dismissed H-1B Case: Finance

(b)(6)
DATE : JUL 1 0 2015 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Benefici ary: 
PETITION RECEIPT#: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service 
Administrativ e Appeals Office 
20 Massachu se tts Ave ., N.W., MS 2090 
Was hington , 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, 
rg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www. uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and 
affirmed her decision denying the petition after granting a subsequent motion. The matter is now 
before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal 
will be dismissed. 
I. INTRODUCTION 
On the Form I-129 visa petition, the petitioner describes itself as a 37-employee bank established 
in In order to employ the beneficiary in what it designates as a loan officer position at a 
salary of $24 per hour, 1 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 denied the petition, concluding that the evidence of record did not establish that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The record of proceeding before us contains the following: (1) the Form I-129 and supporting 
documentation; (2) the Director's request for additional evidence (RFE); (3) the petitioner's 
response to the RFE; (4) the Director's letter denying the petition; (5) the Form I-290B, Notice of 
Appeal or Motion, and supporting documentation submitted in support of the motion; (6) the 
Director's letter granting the motion and affirming her previous decision denying the petition; and 
(7) the Form I-290B and supporting documentation submitted in support of the appeal. 
Upon review of the entire record of proceeding, we find that the evidence of record does not 
overcome the Director's basis for denying this petition. 2 Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed, 
and the petition will be denied. 
II. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
A. Legal Framework 
To meet the petitioner's burden of proof in establishing the proffered posttlon as a specialty 
occupation, the evidence of record must establish that the employment the petitioner is offering to 
the beneficiary meets the following statutory and regulatory requirements. 
1 The Labor Condition Application (LCA) submitted by the petitioner in support of the petition was 
certified for use with a job prospect within the "Loan Officers" occupational classification, SOC 
(O*NET/OES) Code 13-2072, and a Level I (entry-level) prevailing wage rate, the lowest of the four 
assignable wage-levels. 
2 In the exercise of our administrative review in this matter, as in all matters that come within our purview, 
we follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in the controlling precedent decision, 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010), unless the law specifically provides that a different 
standard applies. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
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.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.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, a proposed position 
must meet one of the following criteria: 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel 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.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must logically be read together 
with section 214(i)(1) of the Act and 8 C.F.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. and Loan Ins. 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.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) should logically be read as being necessary but not necessarily 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page4 
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.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory or regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 
201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). To avoid this result, 8 C.F.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.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(ii), USCIS consistently interprets 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 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, USCIS 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. USCIS 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 qaccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty as the minimum for 
entry into the occupation, as required by the Act. 
B. Analysis 
A baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is 
normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position 
To make our determination as to whether the employment described above qualifies as a specialty 
occupation, we turn first to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(1), which is satisfied by 
establishing that a baccalaureate or higher degree, or its equivalent, in a specific specialty is 
normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position that is the subject of the 
petition. 
In its support letter, the petitioner describes the duties of the proffered position and indicates the 
percentages of time the beneficiary would spend on its various tasks as follows: 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
Hours Spent on %of Time on 
Duties/Responsibilities Duty Each Duty Each 
Week Week 
• Interview loan applicants to provide advisory 
services as to the satisfaction of bank lending 
requirements[.] 
• Advise clients on financial performance 16 hours 40% guidance, including action-step with real time 
analysis and risk mitigation. 
• Read data, analyze , and present cogent advice 
based on anal ysisf .1 
• Review all relevant financial/credit/collateral 
inform ation[.] 
• Conduct a comprehensive analysis of 
financial data to recommend approval/denial 
of requested credit including tax return, 
income statements, profit and loss 
spreadsheets and cash flow historical reports 
and forecasts[.] 12 hours 30% 
• Review all collater al requirements, perform 
due diligence on those assets as well as 
seeking asset valu ations, title reports, lien 
searches, escrow documents and other asset 
related documentations[.] 
• Perform underwriting and report preparation 
for bank managersf.l 
Manage - existing loan • 
portfolio[.] 
