dismissed H-1B Case: Business Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF G-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 1, 2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a mobile applications store, 1 seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"business development manager" under the H -1 B nonimmigrant classification. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act)§ 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(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 
evidence of record did not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the Director erred in finding that the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. ISSUE 
The issue before us is whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation m 
accordance with the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions.2 
II. INCONSISTENT INFORMATION 
As a preliminary matter, it is noted that the Petitioner has provided inconsistent information regarding 
the salary it has offered to the Beneficiary. In the Form I-129 and on the certified labor condition 
application (LCA), the Petitioner stated that it would pay the Beneficiary $120,000 annually. However, 
according to the employment agreement letter signed by the Petitioner and the Beneficiary on August 1, 
2014, the Petitioner would pay the Beneficiary "a base salary at the annualized rate of $66,000." 
1 The California Secretary of State's website indicates that the Petitioner was suspended or forfeited by the Secretary of 
State for failure to file the required Statement oflnformation. See http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/ (last visited Feb. 26, 2016). 
2 We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 
(AAO 2010). 
Matter of G-, Inc. 
Similarly, in the offer letter dated August 1, 2014, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary "will receive 
an annualized base salary of $66,000, less required and designated payroll deductions and 
withholdings." The Petitioner has provided no explanation for these inconsistencies. When a petition 
includes numerous errors and discrepancies, those inconsistencies will raise serious concerns about the 
veracity of the petitioner's assertions. "Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of 
course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in 
support of the visa petition." Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). 
In this case, the Petitioner's inconsistencies also call into question the validity of the LCA. On the 
LCA, the Petitioner designated the proffered position as a full-time position within the "Management 
Analysts" occupational category, SOC (O*NET/OES) Code 13-1111, and a Level III prevailing 
wage, which requires a minimum salary of $118,830.3 The salary of$66,000 per year as indicated in 
the employment agreement and in the position offer letter falls below the prevailing wage level for the 
occupational classification in the area of intended employment. Under the H -1 B program, a 
petitioner must offer a beneficiary wages that are at least the actual wage level paid by the petitioner 
to all other individuals with similar experience and qualifications for the specific employment in 
question, or the prevailing wage level for the occupational classification in the area of employment, 
whichever is greater, based on the best information available as of the time of filing the application. 
See section 212(n)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(n)(1)(A); Patel v. Boghra, 369 Fed.Appx. 722, 
723 (7th Cir. 201 0). The record of proceedings contains conflicting information regarding the 
Beneficiary's salary and therefore it does not demonstrate that the Petitioner will pay the Beneficiary 
an adequate salary. 
III. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
As noted, the main issue before us is whether the evidence of record demonstrates by a 
preponderance of the evidence that the Petitioner will employ the Beneficiary in a specialty 
occupation position. 
A. Legal Framework 
For an H-1B petition to be granted, the Petitioner must provide sufficient evidence to establish that it 
will employ the Beneficiary in a specialty occupation position. To meet its burden of proof in this 
regard, the Petitioner must establish that the employment it is offering to the Beneficiary meets the 
applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. 
3 For additional information on wage levels, see U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage 
Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://www. 
foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _11_ 2009.pdf (last visited Feb. 26, 20 16). 
2 
Matter of G-, Inc. 
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) states, in pertinent part, the following: 
Specialty occupation means an occupation which [ (1)] requires theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in fields of human 
endeavor including, but not limited to, architecture, engineering, mathematics, 
physical sciences, social sciences, medicine and health, education, business 
specialties, accounting, law, theology, and the arts, and which [(2)] requires the 
attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a 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, a proposed 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 a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
As a threshold issue, it is noted 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. SeeK Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) (holding that construction 
oflanguage which takes into account the design of the statute as a whole is preferred); see also COlT 
Independence Joint Venture v. Federal Sav. And Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989); Matter ofW­
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 
3 
Matter of G-, Inc. 
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 387. 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), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) consistently interprets 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 -1 B petitions for qualified foreign 
nationals 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, USCIS does not simply 
rely on a position's title. The specific duties of the proffered position, combined with the nature of 
the petitioning entity's business operations, are factors to be considered. users must examine the 
ultimate employment of the foreign national, and determine whether the position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. The critical element is not 
the title of the position nor 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. 
B. The Proffered Position 
In its support letter, the Petitioner stated that the duties of the business development manager 
position are as follow (verbatim): 
• Leading and executing on high impact projects that drive overall business growth 
for [the Petitioner's parent company]. 
