dismissed H-1B Case: Business Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 20, 1984 In Re: 31683783 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for 
specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a 
qualified foreign worker in a position that requires both: (a) the theoretical and practical application 
of a body of highly specialized knowledge; and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in 
the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not 
establish the Petitioner's proffered job qualified as a specialty occupation under section 101 
(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Act. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
The Act at Section 214(i)(l), 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: (A) the 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) is a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C .F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) adds a non-exhaustive list of fields of endeavor to the 
statutory definition. And the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii) requires that the proffered 
position must also meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
1. 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 pos1t10ns 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. 
The statute and the regulations must be read together to make sure that the proffered position meets 
the definition of a specialty occupation. See K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) 
(holding that construction of language which takes into account the design of the statue as a whole is 
preferred); see also COIT Independence Joint Venture v. Fed. Sav. And Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 
(1989); Matter of W-F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). Considering the statute and the regulations 
separately leads to scenarios where a Petitioner satisfies a regulatory factor but not the definition of 
specialty occupation contained in the statute. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 5th Cir. 
2000). The regulatory criteria read together with the statute gives effect to the statutory intent. See 
Temporary Alien Workers Seeking Classification Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 56 Fed. 
Reg. 61111, 61112 Dec. 2, 1991). 
So, we construe the term "degree" in 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 
supporting the statutory definition of specialty occupation. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertojf, 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"). USCIS' application of this 
standard has resulted in the orderly approval ofH-lB petitions for engineers, accountants, information 
technology professionals and other occupations, commensurate with what Congress intended when it 
created the H-1 B category. 
And job title or broad occupational category alone does not determine whether a particular job is a 
specialty occupation under the regulations and statute. The nature of the Petitioner's business 
operations along with the specific duties of the proffered job are also considered. We must evaluate 
the employment of the individual and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. See Defensor, 201 F.3d 384. So, a Petitioner's self-imposed requirements are not as 
critical as whether the position the Petitioner offers requires the application of a theoretical and 
practical body of knowledge gained after earning the required baccalaureate or higher degree in the 
specific specialty required to accomplish the duties of the job. 
By regulation, the Director is charged with determining whether the petition involves a specialty 
occupation as defined in section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(2). The Director 
may request additional evidence in the course of making this determination. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8). 
In addition, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the petition and must continue to 
be eligible through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
2 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
The 
Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary in H-1 B classification to serve as a business operations 
manager. The Petitioner initially provided documentation supporting the Beneficiary's educational 
credentials. In response to the request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner resubmitted the Beneficiary's 
educational credentials, and also submitted business registration and operations documents, a copy of 
its brochure and website, organizational chart, photos of its business premises, tax documents, copies 
of advertisements for purportedly parallel positions at supposedly similar organizations, an expert 
opinion, and documentation supporting the Beneficiary's maintenance of nonimmigrant status. At 
appeal, the Petitioner submits a statement from the Petitioner and a new expert opinion. According to 
the Petitioner, the proffered job requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree in business administration 
with a concentration in management. 
III. ANALYSIS 
For the 
reasons below, we have determined that the Petitioner's business operations manager position 
does not qualify as a specialty occupation. The evidence the Petitioner has submitted into the record 
does not demonstrate that performance of the proffered job's duties requires an individual with a 
bachelor's degree in a specific related specialty. 
A. First Criterion 
The Petitioner's proffered job does not qualify as a specialty occupation under the first criterion of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). The regulations require a bachelor's or higher degree 
in a specific specialty as a threshold for entry into the proffered position. The first criterion's scope 
encompasses the question of whether a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty related to a 
proffered job's duties, or the equivalent, is normally required. The standard of whether an individual 
petitioner's proffered position is a specialty occupation because it normally requires a degree or its 
equivalent as a threshold requirement for entry to the position is set forth in the third criterion at 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). If we were to interpret the first criterion to relate to a specific 
petitioner's proffered position and its minimum requirements, it would render the third criterion of the 
regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3) redundant. 
In support, the Petitioner asserts the business continuity planner entry in the U.S. Department of Labor, 
Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Information Network (O*NET) supports the specialty 
occupation nature of its proffered business operations manager job because the position "shares 
responsibilities with Business Continuity Planners, aligning with O*NET' s outlined duties and 
educational preferences." And the Petitioner submitted two advisory opinions in response to the 
Director's RFE and with this appeal respectively. 
