dismissed H-1B Case: Business Analysis

MATTER OF S-M-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 23,2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a footwear wholesaler, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "cost analyst" 
under the H-1 B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act) section 10l(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, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner had not demonstrated that the proffered position qualities as a specialty occupation 
position. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the evidence of record satisfies all evidentiary requirements. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U .S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the tenn "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: 
Matter of S-M-, Inc. 
(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 
I 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that 
knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has consistently 
interpreted the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any 
baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed 
position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Cherto.ff; 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree 
requirement in a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a 
particular position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
In a letter submitted with the H-1 B petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a 
"cost analyst." The Petitioner provided the following description of the duties of the proffered 
position: 
Costing 
• Analyze and prepare OEM/ODM project reports regarding cost analysis and 
profit margin for each product line. The analysis includes material source 
evaluation, production analysis, sales estimation, pricing strategy and 
decision. 
• Assess product life cycles, inventory level and weekly sales record to 
calculate profit margin and to work with the Sales team on close-out and sales 
items. 
• Create and maintain profit and loss simulation of products and analyze and 
report financial health of each product line. 
• Develop seasonal pricing strategy (hot seasons in February to August) and 
trouble shooting plans with Sales team. 
• Monitor all currency exchange rates changes on U.S. dollars and China Yuan, 
and provide forecasting of possible changes in production proposal. 
2 
Matter ofS-M-, Inc. 
• Monitor design changes that would affect price and follow up with vendors 
for revised prices as required. 
Sourcing & Production Analysis 
• Collaborate with factories in conjunction with production planners on 
materials sourcing, quality and price negotiation. 
• Analyze the order placement strategy and confirm with sourcing channels. 
• Participate in the pricing strategies of all new and existing products. 
The Petitioner stated that it requires an individual with a bachelor's degree m business 
administration, accounting, finance, or a related field. 
III. 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. 1 
As a preliminary matter, the Petitioner's claim that a bachelor's degree in business administration is 
a sufficient minimum requirement for entry into the proffered position is inadequate to establish that 
the proposed 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. C.f Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). 
To prove that a job requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge as required by section 214(i)(l) of the Act, a petitioner must establish that the position 
requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specialized field of study or its 
equivalent. As discussed supra, USCIS interprets 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. 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 finding that a particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. 
Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147.2 
1 
The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 8 petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position and its business operations. Although we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
2 
Specifically, the judge explained in Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147, that: 
3 
Matter ofS-M-, Inc. 
Again, the Petitioner in this matter claims that the duties of the proffered position can be performed 
by an individual with only a general-purpose bachelor's degree, i.e., a bachelor's degree in business 
administration. Without more, this assertion alone indicates that the proffered position is not in fact 
a specialty occupation. 
Moreover, it also cannot be found that the proffered position is a. specialty occupation because the 
Petitioner has not satisfied any of the supplemental, additional criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
A. First Criterion 
We turn next to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which requires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. To inform this inquiry, we recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's 
(DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 3 
On the labor condition application (LCA)4 submitted in support of the H-1 B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Cost Estimators" corresponding 
to the Standard Occupational Classification code 13-1051. 5 The Handbook states the following with 
regard to the educational requirements ofthese positions: 
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 the granting of a petition for an H-1 B specialty 
occupation visa. See, e.g, Tapis lnt 'I v. INS, 94 F.Supp.2d 172, 175-76 (D. Mass. 2000); Shanti, 36 F. 
Supp. 2d at 1164-66; cf Matter a/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. 
3 
All of our references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not, however, maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant 
information. That is, the occupational category designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the 
general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered position, and USC IS regularly reviews the Handbook on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. To satisfy the first criterion, however, the 
burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position 
would normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
4 
The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to USC IS to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B 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 experience and qualifications who are performing the same 
services. See Matter olSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 545-546 (AAO 20 15). 
5 
The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level I wage (the lowest of four assignable wage levels). We will 
consider this selection in our analysis of the position. The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" issued by 
the DOL provides a description of the wage levels. A Level I wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which 
4 
Matter ofS-M-, Inc. 
A bachelor's degree is generally required to becomt? a cost estimator, although some 
highly experienced construction workers may qualify without a bach,elor's degree. 
Education 
Employers generally prefer candidates who have a bachelor's degree. A strong 
background in mathematics is essential. 
Construction cost estimators typically need a bachelor's degree in an industry-related 
field, such as construction management, building science, or engineering. 
