dismissed H-1B Case: Civil Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : WLY 31 , 2023 In Re : 26807975 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification 
for specialty occupations . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not establish 
that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation . The matter is now before us on appeal. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . 
Matter ofCha wathe, 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. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
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. 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"). 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. THE PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner is offering the Beneficiary the position of senior development analyst. The petition 
included a labor condition application (LCA) certified for a position located within the "Civil 
Engineers" occupational category corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 17-
2051. 
The record of proceedings contains multiple expressions purporting to be the Petitioner's stated 
requirements for the senior development analyst position. The Petitioner stated in its support letter 
that the senior development analyst position requires a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering 
or a related field. But the Petitioner also submitted a job description for a senior development analyst 
requiring a minimum of a bachelor's degree or master's degree in engineering, environmental science, 
business, real estate, or urban planning or related field. Both were signed by the Petitioner's manager 
who is also the authorized signatory for the Petitioner. And the Petitioner submitted a letter from their 
director of development which stated that the senior development analyst position required a minimum 
of a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering or a related field for entry into the role. So the 
Director issued a request for additional evidence (RFE) to evaluate the Petitioner's eligibility, as its 
divergent statements regarding the position's requirements called its actual educational requirements 
into question. In its response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner resubmitted the job description for 
its senior development analyst and confirmed that the minimum requirements of the senior 
development analyst position "regardless of the complexity level" were "a Bachelor of Science Degree 
in engineering, environmental science, business, real estate, or urban planning or related field." The 
Petitioner also submitted copies of job postings and resubmitted copies of the Beneficiary's 
educational credentials. 1 On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director erred in concluding that 
their educational requirement did not compose a specialty which comprises a body of theoretical or 
practical knowledge to perform the duties of the Petitioner's senior development analyst position. The 
Petitioner states that applicable case authority supports their interpretation that a wide and disparate 
range of degree fields of study can compose a specialty which comprises a body of theoretical or 
practical knowledge to perform the duties of the Petitioner's senior development analyst position. We 
do not agree. 
III. ANALYSIS 
A. Specialty Occupation 
The proffered position does not meet the statutory or regulatory definition of the term "specialty 
occupation." The Petitioner has not satisfied the requirement that the proffered position require the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of specialized knowledge and that the position requires 
attainment of a bachelor's degree in the specific specialty to perform the job duties. 
The Petitioner states that they accept a bachelor's degree in business, with no farther specialization, 
among numerous other degrees as a minimum qualification for entry into the proffered position. If a 
1 The Petitioner also submitted documentation in supp01i of the H-lB petition, RFE and appeal including evidence 
regarding the proffered position and its business operations. While we may not discuss eve1y document submitted. we 
have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 
position is a "specialty occupation" under the statute and regulations, it is one which involves a "body 
of highly specialized knowledge" attained after completing a bachelor's degree or higher in a "specific 
specialty." A general degree requirement like a bachelor's degree in business, standing alone without 
any further specialization, is not a requirement for a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the 
equivalent. And this generally excludes any proffered position accepting such a degree as a minimum 
requirement for entry into the position from consideration as a specialty occupation. A bachelor's 
degree in business without further specialization, or the equivalent, is so broad that it could apply to a 
position in finance as well as general business operations and management in a variety of endeavors. 
So it cannot provide an individual with the "body of highly specialized knowledge" required to 
perform the duties of a specialty occupation. 
In accordance with the statutory and regulatory requirements, the agency has consistently disfavored 
general purpose bachelor's degree in business with no additional specialization. See Matter ofLing, 
13 I&N Dec. 35 (Reg'l Comm'r 1968); Matter ofMichael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558 (Comm'r 
1988); Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988). Even after Congress revamped the 
H-lB program as part of the Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649, 104 Stat. 4978, the 
agency's concerns with a general-purpose bachelor's degree in business with no additional 
specialization continued. See e.g. Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151 (D. Minn. 1999); 2233 
Paradise Road, LLC v. Cissna, No. l 7-cv-01018-APG-VCF, 2018 WL 3312967 (D. Nev., July 3, 
2018); XiaoTong Liu v. Baran, No. 18-00376-JVS, 2018 WL 7348851 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 21, 2018); 
Parzenn Partners v. Baran, No. 19-cv-11515-ADB, 2019 WL 6130678 (D. Mass., Nov. 19, 2019); 
Xpress Group v. Cuccinelli, No. 3:20-CV-00568-DSC, 2022 WL 433482 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 10, 2022). 
