dismissed H-1B Case: E-Commerce

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF V-0-G- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 30,2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an e-commerce service provider, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an 
e-commerce business and operations manager under the H-1 B 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, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in 
denying the petition. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. ;LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the,following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
Matter of V-0-G- Inc. 
(I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
(4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that 
knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has consistently 
interpreted the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any 
baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed 
position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Cherto.ff, 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"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
In the H-lB petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as an "e-commerce business 
and operations manager." In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner 
provided the following job duties for the position: 
She will focus on our customer-facing tasks in developing and serving key client 
accounts to develop an online marketing strategy and then secondly, to oversee the IT 
enablement of our client's online storefronts. She will also have responsibility for 
producing insights and assisting our executive management on identifying market and 
IT trends that can be used by our clients and our company to improve our overall 
global business strategies. 
30% 
Build project action plans[;] support design and deployment of a growth program: and 
manage strategy projects[;] and manage strategy plans[.] 
15% 
Help to define operational or structural change that [the Petitioner] can implement on 
the IT side and consult on integration of China sales platforms with client's current 
line revenue and shopping tools[.] 
2 
Matter of V-0-G- Inc. 
5% 
Manage external vendors including logistics companies in China and authorize 
special costs not originally anticipated by original contract and scope of work[.] 
30% 
Identify, track and communicate key trends [and] identify demand shifts and 
opportunities to capture new opportunities following trends in online sales events that 
are growing in China[.] 
15% 
Assess size, growth, and profitability of demand pools[;] develop quick execution 
plans[;] identify growth opportunities with regard to size, profitability, headroom for 
growth, fit with current business model[; and] deliver action plans with metrics[.] 
5% 
Facilitate development of annual strategic plans of company and help prepare for key 
events[.] 
According to the Petitioner, the position requires a bachelor's degree in business administration, 
international business, or a related field. 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 1 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or 
its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 2 
As a preliminary matter, the Petitioner's claim that a bachelor's degree in business administration, or 
a related field, is a sufficient minimum requirement for entry into the proffered position is 
inadequate to establish that the proposed position qualifies as a specialty occupation. In its letter of 
support, the Petitioner stated that the proffered position requires a bachelor's- degree in business 
administration, international business, or a related field, and listed various courses that the 
Beneficiary completed in acquiring her international business degree, which it claims are directly 
relevant to the duties of the profiered position. 
A petitioner must demonstrate that the proffered position requires a precise and specific course of 
study that relates directly and closely to the position in question. Since there must be a close 
1 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
3 
Matter of V-0-G- Inc. 
correlation between the required specialized studies and the position, the requirement of a degree 
with a generalized title, such as business administration, without further specification, does not 
establish the position as a specialty occupation. C.f Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 
558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). 
To prove that a job requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge as required by section 214(i)(l) of the Act, a petitioner must establish that the position 
requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specialized field of study or its 
equivalent. As discussed supra, USCIS interprets the degree requirement at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to require a degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed 
position. Although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business administration, 
may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will 
not justify a finding that a particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. 
Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007).3 
Again, the Petitioner in this matter claims that the duties of the proffered position can be performed 
by an individual with only a general-purpose bachelor's degree, i.e., a bachelor's degree in business 
administration. Without more, this assertion alone indicates that the proffered position is not in fact 
a specialty occupation. The Director's decision must therefore be affirmed and the appeal dismissed 
on this basis alone. 
Moreover, it also cannot be found that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation as 
the Petitioner has not satisfied any of the supplemental, additional criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
A. First Criterion 
We turn first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J), 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. To inform this inquiry, we recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's 
(DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses.4 
3 Specifically, the judge explained in Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147, that: 
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 the granting of a petition for an H-1 8 specialty 
occupation visa. See, e.g., Tapis lnt 'I 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., 191 & &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. 
