dismissed H-1B Case: Finance

MATTER OF M-P-I- CORP. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 30.2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a shipping and freight forwarding company. seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a '"financial analyse under the H-1 B nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 8U.S.C. 
§ 110l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-1 B program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified 
foreign worker in a position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body 
of highly specialized knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the 
specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition. concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish, as required, that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and contends that the petition should be approved. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 1 
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. 
1 
We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in Matter (!f Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369. 375-76 
(AAO 2010). 
Matter (~f M-P-1- Corp. 
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: 
(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 
( .J) 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). We have consistently interpreted the term ''degree'' to mean not just 
any baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the 
proposed position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertqff; 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''); Delensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner stated in the H-1 B petition that the Beneficiary will serve as a "financial analyst." In 
its support letter, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would perform the following duties (note: 
errors in the original text have not been changed): 
• Review and analyze company financial statements, sales and production reports to 
measure productivity and goal achievement. 
• Analyze new business opportunities and evaluate financial risks to advise on business 
expansion options. 
• Prepare cash flow models, financial forecasts and other financial models as part of 
Company financial planning process. 
• Analyze the organization's processes and procedures, identifying efficiencies and 
bottlenecks and recommending streamlined processes to improve efficiency and goal 
achievements. 
• Be a part of the financial planning process including budgets and monthly forecasts in 
accordance with the overall financial plan. 
2 
Matter qf M-P-1- Corp. 
• Organize and document findings of studies; and make recommendations to 
management on implementation of new systems. procedural changes to achieve 
company goals. 
• Interact with other senior managers and executives to assure smooth functioning of 
newly implemented systems and procedures. 
• Conduct competitive analysis, industry analysis and other ad hoc projects which 
involve financial and debt analysis. 
• Work closely with Directors in identifying emerging economic and financial issues 
affecting business and assist in the development and implementation of strategies 
from a financial standpoint? 
In its support letter, the Petitioner stated that the position requires a bachelor"s degree in business 
administration, finance, or the equivalent. In its RFE response, the Petitioner stated that it ··cannot 
and would not hire someone for the position with less than a Bachelor's degree in Business or a 
related field. "3 
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 qualities as a specialty occupation.
4 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background. or 
its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 5 
Before addressing the specialty-occupation criteria contained at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(-l). 
we will briefly discuss an issue which precludes a finding that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation. 
As noted, the Petitioner states that a bachelor's degree in business administration would adequately 
prepare an individual to perform the duties of the proffered position. However. that claim is 
inadequate to establish that the proposed position qualities as a specialty occupation. 
2 The Petitioner added additional details, including the percentages of time the Benetlciary would spend performing the 
various tasks, in response to the Director's request for additional evidence (RFE) and on appeal. We reviewed the record 
in its entirety. 
3 On appeal, the Petitioner amends this requirement to a bachelor's degree in business administration "in tlnance." We 
will not consider this amendment. The Petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of tiling the nonimmigrant visa 
petition and must continue to be eligible for the benetlt through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. ~ I 03.2(b )(I). A visa petition 
may not be approved at a future date after the Petitioner or Beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See 
Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248, 249 (Reg'! Comm'r 1978). 
4 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
5 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 M-P-1- Corp. 
A petitioner must demonstrate that the protTered position requires a precise and specific course of 
study that relates directly to the position in question. Since there must be a close 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.'l Matter of Michael Hertz Assoc.s·., 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. Again, we interpret 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. We have consistently 
stated that, 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 qualities for classification as a 
specialty occupation. Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147. 
Again, the Petitioner asserts that the duties of the proffered pos1t10n can be performed by an 
individual with only a general-purpose bachelor's degree, i.e., a bachelor's degree in business 
administration. That statement alone indicates that the protTered position is not in fact a specialty 
occupation. The Director's decision must therefore be affirmed and the appeal dismissed on this 
basis alone. Though this issue precludes approval of this H -1 B petition, we will nonetheless review 
the evidence of record in light of the four specialty-occupation criteria contained at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214 .2(h )( 4 )(iii)( A )(1 )-(../) for the purpose of performing a more comprehensive analysis. 
A. First Criterion 
We turn first to the criterion at 8 C.F.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. To inform this inquiry. we recognize the U.S. Depmtment of Labor's 
(DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and 
educational requirements ofthe wide variety of occupations that it addresses.
6 
On the labor condition application (LCA)7 submitted in support of the H-1 B petition. the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category ·'Financial Analysts" 
6 All of our references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook. which may be accessed at the Internet site 
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 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 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. 