As the First Circuit Court of Appeals explained in Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147: 
The courts and the agency consistently have stated that, although a general-purpose 
bachelor's degree, such as a business administration degree, may be a legitimate 
prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not 
justify granting of a petition for an H-lB specialty occupation visa. See e.g., Tapis Int'l 
v. INS, 94 F. Supp.2d 172, 175-76 (D. Mass. 2000); Shanti, 36 F.Supp.2d at 1164-66; 
cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 ([Comm'r] 1988) 
(providing frequently cited analysis in connection with a conceptually similar 
provision). This is as it should be: elsewise, an employer could ensure the granting of 
a specialty occupation visa petition by the simple expedient of creating a generic ( and 
essentially artificial) degree requirement. 
A bachelor's degree in business with no further specialization is not a degree in a specific specialty. 
And the fact that the Petitioner would accept such a degree as a minimum qualification for entry to the 
proffered position does not satisfy the statutory and regulatory definitions of specialty occupation. On 
that basis alone, we could dismiss the appeal without any further discussion. 
But the record of proceedings reflects that along with a bachelor's degree in business with no further 
specialization, the Petitioner would also accept other varied bachelor's or master's degrees in 
engineering, environmental science, business, real estate, or urban planning for entry into the proffered 
job. Even if we were to leave to the side the dispositive issue of the Petitioner's acceptance of a 
business degree with no further specialization, we would still conclude that the Petitioner's acceptance 
4 
of a bachelor's degree from the wide variety of fields it specifies precludes the Petitioner from 
satisfying both the statutory and regulatory definition of specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director applied an incorrect legal standard when they 
denied the petition because caselaw such as Residential Finance Corporation v. US. Citizenship & 
Immigration Servs., 839 F.Supp.2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012) and Relx v. Baran, 397 F.Supp.3d 41 
(D.D.C. 2019), supports a conclusion that their wide range of degrees can constitute a specialty 
required to perform the duties of a specialty occupation. The Petitioner's arguments are not 
persuasive. 
We agree there is no requirement in the statute for the required education to consist of one specific 
degree or major. But there must be a close relation between the required specialized studies to 
constitute a common "specialty" and that "specialty" must be related to the duties of the position as 
supported by the case law cited by the Petitioner in their appeal. When a petitioner would accept a 
bachelor's degree from a wide variety of seemingly unconnected fields, it cannot establish that the 
fields constitute a "specialty" if they do not establish how each accepted and specific field of study is 
directly related to each another and to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position. 
We interpret the statutory "the" and the regulatory "a" to mean a singular specialty. But we do not so 
narrowly interpret the statute and regulation such that multiple closely related fields of study would 
not constitute a specialty to perform the duties of a related specialty occupation. In general, a 
minimum of a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty is recognized as satisfying the 
"degree in the specific specialty ( or its equivalent)" requirement of section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act 
provided the specialties are closely related such that they constitute a common specialty required to 
perform the duties of the position. If they constitute a common specialty, then the required "body of 
highly specialized knowledge" would essentially be the same. If the required degree fields do not 
constitute a common specialty, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in disparate fields would not 
meet the statutory requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)." A 
minimum entry requirement that did include disparate fields of study, such as philosophy and 
engineering for example, would require the Petitioner to establish how each field is directly related to 
all of the duties and responsibilities of the particular position. Section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act 
( emphasis added). 
