dismissed H-1B Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8406367 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR. 12, 2020 
The Petitioner, a restaurant operator and franchisor, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under 
the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. 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 petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation . 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 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. 
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: 
1 We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). 
(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. 2 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as an "associate manager, finance" and that the 
minimum educational requirement for the proffered position is at least a bachelor's degree in finance 
or business or a similar field. 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. 3 Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties reqmre an 
educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 4 
Before addressing the specialty-occupation criteria contained at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4), 
we will briefly discuss an issue which alone precludes a finding that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation. 
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, without farther specification, does not establish the position as a specialty 
occupation. 5 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 
2 See Royal Siam COip. v. Chertof(, 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). 
3 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
4 The Petitioner submitted documentation to suppmt 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. 
5 Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 T&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). 
2 
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, 
may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position requiring such a degree, without more, will 
not justify a finding that a particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. 6 
Again, the Petitioner asserts that the duties of the proffered position can be performed with only a 
general-purpose degree in the field of business. 7 That statement alone indicates that the proffered 
position is not in fact a specialty occupation. The Director's decision must therefore be affirmed and 
the appeal dismissed on this basis alone. 
Though this issue precludes approval of this H-lB petition, we will nonetheless review the evidence 
of record in light of the four specialty-occupation criteria contained at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) 
for the purpose of performing a more comprehensive analysis. 
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 recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's 
(DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 8 
On the LCA submitted in support of the H-lB petition, 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 
6 Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. Specifically, the judge explained 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-lB specialty 
occupation visa. See. e.g., Tapis Int'! 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. 
Id. See also Irish Help at Home LLC v. Melville, No. 13-cv-00943-MEJ, 2015 WL 848977 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2015), 
aff'd, 679 F. App'x 634 (9th Cir. 2017). 
7 The Petitioner states that it will accept either a degree in business or finance; it does not state that it requires the business 
degree to be specialized. 
8 We do not maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. 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 satisty 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. 
3 
study provide appropriate preparation, including accounting, economics, finance, stat1st1cs, and 
mathematics" ( emphasis added). 9 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 possess, the Handbook does not support the position's eligibility under the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I). 
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 tum 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. 10 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. 11 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. 12 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. 13 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. 
9 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 Mar. 11, 2020). 
10 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. 
11 For additional information. see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/help/ 
online/svp. 
12 Nor is it apparent whether these credentials were prerequisites to these individuals' hiring. 
13 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"). 
4 
The Petitioner cites Next Generation Tech., Inc. v. Johnson 14 as relevant here and uses it to support a 
conclusion concerning the meaning of what is "normally" the minimum requirement for the position. 
We question the applicability of Next Generation Tech., Inc. in the instant matter, as it analyzed our 
reading of the Handbook concerning the entry requirements for positions located within the different 
and separate occupational category of "Computer Programmers," rather than the "Financial Analysts" 
category designated by the Petitioner in the LCA relating to this case. As noted above, the Handbook 
does not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a spec[fic specialty, or its equivalent, is normally required 
for entry into this occupation, nor does it indicate that the named fields comprise an exhaustive list. 
As recognized by another court, while the Handbook may establish the first regulatory criterion for 
certain professions, 15 many occupations are not described in such a categorical manner. 16 For 
example, "[the Handbook's] description for the Computer Programmer occupation does not describe 
the normal minimum educational requirements of the occupation in a categorical fashion." 17 In such 
a case, "[the Petitioner] could not simply rely on [the Handbook] profile, and instead had the burden 
to show that the particular position offered to [the Beneficiary] was among the Computer Programmer 
positions for which a bachelor's degree was normally required." 18 
Moreover, the court in Next Generation Tech., Inc. relied in part on a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
(USCIS) policy memorandum regarding "Computer Programmers" indicating generally preferential 
treatment toward computer programmers, and "especially" toward companies in that particular 
petitioner's industry. However, USCIS rescinded the policy memorandum cited by the court in Next 
Generation Tech. Inc. 19 
The Petitioner also cites Residential Finance Corp. v. USCIS20 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." 21 We 
generally agree with the aforementioned proposition in Residential Finance that "[t]he knowledge and 
not the title of the degree is what is important." 22 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)" 
14 Next Generation Tech., Inc. v. Johnson, 328 F. Supp. 3d 252 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2017). 
