dismissed H-1B Case: Business Analysis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 11938280 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-1B) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 01, 2021 
The Petitioner, a restaurant, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an "Operations Analyst" 
under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-1B 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 of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the proffered position qualified as a specialty occupation, and we dismissed the 
Petitioner's appeal. The matter is again before us on a motion to reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate el igibi I ity by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we 
will dismiss the motion. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
To merit reopening or reconsideration, a petitioner must meet the formal filing requirements (such as, 
for instance, submission of a properly completed Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with the 
correct fee), and show proper cause for granting the motion. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l). 
A motion to reconsider is based on legal grounds and must (1) state the reasons for reconsideration 
and (2) be supported by any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the decision was based on 
an incorrect application of law or Service policy; and when filed, also (3) establish that the decision 
was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner does not offer any new facts but instead filed a motion to reconsider. However, the 
Petitioner has not substantiated its claim that our initial analysis of and conclusion regarding the 
proposed position conflicts with the regulatory and statutory requirements or Service policy. First, the 
Petitioner refers to our discussion of its stated educational minimum requirements for the proffered 
position. In our decision, we noted that the Petitioner's acknowledgment that the proffered position may 
be performed with a bachelor's degree in business or business administration, without further 
specialization, is inadequate to establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation.1 
On motion, the Petitioner states that its statements are "far from such an "acknowledgement" that the 
proffered position may be performed only with a bachelor's degree in business or business 
administration." The Petitioner states that it is "merely referring to a pool of candidates that have a ski llset 
it looks for when seeking to fill the position" and that it does not state that only an MBA or a bachelor's 
degree in data analysis will suffice for the position. The Petitioner concludes that its statements indicate 
the specialized knowledge required for the position and that its descriptions "are more akin to someone 
with a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, such as economics, and not someone with merely an 
MBA." However, the Petitioner initially claimed that its proffered position "qualifies as a specialty 
occupation as a bachelor's degree, or its foreign equivalent, in Business Administration, Management, 
Operations, or a related field is required." In response to the Director's second request for evidence 
(RFE), the Petitioner stated that "it look[s] for the students [who] majored in business or data analysis." 
A simple reading of the Petitioner's statements in the record shows that the Petitioner accepts a bachelor's 
degree in the general field of business as sufficient to perform the duties of the proposed position. It does 
not state that the business degree must include one or more specific concentrations (i.e. business with a 
concentration in marketing, or business with a concentration in economics, or business with a 
concentration in analytics, or a business degree with any other particular concentration). 2 Again, we have 
consistently stated that a position with duties that may be performed with a general business degree, 
without more, is insufficient to establish that a position is a specialty occupation.3 
The Petitioner next refers to our discussion of the nature of the proffered position and claims that we 
"zoom[ed] [our] focus into certain portions of the proffered evidence while ignoring others." The 
Petitioner claims that we did not consider all of the evidence in the record because we did not perform 
a full analysis regarding the four regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) and did not 
consider previously referenced AAO decisions.4 However, upon considering all of the evidence 
1 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, without further specification, 
does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf. Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 l&N Dec. 558, 560 
(Comm'r 1988). 
2 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., 484 F.3d at 147. 
3 Id. See also Vision Builders, LLC v. USCIS, No. 19-3159, 20 WL 5891546, at *4 (D.D.C. Oct. 5, 2020). 
4 The Petitioner referenced our non-precedent decisions concerning unrelated occupations where we determined that the 
specific positions described in those matters qualified as specialty occupations. These decisions were not published as 
precedent and therefore do not bind U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS) officers in future adjudications. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c). Non-precedent decisions apply existing law and policy to the specific facts of the individual case 
and may be distinguishable based on the evidence in the record of proceeding, the issues considered, and applicable law 
and policy. The Petitioner, here, has furnished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition are analogous 
2 
presented in the record we concluded that the Petitioner did not establish the substantive nature of the 
work to be performed by the Beneficiary and did not demonstrate that the proffered position meets the 
statutory definition of a specialty occupation. See Section 214(i)(I) of the Act. Therefore, further 
discussion of the issues raised on appeal regarding whether the Petitioner satisfies any criterion at 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) was unnecessary because it is the substantive nature of that work that 
determines (1) the normal minimum educational requirement for entry into the particular position, which 
is the focus of criterion 1; (2) industry positions which are parallel to the proffered position and thus 
appropriate for review for a common degree requirement, under the first alternate prong of criterion 2; 
(3) the level of complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position, which is the focus of the second 
alternate prong of criterion 2; (4) the factual justification for a petitioner normally requiring a degree or 
its equivalent, when that is an issue under criterion 3; and (5) the degree of specialization and complexity 
of the specific duties, which is the focus of criterion 4. 
In this matter, the duties of the proffered position do not include sufficient information to conclude 
that they comprise the duties of a specialty occupation or that the position was properly designated on 
the LCA. 5 We provided our analysis and reasons for reaching our conclusions in our previous 
decision. The Petitioner does not provide any cogent reasons we should reconsider our prior decision. 
It does not offer persuasive evidence demonstrating how our previous decision was based on an 
incorrect application of law or Service policy. Rather, the Petitioner disagrees with our conclusions 
without citing statutory or regulatory authority, case law, precedent decisions, or policy demonstrating 
how our conclusions were erroneous. 