The courts in Residential Finance and Relx were considering whether the statute required that only 
one specific degree be accepted for a position to be specialized. Neither stands for the much broader 
proposition that a wide variety of degrees can constitute a specialty required to perform the duties of 
a specialty occupation. Quite the opposite, Residential Finance found for the Plaintiff only after 
determining that the Plaintiff had established their minimum requirements capture the necessity of a 
baccalaureate degree in a specialized course of study in a field related to the proffered job's duties as 
a minimum. Residential Finance Corporation, 839 F.Supp.2d at 996. In Relx, the court determined 
that a specialty occupation existed only after determining that the occupation required a specialized 
course of study leading to the type of degree the plaintiff had earned. Relx, 397 F.Supp.3d at 55. 
We therefore cannot conclude that the proffered position's minimum requirement for entry into the 
job is anything more than a general bachelor's degree. The Petitioner has not satisfied the statutory 
5 
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). 
Without the express requirement of a baccalaureate or higher degree providing the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, the supplemental regulatory criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4) cannot be satisfied. Those supplemental regulatory criteria are 
read together within the related regulations and the statute as a whole. So, where the regulations refer 
to the term "degree," we interpret that term to mean a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty related to the proffered position, or the equivalent. See Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147. The 
word "degree" is mentioned in each prong of the supplemental regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(])-(4). And where, as here, a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty is not required as a minimum requirement of entry, it follows that each prong under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(])-(4) remains unsatisfied. So we will not consider the Petitioner's arguments 
and the evidence it submits in support of its contention that it satisfies the supplemental regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4). 
We conclude that the proffered position here is not a specialty occupation because the Petitioner's 
stated range of acceptable degree fields is too broad to constitute a specialty required to accomplish 
the duties of proffered job. 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 that threshold requirement, it cannot satisfy any of the supplemental specialty-occupation 
criteria enumerated at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(])-(4). 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-1B 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-1B 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, users evaluates 
whether the submitted LCA corresponds with the Petitioner's H-1B petition. 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b). 
users may consider DOL regulations when adjudicating H-1B petitions. See Int'! Internship 
Programs v. Napolitano, 853 F.Supp. 2d 86, 98 (D.D.C. 2012), ajf'd sub nom Int'! 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), ajf'd sub nom ITServe Alliance, Inc. v. DHS, 714 F. 4th 1028 (D.C. Cir. 
2023) (noting that 20 C.F.R. § 655.705 requires USCrS "to check that the [H-1B] petition matches the 
LCA"). 
The Petitioner attested that the senior development analyst would perform the following duties: 
6 
• Supporting the site assessment and acquisition process for solar and energy storage projects, 
including interfacing with landowners and participating with the drafting of lease term-sheets 
and executed leases. 
• Supporting municipal, state, and federal permitting of solar and energy storage projects. 
• As directed by senior management, managing individual aspects of the project development 
process, including cost control, status reporting, and management of engineers and consultants 
for assigned projects. 
• Supporting the preparation, negotiation, and finalization of key project agreements and rights, 
such as PPA proposals and permit applications. 
• Demonstrating professional document control practices, and consistent use of the Petitioner's 
project management tools. 
• Conducting competitive market analyses and preparing comprehensive reports for use in 
assessing new and existing markets. 
• Becoming the Petitioner's lead point of responsibility for at least one key aspect of project 
development (e.g.: project management database administration, interconnection status 
control, portfolio financial control). 
• Assisting in guiding the Petitioner's Development Analysts to success and functioning as a 
point of learning for them. 
These duties are non-corresponding to the description of a civil engineer contained in the Occupational 
Information Network (O*NET). See O*NET Summary Report for "Civil Engineers," at 
https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/l 7-2051.00. A civil engineer directs engineering activities 
and compliance with governmental regulations. They do not draft or execute leases according to the 
O*NET entry. And civil engineers manage and direct construction, operations, and maintenance 
projects at sites. The senior development analyst is required to prepare, negotiate, and finalize project 
agreements, but not manage construction or operations. The O*NET entry describes civil engineers 
typically computing load and grade requirements, water flow rates, or material stress factors to 
determine design specifications. The senior development analyst does not perform these traditional 
engineering duties. An LCA certified for a job classification which does not correspond to the 
proffered position cannot support an H-1B petition. So the petition is 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). 
III. 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. 
7