4 All of our references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
4 
Matter of V-0-G- Inc. 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-1B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "General and Operations 
Managers" corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 11-1021.5 
The Handbook discusses general and operations managers in its Top Executives chapter. The 
Handbook states the following with regard to the educational requirements of top executives, 
including general and operations manager positions: 
Although education and training requirements vary widely by position and industry, 
many top executives have at least a bachelor's degree and a considerable amount of 
work experience. 
Education 
Many top executives have a bachelor's or master's degree in business administration 
or in an area related to their field of work. Top executives in the public sector often 
have a degree in business administration, public administration, law, or the liberal 
arts. Top executives of large corporations often have a master's degree in business 
administration (MBA). 
College presidents and school superintendents are typically required to have a 
master's degree, although a doctorate is often preferred. 
Although many mayors, governors, or other public sector executives have at least a 
bachelor's degree, these positions typically do not have any specific education 
requirements. 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not, however, maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant 
information. That is, the occupational category designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the 
general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered position, and USCIS regularly reviews the Handbook on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. To satisfy the first criterion, however, the 
burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position 
would normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
5 The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level I wage (the lowest of four assignable wage• levels). We will 
consider this selection in our analysis of the position. The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" issued by 
the DOL provides a description of the wage levels. A Levell wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which 
the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the occupation. This wage rate indicates: (I) that 
the Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that she 
will be closely supervised and her work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that she will receive 
specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing 
Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC_Guidance_Revised_ll_2009.pdf A prevailing wage determination starts 
with an entry level wage and progresses to a higher wage level after considering the experience, education, and skill 
requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. !d. 
5 
Matter of V-0-G- Inc. 
Work Experience in a Related Occupation 
Many top executives advance within their own firm, moving up from lower level 
managerial or supervisory positions. However, other companies may prefer to hire 
qualified candidates from outside their organization. Top executives who are 
promoted from lower level positions may be able to substitute experience for 
education to move up in the company. For example, in industries such as retail trade 
or transportation, workers without a college degree may work their way up to higher 
levels within the company to become executives or general managers. 
Chief executives typically need extensive managerial experience. Executives are also 
expected to have experience in the organization's area of specialty. Most general and 
operations managers hired from outside an organization need lower level supervisory 
or management experience in a related field. 
Some general managers advance to higher level managerial or executive positions. 
Company training programs, executive development programs, and certification can 
often benefit managers or executives hoping to advance. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., Top 
Executives, https ://www. b Is. gov I ooh/management/top-executi ves.htm#tab-4 (last visited 
Dec. 21, 2016). 
The Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's degree or the equivalen.t, in a specific specialty, is 
normally required for entry into a top executive position. Instead, the Handbook finds that these 
positions generally impose no specific degree requirement on individuals seeking employment. The 
statement that "many" top executives, which category includes general and operations managers, 
have college degrees is not synonymous with the "normal minimum requirement" standard imposed 
by this criterion. To the contrary, such a statement does not even necessarily indicate that a majority 
of top executives possess such a degree. While the Handbook indicates that top management 
positions may be filled by individuals with a broad range of degrees, its subsequent discussion of the 
training and education necessary for such employment clearly states that companies also hire 
executives based on lower-level experience within their own organizations or management 
experience with another business. Moreover, the Handbook does not state that those positions which 
do require a bachelor's degree or the equivalent require that the degree be in a specific specialty. 
As noted above, the Petitioner accepts a general bachelor's degree in business administration or a 
related field, with no specialty identified, as the minimum requirement to perform the job duties 
described. However, a petitioner must demonstrate that the proffered position requires a precise and 
specific course of study that relates directly and closely to the position in question. There must be a 
close correlation between the required specialized studies and the position; thus, the mere 
requirement of a business administration degree, without further specification, does not establish the 
position as a specialty occupation. C.f Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 
(Comm'r 1988). The Petitioner's acceptance of a four-year degree in business administration as 
6 
Matter of V-0-G- Inc. 
