dismissed H-1B Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUN. 22, 2023 In Re : 26529967 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification 
for specialty occupations . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 
8 U .S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) . The H-lB program allows a U.S . employer to temporarily employ a 
qualified foreign worker in a position that requires both: (a) the theoretical and practical application 
of a body of highly specialized knowledge; and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in 
the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position . 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The matter is now before us 
on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537 , 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review , 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: (A) the 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) is a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C .F.R. § 214 .2(h)(4)(ii) adds a non-exhaustive list of fields of endeavor to the 
statutory definition. And the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii) requires that the proffered 
position must also 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 . 
2. The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel pos1t10ns 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. 
The statute and the regulations must be read together to make sure that the proffered position meets 
the definition of a specialty occupation. See K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) 
(holding that construction of language which takes into account the design of the statue as a whole is 
preferred); see also COIT Independence Joint Venture v. Fed. Sav. And Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 
(1989); Matter of W-F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). Considering the statute and the regulations 
separately leads to scenarios where a Petitioner satisfies a regulatory factor but not the definition of 
specialty occupation contained in the statute. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 5th Cir. 
2000). The regulatory criteria read together with the statute gives effect to the statutory intent. See 
Temporary Alien Workers Seeking Classification Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 56 Fed. 
Reg. 61111, 61112 (Dec. 2, 1991). 
So we construe the term "degree" in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any baccalaureate 
or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered position 
supporting the statutory definition of specialty occupation. 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"). U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services' (USCIS) application of this standard has resulted in the orderly approval of 
H-1 B petitions for engineers, accountants, information technology professionals and other 
occupations, commensurate with what Congress intended when it created the H-lB category. 
And job title or broad occupational category alone does not determine whether a particular job is a 
specialty occupation under the regulations and statute. The nature of the Petitioner's business 
operations along with the specific duties of the proffered job are also considered. We must evaluate 
the employment of the individual and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. See Defensor, 201 F.3d 384. So a Petitioner's self-imposed requirements are not as 
critical as whether the position the Petitioner offers requires the application of a theoretical and 
practical body of knowledge gained after earning the required baccalaureate or higher degree in the 
specific specialty required to accomplish the duties of the job. 
By regulation, the Director is charged with determining whether the petition involves a specialty 
occupation as defined in section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(2). The Director 
may request additional evidence in the course of making this determination. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8). 
In addition, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the petition and must continue to 
be eligible through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
II. THE PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner is offering the Beneficiary the position of financial analyst. The petition included a 
certified labor condition application (LCA) certified for a position located within the "Financial 
2 
Analysts" occupational category corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 13-
2051.00. The proffered job description aligns generally with the duties of positions in this 
occupational category. 
In its response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) as well as at appeal, the Petitioner refers 
us to the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) for its 
educational requirements for its financial analyst position. The Handbook states that "Most entry­
level positions for financial analysts require a bachelor's degree; a common field of degree is 
business." 1 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 
Financial Analysts (Feb. 6, 2023 ), https: //www. bls. gov/ ooh/business-and- financial/financial­
analysts.htm. So, consistent with the Handbook, we conclude that the Petitioner's stated educational 
requirement for entry to their financial analyst position is a bachelor's degree in business. 
III. ANALYSIS 
A. Specialty Occupation 
The proffered position does not meet the statutory or regulatory definition of the term "specialty 
occupation." The Petitioner has not satisfied the requirement that the proffered position require the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of specialized knowledge and that the position requires 
attainment of a bachelor's degree in the specific specialty to perform the job duties. 
The record of proceedings contains the Petitioner's stated requirements for the proffered position. As 
stated above, the Petitioner refers us at appeal as well as in their response to the RFE that their 
educational requirement is the same as that contained in the Handbook. The Handbook's requirement 
for a bachelor's degree, preferably in business, without any additional specialization cannot support a 
specialty occupation. When a position is a "specialty occupation" under the statute and regulations, it 
is one which involves a "body of highly specialized knowledge" attained after completing a bachelor's 
degree or higher in a "specific specialty." A general degree like a bachelor's degree in business 
standing alone without any farther specialization, is not a specialty. And this excludes any proffered 
position accepting such a degree as a minimum requirement for entry into the position from 
consideration as a specialty occupation. A bachelor's degree in business without farther specialization 
is so broad that it could apply to a position in finance as well as general business operations and 
management in a variety of endeavors. So it cannot provide an individual with the "body of highly 
specialized knowledge" required to perform the duties of a specialty occupation. 
In accordance with the statutory and regulatory requirements, the agency has consistently disfavored 
general purpose bachelor's degrees, such as those in business, with no additional specialization. See 
Matter ofLing, 13 I&N Dec. 35 (Reg'l Comm'r 1968); Matter o_fMichael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 
558 (Comm'r 1988); Matter of Caron Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988). Even after Congress 
revamped the H-1B program as part of the Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649, 104 Stat. 
4978, the agency's concerns with a general-purpose bachelor's degree with no additional 
1 The Petitioner also submitted other DOL sourced documentation in support of the H-lB petition, RFE and appeal to 
demonstrate that its proffered job is a specialty occupation. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have 
reviewed and considered each one. 
