dismissed H-1B Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 21157665 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 19,2022 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(HXi)(b) , 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15XH)(iXb). 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 Vermont 
Service Center Director denied the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker. The matter is 
now before us on appeal. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 
(AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de novo. Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 
537 , 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 101(a)(15)(H)(iXb) of the Act defines an H-lB nonimmigrant as a foreign national "who is 
coming temporarily to the United States to perfonn services . .. in a specialty occupation described in 
section 2 l 4(i)(l) . .. " ( emphasis added). Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U. S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the 
term "specialty occupation" as an occupation that requires "theoretical and practical application of a 
body of highly specialized knowledge, and 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 section 214(i)(l) of the Act, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. 
In addition, 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(h)(4)(iii)(A) provides that the proffered position must meet one of four 
criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation position. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A) must be read with 
the statutory and regulatory definitions of a specialty occupation under section 214(i)(l) of the Act 
and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 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 Corp. v. Chertojf, 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"). Lastly, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(]) states that an H-lB classification may be granted 
to a foreign national who "will perform services in a specialty occupation ... " ( emphasis added). 
Accordingly, to determine whether the Beneficiary will be employed in a specialty occupation, we 
look to the record to ascertain the services the Beneficiary will perform and whether such services 
require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge attained 
through at least a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
By regulation, the Director is charged with determining whether the petition involves a specialty 
occupation as defined in section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(2). The Director 
may request additional evidence in the course of making this determination. 8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b )(8). 
In addition, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the petition and must continue to 
be eligible through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(1). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner stated that the position requires an individual to possess at least a bachelor's degree in 
finance, business, economics, or a closely related scientific or quantitative discipline. 1 The Director 
denied the petition concluding that the record did not establish that the proffered position qualified as 
a specialty occupation, and that the position's prerequisites were not sufficiently detailed to satisfy the 
statutory definition of a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims the Director did not apply the correct standard of proof to its claims 
and evidence, it failed to appreciate the quantitative nature of the position, and it erred in the 
determination that the organization did not satisfy any of the regulatory criteria. We note that the 
Director concluded that the Petitioner's position prerequisites were not in sufficiently related fields, 
and that some were inadequate to satisfy the H-lB program requirements without some additional 
level of specificity. However, we also observe that the Petitioner provided additional detail within its 
response to the Director's RFE and it appears the Director did not factor those additional details into 
its decision. A review of those additional details appears sufficient to mitigate the Director's concerns 
they raised in the denial decision. 
Nevertheless, for the reasons discussed below, we have determined that the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 2 Specifically, we 
conclude that the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or 
its equivalent, conesponding with a specialty occupation. 3 
1 In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided additional details a bout the proffered 
position's duties. 
2 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
3 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the petition, including evidence regarding the position and its business 
operations. While we maynot discuss every document submitted, we have reviewedandconsideredeachone. 
2 
A. First Criterion 
We begin with 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. Although it is not a mandatory or an exclusive resource, we recognize the 
U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as one possible 
resource to inform our inquiry on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of 
occupations that it addresses. While we do not maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of 
relevant information, the Petitioner relies on this resource here. To satisfy the first criterion, the burden 
of proof remains on the Petitioner to submit sufficient evidence to support a determination that its 
particular position would normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, 
for entry. "[T]he choice of what reference materials to consult is quintessentially within an agency's 
discretion .... " Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 146. 
The Petitioner submitted the required DOL ETA Form 9035 & 9035E, Labor Condition Application 
for Nonimmigrant Workers (LCA) with this petition, where it classified the proffered position under 
the occupational title "Financial Analysts" corresponding to the standard occupational classificational 
code 13-2051. The portion of the Handbook that was in effect when the Petitioner filed the petition titled 
"How to Become a Financial Analyst" stated, in pertinent part: "Most positions require a bachelor's 
degree. A number of fields of study provide appropriate preparation, including accounting, economics, 
finance, statistics, and mathematics." Bureau of Labor Statistics, DOL, Handbook, Financial Analysts 
(Sept. 4, 2019), https://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/financial-analysts.htm#tab-4. Based 
on the Handbooks text, while more than half of the positions in this occupation require a bachelor's 
degree, a number of different fields will prepare the individual to enter into the occupation. 