• Assist branch manager in soliciting 10 hours 25% business(.] 
• Attend staff meetings as well as branch 
manager meetings or loan decisionsf.l 
• Keep abreast with market and trends[.] 5% 2 hours 
• Be aware with culture sensitivityf .1 
The petitioner also stated that the loan officer position requires a minimum of a "Bachelor's degree 
in Business, Finance, or related field." 
The Director found the initial evidence insufficient to demonstrate that the proffered position was 
a specialty occupation and requested further evidence. In its RFE response letter, the petitioner 
stated that three of the principal responsibilities of the proffered position - the financial forensics, 
the advisory services , and the underwriting and report preparation - are associated with a college 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
degree, and indicated which courses the beneficiary had completed satisfied the requirements of 
those duties. 
We recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL's) Occupational Outlook Handbook (the 
Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of the wide 
variety of occupations it addresses. 3 As noted above, the LCA that the petitioner submitted in 
support of this petition was certified for a job offer falling within the "Loan Officers" occupation al 
category. 
The Handbook states the following with regard to the educational requirements necessary for 
entrance into this field: 
Most loan officers need a bachelor's degree and receive on-the-job training. 
Mortgage loan officers must be licensed. 
Education 
Loan officers typically need a bachelor's degree, usually in a field such as business 
or finance. Because commercial loan officers analyze the finances of businesses 
applying for credit, they need to understand general business accounting, including 
how to read financial statements. 
Some loan officers may be able to enter the occupation without a bachelor's degree 
if they have related work experience, such as in sales, customer service, or banking. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook , 2014-15 ed., 
"Loan Officers ," available at http://www.bls.gov /ooh/business-and-financial /loanofficers.htm# 
tab-4 (last visited July 8, 2015). 
The Handbook does not support the assertion that a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for these positions. In fact, it 
states that with related work experience, some loan officers may enter the occupation without a 
bachelor's degree. Thus, the Handbook does not support the claim that the occupational category 
of loan officers is one for which normally the minimum requirement for entry is a baccalaureate 
degree (or higher) in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Even if it did, the record lacks 
sufficient evidence to support a finding that the particular position proffered here, an entry-level 
loan officer position, would normally have such a minimum, specialty degree requirement or its 
equivalent. 
Furthermore, in its support Jetter, the petitioner stated that the proffered position normally requires 
at least a bachelor's degree or higher in business, finance, or a related field. However , the 
3 The Handbook , which is available in printed form , may also be accessed onlin e a l 
http://www.stats.bls.g ov/oco/. Our references to the Handbook are from the 2014-15 edition avail able 
online. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
requirement of a bachelor's degree in business is inadequate to establish that a position qualifies as 
a specialty occupation. A petitioner must demonstrate that the proffered 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 adminsitration, without further 
specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of Michael 
Hertz Associates , 19 I&N Dec. 558 (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 explained above, 
USCIS interprets the degree requirement at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to require a degree in a 
specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. USCIS has 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 qualifies for classification as a specialty 
occupation. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007). 
Again, the petitioner 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. 
Without more, this assertion alone indicates that the proffered position is not in fact a specialty 
occupation. 
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. Thus, the evidence of the record does not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
The requirement of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel 
positions among similar organizations 
Next, we will review the record of proceeding regarding 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 identifiable as being (1) in the petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the 
proffered position, and also (3) located in organizations that are similar to the petitioner. 
Here and as already discussed, the evidence of record does not establish that the petitioner's proffered 
position is one for which the Handbook reports an industry-wide requirement for at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. Also, there are no submissions from professional 
associations in the petitioner's industry attesting that individuals employed in positions parallel to the 
proffered position are routinely required to have a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent for entry into those positions. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
While the assertions of with regard to an industry­
wide recruiting and hiring standard are acknowledged, the record contains insufficient evidence to 
support their assertions. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter ofSoffici , 22 
I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter ofTreasure Craft ofCal~lornia , 14 I&N Dec. 
