dismissed H-1B Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6155441 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 30, 2020 
The Petitioner, a mortgage banking company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"financial analyst" under the H-lB 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-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 California Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
established that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred and that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation. 
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. 
1 A petitioner must establish that it meets each eligibility requirement of the benefit sought by a preponderance of the 
evidence . Matter ofChawathe, 25 I& N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). 
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: 
(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 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. Chertojf, 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). 
II. MATERIAL INCONSISTENCIES 
A. Minimum Qualifications 
As a preliminary matter, we conclude that the Petitioner has not clearly defined the educational 
qualifications required to perform the duties of the position. In its initial filing, the Petitioner stated 
that its minimum qualifications were a bachelor's degree in accounting, finance, economics, or a 
closely related field, along with three years of demonstrated experience "using Microsoft Suite and 
Advanced Excel proficiency (knowledge of formulas and macros); Knowledge of Accounting 
practices and standards; Crystal Reporting/Plus & Minus Software experience required; Financial 
Analysis and Ad hoc reporting experience." 
In its response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner stated that it required a 
"Bachelor's Degree in Finance, Accounting or related field and minimum 24 months of experience, 
which is our company's standard minimum entry level requirements for the position." The Petitioner's 
stated requirements in its RFE response differ from the requirements stated at the initial filing because 
they do not include economics as one of the listed fields of study and the Petitioner reduces the required 
experience from three years to two years. In other parts of its RFE response, the Petitioner articulates 
new position requirements in terms of experience. Specifically, the Petitioner states that it requires 
experience in "VLOOKUP, pivot tables[]; SAP accounting solutions; Premium Pro tax reporting 
system; Enertia, Accounting and Finance Solution." 
2 
These changes indicate that the Petitioner has not clearly defined its position, which undermines the 
overall credibility of the petition. It is well established that a petitioner may not make material changes 
to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. 2 Because a 
petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been 
satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing through adjudication, 3 a visa petition may not be 
approved at a future date after a petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. 4 
As such, eligibility for the benefit sought must be assessed and weighed based on the facts as they 
existed at the time the instant petition was filed. In order for a petitioner to comply with 8 C.F.R. § 
103.2(b)(l) and USCIS to perform its regulatory duties under 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b), a petitioner 
must file an amended or new petition, along with a new labor condition application (LCA) certified 
by DOL, in order to capture any material changes in terms or conditions of employment or the 
beneficiary's eligibility. 
B. Labor Condition Application 
In examining the LCA5 submitted with the H-lB petition, we conclude that it does not correspond to 
and support to the petition. The purpose of the LCA wage requirement is "to protect U.S. workers' 
wages and eliminate any economic incentive or advantage in hiring temporary foreign workers." 6 It 
also serves to protect H-lB workers from wage abuses. A petitioner submits the LCA to the 
Department of Labor (DOL) to demonstrate that it will pay an H-lB worker the higher of either the 
prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the area of employment or the actual wage paid 
by the employer to other employees with similar duties, experience, and qualifications. 7 While DOL 
certifies the LCA, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) determines whether the LCA's 
content corresponds with the H-1 B petition. 8 
A petitioner must obtain a certified LCA from the Department of Labor in the occupational specialty 
in which the H-lB nonimmigrant will be employed before the filing of the Form 1-129.9 On the LCA 
submitted with the instant H-1 B petition, the Petitioner designated the proffered position under the 
occupational category "Financial Analysts" corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification 
(SOC) code 13-2051 at a Level II wage rate. In contrast to the LCA, the Petitioner stated on the Form 
1-129 petition that it will pay the Beneficiary $59,601, a figure that more closely aligns with a Level I 
wage rate. It is unclear if the proffered position is either a Level I position with a prevailing wage of 
2 See Matter of Izummi, 22 T&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). 
3 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
4 See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 T&N Dec. 248 (Reg'l Comm'r 1978). 
5 A petitioner submits the LCA to DOL to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B worker the higher of either the prevailing 
wage for the occupational classification in the area of employment or the actual wage paid by the employer to other 
employees with similar duties, experience, and qualifications. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(a). 
