dismissed H-1B Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF D-B-S-, INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 27, 2019 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an __________ __. firm, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 
as an "analyst" under the H-1B 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-1B 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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the proffered position 
does not qualify as a specialty occupation . On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
a brief, and asserts that it has established eligibility for the benefit sought. 
Upon de nova 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). 
Matter of D-B-S-, Inc. 
(]) 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 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as an "analyst" at its office in Florida. The 
Petitioner indicated that "the Beneficiary will be part of thel c 1 I Analytics 
team" and "[she] will utilize her quantitative analytical skills to analyze financial performance of a 
portfolio of highly leveraged companies with the goal of attaining in-depth credit knowledge." 
The Petitioner provided the following description of the position (verbatim): 2 
1. Assist with the preparation of detailed annual I I memoranda on companies 
identifying strengths and challenges. 
2. Provide! lnformative investment decisions by analyzing financial 
information to forecast business, industry, or economic conditions. 
3. Assess individual company adherence to credit agreement terms. 
2 We acknowledge that the Petitioner submitted additional information for the job duties, which, for the sake of brevity, 
have not been included herein. However, this material has been closely reviewed and considered, as with all evidence in 
the record. For instance, the Petitioner also included a listing of the Beneficiary's previous coursework for the purpose of 
correlating the need for the Beneficiary's education with the associated job duties of the position. However, we are 
required to follow long-standing legal standards and determine first, whether the proffered position qualifies for 
classification as a specialty occupation, and second, whether the Beneficiary was qualified for the position at the time the 
nonimmigrant visa petition was filed. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 T&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988) ("The 
facts of a beneficiary's background only come at issue after it is found that the position in which the petitioner intends to 
employ him falls within [ a specialty occupation]."). 
2 
Matter of D-B-S-, Inc. 
4. Prepare plans of action for current and future investments by utilizing financial 
analyses and evaluate and compare the relative quality of various securities I I 
I I 
5. Collaborate with other team members in connecting with client counterparts on 
agented transactions. 
6. Prepare complex financial models developed to project future credit performance 
and identify asset valuation. 
7. Conduct quantitative analyses of financial data to help inform investment decisions. 
8. Assess and collaborate with colleagues inl Ion a regular 
basis to maintain a proactive view on clients' performance. 
9. Identify/generate financing and banking opportunities based on client knowledge 
and refer to [the Petitioner's] product partners and take on an active role in ad hoc 
projects for senior management. 
Later, The Petitioner provided an updated description of the proffered position in response to the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE), as follows (verbatim): 
1. Analyze client companies' capital structure using financial metrics such as Yield to 
Maturity (YTM) and Yield to Worst (YTW) under various stress scenarios 
including LIBOR movements, market share loss, natural disasters, and multi-year 
industry cycles. (20%) 
2. Forecast industry growth trends based on macroeconomic indicator research and 
quantitative analysis of individual segment's market capture. (20%) 
3. Prepare complex financial models developed to project future credit performance 
and identify asset valuation and conduct quantitative analyses of financial data to 
help inform investment decisions. (20%) 
4. Utilize quantitative analytical skills to analyze financial performance of a portfolio 
of highly leveraged companies with the goal of attaining in-depth credit knowledge. 
(10%) 
5. Provide I I informative investment decisions by analyzing financial 
information to forecast business, industry, or economic conditions. (10%) 
6. Forecast leverage buyout, loan refinancing, and revolving facility upsizing 
scenarios through financial modeling. Develop assumptions using various drivers 
pertaining to client companies' internal capital structure and growth strategy in 
order to determine appropriate pricing and calculate expected returns. (10%) 
7. Analyze quarterly financial results of clients and update ongoing credit analysis. 
Prepare plans of action for current and future investments by utilizing financial 
analyses and evaluate and compare the relative quality of various securities I I 
I I (5%) 
8. Identify potential business opportunities for the broader [Petitioner] investment 
I I after analyzing client companies' capital needs, understanding 
companies' growth initiatives, and conducting different scenario analyses. (5%) 
The Petitioner states throughout the proceedings that the minimum educational requirement for the 
proffered position is at least a bachelor's degree in finance, business administration, or a related field. 
