dismissed H-1B Case: Business Analysis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 21900502 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUL. 7, 2022 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 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)(15)(H)(i)(b) . The H-lB 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 record did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
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 Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. 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 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 also meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation : 
( I) 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. 
We note as a threshold issue 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. 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 statute 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). 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 would 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), we construe 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 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-1B 
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-1 B visa category. 
To determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, we do not rely simply upon 
a position's title or the broader occupational category within which a petitioner claims the position is 
2 
located. The specific duties of the proffered position, combined with the nature of the petitioning 
entity's business operations, are factors to be considered. We must examine the ultimate employment 
of the individual, and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. See generally 
Defensor, 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. 
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 claims that the Beneficiary will work as a "business analyst" and submitted a labor 
condition application (LCA) certified for a position located within the "Computer Systems Analysts" 
occupational category, corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 15-1121. The 
record contains a description of the proffered position's duties that aligns generally with the duties of 
positions located within that occupational category. 
The Petitioner stated in its support letter that the proffered position requires a degree in business 
administration, computer science, computer information systems, or a closely related field of study. 
In its response to the Director's request for additional evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted an 
expert position evaluation to establish that the proffered position met three of the four criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
III. ANALYSIS 
As a result of the Petitioner's own stated requirements, the proffered position does not meet the 
statutory or regulatory definition of the term "specialty occupation." 1 As noted, both definitions 
require the Petitioner to demonstrate that the proffered position requires: (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 record of proceedings satisfies neither. 
That the Petitioner would find acceptable a bachelor's degree in business administration, with no 
further specialization, alone precludes a determination that the position involves a "body of highly 
specialized knowledge" or that it requires the attainment of a bachelor's degree in a "specific 
specialty." The First Circuit Court of Appeals explained in Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147, that: 
The courts and the agency consistently have stated that, although a general-purpose 
1 The Petitioner submitted documentation in support of the H-lB 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. 
3 
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-IB 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. 2 
For this reason alone, the record satisfies neither the statutory nor the regulatory definitions of the term 
"specialty occupation," and we could end our analysis here and dismiss the appeal on that basis. But 
we will not do so, because even if we were to set the issue of the "business administration" degree 
2 Id. But see India House , Inc. v. McAleenan, 449 F. Supp. 3d 4, 2020 WL 1479519 (D.R.I. 2020). In India House the 
court distinguished Royal Siam on factual grounds but did not dispute its central reasoning: that a position whose duties 
can be fulfilled by an individual with a general-purpose bachelor's degree in business administration is not a specialty 
occupation. Instead, it distinguished Royal Siam on factual grounds. Here, the Petitioner specifically recognizes an 
unspeci alized bachelor's degree in busine ss administration as being one of the many degrees it considers as providing an 
adequate preparation to perform the duties of the proffered position. 
The agency has longstanding concerns regarding general-purpose bachelor 's degrees in business administration with no 
additional specialization. For example, in Matter of Ling , 13 I. & N. Dec . 35 (Reg'! Comm'r 1968), the agency stated that 
attainment of a bachelor's degree in business administration alone was insufficient to qualify a foreign national as a 
member of the professions pursuant to section 10l(a)(32) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(32) . Twenty years later, the 
agency looked to the nature of the position itself and clarified that a requirement for a degree with a generalized title, such 
as business administration , without further specification, was insufficient to qualify the position as one that is profession al 
pursuant to section 10l(a)(32) of the Act. Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. at 560. See also Matter of Caron Int '/, 
Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988) (vice president for manufacturing in a textile company was not a profession al 
position because individual holding general degree in business administration , engineering or science could perfonn its 
duties). 
Congress created the modern H-lB program as part of the Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649, 104 Stat. 4978. 
