections for incorporation into strategic decision-making. 
• Use customer relationship management (CRM) to organize, automate, and 
synchronize business processes such as sales, marketing, customer service and 
support activities to achieve goals in retaining existing clients and to find, attract, 
and win new clients. 
• Monitor all social media platforms frequently. 
• Assist with content cr~ation consistent with the Company's strategic vision. 
• Design a tactical business execution plan using effective time/resource 
management. 
• Report and actively monitor and analyze health of marketing contribution to 
pipeline, program ROI, client acquisition/penetration, contact acquisition/activity, 
including monitoring online metrics, marketing program performance and other 
key KPis. 
• Provide management with analysis for investments, pipeline impact and goal 
setting. 
• Present weekly reporting dashboards to executive team. 
The Petitioner stated that this position requires the employee to utilize the knowledge of quantitative 
analysis, quantitative methods, customer relationship management, operations management, and 
enterprise resource planning (ERP) in order to effectively advise and make recommendations to 
management. According to the Petitioner, the common industry standard for the described position 
is a bachelor's degree in business administration or management. The Petitioner indicated that its 
practice is to hire a business analyst with at least a master's degree in business administration. 
III. ANALYSIS 
As to the perceived error in the Director's failure to issue an RFE specifically requesting the 
Petitioner to show that the proffered position is a specialty occupation, we note that there is no 
requirement for USCIS to issue an RFE or to issue an RFE pertinent to a ground later identified in 
the decision denying the visa petition. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8) permits the Director 
to deny a petition for not establishing eligibility without having to request evidence regarding the 
ground or grounds of ineligibility identified by the Director. Also, even if the Director had erred as a 
procedural matter in not issuing an RFE relative to the Petitioner's insufficient evidence establishing 
the proffered position as a specialty occupation, it is not clear what remedy would be appropriate 
beyond the appeal process itself. The administrative process provides for a motion to reopen or an 
appeal as a forum for the Petitioner's additional, new evidence. Here the Petitioner chose not to 
submit any evidence on appeal. However, we will review the record de novo, including the 
Petitioner's citation to Residential Finance. 
3 
Matter of 1-F- Co. 
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 
A. First Criterion 
We tum first 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. To inform this inquiry, we"recognize the U.S. Department of 
Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the 
duties and educational requirements of the wide variety ofoccupations that it addresses.2 
The labor condition application (LCA) submitted to support the visa petition states that the proffered 
position corresponds to the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code and occupation title 
13-1111, "Management Analysts," from the Occupational Information Network (O*NET). The 
Petitioner's generic description of the proffered position falls within the parameters of the duties of a 
management analyst. The subchapter of the Handbook entitled "How to Become a Management 
Analyst" states, in relevant part, "[a] bachelor's degree is the typical entry-level requirement for 
management analysts. However, some employers prefer to hire candidates who have a master's 
degree in business administration (MBA)." U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., "Management Analysts," 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/management-analysts.htm#tab-4 (last visited Sep. 22, 
2016). Here, 'the Handbook does not report that bachelor's degrees held by those entering the 
occupation are limited to and must be in any specific specialty directly related to the occupation. 
Accordingly, the Handbook does not support the assertion that at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty is normally the minimum requirement for entry into this occupational category. 
We also note that a preference for a particular type of degree is not synonymous with a requirement 
for a degree in a specific discipline. 
Based on the above, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J). 
We have reviewed Residential Finance Corp. v. USCIS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012), and 
the Petitioner's assertion that this decision should be applied to this matter. Residential Finance is 
1 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 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. 
2 All of our references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not, however, maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant 
information. That is, the occupational category designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establi!)hing 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. 
4 
Matter of 1-F- Co. 
often cited for the proposition that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is what is 
important. Diplomas rarely come bearing occupation-specific majors. What is required is an 
occupation that requires highly specialized knowledge and a prospective employee who has attained 
the credentialing indicating possession of that knowledge." 