Those interested in estimating manufacturing costs typically need a bachelor's degree 
in engineering, business, or finance. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook. 2016-17 ed., 
"Cost Estimators," http://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/cost-estimators.htm#tab-4 (last 
visited Jan. 18, 2017). 
The Handbook's narrative does not indicate that a bachelor'~ degree in a specific specialty, or the 
equivalent, is normally required for these positions. It begins by stating that while a bachelor's 
degree- but not in any particular field of study- is generally required, some workers may qualify on 
the basis of their work experience alone.6 For this reason alone, the Handbook does not support the 
proposition that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
The Handbook also indicates that those interested in estimating manufacturing costs typically need a 
bachelor's degree in engineering, business, or finance. However, as discussed above, a general­
purpose bachelor's degree is not a degree in a specific specialty. Thus, the Handbook's suggestion 
that a bachelor's degree in business, with no further specialization, would provide adequate 
preparation to perform the duties of positions located within this occupational category indicates that 
the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. C.Y Matter of" Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 l&N 
Dec. at 560; see also Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. 
the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the occupation. This wage rate indicates: (I) that 
the Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that she 
will be closely supervised and her work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that she will receive 
specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing 
Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://tlcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC_Guidance_Revised_ll_2009.pdf A prevailing wage determination starts 
with an entry level wage and progresses to a higher wage level after considering the experience, education, and skill 
requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. !d. 
6 
The occupational survey conducted by DOL and submitted by the Petitioner supports this proposition. According to 
the survey, 21 percent of respondents who work within this occupational category reported their highest educational 
attainment as either an associate's degree, or no degree at all. 
5 
Matter ofS-M-, Inc. 
The Handbook's indication that a spectrum of bachelor's degrees would provide adequate 
preparation for positions located within this occupational category is further evidence that the 
proffered position is not a specialty 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 philosophy and engineering, would not 
meet the statutory requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)," unless 
the Petitioner establishes how each field is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
particular position such that the required body of highly specialized knowledge is essentially an 
amalgamation ofthese different specialties. 7 Section 214(i)(l)(B) ofthe Act (emphasis added). 
Here, the Handbook indicates that when a bachelor's degree is required, a general degree in 
engineering, 8 or a degree in business or finance, would suffice. The issue here is that it is not readily 
apparent that these three fields of study are closely related or that the field of engineering is directly 
related to the duties and responsibilities of the pa"rticular position proffered in this matter. 
The record does not establish either (1) that engineering in general, business, and finance are closely 
related fields or (2) that the field of engineering, in general, is directly related to the duties and 
responsibilities of the proffered position. Absent this evidence, it cannot be found that the particular 
position proffered in this matter has a normal minimum entry requirement of a bachelor's or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, under the Petitioner's own standards. 
Therefore, absent evidence of a direct relationship between the claimed degrees required and the 
duties and responsibilities of the position, it cannot be found that the proffered position requires 
anything more than a general bachelor's degree. The evidence of record does not establish how 
these dissimilar fields of study form either a body of highly specialized knowledge or a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. For this additional reason, the Handbook does not indicate that the 
proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
Further, in designating the proffered position at a Level I wage, the Petitioner has indicated that the 
proffered position is a comparatively low, entry-level position relative to others within the 
7 Whether read with the statutory "the" or the regulatory "a," both readings denote a singular "specialty." Section 
214(i)(I)(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). Still, 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. As just stated, this also includes even seemingly disparate specialties provided the 
evidence of record establishes how each. acceptable, specific field of study is directly related to the duties and 
responsibilities of the particular position. 
8 
Engineering is a broad category that covers numerous and various specialties, some of which are only related through 
the basic principles of science and mathematics, e.g., nuclear engineering and aerospace engineering. 
6 
Matter of S-M-, Inc. 
occupation. Given the Handbook's implication that typical positions located within this 
occupational category do not require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, it appears unlikely 
that an entry-level position with these characteristics would have such a requirement. 
The Petitioner also submits the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) Summary, which place 
cost estimators into Job Zone Four. With regard to positions classified within Job Zone Four, 
O*NET states that "[m]ost of these positions require a four-year bachelor's degree, but some do 
not." More importantly, it does not indicate that the Job Zone Four occupations that require such a 
degree require.that the degree be in any specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
Nor does the record of proceedings contain sufficient persuasive documentary evidence from any 
other relevant authoritative source establishing that the proffered position's inclusion within this 
occupational category establishes that the proffered position requires a minimum of a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
The Petitioner cites to Residential Finance Corp. v. USCJS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012), 
for the proposition that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is what is 
important. Diplomas rarely come bearing occupation-specific majors. What is required is an 
occupation that requires highly specialized knowledge and a prospective employee who has attained 
the credentialing indicating possession of that knowledge." 
