dismissed H-1B Case: Business Analysis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9579709 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-18) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG . 19, 2020 
The Petitioner, a beverage development and production company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "business analyst" under the H-18 nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations. 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-18 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 California Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the record did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The matter is now before us 
on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the 
questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of Christa's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(I) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(I), 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. 
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). We construe the term "degree" 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"). 
11. THE PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a business analyst. The Petitioner provided several 
job descriptions for the proffered position which identified the primary duties and responsibilities of 
the Beneficiary, along with the approximate percentage of time the Beneficiary will spend on each 
duty.1 The Petitioner indicated that the minimum entry requirement for the proffered position is a 
bachelor's degree, or equivalent, in economics, business administration, accounting, or closely related 
fields. 
Ill. ANALYSIS 
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. 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its 
equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 
Preliminarily, we note that the Petitioner states that a bachelor's degree in business administration, with 
no further specification, would be sufficient to enter into the position. We note generally that a claimed 
entry requirement for at least a bachelor's degree, or equivalent, in business administration, without more, 
is inadequate to establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation.2 A petitioner 
1 For the sake of brevity, we will not quote the job descriptions; however, we have closely reviewed and considered them. 
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 combined with relevant education, training, 
and/or experience could, in certain instances, qualify the proffered position as a specialty occupation. In either case, it 
2 
must demonstrate that the proffered position requires a precise and specific course of study that relates 
directly and closely to the position in question. There must be a close correlation between the required 
specialized studies and the position. Thus, the mere requirement of a general degree, such as business 
administration, without further specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation.3 
Therefore, if a bachelor's degree in business administration is sufficient to enter into the proffered 
position, it cannot be concluded that the proffered position requires anything more than a general 
bachelor's degree. Accordingly, the proffered position does not qualify under the definition of a specialty 
occupation and the appeal must be dismissed on this basis alone. Even setting aside the foregoing 
analysis, we still conclude that the proffered position is not a specialty occupation because the evidence 
of record does not satisfy any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(1)-(4). 
A. First Criterion 
We turn first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii){A)(1), 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 will consider the information contained 
in the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) regarding the 
duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations it addresses.4 
The Petitioner designated the position on the labor condition application (LCA) as a Standard Occupation 
Classification (SOC) code 13-1161, "Market Research Analysts and Marketing Specialists" occupation, 
at a Level I wage. 5 The Petitioner asserts that the duties of the proffered position are most closely aligned 
with the generalized duties listed in the Handbook for "Market Research Analysts." The Handbook's 
subchapter entitled "How to Become a Market Research Analyst" does not indicate that a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, is normally required for entry into market research 
analysts' positions. 
In the initial summary of this subchapter, the Handbook recognizes that "[m]ost market research analysts 
need at least a bachelor's degree" while also reporting that "[s]ome research positions may require a 
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. 
3 Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147 (a general-purpose bachelor's degree in business may be a legitimate prerequisite for 
a particular position, but such a degree, without more, will not justify a finding that a particular position qualifies for 
classification as a specialty occupation). See also Irish Help at Home LLC v. Melville, No. 13-cv-00943-MEJ, 2015 WL 
848977 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 24, 2015), aff'd 679 Fed. App'x 634 (9th Cir. 2017). 
4 We do not 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 establishing the general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered 
position, and we regularly review the Handbook on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of 
occupations that it addresses. Nevertheless, 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. 
5 A petitioner submits the LCA to DOL to demonstrate that it will pay an H-lB worker the higher of either the prevailing 
wage for the occupational classification in the area of employment or the actual wage paid by the employer to other 
employees with similar duties, experience, and qualifications. Section 212(n){l) of the Act; 
20 C.F.R. § 655.731(a). 
3 
master's degree" and that "[s]trong math and analytical skills are essential."6 Thus, generally these 
positions may require a bachelor's degree and some skills, but not a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. Although the Handbook also reports that"[ m ]arket research analysts typically 
need a bachelor's degree in market research or a related field," it then adds that "[m]any have degrees in 
fields such as statistics, math, and computer science. Others have backgrounds in business administration, 
the social sciences, or communications. "7 
The Handbook's observation that disparate fields of study, including statistics, computer science, and the 
social sciences, may qualify a worker to enter positions in the "Market Research Analysts" occupational 
category indicates that there is no normal minimum entry requirement that the bachelor's or higher degree 
be in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. That is, the Handbook does not describe the normal minimum 
educational requirement for the occupation in a categorical manner, other than recognizing that these 
occupations generally require a bachelor's degree. Here, the Handbook does not establish that a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry 
into the occupational category. 