When the Director issued its adverse determination for this criterion, they determined that the 
Petitioner's position requirements differed from the Handbook. The Director also noted the proffered 
position's requirements were inadequate to satisfy the H-lB program requirements without some 
additional level of specificity, but we determined the Petitioner sufficiently resolved this issue. The 
Petitioner's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) arguments were dismissed because that 
resource does not contain sufficient detail to satisfy this criterion's requirements. 
On appeal, the Petitioner notes that the Handbook"was not designed to assess the specialty occupation 
status of either occupations or particular positions within them .... While practically all parties in the 
immigration process look to the [ Handbook] for guidance on occupation requirements, the [ Handbook] 
was never intended as a guide to minimum education requirements." (Emphasis in original). We take 
no issue with, and we agree with, the Petitioner's argument here. The Petitioner further states in the 
appeal brief that considering the wide audience of the Handbook as a resource, it seems evident that it 
would include a wide range of fields. 
However, the Petitioner notes that this should not lead to the conclusion that anyone with a degree in 
a listed field is automatically qualified for any role within the Financial Analysts field. It notes that 
each position and employer have their own educational requirements based on the nature of the 
specific role within the organization. While we agree that the Handbook includes fields that are related 
to quantitative methods, we conclude that it does not establish that this particular position requires a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty in order to enter it. Setting aside the fact that the fields of study 
3 
the Handbook lists are related, unique to this Handbook profile is the scenario where it illustrated a 
number of examples, but it did not specify that the fields it listed were an exhaustive list. This results in 
the possibility that "[a] number" of additional fields of study not listed in the Handbook-many of which 
may not relate to a body of highly specialized knowledge required for the occupation-could prepare an 
individual for entry into this broader occupational category. 
Stated in different terms, the Handbooks recognition that degrees in different disciplines may provide 
sufficient preparation to perform the duties to enter into this occupation strongly suggests that a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is not a standard, minimum entry requirement. See Taylor 
Made Software, Inc. v. Cuccinelli, 453 F. Supp. 3d 23 7, 243-44 (D.D.C. 2020) (citing Caremax Inc. 
v. Holder, 40 F. Supp. 3d 1182, 1187-88 (N.D. Cal. 2014) in which the court held that "[a] position 
that requires applicants to have any bachelor's degree, or a bachelor's degree in a large subset of fields, 
can hardly be considered specialized."). Such a strong suggestion precludes the Petitioner from 
establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that it has met its burden of proof that a qualifying 
degree "is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position." 
When the Handbook either includes disparate fields of study as sufficient to qualify for an occupation, 
or leaves open the possibility of additional unnamed fields-many of which may not relate to a body 
of highly specialized knowledge required for the occupation-a petitioner generally will be unable to 
demonstrate eligibility under the first criterion based on the Handbook as the sole resource. The 
Handbook lists information for the broader Financial Analysts occupation, and indicates that a 
bachelor's degree in a number of disciplines provide preparation for entering the occupation. It is 
important to note that the proffered position is a single job within the spectrum of positions that 
comprise the broader Financial Analysts occupation. 
If the Petitioner wishes to rely solely on the Handbook as the only resource under this criterion, it must 
demonstrate that the particular position it presents in the petition requires a bachelor's degree or higher 
in a specific specialized curriculum ( or its equivalent) as the normal minimum requirement for entry 
into the position. We come to this conclusion as the Handbook does not limit its analysis to the 
particular position within this petition, and instead encompasses and includes those positions that 
broadly make up this occupation. In accordance with such inclusion, the Handbook factors in duties 
and functionality that are not necessarily part of the position in this petition. For instance, the version 
of the Han dbookin use when the Petitioner filed the petition divided the Financial Analysts occupation 
into two categories: buy-side analysts and sell-side analysts. It further listed multiple types of 
financial analysts as follows: 
• Portfolio managers select the mix of products, industries, and regions for their company's 
investment portfolio. These managers are responsible for the overall performance of the 
portfolio. They are also expected to explain investment decisions and strategies in meetings 
with stakeholders. 
