dismissed H-1B Case: Finance

.
U.S. Citizenship · 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-1-US, LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 6, 2017 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a financial research and analytics company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "senior quantitative analyst" under the H-1 B nonimmigrant classification for 
specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish that it had specialty occupation work available for the Beneficiary when the petition 
was filed. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Director erred in her 
findings. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I.. AVAILABILITY OF SPECIALTY OCCUPA TlON WORK 
On the H-1 B petition, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary would work offsite. In its letter of 
support, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary's otfsite work location would be at in 
New York, and that the Beneficiary would work at this location for the duration of the 
intended employment period October 1, 2016, to August 31, 2019. The record also included a 
framework agreement entered into between a company registered 
in and the Petitioner's at1iliated company. The effective date of the agreement is March 15, 
2008, and its term is three years unless terminated in accordance with the terms of the agreement. In 
response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) on the continuing validity of this agreement, 
the Petitioner notified the Director that the Beneficiary would be assigned to work for a different 
client. Based on this evidence, the Director concluded that a work assignment never existed for the 
Beneficiary at the location, and without definitive work for the Beneficiary the petition 
could not be approve'd. 
.
Matter ofC-1-US. LLC 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a work order between and the 
Petitioner's affiliated company with an effective date of September 19, 2016.' The work order is for 
the services of a senior modeler and two modelers for the 
in the client's offices, ending January 31, 2017. The Petitioner submits a second work order, 
also between its affiliated company and with an effective date of 
October 10, 2016, for a "senior quant analyst," among other positions. The work to be performed is 
on the client's with an anticipated completion date of May 
29, 2017. Also included for the record is a series of emails between the Petitioner's different 
components discussing the replacement of an individual with the Beneficiary and the approval of the 
Beneficiary to work for a client ~ The Petitioner asserts that these documents clearly 
establish that it had a bonafide need for the Beneficiary's services for the project when the 
petition was filed. We disagree. 
The first work order does not appear to be for the same position proffered in this petition. While the 
first work order would have been effective for the Beneficiary's intended period of employment, it 
does not identify the position as a senior quantitative analyst position. As the work order does not 
describe the duties for the senior modeler or modelers, we are unable to analyze the duties to 
ascertain if they correspond to the duties of a senior quantitative analyst, the requested H -1 B 
position. The second work order does not commence until a date subsequent to the start date of the 
Beneficiary's intended employment period. Thus, the work was not available for the Beneficiary at 
the start date of his intended employment. 
Additionally, the emails between the Petitioner's different components do not establish that the 
Beneficiary's proposed employment will be for the project referenced in the second work 
order. Also, the first work order is signed September 15 and 16, 2016. The second work order is 
signed September 30, 2016, and October 4, 2016. Thus, neither work order was effective when the 
petition was filed in April 2016. Accordingly, the record lacks sufficient evidence to establish that 
the Petitioner had employment available for the Beneficiary when the petition was tiled for the 
intended employment period. 3 
1 The work order identifying the client as ' references the 2008 framework agreement 
between' 'and the Petitioner's affiliated company. The work order also references an 
addendum effective Sep~ember 9, 20 I 0. The addendum is not provided for the record. Although the work order 
identifies the Petitioner as the supplier, the Petitioner has not established the relationship between 
and • Thus, the relevance of the work order to this proceeding also has 
not been established. 
2 The record does not include sufficient information to connect ' 
identified on the work orders, or to 
agreement. 
to , the entity 
the entity identified in the 2008 framework 
3 The Petitioner submits a "Term Schedule" on appeal for work the Beneficiary will perform for a different client, 
at the facility. The term schedule is made on April 16, 2016, and is signed by the parties on May 4, 2016. 
Accordingly, this work also was not available when the petition was filed. 
2 
Matter o.fC-1-US, LLC 
As the Petitioner did not demonstrate eligibility for this petition, we need not fully address other 
issues evident in the record. However, upon our de novo review of the record, we find additional 
issues that also require denial of the petition. 
II. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that it would employ the Beneficiary in a specialty occupation. 
Specifically, the record (1) does not describe the position's.duties with sufficient detail; and (2) does 
not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate 
with a specialty occupation. The petition must be denied on this additional basis. 