190 (Reg. Comm'r 1972)). Furthermore, these individuals do not state that loan officers must hold 
at least a bachelor's degree in a spec?fic specialty. Therefore, these letters do not support the 
assertion that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
We will next address the job advertisements submitted by the petitioner. The recoi·d of proceeding 
contains copies of eight job advertisements in support of its assertion that the degree requirement 
is common to the petitioner's industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. However, 
upon review of the documents , we find that the petitioner's reliance on the job advertisements is 
misplaced. 
In the Form I-129 petition, the petitioner describes itself as a 37-employee bank established in 
The petitioner states that its gross annual income is $11,308,386 and reports its net annual 
income as $3,854,279. 
For the petitioner to establish that an organization in its industry is similar, it must demonstrate 
that the petitioner and the organization share the same general characteristics. Without such 
evidence, documentation submitted by a petitioner is 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 elements that may be considered) . It is not sufficient for the petitioner to claim 
that an organization is similar and in the same industry without providing a legitimate basis for 
such an assertion. 
Although the advertisements appear to be from entities in the banking business, the petitioner did 
not state which aspects or traits it shares with the advertising companies . Without further 
information, we are unable to determine whether these companies are similar to the petitioner and 
the petitioner did not supplement the record of proceeding to establish that the advertising 
organizations are similar to it. 
Moreover, these advertisements do not appear to be for parallel positions. More specifically, the 
position with requires four or more years of experience; the position with 
requires a minimum of five years of experience; the position at the 
unidentified company requires a minimum of three years of experience; the position with 
requires a minimum of seven years of underwriting experience; the position with 
requires a minimum of three years of experience; the position with 
requires a minimum of five years of experience; the position with 
requires 5-7 years of experience; and the position with requires a 
prior experience . The petitioner designated the proffered position on the LCA through the wage 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
level as a Level I, entry-level position . Individuals occupying positions at this wage level are 
expected to have only a basic understanding of the occupation, and they perform routine tasks that 
require limited, if any, exercise of judgment. The advertised positions appear to be for more 
senior positions than the proffered position . More importantly , the petitioner has not sufficiently 
established that the primary duties and responsibilities of the advertised positions are parallel to 
the proffered position. 
As the documentation does not establish that the petitioner has met this prong of the regulations, 
further analysis regarding the specific information coRtained in each of the job postings is not 
necessary. That is, as the evidence does not establish that similar organizations in the same 
industry routinely require at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for 
parallel positions , not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. 
It must be noted that even if all of the job postings indicated that a requirement of a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations (which they do not), the evidence of the record does not demonstrate what 
statistically valid inferences , if any, can be drawn from the advertisements with regard to 
determining the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar 
organizations. See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 (1995). 
Moreover, given that there is no indication that the advertisements were randomly selected, the 
validity of any such inferences could not be accurately determined even if the sampling unit were 
sufficiently large . See id. at 195-196 (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 paran1eters and estimates 
of error"). 
Thus , based upon a complete review of the record , we find that the petitioner has not established 
that a requirement for at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty , or its equivalent , is 
common for positions that are identifiable as being (1) in the petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to 
the proffered position, and also (3) located in organizations that are similar to the petitioner. Thus, 
for the reasons discussed above, the petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by 
an individual with a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent 
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 the instant case, the evidence of record does not credibly demonstrate relative complexity or 
uniqueness as aspects of the proffered position. Specifically, it is unclear how the loan officer 
position , as described, necessitates the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
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. More specifically, the petitioner did not 
demonstrate how the duties described 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 establish how such 
a curriculum is necessary to perform the duties of the proffered position. While related courses 
may be beneficial, or even essential, in performing certain duties of a data analyst position, the 
petitioner did not demonstrate 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 petitioner's proffered position. 
This is further evidenced by the LCA submitted by the petitioner in support of the instant petition. 
Again, the LCA indicates that the position is a low-level (entry-level) position relative to others 
within the occupation. 4 Based upon the wage rate, the beneficiary is only required to perform 
routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment. Accordingly, given the Handbook's 
indication that typical positions located within the "Loan Officers" occupational category do not 
require at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent , for entry, it is not 
credible that an entry-level position involving limited exercise of judgment would contain such a 
requirement. 