15 Such professions would include surgeons or attorneys, which indisputably require at least a bachelor's degree for entry 
into the occupation. 
16 See Innova Sols., Inc. v. Baran, 2019 WL 3753334, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2019) (declining to follow Next Generation 
Tech., Inc.). 
17 Id.; see also Xiaotong Liu v. Baran, 2018 WL 7348851 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2018). 
18 See Innova Sols., Inc. 2019 WL 3753334, at *8. 
19 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0142, Rescission of the December 22, 2000 ''Guidance memo on HJB 
computer related positions" (Mar. 31, 2017), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/nativedocuments/PM-6002-
0142-H- l BComputerRelatedPositionsRecission.pdf. 
20 Residential Finance Co1p. v. USC1S, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012). 
21 On appeal, the Petitioner cites to Chung Song Ja Co1p. v. USC1S 96 F.Supp.3d 1191 (W.D. Wash Mar. 11, 2015); Raj 
and Co. v. USCIS. 85 F. Supp. 3d 1241 (W.D. Wash. 2015); and Tapis Int"lv. INS, 94 F. Supp. 2d 172 (D. Mass. 2000) as 
supporting similar principles, analysis, and conclusions as Residential Finance. 
22 Residential Finance, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985. 
5 
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)," 23 unless the Petitioner establishes how each field is directly related to the duties and 
responsibilities of the particular position. 24 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. Moreover, the 
Petitioner did not adequately address its requirement for a general-purpose degree, which precludes a 
determination that the proffered position is specialized. 
In any event, the Petitioner has famished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition 
are analogous to those in Residential Finance 25 or any of the other cases cited. 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. 26 
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 oflaw. 27 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. 28 
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. 
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. 
23 Section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). 
24 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. 
25 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 nova review of the matter. 
26 See Matter of K-S-, 20 T&N Dec. 715, 719-20 (BIA 1993). 
27 Id. 
28 See Health Carousel, LLC v. USCIS, No. 1: 13-CV-23, 2014 WL 29591 (S.D. Ohio 2014). 
6 
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." 29 
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." 30 
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. The Petitioner attempts to cure defects in these job vacancy announcements by 
submitting new job vacancy announcement information on appeal, which it also summarizes within a 
table. 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. 
As the Director noted in her decision, the announcements submitted with the RFE response are not for 
parallel positions within similar organizations to the Petitioner. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that 
the role of finance manager is universal across industries and because each of the employers in the job 
announcements has a finance department, the scope of operations and needs of these companies are 
virtually identical to the Petitioner's organization. We cannot agree with such a sweeping statement and 
decline to adopt the Petitioner's reasoning that the scope of operations of a company such as Uber or 
Samsung is similar to that of a restaurant franchisor like the Petitioner simply because each has a finance 
department. We analogize the situation to a pre-school instructor and a college professor, both of whom 
may be accurately described as teachers in the field of education, but whose scope of operations are not 
similar. 
Even ifwe were to accept the organizations as similar and operating within the same industry, we could 
not conclude that the positions are parallel. Though many of the positions are titled "finance manager," 
we recognize that the occupational category within which the proffered position falls is a financial analyst. 
As noted by the Petitioner on appeal, the title of a position is often meaningless and we must consider all 
facts surrounding the position. In so doing, we see that many of the advertisements do not include 
29 See Shanti. Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 1999) (quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 
1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (considering these "factors" to inform the commonality ofa degree rl@ire:ent)). 
30 The Petitioner submitted a position evaluation letter froml I Professor of Finance at !University 
for consideration under this criterion. We discuss I 6 letter under the second prong of this criterion, but 
incorporate our discussion ofit into our analysis of all the 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) criteria. 
7 
sufficient information about the duties and responsibilities for the advertised positions. Further, several 
employers require between five and seven years' experience or experience as a Chief Financial Officer 
in addition to a degree. Therefore, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the primary duties 
and responsibilities of the advertised positions parallel those of the proffered position. 