6 See Labor Condition Applications and Requirements for Employers Using Nonimmigrants on H-lB Visas in Specialty 
Occupations and as Fashion Models; Labor Certification Process for Permanent Employment of Aliens in the United 
States, 65 Fed. Reg. 80,110, 80,110-11 (proposed Dec. 20, 2000) (to be codified at 20 C.F.R. pts. 655-56). 
7 Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(a). 
8 See 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b) ("OHS detennines whether the petition is supp01ted by an LCA which corresponds with the 
petition ... "). 
9 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B) 
3 
$53,976 or a Level II position with a prevailing wage of $75,525, but the mismatch indicates that in 
either case, the LCA does not correspond to and support the petition as required. 
In addition to this, the Petitioner submitted a Form ET A-9141 prevailing wage determination 
application (PWD) on appeal. The PWD reflects a Level I wage rate, which differs from the wage 
level previously claimed on the LCA. We note that while the National Prevailing Wage Center will 
provide a wage determination, the Petitioner selects the experience and education level it requires for 
the position. Here, we read that the Petitioner submitted the PWD application on the same date as it 
filed the H-lB petition. In the initial filing of the petition, the requirements included a bachelor's 
degree and three years of experience, which clearly conflicts with the concurrently filed PWD 
application, which states the required experience is two years (24 months). 
To assess whether the wage level stated in the LCA corresponds to and supports the petition, we apply 
DOL's guidance, which provides a five step process for determining the appropriate wage level. 10 
DOL guidance states that wage levels should be determined only after selecting the most relevant 
occupational code classification. Then, a prevailing wage determination is made by selecting one of 
four wage levels for an occupation based on a comparison of the employer's job requirements to the 
occupational requirements, including tasks, knowledge, skills, and specific vocational preparation 
( education, training and experience) generally required for acceptable performance in that 
occupation. Factors to be considered when determining the wage level for a position include the 
complexity of the job duties, as well as the levels ofjudgment, supervision, and understanding required 
to perform the job duties. 
DOL guidance states that a Level I (entry) wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which 
the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the occupation. Step three of 
the DOL guidance concerns education requirements. Here, the Petitioner stated in its initial filing, 
that the minimum educational qualifications required to perform the duties of the position are a 
bachelor's degree in accounting, finance, economics, or a closely related field, along with three years 
of demonstrated experience that it considers relevant to the position. The DOL Occupational 
Information Network (O*NET) for "Financial Analysts" listed as SOC code 13-2051.00 is the SOC 
code designated by the Petitioner on the LCA. This designation indicates that the occupation is a Job 
Zone Four 11 position with a specific vocational preparation (SVP) range of 7 < 8. 12 An education 
requirement of a bachelor's degree and three years of experience is more than that required for Job 
Zone Four and SVP range of 7<8 occupations and should result in at least a one level increase in the 
wage. Therefore, ifwe accept the designated wage Level I from the PWD, the Petitioner's requirement 
of a bachelor's degree and three years' experience is not properly reflected. 13 Alternatively, if we 
10 U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. 
Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009) (DOL guidance). 
11 A Job Zone Four designation states that "[m]ost of these occupations require a four-year bachelor's degree, but some do 
not." 
12 This SVP is defined as "[o]ver 2 years up to and including 4 years." https://www.onetonline.org/help/online/svp 
13 A petitioner must distinguish its proffered position from others within the occupation through the proper wage level 
designation to indicate factors such as complexity of the job duties, the level of judgment, the amount and level of 
supervision, and the level of understanding required to perform the job duties. Through the wage level, the Petitioner 
reflects the job requirements, experience, education, special skills/other requirements and supervisory duties. See DOL 
guidance. 