The Petitioner's reliance on O*NET is misplaced. In the first instance, we do not agree with the 
Petitioner that its business operations manager position "shares responsibilities with Business 
Continuity Planners." "Business Continuity Planners" develop, maintain, or implement business 
continuity and disaster recovery strategies and solutions. The Petitioner submitted job duties 
describing its business operations manager as "completely dedicated to ensuring maximum 
profitability for the business ... " In its recitation of the business operations managers duties, the 
3 
Petitioner makes no mention of disaster preparedness or risk assessment connected with ensuring 
business continuity in the face of a disruption event. 
Moreover, O*NET's summary report for "Business Continuity Planners" proceeds no further than to 
establish a minimum entry requirement of a four-year bachelor's degree for "most" positions within 
the occupation and includes a caveat that "some do not." The summary report is silent about the 
specific specialty for the bachelor's degree. See O*NET Summary Report for "Business Continuity 
Planners," https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/13-1199.04. It is not enough that the position 
requires a bachelor's degree; the required degree must be in a field or fields comprising a specific 
specialty related to the theoretical and practical knowledge required to perform the duties of the 
proffered job. So, the Petitioner's assertion is not adequately supported by its reliance on the summary 
report. 
The Petitioner also introduced two advisory opinions into the record in an effort to establish eligibility 
under the first criterion. As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by the 
Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). But they 
are not presumptive evidence of eligibility. See also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, 502 n.2 (BIA, 
2008). And less weight is given to an advisory opinion where there is cause to question or doubt the 
opinion or if it is not in accord with other information in the record. Matter of Caron Int 'l, Inc., 19 
I&N Dec. at 795. In general, the Petitioner's advisory opinions are considerably doubtful. 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted an advisory opinion authored by Dr. 
I I professor, department of data analytics and information systems, 
I I School of Business. Professor I I qualifications to opine on the specialty occupation 
nature of a business operations manager position proffered by the Petitioner are unclear because 
Professor I I area of expertise is in data analytics and information systems, not business 
operations. Although Professor I I did complete an undergraduate degree in business 
administration, it is not clear how their graduate studies in management information systems and 
primary areas of research in knowledge management, information system implementation, and 
information processing for decision making render them qualified to provide an opinion on a business 
operations management role like the one the Petitioner describes in the petition. Moreover, Professor 
I I cited to the O*NET and the Department of Labor (DOL) Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) 
Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) for some of their analysis. However, Professor I I 
did not identify which specific O*NET or Handbook entry they evaluated and considered when 
making their conclusions. Professor also listed the materials they evaluated to determine the 
Petitioner's proffered business operations manager position qualified as a specialty occupation. Aside 
from mentioning the Handbook and O*NET as described above, Professor did not further 
mention or discuss any of the other materials they reviewed and how the materials supported the 
specialty nature of the Petitioner's proffered business operations manager position. 1 
Professor opinion is consequently unpersuasive because it is not in accord with other 
information in the record and does not reliably, materially, or probatively provide authority for the 
conclusions it contains. 
occupation 
1 We will also evaluate the advisory opinions the Petitioner has submitted in the applicable sections of this decision to the 
extent that they assert the Petitioner's proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation under other applicable criteria 
contained at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
4 
I 
With this appeal, the Petitioner submits an advisory opinion authored by I l professor 
at the I Ischool of business and school of engineering. Professor I 
examined the duties of the Petitioner's proffered business operations manager position and concluded 
that the theoretical and practical knowledge composing a specialty required to perform the duties could 
be earned after completing a bachelor's degree in business administration with a concentration in 
management. However, Professor I I also concluded the Petitioner's business operations 
manager duties overlapped with the duties described in the O*NET business continuity planner 
category. As described above, the Petitioner's proffered job duties contain no commonality with the 
duties of a business continuity planner. "Business Continuity Planners" develop, maintain, or 
implement business continuity and disaster recovery strategies and solutions. The Petitioner submitted 
job duties describing its business operations manager as "completely dedicated to ensuring maximum 
profitability for the business ... " In its recounting of the business operations manager's duties, the 
Petitioner makes no mention of disaster preparedness or risk assessment connected with ensuring 
business continuity in the face of a disruption event. Moreover, Professor I I does not 
materially, relevantly, or probatively identify which specific duties in the Petitioner's proffered 
business operations manager position overlap with the duties contained in the business continuity 
planner O*NET category. The inapposite duties described by the Petitioner and those contained in 
the O*NET category they and Professor I I conclude is correspondent to their proffered 
position leads us to assign less weight to Professor! Iopinion. 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation from a probative source to conclude that a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty related to the duties of the job or its equivalent 
is required as a minimum qualification for entry to this particular position. So, the Petitioner has not 
satisfied the first criteria contained at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
B. First Prong of Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs: (A) the degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations; or (B) the employer's particular position is 
so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree. The first prong, 
concerned with common industry practice is satisfied when the Petitioner establishes that their degree 
requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. The 
alternative prong of the second criterion 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 a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty related to the duties of the proffered position or its equivalent. 