We agree with the aforementioned proposition that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is 
what is important." As discussed, 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. For the aforementioned reasons, however, the Petitioner has not met 
its burden to establish that the particular position offered in this matter requires a bachelor's or 
higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, directly related to its duties in order to 
perform those tasks. 
In any event, the Petitioner has furnished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition 
are analogous to those in Residential Finance.9 We also note that, in contrast to the broad 
precedential authority of the case law of a United States circuit court, we are not bound to follow the 
published decision of a United States district court in matters arising even within the same 
district. See Matter qf K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715, 719-20 (BIA 1993). Although the reasoning 
underlying a district judge's decision will be given due consideration when it is properly before us, 
the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of law. ld. It is important to note that in a 
9 
It is noted that the district judge's decision in that case appears to have been based largely on the many factual errors 
made by the Director in the decision denying the petition. We further note that the Director's decision was not appealed 
to us. Based on the district court's findings and description of the record, if that matter had first been appealed through 
the available administrative process, we may very well have remanded the matter to the service center for a new decision 
for many ofthe same reasons articulated by the district court if these errors could not have been remedied by us in our de 
novo review of the matter. 
7 
(b)(6)
Matter ~fS-lvl- , Inc. 
subsequent case that was reviewed in the same jurisdiction, the court agreed with our analysis of 
Residential Fin. Corp. See Health Carousel, LLC v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services , No. 
1 :13-CV-23, 2014 WL 29591 (S.D. Ohio 2014). 10 
Finally, we tum to the evaluation of the proffered position prepared by who 
was formerly a department head and professor of accounting at 
reiterated the duty description provided by the Petitioner and stated that "the nature of these specific 
responsibilities and knowledge is so specialized and complex that knowledge required to perform 
these duties is usually associated with the attainment of a Bachelor's Degree m [business 
administration, accounting, finance, or a related area]." Upon revie\V, we find that letter 
does not satisfy this criterion for several reasons. 
First, we find no indication that possesses any knowledge of the Petitioner's proffered 
position beyond the duty description provided by the Petitioner. For example, he does not discuss 
the duties of the proffered position in any substantive detail. Further, while he provided a brief 
description of the Petitioner's business ("California-based wholesaler specializing in original 
equipment and original design manufacturing") , he does not demonstrate or assert in-depth 
knowledge of the specific business operations or how the duties of the position would actually be 
performed in the context of the Petitioner's business operations. For instance, there is no evidence 
that has visited the Petitioner's business, observed the Petitioner's employees, interviewed 
them about the nature of their work, or documented the knowledge that they apply on the job. 
The lack of any indication that the was aware the Petitioner characterized the proffered 
position as a Level I, entry-level position on the LCA raises additional questions regarding his 
knowledge of the proffered position ' s substantive nature. As noted , that wage is appropriate for an 
employee who will perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment will be 
closely supervised and whose work will be cJosely monitored and reviewed for accuracy, and who 
will receive specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. Without this information, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated that possessed the requisite information necessary to 
adequately assess the nature of the proffered position. 
Finally, indication that a bachelor's degree in business administration, without any 
specialization , would adequately prepare an individual to perform the duties of the proffered position 
constitutes further evidence that the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 11 As discussed 
10 
Nor are the unpublished AAO decisions persuasive. First, the Petitioner has furnished no evidence to establish that the 
facts of the instant petition are analogous to those in the unpublished decision. Further, while 8 C.F.R. § I 03.3(c) 
provides that our precedent decisions are binding on all USCIS employees in the administration of the Act, unpublished 
decisions are not similarly binding . 
11 
A general degree requirement does not necessarily preclude a proffered position from qualifying as a specialty 
occupation. For example , an entl) ' 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 busines s administration combined with relevant 
education, training , andior experience may , in certain instance s, 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 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter ofS-M-, Inc. 
above, a general-purpose bachelor's degree is not a degree in a specific specialty. C'f Matter (~l 
Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. at 560; see also Royal Siam Corp., 484 F .3d at 14 7. 
We may, in our discretion, use as advisory opinion statements submitted as expert testimony. 