• Spearheading efforts to enhance, qualify, quantify and objectively evaluate 
strategic focuses and initiatives about external partnership which will drive the 
business growth and contribute to the revenue growth of the company 
4 
Matter of G-, Inc. 
• Establishing credibility at all levels with partners/clients and builds problem­
solving partnerships with clients and colleagues 
• Managing customer data, information to determine breadth and depth of [the 
parent company's] product needs 
• Initiating and leading, strategic assessments, strategy development and long-term 
strategic initiatives which present significant challenges and opportunities 
• Initiating and leading ways to improve organization's efficiency and profitability 
The Petitioner further stated that the candidate is required to possess "a minimum of a Bachelor's 
degree in Management Information Systems, Business Administration, marketing, or related fields." 
In its response to request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided the same duties but also 
indicated the percentage of time the Beneficiary would spend on specific activities as follows: 
• Leading and executing on high impact projects that drive overall business growth 
for [the Petitioner's parent company]. These responsibilities include sourcing and 
monitoring new opportunities globally, conduct in-depth quantitative analysis, 
building financial model to outline the short term and long-term return from 
revenue perspective and user acquisition perspective, attending global conference, 
collaboration with internal peers/ executives and external partners and initiating 
ways to improve organization's efficiency and profitability. ---30% 
• Leading initial evaluations and due diligence reviews of partnership proposals. 
These responsibilities include working with global legal, finance, and product 
team to execute confidentiality agreements, drafting and negotiating term sheets 
and contracts, making presentations and recommendations to senior executives. 
---30% 
• Transitioning strategic projects into true organizational activities. This 
responsibility include design workflows and KPis for projects above in order to 
implement to day-to-day business activities and into the entire business cycle, 
managing KPis and reporting, ensuring tracking properly against objectives and 
developing action plans to remediate any deviations and to ensure end-state 
results are achieved. ---20% 
• Managing customer and market data, information to determine breadth and depth 
of [the parent company's] product needs. This responsibility include utilizing new 
technologies/services that improve companies Apps, evaluating the impact of 
pricing changes and if our approach to pricing resonates with the marketplace. 
20% 
5 
Matter of G-, Inc. 
The Petitioner further stated that the proffered pos1t10n "requires someone with knowledge of 
commonly used concepts, practices, and, procedures of leading technology companies." The 
Petitioner also reiterated the educational requirements of the position as "a minimum of a Bachelor's 
degree in Management Information Systems, Business Administration, Marketing, or related field." 
On appeal, the Petitioner resubmitted its RFE response letter. 
C. Analysis 
For H -1 B approval, the Petitioner must demonstrate a legitimate need for an employee exists and to 
substantiate that it has H -1 B caliber work for the Beneficiary for the period of employment 
requested in the petition. It is incumbent upon the Petitioner to demonstrate it has sufficient work to 
require the services of a person with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, to perform duties at a level that requires the theoretical and practical application of at 
least a bachelor's degree level of a body of highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty for 
the period specified in the petition. 
In this matter, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary will be employed in-house as a "Business 
Development Manager." However, upon review of the record of proceeding, we find that the 
Petitioner did not submit a job description to adequately convey the substantive work to be 
performed by the Beneficiary. 
Considering the totality of all of the Petitioner's duty descriptions, we find that the evidence of record 
does not establish the depth, complexity, or level of specialization, or substantive aspects of the matters 
upon which the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary will engage. The Petitioner described the duties 
of the proffered position, and the position itself, in relatively generalized and abstract terms that do not 
relate substantial details about either the position or its constituent duties. For example, the Petitioner 
states that the Beneficiary will be "[l]eading and executing on high impact projects" without providing 
details regarding the Beneficiary's specific duties and projects. Nor does the Petitioner provide details 
as to the tasks involved in "[ e ]stablishing credibility at all levels with partners/clients." The abstract 
nature of the proposed duties is further illustrated by the Petitioner's statement that the Beneficiary will 
be "[m]anaging customer data, information to determine breadth and depth of [the parent company's] 
product needs." The Petitioner, however, does not explain the Beneficiary's actual tasks in managing 
customer data. Similarly, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary will be "utilizing new 
technologies/services that improve companies Apps," but provides no details as to what type of 
technologies and services the Beneficiary would utilize and what specific steps the Beneficiary 
would take to improve the applications. The Petitioner repeatedly uses words and phrases such as 
"initiating and leading," "collaboration with," and "working with," which do not provide insight into 
the actual tasks the Beneficiary would perform on a day-to-day basis. 