To satisfy the first prong, a petitioner must establish eligibility by demonstrating that the degree 
requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions amongst similar organizations. The 
Petitioner states that its degree requirement for its business operations manager position is common to 
the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. In support, the Petitioner provided job 
vacancy announcements. And the advisory opinions the Petitioner submitted into the record also made 
some conclusions based on the content of the advertisements. 
We regularly consider the following and other material, relevant, and probative sources of evidence 
to determine if there is such a common degree requirement: whether the Handbook reports that the 
5 
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 
establish that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." 
As noted, there is no Handbook entry corresponding to the Petitioner's proffered business operations 
manager position. Nor did the Petitioner submit evidence from an industry professional association, 
or from firms or individuals in its industry indicating such a degree is a minimum requirement for 
entry into the position. 
As stated earlier, the Petitioner submitted job vacancy announcements in support of its assertion that 
the claimed degree requirement is common to the industry. However, to be relevant for consideration 
under this prong, the job vacancy announcements must advertise "parallel positions," and the 
announcements must have been placed by organizations that (1) conduct business in the Petitioner's 
industry and (2) are also "similar" to the Petitioner. The job vacancy announcements the Petitioner 
submitted do not satisfy this threshold. 
The Petitioner is a car rental, car sale, and car repair business. The job postings the Petitioner submitted 
were placed by institutions of higher education, a space exploration company, a healthcare information 
technology company, a professional services and information technology company, and an 
information technology management company. None conduct business in the Petitioner's industry 
and the Petitioner submits no convincing information, material, or explanation to explain how these 
vastly different entities conduct business in the same industry as one another let alone with the 
Petitioner. 
The advertised job opportunities also cannot be considered "parallel positions." One of the job 
postings is for a business operations specialist. Examination of this position's duties reflects the 
incumbent would be required to "collaborate closely with the Business Operations Program Manager 
to deliver efficient, proficient, and knowledgeable financial services." There is no financial services 
component or duty described in the Petitioner's proffered job aside from the "prepar[ation] and 
administ[ration of] an annual operating budget." But the "financial services" contemplated in the 
advertisement the Petitioner submitted into the record entail "the day-to-day management of diverse 
contracts, travel arrangements, and procurement activities." The Petitioner has not adequately 
demonstrated with persuasive material, relevant, or probative evidence how the "Business Operations 
Program Manager" position described in the advertisement parallels the position proffered here. 
The Petitioner also submitted an advertisement for a facilities and business operations specialist 
requiring a bachelor's degree in operations management, business or contract administration, facilities 
management, or a related field ( or equivalent work experience). But this position is not "parallel" to 
the Petitioner's proffered business operations manager position. The duties require facilities 
management, equipment tracing, and basic IT support amongst other duties that do not correspond to 
the duties the Petitioner submitted describing its business operations manager position. 
And the remaining job postings advertise "operations specialist" positions, but also do not also appear 
to parallel the offered position. 
6 
For all these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that these job vacancy announcements are 
relevant. But even if that threshold had been met, we would still conclude that the Petitioner did not 
satisfy this prong of the second criterion, as these ads also did not indicate that a bachelor's degree in 
a specific specialty, or the equivalent, is common to the Petitioner's industry in parallel positions 
among similar organizations. The announcements the Petitioner submitted reflect that the advertising 
employers would accept any bachelor's degree. The Petitioner concludes that this establishes a 
common bachelor's degree requirement for the role in line with the different needs for different 
companies. But again, the Petitioner elevates a requirement for any bachelor's degree to mean that a 
position requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or fields comprising a specialty to perform 
the duties of the position. This is incorrect. The acceptance of any bachelor's degree in any field or 
a wide variety of seemingly unconnected fields which employers would have accepted for entry into 
the proffered position undermine the Petitioner's assertion that a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty is a common requirement for the proffered job because various unconnected degree 
requirements cannot compose a specialty which provides a basis for a body of theoretical and practical 
knowledge required to perform the duties of a position. 
And the Petitioner's reliance on the advisory opinions they submitted, to the extent they support its 
assertions that the Petitioner's proffered position's educational requirement is a common requirement 
within the industry for parallel positions among similar organizations, appears misplaced. The authors 
of the advisory opinions do not develop their expertise regarding industry recruiting and hiring 
standards, which is especially important given the Petitioner's submission of evidence for 
consideration under this prong wherein it indicated that a standard may exist. 
