dismissed H-1B Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6457865 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-IB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 30, 2020 
The Petitioner, a financial payment services company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as 
a "credit analyst" under the H-IB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S .C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-IB 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 evidence of 
record does not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 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. 
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: 
1 We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 
(AAO 2010). 
(]) 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). We construe 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. 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"). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
In its support letter, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a credit analyst and provided 
the following job description: 
► Analyzing credit data and financial statements in order to determine the degree of 
risk involved in extending credit or lending money. This duty requires 
understanding the full financial health of a business by analyzing financial data 
such as potential income growth and prospects, market share, and forecasting 
expected profitability of loans. [The Beneficiary] will apply principles and 
concepts of ratio analysis and valuation gained from Financial Statement Analysis; 
impact of principal financial statements gained from Accounting for Decision 
Making, influence of macroeconomics theories of consumption, inflation, and 
interest rates gained from Macroeconomics; and modem economic analyses gained 
from Principles of Economic Analysis; 
► Performing quantitative financial analysis techniques in order analyze liquidity, 
profitability, and credit of establishments being evaluated and determining risk and 
credit analysis. [The Beneficiary] will apply knowledge of financial economics, 
yield determinations, risk and return concepts and portfolio theory gained from 
Corporate Finance; multiple regression testing techniques and serial correlation 
gained from Econometrics; and partial equilibrium analysis gained from 
Microeconomics; 
► Calculating financial ratios to evaluate the financial status of small businesses and 
collaborating with [the Petitioner's] lending team to pinpoint major credit concerns. 
2 
[The Beneficiary] will draw upon techniques and theories of: statistical inference 
and hypothesis testing from Statistics; probability and differential equation 
applications from Calculus; and ratio analyses and decision modeling from 
Financial Statement Analysis; and 
► Conducting audits in compliance with each bank partner's underwriting guidelines, 
serving as an internal expert on due diligence requirements of a variety of bank 
partners and promoting lending processes by identifying high risk. The Beneficiary 
will apply conceptual foundations and measurement of assets and income that she 
gained from Asset and Income Measurement; and methodologies for valuation and 
bankruptcy prediction from Financial Statement Analysis. 
The Petitioner expanded on these duties in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) and 
also provided the approximate percentage of time the Beneficiary would spend on each duty. 2 The 
Petitioner stated that the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree "in Finance, Economics, or a 
related field, or the equivalent in experience and training." 
III. ANALYSIS 
For the reasons discussed below, we have determined that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 3 Specifically, we conclude that the record does 
not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate 
with a specialty occupation. 4 
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. Department of Labor 
(DOL)'s Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 5 
In the labor condition application (LCA) 6 submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Credit Analysts" corresponding to 
2 For the sake of brevity. we will not quote the version submitted in response to the RFE; however, we have closely 
reviewed and considered the duties. 
3 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
4 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H- IB 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. 
5 All of our references to the Handbook may be accessed at the Internet site http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not maintain 
that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. 
6 A petitioner submits the LCA to the U.S. Department of Labor to demonstrate that it will pay an H-IB worker the higher 
of either the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the area of employment or the actual wage paid by the 
employer to other employees with similar duties, experience, and qualifications. Section 2 l 2(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. 
§ 655.73l(a). 
3 
the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 13-2041.00, with a Level I wage. While the 
Handbook is a career resource offering information on hundreds of occupations, there are occupational 
categories which the Handbook does not cover in detail, and instead provides only summary data. 7 
The Handbook provides summary data for the occupational category "Credit Analysts," stating that 
the typical entry-level education for this occupation is a "Bachelor's degree," without specifying any 
area of specialty for this degree. Id. Thus, the Handbook does not indicate that this is an occupation 
for which the normal minimum requirement for entry is at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not assert eligibility under this criterion. However, in its RFE response, 
the Petitioner emphasized that the credit analyst position falls within Job Zone Four and therefore "the 
first prong of the specialty occupation test has been met." The DOL's Occupational Information 
Network (O*NET) summary report for "Credit Analysts" listed under SOC 13-2041 assigns these 
positions a "Job Zone Four" rating, which states "most of these occupations require a four-year 
bachelor's degree, but some do not." However, the Job Zone Four designation does not indicate that 
four year bachelor's degrees required by Job Zone Four occupations must be in a specific specialty 
directly related to the occupation. Therefore, O*NET's Job Zone Four designation for the Credit 
Analysts occupational category is insufficient to establish that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation. 