A. Legal Framework 
Section 214(i)(l) ofthe 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 ofthe following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
(I) 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 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. v. Cherto[(; 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing 
3 
.
Matter ofC-1-U';.;, LLC 
"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). 
As recognized by the court in Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88, where the work is to be performed for 
entities other than the petitioner, evidence of the client companies' job requirements is critical. See 
id. The court held that the former Immigration and Naturalization Service had reasonably 
interpreted the statute and regulations as requiring the petitioner to produce evidence that a proffered 
position qualities as a specialty occupation on the basis of the requirements imposed by the entities 
using the beneficiary's services. Jd. Such evidence must be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate the 
type and educational level of highly specialized knowledge in a specific discipline that is necessary 
to perform that particular work. 
B. The Proffered Position 
In a letter submitted in support of the petition, the Petitioner stated the Beneficiary will perform the 
following duties (paraphrased): 
• . Help our clients with various aspects of the Basel implementation including 
managing the project plan for Risk Analytics models development and 
evaluating/testing monthly RWA results for the implementation accuracy. 
• Work on Basel li/Ill's related projects (PD/LGD/EAD Models). 
• Understand modelling and validation methodologies. 
• Develop and execute test plans to ensure their compliance; with regulatory 
guidelines. 
• Analyze model weaknesses, benchmarking to external vendor models, and 
documenting and reporting the results. 
• Consult with the Model Development and Risk Management teams to determine 
the need for developing new or updating existing analytical tools. 
The Petitioner states that it "requires, as a prerequisite to employment as a Senior Quantitative 
Analyst, possession of~ at minimum, a Baccalaureate Degree or its equivalent in a quantitative 
discipline such as Mathematics, Statistics, Economics, Financial Engineering, Finance or Physics, 
and a good understanding of Financial Markets and the Banking industry." 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted a letter signed by a representative of 
the claimed new end client in this matter, which stated that the Beneficiary had been 
assigned to its facility "in the capacity of Research Analyst, with responsibility for developing model 
monitoring framework for efficiency of credit risk models for PD, LGD and EAD of Bank's 
Wholesale portfolio." The end client repeated the Petitioner's academic requirements omitting the 
field of physics. 
4 
.
Matter ofC-1-US, LLC 
C. Analysis 
The Petitioner claims that the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree in a "quantitative 
discipline such as Mathematics, Statistics, Economics, Financial Engineering, Finance or Physics, 
and a good understanding of Financial Markets and the Banking industry." The issue here is that 
"quantitative discipline" is a broad category that covers numerous and various specialties. It is not 
readily apparent that a degree in finance and a degree in physics, or a degree in economics and a 
degree in statistics, require an established curriculum of courses leading to the same required body of 
highly specialized knowledge. In generaL provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., 
chemistry and biochemistry, a minimum of a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty 
is recognized as satisfying the "degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)" requirement of 
section 214(i)(l)(B) ofthe Act. In such a case, the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" 
would essentially be the same. Since there must be a close correlation between the required "body 
of highly specialized knowledge" and the position, however, a minimum entry requirement of a 
degree in two disparate fields, such as finance and physics, would not meet the statutory requirement 
that the degree be "in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)," unless the Petitioner establishes how 
each field is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position such that the 
required "body of highly specialized knowledge" is essentially an amalgamation of these different 
specialties. Section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act (emphasis added). 
Thus, the Petitioner's acceptance of a variety of degrees to perform the duties of the profTered 
position indicates that the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. C.'l Matter ol Afichael 
Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). 
Also, the Petitioner's description of the proposed duties is broad and indicates generally that the 
Beneficiary will help manage the project plan for models development, in conjunction with the 
international framework for banks in order to strengthen the regulation, supervision, and risk 
management of the banking sector. The duties include testing to ensure compliance with regulatory 
guidelines and to analyze model weaknesses. The Petitioner does not allocate the amount of time 
the Beneficiary will spend on any of the described duties, which limits our ability to ascertain the 
primary responsibilities of the position and what the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to do in the 
position. The record does not include sufficiently detailed descriptions of the Beneficiary's 
proposed duties to establish the relative complexity, uniqueness, or specialization of the profTered 
position. Moreover, the work will be performed for entities other than the Petitioner, thus, evidence 
of the client companies' job requirements is critical. Here, the claimed end client, limits the 
Beneficiary's duties to "developing model monitoring framework for efficiency of credit risk 
models" for the bank's portfolio. We are unable to discern the nature of the actual position from this 
description and \vhether the general tasks described entail the need tor a particular level of 
education, or educational equivalency, in a body of highly specialized knowledge in a specific 
specialty. 
