dismissed H-1B Case: Business Analysis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 31, 2024 In Re: 3182494 7 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-IB nonimmigrant 
classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) . The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to 
temporarily employ a qualified nonimmigrant 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 of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The matter is now before us 
on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa '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. § 1184(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 proffered 
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 pos1t10ns 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 proffered 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 proffered position 
supporting the statutory definition of specialty occupation. 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"). USCIS' application of this 
standard has resulted in the orderly approval ofH-lB petitions for engineers, accountants, information 
technology professionals and other occupations, commensurate with what Congress intended when it 
created the H-1 B 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 proffered 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). 
II. THE PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner is offering the Beneficiary the position of "Project Analyst." The petition included a 
certified labor condition application (LCA) certified for a position located within the "Cost 
2 
Estimators" occupational category corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 
13-1051. The proffered job description aligns with the duties of the "Cost Estimators" occupational 
category. 
The Petitioner stated in its support letter that the "Project Analyst" position requires a bachelor's 
degree in business administration or a closely related field. The Director considered the Petitioner's 
initial evidence and assertions and issued a request for evidence (RFE) because the vague duties the 
Petitioner submitted lacked the specificity required to demonstrate the actual substantive nature of the 
proffered position within the context of the Petitioner's business operations. In its response to the 
Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted an expert opinion letter by I I associate 
professor, Connecticut, letter from I I executive 
vice president with the Petitioner, copies of job posting, and documents supporting the Petitioner's 
succession to the petition filed by on behalf of the Beneficiary to establish that the 
proffered position met all four of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). The Petitioner also 
wholly resubmitted the attorney and Petitioner response letters and the supporting documents and 
contentions it made in response to the Director's RFE to support its assertions on appeal. 
III. ANALYSIS 
The record of proceedings contains the Petitioner's stated requirements for the proffered position. The 
Petitioner states that they accept a bachelor's degree in business administration or closely related field, 
with no further specialization, as a minimum qualification for entry into the proffered position. The 
Petitioner's appeal strenuously asserts the Director's RFE was issued without basis and that its "good 
faith" assertions and documentation describing the minimum requirement for entry to the proffered 
position is sufficient for it to establish their proffered job's eligibility as a specialty occupation. But 
the Petitioner's educational threshold for entry into their proffered job falls far short of satisfying the 
requirement that the proffered position require the theoretical and practical application of a body of 
specialized knowledge and that the position requires attainment of a bachelor's degree in the specific 
specialty to perform the job duties. Or in other words, a minimum requirement for a bachelor's degree 
in business administration or a closely related field is insufficient to meet the statutory or regulatory 
definition of the term "specialty occupation." 
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." Contrary to the Petitioner's strident assertions, a general degree requirement like 
a bachelor's degree in business administration standing alone without any further specialization is not 
a "business specialty." And this excludes any proffered position accepting such a degree as a 
minimum requirement for entry into the position from consideration as a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner's representation of the field of business administration as a specialty is foundationless 
and misplaced. We acknowledge the Petitioner's educational requirement here is a singular bachelor's 
degree in business administration or its equivalent and not a "wide variety of disparate fields of study" 
as the Director described. Nevertheless, a bachelor's degree in business administration without further 
specialization is by definition broad because it could apply to a wide variety of disparate positions in 
numerous fields such as finance, general business operations, and management in a variety of 
endeavors. The wide and disparate nature of the field ofbusiness administration without specialization 
3 
simply cannot provide an individual with the "body of highly specialized knowledge" required to 
perform the duties of a specialty occupation. 
Accordingly, with faithfulness to the statutory and regulatory requirements, USCIS has consistently 
disfavored general purpose bachelor's degree in business administration with no additional 
specialization. See Matter ofLing, 13 I&N Dec. 35 (Reg'l Comm'r 1968); Matter ofMichael Hertz 
Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558 (Comm'r 1988); Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988). 
Even after Congress revamped the H-lB program as part of the Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 
101-649, 104 Stat. 4978, the agency's concerns with a general-purpose bachelor's degree in business 
administration with no additional specialization continued. See e.g. Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 
2d 1151 (D. Minn. 1999); 2233 Paradise Road, LLC v. 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 6130678 
(D. Mass., Nov. 19, 2019); 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-lB 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner advances a generalized allegation that the Director's decision "is a denial of 
due process, misinterprets both statute and regulation, and is arbitrary and capricious .... " The 
Petitioner also makes unsupported assertions that the Director imposed an "unidentified and vague 
standard of 'sufficiency"' in place of the preponderance of the evidence standard that applies to 
immigration petition proceedings. 