4 
accept the PWD and the two years of experience, then the Petitioner has not filed an LCA that 
corresponds to and supports the petition as required. 
The requirements stated in the H-1 B petition for this position appear to be materially inconsistent with 
the certification of the PWD for a Level I position, in addition to the selected prevailing wage being 
materially inconsistent with the Level II wage designated on the LCA. The record of proceedings as 
currently constituted is therefore not sufficient to establish that the LCA corresponds to and supports 
the H-1 B petition, as required, and the petition cannot be approved for this reason alone. Having 
reached this preliminary conclusion, we will now address the basis upon which the Director denied 
this petition: her determination that the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 
III. SPECIAL TY OCCUPATION 
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. 14 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its 
equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 15 
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 will consider the information contained 
in the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) regarding the 
duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations it addresses. 16 
As previously stated, the Petitioner designated the proffered position under the occupational category 
"Financial Analysts," corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 13-2051. In 
pertinent part, the Handbook states that "[f]inancial analysts typically must have a bachelor's degree. 
Most positions require a bachelor's degree. A number of fields of study provide appropriate 
preparation, including accounting, economics, finance, statistics, and mathematics" ( emphasis 
added). 17 The Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, is normally required for entry into this occupation, nor does it indicate that the named 
fields comprise an exhaustive list. Based on the various degrees which many financial analysts can 
14 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
15 The Petitioner submitted documentation to supp01t the H-lB 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. 
16 We do not maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source ofrelevant infonnation. That is, the occupational category 
designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered 
position, and we regularly review the Handbook on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of 
occupations that it addresses. Nevertheless, 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 would normally have a minimum, specialty 
degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
17 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Financial Analysts, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/financial-analysts.htm#tab-4 (last visited Apr. 27, 2020). 
5 
possess, the Handbook does not support the position's eligibility under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
The Petitioner submits alternative evidence for our consideration under this criterion, including the 
DOL's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) summary report for this occupation and citations to 
case law. We turn first to O*NET and note that though relevant, the information in O*NET does not 
establish the Petitioner's eligibility under the first criterion, as it does not establish that a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, is normally required. The summary report provides general 
information regarding the occupation of financial analysts; however, it does not support the Petitioner's 
assertion regarding the educational requirements for these positions. For example, the Specific 
Vocational Preparation (SVP) rating, which is defined as "the amount oflapsed time required by a typical 
worker to learn the techniques, acquire the information, and develop the facility needed for average 
performance in a specific job-worker situation," cited within O*NET's Job Zone designates this position 
as having an SVP 7 < 8. This indicates that the occupation requires "over 2 years up to and including 4 
years" of training. 18 While the SVP rating provides the total number of years of vocational preparation 
required for a particular position, it is important to note that it does not describe how those years are to be 
divided among training, formal education, and experience - and it does not specify the particular type of 
degree, if any, that a position would require. 19 The O*NET summary report for this occupation also does 
not specify that a degree is required, but instead states, "most of these occupations require a four-year 
bachelor's degree, but some do not." Similar to the SVP rating, the Job Zone Four designation does not 
indicate that academic credentials for Job Zone Four occupations must be directly related to the duties 
performed. 
Further, we note that the O*NET summary report provides the educational requirements of 
"respondents." The respondents' positions within the occupation are not distinguished by career level 
( e.g., entry-level, mid-level, senior-level). Additionally, the graph in the summary report does not indicate 
that the "education level" for the respondents must be in a specific specialty, which is relevant because a 
requirement for a bachelor's degree alone is not sufficient. 20 Instead, 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. 21 O*NET, therefore, does not support the assertion that at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for these positions. 
The Petitioner cites Residential Finance Corp. v. USC!S22 for the proposition that "there is no apparent 
requirement that the specialized study needed be in a single academic discipline as opposed to a 
specialized course of study in related business specialties ... The knowledge and not the title of the 
degree is what is important. Diplomas rarely come bearing occupation specific majors." We generally 
18 This training may be acquired in a school, work, military, institutional, or vocational environment. Specific vocational 
training includes: vocational education, apprenticeship training, in-plant training, on-the-job training, and essential 
experience in other jobs. 