Next, the Petitioner refers to our discussion of the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational 
Outlook Handbook (Handbook) and contends that we have "placed a heightened standard on Petitioner 
by both allowing the [Handbook] to guide [our] decision-making and by interpreting portions of the 
[Handbook] against Petitioner, as if it were a legal document to be scrutinized as such." We concur 
with the Petitioner to the extent that the Petitioner may be asserting that it would be erroneous to 
accord to the Handbook any legal weight or authority. In this regard, we find the Handbook's use of 
unintended uses instructive: (1) using the Handbook as a guide for determining wages, hours of work, 
the right of a particular union to represent workers, appropriate bargaining units, or formal job 
evaluation systems; and (2) using the Handbook to compute future loss of earnings in adjudication 
proceedings involving work injuries or accidental deaths. 
to those in the unpublished decisions. While 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c) provides that our precedent decisions are binding on all 
USCIS employees in the administration of the Act, unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. 
5 The LCA serves as the critical mechanism for enforcing section 212(n)(1) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(n)(1). See Labor 
Condition Applications and Requirements for Employers Using Nonimmigrants on H-1B Visas in Specialty Occupations 
and as Fashion Models; Labor Certification Process for Permanent Employment of Aliens in the United States, 65 Fed. 
Reg. 80,110, 80,110-11 (proposed Dec. 20, 2000) (to be codified at 20 C.F.R. pts. 655-56) (indicating that the wage 
protections in the Act seek "to protect U.S. workers' wages and eliminate any economic incentive or advantage in hiring 
temporary foreign workers" and that this "process of protecting U.S. workers begins with [the filing of an LCA] with 
[DOL]."). While DOL is the agency that certifies LCA applications before they are submitted to USCIS, DOL regulations 
note that the Department of Homeland Security (OHS) (i.e., its immigration benefits branch, USCIS) is the department 
responsible for determining whether the content of an LCA filed for a particular Form 1-129 actually supports that 
petition. See 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b). The regulation at 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b) requires that USCIS ensure that "the 
petition is supported by an LCA which corresponds with the petition .... " 
3 
However, the Handbook also indicates that it reports educational, licensing, or practical standards for 
occupations established by national accrediting organizations, and the education information provided 
pertains to the typical requirements for entry into the given occupation. Therefore, we did not err in 
referring to the Handbook for the duties and educational requirements for the wide variety of 
occupations it addresses, considering that the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to support 
its assertion. As noted, the Petitioner has the burden of proof to submit evidence to establish that a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. We do not discern from the record that we did not either (1) fully 
and fairly consider and accord appropriate evidentiary weight to any countervai Ii ng evidence from any 
other source or (2) properly determine the ultimate impact of the Handbook's information upon the 
issues for which the Handbook was considered, including any evidence contrary to the Handbook. 
Finally, the Petitioner refers to our discussion of the educational minimum requirements outlined in 
the Handbook and contends that we erred in our conclusions that the Handbook's listing of several 
disciplines in an occupation's profile indicates that the Operations Research Analyst position is not a 
specialty occupation. Specifically, the Petitioner cites to Raj and Co. v. USCIS, 85 F. Supp. 3d 1241, 
1246 (W.D. Wash. 2015) and lnspectionXpert Corp. v. Cuccinelli, No. 1:19-cv-65, 2020 WL 1062821, 
at *26 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 5, 2020) noting that a specialty occupation may permit a degree in more than 
one academic discipline. This is true. The Petitioner, however, misreads our decision. We did not, 
for example, state that the proffered position, which is located within the "Operations Research 
Analysts" occupational category, could only qualify as a specialty-occupation position if the Petitioner 
mandated a degree in "operations research analysis."6 Instead, we found the Handbook's stated 
spectrum of acceptable degrees too broad to support a finding that the proffered position requires a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent. In other words, we did not outline a 
requirement for a single specialty occupation degree; rather, we observed that the Handbook indicates 
that courses in various fields such as engineering, mathematics, computer science, economics, and 
political science are useful because "operations research is a multidisciplinary field with a wide variety 
of applications."7 Thus, we noted that the Handbook recognizes this occupation as multidisciplinary, 
and does not identify a specific discipline to perform the duties of the occupation. 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)(l)(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 engineering and 
political science, 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. Section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). 
6 See, e.g., Irish Help at Home LLC v. Melville, No. 13-cv-00943-MEJ, 2015 WL 848977 at *7 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 24, 2015), 
aff'd 679 Fed. App'x 634 (9th Cir. 2017) ("Likewise, this case is different from [Tapis lnt'I v. Immigration and 
Naturalization Service, 94 F. Supp. 2d 172 (D. Mass. 2000)] because the AAO's decision is not akin to a finding that [the 
Beneficiary] would need a degree in 'deputy controllership,' rather, the issue is that there is no credible evidence supporting 
that Irish Help's deputy controller position is specialized in the sense that [it] could only be performed by one with 
specialized knowledge in a specialized course of study, as opposed to one with a more generic degree.") 
7 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Operations Research Analysts, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/math/operations-research-analysts.htm (last visited Feb. 16, 2021). 
4 
In other words, while the statutory "the" and the regulatory "a" both denote a singular "specialty," we 
do not so narrowly interpret these provisions to exclude positions from qualifying as specialty 
occupations if they permit, as a minimum entry requirement, degrees in more than one closely related 
specialty. See section 214(i)(1)(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). This also includes even 
seemingly disparate specialties providing, again, the evidence of record establishes how each 
acceptable, specific field of study is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular 
position. The Petitioner, who has the burden of proof in these matters, must show that the particular 
position offered to the Beneficiary is among the positions for which a bachelor's degree in a specific 
discipline, or its equivalent, is required. The Petitioner has not done so. 
111. CONCLUSION 
In this matter, the Petitioner has not overcome our prior decision or shown proper cause to reconsider 
this matter. 
In visa petition proceedings, it is a 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 motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
5