dismissed H-1B Case: Finance

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion dponaaal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: WAC 04 2 17 52557 Office: CALIFORNIA, SERVICE CENTER Date: AUG 1 8 2006 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(l S)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C: 5 1 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 04 217 52557 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and the matter is now before 
the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. The petition will be denied. 
The petitioner is a "real estate, financing & insurance" business that seeks to employ the beneficiary as a credit 
analyst. The petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation 
pursuant to 5 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. 1 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition because the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. On appeal, 
counsel submits a brief. 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 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. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, the position must meet one of 
the following criteria: 
(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 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. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) interprets the term "degree" in the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(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. 
The record of proceeding before the AAO contains: (1) Form 1-129 and supporting documentation; (2) the 
director's request for additional evidence; (3) the petitioner's response to the director's request; (4) the 
director's denial letter; and (5) Form I-290B and supporting documentation. The AAO reviewed the record in 
its entirety before issuing its decision. 
The petitioner is seeking the beneficiary's services as a credit analyst. Evidence of the beneficiary's duties 
includes: the 1-129 petition; the petitioner's July 28, 2004 letter in support of the petition; and the petitioner's 
WAC 04 217 52557 
Page 3 
response to the director's request for evidence. According to this evidence, the beneficiary would perform 
duties that entail: reviewing complete financial statements of commercial applications and recording data on 
spreadsheet; using computer program to generate ratios for use in qualifying applicant's financial status; 
analyzing applicant's liquidity and credit history and performing comparisons with others in the same general 
geographic location and/or industry; maintaining contacts with banks and credit associations to establish 
credit information; and preparing credit risk reports. The petitioner indicated that a qualified candidate for the 
job would possess a bachelor's degree related to finance, credit analysis, and business. 
The director found that the proffered position was not a specialty occupation because the petitioner failed to 
establish any of the criteria found at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). The director found further that the record 
contains a discrepancy regarding the petitioner's claim that its workers are paid a minimal salary plus 
commission. 
On appeal, counsel states, in part, that the proffered position, which is that of a credit analyst, is a specialty 
occupation, according to the Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook). 
Counsel also states that the petitioner normally requires a bachelor's degree for the proffered position and that 
the proposed duties are so specialized and complex as to require a bachelor's degree. Counsel states further 
that the degree requirement is industry wide, and submits job advertisements as supporting documentation. 
Counsel cites to a court decision to state that the petitioner's size bears no rational relationship to the need for 
a professional. 
Upon review of the record, the petitioner has established none of the four criteria outlined in 
8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Therefore, the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 
The record's descriptions of the proffered position and the duties comprising it are limited to generalized 
functions that the petitioner has ascribed to the position, such as "Review complete financial statements of 
commercial applicants and record data on spreadsheet"; "Use computer program to generate ratios for use in 
qualifying applicant's financial status"; and "Analyze applicant's liquidity and credit history and perform 
comparisons with others in the same general geographic location and/or industry." The petitioner has not 
identified methodologies or applications of specialized knowledge that actual performance of the position's 
functions would involve. Nor has the petitioner explained or provided documentary evidence to establish how 
the beneficiary's actual substantive work would require at least a bachelor's degree level of knowledge in a 
specific specialty. 
A position's qualification as a specialty occupation under the related statute and regulations is not 
accomplished by a petitioner's composing general duties that align with general duties that the Handbook or 
other DOL resources ascribe to a particular occupational category, for it is the actual performance 
requirements that determine the type and level of educational credentials necessary for a particular position. 
As a consequence of the lack of detail about the actual substantive work and associated educational 
requirements of the proffered position, the record lacks a reasonable basis for the AAO to conclude that the 
evidence of record satisfies any of the criteria of 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
The AAO turns first to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I) and (2): a baccalaureate or higher 
degree or its equivalent is the normal minimum requirement for entry into the particular position; a degree 
requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations; or a particular 
position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree. 
WAC 04 217 52557 
Page 4 
Factors often considered by CIS when determining these criteria include: 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 1 15 1, 1 165 (D. 
Minn. 1999)(quoting HirdIBlaker Corp. v. Sava, 7 12 F. Supp. 1095, 1 102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
At the outset, the AAO notes deficiencies in the record. As discussed in the director's decision, the record 
contains no evidence to support counsel's assertion in her January 7, 2005 letter that the petitioner's workers 
are paid a minimal salary plus commission. It is noted that neither the petitioner's 2002 nor 2003 federal 
income tax return reflects any salaries and wages paid. Without documentary evidence to support the claim, 
the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of 
counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of 
Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). 
Further, although information on the petition reflects that the petitioner has five employees and a gross annual 
income of $600,000, the record contains no evidence of the petitioner's employees, such as quarterly tax 
returns, nor does it contain any evidence that the petitioner generates a gross annual income of $600,000. The 
petitioner's 2002 and 2003 federal income tax returns reflect $371,489 and $369,718 in gross receipts or 
sales, respectively. Again, simply going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient 
for the purpose of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sof)ci, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 
(Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
The AAO routinely consults the Handbook for its information about the duties and educational requirements of 
particular occupations. Although a review of the Credit Analysts training requirements in the Handbook, 2006- 
2007 edition, at page 661, finds that a credit analyst may qualify as a specialty occupation, the AAO does not 
concur with counsel that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. In this case, information on the petition 
indicates that the petitioner's business is "real estate, financing & insurance." The petitioner's 2003 federal 
income tax return, however, describes the petitioner's business solely as "insurance sales." In view of the above 
discussion, the exact nature of the proffered position is not clear. 
Regarding parallel positions in the petitioner's industry, the petitioner submitted Internet job postings for 
credit analysts. This information is not convincing evidence that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation in this case, as the petitioner has not established that the proffered position is for a credit analyst. 
In view of the foregoing, the petitioner has not demonstrated that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty is the industry standard for the proffered position. 
The record also does not include any evidence from firms, individuals, or professional associations regarding 
an industry standard, or documentation to support the complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position; and 
the duties that comprise the proffered position are described in generalized terms that do not establish the 
position as sufficiently unique or sufficiently complex to require a bachelor's degree level of knowledge in a 
specific specialty. 
The petitioner, therefore, has not established the criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I) or (2). 
The AAO now turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3) - the employer normally requires a 
degree or its equivalent for the position. On appeal, counsel states that an individual with a degree in a relevant 
WAC 04 217 52557 
Page 5 
discipline previously performed the proposed duties. The record, however, does not contain any evidence of the 
petitioner's past hiring practices and therefore, the petitioner has not met its burden of proof in this regard. 
Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's 
burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 
I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 
17 I&N Dec. 503,506 (BIA 1980). 
Finally, the AAO turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(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. 
To the extent that they are depicted in the record, the duties do not appear so specialized and complex as to 
require the highly specialized knowledge associated with a baccalaureate or higher degree, or its equivalent, 
in a specific specialty. The proposed duties are described at a general level that does not establish specific 
work that the beneficiary would perform and how actual performance of that work would require the 
application of knowledge associated with the attainment of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 
Therefore, the evidence does not establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation under 
8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
As related in the discussion above, the petitioner has failed to establish that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation. Accordingly, the AAO shall not disturb the director's denial of the petition. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.