7 The Petitioner is required to submit a cetiified LCA to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B worker the higher of either 
the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the ''area of employment" or the actual wage paid by the 
4 
Matter of M-P-1- Corp. 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 13-2051. 8 The Hand hook's chapter 
entitled "How to Become a Financial Analyst" states the following: 
Most positions require a bachelor's degree. A number of fields of study provide 
appropriate preparation, including accounting, economics, finance. statistics. and 
mathematics. For advanced positions, employers often require a master's degree in 
business administration (MBA) or a master's degree in finance. Knowledge of 
options pricing, bond valuation, and risk management are important. 
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook. Financial 
Analysts (20 16-17 ed. ). 
These findings do not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. or the equivalent. is 
normally required for these positions. To the contrary. the Handbook indicates that while most 
positions do require a bachelor's degree, a wide range of degrees are acceptable. According to the 
Handbook, a bachelor's degree in accounting, economics, finance, statistics. or mathematics. or a 
master's degree in business administration or finance. could provide sutticient educational 
preparation for a position as a financial analyst. However. to demonstrate 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. we 
interpret 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. The issue here is that it is not readily 
apparent that these various fields of study are closely related or that all of those fields are directly 
related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position proffered in this matter. 
Therefore, absent evidence of a direct relationship between the claimed degrees required and the 
duties and responsibilities of the position, it cannot be found that the proffered position requires 
anything more than a general bachelor's degree. Again. we interpret 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. We have consistently stated that. although a general-purpose bachelor's degree. 
employer to other employees with similar experience and qualifications who are performing the same services. 
See Matter olSimeio Solutions. LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 545-546 (AAO 20 15). 
8 The Petiti~ner 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 Level I 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: ( 1) that 
the Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any. exercise of judgment: (2) that he 
will be closely supervised and his work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy: and (3) that he 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://tlcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _1 I_ 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 M-P-1- Corp. 
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 qualities 
for classification as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 14 7. 
In addition, when comparing the duties of the proffered position to those of other positions located 
within this occupational category. we note that the Petitioner stated on the LCA that it will pay the 
Beneficiary a Level I wage, which indicates that it is an entry-level position. Given the Handbook's 
implication that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent. is not normally 
required for financial analyst positions, it seems unlikely that an entry-level position possessing 
these characteristics would carry such a requirement. 
The Petitioner submits information from several other sources for our consideration under this 
criterion, including printouts from and Upon review, we 
find none of it persuasive. 
Like the Handbook, the printouts from indicate that a range of degrees and fields of study 
provide adequate preparation for a career as a financial advisor or a financial analyst. In addition. 
they specifically state that a general-purpose bachelor's degree - business in the case of financial 
advisors and business administration in the case of financial analysts - would suffice. As discussed. 
neither degree-ranges nor general-purpose bachelor's degrees are acceptable for purposes of 
establishing a profTered position as a specialty occupation. The printouts are consequently 
not sut1icient to meet the Petitioner's burden. As it indicates that a bachelor's degree in business is 
common, the printout from is inadequate for the same reason. 
Nor is the Report sufficient to carry the Petitioner's burden. The Report contains 
snapshots of ten financial analyst positions, and indicates that most - but not all - possess at least a 
bachelor's degree. It does not. however. report that they possess a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty. Further, it reports that at least three of these individuals possess a general-purpose degree 
in business administration. In other words. the Report reports findings similar to those of 
the Handbook. In any event, it does not satisfy this criterion. 
Nor does the position evaluation the Petitioner submits meet its burden. According to 
a bachelor's degree in business administration would adequately prepare an 
individual to perform the duties of the protTered position. Again, a requirement for a bachelor's 
degree in business administration is inadequate to establish that a position qualities as a specialty 
occupation. Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. For this reason alone. 
evaluation does not satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
However, even if we set that foundational deficiency aside. we would still find that 
evaluation did not satisfy the first criterion. First. does not discuss the 
Petitioner's business operation beyond his single-paragraph summarization. Nor does he describe 
the duties of the proffered position in any meaningful detail beyond the same bullet-pointed narrative 
provided by the Petitioner, and he does not describe them within the context in which they actually 
.
Maller of M-P-1- Corp. 
be performed within the Petitioner's specific business operation. Moreover , he does not discuss or 
reference the Petitioner's Level I wage-level designation, which we consider a significant omission. 
Considered collectively , we find that these shortcomings indicate an incomplete review of the 
proffered position. 