In doing so, it pivoted away from the prior H-1 standard of whether a position was "professional. " Instead , petitioners 
were now required to demonstrate that a proffered position qualified as a "specialty occupation ." Section 
101 (a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b) of the Act. In the final rule setting forth the requirements for the revamped H-lB program , the agency, 
responding to commenters suggesting that the proposed regulatory "specific specialty" requirement "was too severe and 
would exclude certain occupations from classifications as specialty occupations," stated that "[t]he definition of specialty 
occupation contained in the statute contains this requirement. " Temporary Alien Workers Seeking Classification Under 
the Immigration and Nationality Act, 56 Fed. Reg. 61111, 61112 (Dec. 2, 1991). 
The agency's concerns regarding a general-purpose, non-specific degree in business administration continued under the 
revamped H-lB program. See, e.g., Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151 (D. Minn. 1999); Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147; 
2233 Paradise Road, LLCv. Cissna, No. l 7- cv- 01018- APG- VCF, 2018 WL 3312967 (D. Nev. , July 3, 2018);XiaoTong 
Liu v. Baran, No. 18-00376-NS , 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). 
To the extent the Petitioner is arguing that a bachelor's degree in business administration with no fu1ther specialization (or 
the equivalent) , is a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty , then consistent with agency history and federal case law, we 
must disagree . 
4 
aside we would still find that the Petitioner's acceptance of a bachelor's degree from a wide variety of 
fields would similarly preclude it from satisfying both definitions. 
As examples of the specific types of fields from which it would accept bachelor's degrees for this 
position, the Petitioner has specifically identified business administration, computer science, computer 
information systems, or a closely related field of study. But the Petitioner also indicates that it would 
accept a bachelor's degree from an even wider variety fields, so long as the degrees covered topics 
such as analytics, mathematics, project management, and engineering design. The Petitioner's RFE 
response quoted extensively from a position evaluation ( evaluation) to argue that the range of fields it 
requires for the position is not disparate, and that the fields are closely correlated with the duties of 
the position. The evaluation first describes the author's credentials, and then describes the 
documentation reviewed to render its opinion. Next, the writer explains how the duties of the position 
would require an individual with the minimum of a bachelor's degree, or higher, in "Computer 
Science, Computer Information Systems, Business Administration or closely related fields" because 
those fields provide an individual with the specialized body of knowledge necessary for the position. 
To support this conclusion, the writer cites to generic job skills related to "analytics, mathematics, 
project management, and engineering design" to illustrate why the position requires the minimum 
qualifications. Importantly, the evaluation notes in several sections how the position requires the 
knowledge attained from a degree in a science, technology, engineering, or mathematics ( commonly 
referred to as STEM) field. Then in a conclusory fashion, without supporting evidence, the writer 
concludes that this position would require the skills acquired through a bachelor's degree in business 
administration, and other STEM fields. Although the writer attempts to tie a degree in business 
administration to other STEM fields by noting that these degree fields cover topics such as "analytics, 
mathematics, project management, and engineering design," the writer's evidence for this conclusion 
is not established in the record. The Petitioner's reliance on the evaluation to support its argument 
that the range of fields of study it accepts is closely related, is misplaced because the evaluation does 
not provide a strong enough basis to understand how a degree in business administration is closely 
related to the other degree fields cited. 3 
The Director found this acceptable range of degrees too wide and denied the petition. On appeal, the 
Petitioner contends that caselaw such as Taylor Made Software, Inc. v. Cuccinelli, 453 F. Supp. 3d 
237 (D.D.C. 2020) and Info Labs, Inc. v. USCIS, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2020 WL 1536251 (D.D.C. 2020) 
support granting the petition. In particular, the Petitioner argues on appeal that these cases reversed 
USCIS denials ofH-lB petitions filed for positions located within the "Computer Systems Analysts" 
occupational category because the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook 
(Handbook) states that these positions "normally" require a degree and that degrees in liberal arts or 
business are common among Computer Systems Analysts, such that the occupation does require a 
bachelor's level of education in a specific specialty. Thus, the Petitioner argues that the position meets 
the definition of a specialty occupation under the first prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
We do not agree. The court in Taylor Made Software acknowledged that "there nonetheless must be 
some connection between the degree and the requirements of the position." See Taylor Made Software 
, 453 F.Supp.3d 237 at 243. We similarly conclude that the proffered position is not a specialty 
3 And even if it did, the Petitioner would still be left with the deficiencies discussed earlier that are inherent to a petition 
in which a bachelor's degree in business administration, with no further specialization, is acceptable. 