So, we conclude that the advertisements provided do not support the Petitioner's argument concerning 
eligibility under the first alternative prong of the second criteria 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. Second Prong of Second Criterion and Fourth Criterion 
The Petitioner claims that its proffered job is a specialty occupation under the alternate prong of the 
second criterion. As mentioned above, the alternative prong of the second criterion 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 a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty related to the duties of the proffered 
position or its equivalent and the fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4) 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. 
The Petitioner stated that its business operations manager must have a bachelor's or higher degree in 
business administration with a concentration in management or a related field because its proffered 
job is complex or unique and requires the performance of specialized duties. We said earlier that the 
Petitioner submitted a letter into the record describing the business operations manager job duties. It 
is always a petitioner's burden to establish eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence for the 
immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The letter the Petitioner 
submitted does not demonstrate the proffered job's complexity or uniqueness. The letter provides no 
additional context, information, or explanation. So, it is unclear what the complexity or uniqueness 
7 
of the Petitioner's proffered job is to demonstrate eligibility under the alternate second part of the 
second prong contained at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) 
And the elaboration of the duties and the percentages of time for each duty do not demonstrate any 
additional complexity or uniqueness in this particular position. The duties do not describe a position 
so specialized and complex that it would require the application of a theoretical and practical body of 
highly specialized knowledge gained after earning a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty to 
perform them so as to demonstrate eligibility under the fourth prong at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
The advisory opinions the Petitioner submitted are also unconvincing. Again, advisory opinions are 
not presumptive evidence of eligibility; we are ultimately responsible for making the final 
determination regarding an individual's eligibility for the benefit sought. Matter of Caron Int 'l, Inc., 
19 I&N Dec. at 795; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. at 502 n.2. The advisory opinions submitted 
by the Petitioner are unhelpful to demonstrate eligibility under the alternate prong of the second 
criterion and the fourth criterion. The writers conclude that the business operations manager position 
is a specialty occupation because performance of its duties requires reliance on a diverse and 
seemingly unconnected list of concepts such as planning and resource, strategies, information systems, 
and implementation. The writers did not articulate why these concepts are relied upon to perform the 
duties of the proffered position. They did not cite, refer to, or provide in the record any of the writer's 
research into the issues they are considering or other research into the issues. The writers did not 
compare and contrast the Petitioner's business operations manager position to other operations 
management positions to distinguish it as unique or complex and specialized. Quite the contrary, one 
of the advisory opinions as described above compared it to business continuity planners, a seemingly 
unrelated occupation. The advisory opinions the Petitioner has submitted simply regurgitated the 
duties the Beneficiary would perform as a business operations manager in an expanded narrative 
format. The duties did not appear so specialized and complex or unique such that a bachelor's degrees 
in a range of related disciplines comprising a single specialty related to the duties of the proffered 
position is the minimum requirement for entry. So, whilst the writers concluded the duties that will 
be performed require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty related to those duties, they did not 
explain why the position is more specialized and complex or the particular position complex or unique. 
The record lacks sufficient unambiguous information to set the Petitioner's business operations 
manager position as more "complex or unique" or its duties "specialized and complex" from positions 
that do not require at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent to perform the 
duties of the Petitioner's officer job. So, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong 
of the second criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) or the fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)( 4). 
D. Third Criterion 
The Petitioner's proffered job does not qualify as a specialty occupation under the third criterion of 
the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). The third criterion requires an employer to 
demonstrate that it normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, 
related to the performance of the position's job duties. 
8 
The Petitioner's RFE response expressed its preference for its business operations manager to possess 
a bachelor's degree in business administration with a concentration in management. The Petitioner 
asserts that its preference is in fact its normal requirement for its business operations manager position. 
In support of this preference the Petitioner submits a statement in conjunction with its appeal. 
The record must establish that a petitioner's stated degree requirement is not a matter of preference 
for high-caliber candidates but is necessitated instead by performance requirements of the position. 
See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. Were we limited solely to reviewing a petitioner's claimed self­
imposed requirements, an organization could bring any individual with a bachelor's degree to the 
United States to perform any occupation so long as the petitioning entity created a token degree 
requirement. Id. 
The Petitioner's statement is insufficient to support the Petitioner's eligibility under the third criterion 
because they mainly express a preference, and then set forth job duties and responsibilities. The 
Petitioner does not provide any additional evidence or documentation which could have helped 
evaluate its eligibility under this criterion, such as current or prior job announcements, a list of current 
of former employees with position titles like the proffered position's title and degree titles, or copies 
of current or former employee's paystubs, degree, and resumes. 
