dismissed H-1B Case: Culinary Arts

(b)(6)
DATE: JUN 0 3 2015 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION RECEIPT#: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. 
If you believe we incorrectly decided your case, you may file a motion requesting us to reconsider our 
decision and/or reopen the proceeding. The requirements for motions are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. 
Motions must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this 
decision. The Form I-290B web page (www.uscis.gov/i-290b) contains the latest information on fee, filing 
location, and other requirements. Please do not mail any motions directly to the AAO. 
Thank you, 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. · 
I. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND 
On the Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129), the petitioner describes itself as a 
36-employee "Restaurant Operation" established in In order to employ the beneficiary in 
what it designates as a "Sous Chef" position, the petitioner seeks to classify him as a nonimmigrant 
worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
The Director found the initial evidence insufficient to establish eligibility for the benefit sought, and 
issued a Request for Evidence (RFE). Thereafter, the petitioner responded to the Director's RFE. 
The Director denied the petition, finding that the evidence of record did to establish that the 
petitioner would employ the beneficiary in a specialty occupation position. On appeal, the petitioner 
asserted that the Director's basis for denial was erroneous and contended that the petitioner satisfied 
all evidentiary requirements. 
We base our decision upon our review of the entire record of proceeding, which includes: 
(1) the petitioner's Form I -129 and the supporting documentation; (2) the service center's RFE; 
(3) the petitioner's response to the RFE; (4) the Director's denial letter; and (5) the Notice of Appeal 
or Motion (Form I-290B) and the petitioner's submissions on appeal. We reviewed the record in its 
entirety before issuing our decision. 1 
As will be discussed below, we have determined that the Director did not err in her decision to deny 
the petition on the specialty occupation issue. Accordingly, the Director's decision will not be 
disturbed. The appeal will be dismissed, and the petition will be denied. 
II. THE PROFFERED POSITION 
The Labor Condition Application (LCA) submitted to support the visa petition states that the 
proffered position is a Sous Chef position, and that it corresponds to Standard Occupational 
Classification (SOC) code and title 35-1011, Chefs and Head Cooks, from the Occupational 
Information Network (O"'NET). The LCA further states that the proffered position is a wage 
Level I, entry-level, position. 
In a letter, dated March 31, 2014, the petitioner provided the following duty description: 
As Sous Chef, [the beneficiary] will be second to the Executive Chef. He will carry 
an enormous amount of responsibility and his position is vital to the success and 
efficiency of the restaurant. [The beneficiary] will coordinate with the Executive 
1 We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Chef to make sure that his policies are followed and enforced. He will also be 
participating in menu planning and development of new dishes with the Executive 
Chef. 
[The beneficiary] will be involved in inventory control and ordering needed supplies. 
He will ensure that the ingredients are high quality. He will also ensure that the high 
standards of food safety and sanitation imposed by and New York 
State are followed. He will oversee the food preparation and production to maintain 
quality and regulate costs. 
As Sous Chef, [the beneficiary] is in charge of managing the kitchen staff. He will 
participate in scheduling the staff and assigning them specific tasks. He will attend to 
training staff as well as to the regular staff. Because he is the second-in-command, he 
will do what is necessary to ensure the success of the kitchen. This entails filling in 
spots if there is a need for it while at the same time maintaining control of the kitchen 
and providing direction to the staff. 
As to the educational requirements of the proffered position, the petitioner stated: 
[The proffered position] requires knowledge in food sanitation and regulation, kitchen 
management, food and beverage cost control, institutional food management, 
restaurant marketing, public health, and different world cuisines. As such, we believe 
that a Bachelor's degree in Culinary Arts or a Bachelor's degree in a related field is 
suited for this position. 