3 
Matter of D-B-S-, Inc. 
On appeal, the Petitioner also explained that the position required 0-2 years of work experience, and 
that it "does not require any unusual or advanced skills for the offered position." 
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. 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its 
equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 3 
Before addressing the specialty-occupation criteria contained at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4), 
we will briefly discuss an issue which precludes a finding that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation. 
The Petitioner's has consistently maintained that the requirement of a bachelor's degree in business 
administration would suffice for entry into the proffered position throughout the proceedings, from 
the time of initial filing to the appeal. However, that claim is inadequate to establish that the proposed 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The Petitioner contends on appeal that "the knowledge to 
perform the specific duties of the Analyst role in the financial services industry could only be gained 
through the completion of a [b]achelor's [d]egree in [f]inance, [b]usiness administration or a related 
field." The Petitioner further explains that "[a] business administration degree, such as a bachelor of 
business administration (BBA) or a bachelor of science in business administration (BSBA), offers a 
broader grounding in the world of ecommerce." 
However, the claimed requirement of a degree in such majors as "business administration" for the 
proffered position, without further specialization, is inadequate to establish that the proposed 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 and closely to the position in question. Since 
there must be a close correlation between the required specialized studies and the position, the 
requirement of a degree with a generalized title, such as business administration, without further 
specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz 
Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). 
To prove that a job requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge as required by section 214(i)(l) of the Act, a petitioner must establish that the position 
requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specialized field of study or its equivalent. 
As discussed supra, we interpret the degree requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to require a 
degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. We have consistently 
stated that, although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business administration, 
may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will 
not justify a finding that a particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty 
occupation. Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. 
3 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. 
4 
Matter of D-B-S-, Inc. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that "there is considerable overlap at many universities between the 
course that a business administration or finance student will take, especially during freshman and 
sophomore years." The Petitioner states "both involved a significant amount of basic math as well as 
accounting, statistics and economics." The Petitioner provides copies of course curriculum for various 
baccalaureate-level business administration programs of study. For example, in the curriculum 
provided for the Miami Business School business administration degrees, the Petitioner highlighted 
courses bearing titles such as "principles of financial accounting," "economic principals," and 
"managerial accounting." However, these courses appear to be a part of "Business Core" courses 
which are to be taken in conjunction with other general business courses, such as "operations 
management," and "foundations of marketing." In fact, the program explains that all students in the 
business administration program "must complete at least one major area of specialization" which 
includes finance. In other words, while courses taken in freshman and sophomore years such as 
accounting, statistics and economics may be beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, 
those courses do not lead to a degree in a specific specialty; instead, they appear to be preparatory 
classes leading to a specialized study. 
Again, the Petitioner asserts that the duties of the proffered position can be performed with only a 
general-purpose bachelor's degree, i.e., a bachelor's degree in business administration, without farther 
specification. That statement alone indicates that the proffered position is not in fact a specialty 
occupation. 
Though this issue precludes approval of this H-1 B petition, we will nonetheless review the evidence 
of record in light of the four specialty-occupation criteria contained at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-( 4) for the purpose of performing a more comprehensive analysis. 4 
A. First Criterion 
We tum 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'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. 5 
On the labor condition application (LCA) 6 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 (SOC) code 13-2051. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts 
4 We incorporate our discussion regarding the Petitioner's specification of a general purpose business administration degree 
as being sufficient for entry in to the position into our discussion of the 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) criteria. 
5 We do not maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. All of our references to the 
Handbook may be accessed at http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. 
6 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA 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 experience and qualifications who are performing the same services. Section 2 l 2(n)(l) 
ofthe Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.73l(a). 
5 
Matter of D-B-S-, Inc. 
that the Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook's (Handbook) report on 
"Financial Analysts" demonstrates that the proffered position satisfies the first criterion. We disagree. 
