dismissed H-1B Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 05190878 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 29, 2020 
The Petitioner, an investment management firm, seeks to employ the Beneficiary temporarily as a 
"research analyst" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. 1 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 of the California Service Center denied the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant 
Worker, concluding that the record did not establish that the proffered position qualified as a specialty 
occupation. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's decision was incorrect. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l) , defines the tenn "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 offered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
1 See lmmigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) , 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) . 
(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. 2 
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. 3 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner initially provided the position's description with five bullet points, and expanded on 
those duties in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE). For the sake of brevity, we will 
not quote the most recent version; however, we note that we have closely reviewed and considered the 
duties. The Petitioner initially stated that this "position requires a minimum of [a] Bachelor[' s] degree 
in Business, Finance or [a] related area plus one year of experience or equivalent combination of 
experience and education." The bulk of the Petitioner's evidence in the record relates to either the 
Beneficiary's qualifications, or documentation relating to the existence of its business. The Petitioner 
also presented two work samples that the Beneficiary prepared. 
For the reasons discussed below, we have determined that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 4 Specifically, we conclude that the record does 
not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, corresponding 
with a specialty occupation. 5 
A. Degree Requirement 
Before addressing the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(])-(4), we observe that a 
requirement for 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, business administration, or business management, without farther 
2 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
3 See Royal Siam COip. v. Chertof(, 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). 
4 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
5 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the petition, including evidence regarding the position and its business 
operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 
specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. 6 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, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (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. 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. 7 The Petitioner's acceptance of a 
business degree to perform the duties of the proffered position strongly suggests that the Petitioner's 
particular position does not require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 
An entry requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in business with a concentration in a specific 
field, or a bachelor's or higher degree in business combined with relevant education, training, and/or 
experience may, in certain instances, qualify the proffered position as a specialty occupation. In either 
case, the Petitioner must demonstrate that the entry requirement is equivalent to a bachelor's or higher 
degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered position. 8 Here, the Petitioner 
does not expound upon the focus of the business degree, specifically as it directly relates to the duties 
of the proposed position. Accordingly, it appears the Petitioner accepts a general business degree as 
sufficient to enter the proposed position. 
Likewise, the Petitioner's acceptance of a bachelor's degree in a related-yet unspecified-area plus 
one year of experience in a similarly unspecified area falls short of the organization demonstrating its 
position requirements were sufficient to satisfy the statutory definition of a specialty occupation at 
section 214(i)(l) of the Act. The Petitioner left even more unsaid when it indicated that an equivalent 
combination of education and experience were acceptable, but without specifying what concentration 
or discipline relating to the education, or what type of experience. 
For this reason alone, the proffered position would not be a specialty occupation, even if the 
Petitioner's job description were sufficient. 
B. Regulatory Requirements 
1. First Criterion 
We first tum 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's 
(DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. The Petitioner submitted 
6 Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 T&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). 
7 Royal Siam Co1p., 484 F.3d at 147; see also Irish Help at Home LLC v. Melville, 13-cv-00943-MEJ, 2015 WL 848977 *6-8 
(N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2015), a(f'd, 679 F. App'x 634 (9th Cir. 2017). 
8 See id. 
3 
the required DOL ETA Form 9035 & 9035E, Labor Condition Application for Nonimmigrant Workers 
(LCA) with this petition, where it classified the proffered position under the occupational category 
"Financial Analysts" corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 13-2051. 
We often look to the Handbook as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of 
the wide variety of occupations that it addresses, and the Petitioner relies on this resource here. 9 The 
portion of the Handbook titled "How to Become a Financial Analyst" states, in pertinent part: "Most 
positions require a bachelor's degree. A number of fields of study provide appropriate preparation, 
including accounting, economics, finance, statistics, and mathematics." 10 Thus, according to the 
Handbook, while more than half of the positions in this occupation require a bachelor's degree, a number 
of different fields will prepare the individual to enter into the occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner notes that it is permissible for positions requiring multiple areas of study to 
qualify under the H-lB program, provided the areas of study are related and are associated with the same 
or similar bodies of highly specialized knowledge. The area of specialized knowledge the Petitioner 
identifies are quantitative methods. 
