dismissed H-1B Case: Finance

MATTER OF L-0-B-
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 28, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a bank, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "financial analyst" under the 
H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) § 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(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, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner had not established that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation position. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the evidence satisfies all evidentiary requirements. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
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 L-0-B-
(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. 
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 a "financial analyst." In 
a letter submitted with the visa petition, the Petitioner provided the following job duties for the 
position: 
In this capacity [the Beneficiary] will be responsible for the analysis of financial 
statements and the financial condition for a defined segment of the bank's existing 
loan portfolio. [The Beneficiary] will assist management in regards to the 
relationship with the existing borrowers; facilitate correspondence with customers 
regarding ongoing requests for personal and business financial statements; will 
coordinate with the Service Manager to participate loans with correspondent banks. 
Moreover, [the Beneficiary] will analyze and participate in several regulatory 
requirements program [sic] including Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), Anti-Money 
Laundering (AML), Customer identification program (CIP) and OFAC to assist the 
organization in identifying, detecting and deterring unlawful activities. 
The Petitioner also stat~d, "The position requires at minimum, a Bachelor's level degree in Business 
Administration, Economics, Finance or in the related discipline." 
2 
Matter of L-0-B-
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 
Initially, we note that the record does not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation by virtue of requiring a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its 
equivalent. In the letter submitted with the visa petition, the Petitioner stated that the proffered 
position requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree in business administration, economics, finance, 
or a related subject. 
A degree with a generalized title, such as business administration, without further specification, is 
not a degree in a specific specialty. C.f Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 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. 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. 
Cherto.ff, 484 F.3d at 147. 
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 
administration. Without more, this assertion alone indicates that the proffered position is not in fact 
a specialty occupation. Nevertheless, for the purpose of performing a comprehensive analysis of the 
specialty occupation issue, we will continue with a discussion of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
A. First Criterion 
We tum 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 ofLabor's 
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 L-0-B-
(DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that itaddresses? 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Financial Analysts" 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 13-2051. In the chapter entitled 
"How to Become a Financial Analyst," the Handbook 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. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., 
"Financial Analysts," http://www. bls. gov I ooh/business-and- financial/financial-anal ysts.htm#tab-4 
(last visited Nov. 22, 2016). 
The Handbook does not indicate that financial analyst positions require a minimum of a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. Rather, the Handbook indicates that most positions 
require a bachelor's degree and states there are a wide range of degrees that are acceptable for 
positions in this occupation. According to the Handbook, a bachelor's degree in accounting, 
econqmics, finance, statistics, or mathematics, or a master's degree in business administration or 
finance, may be a sufficient educational preparation for a financial analyst position. 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 specific specialty, or its equivalent. As noted, 
U'SCIS 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. 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. USCIS has consistently stated that, although a 
general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business administration, may be a legitimate 
3 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 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. 
4 
Matter of L-0-B-
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 at 147. 
Further, when reviewing the Handbook, it also must be noted that the Petitioner designated the 
proffered position as a Level I (entry level) position on the LCA, indicating that the proffered 
position is a comparatively low, entry-level position relative to others within the occupation. 4 Thus, 
it does not appear that the proffered position is an advanced position that requires at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 
The Petitioner has not provided documentation from another probative source to substantiate its 
assertion regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. For the various 
reasons explained above, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(J). 
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. 
In determining whether there i~ 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 
4 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: (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://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _II_ 2009.pdf 
5 
Matter of L-O~B-
only degreed individuals." See Shanti. Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151. 1165 (D. Minn. 1999) 
(quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
Here and as already discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for 
which the Handbook (or other independent, authoritative source) reports an industry-wide requirement 
for at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. Thus, we incorporate by 
reference the previous discussion on the matter. Also, there are no submissions from the industry's 
professional association indicating that it has made a degree a minimum entry requirement. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner did not submit any letters or affidavits from similar firms or individuals 
in the Petitioner's industry attesting that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed 
individuals." 
The Petitioner provided job postings placed by other employers. However, upon review of the 
documents, we find that the Petitioner's reliance on the job postings is misplaced. For example, the 
advertisements do not contain sufficient information regarding the advertising organizations to 
establish that they are similar to the Petitioner. Further, the job postings do not appear to be for 
parallel positions. For example, one posting is for a "senior operations finance analyst" position and 
requires a bachelor's degree and "5+ years experience in job cost accounting or closely related 
accounting position." Another posting is for a 'junior financial analyst position and requires a 
bachelor's degree and "minimum 3 years project based accounting knowledge." As noted, the 
Petitioner designated the proffered position as a Level I, entry-level position. Furthermore, some of 
the positions do not appear to have similar duties to the proffered position. For these postings, 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 contained in each of the job postings is necessary. 
That is, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. 5 
Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
5 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 Petitioner 
has not demonstrated 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 parameters and estimates of error"). 
6 
-----------------------------
(b)(6)
Matter of L-0-B-
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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner provided an evaluation of the proffered position produced by 
Chair of the Department of Economics and Finance at the 
stated that the proffered position requires "a college degree in a relevant 
field such as economics, business, or finance." 
Again, we observe that an educational requirement that can be satisfied by an otherwise 
undifferentiated bachelor's degree in business is not a requirement of a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty or its equivalent and does not indicate that a position as a specialty occupation 
position. Therefore, does not effectively allege that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation position. 
Further, there is no indication that possesses in-depth knowledge of the Petitioner's 
proffered position. She does not discuss the duties of the proffered position in any substantive detail. 
Further, she did not demonstrate or assert in-depth knowledge of the specific business operations or 
how the duties of the positio~ would actually be performed in the context of the Petitioner's business 
enterprise. For instance , there is no evidence that has visited the Petitioner's business, 
observed the Petitioner ' s employees , interviewed them about the nature of their work, or 
documented the knowledge that they apply on the job. 