We agree with the aforementioned proposition that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is 
what is important." In general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry and 
biochemistry, a minimum of a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty is recognized 
as satisfying the "degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)" requirement of section 
214(i)(1 )(B) of the Act. In such a case, the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" would 
essentially be the same. Since there must be a close correlation between the required "body of 
highly specialized knowledge" and the position, however, a -minimum entry requirement of a degree 
in two disparate fields, such as philosophy and engineering, would not meet the statutory 
requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)," unless the Petitioner 
establishes how each field is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular 
position such that the required body of highly specialized knowledge is essentially an amalgamation 
of these different specialties. Section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act (emphasis added). Upon review of the 
totality of the record and as discussed above and will be discussed further below, the Petitioner has 
not met its burden to establish that the particular position offered in this matter requires a bachelor's 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, directly related to its duties in order to 
perform those tasks. 
In any event, the Petitioner has furnished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition 
are analogous to those in Residential Finance.3 We also note that, in contrast to the broad 
precedential authority of the case law of a United States circuit court, we are not bound to follow the 
published decision of a United States district court in matters arising even within the same 
district. See Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715, 719-20 (BIA 1993). Although the reasoning 
underlying a district judge's decision will be given due consideration when it is properly before us, 
the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of law. !d. 
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 
3 It is noted that the district judge's decision in that case appears to have been based largely on the many factual errors 
made by the Director in the decision denying the petition. We further note that the Director's decision was not appealed 
to us. Based on the district court's findings and description of the record, if that matter had first been appealed through 
the available administrative process, we may very well have remanded the matter to the service center for a new decision 
for many of the same reasons articulated by the district court if these errors could not have been remedied by us in our de 
novo review of the matter. 
5 
Matter of 1-F- Co. 
concentrates on 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. 
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 its 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. 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." 
We do not find other evidence in the record to support the Petitioner's claim that a bachelor's degree 
in business administration is a common industry standard for the occupation of a business or 
management analyst. Moreover, even if a bachelor's degree in business administration is the 
common industry standard, the industry standard would not establish that the occupational category 
of business/management analysts qualify as a specialty occupation. A petitioner must demonstrate 
that the proffered position requires a precise and specific course of study that relates directly and 
closely to the position in question. Since there must be a close correlation between the required 
specialized 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 1"vfatter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560-(Comm'r 1988). 
Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied 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 
6 
Matter of 1-F- Co. 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
Upon review of the totality of the record, the Petitioner has not explained, or offered any evidence 
that the duties of the position proffered here are so complex and unique that a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty is required. The Petitioner has not submitted information demonstrating how its 
business analyst's duties 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, 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 general duties it provided for the position. 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. 
Therefore, the evidence of record does not establish that this position is significantly different from 
other management analyst positions such that it refutes the Handbook's information to the effect that 
a general bachelor's degree is acceptable for this position. In other words, the record lacks 
sufficiently detailed information to distinguish the proffered position as unique from or more 
complex than business/management analysts or other closely related positions that can be performed 
by persons without at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
Consequently, as the Petitioner does not demonstrate how its proffered position of business analyst 
is so complex or unique relative to other business/management analyst positions that do not require 
at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for entry into the occupation 
in the United States, it cannot be concluded that the Petitioner has satisfied the second alternative 
prong of8 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. In 
that regard, we reviewed the Petitioner's assertion that it is its company practice to hire business 
analysts with at least a master's degree in business administration. However, other than the 
Petitioner's advertisement for the position, the record does not include any evidence of the 
Petitioner's employment pnictices. Additionally, we observe that 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 revfewing 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, 201 F. 3d at 387. In other words, if a petitioner's degree 
7 
Matter of 1-F- Co. 
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"). Here, the Petitioner has not established 
the referenced criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3) based on its normal hiring practices. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
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 does not offer evidence that the proffered position requires the performance of duties 
so specialized and complex that knowledge that is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent is required. That is, relative 
specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by the Petitioner as an aspect of 
the proffered position.4 
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 for this reason. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
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 ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden 
has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of I-F- Co., ID# 12233(AAO Sept. 30, 2016) 
4 The Petitioner has designated the proffered position as a Level II position on the submitted LCA, indicating that it is a 
position for an employee who has a good understanding of the occupation but who will only perform moderately 
complex tasks that require limited judgment. See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage 
Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _11_ 2009.pdf Therefore, it does not appear 
that the position is one with specialized and complex duties, as such a higher-level position would be classified as a 
Level III or Level IV position, requiring a significantly higher prevailing wage. 
8