While we agree that the Handbook includes fields that are related to quantitative methods, we do not 
agree with the Petitioner that the Handbook definitively represents that this occupational category requires 
a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty in order to enter it. Ignoring whether the fields of study the 
Handbook lists are related, unique to this entry is the scenario where the Handbook illustrated a number 
of examples, but it did not specify that the fields it listed were an exhaustive list. This results in the 
possibility that "[a] number" of additional fields of study not listed in the Handbook-some of which 
may not relate to a body of highly specialized knowledge required for the occupation-----could prepare an 
individual for entry into this broader occupational category. Stated in different terms, the Handbook's 
recognition that degrees in different disciplines may provide sufficient preparation to perform the 
duties to enter into this occupation strongly suggests that a bachelor's degree in a spec[fic specialty is 
not a standard, minimum entry requirement. 11 Such a strong suggestion precludes the Petitioner from 
establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that it has met its burden of proof under criterion one. 
Further, while we look to the Handbook to determine the educational requirements, the first criterion 
requires us to determine the normal minimum requirement for entry into the particular position offered 
in the petition. As noted, the Petitioner indicated a bachelor's degree in business without farther 
specialization was sufficient. Based on the Petitioner's statements, we conclude that the Petitioner has 
not established that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent is normally the 
minimum requirement for entry into the particular position, and as such, it has not met the first 
criterion's requirements. 
9 We do not however, maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. To satisfy the first 
criterion, the burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular 
position will normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry at any level - be it at the 
entry level (Level I), or fully competent (Level TV). 
10 Bureau of Labor Statistics, DOL, Handbook, Financial Analysts, at https://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and­
financial/print/financial-analysts.htm (last visited Nov. 20, 2019). 
11 See also Caremax Inc. v. Holder, 40 F. Supp. 3d 1182, 1187-88 (N.D. Cal. 2014) in which the court held that "[a] 
position that requires applicants to have any bachelor's degree, or a bachelor's degree in a large subset of fields, can hardly 
be considered specialized." 
4 
When the Handbook either includes disparate fields of study as sufficient to qualify for an occupation, 
or leaves open the possibility of additional unnamed fields-some of which may not relate to a body 
of highly specialized knowledge required for the occupation-a petitioner generally will be unable to 
demonstrate eligibility under the first criterion based on the Handbook as the sole authoritative 
resource. The Handbook lists information for the broader Financial Analysts occupation, and indicates 
that a bachelor's degree in a number of disciplines provide preparation for entering the occupation. It 
is important to note that the proffered position is a single job within the spectrum of positions that 
comprise the broader Financial Analysts occupation. 
If the Petitioner wishes to rely solely on the Handbook as an authoritative resource under this criterion, 
it must demonstrate that the particular position it presents in the petition requires a bachelor's degree 
or higher in a specific specialized curriculum ( or its equivalent) as the normal minimum requirement 
for entry into the position. We come to this conclusion as the Handbook does not limit its analysis to 
the particular position within this petition, and instead encompasses and includes those positions that 
broadly make up this occupation. In accordance with such inclusion, the Handbook factors in duties 
and functionality that are not necessarily part of the position in this petition. For instance, the 
Handbook divides the Financial Analysts occupation into two categories: buy-side analysts and 
sell-side analysts. It further lists multiple types of financial analysts as follows: 
• Portfolio managers select the mix of products, industries, and regions for their company's 
investment portfolio. These managers are responsible for the overall performance of the 
portfolio. They are also expected to explain investment decisions and strategies in meetings 
with stakeholders. 
• Fund managers work exclusively with hedge funds or mutual funds. Both fund and portfolio 
managers frequently make buy or sell decisions in reaction to quickly changing market 
conditions. 