Yet further, there is no indication that the Petitioner advised it characterized the proffered 
position as a low, entry-level financial analyst position, for a beginning employee who has only a 
basic understanding of the occupation (~s indicated by the wage-level on the LCA) relative to other 
positions within the occupational category. indicates that the Petitioner's degree 
requirement is "reasonable given the complexity of duties required of the position." It appears that 
would have found the wage level information relevant for the opinion letter. Moreover, 
without this information , the Petitioner has not demonstrated that possessed the 
information necessary to adequately assess the nature of the Petitioner ' s position and appropriately 
determine parallel positions based upon job duties and responsibilities. In addition, does 
not reference, cite, or discuss any studies, surveys, industry publications, authoritative publications, 
or other sources of empirical information which she may have consulted to complete her evaluation. 
In summary, and for each and all of the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the opinion letter 
rendered by is not probative evidence to establish the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. We may, in our discretion , use as advisory opinion statements submitted as 
expert testimony. However, where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is(in any 
way questionable, we are not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Matter of 
7 
Matter of L-0-B-
Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988). As a reasonable exercise of our discretion 
we discount the advisory opinion letter as not probative of any criterion of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). For efficiency's sake, we hereby incorporate the above discussion and analysis 
regarding the opinion letter into each of the bases in this decision for dismissing the appeal. 
A review of the record of proceedings indicates that the Petitioner has not credibly demonstrated that 
the duties the Beneficiary will be responsible for or perform on a day-to-day basis constitute a 
position so complex or unique that it can only be performed by a person with at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Even when considering the Petitioner's general 
descriptions of the proffered position's duties, the evidence of record does not establish why a few 
related courses or industry experience alone is insufficient preparation for the proffered 
position. While a few related courses may be beneficial, or even required, 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 degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is 
required to perform the duties of the proffered position. The description of the duties does not 
specifically identify any tasks that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed 
individual could perform them. The record lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish the 
proffered position as more complex or unique from other positions that can be performed by persons 
without at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
This is further evidenced by the LCA submitted by the Petitioner in support of the instant 
petition. As noted above, the Petitioner attested on the submitted LCA that the wage level for the 
proffered position is a Level I (entry-level) wage. As was observed above, such a wage level is for a 
position which only requires a basic understanding of the occupation. 6 This designation, when read 
in combination with the Petitioner's job description and the Handbook's account of the requirements 
for this occupation, further suggests that this particular position is not so complex or unique relative 
to other financial analysts that the duties can only be performed by an individual with a bachelor's 
degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
The Petitioner claims that .the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the pos1t10n, and references her 
qualifications. However, 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. The Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative 
complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position, and it did not identify any tasks 
6 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 ofwhether a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)(l) ofthe Act. 
Matter of L-0-B-
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 of 8 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 sp'ecific 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 v. Meissner, 201 F.3d at 387-88. Were USCIS 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. Id. 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. 
In response to the notice of intent to deny, the Petitioner stated: "Since the filing of the H-1 B on 
April 1, 2015, for [the Beneficiary], [the Petitioner] has employed 15 financial analysts within this 
department with Finance or Economics degrees." No list of those employees or evidence pertinent 
to their degrees was then provided. 
On appeal, the Petitioner provided a list, in chart form, of 48 people. Of those, 44 are in a position 
designated "Associate Relationship Manager." The remaining four are in a position designated 
"Relationship Manager 1." The Petitioner did not provide day-to-day responsibilities for these 
positions, or any information regarding the complexity of the job duties, supervisory duties (if any), 
independent judgment required, or the amount of supervision received. Accordingly, it is unclear 
whether the duties and responsibilities of these positions were the same or similar to the proffered 
position 
Further, the list indicates that four of the "Associate Relationship Managers" have business 
administration degrees. As was explained above, an otherwise undifferentiated degree in business 
administration is not a degree in a specific specialty. Further, the list indicates that some have 
degrees in biology, life/medical sciences, marketing, psychology, tourism/commercial management, 
and Spanish. In general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry and 
biochemistry, a minimum of a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty is recognized 
as satisfying the "degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)" requirement of section 
214(i)(l )(B) of the Act. In such a case, the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" would 
essentially be the same. Since there must be a close correlation between the required "body of 
highly specialized knowledge" and the position, however, a minimum entry requirement of a degree 
in two disparate fields, such as philosophy and engineering, would not meet the statutory 
requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)," unless the Petitioner 
establishes how each field is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular 
9 
Matter of L-0-B-
position such that the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" is essentially an 
amalgamation of these different specialti"es. Section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). 
Therefore, if these positions are the same as the proffered position, then the Petitioner has not 
established that it requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent 
for the proffered position. 
The Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
D. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.P.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. 
In the instant case, relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by 
the Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. We again refer to our earlier comments and 
findings with regard to the implication of the Petitioner's designation of the proffered position in the 
LCA as a Level I (the lowest of four assignable levels) wage. That is, the Level I wage designation 
is indicative of a low, entry-level position relative to others within the occupational category, and 
hence one not likely distinguishable by relatively specialized and complex duties. Upon review of 
the totality of the record, the Petitioner has not established that the nature of the specific duties is so 
specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with 
the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated in the record that its proffered position is one with duties 
/sufficiently specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
1 
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 ofOtiende, 261&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden 
has not been met. 7 
7 Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we need not address another ground of 
ineligibility we observe in the record of proceedings; whether the Petitioner violated the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(h)(2)(i)(G) by filing more than one H-1 B petition on behalf of the Beneficiary. 
10 
Matter of L-0-B-
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofL-0-B-, ID# 8610 (AAO Nov. 28, 2016) 
II