Such generalized information does not in itself establish a correlation between any dimension of the 
proffered position and a need for a particular level of education, or educational equivalency, in a 
body of highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. Therefore, it is not evident that the 
proposed duties as described in this record of proceeding, and the position that they comprise, merit 
Matter of G-, Inc. 
recognition of the proffered position as a specialty occupation. Thus, as so generally described, we 
find that the descriptions do not illuminate the substantive application of knowledge involved or any 
particular educational attainment associated with such application. The duties as described give very 
little insight to actual tasks that the Beneficiary would perform on a day-to-day basis. Furthermore, we 
find that the Petitioner has not supplemented the job and duty descriptions with documentary evidence 
establishing the substantive nature of the work that the Beneficiary would perform, whatever practical 
and theoretical applications of highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty would be required to 
perform such substantive work, and whatever correlation may exist between such work and associated 
performance-required knowledge and attainment of a particular level of education, or educational 
equivalency, in a specific specialty. 
In this case, the Petitioner has not described the proffered position with sufficient detail to determine 
that the minimum requirements are a bachelor's degree in a specialized field of study. It is 
incumbent on the Petitioner to provide sufficient evidence to establish that the particular position 
that it proffers would necessitate services at a level requiring both the theoretical and practical 
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and the attainment of at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. When "any person makes application for a visa or 
any other document required for entry, or makes application for admission, ... the burden of proof 
shall be upon such person to establish that he is eligible" for such benefit. Section 291 of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. § 1361; see also Matter ofTreasure Craft ofCal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972). 
Further, the inconsistencies regarding the Beneficiary's salary discussed above undermine the 
Petitioner's credibility with regard to the services the Beneficiary will perform, as well as the actual 
nature and requirements of the proffered position. 
Without a meaningful job description, the record lacks evidence sufficiently concrete and 
informative to demonstrate that the proffered position requires a specialty occupation's level of 
knowledge in a specific specialty. The tasks as described do not communicate (1) the actual work 
that the Beneficiary would perform, (2) the complexity, uniqueness and/or specialization of the 
tasks, and/or (3) the correlation between that work and a need for a particular level education of 
highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. For this reason alone, the petition cannot be 
approved. 
Nevertheless, we will analyze the duties as described and the evidence of record to determine 
whether the proffered position as described would qualify as a specialty occupation. To that end and 
to make our determination as to whether the employment described above qualifies as a specialty 
occupation, we tum first to the criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
Matter of G-, Inc. 
A baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is 
normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position 
We recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL's) Occupational Outlook Handbook (the 
Handbook) as an authoritative source ,on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety 
of occupations it addresses.4 As noted above, the LCA that the Petitioner submitted in support of 
this petition was certified for a job offer falling within the "Management Analysts" occupational 
category. 
The Handbook states the following with regard to the educational requirements necessary for 
entrance into this field: 
Most management analysts have at least a bachelor's degree. The Certified 
Management Consultant (CMC) designation may improve job prospects. 
Education 
A bachelor's degree is the typical entry-level requirement for management 
analysts. However, some employers prefer to hire candidates who have a master's 
degree in business administration (MBA). 
Few colleges and universities offer formal programs in management 
consulting. However, many fields of study provide a suitable education because of the 
range of areas that management analysts address. Common fields of study include 
business, management, economics, political science and government, accounting, 
finance, marketing, psychology, computer and information science, and English. 
Analysts also routinely attend conferences to stay up to date on current 
developments in their field. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., 
"Management Analysts," available at http://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/management­
analysts.htm#tab-4 (last visited Feb. 26, 2016). 
The Handbook does not state a normal minimum requirement of a U.S. bachelor's or higher degree 
in a specific specialty or its equivalent for entry into this occupational category; rather the Handbook 
indicates at most that a bachelor's or higher degree may be a common preference, and that the 
degree preference may be fulfilled by degrees from disparate fields, including a general degree, such 
as a degree in business. 5 See id. The requirement of a bachelor's degree in business is inadequate to 
4 The Handbook, which is available in printed form, may also be accessed online at http://www.stats.bls.gov/ooh/. Our 
references to the Handbook are from the 2016-17 edition available online. 