The petitioner also provided another description of the proffered position, in a letter dated July 23, 
2014, in which it specified the percentages of time the beneficiary will devote to certain duties. In 
that letter, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary will spend 15% of his time "consulting with the 
Executive Chef and analyzing available local and seasonal ingredients to fit [the petitioner's menu]"; 
25% of his time on "spearheading inventory control and ordering of supplies"; 20% of his time 
"managing the kitchen staff"; and 40% of his time "overseeing the food being served [at the 
petitioner]." 
III. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
The issue is whether the petitioner has provided sufficient evidence to establish that it will employ 
the beneficiary in a specialty occupation position. 
A. Legal Framework 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(I), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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.P.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.P.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 mm1mum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
(4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
As a threshold issue, it is noted that 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must logically be read together 
with section 214(i)(1) of the Act and 8 C.P.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 
of language which takes into account the design of the statute as a whole is preferred); see also 
COlT Independence Joint Venture v. Federal Sav. andLoanlns. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989); Matter 
of W-F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). As such, the criteria stated in 8 C.P.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 
necessary and sufficient conditions for meeting the definition of specialty occupation would result 
in particular positions meeting a condition under 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
or regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). To avoid this 
result, 8 C.P.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.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCrS) consistently interprets the 
term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.P.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-lB petitions for qualified aliens 
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 -lB visa category. 
To determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCrS 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 alien, 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. Discussion 
Turning to the criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), we will first discuss the record of 
proceeding in relation to the criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which requires that a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position. 
The LCA submitted to support the visa petition states that the proffered position is a wage Level I 
sous chef position as described by O*NET under Chefs and Head Cooks. We recognize the U.S. 
Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook), cited by the petitioner, as an 
authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISIOJ.i 
Page 6 
that it addresses. 2 We reviewed the Handbook chapter entitled "Chefs and Head Cooks," including 
the sections regarding the typical duties and requirements for this occupational category. The 
Hand book states the following in its "How to Become a Chef or Head Cook" subchapter: 
How to Become a Chef or Head Cook 
Most chefs and head cooks learn their skills through work experience. Others receive 
training at a community college, technical school, culinary arts school, or a 4-year 
college. A small number learn through apprenticeship programs or in the armed 
forces. 
Education 
A growing number of chefs and head cooks receive formal training at community 
colleges, technical schools, culinary arts schools, and 4-year colleges. 
Students in culinary programs spend most of their time in kitchens practicing their 
cooking skills. Programs cover all aspects of kitchen work, including menu planning, 
food sanitation procedures, and purchasing and inventory methods. Most training 
programs also require students to gain experience in a commercial kitchen through an 
internship or apprenticeship program. 
Work Experience in a Related Occupation 
Most chefs and head cooks start working in other positions, such as line cooks, 
learning cooking skills from the chefs they work for. Many spend years working in 
kitchens before learning enough to get promoted to chef or head cook positions. 
Training 
Some chefs and head cooks train on the job, where they learn the same skills as in a 
formal education program. Some train in mentorship programs, where they work 
under the direction of an experienced chef. Executive chefs, head cooks, and sous 
chefs who work in fine-dining restaurants often have many years of training and 
experience. 
Some chefs and head cooks learn through apprenticeship programs sponsored by 
professional culinary institutes, industry associations, and. trade unions in 
coordination with the U.S. Department of Labor. Apprenticeship programs generally 
last about 2 years and combine instructions and on-the-job training. Apprentices must 
complete at least 1,000 hours of both instructions and paid on-the-job training. 
2 The Handbook, which is available in printed form, may also be accessed on the Internet, at 
http://www.bls.gov/oco/. Our references to the Handbook are to the 2014- 2015 edition available online. 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
NON-PRECEDENT DECJSJOJ 
Courses typically cover food sanitation and safety, basic knife skills, and equipment 
operation. Apprentices spend the rest of the training learning practical skills in a 
commercial kitchen under a chef's supervision. 
The American Culinary Federation accredits more than 200 academic trammg 
programs at post-secondary schools and sponsors apprenticeships around the country. 