sufficient to perform the duties of the proffered position undermines its assertion that the proffered 
position is a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner cites to a recent district court case, Raj and Company v. US. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services, 85 F. Supp. 3d 1241 (W.O. Wash. 2015), and claims that it is relevant 
here.6 In the district court case, the employer designated the position as a "Marketing Analyst & 
Specialist" position. 7 We reviewed the decision; however, there is no indication that aspects of the 
work such as the duties and responsibilities, level of judgment, complexity of the job duties, 
supervisory duties, independent judgment required, or the amount of supervision received, are 
analogous to the proffered position here.8 Accordingly, there is no indication that the positions are 
similar. 
Further, in Raj, the court stated that a specialty occupation requires the attainment of a bachelor's 
degree or higher in a specific specialty, -or its equivalent. The court confirmed that this issue is well­
settled in case law and with USC IS' reasonable interpretation of the regulatory framework. In the 
decision, the court noted that "permitting an occupation to qualify simply by requiring a generalized 
bachelor degree would run contrary to congressional intent to provide a visa program for specialized, 
as opposed to merely educated, workers." The court stated that the regulatory provisions do not 
restrict qualifying occupations to those for which there exists a single, specifically tailored and titled 
degree program; but rather, the statute and regulations contain an equivalency provision.9 
In Raj, the court concluded that the employer met the first criterion. We must note, however, that 
the court stated that "[t]he first regulatory criterion requires the agency to examine the generic 
- position requirements of a market research analyst in order to determine whether a specific 
bachelor's degree or its equivalent is a minimum requirement for entry into the profession." Thus, 
the decision misstates the regulatory requirement. That is, the first criterion requires a petitioner to 
establish that a baccalaureate or higher degree (in a specific specialty) or its equivalent is normally 
the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position. 
6 
In contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case law of a United States circuit court, we are not bound to 
follow the published decision of a United States district court in matters arising even within the same district. See Matter 
of K-S-, 20 l&N Dec. 715 (BIA 1993). Although the reasoning underlying a district judge's decision will be given due 
consideration when it is properly before us, the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of law. !d. at 719. 
7 It is important to note and distinguish within the court's decision that "Marketing Analyst & Specialist" refers to the 
employer's particular position, whereas "Market Research Analysts" refers to a general occupational category. 
s We note that the service center director's decision was not appealed to our office. Based on the district court's findings 
and description of the record, ifthat matter had first been appealed through the available administrative process, we may 
very well have remanded the matter to the service center for a new decision in our de novo review of the matter. 
9 We agree with the court that a specialty occupation is one that requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree 
in a specific specialty or its equivalent. We further note that a petitioner must also demonstrate that the position requires 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in accordance with section 
214(i)(I)(B) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii), and satisfy one of the four criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). 
Matter of V-0-G- Inc. 
Consequently, if the court meant to suggest that any position classified under the occupational 
category "Market Research Analysts" would, as it stated, "come within the first qualifying criteria" -
we must disagree. 10 The occupational category designated by a petitioner is considered as an aspect 
in establishing the general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered position, and USCIS regularly 
reviews the Handbook on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations 
that it addresses. However, to satisfy the first criterion, the burden of proof remains on the petitioner 
to submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position would normally have a 
minimum, specialty degree requirement or its equivalent for entry. That is, to determine whether a 
particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCIS does not simply rely on a position's title or 
designated occupational category. The specit!c duties of the protiered position, combined with the 
nature of the petitioning entity's business operations, are factors to be considered. USCIS must 
examine the ultimate employment of the beneficiary, and determine whether the position qualifies as 
a specialty occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d at 384. 
Nevertheless, it is important to note that the court in Raj determined that the evidence in the record 
demonstrated that the particular position proffered required a bachelor's degree in market research or 
its equivalent as a minimum for entry. Further, the court noted that "[t]he patently specialized nature 
of the position sets it apart from those that merely require a generic degree." The position in Raj 
can, therefore, be distinguished from the instant position. Here, the Petitioner continually cites to its 
business in e-commerce and claims that the duties of the proffered position are precise and complex; 
however, the duties and requirements of the position as described in the record of proceeding do not 
indicate that this particular position proffered by the Petitioner is one for which a baccalaureate or 
higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry. 