5 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 
0 
(b)(6)
Matter of G-, Inc. 
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 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, without further 
specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf 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 explained above, 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. USCIS has 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 finding that a particular position qualifies 
for classification as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertojf, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st 
Cir. 2007). Accordingly, as the Handbook indicates that working as a management analyst does not 
normally require at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for entry into the 
occupation, it does not support the proffered position as being a specialty occupation. 
When, as here, the Handbook does not support the proposition that the proffered position satisfies 
this first criterion of 8 C .F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) , it is incumbent upon the petitioner to provide 
persuasive evidence that the proffered position otherwise satisfies the criterion, notwithstanding the 
absence of the Handbook 's support on the issue. In such case, it is the petitioner's responsibility to 
provide probative evidence (e.g., documentation from other authoritative sources) that suppmis a 
favorable finding with regard to this criterion. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iv) provides 
that "[a]n H-lB petition involving a specialty occupation shall be accompanied by [d]ocumentation 
... or any other required evidence sufficient to establish ... that the services the beneficiary is to 
perform are in a specialty occupation." 
Regarding the opinion letter submitted by the Petitioner, we note that does not 
discuss the duties of the proffered position in any substantive detail. Rather, he paraphrases the 
duties listed in the Petitioner 's RFE response letter. Thus, there is no indication that he possesses 
any knowledge of the Petitioner 's proffered position beyond the information provided by the 
Petitioner. does not indicate whether he visited the petitioner's business, observed the 
petitioner's employees, interviewed them about the nature of their work, or documented the 
knowledge that these workers apply on the job. His level of familiarity with the actual job duties as 
concentration in a specific field, or a bachelor's or higher degree in business admini stration combined with relevant 
education , training , and/or experience may, in certain instances , 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 specific specialty that is directl y related to the proffered position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 
at 147. 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter of G-, Inc. 
they would be performed m the context of the Petitioner's business has therefore not been 
substantiated. 
Furthermore, concludes that the proffered position "requires an individual who has the 
depth and breadth of training that is found in individuals with a Bachelor's Degree (or equivalent) in 
Business Administration, Marketing, or a closely related field." As discussed above, 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 I&N 
Dec. at 560. Therefore, while a general-purpose bachelor's degree 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. v. 
Chertoff, 484 F.3d at 147. 
We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of 
Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). 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. Id. While the assertions of with regard to an industry­
wide recruiting and hiring standard are acknowledged, the record contains insufficient evidence to 
support these assertions. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient 
for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. In re Sofjici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 
165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of Cal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 
1972)).6 
Upon review of the totality of the evidence in the entire record of proceeding, we conclude that the 
Petitioner has not established that the proffered position falls within an occupational category for which 
the Handbook, or other authoritative source, indicates that a requirement for at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally required for entry into the occupation. Furthermore, 
the duties and requirements of the proffered position as described in the record of proceeding do not 
indicate that the particular position that is the subject of this petition is one for which a baccalaureate or 
higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry. 
Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
The requirement of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, is common to the indus fly in parallel 
positions among similar organizations 
Next, we will review the record of proceeding regarding the first of the two alternative prongs of 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). This prong alternatively calls for a petitioner to establish that a 
requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common for 
6 For all of these reasons , 
§ 214 .2(h)(4)(iii)(A) . 
op1mon letter does not satisfy any of the criteria at 8 C.F .R. 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter of G-, Inc. 
positions that are identifiable as being (1) in the Petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered 
position, and also (3) located in organizations that are similar to the Petitioner. 
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)). 
As discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which the 
Handbook (or other independent, authoritative source) reports a standard industry-wide requirement 
for at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, we incorporate by 
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. 
We will next address the nine job advertisements submitted by the Petitioner. Upon review of the 
documents, we find that the Petitioner's reliance on the job advertisements is misplaced. 
For the Petitioner to establish that an organization in its industry is similar, it must demonstrate that 
the Petitioner and the organization share the same general characteristics. Without such evidence, 
documentation submitted by a petitioner is generally outside the scope of consideration for this 
criterion, which encompasses only organizations that are similar to the petitioner. When 
determining whether the petitioner and the advertising 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 legitimate basis for such an 
assertion. 
First, the Petitioner did not credibly explain what characteristics the Petitioner shares with these 
companies, and the advertisements provide little or no information regarding the advertising entities. 
