dismissed H-1B Case: Finance

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwated 
'nvas'm of pmond pnivacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 l (a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
Administrative Appeals 
WAC 04 136 50740 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: 
 The director denied the nonimrnigrant 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, a restaurant and caterer with nine employees, seeks to hire the beneficiary as a 
financialbudget analyst. The petitioner, therefore, endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a nonirnrnigrant 
worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to section 10l(a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C. 9 I lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b). 
The record of proceeding before the AAO contains (1) the Form 1-129 and supporting documentation; (2) the 
director's request for evidence (RFE); (3) the petitioner's RFE response and supporting documentation; 
(4) the director's denial letter; and (5) the Form I-290B and supporting documentation. The AAO reviewed the 
record in its entirety before issuing its decision. 
The director denied the petition on the basis that the petitioner had failed to establish that the proposed position 
meets the definition of a specialty occupation as set forth at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). On appeal, the 
petitioner contends that the proposed position in fact qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. 
The issue on appeal is whether the petitioner's proposed position qualifies for classification as a specialty 
occupation. Section 214(i)(l) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 1184(i)(l) defines 
the term "specialty occupation" as one 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 term "specialty occupation" is further defined at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(ii) as: 
An occupation which requires theoretical and practical application of a body of highly 
specialized knowledge in fields of human endeavor including, but not limited to, architecture, 
engineering, mathematics, physical sciences, social sciences, medicine and health, education, 
business specialties, accounting, law, theology, and the arts, and which requires the 
attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as a 
minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, the position must meet one of 
the following criteria: 
(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. 
WAC 04 136 50740 
Page 3 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) interprets the term "degree" in the above criteria to mean not just 
any baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed 
position. 
To determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, CIS does not simply rely on a 
position's title. The specific duties of the proffered position, combined with the nature of the petitioning 
entity's business operations, are factors to be considered. CIS must examine the ultimate employment of the 
alien, and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. CJ: Defensor v. Meissner, 201 
F. 3d 384 (5" Cir. 2000). The critical element is not the title of the position nor an employer's self-imposed 
standards, but whether the position actually requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of 
highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty 
as the minimum for entry into the occupation, as required by the Act. 
The petitioner states that it is seeking the beneficiary's services as a financialbudget analyst. In its January 7, 
2004 letter of support, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary would gather and analyze financial 
information; make recommendations; review financial requests; explore alternative funding methods; provide 
advice and technical assistance for the preparation of annual budgets; examine past and current budgets; and 
research economic and financial developments that affect the company's spending. 
The occupations of financial analysts and budget analysts are normally specialty occupations, requiring those 
seeking entry-level employment to have at least a bachelor's degree. However, while the petitioner has 
identified its position proposed here as that of a financialbudget analyst, its description of the beneficiary's 
duties lacks the specificity and detail necessary to support its contention. 
At the time of filing, the petitioner offered a vague and generic description of the beneficiary's duties. In its 
response to the director's request for evidence, counsel relied on the similarity between the petitioner's 
description of its proposed position and the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook's (the 
Handbook) descriptions of the occupations of financial analyst and budget analyst as a basis for approval. 
The AAO does not agree. A petitioner cannot establish its employment as a specialty occupation by simply 
describing the duties of that employment in the same general terms as those used by the Handbook in 
discussing an occupational title, e.g., a financial analyst analyzes financial information to forecast the future 
financial position of the company. This type of generalized description is necessary when defining the range 
of duties that may be performed within an occupation, but cannot be relied upon by a petitioner when 
discussing the duties attached to specific employment. It lacks substantive information about the specific 
work and the associated knowledge requirements of the particular position that the petitioner is proffering. In 
establishing a position as a specialty occupation, a petitioner must describe the specific duties and 
responsibilities to be performed by a beneficiary in relation to its particular business interests. Otherwise, the 
petition lacks a reasonable basis for the AAO to evaluate the merits of the petitioner's claim that the 
beneficiary will perform work that requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly 
specialized knowledge in a specific field and the attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher, or its equivalent, 
in a specific specialty, as required by statute and CIS regulations. 
The Handbook indicates that financial analysts provide analysis and guidance to businesses and individuals to 
help them with their investment decisions. They assess the economic performance of companies and 
industries for firms and institutions with money to invest. The petitioner is a restaurant and catering company 
with nine employees. There is no indication in the record of the kinds of investment decisions that the 
financial analyst would assist the petitioner in making. Nor has the petitioner offered any information 
regarding the amount of funds available to invest. Simply going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 
WAC 04 136 50740 
Page 4 
22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. 
Comm. 1972)). 
The Handbook indicates that budget analysts play the primary role in the development, analysis, and 
execution of budgets, which are used to allocate current resources and estimate future financial requirements. 
They examine, analyze, and seek new ways to improve efficiency and increase profits. Again, the petitioner 
has offered no information regarding the specific duties that the beneficiary would perform. For example, the 
petitioner has not offered any information regarding the size and scale of the budget to be analyzed or the 
types of alternative funding that the beneficiary would explore. Nor has the petitioner provided any 
information regarding the types of financial information that the beneficiary will be charged with gathering 
and analyzing. 
In the instant case, the petitioner has offered no description of the duties of its proposed position beyond the 
generalized outline it provided at the time of filing. In his July 20, 2004 request for evidence, the director 
requested a more detailed description of the duties of the proposed position. This detailed description was to 
include specific job duties, the percentage of time to be spent on each duty, level of responsibility, hours per 
week of work, types of employees supervised, and the minimum education, training, and experience 
necessary to do the job. The director also asked for an explanation as to why these duties required a candidate 
with a college degree or its equivalent. However, counsel provided none of this information in his September 
24, 2004 response. Rather, counsel provided information regarding the beneficiary's previous job 
experiences. Failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds 
for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. 
 103.2(b)(14). 
The petitioner cannot, therefore, establish that the position meets any of the requirements for a specialty 
occupation set forth at 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). A generalized description cannot substitute .for a 
description of the specific duties to be performed by the beneficiary. As previously noted, CIS must examine 
the actual employment of an alien, i.e., the specific tasks to be performed by that alien, to determine whether a 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. However, the petitioner's description of the duties of its position 
is so vague and generic that it is not possible to identify those specific tasks and, therefore, whether the 
proposed position is that of a financial analyst. Further, without a reliable description of the position's duties, 
the AAO is unable to determine whether the performance of those duties meets the statutory definition of a 
specialty occupation - employment requiring the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly 
specialized knowledge and the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation. As a result, the AAO finds that the petitioner has 
failed to establish that it has a specialty occupation for which it is seeking the beneficiary's services. 
Therefore, for the reasons related in the preceding discussion, the petitioner has failed to establish that the 
proposed position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation, and the petition was properly denied. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that the proposed position qualifies for classification as a specialty 
occupation. Accordingly, the AAO will 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. 
8 136 1. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.