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. 7 The Handbook's subchapter entitled "How to 
Become a Financial Analyst" states, in pertinent part, that "[m]ost positions require a bachelor's 
degree" and that "[a] number of fields of study provide appropriate preparation, including accounting, 
economics, finance, statistics, and mathematics." 8 Notably, while the Handbook lists appropriate 
academic fields, that list appears to be not exclusive as the list is preceded by "including" certain 
fields. 
Thus, according to the Handbook, a bachelor's degree in one of several disciplines is adequate for 
entry into the occupation. The Petitioner seems to acknowledge as such, stating on appeal that "a 
variety of Bachelor's level education fields may provide sufficient educational preparation for a 
financial analyst occupation generally." Further, while we look to the Handbook to determine the 
educational requirements, the first criterion requires us to determine what is normally the minimum 
requirement for the particular position. As noted, the Petitioner indicated a bachelor's degree in 
business administration without farther specification 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. 
The Petitioner also cites to Next Generation Tech., Inc. v. Johnson, 328 F. Supp. 3d 252,267 (S.D.N.Y. 
2017) to state that the Director has mischaracterized the Handbook to conclude that a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty is not normally the minimum requirement for the proffered position and the 
Director's conclusion has no "rational connection" to the Handbook. 
We first note that we are not bound to follow the published decision of a United States district 
court. SeeMatterofK-S-,20l&NDec. 715, 719-20(BIA 1993). Nevertheless,evenifweconsidered 
the logic underlying the matter, we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
As recognized by another court, while the Handbook may establish the first regulatory criterion for 
certain professions, many occupations are not described in such a categorical manner. 9 See In nova 
Sols., Inc. v. Baran, 2019 WL 3753334, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2019) (declining to follow Next 
Generation Tech., Inc.). For example, "[the Handbook's] description for the Computer Programmer 
occupation does not describe the normal minimum educational requirements of the occupation in a 
categorical fashion." Id.; see also Xiaotong Liu v. Baran, 2018 WL 7348851 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 
2018). "Accordingly, [the Petitioner] could not simply rely on [the Handbook] profile, and instead 
had the burden to show that the particular position offered to [ the Beneficiary] was among the 
7 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. 
8 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Depaitment of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook), Financial Analysts, 
on the Internet at https://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/print/financial-analysts.htm (last visited Sept. 27, 2019). 
9 Such professions would include surgeons or attorneys, which indisputably require at least a bachelor's degree for entry 
into the occupation. 
6 
Matter of D-B-S-, Inc. 
Computer Programmer positions for which a bachelor's degree was normally required." See Innova 
Sols., Inc. 2019 WL 3753334, at *8. 
Moreover, the court in Next Generation Tech., Inc. relied in part on a USCIS policy memorandum 
regarding "Computer Programmers" indicating generally preferential treatment toward computer 
programmers, and "especially" toward companies in that particular petitioner's industry. However, 
USCIS rescinded the policy memorandum cited by the court in Next Generation Tech. Inc. 10 
As noted, here, the Handbook states that a bachelor's degree in one of several disciplines is adequate 
for entry into the occupation. Further, as noted, the Petitioner indicated a bachelor's degree in business 
administration without further specification was sufficient. Therefore, the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently established that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally 
the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position. 
The Petitioner also cites to Residential Finance Corp. v. USCIS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012), 
for the proposition that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is what is important. Diplomas 
rarely come bearing occupation-specific majors. What is required is an occupation that requires highly 
specialized knowledge and a prospective employee who has attained the credentialing indicating 
possession of that knowledge." 
We agree with the aforementioned proposition that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is 
what is important." For the aforementioned reasons, however, the Petitioner has not met its burden to 
establish that the particular position offered in this matter requires a bachelor's or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, directly related to its duties in order to perform those tasks. 