3 
specialization continued. See e.g. Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151 (D. Minn. 1999); 2233 
Paradise Road, LLC v. Cissna, No. 17-cv-01018-APG-VCF, 2018 WL 3312967 (D. Nev. July 3, 
2018); XiaoTong Liu v. Baran, No. 18-00376-JVS, 2018 WL 7348851 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2018); 
Parzenn Partners v. Baran, No. 19-cv-11515-ADB, 2019 WL 6130678 (D. Mass. Nov. 19, 2019); 
Xpress Group v. Cuccinelli, No. 3:20-CV-00568-DSC, 2022 WL 433482 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 10, 2022). 
As the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit explained in Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147: 
The courts and the agency consistently have stated that, although a general-purpose 
bachelor's degree, such as a business administration degree, may be a legitimate 
prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not 
justify granting of a petition for an H-1B specialty occupation visa. See e.g., Tapis Int'l 
v. INS, 94 F. Supp.2d 172, 175-76 (D. Mass. 2000); Shanti, 36 F.Supp.2d at 1164-66; 
cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 ([Comm'r] 1988) 
(providing frequently cited analysis in connection with a conceptually similar 
provision). This is as it should be: elsewise, an employer could ensure the granting of 
a specialty occupation visa petition by the simple expedient of creating a generic ( and 
essentially artificial) degree requirement. 
A requirement for bachelor's degree in business with no farther specialization is not a requirement for 
a degree in a specific specialty. And the fact that the Petitioner would accept such a degree as a 
minimum qualification for entry to the proffered position does not satisfy the statutory and regulatory 
definitions of specialty occupation. 
We therefore cannot conclude that the proffered position's minimum requirement for entry into the 
job is anything more than a general bachelor's degree. The Petitioner consequently has satisfied 
neither the statutory definition of a "specialty occupation" at section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act nor the 
term's regulatory definition at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
Without the express requirement of a baccalaureate or higher degree providing the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, the supplemental regulatory criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(])-(4) cannot be satisfied. The supplemental regulatory criteria are 
read together within the related regulations and the statute as a whole. So, where the regulations refer 
to the term "degree," we interpret that term to mean a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty related to the proffered position. See Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147. The word "degree" is 
mentioned in each prong of the supplemental regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(])­
(4). And where, as here, a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty is not required as a 
minimum requirement of entry, it follows that each prong under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(])-( 4) 
remains unsatisfied. So we will not consider the Petitioner's arguments and the evidence it submits in 
support of its contention that it satisfies the supplemental regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(])-( 4). 
We conclude that the proffered position here is not a specialty occupation because the record of 
proceedings does not establish that the proffered position requires both: (1) the theoretical and practical 
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge; and (2) the attainment of a bachelor's degree 
in the specific specialty. The Petitioner has satisfied neither the statutory definition of a "specialty 
4 
occupation" at section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act nor the regulatory definition of a specialty occupation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). As the Petitioner had not satisfied that threshold requirement, it cannot 
satisfy any of the supplemental specialty-occupation criteria enumerated at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(I)-( 4). The Petitioner has not established that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation. 
B. Non-Corresponding Labor Condition Application 
The LCA submitted with the petition 
does not correspond to the petition. A petitioner seeking to file 
an H-lB petition must submit a certified LCA. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(n)(l); 
20 C.F.R. § 655.73l(a). A DOL-certified LCA memorializes the attestations a petitioner makes 
regarding the employment of the noncitizen in H-lB status. See 20 C.F.R. § 655.734(d)(l)-(6). Whilst 
DOL is responsible for certifying that the Petitioner has made the required LCA attestations, USCIS 
evaluates whether the submitted LCA corresponds with the Petitioner's H-lB petition. 20 C.F.R. 
§ 655.705(b). USCIS may consider DOL regulations when adjudicating H-lB petitions. See Int'/ 
Internship Programs v. Napolitano, 853 F.Supp. 2d 86, 98 (D.D.C. 2012), ajf'd sub nom Int'l 
Internship Program v. Napolitano, 718 F.3d 986 (D.C. Cir. 2013). See also ITServe Alliance, Inc. v. 
DHS, 590 F. Supp. 3d 27, 40 (D.D.C. 2022) (noting that 20 C.F.R. § 655.705 requires USCIS "to 
check that the [H-lB] petition matches the LCA"). 
The Petitioner represented that their proffered job was a part-time position in the Form I-129 and the 
LCA. But, the Petitioner expects that the financial analyst will provide services between 5 and 40 
hours per week. The regulations expect all employees working under 35 hours a week to be part time. 
The regulations permit an employer to demonstrate that a position is full time if an employee works 
within a range of 35 and 40 hours a week. But any employment that requires an employee to work 40 
or more hours per week is full-time. See 20 C.F.R. § 656.736(a)(3)(A). The Petitioner's range 
obligates the employee to work a range of hours up to full-time 40 hours per week. An LCA certified 
for part-time employment cannot support a petition that requires the full-time employment of a 
beneficiary as is the case here. So the petition is unapprovable as filed even if the Petitioner could 
have demonstrated that the proffered job is a specialty occupation under section 214(i)(l) of the Act 
and the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
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. 
5