The Petitioner relies on the DOL's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) summary report for 
"Market Research Analysts and Marketing Specialists," to support its assertion that a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty is the normal minimum requirement for entry into the position. The 
O*NET Summary Report, however, does not establish that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, 
or the equivalent, is normally required. It provides general information regarding the occupation, but 
it does not support a conclusion that the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or the equivalent. 
Instead, O*NET assigns these positions a "Job Zone Four" rating, which states "most of these 
occupations require a four-year bachelor's degree, but some do not." Moreover, the Job Zone Four 
designation does not indicate that any academic credentials for Job Zone Four occupations must be 
directly related to the duties performed. In addition, the specialized vocational preparation (SVP) 
rating designates this occupation as 7 < 8. An SVP rating of 7 to less than ("<") 8 indicates that the 
occupation requires "over 2 years up to and including 4 years" of training. While the SVP rating 
indicates the total number of years of vocational preparation required for a particular position, it is 
important to note that it does not describe how those years are to be divided among training, 
experience, and formal education. The SVP rating also does not specify the particular type of degree, 
if any, that a position would require.8 Moreover, the respondents' positions within the occupation are 
not distinguished by career level (e.g., entry-level, mid-level, senior-level). Furthermore, the graph in 
the summary report does not indicate that the "education level" for the respondents must be in a 
specific specialty. For all of these reasons, O*NET does not establish the proffered position as a 
specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner submitted a letter prepared byl I Associate Professor of Accounting at 
~--~I University, to understand why or how the duties described require a bachelor's degree in 
6 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Market Research 
Analysts, at https://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/market-research-analysts.htm (last visited Jul. 30, 2020). 
7 Id. 
8 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/ 
help/online/svp. 
4 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent.I !repeats the Petitioner's initial brief description 
of the proposed duties and opines that "the best applicant for such a position is candidate with a 
bachelor degree in business, particularly in accounting and finance." 
As previously noted, even if established by the evidence of record, the requirement of a bachelor's 
degree in business or business administration is inadequate to establish that a position qualifies 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. Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 l&N Dec. 
558,560 (Comm'r 1988). In addition to demonstrating that a job requires the theoretical and practical 
application of a body of specialized knowledge as required by section 214(i)(1) of the Act, a petitioner 
must also establish that the position requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a 
specialized field of study or its equivalent. As explained above, we interpret 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) as requiring a degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed 
position. We have consistently stated that, 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 conclusion that a particular position qualifies for 
classification as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. 
Therefore, the letter from I I does not support the Petitioner's assertion that the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements 
submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron lnt'I, Inc., 19 l&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 
1988). However, we will reject an opinion or give it less weight if it is not in accord with other 
information in the record or if it is in any way questionable. Id. 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation from a probative source to substantiate its 
assertion regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. Thus, the 
Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(1). 
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 contemplates 
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. 
5 
We generally consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there is such a common degree 
requirement: 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 establish that such firms "routinely employ and 
recruit only degreed individuals."9 
As noted, the Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is a common 
requirement within the industry for parallel positions among similar organizations. On appeal, the 
Petitioner submitted copies of job announcements placed by other employers. Upon review of the 
documents, we conclude that the Petitioner's reliance on the job announcements is misplaced. 
We will first consider whether the advertised job opportunities could be considered "parallel 
positions." We note that the Petitioner did not state that the proffered position requires any experience 
in addition to a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. However, the advertised positions list specific 
experience requirements, such as "3-5 years' experience in a sales environment," "3-5 years of 
experience in an analytical role in business or marketing," and "minimum 2 years' experience in a 
Food & Beverage Controller position." If these are parallel positions as claimed, then the Petitioner 
has not resolved how payment of a Level I wage to the Beneficiary correlates to the experience the 
position requires. If alternatively, the positions are not parallel, but rather represent a different or more 
specialized position than the proffered position, then the postings have no relevance in establishing an 
industry standard for positions located within the occupational category. In either instance, these 
postings suggest that the LCA may be inconsistent with the Petitioner's claims and the evidence within 
the record. 
Further, the advertisements do not include sufficient information about the duties and responsibilities 
for the announced positions. Thus, it is not possible to determine important aspects of the jobs, such 
as the specific responsibilities, complexity of the job duties, supervisory duties (if any), independent 
judgment required, or the amount of supervision received. Therefore, the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently established that the primary duties and responsibilities of the advertised positions parallel 
those of the proffered position. 