In this case, the Petitioner has not established that the proffered position falls under an occupational 
category for which the Handbook, or other authoritative source, indicates that normally the minimum 
requirement for entry is at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The 
record lacks sufficient evidence to support a finding that the particular position proffered here would 
normally have such a minimum, specialty degree requirement or its equivalent. Thus, the Petitioner 
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 only by an individual with 
a degree[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong concentrates upon 
the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific 
position. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy the first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" ( e.g., a requirement of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
7 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Data for Occupations Not Covered in 
Detail, https://www.bls.gov/ooh/about/data-for-occupations-not-covered-in-detail.htm (last visited Jan. 30, 2020). 
4 
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 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) (considering these 
"factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
As previously discussed, the Handbook does not establish that a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty is a common requirement within the industry for parallel positions among similar 
organizations. In addition, the petition does not include any submissions from the industry's 
professional association indicating that it has made a degree in a specific specialty a minimum entry 
requirement. 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner submitted copies of job announcements placed by other 
employers. However, upon review of the documents, we find that the Petitioner's reliance on the job 
announcements is misplaced. First, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that these organizations are 
similar. When determining whether the Petitioner and the advertising organization share the same 
general characteristics, we look at the 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 these organizations appear to provide loans, the record contains insufficient 
evidence to demonstrate that they are similar to the Petitioner. The Petitioner described itself as a 
"financial technology company providing innovative leasing and credit solutions to consumers and 
small businesses .... " It is not evident that the Petitioner is involved in the banking business. 
However, some of the organizations, such as Carter Bank & Trust and First Harrison Bank, are in the 
banking business offering broader services than the Petitioner. For example, in addition to loan 
services, they offer checking, savings, money market accounts, certificate of deposits, individual 
retirement accounts, and asset management. Petitioner did not sufficiently supplement the record of 
proceedings to establish that these advertising organizations are similar. 
Moreover, some of the announcements do not appear to involve parallel positions as they require 
experience in addition to a degree requirement. For example, the announcement by Biz2Credit Inc. 
requires more than four years of experience "in a financial institution underwriting small business" 
and more than two years "in a commercial credit analysis" and the announcement by Hana Financial, 
Inc. requires three years of related experience. Further, the announcements by Funding Circle and 
OnDeck indicate the advertised positions are senior-level positions. The Petitioner has not sufficiently 
established that the primary duties and responsibilities of the advertised positions are parallel to the 
proffered position. 8 
8 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 draV1rn from the adve1iisements 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 
5 
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 not 
necessary. 9 That is, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations. 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that it "does not assert that the duties are 'uniquely' complex, compared 
to other Credit Analyst positions, or that 'the position is more complex or specialized than similar 
positions within the occupation."' Rather, it asserts that "the job duties for the Credit Analyst are so 
complex and specialized by virtue of the theoretical knowledge and education required to perform 
these duties." The Petitioner references O*NET' s Job Zone Four designation for the "Credit Analysts" 
occupational category to support its assertion. As noted earlier, the Job Zone Four designation does 
not indicate that any academic credentials for Job Zone Four occupations must be in a specific 
specialty directly related to the occupation. 
The Petitioner also references the DOL, Employment and Training Administration's Prevailing Wage 
Determination Policy Guidance (DOL Guidance) 10 and states that occupations with "Education and 
Training code of 5 ... normally require a bachelor's degree as minimum entry into the occupation" 
( emphasis omitted). Appendix D of the DOL guidance provides a range of Education and Training 
Category Codes assigned to various occupations, and states Appendix D contains "the education and 
training generally required for performance in [an] occupation." Appendix D designates the Credit 
Analysts occupation with an Education and Training Category of five. The entry code five states: 
"Bachelor's degree. Completion of the degree program generally requires at least 4 years but not more 
than 5 years of full time equivalent work." However, Appendix D does not specify that such degree 
must be in any particular specialty or that it is the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation. 
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"). 
9 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. 
10 See 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.t1cdatacenter.com/pdt!NPWHC _ 
Guidance_ Revised_ 11 _ 2009 .pdf 
6 
As a result, it still would not serve to satisfy the statutory and regulatory definitions of a "specialty 
occupation." 