The absence of any additional evidence or documentation from the Petitioner cannot establish that the 
Petitioner's requirements compose anything more than a self-imposed preference. So, the Petitioner 
has not satisfied the third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). 
We conclude that the proffered position here is not a specialty occupation because the record of 
proceedings does not establish that the proffered position requires both: (1) the theoretical and practical 
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge; and (2) the attainment of a bachelor's degree 
in the specific specialty. The Petitioner has satisfied neither the statutory definition of a "specialty 
occupation" at section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act nor the regulatory definition of a specialty occupation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). As the Petitioner had not satisfied the threshold requirements, it cannot 
satisfy any of the supplemental specialty-occupation criteria enumerated at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 2 l 4.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(l)-( 4). So, the Petitioner has not established that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation. 
B. Non-Corresponding Labor Condition Application 
The certified LCA submitted with the petition does not correspond to the petition. A Petitioner seeking 
to file an H-lB petition must submit a certified LCA. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. 
§ 655.731(a). A DOL-certified LCA memorializes the attestations a petitioner makes regarding the 
employment of the noncitizen in H-lB status. See 20 C.F.R. § 655.734(d)(l)-(6). Whilst DOL is 
responsible for certifying that the Petitioner has made the required LCA attestations, USCIS evaluates 
whether the submitted LCA corresponds with the Petitioner's H-lB petition. 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b). 
USCIS may consider DOL regulations when adjudicating H-lB petitions. See Int'l Internship 
Programs v. Napolitano, 853 F.Supp. 2d 86, 98 (D.D.C. 2012), aff'd sub nom Int'l Internship Program 
v. Napolitano, 718 F.3d 986 (D.C. Cir. 2013). See also ITServe Alliance, Inc. v. DHS, 590 F. Supp. 
3d 27, 40 (D.D.C. 2022), aff'd sub nom ITServe Alliance, Inc. v. DHS, 714 F. 4th 1028 (D.C. Cir. 
9 
2023) (noting that 20 C.F.R. § 655.705 requires USCIS "to check that the [H-lB] petition matches the 
LCA"). 
The Petitioner attested that the business operations manager would perform the following duties: 
• Forecast goals and objectives for the departments and strives to meet them. 
• Hires, trains, motivates, and monitors the performance of the service and parts department 
managers. 
• Prepares and administers an annual operating budget for the service and parts departments. 
• Maintains reporting systems required by general management and the manufacturer. 
• Monitors the performance of the service, parts, and body shop departments. 
• Understands, keeps abreast of, and complies with federal, state, and local regulations that affect 
repair operations, such as hazardous waste disposal, OSHA Right-to-Know, etc. 
• Understands and ensures compliance with manufacturer warranty and policy procedures. 
• Fosters professional employee development and coordinates with department managers to 
determine the need for advanced training. 
• Maintains high-quality servicer repairs and minimizes comebacks. Conducts periodic spot 
checks of completed jobs for thoroughness and quality. 
• Makes customer satisfaction a department priority, ensuring that service and parts personnel 
are courteous and respectful in their interaction with customers. 
• Handles customer complaints immediately and according to dealership's guidelines. 
• Administers warranty claims, reviews warranty policy adjustments, understand and applies 
warranty guidelines, ensures correct processing of claims, and communicates warranty 
information and clarifications to customers. 
• Develops dealership service and parts pricing plans and recommends to dealer or general 
manager. 
• Work with parts and service managers to find ways to improve the overall profitability of the 
dealership. 
• Keep abreast of new equipment and tools available and recommends purchases. 
In a statement submitted with its appeal, the Petitioner revised the job description above, but retained 
the duties' general nature and character. But, even with the revisions submitted at appeal, the 
Petitioner's proffered job duties are non-corresponding to the description of a business continuity 
planner contained in the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) the Petitioner asserted its 
proffered positions corresponded with. There is no mention or provision or objective for disaster 
preparedness or continuity of business operations in the duties the Petitioner submitted. Disaster 
preparedness and continuity of business operations is the primary function and objective of the 
business continuity planner position contained in the O*NET entry. 
An LCA certified for a job classification which does not correspond to the proffered position cannot 
support an H-lB petition. So, the petition would be unapprovable as filed even if the Petitioner could 
have demonstrated that the proffered job is a specialty occupation under section 214(i)(l) of the Act 
and the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
10 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
11