In any event, the Petitioner has furnished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition 
are analogous to those in Residential Finance. 11 Again, we are not bound to follow the published 
decision of a United States district court in matters arising even within the same district. See K-S-, 20 
I&N Dec. at 719-20. It is also important to note that in a subsequent case reviewed in the same 
jurisdiction, the court agreed with our analysis of Residential Finance. See Health Carousel, LLC v. 
USCIS, No. 1:13-CV-23, 2014 WL 29591 (S.D. Ohio 2014). 
The Occupational Information Network (O*NET) entry for "Financial Analysts" provided by the 
Petitioner also does not establish the proffered position as a specialty occupation. First, O*NET 
assigns these positions a "Job Zone Four" rating, which states only that most but not all of the 
occupations within it require a bachelor's degree. It does not specify the specific field of study, if any, 
from which the degree must come. The summary report also does not indicate that any academic 
credentials for Job Zone Four occupations must be directly related to the duties performed. We also 
10 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0142, Rescission of the December 22, 2000 "Guidance memo on Hl B 
computer related positions" (Mar. 31, 2017), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/nativedocuments/PM-6002-
0142-H-1 BComputerRelatedPositionsRecission.pdf 
11 The district judge's decision appears to have been based largely on the many factual errors made by the Director in the 
decision denying the petition. We further note that the Director's decision was not appealed to us. Based on the district 
court's findings and description of the record, if that matter had first been appealed through the available administrative 
process, we may very well have remanded the matter to the service center for a new decision for many of the same reasons 
articulated by the district court if these errors could not have been remedied by us in our de nova review of the matter. 
7 
Matter of D-B-S-, Inc. 
note that the summary report provides the educational requirements of "respondents," but does not 
account for 100% of the "respondents." The respondents' positions within the occupation are not 
distinguished by career level (e.g., entry-level, mid-level, senior-level). Finally, the graph in the 
summary report does not indicate that the "education level" for the respondents must be in a specific 
specialty. As previously discussed, we have consistently interpreted the term "degree" to mean not 
just any baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the 
proposed position. See Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147; Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387. In summary, 
O*NET does not indicate that when a four-year bachelor's degree is required, that it must be in a 
specific specialty directly related to the occupation, or the equivalent. Therefore, this information 
does not establish the proffered position as a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner also submitted an expert opinion letter authored by~ ______ ____. professor of 
finance and economics at thel I School of Business, ~niversity. In his letter, the professor 
(1) describes the credentials that he asserts qualify him to opine upon the nature of the proffered 
position; (2) describes the duties proposed for the Beneficiary; and (3) states that these duties require 
at least a bachelor's degree in finance, business administration, or a related field. We carefully 
evaluated the professor's assertions in support of the instant petition but find them insufficient. 
In his letter, the professor states that his assessment is based upon a review of the Petitioner's 
documents, to include the Petitioner's letter of support, the two job descriptions that the Petitioner 
provided for the proffered position, and the Beneficiary's academic credentials. While the professor 
provides a brief: general description of the Petitioner's business activities and reiterates the position 
duties as expressed by the Petitioner, there is no indication that he possessed any knowledge of the 
Petitioner's proffered position beyond this material, e.g., interviewed the Petitioner's employees about 
the nature of their work or documented the knowledge that these workers apply on the job prior to 
rendering his opinion regarding the proffered position. His level of familiarity with the actual job 
duties as they would be performed in the context of the Petitioner's business has not been 
substantiated. 
In addition, the professor states that "[b ]ased upon the provided job description, it is clear that the 
Analyst in the subject position would be required to perform an immediate and critical function in 
contributing to the structuring of financing transactions, quantitative financial analysis, financial 
research, financial modeling, valuation, and the financial forecasting duties require by [the 
Petitioner]." However, the record does not indicate whether the professor was aware that, as indicated 
by the wage level on the LCA, the Petitioner considered the proffered position to be an entry-level 
position. 12 Further, while he references the Petitioner's statement that the Beneficiary will be a 
member of the.___~~---~-------' analytics group, he provides no analysis or discussion 
regarding the scope and nature of her duties as a part of that working group. As a result, we conclude 
12 A prevailing wage determination starts with an entry-level wage and progresses to a higher wage level after considering 
the experience, education, and skill requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. The Petitioner's designation of the 
position as a Level I position on the submitted Labor condition application (LCA), indicates that it is an entry-level 
position. 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://flcdatacenter.com/download/ 
NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised_ 11 _ 2009 .pd£ 
8 
Matter of D-B-S-, Inc. 