We may , in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of 
Caron 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. ld. We find that evaluation does not satisfy 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l) and, for the sake of efficiency, hereby incorporate this finding into 
our analysis of the remaining specialty-occupation criteria. 
For all of these reasons, we find that the Petitioner has not established that the proffered position is 
located within an occupational category for which the Handbook, or any other relevant, authoritative 
source , indicates that the normal minimum entry requirement is at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty , or the equivalent. Consequently, the evidence of record does not support a finding 
that the particular position proffered here , an entry-level financial analyst position , would normally 
have such a minimum specialty degree requirement, or the equivalent. The Petitioner therefore has 
not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
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 onl y 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 tirst 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 . 
We generally consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there is such a common 
degree requirement: 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 establish that such firms "routinely 
employ and recruit only degreed individuals." See ,)hanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 115 L 1165 
(D. Minn. 1999) (quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp . 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y . 1989) 
(considering these "factors " to inform the commonalit y of a degree requirement)) . 
.., 
Matter r?f M-P-1- Corp. 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook, or another authoritative source, reports a 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 industry to establish that such firms 
'·routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." 
The record contains vacancy announcements for our consideration under this prong. However. for 
the Petitioner to establish that an advertising organization is similar, it must demonstrate that the 
Petitioner and the organization share the same general characteristics. Without such evidence. 
postings submitted by a Petitioner are generally outside the scope of consideration for this criterion. 
which encompasses only organizations that are similar to the Petitioner. When determining whether 
the Petitioner and the advertising organization share the same general characteristics, such factors 
may include information regarding the nature or type of organization, and, when pertinent, the 
particular scope of operations, as well as the level of revenue and staffing (to list just a few clements 
that may be considered). 
Upon review of these documents, we find that they do not establish that a requirement for a 
bachelor's degree, in a specific specialty, is common to the Petitioner's industry in similar 
organizations for parallel positions to the proffered position. As noted, the Petitioner attested to 
DOL that the proffered position is a Level I, entry-level position. However, many of the advertised 
positions require work experience, some significant. Furthermore, at least two of the advertised 
positions contain the descriptor "senior" in their job titles, which suggests further that they are not 
Level I positions. 9 Moreover, several of the announcements contain phrases which indicate they do 
not advertise Level I positions (e.g., "[ability to] focus on task completion with little direction or 
need for supervisory follow-up,'' "[a]bility to work independently," ""achieve results with minimal 
supervision and oversight," "without much guidance). Considered collectively, these factors 
indicate that the advertised positions are not entry-level positions with Level I characteristics, and 
that they are therefore not ""parallel" to the one proffered here. 
Nor does the record establish that any of these positions were placed by companies that both 
(1) conduct business in the Petitioner's ·'industry'' and (2) are otherwise ""similar'' to the Petitioner. 
Though the Petitioner's assertions are acknowledged, a petitioner's unsupported statements are of 
very limited weight and normally will be insufficient to carry its burden of proof. The Petitioner 
must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Maller ofChawathe. 
25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
9 
In fact, the DOL wage-level guidance discussed above states that inclusion of the word "senior" in a job title is an 
indicator that a Level III wage should be considered. 
Matter ofM-P-1- Corp. 
For all of these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that these job vacancy announcements are 
relevant. 10 Even if that threshold had been met, we would find that they did not satisfy this prong of 
the second criterion, as they do not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a .\pecific specialty. or the 
equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 11 To the 
contrary, four advertisers indicate they would find an associate's degree acceptable, and nearly all 
would accept a general-purpose bachelor's degree in business or business administration. Again, we 
interpret the term "degree" to mean not just any baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific 
specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 14 7: 
Defensor, 201 F.3d 384 at 387. A bachelor's degree in business, or in business administration. 
without more, is not a degree in a specific specialty. Royal Siam Corp., 484 F .3d at 14 7. 
Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)(2). 
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. 
We find that the Petitioner has not sufficiently developed relative complexity or uniqueness as an 
aspect of the proffered position. In other words, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the duties 
of the proffered position as described in the record 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. 
The Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. or the equivalent. is 
normally required for positions located within the occupational category designated by the 
10 
The Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how representative the job postings are of the particular 
advertising employers' recruiting history for the type of job advertised. As the advertisements are only solicitations for 
hire, they are not evidence of the actual hiring practices of these employers. 
11 
In addition, the Petitioner does not demonstrate what statistically valid inferences, if any. could be drawn from the job 
postings with regard to the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. 