The Petitioner also cites to Residential Fin. Corp. v. US. Citizenship & Immigration Services, 839 F. 
Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012) as relevant here. As in Raj, the H-1B petition in Residential Fin. 
Corp. was never appealed to our office through the available administrative process. Nevertheless, 
we note that the district judge's decision in Residential Fin. Corp. appears to have been based 
largely on the many factual errors made by the service center in its decision denying the petition. 
Had we been afforded the opportunity to do so, based on that court's findings, we may very well 
have remanded the matter to the service center for a new decision for many of the same reasons 
articulated by the district court if these errors could not have been remedied by our de novo review 
of the matter. It is important to note that in a subsequent case that was reviewed in the same 
jurisdiction, the court agreed with our analysis of Residential Fin. Corp. See Health Carousel, LLC 
v. US. Citizenship & Immigration Services, No. 1 :13-CV-23, 2014 WL 29591 (S.D. Ohio 2014). 
Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
10 In Raj, the court quoted a brief excerpt from the Handbook; however, the quotation is from the 2012-2013 edition 
rather than the current 2016-20 I 7 edition (which contains several revisions). Further, we observe that the court did not 
address the section of the Handbook indicating that there are no specific degree requirements to obtain the Professional 
Researcher Certification credential- and therefore to work as a market research analyst. 
8 
Matter of V-0-G- Inc. 
B. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs: "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[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong 
casts its gaze upon the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
As stated earlier, 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 the proffered position is one 
for which the Handbook (or other independent, authoritative sources) 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. In addition, 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." 
The Petitioner does not submit probative evidence that demonstrates the degree requirement is 
common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. Therefore, the Petitioner 
has not satisfied the criterion ofthe first alternative prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
9 
Matter of V-0-G- Inc. 
2. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
In this matter, the evidence of record does not distinguish the proffered position as unique from or 
more complex than other e-commerce business and operations manager positions that can be 
performed by persons without at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
It does not credibly demonstrate relative complexity or uniqueness as aspects of the proffered position. 
Specifically, it is unclear how the proffered position, as described, necessitates the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge such that a person who has attained a 
bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent is required to perform them. Rather, 
we find that, as reflected in this decision's earlier quotation of the duty description from the record 
of proceeding, the evidence of record does not distinguish the proffered position from other positions 
falling within the "General and Operations Managers" occupational category, which, the Handbook 
indicates, do not necessarily require a person with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty 
or its equivalent to enter those positions. 
On appeal, the Petitioner cites to its unique and sophisticated business model and states that the 
proffered position is a specialty occupation due to the Petitioner's certification as a "Tmall" provider 
enabling its U.S. clients to accept online transactions, in addition to the inherent complexity in 
providing integr~ted services to China's emerging and highly regulated and complex e-commerce 
platforms. The Petitioner also cites its revenue share agreement with clients as an indicator of the 
highly complex nature of the proffered position. That is, the Petitioner asserts that its income is 
based on how well the Beneficiary and her team perform in bringing revenue to their clients. As 
such, the Petitioner contends that the cross-border e-commerce transactions are complex and unique 
and justify requiring a degree in international business as a qualifying degree. The Petitioner states 
that given the unique, complex, and sophisticated nature of its business model, the protTered position 
requires a candidate with a bachelor's degree in international business. The Petitioner further states 
that the proffered position will supervise four individuals, two market research analysts (one in the 
United States and one in China) and two account managers, furthering the complexity of the 
position. 