• Fund managers work exclusively with hedge funds or mutual funds. Both fund and portfolio 
managers frequently make buy or sell decisions in reaction to quickly changing market 
conditions. 
• Ratings analysts evaluate the ability of companies or governments to pay their debts, 
including bonds. On the basis of their evaluation, a management team rates the risk of a 
company or government not being able to repay its bonds. 
4 
• Risk analysts evaluate the risk in investment decisions and determine how to manage 
unpredictability and limit potential losses. This job is carried out by making investment 
decisions such as selecting dissimilar stocks or having a combination of stocks, bonds, and 
mutual funds in a portfolio. 
Even though the Petitioner repeatedly refers to the Handbook as supp01i under this criterion, it did not 
address the categories or the types of financial analysts this resource discusses. With such a wide 
array of financial analyst types that perform functions beyond those that the candidate for the proffered 
position would execute, the Petitioner has not sufficiently persuaded us that it should be able to rely 
solely on the Handbook entry for Financial Analysts as a resource that adequately represents or that 
equates to the position it offers here. Consequently, we conclude that the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that a bachelor's or higher degree (or its equivalent) is nonnally the mm1mum 
requirement for entry into this particular position, which the first criterion mandates. 
We conclude that, to the extent that the Petitioner described the numerous duties within the record, these 
functions reflect a need for a range of knowledge of investment analysis and strategy, but do not establish 
any particular level of formal, postsecondary education leading to a bachelor's degree or higher in a 
specific specialty as minimally necessary to attain such knowledge. 
Additionally within the appeal brief, the Petitioner references the opinion letter froml I 
I la professor atl I University, and posits that the Director summarily dismissed his 
opinion and relied on a precedent decision that the Petitioner contends is not comparable to this case 
because it is a global financial institution and the employer in the cited case was a yam manufacturer. 
Although the Petitioner's appeal briefrefers to I l's opinion letter, it does not explain 
how his opinion supp01is the Petitioner's claims under this criterion. And we note that within the initial 
filing and when the Petitioner responded to the Director's RFE, it did not present any claims relating to 
I opinion letter under this criterion. As a result, not only has the Petitioner failed to 
adequately inform us of how this evidence contributes to its claims under this criterion, it now presents 
new eligibility claims on appeal that it did not advance before the Director. New assertions advanced for 
the first time to an administrative appellate body are not properly before us. MatterofM-F-O-, 28 I&N 
Dec. 408,410 n.4 (BIA 2021) (refusing to consider the appellant's claims that were presented for the first 
time on appeal). 
The Petitioner has not provided documentation from a probative source to substantiate its assertion 
regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. Therefore, it has not 
satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
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 perfonned only by an individual with 
a degree .... " 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). The first prong contemplates common industry 
practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific position. 
5 
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. We generally 
consider the following sources of evidence to determine ifthere is such a common degree requirement: 
whether the Handbookreports 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." 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)). 
As previously discussed, the Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty is a common requirement within the industry for parallel positions among similar 
organizations. Also, the Petitioner did not submit evidence from an industry professional association 
or argue that for firms or individuals in the industry such a degree is a minimum requirement for entry 
into the position. 
When detennining whether the Petitioner and other organizations share the same general 
characteristics, such factors may includeinformationregardingthe nature or type of organization, and, 
when pertinent, the size, scope, or scale of operations, expenditures, as well as the level of revenue 
and staffing (to list just a few elements that may be considered). Id. at 1021. It is not sufficient for 
the Petitioner to claim that an organization is similar and in the same industry without providing a 
legitimate basis for such an assertion. 