See generally Earl Bahhie. The Practice of S'ocial Research 186-228 (7th ed. 1995). Moreover. given that there is no 
indication that the advertisements were randomly selected, the validity of any such inferences could not be accurately 
detennined even ifthe sampling unit were sufficiently large. See id. at 195-96 (explaining that ·'[r]andom selection is the 
key to [the] process [of probability sampling]" and that "random selection offers access to the body of probability theory, 
which provides the basis for estimates of population parameters and estimates of error"). 
As such, even if the job vacancy announcements supported the finding that the position requires a bachelor's or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, it could not be found that such a limited number ofpostings that appear to 
have been consciously selected could credibly refute the findings of the Handbook published by the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics that such a position does not normally require at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
9 
Matter of M-P-1- Corp. 
Petitioner. The Petitioner's implications that the knowledge and associated entry requirements 
associated with the proffered position exceed those of other positions located within the occupational 
category are acknowledged. However, the Petitioner's Level I wage designation undercuts any 
claim that it satisfies this criterion. 12 In other words, if typical positions located within the 
occupational category do not require a bachelor's degree in a spec(fic specialty. or the equivalent, 
then it is unclear how a position with the Level I characteristics described above would. regardless of 
these and similar assertions. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position, and references his 
qualifications repeatedly. However, as discussed. the test to establish a position as a specialty 
occupation is not the education or experience of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position 
itself requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. We find that 
Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of 
the position, and that it did not identify any tasks that are so complex or unique that only a 
specifically degreed individual could perform them. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not 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 
record must establish that a petitioner's stated degree requirement is not a matter of preference for 
high-caliber candidates but is necessitated instead by performance requirements of the position. See 
Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. If we were limited solely to reviewing the 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 created a token degree 
requirement. Jd. Evidence provided in support of this criterion may include, but is not limited to. 
documentation regarding the Petitioner's past recruitment and hiring practices, as well as 
information regarding employees who previously held the position. 
The Petitioner has submitted a copy of an advertisement it placed for the proffered position, as well 
as evidence regarding two individuals it claims to have employed in the position. for our 
consideration under this criterion. Upon review, we find none of it persuasive. 
12 
The Petitioner's designation ofthis position as a Level I, entry-level position undermines its claim that the position is 
particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation. Nevertheless, a 
Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty occupation. just as a 
Level IV wage-designation does not definitively establish such a classification. In certain occupations (e.g .. doctors or 
lawyers), a Level I. entry-level 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 relevant factor but is not 
itself conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)( I) of the Act. 
10 
Matter <?f M-P-1- Corp. 
In addition to stating a requirement for work experience. the Petitioner's advertisement states that a 
successful applicant would provide leadership and have the ability to manage teams. These 
requirements appear to be at odds with the Petitioner's Level I designation, which raises questions as 
to whether the advertisement relates to the position proffered here. Setting that issue aside. we 
observe that the language ofthe advertisement indicates that a bachelor's degree in any field of study 
-as opposed to a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent- would suftice. For all 
ofthese reasons, the Petitioner's advertisement does not satisfy the third criterion. 
Nor is the evidence regarding the two other employees persuasive. First, the Petitioner does not 
assert or otherwise establish that either holds the type of the entry-level position with the Level I 
characteristics described above. Thus, it is not apparent that either employee holds the same position 
as the one proffered here. If either employee was recruited by the advertisement just discussed, such 
would not appear to be the case. Moreover. given that one of these individuals holds a ''Bachelor of 
Arts" degree with no apparent specialization, it is not clear that the Petitioner normally requires a 
bachelor's degree in a spec(fic .~pecialty, or the equivalent. 
Without more, the Petitioner has not provided sufticient evidence to establish that it normally 
requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the proffered 
position. Therefore, it has not satisfied the third criterion of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
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 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty. or 
its equivalent. 
We acknowledge the Petitioner's assertions regarding the specialization and complexity of the 
position's duties. However, they have not been sufficiently developed by the Petitioner to establish 
that they are more specialized and complex than financial analyst positions that are not usually 
associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
We also incorporate our earlier discussion and analysis regarding the duties of the proffered position. 
and the designation of the proffered position in the LCA as a Level I position (of the lowest of four 
assignable wage-levels) relative to others within the same occupational category. 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)(..,I). 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualities as a specialty occupation. 
I 1 
Matter of M-P-1- Corp. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 13 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofM-P-1- Corp., ID# 528478 (AAO Aug. 30, 2017) 
13 
Because this issue precludes approval ofthe petition we will not address any of the additional issues we have observed 
in our de novo review of this matter. 
12