We do not agree with the Petitioner's assertions. The Director's reference to "sufficiency" is not a 
reference to a standard. It is a description of the materiality, relevance, and probative value of the 
evidence the Petitioner submitted to advance its assertions and contentions. Or in other words, the 
Petitioner's evidence was not sufficiently material, relevant, or probative to determine whether its 
proffered position was classifiable as a specialty occupation because it did not support its bare 
assertion that a bachelor's degree in business administration without specialization provides a body of 
theoretical and practical knowledge composing a specialty that the Director ignored. The Director 
correctly applied the law and governing regulations as outlined above demonstrating 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-lB specialty occupation visa." See Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147. 
4 
The Petitioner also contends that the prior approval of a petition filed by the predecessor entity on 
behalf of the Beneficiary to which the Petitioner succeeds for the instant petition renders the 
Director's decision "irrational and per se arbitrary and capricious." But the Petitioner does not cite 
to any law, regulation, or policy for its assertion. Moreover, we note the instant petition was filed to 
change the employer and extend the stay of the Beneficiary to the Petitioner in its capacity as a 
successor to the Beneficiary's prior employer. USCIS is not bound to approve subsequent petitions 
or applications simply because of a prior approval. And USCIS will not defer to a prior approval 
when there has been a material change in circumstances or eligibility requirements. See generally 2 
USCIS Policy Manual, A.4(B)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. The succession of one 
Petitioner to another after a corporate restructuring is a material change that alters the character, 
terms, and conditions of a petition. 1 
The Petitioner indicated on appeal that their RFE response contained an expert opinion letter prepared 
by _____ associate professor, Connecticut. As a 
matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter 
of Caron Int 'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). But an opinion statement has less weight 
where there is cause to question or doubt the opinion, or if it is not in accord with other information in 
the record. The submission of expert opinion letters is not presumptive evidence in any event. Id.; 
see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, 502 n.2 (BIA 2008). 
Professor I I states that their academic qualifications, history as an educator in the field, 
research and published work in combination with their authorship of numerous expert opinion letters, 
and analyses of the academic and professional credentials of candidates for university admission and 
employment positions in business administration and management render them qualified to provide 
on opinion in this matter. Professor! Irefers to their individual research and experience in 
the fields of management and business administration. They list the proffered job duties, the academic 
prerequisites of the proffered job, and attempt to establish the suitability of the required business 
administration field of study to a selected portion of the proffered job's overall duties. Or in other 
words, the evaluation also tries to tie in a bachelor's degree in business administration without 
specialization to the duties of the position, concluding that the proffered position fits within the statue 
and regulations as a "specialty occupation." But the opinion does not address the deficiencies inherent 
to a petition in which a bachelor's degree in business administration with no further specialization is 
acceptable. So, the Petitioner's reliance on this evaluation is misplaced. The evaluation is not 
probative, and we decline to assign it any significant evidentiary weight. 
We therefore cannot conclude that the proffered position's minimum requirement for entry into the 
job is anything more than a general bachelor's degree. The Petitioner has not satisfied the statutory 
definition of a "specialty occupation" at section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act nor the regulatory definition 
of a specialty occupation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
1 Nor is USCIS required to defer to a prior approval if that prior approval involved a material error. Id. Or in other words, 
if the Petitioner's predecessor claimed that the Beneficiary's prior position qualified for classification as a specialty 
occupation on the same basis claimed by the Petitioner here (a bachelor's degree in business administration with no fmiher 
specialization), then the approval of that petition filed by the Petitioner's predecessor was materially erroneous. See Royal 
Siam, 484 F.3d at 147. 
5 
Without the express requirement of a baccalaureate or higher degree providing the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, or the equivalent, the supplemental 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4) cannot be satisfied. 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 proffered 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. § 
2 l 4.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)( 1)-( 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. § 
2 l 4.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)( 1)-( 4) remains unsatisfied. So, we will not consider the Petitioner's arguments and 
the evidence it submits in support of its contention that it satisfies the supplemental regulatory criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4). 
The proffered position here is not a specialty occupation because the Petitioner set a bachelor's degree 
in business administration without specialization as a minimum requirement for entry into the position. 
The record of proceeding does not support the Petitioner's assertion that the proffered position requires 
both: (1) the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge; and (2) 
the attainment of a bachelor's degree in the specific specialty. The Petitioner has satisfied neither the 
statutory definition of a "specialty occupation" at section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act nor the regulatory 
definition of a specialty occupation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). As the Petitioner had not satisfied 
that threshold requirement, it cannot satisfy any of the supplemental specialty-occupation criteria 
enumerated at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4). So, the Petitioner has not established that the 
proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
A bachelor's degree in business administration 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 proffered position does not satisfy the statutory and regulatory definitions 
of specialty occupation. Accordingly, we must dismiss the appeal. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 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. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6