Although the Petitioner provided a detailed description of the duties of the proffered position, the 
information provided does not demonstrate that the nature of the position will be so complex or 
unique that it requires a candidate with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. While the 
Petitioner claims that the position focuses on "[the Petitioner's] customer-facing tasks in serving key 
client accounts to develop an online marketing strategy[,] and then secondly, to oversee the IT 
enablement of [the Petitioner's] clients' online storefronts," the Petitioner does not demonstrate hmv 
the e-commerce business and operations manager's duties described require the theoretical and 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter of V-0-G- Inc. 
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, in its letter of support, the Petitioner identified 10 courses, including International 
Marketing, Macroeconomics, Statistics, International Finance, Operations Research, Import-Export 
Business, International Trade Law, Enterprise Administration Concerning Affairs, Overview of 
Britain and United States, and Communications without Cultural Borders as courses that are directly 
relevant to the Beneficiary's duties in the proffered position. While these courses may be beneficial, 
or even essential, in performing certain duties of an e-commerce business and operations manager 
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 proffered position. 
This is further evidenced by the LCA submitted by the Petitioner in support of the instant petition. The 
Petitioner designated the proffered position at a Level I wage on the LCA, relative to other positions 
located within the "General and Operations Managers" occupational category, indicating that the 
Beneficiary would perform only routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; close 
supervision of work, monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and the receipt of specific instructions on 
required tasks and expected results. Without further evidence, the evidence does not demonstrate that 
the proffered position is complex or unique as such a position falling under this occupational category 
would likely be classified at a higher-level, such as a Level III (experienced) or Level IV (fully 
competent) position, requiring a significantly higher prevailing wage.11 For example, a Level IV (fully 
competent) position is designated by DOL for employees who "use advanced skills and diversified 
knowledge to solve unusual and complex problems." The evidence of record does not establish that this 
position is significantly different from other positions in the occupational category such that it refutes 
the Handbook 's information that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is not 
required for the proffered position. 
Furthermore, in response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted two oprmon letters authored by 
of and a lecturer in Executive 
Development at the at the 
respectively. Both stated that they reviewed the position and offered their opinions ofthe academic 
requirements necessary to perform the listed duties of the proffered position. 
11 The issue here is that the Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I position undermines its claim that the 
position is particularly complex, specialized , or unique compared to other positions within the same 
occupation. Nevertheless , it is important to note that a Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position 
from classification as a specialty occupation. In certain occupations (doctors or lawyers , for example), such a position 
would still require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for entry. Similarly , 
however, a Level IV wage-designation would not reflect that an occupation qualifies as a specialty occupation if that 
higher-level position does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor 's degree in a specific specialty or its 
equivalent. That is, a position's wage level designation may be a consideration but is not a substitute for a detennination 
of whether a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)( I) of the Act. 
II 
(b)(6)
Matter of V-0-G- Inc. 
opined that the candidate for the proffered position "should be well educated in a 
broad range of international business topics so he or she can understand complex cross-border 
e-commerce issues." He further opined that "the duties require a high degree of expertise ... the 
applicant should have a bachelor's degree in International Business or a related academic field." 
concluded that "this is a position that requires the theoretical and practical application of 
highly specialized knowledge that is usually associated with at least the attainment of a bachelor's 
degree in Business Administration, International Business, or a related field." also 
provided insight to some of the listed duties and the educational requirements, found within the 
bachelor's degree curriculum for international business, as skills required in the theoretical and 
practical application of an advanced highly specialized body of knowledge. 
cited 11 courses completed by the Beneficiary in the attainment of her degree and stated 
that the listed courses are directly relevant to the proffered position and necessary for successful 
performance. then listed 8 specific duties and opined that "these job functions require 
specialized abilities in e-commerce and daily operations management as [the Petitioner] implements 
its overall business strategy to help U.S. brands, retailers, and businesses realize their online 
potential in China." further 
opined that "due to the highly professional nature of this 
work with [the Petitioner], the position offered to [the Beneficiary] requires - at a minimum -
a 
relevant degree in 
business." 