• Ratings analysts evaluate the ability of companies or governments to pay their debts, 
including bonds. On the basis of their evaluation, a management team rates the risk of a 
company or government not being able to repay its bonds. 
• Risk analysts evaluate the risk in investment decisions and determine how to manage 
unpredictability and limit potential losses. This job is carried out by making investment 
decisions such as selecting dissimilar stocks or having a combination of stocks, bonds, and 
mutual funds in a portfolio. 
Even though the Petitioner repeatedly refers to the Handbook as support under this criterion, it did not 
address the categories or the types of financial analysts this resource discusses. With such a wide 
array of financial analyst types that perform functions beyond those that the candidate for the proffered 
position would execute, the Petitioner has not sufficiently persuaded us that it should be able to rely 
solely on the Handbook entry for Financial Analysts as a resource that sufficiently represents or that 
equates to the position it offers here. Consequently, we conclude that the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that a bachelor's or higher degree ( or its equivalent) is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into this particular position, which the first criterion mandates. 
We conclude that, to the extent that the Petitioner described the numerous duties within the record, these 
functions reflect a need for a range of knowledge of investment analysis and strategy, but do not establish 
5 
any particular level of formal, postsecondary education leading to a bachelor's degree or higher in a 
specific specialty as minimally necessary to attain such knowledge. As we have discussed how the 
Handbook is not a resource that will sufficiently support the Petitioner's claims under the first 
criterion, it is unnecessary to address whether the non-exhaustive list of fields with the Handbook 
constitute disparate fields. As a result, the court cases the Petitioner cites in its appeal brief do not 
further its eligibility assertions under this criterion. 
The Petitioner has not provided documentation from a probative source to substantiate its assertion 
regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. Therefore, it has not 
satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
2. 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 .... " 12 The first prong concentrates on the common industry practice, while the alternative 
prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific position. 
a. First Prong 
On appeal, the Petitioner describes its business and states that "[i]t is not reasonable for any similarly 
placed investment advisory firms to hire someone without advanced specialized knowledge or with 
less than a bachelor's degree, and to trust such amount of money on the research and opinions of an 
unqualified person." The Petitioner further states that its detailed job description and the sample work 
products it offered to the Director "shows that degree is common to [its] industry." The Petitioner did 
not offer any detailed analysis or evidence within the appeal to support its statements or to rebut the 
Director's adverse determination under this criterion. Additionally, as we noted above, the Petitioner 
also did not offer evidence or sufficient arguments before the Director relating to this criterion. 
It is insufficient to allege eligibility through conclusory assertions that are not supported by sufficient 
evidence, which proves the allegation. 13 We are not required to accept cursory or primarily conclusory 
statements as demonstrating eligibility. 14 The reason for filing an appeal is to provide an affected 
party with the means to remedy what he or she perceives as an erroneous conclusion of law or 
statement of fact within a decision in a previous proceeding. 15 Without such an error specifically 
identified within the appeal, the affected party has failed to identify the basis for its claims under this 
criterion in this proceeding. If the Petitioner does not explain the specific aspects of the decision that 
it considers to be incorrect, it has not meaningfully identified the reasons for taking an appeal. In 
order to review the appeal, it would therefore be necessary to search through the record and speculate 
12 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). 
13 Matter of Ho, 22 l&N Dec. 206, 213 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998); Fano v. 0 'Neill, 806 F.2d 1262, 1266 (5th Cir. 1987); (see 
Celotex Co1p. v. Catrett, 4 77 U.S. 317, 328 (1986) (White, J., concurring). 
14 Innova Sols., Inc. v. Baran, 338 F. Supp. 3d 1009, 1023 (N.D. Cal. 2018); 1756, Inc. v. Att 'y Gen, 745 F. Supp. 9, 17 
(D.D.C. 1990). 