In viewing the table ofjob announcements summarized on appeal, we recognize that the employers in the 
table do appear to be more closely related to the Petitioner's industry than those submitted in the RFE 
response. However the job announcement printouts themselves were not submitted, rather simply the 
Petitioner's distillation of them in the table. As such, we have no ability to independently examine the 
duties or responsibilities of the positions or review the minimum education or experience requirements 
as stated by the employers. Once again, the title alone is insufficient to determine whether the positions 
are parallel. 
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. 
The announcements reflect that the employers accept a variety of degrees including accounting, finance, 
statistics, economics, technology, management, and business.31 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. 32 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. 
31 Again, a requirement for a general-purpose bachelor's degree in "business," with no further specialization, is not a 
requirement for a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 
32 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. 
8 
• Produce presentation materials for IL T and senior leadership 
• Provide user-friendly presentation materials ... 
• Reach out to franchise partners to request additional information to help in the data conciliation 
process 
• Schedule market visits to analyze franchise partners financial statements and review and 
reconcile potential data mismatches 
• Build agenda and lead discussions to ensure data diligence discussions with franchise partner 
and set future data collection and reporting expectations 
• Engage and establish regional teams responsible for each one of the workflows 
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 he carries out the undefined tasks. In 
addition to the vague and general descriptions, many of these duties appear to lack any connection to 
typical financial analyst duties. 
• Work with regional business units to track store openings and market development and ensure 
development agreements are met 
• Provide tools for country's leadership team to track and manage workflows and provide backup 
support to ensure satisfactory implementation and results 
• Partner with regional business units to collect franchisee data on development and sales 
As described, it is impossible to determine how the Beneficiary will be relieved of performing non­
qualifying duties. Accordingly, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown that the duties of the 
position are 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. 
We turn to the letter from I l Professor of Finance atl !University, as evidence 
to establish that the proffered position meets this criterion. The professor utilized the first page of his 
letter to describe the credentials that he asserts qualify him to opine upon the nature of the proffered 
position, followed by a three and a half page verbatim list of duties which were already provided to us 
by the Petitioner. Before his signature block and concluding that the proffered position "undoubtedly 
qualifies as a specialty position ... that requires a candidate with no less than the equivalent of a 
Bachelor's degree in Finance, Business or a related field," I I devotes only about one page to 
a discussion of the proffered position. We carefully evaluated his assertions in support of the instant 
petition but, for the following reasons, determined the letter does not have significant weight in this 
matter. 
FirstJ b opinion letter contains conclusory statements regarding the complexity of the duties 
and the educational level required to perform them. His evaluation includes little to no analysis of 
how he reached these conclusions, but in place of analysis, we notel Is tendency to label the 
thinking and analysis required for the position as "higher-level," and the skills as "complex" and 
"sophisticated." For instance,! I states that the duties require the use of "complex software" 
and then lists "Microsoft Product Suite, databases, VBA applications, pivit [sic] tables, etc." as 
examples. I I fails to explain why the use of Microsoft Excel and its associated tools is a skill 
so complex or specialized that it can only be learned in a bachelor's degree program in finance, 
business, or a related field ( or its equivalent), rather than, for instance, through certifications in these 
9 
readily available third-party technologies. Furthermore,! I states that by virtue of the 
proffered position involving a "reliance on quantitative aptitude, communication skills, critical 
thinking skills, attention to detail and professionalism," it is thereby specialized and complex requiring 
"a candidate with no less than the equivalent of a Bachelor's degree in Finance, Business or a related 
field." Without farther analysis, we cannot agree withl • l's statements as it seems apparent 
that such skills could reasonably be gained through any kind of education, and indeed through work 
or life in general. 