5 
occupation: the Petitioner's stated range of acceptable degree-fields is simply too wide and divergent. 
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 
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. Section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act ( emphasis 
added).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)(l)(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. 
Again, the Petitioner claims that the duties of the proffered position can be performed by an individual 
with a bachelor's degree in business administration, computer science, computer information systems, 
or a closely related field of study. And the record indicates that the Petitioner would accept bachelor's 
degrees from even more fields, so long as those degrees cover topics such as "analytics, mathematics, 
project management, and engineering design." This mass grouping of degree-topics is simply too 
broad to support a finding that the proffered position meets the definition of a "specialty occupation." 
Furthermore, the Petitioner does not establish how each one of its degree fields is related to the duties 
of the proffered position, and if a degree in any of these disparate fields would equally prepare an 
individual to perform the duties of a proffered position, then we question how the position involves a 
"highly specialized body of knowledge" or requires a bachelor's degree, or the equivalent, in a 
"specific specialty." 
The current record of proceedings does not establish how this divergent range of degrees could form 
either a body of highly specialized knowledge or a specific specialty. 5 We therefore cannot conclude 
that the proffered position requires anything more than a general bachelor's degree. For this additional 
reason, the Petitioner therefore 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 has not met the threshold requirement of satisfying the statutory and regulatory 
definitions of the term "specialty occupation," it cannot satisfy any of the supplemental specialty­
occupation criteria enumerated at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4) because, again, we must 
4 In short, neither of these two cases overcomes either deficiency we are discussing here: (1) the issue of the bachelor's 
degree in business administration; or (2) the disparate-degree issue. 
5 "A position that requires applicants to have any bachelor's degree, or a bachelor's degree in a large subset of fields. can 
hardly be considered specialized." Caremax, Inc. v. Holder, 40 F.Supp.3d 1182, 1187-88 (N.D. Cal. 2014) 
6 
consider those criteria in harmony with the thrust of the related regulatory provisions and with the 
statute as a whole. In other words, we must construe those criteria's references to the term "degree" 
as meaning not just any baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly 
related to the proffered position. 6 For example, the Petitioner cannot satisfy the supplemental 
specialty-occupation criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(]) because even if it establishes, in the 
words of this criterion, that "a baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the 
minimum requirement for entry into the particular position," we would still 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 proffered position. And as discussed above, the Petitioner would not be able to make 
that demonstration. 
The same would be true of the remaining three criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2)-( 4): because 
the Petitioner does not require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, it will not 
be able to satisfy any of those criteria because we will interpret each reference to a "degree" to mean 
not just any baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the 
proffered position. We therefore will not consider the Petitioner's arguments, and the evidence it 
submits, in support of its contention that it satisfies the supplemental specialty-occupation criteria 
enumerated at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(])-(4). 
The record of proceedings does not establish that the proffered pos1t10n 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, therefore, 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)(])-(4). The Petitioner, therefore, has not established that 
the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
IV. 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 Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147; Caremax, 40 F.Supp.3d at 1187-88;; Payjoy v. Cuccinelli, No. 19-cv-03977-HSG. 2019 
WL 3207839 at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2019) (statutory and regulatory text appear to support USCIS's interpretation that 
the degree requirement must be read in conjunction with the "specific specialty" requirement); Jonathan D. Rosen Family 
Foundation, Inc. v. Baran, No. l:19-CV-04301-ELR, 2020 WL 6018706 at *3 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 16, 2020). 
7