15 See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
6 
on what possible errors the Petitioner claims. 16 It is insufficient to merely assert that the preceding 
authority made an improper determination, and the Petitioner has not satisfied the first prong of 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
b. Second Prong 
Likewise, under this prong the Petitioner states that its detailed job description and the sample work 
products it offered to the Director shows that "alternatively, the particular position is complex." This 
conclusory statement is insufficient for the same reasons we discussed under the first prong. While 
we disagree with the Director that the Petitioner's revised duties within the RFE response were generic 
in nature, we do agree that the Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that this "particular position 
is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a [qualifying] degree." 
The burden rests with the Petitioner to demonstrate that its petition should have been approved. 17 
Commensurate with that burden is the responsibility for explaining the significance of proffered 
evidence.18 It is not self-evident that the work samples the Petitioner provided show that this position is 
sufficiently complex or unique. Filing parties should not submit such abbreviated appellate grounds 
without putting forth a sufficient argument supported by evidence in the record. The Petitioner's claims 
on appeal are wholly insufficient to establish eligibility under this criterion. 
3. Third Criterion 
The Petitioner does not specifically contest this portion of the Director's decision on appeal, and we agree 
with the Director that the evidence ofrecord does not satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
4. 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. 
Although the Petitioner describes some of the work product previously submitted and offers a new 
report on appeal, it follows those statements with an additional conclusory declaration that "[r]esearch 
reports like these can not [sic] be produced by a person with a generic degree, and require highly 
specialized knowledge with financial products and statistical analysis that is normally associated with 
a bachelor [sic] degree in a specialty field." The Petitioner did not provide additional analysis of why 
these types ofreports require a qualifying degree, nor did it detail any specific error on the Director's 
part under this criterion. As we noted above, such conclusory statements and an absence of why the 
16 Matter of Valencia, 19 l&N Dec. 354, 355 (BIA 1986). 
17 Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). 
18 Repaka v. Beers, 993 F. Supp. 2d 1214, 1219 (S.D. Cal. 2014). 
7 
Director came to the wrong conclusion are insufficient bases for this appeal. Consequently, the 
Petitioner did not satisfy the requirements of this criterion. 
C. Definitional Requirement 
The process of demonstrating that a proffered position is sufficient to meet the requirements under the 
H-lB program includes more than satisfying one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). The 
regulation also requires a petitioner to demonstrate that a petition "involves a specialty occupation as 
defined in section 214(i)(l) of the Act." 19 This statutory definition states: "the term 'specialty 
occupation' means an occupation that requires ... [a] theoretical and practical application of a body 
of highly specialized knowledge, and ... 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." 
From this, we reason that the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) should be read logically as being 
necessary-but not necessarily sufficient-to meet the statutory and regulatory definition of a 
specialty occupation. To otherwise interpret the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) 
as stating the necessary, but not necessarily sufficient conditions as being adequate to qualify would 
result in some positions meeting a condition under the criteria, but not under the statutory definition. 20 
To avoid this erroneous 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 
definition of a specialty occupation. This results in a multi-part analysis to determine whether a 
particular position qualifies as a specialty occupation. As a result, an H-1 B petition cannot be 
approved unless a petitioner demonstrates that a proffered position satisfies this statutory definition; 
not even if it demonstrates it has satisfied one of the four regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). 
Accordingly, were a petitioner to submit sufficient evidence to satisfy one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), we would then evaluate whether it had also satisfied the statutory definition. We 
conclude that in addition to not meeting any of the regulatory criteria, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated the position in this petition qualifies as a specialty occupation under the statutory 
definition. 
Additionally, the Petitioner's position prerequisites we discussed above in the form of a bachelor's 
degree in business without farther specialization farther establishes that it has not satisfied the 
statutory definition of a specialty occupation. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and 
alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is a petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner 
has not met that burden. 
19 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(2); see also 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(l)(ii)(B)(l). 
20 See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384,387 (5th Cir. 2000); Sagarwala v. Cissna, No. CV 18-2860 (RC), 2019 WL 
3084309, at *5 (D.D.C. July 15. 2019). 
8 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
9