However, neither nor discuss the Petitioner's designation of this 
position as requiring only a Level I wage. Additionally, neither nor 
explain or distinguish the duties of the proffered position from the Handbook's report on 
administrative services managers. It also appears that the duties reviewed by both evaluators were 
provided to them by the Petitioner, and they do not appear to have any independent knowledge of the 
Petitioner and its business. For these reasons, we do not find either opinion sufficient to support the 
Petitioner's assertion that the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, and thus qualifies as a specialty occupation. We may, in our discretion, use 
opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter ofCaron Int'l, Inc.·, 19 I&N Dec. 
791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is 
in any way questionable, we are not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. !d. 
Here, the record does not include sufficient information relevant to a detailed course of study leading 
to a specialty degree and the Petitioner has not established how such a curriculum is necessary to 
perform the duties it claims are so complex. While a fevv· related courses may be beneficial in 
performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how an established 
curriculum of such courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher degiee in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, is required to perform the duties of the proffered position. 
Additionally, we again note that the Petitioner has designated the proffered position as requiring 
only a Level I wage, that requires only a basic understanding of the occupation. Given the 
Handbook's indication that general and operations manager positions do not normally require at 
least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, for entry, it is not credible that a 
12 
Matter of V-0-G- Inc. 
pos1tlon involving limited, if any, exercise of independent judgment, close supervisiOn and 
monitoring, receipt of specific instructions on required tasks and expected results, and close review 
would contain such a requirement. Thus, 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. 
Consequently, as the Petitioner does not demonstrate how the proffered position is so complex or 
unique relative to other e-commerce business and operations manager positions that do not require at 
least a baccalaureate degree in a specitic 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 
of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. Third Criterion 
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. 
The Petitioner has explicitly stated that this is the first time it is hiririg for this position, and 
submitted the resumes of the Beneficiary's proposed subordinates to demonstrate that her 
subordinates have an advanced degree and thus, the Beneficiary in the proffered position must also 
have an advanced degree. While a first-time hiring for a position is certainly not a basis for 
precluding a position from recognition as a specialty occupation, it is unclear how an employer that 
has never recruited and hired for the position would be able to satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3), which requires a demonstration that it normally requires at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for the position. Here, although the 
proposed subordinates may have advanced degrees, it is not sutlicient to demonstrate that the 
proffered position requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. We cannot conclude that the 
Petitioner has satisfied the third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 12 
D. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature 
of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
12 
While a petitioner may believe or otherwise assert that a proffered position requires a degree in a specific specialty, 
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 employer 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, 20 I F. 3d at 387. In other words, if a 
petitioner's degree requirement is only symbolic and the proffered position does not in fact require such a specialty 
degree, or its equivalent, to perform its duties, the occupation would not meet the statutO!)' or regulatOI)' definition of a 
specialty occupation. See section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty 
occupation"). 
13 
(b)(6)
Matter of V-0-G- Inc. 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. 
The Petitioner asserts that the job duties of the proffered position are specialized and complex. We refer 
to our earlier comments and findings with regard to the implication of the Petitioner's designation of the 
profferyd position in the LCA as a Level I wage, and hence one not likely distinguishable by relatively 
specialized and complex duties. We have also reviewed the Petitioner's description of duties for the 
proffered position, including the Petitioner' s expanded version of the description submitted in response 
to the RFE, along with the expert opinion evaluations authored by and 
While we understand that the Beneficiary may require technical knowledge in order to perform these 
duties, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how these duties require the theoretical and practical 
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment of a bachelor's or higher 
degree in a specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the 
United States. Upon review of the totality of the record, the record does not include probative evidence 
that the duties require more than technical proficiency in the e-commerce and operations management 
field. The Petitioner has not demonstrated in the record that its proffered position is one with duties 
sufficiently specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
As discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. 
The burden is on the Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter o.fOtiende , 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden 
has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter o.fV-0- G- Inc., ID# 191432 (AAO Dec. 30, 2016) 
14