The basic qualifications to enter an apprenticeship program are as follows: 
• Minimum age of 17 
• High school education or equivalent 
• Drug free 
Some chefs and head cooks receive formal training in the armed forces or from 
individual hotel or restaurant chains. 
Licenses, Certifications, and Registrations 
Although not required, certification can show competence and lead to advancement 
and higher pay. The American Culinary Federation certifies personal chefs, in 
addition to various levels of chefs. Certification standards are based primarily on 
work-related experience and formal training. Minimum work experience for 
certification can range from 6 months to 5 years, depending on the level of 
certification. 
Important Qualities 
Business skills. Execntive chefs and chefs who run their own restaurant should 
understand the restaurant business. They should be skilled at administrative tasks, 
such as accountin g and personnel management, and be able to manage a restaurant 
efficiently and profitably. 
Communication skills. Becau se the pace in the kitchen can be hectic during· peak 
dining hours, chefs must be able to communicate their orders clearly and effectively 
to staff. 
Creativity. Chefs and head cooks must be creative in order to develop and prepare 
interesting and innovative recipes. They should be able to use various ingredients to 
create appealing meals for their customers. 
Dexterity. Chefs and head cooks need excellent manual dexterity, including proper 
knife techniques for cutting, chopping, and dicing. 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
NON-PRECEDENT DECIS/0]1, 
Leadership skills. Chefs and head cooks must have the ability to motivate kitchen 
staff and develop constructive and cooperative working relationships with them. 
Sense of taste and smell. Chefs and head cooks must have a keen sense of taste and 
smell, to inspect food quality and to design meals that their customers enjoy. 
Time-management skills. Chefs and head cooks must efficiently manage their time 
and the time of their staff. They must ensure that meals are prepared and that 
customers are served on time, especially during busy hours. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., 
"Chefs and Head Cooks," http://www . bls.gov I ooh/food-preparation -and -serving/ chefs-and -head­
cooks.htm#tab-4 (last visited May 27, 2015). 
Because the Handbook indicates that entry into the chef and head cook occupation does not 
normally require a degree in a specific specialty, the Handbook does not support the proffered 
position as being a specialty occupation. 
When the Hand book does not support the proposition that a proffered position is one that meets the 
statutory and regulatory provisions of a specialty occupation, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to 
provide persuasive evidence that the proffered position more likely than not satisfies this or one of 
the other three criteria, notwithstanding the absence of the Handbook's support on the issue. In such 
cases, it is the petitioner's responsibility to provide probative evidence (e.g., documentation from 
other objective, authoritative sources) that supports a finding that the particular position in question 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. Whenever more than one authoritative source exists, an 
adjudicator will consider and weigh all of the evidence presented to determine whether the particular 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
To satisfy this requirement, the petitioner provided two evaluations of proffered position. They 
were prepared by (1) a professor in the Department of Hotel, Restaurant and 
Tourism Management at . and (2) an associate 
professor in the Hospitality & Service Management Department at the 
Professor stated, "a bachelor's degree in Restaurant Management or a 
related field is absolutely required to fulfill the duties of [the proffered] position." Professor 
stated: "It is my opinion that the [proffered position] ... requires the services of someone with 
advanced training through a Bachelor's program in Culinary Arts or a closely related field." 
There is insufficient indication that either Professor or Professor possesses any 
knowledge of the petitioner's proffered position beyond the brief descriptions they provided in their 
evaluations. They do not discuss the duties of the proffered position in any substantive detail. 
Further, they do not demonstrate or assert in-depth knowledge of the petitioner's business operations 
or how the duties of the position would actually be performed in the context of the petitioner's 
business enterprise. For instance, there is no evidence that Professor or Professor 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECIS/01'1 
Page 9 
Sackler visited the petitioner's business, observed the petitioner's employees, interviewed them 
about the nature of their work, or documented the knowledge that they apply on the job. 