In support of this prong, the Petitioner submitted numerous job advertisements from other 
organizations. The Director also discussed the opinion letter from Mr. Roychoudhuryunderthis prong. 
Considering the job advertisements, the Director determined they did not meet this criterion's 
requirements. The Director acknowledged that although the job postings show the other organizations 
may have required a bachelor's degree, they did not demonstrate that degree must be in a specific 
specialty because of the wide variety of concentrations that would be acceptable. The Director further 
noted that the Petitioner did not demonstrate the postings are in its industry, nor did it establish that 
the other organizations were comparable to the Petitioner in size, nor that the advertisements were in 
parallel positions. Finally, the Director decided that the opinion letter did not support the Petitioner's 
claims. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims the Director erred because they failed to consider real-world hiring 
practices and contests the Director's analysis relating to a wide variety of fields. Notably, the 
Petitioner does not address the Director's findings that the organizations were not in the same industry 
or comparable in size to the petitioning entity. The Petitioner also does not contest the Director's 
determination regarding the opinion letter. Within the appeal, the Petitioner has not specifically 
addressed how the positions are parallel, or how the other entities are similar organizations. 
Ultimately, it has not argued how the evidence demonstrates it has met this criterion's requirements. 
Without more, 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 
6 
organizations. Consequently, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
The Director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the Petitioner did not 
establish its eligibility. On appeal, the Petitioner does notcontestthe Director's findings for this prong 
of the criterion or offer additional arguments. Therefore, the Petitioner has abandoned its eligibility 
claims under this criterion. E.g., Matter of Zhang, 27 I&N Dec. 569,569 n.2 (BIA 2019) (finding that 
an issue not appealed is deemed as abandoned). 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 employerdemonstratingthatitnormally 
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 perfomance requirements of the position. See Defensor v. 
Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387-88 (5th Cir. 2000). A petitioner must demonstrate that its imposed 
requirements are genuine. Sagarwala v. Cissna, 387 F. Supp. 3d 56, 69 (D.D.C. 2019). Cf Matter of 
Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558,560 (BIA 1988)(finding: (1) the requirement of a degree 
for the sake of general education, or to obtain what an employer perceives to be a higher caliber 
employee, does not establish eligibility; and (2) an analysis of eligibility includes not only the actual 
requirements specified by the petitioner but also those required by the specific industry in question, to 
determine, in part, the validity of a petitioner's requirements). 
Were U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services limited solely to reviewing the Petitioner's claimed 
self-imposed requirements, then any individual with a bachelor's degree could be brought to the 
United States to perform any occupation as long as the Petitioner created a token degree requirement. 
Defensor, 20 I F.3d at 387-88. Evidence provided in support of this criterion may include, but is not 
limited to, documentation regarding the Petitioner's past recrnitment and hiring practices, as well as 
information regarding employees who previously held the position. 
Before the Director, the Petitioner presented internal job announcements for a position with a similar 
but different title, an organization chart depicting its personnel and their positions, and resumes for 
those occupying a financial analyst position in the organization. The Director concluded that the job 
announcements were not adequate as they listed disciplines that were too broad and that the Petitioner 
did not show how they were sufficiently related to the duties, and the resumes were not supported by 
other probative evidence to demonstrate the Petitioner has historically hired those who hold at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or an equivalent. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends the Director did not consider the entire record and it erred by not 
accepting the claims within its correspondence-combined with the above listed evidence-as 
sufficient to satisfy its burden of proof. As part of its discussion of satisfying the preponderance of 
the evidence standard, the Petitioner noted that when the Director did not accept its claims within 
correspondence as sufficiently probative to meet the standard of proof, that it took this to mean the 
7 
Director was questioning their credibility. The Petitioner also adds to the record the Linkedin profiles 
for its personnel, but indicates that it is unable to provide other material such as the pay records for 
those same personnel due to privacy concerns. 