In addition, every posting submitted lists a bachelor's degree in business as one of the acceptable 
degrees. As we noted earlier, the requirement of a bachelor's degree in business is inadequate to 
establish that a position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 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 Assocs., 19 l&N Dec. at 560. As 
explained above, we interpret 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. We have consistently 
stated that, 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 conclusion that a particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty 
occupation. Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. Overall, the job postings suggest, at best, that 
9 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) (considering these "factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
6 
although a bachelor's degree is sometimes required for these positions, a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty (or its equivalent) is not. 10 
Moreover, the record does not contain documentary evidence sufficient to establish that these job 
vacancy announcements were placed by companies that (1) conduct business in the Petitioner's 
industry and (2) are also "similar" to the Petitioner. In fact, none of the advertisements provide 
sufficient information regarding the hiring employers and the Petitioner did not supplement the record 
of proceedings to establish that these advertising organizations are similar to it. The language of the 
regulation is clear and when determining whether the job vacancy announcements are relevant for 
consideration, the Petitioner must show that they are "similar" organizations. When determining 
whether the Petitioner and another 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 basis for the assertion.11 
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.12 That is, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. 
The Petitioner also submitted a letter from~I ___ I President of which ~--------~ comments on the industry hiring standards for a business analyst within the natural juice industry. We 
afford this letter minimal evidentiary weight, as a review of the Petitioner's documentation indicates 
that the President of this claimed competitor is also the CEO of the Petitioner. 
Without more, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(i i i)(A)(2). 
10 It must be noted that even if all of the job postings indicated that a requirement of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations (which they do not), the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from the 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). Moreover, given that there is no indication that the 
advertisements were randomly selected, the validity of any such inferences could not be accurately determined even if the 
sampling unit were sufficiently large. See id. at 195-196 (explaining that "[r]andom selection is the key to [the] process 
[of probability sampling]" and that "random selection offers access to the body of probability theory, which provides the 
basis for estimates of population parameters and estimates of error"). 
11 We also note that, rather than submitting the actual published job advertisements, the Petitioner has created its own 
document summarizing ten advertisements it claims were taken from the website indeed.com. There is insufficient 
evidence in the record to establish that these claimed advertisements are in fact legitimate and were in fact posted on a job 
recruitment website. Doubt cast on any aspect of a petitioner's proof may undermine the reliability and sufficiency of the 
remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). 
12 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. 
7 
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 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. On appeal, the Petitioner does not assert eligibility under this prong of the criterion; 
therefore, further discussion is unnecessary. The Petitioner has not satisfied the second prong of 
8 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. On appeal, the 
Petitioner does not assert eligibility under this criterion; therefore, further discussion is unnecessary. 
The Petitioner has not satisfied the requirements of 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. 
As discussed, neither the Handbook nor another authoritative source indicates that a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, is normally required for positions located within this 
occupational category, and the Petitioner's descriptions of the proffered position's duties provide 
insufficient information to determine whether the nature of the position is so specialized and complex 
that it can be performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent. 
Nevertheless, we have again reviewed the duties of the proffered position in full. The descriptions do not 
detail the specialized and complex nature of specific duties the Beneficiary will perform. Although some 
tasks may connote a requirement of familiarity with general business principles, including marketing 
knowledge, the record is insufficient to establish that the duties require anything more than a few basic 
courses and a broad educational background. While a few such courses may be beneficial in performing 
certain duties of the position, the Petitioner, who bears the burden of proof, 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 Petitioner 
does not develop relative specialization and complexity as an aspect of the proffered position. The 
proposed duties do not include a meaningful discussion of what the Beneficiary will actually be required 
to do in the proffered position and how those duties require the theoretical and practical application of a 
body of highly specialized knowledge. The Petitioner has not established that the proffered position is 
more specialized and complex or unique than a nosiness analyst position that requires only a general 
bachelor's degree, such as a bachelor's degree in a business-related field. 
8 
In the instant case, relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by the 
Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. While the position may require that the Beneficiary 
possess some skills and technical knowledge in order to perform the duties, the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently explained how the identified tasks elevate the position to one so specialized and complex 
that a specialty degree is required to perform them. 
We conclude that the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one with duties 
sufficiently specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 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 appeal is dismissed. 
9