that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the professor possessed the requisite information to 
adequately assess the nature of the position based upon the job duties and level ofresponsibilities. 
Further, the professor's opinion letter does not substantiate his conclusions, such that we can conclude 
that the Petitioner has met its burden of proof. For instance, the professor asserts that: 
I am folly familiar with [the Petitioner] as a company, as well as its competitors and 
the industry sector in which it operates. I consult with recruiters and academic advisors 
to ensure that students are prepared for the actual requirements of companies who hire 
them. 
The professor opines, among other things, that "it is widely recognized that individuals holding a 
position such as the Analyst position herein necessarily must have at least a bachelor's-level degree in 
[ f]inance, [b ]usiness [ a ]dministration, or a related specialized field." However, the professor does not 
reference, cite, or discuss any studies, surveys, industry publications, authoritative publications, or 
other sources of empirical information which he may have consulted to complete his evaluation, in 
order to arrive at this conclusion. 
For the reasons discussed, we find that the opinion letter lends little probative value to the matter here. 
As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter 
of Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, we will reject an opinion or 
give it less weight if it is not in accord with other information in the record or if it is in any way 
questionable. Id. We are ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an 
individual's eligibility for the benefit sought; the submission of expert opinion letters is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id.; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, 502 n.2 (BIA 
2008) ("[E]xpert opinion testimony, while undoubtedly a form of evidence, does not purport to be 
evidence as to 'fact' but rather is admissible only if 'it will assist the trier of fact to understand the 
evidence or to determine a fact in issue."'). 13 
The record lacks sufficient evidence to support that the position, as described, 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 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 looks to the common 
industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific position. 
13 We hereby incorporate our discussion of the professor's letter into our discussion of the other 8 C.F.R. 
§ 2 l 4.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) criteria. 
9 
Matter of D-B-S-, Inc. 
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. 
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 attest 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 already discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which the 
Handbook (or another 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. In addition, there are no submissions from the industry's 
professional association indicating that it has made a degree a minimum entry requirement. 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner provided copies of job announcements placed by other 
employers. However, we find the Petitioner's reliance on them misplaced. On appeal, the Petitioner 
refers to previously submitted advertisements from financial services companies. 
First, some of the advertisements do not appear to be for parallel positions. For instance, many of the 
postings appear to be for more senior, experienced position than the proffered position. For example, 
C-A-B- requires a degree in finance or a related field, and three years of investment banking 
experience; while TD-S- requires a degree in business (accounting or finance) or 
mathematics/economics, and 2 - 4 years of specific experience. S-W- required "advanced knowledge 
of job area typically obtained through advanced education combined with experience," to include a 
bachelor's degree in in finance/economics, and "complete knowledge of financial institution balance 
sheet, profit and loss, and analysis techniques," and "working knowledge of GAAP accounting issues 
as they relate to the banking industries." In contrast, the Petitioner required one of the previously 
discussed bachelor degrees, 0-2 years of prior work experience, no specialized skills, and indicated 
that the proffered position is an entry level (Level I) position on the LCA. 14 Moreover, the postings 
do not include sufficient information about the duties and responsibilities for the advertised positions. 
Thus, it is not possible to determine important aspects of the jobs, such as the day-to-day 
responsibilities, complexity of the job duties, supervisory duties (if any), and independent judgment 
required or the amount of supervision received. Here, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established 
that the primary duties and responsibilities of the advertised positions are parallel to the proffered 
position. 15 
14 See Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, supra. 
15 On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that wage level I does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty 
occupation. We agree that the wage level designation may be a relevant factor but is not itself conclusive evidence that a 
10 
Matter of D-B-S-, Inc. 