As it relates to the job advertisements, two of the jobs were posted after the Director's RFE and they 
do not pre-date the petition filing. The Petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the 
nonimmigrant visa petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b )(1 ). Evidence that the Petitioner creates or posts after 
the Director issues an RFE is not considered independent and objective evidence. Necessarily, 
independent and objective evidence would be evidence that is contemporaneous with the event to be 
proven and existent at the time of the Director's notice. Therefore, the post-RFE postings hold little 
probative value. For the job advertisement that predated the petition filing date, it appears this is for 
a more senior position because the Petitioner required up to three years of experience in finance, 
technology, or consulting in addition to its claimed qualifying degrees. However, it did not state any 
experiential requirements for the position in this petition. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that 
these job advertisements demonstrate that it normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent,far the position listed in the petition. 
Even if we consider the organizational chart, resumes, and Linkedln profiles collectively, they too do 
not demonstrate that the Petitioner nonnally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, for the position. First, this material generally depicts the degrees and experience an 
individual claims to possess at certain points in their career, but they do not establish the types and levels 
of degrees that an employer required when it hired each individual. Second, resumes and online profiles 
are not probative material that demonstrates each individual actually earned the claimed degrees. 
Although this evidence is not without any evidentiary value, it is not sufficient to establish the claims 
contained within it. 
Finally, as it relates to the credibility of the Petitioner's declarations and claims, we do not consider 
the Director's statement to be questioning the trustworthiness of their statements. Instead, the need to 
corroborate statements with evidence that preponderantly supports those statements is common for 
those filing for this type of immigration benefit. See Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 3 71- 72 ( discussing 
how assertions that are not supported by probative material might not meet a filing party's burden of 
proof). This incorporates the basic tenet that the burden of proof comprises both the initial burden of 
production (e.g., documents, testimony, etc.), as well as the ultimate burden of persuasion (e.g., 
establish the degree to which their evidence should persuade or convince). See section 2 91 of the Act; 
8 U.S.C. § l36l;MatterofY-B-, 21 I&NDec. 1136, 1142 n.3 (BIA 1998). 
Without more, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that it normally requires 
at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the proffered position. 
Therefore, it has not satisfied the third criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 2 l 4.2(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. 
8 
Responding to the RFE, the Petitioner provided the same duties it offered in the initial filing adding 
the percentage of time each function would comprise as the following: 
• Analyze economic data and present conclusions 30%; 
• Analyze clients' financial and operational perfonnance and build financial models 3 0%; 
• Assist in the preparation of general, industry, and company-specific economic quantitative 
reports 30%; 
• Draft marketing materials and produce other transaction- and execution-related documentation 
10%. 
Petitioner also provided a general job description as being under the direction of senior bankers, work 
on multiple projects and transactions at any given time, with primary responsibilities including 
producing analytical work for clients and supporting the deal process from origination to execution. 
The petitioner further stated that a candidate will conduct research, prepare reports, or formulate plans 
to address economic problems. They will collect and process economic and statistical data using 
sampling techniques and econometric methods and will compile, analyze, and report data to explain 
economic phenomena and forecast market trends, applying mathematical models and statistical 
techniques. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner's position description was not sufficiently detailed to 
establish that the position is so complex or specialized as to require the attainment of a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty. In particular, the Director stated that the duties were not described in a 
manner that was more specialized and complex than those of other financial analyst positions that are 
not usually associated with a qualifying degree. The Director noted the lack of material from those in 
the industry, and it concluded that opinion letter did not sufficiently support the 
Petitioner's claims. On appeal, the Petitioner claims the Director erred by not discussing the "work 
product" it submitted in the RFE response, they reduced the position to a non-professional role, and 
they did not accord any weight to its position description in the RFE response. The Petitioner does 
not discuss how the Director may have erred as it relates to their analysis of the opinion letter under 
this criterion. 