Professor and Professor assert a general industry educational standard for sous 
chef positions without referencing any supporting authority or any empirical basis for that 
pronouncement. Likewise, they do not provide a substantive, analytical basis for their opinions and 
their ultimate conclusions. They do not relate their conclusions to specific, concrete aspects of the 
petitioner's business operations to demonstrate a sound factual basis for their conclusions about the 
educational requirements for the particular position here at issue. Accordingly, the very fact that 
they attribute a degree requirement to such a generalized treatment of the proffered position 
undermines the credibility of their opinions. 
Furthermore, there is no indication that the petitioner advised Professor and Professor 
that the petitioner characterized the proffered position as a low, entry-level position, for a 
beginning employee who has only a basic understanding of the occupation (as indicated by the 
wage-level on the LCA) relative to other positions within the occupational category. It appears that 
Professor and Professor would have found this information relevant for their 
opinion letters. Moreover, without this information, the petitioner has not demonstrated that 
Professor and Professor possessed the requisite information necessary to 
adequately assess the nature of the petitioner's position and appropriately determine parallel 
positions based upon job duties and responsibilities. 
In summary, and for each and all of the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the opinion 
letters rendered by Professor and Professor are not probative evidence to 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The conclusions reached by 
Professor and ·Professor lack the requisite specificity and detail and are not 
supported by independent, objective evidence demonstrating the manner in which they reached such 
conclusions. There is an inadequate factual foundation established to support the opinions and we 
find that the opinions are not in accord with other information in the record. As such, neither 
Professor or Professor findings nor their ultimate conclusions are worthy of any 
deference, and their opinion letters are not probative evidence towards satisfying any criterion of the 
regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
We may, in our discretion, use as advisory opm10n statements submitted as expert testimony. 
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. Matter of Caron 
International, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988). As a reasonable exercise of our discretion we 
discount the advisory opinion letters as not probative of any criterion of 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). For efficiency's sake, we hereby incorporate the above discussion and analysis 
regarding the opinion letters into each of the bases in this decision for dismissing the appeal. 
Further, we find that, to the extent that they are described in the record of proceeding, the numerous 
duties that the petitioner ascribes to the proffered position indicate a need for a range of knowledge 
of culinary arts and commercial kitchen management, but do not establish any particular level of 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISIOJ.. 
Page 10 
formal, postsecondary education leading to a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty as 
minimally necessary to attain such knowledge. 
As the evidence of record does not establish that the particular position here proffered is one for 
which the normal minimum entry requirement is a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or the equivalent, the petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)(1 ). 
Next, we find that the petitioner has not satisfied the first of the two alternative prongs of 8 C.P.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 positions 
that are: (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)). 
Here and as already discussed, the petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for 
which the Handbook (or other independent, authoritative source) reports an 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. 
Furthermore, the petitioner did not submit any letters or affidavits from similar firms or individuals 
in the petitioner's industry attesting that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed 
individuals." 
Thus, the evidence of record does not establish that a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to positions that are (1) in the petitioner's industry, 
(2) parallel to the proffered position, and also (3) located in organizations that are similar to the 
petitioner. 
The evidence of record also does not satisfy the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2), which provides that "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." A review of the 
record indicates that the petitioner has not credibly demonstrated that the duties that comprise the 
proffered position entail such complexity or uniqueness as to constitute a position so complex or 
unique that it can be performed only by a person with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISJOJI, 
Page 11 
Specifically, the petitioner has not demonstrated how the duties that collectively constitute the 
proffered position require 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 them. For instance, the petitioner did not submit information relevant to a 
detailed course of study leading to a specialty degree and did not e.stablish how such a curriculum is 
necessary to perform the duties of the proffered position. While a few related courses may be 
beneficial, or even required, in performing certain duties of the proffered position, the petitioner has 
not demonstrated how an established curriculum of such courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the duties of the particular 
position here. 