19 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/help/ 
online/svp. 
20 Nor is it apparent whether these credentials were prerequisites to these individuals' hiring. 
21 See Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147 (describing "a degree requirement in a specific specialty" as "one that relates 
directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular position"). 
22 Residential Finance Corp. v. USCIS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012). 
6 
agree with the aforementioned proposition in Residential Finance that "[t]he knowledge and not the 
title of the degree is what is important." 23 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) of the Act. In such a case, the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" 
would essentially be the same. 
Because 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 disparate fields 
would not meet the statutory requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty ( or its 
equivalent)," 24 unless the Petitioner establishes how each field is directly related to the duties and 
responsibilities of the particular position. 25 In the instant case, the Petitioner has provided insufficient 
evidence to establish the requirements for the proffered position and how each of the various fields 
are comprised of highly specialized knowledge directly related to the position. 
Further, the Petitioner has furnished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition are 
analogous to those in Residential Finance. 26 In contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case 
law of a United States circuit court, we are not bound to follow the published decision of a United 
States district court in matters arising even within the same district. 27 Although the reasoning 
underlying a district judge's decision will be given due consideration when it is properly before us, 
the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of law. 28 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. 29 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation from a probative source to substantiate its 
assertion regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. Thus, the 
Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I). 
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. 
23 Id. 
24 Section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act ( emphasis added). 
25 The court in Residential Finance did not eliminate the statutory "bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty" 
language imposed by Congress. Rather, it found that the petitioner in that case had satisfied the requirement. 
26 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 novo review of the matter. 
27 See Matter of K-S-, 20 l&N Dec. 715, 719-20 (BIA 1993). 
2s Id. 
29 See Health Carousel. LLC v. USC1S, No. 1:13-CV-23, 2014 WL 29591 (S.D. Ohio 2014). 
7 
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 establish that such firms "routinely employ and 
recruit only degreed individuals." 30 
The Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which the Handbook ( or other 
independent, authoritative sources) 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. Also, there are no submissions from the industry's professional association indicating that it has 
made a degree a minimum entry requirement. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not submit any letters or 
affidavits from similar firms or individuals in the Petitioner's industry attesting that such firms "routinely 
employ and recruit only degreed individuals." 
In its RFE response, the Petitioner submitted job vacancy announcements from various employers for our 
consideration under this prong, along with a table summarizing certain information contained within the 
job announcements. To be relevant for this consideration, the job vacancy announcements must advertise 
"parallel positions," and the announcements must have been placed by organizations that (1) conduct 
business in the Petitioner's industry and (2) are also "similar" to the Petitioner. These job vacancy 
announcements do not satisfy that threshold. Upon review of the documents, we find that the Petitioner's 
reliance on the job announcements is misplaced. 
Most of the advertised positions include duties that appear markedly dissimilar to those of the proffered 
position. In fact, the advertisements themselves appear to be for different positions altogether. For 
instance, most of the postings, particularly those for the Portfolio Analyst with CBRE and the Credit 
Analyst with Allegiance Bank, appear to advertise for loan clerk or loan officer positions, rather than 
financial analyst positions. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the primary 
duties and responsibilities of the advertised positions parallel those of the proffered position. 
In addition to this, we cannot conclude that all of the employers are similar to the Petitioner and operate 
within the same industry. For example, the global size and scope of Citibank, as well as the diversity of 
its financial product lines, make it dissimilar to the Petitioner, who appears to engage primarily in 
mortgage banking and lending on a domestic scale. Likewise, with 80,000 employees, CBRE is a great 
deal larger in size than the Petitioner who has 1,648 U.S. employees. 