Whild I may be attempting to demonstrate how an established curriculum of courses leading 
to a bachelor's degree in a specific srecialtv is required to perform the duties of the proffered position, 
we cannot agree with his reasoning. L I writes that the skills and abilities required to perform 
the duties of the proffered position are "taught in courses that are foundational of a Finance, Business 
or a related field curriculum and would be learning outcomes expected of a graduate within that field 
of study." This statement showcases that I lconfases the ability of a person with a finance or 
business degree to perform the duties of the proffered position with a degree requirement in order to 
perform the duties. While I lmay draw inferences that finance or business courses may be 
beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, we disagree with any inference that such a 
degree is required in order to perform the duties of the proffered position. Put simply, stating that a 
person with a bachelor's degree in finance or business could perform the duties of the proffered 
position is not the same as stating that such a degree is required to perform those duties. As such, D I Is analysis misconstrues the statutory and regulatory requirements of a specialty occupation. 
Moreover,! !concludes that the proffered position requires the attainment of a bachelor's 
degree in business, or its equivalent. Even if established by the evidence of record, the requirement 
of a bachelor's degree in business is inadequate to establish that a position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. We incorporate by reference our previous discussion on this matter and note that without 
farther specification, this does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. 33 
To summarize,! • I classifies the duties and the educational requirements with adjectives to 
suggest the specialized nature of the work, rather than providing actual analysis of why the work is 
specialized. In addition to this, he conflates the educational requirements in order to perform the duties 
of the position with the types of candidates who might be qualified to perform them. For these reasons, 
we find that the opinion letter provided lends little probative value to the matter here. As a matter of 
discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. 34 However, we will 
reject an opinion or give it less weight if it is not in accord with other information in the record or if it 
is in any way questionable. 35 Therefore, the letter from I • I does not support the Petitioner's 
assertion that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation under any of the specialty­
occupation criteria. 36 
33 Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 l&N Dec. 558 at 560. 
34 Matter of Caron Int'/, Inc., 19 l&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). 
3s Id. 
36 We hereby incorporate our discussion of,_! ___ ..,...)s opinion into our discussion of the other 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) criteria 
10 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the pos1t10n, and references his 
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. 37 Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the 
second alternative prong of 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)(2). 
C. Third Criterion 
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. 38 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. 39 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 three position descriptions that it contends are similar to 
that of the proffered position. The descriptions do not appear to be actual job announcements as they 
are merely Word documents with no identifying features as to where or when they were advertised. 
Although the Petitioner notes that these positions are similar to the proffered position and represent its 
hiring standards, we do not find them to be persuasive evidence. 
The record does not contain evidence of the Petitioner's historical recruiting practices, or evidence of 
current and former employees holding the position of "associate manager, finance." The job 
descriptions submitted are merely solicitations for hire at best. Moreover, they are not for the same 
position proffered here, as evidenced by differing titles, duties, and requirements of three to five years 
or more of experience in addition to a degree. 4° Finally, even if they were akin to the proffered 
position, one of the descriptions indicates that the Petitioner would accept a bachelor's degree with no 
additional specification, which for the reasons discussed above, undermines the Petitioner's assertion 
that it imposes a specialty degree requirement for the proffered position. 
37 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 l&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]."). 
38 Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
39 Id. 
40 If the entry requirements for the positions described in these documents are in fact so similar to the proffered position 
that their entry requirements are relevant for our consideration under the third criterion, then we would likely be compelled 
to conclude that the LCA does not correspond to and support the H-1 B petition, as required, and deny the petition on that 
basis. While the Petitioner contends that these positions are similar, if five years of work experience and an additional 
year of supervisory experience on top of a degree were required for the proffered position, then the Petitioner's Level TT 
wage designation on the LCA would not be correct. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage 
Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised_ 11 _ 2009 .pdf 
11 
On appeal, the Petitioner submitted a table containing the names and degree titles of additional 
employees that occupy the same position within the company as is proposed for the Beneficiary. The 
degrees listed for the employees vary significantly and therefore do not support the Petitioner's 
assertion that it imposes a specialty degree requirement for the proffered position. Additionally, the 
Petitioner failed to submit evidence of any degrees, hiring documents, or associated job 
announcements for the positions in which the employees were hired. Absent documentation of the 
employment of specialty-degreed individuals in the proffered position, the Petitioner cannot satisfy 
this criterion. 
The Petitioner, therefore, 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. 
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. 
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 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. 
12