dismissed H-1B Case: Business Operations

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 18, 2025 In Re: 36722610 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-1B) 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-lB nonirnrnigrant 
classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) . The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to 
file a petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation, or that the Beneficiary is qualified for 
the proffered position. 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 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter ofChristo's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Act defines an H-1B nonimmigrant as a foreign national "who is 
corning temporarily to the United States to perform services ... in a specialty occupation described in 
section 2 l 4(i)(l) .. . " ( emphasis added). Section 2 l 4(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l l 84(i)(l ), defines 
the term "specialty occupation" as an occupation that requires the "theoretical and practical application 
of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the 
specific specialty ( or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(ii) largely restates section 214(i)(l) of the Act, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. 
In addition, 8 C.F.R. § 2 l 4.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) provides that the proffered position must meet one of four 
criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation position. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must be read with 
the statutory and regulatory definitions of a specialty occupation under section 214(i)(l) of the Act 
and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). We construe the term "degree" to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal 
Siam Corp. v. 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"). 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary in the position of business operations analyst. On the 
certified labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position to be in the occupational category of "Business Operations 
Specialists, All Others," with Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 13-1199.00. The 
Petitioner states that a bachelor's degree in business administration or a related field is required. 
The Director denied the petition, finding that the Petitioner did not establish that the position qualifies 
as a specialty occupation under any of the four specialty occupation criteria enumerated at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(l)-( 4). The Director also concluded that the record did not establish that the 
Beneficiary is qualified for the proffered position. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that this conclusion 
is "based on a misunderstanding of the provided evidence, as the position clearly satisfies the 
regulatory requirements." In support of this claim, the Petitioner repeats the assertions previously 
presented to the Director. However, the Petitioner does not identify any specific erroneous 
conclusions of law or statements of fact by the Director. 
We have consistently stated that, although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in 
business, may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without 
more, will not justify a conclusion that a particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty 
occupation. See Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. 
Because the evidence reflects that the Petitioner will accept a bachelor's degree in business 
administration, without further specialization, for the proffered position, the Petitioner's minimum 
requirement to perform the duties does not satisfy the statutory and regulatory definitions of the H-lB 
program. See section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). The degree requirement set by 
the statutory and regulatory framework is not a just a bachelor's degree, or a bachelor's degree in 
disparate fields, but a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the duties of 
the position. For this reason alone, the record satisfies neither the statutory nor the regulatory 
definitions of the term "specialty occupation," regardless of whether the position satisfies any of the 
four specialty-occupation criteria enumerated at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4). 
Our conclusion that the Petitioner has not established that the proffered position is for a specialty 
occupation is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal. We therefore decline to reach and hereby reserve 
our opinion regarding whether the Petitioner has established the Beneficiary's qualification for the 
proffered position. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not 
required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); 
see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues 
on appeal where the applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is a 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. The Petitioner has not 
met that burden. 
2 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3