We agree with the Director that the position description is not detailed such that it satisfies this 
criterion's requirements. We note that significant portions of this general job description above are 
identical to and appears to have been taken from DOL's O*NETwebsite for Economists and it does 
not support the Petitioner's claims 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 qualifying 
degree under the H-1B program. 4 
Furthermore, the Petitioner included information titled, "Specific Sophisticated Knowledge Required 
for the role," and it appears the content was largely adopted from other internet sources. For instance, 
the Petitioner opened its description of discounted cash flow as: "DCF is a valuation method used to 
estimate the value of an investment based on its expected future cash flows. DCF analysis attempts to 
4 Details Report for: 19-3011.00 - Economists, O*NET OnLine Archives (May 19, 2022), 
https://www.onetonline.org/ Archive_ ONET-SOC _ 2010 _Taxonomy_ 09_2020/link/details/19-3011.00. 
9 
figure out the value of an investment today, based on projections of how much money it will generate 
in the future." This and the information that followed largely matches the information for this term 
found on Investopedia; in many instances word-for-word. 5 Other terms and concepts the Petitioner 
presented as being specialized, complex, and unique to this position's duties suffer similar 
shortcomings and can be found on this same and other websites. 
While a general description may be appropriate when defining the range of duties that one may 
perform within an occupation, such a generic description generally cannot be relied upon by the 
Petitioner when discussing the duties attached to specific employment for H-IB approval. In 
establishing such a position as a specialty occupation, the proffered position's description must include 
sufficient details to substantiate that the Petitioner has H-lB caliber work for the Beneficiary, and 
must adequately convey the substantive work that the Beneficiary will usually perform within the 
Petitioner's business operations. Here, the job description from the Petitioner does not sufficiently 
communicate: (I) the actual work that the Beneficiary would perform; (2) the complexity, uniqueness 
and/or specialization of the tasks; and/or (3) the correlation between that work and a need for a 
particular level of knowledge in a specific specialty. 
We also note significant similarities between the position responsibilities in this petition and those of 
some of its internal job advertisements that appear to be more senior positions due to theirrequirement 
of multiple years of experience. Were those experiential requirements the actual prerequisites for the 
offered position, those have the potential of increasing the wage level designated on the LCA to a 
higher wage rate and an increase in the Beneficiary's compensation in excess of$12,000. 
While on the topic of the wage rate, here the Petitioner designated a Level I position on the LCA. A 
Level I is the lowest of four assignable wage-levels relative to others within the occupational categmy, 
and hence one not likely distinguishable by relatively specialized and complex duties. Nevertheless, 
a low wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty 
occupation, just as a high wage-designation does not definitively establish such a classification. In 
certain occupations (e.g., physicians or lawyers), a Level I position would still require a minimum of 
an advanced degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV 
wage-designation would not reflect that an occupation qualifies as a specialty occupation if thathigher­
level position does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent. That is, a position's wage-level designation may be a relevant factor but is not itself 
conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 
Such a Level I wage designation does not appear to corroborate the Petitioner's appellate claims that 
it has offered the Beneficiary a competitive high-level salary, or that "clearly this is one of the more 
high-level, demanding, and complex positions in this classification." Again, a Level I wage rate is the 
lowest of four possible wage rates and does not reflect the high-level complexities of the position 
unless the position is much more senior than a Level I wage would reflect. These aspects tend to 
undermine the Petitioner's claims relating to the duties and its claims that they are so specialized and 
complex that the knowledge required to perform them is usually associated with the attainment of a 
qualifying degree. 
5 Discounted Cash Flow (DCF), Investopedia (May 19, 2022), https:/ /www.investopedia.com/terms/ d/ def.asp. 
Still, we will consider the Petitioner's appellate claims. Regarding the work products the Petitioner 
presented in the RFE response in November of 2020, it is clear from two of the work products that the 
work postdates the petition filing date and the third product is not marked in a manner to demonstrate 
that it predated the petition filing date in May of 2020. A petitioner must establish eligibility at the 
time it files the nonimmigrant visa petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b )(1 ). As a result, while this material 
does carry some value, it does not weigh heavily in the Petitioner's favor to demonstrate that the 
Beneficiairy's role in each of the projects included responsibilities that were so specialized and 
complex that they required a qualifying degree. 
