dismissed H-1B Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7358059 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-IB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 27, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-IB nonimmigrant 
classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation or that the Beneficiary is 
qualified to perform services in 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. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
Upon review, we conclude that the Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that 
position satisfies the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). The Petitioner has established that 
the proffered position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation as defined by section 
214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). Therefore, that portion of the Director's decision 
is hereby withdrawn. 
II. BENEFICIARY'S QUALIFICATIONS 
However, the record does not contain sufficient documentation to establish the Beneficiary's 
qualification to perform services in a specialty occupation under section 214(i)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ l 184(i)(2). 
A. Legal Framework 
1 We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard. Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010) . 
Section 214(i)(2) of the Act states that an individual applying for classification as an H-lB 
nonimmigrant worker must possess: 
(A) foll state licensure to practice in the occupation, if such licensure is required to 
practice in the occupation, 
(B) completion of the degree described in paragraph (1 )(B) for the occupation, or 
(C) (i) experience in the specialty equivalent to the completion of such degree, and 
(ii) recognition of expertise in the specialty through progressively responsible 
positions relating to the specialty. 
In implementing section 214(i)(2) of the Act, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C) states that 
a beneficiary must also meet one of the following criteria in order to qualify to perform services in a 
specialty occupation: 
(]) Hold a United States baccalaureate or higher degree required by the specialty 
occupation from an accredited college or university; 
(2) Hold a foreign degree determined to be equivalent to a United States baccalaureate 
or higher degree required by the specialty occupation from an accredited college 
or university; 
(3) Hold an unrestricted State license, registration or certification which authorizes 
him or her to folly practice the specialty occupation and be immediately engaged 
in that specialty in the state of intended employment; or 
(4) Have education, specialized training, and/or progressively responsible experience 
that is equivalent to completion of a United States baccalaureate or higher degree 
in the specialty occupation, and have recognition of expertise in the specialty 
through progressively responsible positions directly related to the specialty. 
B. Analysis 
We conclude that the record does not sufficiently establish the Beneficiary's qualifications for the 
proffered position. To determine whether the Beneficiary has completed a degree required by the 
specialty occupation under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(2), we must first ascertain what is required for 
the proffered position. To inform this inquiry, we look to the record to consider the duties, requirements, 
and other documents filed in support of the petition. 2 
2 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. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F .3d 
2 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as an "Executive Director - Margin Trading" and 
that its minimum educational requirement for the proffered position is at least a bachelor's degree in 
finance, statistics, or a related field. On the labor condition application 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 at Level III wage 
level. According to the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook, 
"[f]inancial analysts typically must have a bachelor's degree" and acceptable degrees include 
accounting, economics, finance, statistics, and mathematics. 3 
However, the record contains inconsistent information regarding the Beneficiary's academic credentials. 
Notably, the foreign degree evaluation presented at the initial filing states that the Beneficiary earned 
the "equivalent of a Bachelor of Arts degree, specialized in a combination of Economics and 
Philosophy" resulting in a Bachelor of Arts degree awarded in 2004. However, the degree evaluation 
submitted on appeal states that the Beneficiary's degree is the equivalent of a U.S. "Bachelor of Arts 
degree with a major in Humanities and a minor in Economics and Philosophy." On appeal, the 
Petitioner also states that the Beneficiary holds the equivalent of a "U.S. Bachelor of Arts degree in 
Humanities, Economics, and Philosophy" ( emphasis removed). On appeal, the Petitioner appears to 
have removed the distinction between specializations, majors, and minors, which is material to 
assessing the Beneficiary's qualifications and the credibility of the equivalency evaluations. 
Further, the printout of the Beneficiary's coursework contained in the record of proceedings appears 
to be missing pages and lacks pertinent details that we would expect to find in a complete academic 
transcript. We note that the degree evaluation submitted on appeal states that it "is based on copies of 
the original documents," however, we do not know whether the credential evaluator had more or 
different documents than those before us now. In examining the printout, we read that the Beneficiary 
began his coursework in "2001 Fall" and completed his degree in "2004 Winter," however not all 
semesters or trimesters of coursework appear listed. Though the printout accounts for courses in the 
winter, summer, and fall of 2002, there are no courses listed for 2001 or 2004, and only the winter 
term is accounted for in 2003. Additionally, the record lacks an explanation as to why the Beneficiary 
earned zero credits during "2001 Fall-1 st Year Studies in Humanities." As such, we cannot ascertain 
what courses the Beneficiary took during years 2001, 2004, and the majority of 2003. 
We therefore conclude that the record contains incomplete academic documentation for the 
Beneficiary and inconsistent conclusions as to the degree equivalency. This information is material 
as the Petitioner's minimum educational qualifications are a bachelor's degree in finance, statistics, or 
a related field. Accordingly, the record fails to adequately demonstrate how the individual coursework 
undertaken by the Beneficiary, as reflected in his transcript and by the Beneficiary's degree 
equivalency evaluations, meets the minimum educational requirement. 
384, 387-88 (5th Cir. 2000). Tfwe were 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. Id. 
3 We do not maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source ofrelevant 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. 
3 
III. CONCLUSION 
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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4