dismissed H-1B Case: Business Consulting

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: WAC 03 210 50274 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: QcT @ 3 2@5 
IN RE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 1 Ol(a)(l 5)(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 
WAC 03 2 10 50274 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director denied the nonimmigrant 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 provides consulting services to travel agencies. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as a 
management and operations analyst. The petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant 
worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to 5 1 Ol(a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition because the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. On appeal, the 
petitioner submits a brief. 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 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. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 214,2(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 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. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) interprets the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
ij 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. 
The petitioner is seeking the beneficiary's services as a management and operations analyst. Evidence of the 
beneficiary's duties includes: the 1-129 petition; the petitioner's June 27,2003 letter in support of the petition; 
WAC 03 210 50274 
Page 3 
and the petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence. According to this evidence, the beneficiary 
would perform duties that entail: performing all phases of interacting with travel agency personnel; 
understanding business processes and workflow; identifying bottle necks; and proposing technical 
architecture using the petitioner's unique framework design methodologies. The petitioner indicated that a 
qualified candidate for the job would possess a bachelor's degree in business management. 
The director found that the proffered position was not a specialty occupation because the exact nature of the 
proposed duties is unclear. The director found further that the petitioner failed to establish any of the criteria 
found at 8 C.F.R. 5 2 14.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
On appeal, the petitioner states, in part, that the proposed duties, which would initially entail analyzing the 
petitioner's operations and framework and making and implementing recommendations, and ultimately 
providing consultancy services to the petitioner's clients, are the duties of an operations and inanagement 
analyst. The petitioner states further that a bachelor's degree is the normal industry standard for such a 
position. 
Upon review of the record, the petitioner has established none of the four criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. 
3 214,2(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 normal 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 Department of Labor's 
Occupational Outlook Handbook (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 
fms 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 1 15 1, 1 165 (D. Minn. 1999)(quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. 
Supp. 1095, 1 102 (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 a specialty 
occupation. The petitioner's owner claims on the petition that the petitioner offers consulting services to travel 
agencies, has 16 employees, and generates a gross annual income of $14 million. The record, however, contains 
no evidence in support of such claims, such as payment documents from the petitioner's clients and copies of the 
petitioner's federal tax returns and quarterly wage reports. Going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 
22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. 
Comm. 1972)). In view of the foregoing the nature of the petitioner's business and the proffered position is 
unclear. 1 
A Google Internet search of the petitioner's address rings up the 
website: m~.anaheim.net/business/2005/7.htm/, w site of the 
business "Foodland Market." 
WAC 03 210 50274 
Page 4 
The record does not include any evidence regarding parallel positions in the petitioner's industry. 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)(l) or (2). 
The AAO now turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(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 a.t 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(#) - 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. 
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. 5 214.2(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.