Finally, the Director discussed! opinion letter under this criterion and found that it 
did not sufficiently advance the Petitioner's eligibility claims. On appeal, the Petitioner does not 
contest the Director's findings relating to that opinion letter under criterion four, nor do they offer 
additional arguments. Therefore, we will not address the opinion letter under this criterion. Matter of 
Valdez, 27 I&N Dec. 496,496 n.l, 498 n.3 (BIA 2018) (concluding that a claim is deemed waived 
when it is not challenged on appeal). 
Although the Petitioner asserts that the nature of the specific duties is specialized and complex, the 
record lacks sufficient evidence to supp01i this claim. Therefore, the Petitioner has submitted 
insufficient evidence to satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)( 4). 
In summary, the Petitioner has not satisfied any of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
E. Definitional Requirement 
The process of demonstrating that a proffered position is sufficient to meet the requirements under the 
H-1B program includes more than satisfying one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). The 
regulation also requires a petitioner to demonstrate that a petition "involves a specialty occupation as 
defined in section 2 l 4(i)(l) of the Act." 8 C.F.R. § 2 l 4.2(h)( 4)(i)(B)(2); see also 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(l)(ii)(B)(l). This statutory definition states: "the term 'specialty occupation' means an 
occupation that requires ... [a] theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and ... 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." (Emphasis added). 
First, both the statutory and regulatory definitions mandate that the broader occupation as a whole 
requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty ( or an equivalent), at the entry level. See ltserve 
All., Inc. v. Cissna, 443 F. Supp. 3d 14, 39 (D.D.C. 2020) (recognizing that a specialty occupation 
would encompass a host of jobs, beginning at the trainee level and extending to an expert along with 
concomitant but differing personal job duties). Consequently, an H-1 B approval demands more than 
simply demonstratingthatthe particular position a petitioner is offering normally requires a bachelor's 
degree or its equivalent as the minimum for entry under criterion one. A petitioner must also establish 
that one cannot even enter the broader occupation if they do not possess the qualifying degree ( or its 
equivalent). 
Second, we reason that the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) should be read logically as being 
necessary-but not necessarily sufficient-to meet the statutory and regulatory definition of a 
11 
specialty occupation. To otherwise interpret the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) 
as stating the necessary, but not necessarily sufficient conditions as being adequate to qualify would 
result in some positions meeting a condition under the criteria, but not under the statutory definition. 
See Defensor, 201 F.3dat 387; Sagarwala v. Cissna, 387 F. Supp. 3d at 64. 
To avoid this erroneous result, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must therefore be read as providing 
supplemental criteria that must be met in accordance with, and not as alternatives to, the statutmy 
definition of a specialty occupation. Vision Builders, LLC v. USCIS, No. CV 19-3159 (TJK), 2020 
WL 5891546, at *1-2 (D.D.C. Oct. 5,2020) (finding that an employer must satisfy both the definition 
of a specialty occupation as well as one of the four regulatory criteriaat8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)). 
This results in a multi-part analysis to determine whether a particular position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. As a result, an H-1 B petition cannot be approved unless a petitioner demonstrates that a 
proffered position satisfies this statutory definition; not even if it demonstrates it has satisfied one of 
the four regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
Accordingly, were a petitioner to submit sufficient evidence to satisfy one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214 .2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A), we would still have to evaluate whether it had also demonstrated thatthe broader 
occupation as a whole requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty ( or an equivalent), even at 
the entry level. We conclude that in addition to not meeting any of the regulatory criteria, the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated the position in this petition qualifies as a specialty occupation under the statutory 
definition. 
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. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
12