Further, as was also noted above, the LCA submitted in support of the visa petition is approved for a 
wage Level I chef or head cook position, an indication that the proffered position is an entry-level 
position for an employee who has only a basic understanding of the job of a chef or head cook. This 
does not support the proposition that the proffered position is so complex or unique relative to other 
positions in the same occupation that it can only be performed by a person with a specific bachelor's 
degree, especially as the Handbook suggests that most chefs and head cooks learn their skills 
through work experience. 
Therefore, the evidence of record does not establish that this position is significantly different from 
other positions in the occupation such that it refutes the Handbook's information to the effect that 
there is a spectrum of educational qualifications acceptable for such positions, including a high 
school diploma or an associate's degree from a community college. In other words, the record lacks 
sufficiently detailed information to distinguish the proffered position as unique from or more 
complex than positions that can be performed by persons without at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. As the evidence does not demonstrate how the proffered 
position is so complex or unique relative to other positions within the same occupational category 
that do not require at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for entry 
into the occupation in the United States, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner has satisfied the 
second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
We will next address the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3), which may be satisfied if the 
petitioner demonstrates that it normally requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent for the proffered position. 
The petitioner submitted evidence pertinent to its other employees, however, none of the evidence 
demonstrates that it normally requires a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent for the proffered position or any other position. 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.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 usually review the petitioner's past recruiting and hiring practices, as well as 
information regarding employees who previously held the position. However, the petitioner has not 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISIOA 
Page 12 
demonstrated that it has ever hired anyone in the proffered position, and appears to imply that it has 
not. Further, the petitioner asserts that its line cooks have been performing the duties of the 
proffered position, but provides no evidence that any of its line cooks have had bachelor's or higher 
degrees in a specific specialty related to the position or its equivalent. 
The petitioner also suggests that, because the beneficiary, in the proffered position, would supervise 
personnel with culinary certificates and associates' degrees, he must necessarily have a bachelor's 
degree. The petitioner offers insufficient evidence to support this contention. 
While a petitioner may believe or otherwise assert that a proffered position requires a specific 
degree, that opinion 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. 
Finally, the petitioner has not satisfied the fourth criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), which is 
reserved for positions with specific duties so specialized and complex that their performance 
requires knowledge that is usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
Again, relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by the petitioner 
as an aspect of the proffered position. The duties of the proffered position, such as ensuring that the 
executive chef's policies are followed, participating in menu planning, performing inventory control, 
ordering supplies, inspecting ingredients for quality, enforcing food safety and sanitation standards, 
overseeing food production and managing kitchen staff, etc., contain insufficient indication of a 
nature so specialized and complex that they require knowledge usually associated with attainment of 
a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. In other words, the 
proposed duties have not been described with sufficient specificity to show that they are more 
specialized and complex than chef or head cook positions that are not usually associated with at 
least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
On appeal, the petitioner stated that being sous chef for the petitioner is different from being a sous 
chef at other restaurants, as the petitioner is a "top tier" restaurant seeking to maintain its prestige 
and high standing, and that the position nrequires a person to have managerial skills as well as the 
highest culinary skills." However, as was noted above, the petitioner filed the instant visa petition 
for a wage Level I chef or head cook position, a position for a beginning-level employee with only a 
basic understanding of such a position. This does not support the proposition that the nature of the 
specific duties of the proffered position is so specialized and complex that their performance is 
usually associated with the attainment of a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or 
its equivalent, directly related to the culinary arts and commercial kitchen, especially as the 
Handbook indicates that some chef and head cook positions require no such degree. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISIO.f\. 
Page 13 
Overall, the evidence of record is inadequate to establish 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. 
Therefore, the evidence of record does not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h) (4)(iii)(A)(4). 
The petitioner has not established that it has satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) and, therefore, it cannot be found that the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. The appeal will be dismissed and the petition denied for this reason. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
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; Matter of Ot iende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.