However, where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we 
are not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Matter of Caron International, 
19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988). As a reasonable exercise of our discretion we discount the 
advisory opinion letter as not probative of any criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). For 
efficiency's sake, we hereby incorporate the above discussion and analysis regarding the opinion 
letter into each of the bases in this decision for dismissing the appeal. 12 
For all of the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
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 perfmmed only by an 
individual with a degree[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong 
casts its gaze upon the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by USCIS 
include: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the industry's 
professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether letters or 
affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms "routinely employ and recruit 
only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 1999), 
(quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
Here and as already discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for 
which the Handbook (or other independent, authoritative source) reports an industry-wide requirement 
for at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. Thus, we incorporate by 
specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered position. See Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. 
12 
letter does not satisfY any of the other specialty-occupation criteria for these same reasons, and we hereby 
incorporate this analysis into our discussion of each criterion. 
9 
Matter o.fS-M-, Inc. 
reference the previous discussion on the matter. Also, there are no submissions from the industry's 
professional association indicating that it has made a degree a minimum entry requirement. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner did not submit any letters or affidavits from similar firms or individuals 
in the Petitioner's industry attesting that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed 
individuals.". 
The Petitioner provided six vacancy announcements to establish that the degree requirement is 
common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. However, the 
announcements lack sufficient information regarding the business operations of the organizations to 
conduct a legitimate comparison to the Petitioner. Further, the Petitioner did not provide additional 
information to establish that it shares the same general characteristics with the advertising 
compames. 
Nor is it clear that the duties of the advertised positions parallel those of the proffered position. 
Although the Petitioner stated that the profiered position is a wage Level I, entry level, position, 
nearly all of the vacancy announcements state a requirement for work experience. Some state a 
requirement for a considerable amount of very specific experience. Those job vacancy 
announcements, therefore, are not directly relevant to the analysis pertinent to the first prong of 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
Some of the vacancy announcements state an educational requirement that may be satisfied by a 
bachelor's degree in business administration, without further specification. As explained, a 
requirement for an otherwise undifferentiated bachelor's degree in business administration is not a 
requirement of a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. Therefore, 
the vacancy announcements with educational requirements that may be satisfied by an otherwise 
unspecified bachelor's degree in business administration do not state a requirement of a minimum of 
a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
Finally, even if all of the vacancy announcements advertised parallel positions with organizations 
similar to the Petitioner and in the Petitioner's industry and stated a requirement for a minimum of a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent, we would still find that the Petitioner has 
not demonstrated what statistically valid inferences, if any, could be drawn from so few 
announcements with regard to the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions 
in similar organizations. 13 
13 
USCIS "must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true." Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AA~ 2010). As just discussed, the Petitioner has not established the relevance ofthe 
job advertisements submitted to the position proffered in this case. Even if their relevance had been established, the 
Petitioner still would not have demonstrated what inferences, if any, can be drawn from these few job postings with 
regard to determining the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations in 
the same industry. See general~y Earl Babbie, The Practice o{Social Research 186-228 ( 1995). 
10 
Matter ofS-M-, Inc. 
Thus, the evidence of record does not establish that a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to parallel positions with organizations that are in 
the Petitioner's industry and otherwise similar to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has not, therefore, 
satisfied the criterion of the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
A review of the record of proceedings finds that the Petitioner has not credibly demonstrated that the 
duties the Beneficiary will be responsible for or perform on a day-to-day basis constitute a position 
so complex or unique that it can only be performed by a person with at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. Even when considering the Petitioner's general descriptions of 
the proffered position's duties, the evidence of record does not establish why a few related courses 
or industry experience alone is insufficient preparation for the proffered position. 
While a few related courses may be beneficial, or even required, in performing certain duties of the 
position, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how an established curriculum of such courses leading 
to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform 
the duties of the proffered position. The description of the duties does not specifically identify any 
tasks that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. 
The record lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish the proffered position as more 
complex or unique from other positions that can be performed by persons without at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
This is further evidenced by the LCA submitted by the Petitioner in support of the instant 
petition. As noted above, the Petitioner attested on the submitted LCA that the wage level for the 
proffered position is a Level I (entry-level) wage. Such a wage level is for a position which only 
requires the performance of routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment, and is 
contrary to a position that requires the performance of complex duties.