30 See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 1999) (quoting Hird/Blaker Co1p. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 
1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) ( considering these "factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
8 
Even if we were to overlook the threshold requirement that the job announcements be for parallel 
positions and that the employers conduct business in the same industry within similar organizations to the 
Petitioner, the postings would not establish that a specialty degree requirement is common to the industry. 
Of the five announcements, one of the employers accepts any bachelor's degree, rather than one in a 
specific specialty.31 Another employer also accepts any undergraduate degree as long as the candidate's 
education has an emphasis in real estate, business, 32 or economics. The employer does not state whether 
this "emphasis" must rise to a bachelor's degree level of training. Finally, another employer specifically 
requires a bachelor's degree in finance, as well as twelve credit hours of college or university-level 
accounting credit hours, in addition to two years' experience. These varying degree requirements 
undermine the Petitioner's contention that there is an industry-wide standard for positions falling within 
this occupational category. 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. 33 That is, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
The Petitioner provided a list of duties with percentages of time the Beneficiary will spend on each 
duty. Upon careful examination of the duties, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown that the 
duties of the position are so complex or unique that they can be performed only by an individual with 
at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. For instance, the following duties 
appear to be administrative or clerical in nature and we question whether they require any specialized 
knowledge or skill. 
• Manage daily cash flows 
• Perform cash transfers between financial institutions and various company operations 
• Prepare/review account reconciliations and analysis from balance sheet accounts 
31 Again, 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 Co1p. 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"). 
32 A requirement for a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as business, with no further specialization does not meet 
the requirement for a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 
33 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. 
9 
These position duties appear similar to those appearing in the non-specialty occupational category of 
"Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks," an occupation for which the Handbook states that 
a high school diploma is sufficient to enter. 34 Specifically, the Handbook duties of "[e]nter (post) 
financial transactions," "[r ]eceive and record cash," and "[p ]roduce reports, such as balance sheets" 35 
appear similar in nature to the duties of the proffered position described above. Accordingly, it is 
impossible to determine how the Beneficiary will be relieved of performing non-qualifying duties. 
Other duties, such as those below, are described in vague and general terms that do not allow us to 
understand what the Beneficiary will actually be doing as she carries out the undefined tasks. 
• Prepare Ad Hoc reports and analyze data for projections and decision making 
• Perform interim management reports 
• Provide support for month end close 
• Create report modeling and forecasts 
• Assist team with development of new reports 
We do not know, for example, what "provide support" includes or what is involved in "month end 
close." Similarly, "assist team" provides us little information on what the Beneficiary's tasks will be 
as she performs this duty. The Petitioner supplements these duties by listing mortgage lending 
concepts and definitions, however, merely listing these concepts does not establish how the 
Beneficiary uses them to complete her day-to-day work. Moreover, the Petitioner does not sufficiently 
explain why a specialized degree is required in order to have knowledge and understanding of these 
concepts. 
Accordingly, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown that the 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 Petitioner 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. 36 As such, the Petitioner has not satisfied 
the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. Third Criterion 
34 https://www.bls.gov/ooh/office-and-administrative-support/bookkeeping-accounting-and-auditing-clerks.htm#tab-4 
(last visited Apr. 27, 2020). 
35 https://www.bls.gov/ooh/office-and-administrative-support/bookkeeping-accounting-and-auditing-clerks.htm#tab-2 
(last visited Apr. 27, 2020). 
36 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 a 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]."). 
10 
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. 37 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. 38 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. 
In its RFE response, the Petitioner submitted education credentials for three individuals that it contends 
are employees occupying the same position as the proffered position. Specifically, the Petitioner 
submitted evidence of a master's degree in business administration and transcripts for one individual, 
transcripts evidencing a bachelor's degree in accounting for a second individual, and a diploma in 
economics for a third individual. The Petitioner supplemented these educational credentials with 
information in a table stating the salary, title of the position, and years of experience of each individual. 