5 
.
Matter ofC-1-US. LLC 
The broad descriptions of the proffered position, preclude a finding that the position satisfies any 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), because it is the substantive nature of that work that 
determines (1) the normal minimum educational requirement for entry into the particular position, 
which is the focus of criterion I; (2) industry positions which are parallel to the proftered position 
and thus appropriate for review for a common degree requirement, under the first alternate prong of 
criterion 2; (3) the level of complexity or uniqueness of the proftered position, which is the focus of 
the second alternate prong of criterion 2; (4) the factual justification for a petitioner normally 
requiring a degree or its equivalent, when that is an issue under criterion 3; and (5) the degree of 
specialization and complexity of the specific duties, which is the focus of criterion 4. 
Accordingly, as the Petitioner has not established that it has satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it cannot be found that the proftered position qualities for classification as a 
specialty occupation and the petition must also be denied on this basis. 
III. EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP 
The Petitioner also has not established that it qualifies as an H-1 B employer. 
The United States 
Supreme Court determined that where federal law fails to clearly define the term "employee," courts 
should conclude that the term was "intended to describe the conventional master-servant relationship 
as understood by common-law agency doctrine." Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318, 
322-23 (1992) (quoting Cmty. for Creative lv'on-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989)). The 
Supreme Court stated: 
"In determining whether a hired party is an employee under the general common law· 
of agency, we consider the hiring party's right to control the manner and means by 
which the product is accomplished. Among the other factors relevant to this inquiry 
are the skill required; the source of the instrumentalities and tools; the location of the 
work; the duration of the relationship between the parties; whether the hiring party 
has the right to assign additional projects to the hired party; the extent of the hired 
party's discretion over when and how long to work; the method of payment; the hired 
party's role in hiring and paying assistants; whether the work is part of the regular 
business of the hiring party; whether the hiring party is in business; the provision of 
employee benefits; and the tax treatment of the hired party." 
!d.; see also Clackamas Gastroenterology Assocs .. P. C. v. Wells, 538 U.S. 440, 445 (2003) (quoting 
Darden, 503 U.S. at 323). As the common-law test contains "no shorthand formula or magic phrase 
that can be applied to find the answer, ... all of the incidents of the relationship must be assessed 
and weighed with no one factor being decisive." Darden, 503 U.S. at 324 (quoting NLRB v. United 
Ins. Co. ofAm., 390 U.S. 254, 258 (1968)). 
The record includes confusing information regarding the Petitioner's relationship with the 
new claimed end client. In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted a master 
services agreement between its affiliated company and dated September 2013. 
6 
.
Matter ~fC-1-US, LLC 
And as referred to above, issued a letter indicating that ·the Petitioner had assigned the 
Beneficiary to its office. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a "Term Schedule" between 
itself and pursuant to a subcontractor service agreement entered into on 
November 1, 2013. The term schedule refers to the client as and identities the Beneficiary by 
name. However , there is no supporting documentation establishing that is a mid-vendor 
between the Petitioner and or identifying contractual restrictions, if any, placed on the 
Petitioner in its right to control the Beneficiary ' s work. Without full disclosure of all of the relevant 
factors, we are unable to find that the requisite employer-employee relationship will exist between 
the Petitioner and the Beneficiary. 
Based on the tests outlined above, the Petitioner has not established that it will be a "United States 
Employer" having an "employer-employee relationship'' with the Beneficiary as an H-1 B temporary 
"employee." 8 C.F.R. §' 214.2(h)(4)(ii). Accordingly , the petition must be denied for this additional 
reason. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal must be dismissed because the Petitioner did not submit sufticient evidence 
demonstrating it had specialty occupation \:vork available for the Beneficiary when the petition was 
filed. Additionally, the petition must be denied because the Petitioner did not establish that the 
proffered position is a specialty occupation and that it will have an employer-employee relationship 
with the Beneficiary. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as 1'.1atter ofC-1-US, LLC, ID# 264195 (AAO Apr. 6, 2017) 
..,