14 
It is, instead, a position for 
an employee who has only basic understanding of the occupation. Thus, although we acknowledge 
14 The issue here is that the Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position undermines its claim 
that the position is particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same 
occupation. Nevertheless, it is important to note that a Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position 
from classification as a specialty occupation. In certain occupations (doctors or lawyers, for example), an entry-level 
position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for 
entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designation would not refiect that an occupation qualifies as a specialty 
occupation if that higher-level position does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent. That is, a position's wage level designation may be a consideration but is not a substitute for 
a detennination of whether a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)( I) of the Act. 
II 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-M-, Inc. 
the Petitioner's claim that the proffered position is "more complex and specialized" than typical 
positions _located within the cost estimators occupational category, the Petitioner's wage-level 
designation on the LCA undermines it. 
Therefore, the evidence of record doe,s not establish that this position is significantly different from 
other positions in the occupation such that it refutes the Handbook's information to the effect that 
there is a spectrum of degrees acceptable for such positions, including degrees not in a specific 
specialty. In other words, the record lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish the 
proffered position as unique from or more complex than positions that can be performed by persons 
without at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. As the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate how the proffered position is so complex or unique relative to other positions within the 
same occupational category that do not require at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty 
or its equivalent for entry into the occupation in the United States, it cannot be concluded that the 
Petitioner has satisfied the second alternative prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position , and references her 
qualifications. However , the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education 
or experience of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner did not sutliciently develop relative 
complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position, and it did not identify any tasks 
that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative 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) requires an employer to demonstrate that it 
normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. To 
this end, we usually review a petitioner's past recruiting and hiring practices, as well as information 
regarding employees who previously held the position. 
In a letter submitted in response to the request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner stated that it 
previously employed as a cost analyst, and that has a bachelor's degree in 
business from the also provided a letter. However, he did not 
confirm that he had worked for the Petitioner as a cost analyst. Instead, he stated that he worked as 
the Petitioner's production manager for 4 years. Further, he stated that he has a master's degree, 
rather than a bachelor's degree. The Petitioner's organizational chart shows that the Petitioner 
employs a production manager and a cost analyst, which are two different positions, and that the cost 
analyst reports to the production manager. 
Thus, the Petitioner . has not demonstrated that it previously employed anyone in the proffered 
position with a minimum of a bachelor 's degree . In any event, as explained above, an otherwise 
undifferentiated bachelor's degree in business administration is not a degree in a specific specialty. 
12 
Matter ofS-M-, Inc. 
Even if the evidentiary discrepancy noted were reconciled, the Petitioner would not have 
demonstrated that it has previously employed anyone in the proffered position who has a minimum 
of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 15 Therefore, the Petitioner has not 
satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
D. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature 
of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. 
We find that relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by the 
Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. The duties of the proffered position, such as 
analyzing and preparing project reports; assessing product life cycles, inventory levels, and sales 
records; etc., contain insufficient indication of a nature so specialized and complex that they require 
knowledge usually associated with attainment of a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent. In other words, the proposed duties have not been described with 
sufficient specificity to show that they are more specialized and complex than cost estimator analyst 
positions that are not usually associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its 
equivalent. 
We also incorporate our earlier discussion and analysis regarding the duties of the proffered position, 
and the designation of the position in the LCA as a Level I position (the lowest of four assignable 
wage-levels) relative to others within the same occupational category. 16 Again, if typical positions 
located within the occupational category do not require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, it 
appears unlikely that the duties of a position with these characteristics would require such a degree. 
15 While a petitioner may believe or otherwise assert that a proffered position requires a degree in a specific specialty, 
that opinion alone without corroborating evidence cannot establish the position as a specialty occupation. Were USClS 
limited solely to reviewing a petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, then any individual with a bachelor's 
degree could be brought to the United States to perform any occupation as long as the employer artificially created a 
token degree requirement, whereby all individuals employed in a particular position possessed a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in the specific specialty or its equivalent. See Defensor, 201 F. 3d at 387. In other words, if a petitioner's degree 
requirement is only symbolic and the proffered position does not in fact require such a specialty degree or its equivalent 
to perform its duties, the occupation would not meet the statutory or regulatory definition of a specialty occupation. See 
section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty occupation"). 
16 Again, the Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level 1, entry-level position undermines its claim that the 
position is particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation. 
13 
Matter ofS-M-, Inc. 
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 qualities as a specialty occupation. 
The burden is on the Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofS-M-, Inc., ID# 99079 (AAO Jan. 23, 2017) 
14