Although the Petitioner states that these individuals occupy the same position as the proffered position, 
the title of the position alone does not establish similarity. Each of the three individuals earns around 
$20,000 or more per year than the Beneficiary will earn in the proffered position. The significantly 
higher salary paid to these individuals suggests that they do not occupy the same position as the 
proffered position. Moreover, the relevant experience listed for these individuals far exceeds that of 
the Beneficiary. Further, no position descriptions or duties were included to substantiate a finding that 
each of these individuals' roles is similar to the proffered position. Accordingly, to the extent that we 
have information about the financial analyst positions occupied by these individuals, they appear to 
be more senior roles than the proffered position. The Petitioner did not submit tax or payroll 
documentation or any other evidence to establish that these individuals are indeed employees. Finally, 
the Petitioner failed to submit evidence of any hiring documents or associated job announcements for 
the positions in which the employees were hired. 
The record does not contain sufficient evidence of the Petitioner's historical recruiting practices. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
D. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature 
of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
Though the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary will analyze, review, and evaluate financial 
documents for accuracy and compliance with relevant laws and regulations, as well as prepare 
financial statements and reports, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained or described why these 
37 Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
3s Id. 
11 
duties require an educational background commensurate with a specialty occupation. The Petitioner 
states that the ability to perform financial calculations and ratios is "most commonly" obtained through 
a bachelor's degree program focusing on quantitative analysis, including finance, accounting, or a 
closely related field. Moreover, the Petitioner states that students studying these fields would gain this 
understanding. While it is acknowledged that a bachelor's degree in such a program could be helpful, 
the Petitioner does not explain why such an education is required. 
In addition to this, the Petitioner appears to assert that the volatile nature of the Petitioner's business 
in the industry, as well as the fundamental role of the proffered position in the Petitioner's overall 
mission, revenue, and growth translates to the work being specialized. However, neither the 
importance of the work, nor the proffered position's role in it, can substitute for specialization. 
Although some tasks may connote a requirement of familiarity with general accounting principles, 
including some finance or lending knowledge, the record is insufficient to establish that the duties require 
anything more than a few basic courses and a broad educational background. While a few such courses 
may be beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner, who bears the burden of 
proof: has not demonstrated how an established curriculum of such courses leading to a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the duties of the 
proffered position. 
For the same reasons we discussed under the second prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), we find 
that the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one with duties sufficiently specialized 
and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). We incorporate our earlier discussion and 
analysis on this matter. Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. 
IV. BENEFICIARY QUALIFICATIONS 
Though not a stated basis for the Director's decision, we conclude that the evidence of record does not 
establish that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform services in a specialty occupation. Because the 
Petitioner has not established that the LCA corresponds to and supports the petition, nor has it 
established that the proffered position is a specialty occupation, we need not folly address the 
beneficiary qualification issue. That said, the Petitioner should be prepared to address this issue in 
any future filings. 
The Petitioner submitted evidence that the Beneficiary earned a U.S. bachelor's degree in supply chain 
and logistics technology and asserts that this degree, combined with the Beneficiary's work 
experience, equates to a bachelor's degree in accounting. The Petitioner submitted an excerpt of the 
Beneficiary's resume; an academic and experience evaluation from a credential evaluation service; an 
evaluation of education, training, and experience from Associate Professor of Accounting,! I I land two letters evidencing the Beneficiary's past work experience. This evidence does not 
adequately establish how the Beneficiary's past experience, which primarily involved bookkeeping 
duties, combined with an academic record that features only a few related courses, could reasonably 
equate to a bachelor's degree in accounting. Furthermore, the evidence of the Beneficiary's work 
experience contained in the record is insufficient to establish that she possesses the requisite 
12 
experience identified as part of the stated minimum qualifications for the proffered position. 39 
Accordingly, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary is qualified to 
perform a specialty occupation. 
V. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
39 Refer to section II. part A. of this decision for a discussion of the required experience. 
13