Without further evidence, it is simply not credible that the petitioner's proffered position is 
complex or unique relative to other positions within the occupational category, as such a position 
would likely be classified at a higher-level, such as a Level IV (fully competent) position, 
requiring a significantly higher prevailing wage. For instance, 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." Even a position involving a Level II wage, which 
would exceed the complexity of the one proposed by the petitioner, would involve only 
"moderately complex tasks that require limited judgment." 
Finally, we observe that the petitioner has indicated that the beneficiary's experience and his 
educational background make him qualified for the proffered position. However, the test to 
establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the skill set or education of a proposed 
beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires the theoretical and practical application of a 
4 The issue here is that the petitioner's designation of this 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, 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), an 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 consideration but is not a substitute for a determination of 
whether a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)( I) of the Act. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
body of highly specialized knowledge obtained by at least baccalaureate-level knowledge in a 
specialized area. In the instant case, the petitioner does not establish which of the proposed duties, 
if any, would render the proffered position so complex or unique as to be distinguishable from 
those of similar but non-degreed or non-specialty degreed employment. Again, the petitioner did 
not demonstrate 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. 
For all of these reasons, it cannot be concluded that the evidence of record satisfies the second 
alternative prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The employer normally requires a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
spectfic specialty, or its equivalent; for the 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. We 
normally review the petitioner's past recruiting and hiring practices, as well as information 
regarding employees who previously held the position. 
To merit approval of the petition under this criterion, the record must establish that the imposition 
of a degree requirement by the petitioner is not merely a matter of preference for high-caliber 
candidates but is necessitated by performance requirements of the position. The record contains 
insufficient evidence demonstrating the petitioner's prior hiring history. 
The petitioner claims repeatedly that the duties of the proffered position can only be performed by 
a degreed individual. 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 , 201 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 statutory or regulatory 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"). The record does not contain sufficient documentary evidence 
demonstrating a hiring history of the petitioner for the proffered position. As the record of 
proceeding does not demonstrate that the petitioner normally requires at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty or its equivalent for the proffered position , it does not satisfy 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)(3). 
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 in a spectfic specialty, or its equivalent 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
Next, we find that the evidence of record does not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)( 4), which requires the petitioner to establish that the nature of the proffered 
position's 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 the 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's duties. In other words , the proposed duties have 
not been described with sufficient specificity to show that their nature is more specialized and 
complex than loan officer positions whose duties are not of a nature so specialized and complex 
that their performance requires knowledge usually associated with a degree in a specific specialty. 
With regard to the specific duties of the position proffered here, we find that the record of 
proceeding lacks sufficient, credible evidence establishing that they are so specialized and 
complex that the knowledge required to perform them is usually associated with the attainment of 
a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent. 
We reiterate our earlier discussion regarding the petitioner's designation of the proffered position 
in the LCA as a Level I position (the lowest of four assignable wage-levels) relative to others 
within the occupational category. Without more, the position is one not likely distinguishable by 
relatively specialized and complex duties. That is, without further evidence, the petitioner's has 
not demonstrated that its proffered position is one with specialized and complex duties as such a 
position would likely be classified at a higher-level, such as a Level III (experienced) or Level IV 
(fully competent) position, requiring a substantially higher prevailing wage.) 
Although the petitioner asserts that the nature of the specific duties is specialized and complex , the 
record lacks sufficient evidence to support this claim. Thus, the petitioner has not satisfied the 
criterion of the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
For the reasons related in the preceding discussion, the petitioner has not established that it has 
satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F .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. 6 
III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 
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 o[Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
5 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" and requires a 
significantly higher wage. 
6 As the grounds discussed above are dispositive of the petitioner's eligibility for the benefit sought in this 
matter, we will not address and will instead reserve our determination on the additional issues and 
deficiencies that we observe in the record of proceeding with regard to the approval of the H-1 B petition. 
(b)(6)