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. 16 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. 17 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. 
The record does not sufficiently demonstrate that the necessary knowledge for the proffered position 
is attained through an established curriculum of particular courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. We also observe that while a business administration 
degree may be beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated how an established curriculum of courses leading to such a degree would prepare 
someone to perform substantive duties of the proffered position. 
Moreover, we note again that the Beneficiary will be employed within the Petitioner's! 
I I analytics group. The Director requested evidence in her RFE ~r_e_g-ar-d-in_g_t_h_e~ 
organizational hierarchy in which the Beneficiary will be employed, to include a line and block 
organizational chart that illustrates the staffing levels and the Beneficiary's relative location therein, 
her prospective supervisory and reporting chain, and other similar information. While the Petitioner 
provided information in response to the RFE about its business operations generally, the record is 
devoid of such information that would identify the substantive nature of the Beneficiary's position 
within any work group or other hierarchal structure. Thus, the Petitioner did not sufficiently develop 
relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the position within the context of others employed 
proffered position meets the requirements of section 2 l 4(i)(l) of the Act. In this case, we considered the wage level 
designation in relation to the postings in the record to conclude that the positions included in the advertisements do not 
appear to be parallel positions since they require substantial experience and/or specialized skills in addition to a degree. 
While the wage level was a relevant factor, it was one of other factors we considered under this criteria including whether 
the record contains sufficient information regarding advertising employers, duties of the position, and whether the postings 
require at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 
16 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. 
17 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). 
11 
Matter of D-B-S-, Inc. 
within its.__ __________ ____, analytics group function. The record lacks sufficiently 
detailed information to distinguish the proffered position as so unique or complex such that it requires 
at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
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. 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 387-88. 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. 
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient documentation in support of this criterion with the initial 
petition. The Director requested documentary evidence regarding the Petitioner's historical recruiting 
practices, and the minimum requirements for the proffered position, in her RFE. In the RFE response, 
the Petitioner reiterates the position requirements and the duties, and maintains that it requires at least 
a bachelor's degree in finance, business administration, or a related field. On appeal, the Petitioner 
states "given the highly specialized and sophisticated nature of the Petitioner's operations, client needs 
and financial product and services offerings, it is quite apparent that the Petitioner would not hire any 
professional employees into the Analyst role without a minimum of a [b ]achelor's degree or the 
equivalent in a specific field." Nonetheless, it did not submit documentary evidence of its historical 
recruiting practices for the position, or other contemporaneous evidence regarding previous or current 
employees who have served in the proffered position. 18 
The Petitioner, therefore, 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 
18 "Failure to submit requested evidence which precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the 
[petition]." 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l4). 
12 
Matter of D-B-S-, Inc. 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates, among other things that "in light of the instrumentality of the 
Petitioner's business-critical .__ ___________ ___, systems to its overall success and 
competitiveness in the industry, it is clear that the Petitioner would not employ individuals without a 
Bachelor's degree or the equivalent to discharge the duties of the instant role." We renew our concerns 
regard the lack of material that would set forth the relative specialization and complexity of the 
Beneficiary's entry-level role within the Petitioner's organization. 
For instance, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary will "[a] ssist with the preparation of detailed 
annual I I memoranda on companies identifying strengths and challenges," "[c]ollaborate with 
other team members in connecting with client counterparts on agented transactions," and"[ a ]ssess and 
collaborate with colleagues inl I on a regular basis to maintain a proactive view 
on clients' performance." However, though the Petitioner has provided narrative about the job duties 
of the position, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established the Beneficiary's claimed specialized, 
complex, entry-level role within her organizational function. We incorporate our discussion and 
analysis under the second prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), and conclude 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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of D-B-S-, Inc., ID# 4194541 (AAO Sept. 27, 2019) 
13