dismissed H-1B Case: Finance

MATTER OF M-HUSA- INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 16, 2019 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a company engaged in investment banking, financial services and equities, seeks to 
employ the Beneficiary temporarily as an "executive" 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 Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant 
Worker, concluding that the record did not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the 
Director erred in denying the petition. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition and adds a 
non-exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. 
Matter of M-HUSA- Inc. 
II. ANALYSIS 
For the reasons discussed below, we have determined that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that 
the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. Specifically, we conclude that, as a result 
of the Petitioner's own requirements, the proffered position does not meet the statutory or regulatory 
definition of a specialty occupation. 
A petitioner must demonstrate that the proffered position requires a precise and specific course of 
study that relates directly and closely to the position in question. Here, the Petitioner indicated the 
minimum education required for the proffered position is a bachelor's degree, or the equivalent, in 
accounting, business administration, economics, finance, mathematics, or a related field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the "evidence in the record and basic common sense support 
only one conclusion - that a bachelor's degree is normally the minimum educational requirement for 
the offered financial analyst position." However, a petitioner must demonstrate that the proffered 
position requires a precise and specific course of study that relates directly to the position in 
question. 
Since there must be a close correlation between the required specialized studies and the position, the 
requirement of a degree with a generalized title, such as business administration, without farther 
specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. See Matter of Michael Hertz 
Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558,560 (Comm'r 1988). To prove that a job requires the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge as required by section 214(i)(l) of 
the Act, a petitioner must establish that the position requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher 
degree in a specialized field of study or its equivalent. As stated above, we interpret the degree 
requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to require a degree in a specific specialty that is directly 
related to the proposed position. We have consistently stated that, although a general-purpose 
bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business administration, may be a legitimate prerequisite for a 
particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify a conclusion that a 
particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. See Royal Siam Corp. v. 
Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007). 1 Since there must be a close correlation between the 
required specialized studies and the position, the requirement of a degree with a generalized title, 
1 Specifically, the judge explained in Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147, that: 
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 the granting of a petition for an H-1 B 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. 
2 
Matter of M-HUSA- Inc. 
such as business administration, without farther specification, does not establish the position as a 
specialty occupation. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). 
We note that in general, 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) of the Act provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry and 
biochemistry. In such a case, the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" would essentially 
be the same. However, a minimum entry requirement of degrees in disparate fields, such as 
mathematics and business administration, or business administration and economics, would not meet 
the statutory requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty," unless the Petitioner 
establishes how each field is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular 
position. 2 
The Petitioner, who bears the burden of proof in this proceeding, has not established either (1) that 
accounting, business administration, economics, finance, mathematics are closely related fields or 
(2) that degree in business administration relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of the 
proffered position of analyst. Absent this evidence, we cannot conclude that the particular position 
proffered has a normal minimum entry requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent under the Petitioner's own standards. 
For all of these reasons, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position requires 
anything more than a general bachelor's degree. As explained above, the statutory and regulatory 
definition of a specialty occupation requires a degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to 
the proposed position. 
As a result, it is unnecessary to address the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(l)-( 4). 3 Even if the Petitioner were to demonstrate that it satisfied one of the 
2 While the statutory "the" and the regulatory "a" both denote a singular "specialty," we do not so narrowly interpret 
these provisions to exclude positions from qualifying as specialty occupations if they permit, as a minimum entry 
requirement, degrees in more than one closely related specialty. See section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii). This also includes even seemingly disparate specialties providing, again, the evidence of record 
establishes how each acceptable, specific field of study is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
particular position. 
3 The regulations provide that the offered position must also 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 
3 
Matter of M-HUSA- Inc. 
listed criteria, this would not result in this petition's approval, as it still has not shown that the proffered 
position satisfies the statutory or regulatory definition of a "specialty occupation." See section 214(i)(l) 
of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). The statutory definition constitutes the primary requirement 
for a position to qualify as a specialty occupation. Only after this antecedent requirement has been met, 
may a petitioner move to demonstrate how it may satisfy one of the supplementary criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
Furthermore, on appeal, the Petitioner noted that USCIS has approved other petitions that had been 
previously filed on behalf of Petitioner. We are not required to approve applications or petitions 
where eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been 
erroneous. See Matter of Church Scientology Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988); see also 
Sussex Eng'g, Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987). Furthermore, we are not be 
bound to follow a contradictory decision of a service center. La. Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 
No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). 
The Petitioner also cites unpublished AAO decisions in which we determined that the positions 
proffered in those matters qualified as a specialty occupation. However, those decisions were not 
published as a precedent and therefore do not bind officers in future adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103 .3( c ). Non-precedent decisions apply existing law and policy to the specific facts of the individual 
case, and may be distinguishable based on the evidence in the record of proceedings, the issues 
considered, and applicable law and policy. Furthermore, any suggestion that we must review 
unpublished decisions and possibly request and review each case file relevant to those decisions, 
while being impractical and inefficient, would also be a shift in the evidentiary burden in these 
proceedings from the Petitioner to the agency, which would be contrary to section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. 
III. CONCLUSION 
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 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. 
( 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 Co1p, 484 F.3d at 147. 
4 
Matter of M-HUSA- Inc. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofM-HUSA-Inc., ID# 4818044 (AAO Sept. 16, 2019) 
5