The Petitioner lists some of the Beneficiary's coursework and states that the Beneficiary will draw 
upon her knowledge "to perform the high-level duties of the position." First, we note that the 
Petitioner's designation of the position as Level I, entry-level position is at odds with the Petitioner's 
characterization of the duties as "high-level" and that 40 percent of the Beneficiary time will be spent 
on "serving as an internal expert on due diligence requirements .... " 11 While the Petitioner suggests 
that the Beneficiary's duties involve "expert" level responsibilities, Level I wage designation suggests 
that the position does not require prior experience or special skills or knowledge in addition to the 
degree. Further, while some related courses may be beneficial in performing certain duties of the 
position, the Petitioner does not explain in sufficient detail how the tasks it described require the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge. Although the Petitioner 
refers to analytical skills that are required of the position, such as the ability to analyze "credit data 
and financial statements," the Petitioner does not establish that obtaining the knowledge to perform 
the analytical skills may be acquired only through a bachelor's-level specialized course of study rather 
than through other forms of training or work experience. Notably, the Petitioner stated that in lieu of 
a bachelor's degree, it would also accept an "equivalent in experience and training." However, 
Petitioner did not explain how many years of experience it would consider "equivalent" to the 
undergraduate degree or describe how the years to be divided between experience and training. Nor 
did it describe the training programs that would satisfy its requirements. The record contains 
insufficient evidence demonstrating that the position requires the theoretical and practical application 
of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in 
the specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
Moreover, one of the proffered duties indicates that the Beneficiary will be "collaborating with [ the 
Petitioner's] lending team." However, the Petitioner did not submit an organizational chart. 
Therefore, the organizational set-up, the Beneficiary's position within the Petitioner's overall 
organizational hierarchy, and the extent of her duties cannot be determined. With the lack of 
information regarding the Beneficiary's role within the organization, the record contains insufficient 
information to understand the nature of the actual proffered position and to determine that the duties 
require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge attained by 
a bachelor's degree, or higher, in a specific discipline. 
The Petitioner also claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position, 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 
11 A Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty occupation, just as 
a Level TV 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 TV 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)(l) of the Act. 
7 
complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position. 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 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 384, 387-88 (5th Cir. 2000). Were we limited solely to reviewing a petitioner's claimed 
self-imposed requirements, an organization could bring any individual with a bachelor's degree to the 
United States to perform any occupation as long as the petitioning entity 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. 
As evidence, the Petitioner presented several job announcements for credit analysts in its company 
and online resumes of individuals who list the Petitioner as one of their employers. However, the 
record lacks evidence establishing that these individuals were hired into the credit analyst position that 
is the same or similar to the one offered to the Beneficiary. The Petitioner did not provide a detailed 
job duties and day-to-day responsibilities for these individuals. Moreover, the job announcements 
required one to two or three years of experience in addition to the degree requirement; however, the 
Petitioner did not specify work experience in addition to a degree as a requirement for the proffered 
position. Further, while the Petitioner indicated that the proffered position is an entry-level position, 
the advertised positions appear to be for more experienced individuals who would provide "[i]n-depth 
training of new RMs and ongoing training of the existing Lending Operations team." Accordingly, it 
is unclear whether the duties and responsibilities of the advertised positions are the same or similar to 
the proffered position. 
Moreover, the Petitioner did not provide the total number of people it has employed to serve in the 
proffered position. Consequently, it cannot be determined how representative the Petitioner's claim 
regarding these individuals are of the Petitioner's normal recruiting and hiring practices. The 
Petitioner has not persuasively established that it normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the 
third criterion of 8 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. 
For the same reasons we discussed under the second prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), we find 
that the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one with duties sufficiently specialized 
and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). Here, the Petitioner claims that the position's 
8 
nature and the specific duties are 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. However, the record does not sufficiently demonstrate that the duties of 
the proffered position are so specialized and complex that it requires a body of highly specialized 
knowledge that is attained through a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. While we understand that the Beneficiary must have some skills and knowledge in order 
to perform these duties, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how these tasks require the 
attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty ( or its equivalent) as a minimum 
for entry into the occupation. We incorporate our earlier discussion and analysis on this matter. 
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 qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
9