Without further information, we are unable to determine whether the advertisements involve 
organizations that operate in the Petitioner's industry and that are similar to the Petitioner. The 
Petitioner did not supplement the record of proceeding to establish that the advertising organizations 
are similar to it. 7 
7 Some of the advertisements appear to be from much larger, branded companies that operate in global scale. See, e.g. 
the advertisements from and The - . 
Petitioner is a 17-employee company with a gross annual income of $6 million. The Petitioner asserts that these 
companies are "in a similar line of business." The evidence of the record, however, does not support the Petitioner's 
assertion. 
11 
Matter of G-, Inc. 
Moreover, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the primary duties and responsibilities 
of the advertised positions parallel those of the proffered position. Furthermore, many of these 
companies either do not identify a specific degree requirement or list a bachelor's degree in business 
as an acceptable degree for the positions. As we discussed above, a requirement of a general degree 
such as a bachelor's degree in business administration is insufficient to demonstrate that a position is 
a specialty occupation. We incorporate by reference our previous discussion on the matter. 
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. That is, as the evidence does not establish that similar organizations in the same industry 
routinely require at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for parallel 
positions, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. 8 
Thus, based upon a complete review of the record, we find that the Petitioner has not established that 
a requirement for at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common for 
positions that are identifiable as being (1) in the Petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered 
position, and also (3) located in organizations that are similar to the Petitioner. Thus, for the reasons 
discussed above, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by 
an individual with a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.P.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. 
In the instant case, the Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative complexity or uniqueness as an 
aspect of the proffered position of business development manager. Specifically, the record does not 
demonstrate how the business development manager position described requires the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge such that a bachelor's or higher 
degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent is required to perform its duties. 
8 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 
does not demonstrate 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"). 
12 
Matter of G-, Inc. 
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 has not satisfied the second 
alternative prong of8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The employer normally requires a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position 
The third criterion of 8 C.P.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. To 
this end, we review the Petitioner's past recruiting and hiring practices, as well as information 
regarding employees who previously held the position, and any other documentation submitted by a 
petitioner in support of this criterion of the regulations. 
To merit approval of the petition under this criterion, the record must establish that a petitioner's 
imposition of a degree requirement is not merely a matter of preference for high-caliber candidates 
but is necessitated by performance requirements of the position. While a petitioner may assert that a 
proffered position requires a specific degree, that statement alone without corroborating evidence 
cannot establish the position as a specialty occupation. Were USCIS 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 Petitioner 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 
v. Meissner, 201 F.3d at 388. 
To satisfy this criterion, the evidence of record must show that the specific performance 
requirements of the position generated the recruiting and hiring history. A petitioner's perfunctory 
declaration of a particular educational requirement will not mask the fact that the position is not a 
specialty occupation. USCIS must examine the actual employment requirements, and, on the basis 
of that examination, determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. See 
generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. In this pursuit, the critical element is not the title of 
the position, or the fact that an employer has routinely insisted on certain educational standards, but 
whether performance of 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that its "detailed job description" confirms that it normally requires 
someone with a minimum of a Bachelor's degree. However, that statement does not demonstrate the 
Petitioner's hiring history. Again, "going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings." In re Soffici, 22 I&N 
Dec. at 165. The record of proceedings does not contain evidence demonstrating the Petitioner's 
hiring history for the proffered position. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that it 
13 
Matter of G-, Inc. 
normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for the 
proffered position, it does not satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
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 in a specific specialty, or its equivalent 
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. 
Upon review of the record of the proceeding, we find that the Petitioner has not provided sufficient 
probative evidence to satisfy this criterion of the regulations. In the instant case, relative 
specialization and complexity have not been adequately developed by the Petitioner as an aspect of 
the proffered position. That is, the proposed duties have not been described with sufficient 
specificity to establish that they are more specialized and complex than positions in the occupational 
category that are not usually associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
The Petitioner has submitted inadequate probative evidence to satisfy this criterion of the 
regulations. Thus, the Petitioner has not established that the duties of the position are so specialized 
and complex that the knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. We 
therefore, conclude that the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 
As set forth above, we find the evidence of record insufficient to establish that the proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013) (citing Matter of Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493, 495 (BIA 1966)). Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofG-, Inc., ID# 15801 (AAO Mar. 1, 2016) 
14