dismissed H-1B Case: Business Consulting

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: LIN 04 175 53035 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: QTB "1 " dL, L c 'i CL 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(l S)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 1 (a)(l S)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
LIN 04 175 53035 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director denied the nonim~nigrant visa petition and the matter is now before 
the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. The petition will be denied. 
The petitioner is a business and marketing consulting firm that seeks to employ the beneficiary as a part-time 
budget analyst. The petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficia~y as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty 
occupation pursuant to 5 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1 lo 1 (a>( 15>(WCi>(b>. 
The director denied the petition because the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. On appeal, the 
petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence, including H-1B approval statistics, a bank document 
reflecting a money transfer of $19,982, a previously submitted Service Agreement, and Internet job postings. 
Section 214(i)(l) 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. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. $ 214,2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, the position must meet one of 
the following criteria: 
(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 anlong 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 norn~ally 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 tmsually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher 
degree. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) interprets the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 214.2(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. 
The record of proceeding before the AAO contains: (1) Form 1-129 and supporting documentation; (2) the 
director's request for additional evidence; (3) the petitioner's response to the director's request; (4) the 
director's denial letter; and (5) Form I-290B and supporting documentation. The AAO reviewed the record in 
its entirety before issuing its decision. 
LIP4 04 175 53035 
Page 3 
The petitioner is seeking the beneficiary's services as a part-time budget analyst. Evidence of the 
beneficiary's duties includes: the 1-129 petition; the petitioner's May 25, 2004 letter in support of the petition; 
and the petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence. According to this evidence, the beneficiary 
would perform duties that entail: supervising the contract-signing process; negotiating all contracts in Chinese 
and English; preparing monthly analysis and support for small business operations; participating in the 
coordination, review, and analysis of the annual planning process; utilizing financial and quantitative 
techniques and analyses to support management decision-making; supporting "month-end close" and 
providing financial and accounting support; analyzing the distribution of financial resources for the current 
fiscal year; reporting to the Director of Finance and Operations; making detailed analyses of program 
budgetary request; and making recommendations for improving budgetary process and procedures. The 
petitioner indicated that a qualified candidate for the job would possess a bachelor's degree in business or a 
related field. 
The director found that the proffered position was not a specialty occupation because the proposed duties are 
not so complex as to require a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty. Citing to the Department of 
Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook), the director noted that the minimum requirement for 
entry into the position was not a baccalaureate degree or its equivalent in a specific specialty. The dipector 
found further that the petitioner failed to establish any of the criteria found at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
On appeal, the petitioner states, in part, that the proffered position, which is that of a budget analyst, is a 
specialty occupation. The petitioner states further that CIS statistics demonstrate that H-1B petitions for 
budget analysts are routinely approved. The petitioner also states that, in accordance with its mission, goals, 
and business and marketing plans, it is necessary to hire a bilingual, "high-quality" budget analyst. 
Upon review of the record, the petitioner has established none of the four criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Therefore, the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 
The AAO turns first to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l) and (2): a baccalaureate or higher 
degree or its equivalent is the nonnal minimum requirement for entry into the particular position; a degree 
requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations; or a particular 
position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree. 
Factors often considered by CIS when determining these criteria 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 fm or individuals in the industry attest that such fm 
"routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, bnc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 115 1, 1165 (D. 
Minn. 1999)(quoting hiir~VB1aker COT. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095,1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
The AAO routinely consults the Handbook for its information about the duties and educational requirements of 
particular occupations. The AAO does not concur with the petitioner that the proffered position is that of a budget 
analyst. Information on the petition indicates that the petitioner has four employees and a gross annual income of 
BNTH." The proposed duties also indicate that the beneficiary would report to the petitioner's Director 
of Finance and Operations. The record, however, contains no evidence of the petitioner's claimed employees and 
gross annual income, such as federal income tax returns and quarterly wage reports. The record also contains no 
evidence that the petitioner employs a Director of Finance and Operations. Furthermore, although the petitioner 
states that its clients are from diverse industries, including import and export, restaurant, hotel, transportation, 
LIN 04 175 53035 
Page 4 
health service, high tech, and real estate, the record contains only one service agreement, namely, that with Mo 
Shan Plastic, Inc. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of Caltfornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Com. 1972)). h view of the 
foregoing, the exact nature of the proffered position is unclear. 
Regarding parallel positions in the petitioner's industry, the petitioner submitted Internet job postings for 
budget analysts. There is no evidence, however, to show that the employers issuing those postings are similar 
to the petitioner, or that the advertised positions are parallel to the instant position. One of the advertisements 
is for a budget analyst for Booz Allen Hamilton, which is a global strategy and technology-consulting firm, 
with 16,000 employees on six continents and annual sales of over $3 billion. The petitioner has not 
demonstrated that the proposed duties of the proffered position are as complex as the duties described for the 
advertised position. Other advertisements are for budget analysts in the healthcare and aerospace industries. 
The petitioner's industry is not in healthcare or aerospace. Thus, the advertisements have no relevance. 
The record also does not include any evidence from professional associations regarding an industry standard, 
or documentation to support the complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position. The petitioner, therefore, 
has not established the criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I) or (2). 
The AAO now turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3) - the employer normally requires a 
degree or its equivalent for the position. As the petitioner does not address this issue on appeal, it will not be 
discussed further. 
Finally, the AAO turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4) - the nature of the specific duties is 
so specialized and complex that knowledge required to perFom the duties is usually associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. 
To the extent that they are depicted in the record, the duties do not appear so specialized and complex as to 
require the highly specialized knowledge associated with a baccalaureate or higher degree, or its equivalent, 
in a specific specialty. Therefore, the evidence does not establish that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation under 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
As related in the discussion above, the petitioner has failed to establish that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation. Accordingly, the AAO shall not disturb the director's denial of the petition. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.