dismissed H-1B Case: Finance

MATTER OF W-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 25,2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a nonprofit art center, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a part-time 
"finance administrator" under the H -1 B nonimmigrant classification. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) § 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The Director, 
California Service Center, denied the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. Upon de 
novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. ISSUE 
The issue before us is whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation m 
accordance with the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. 
II. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
A. 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) states, in pertinent part, the following: 
Specialty occupation means an occupation which [(1)] requires theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in fields of human 
endeavor including, but not limited to, architecture, engineering, mathematics, 
physical sciences, social sciences, medicine and health, education, business 
specialties, accounting, law, theology, and the arts, and which [(2)] requires the 
Matter ofW-
attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as 
a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, a proposed position 
must meet one of the following criteria: 
(I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
(4) The nature ofthe 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. 
As a threshold issue, it is noted that 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must logically be read together 
with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). In other words, this regulatory 
language must be construed in harmony with the thrust of the related provisions and with the statute 
as a whole. SeeK Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) (holding that construction 
oflanguage which takes into account the design of the statute as a whole is preferred); see also COlT 
Independence Joint Venture v. Fed. Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989); Matter ofW-F-, 
21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). As such, the criteria stated in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) should 
logically be read as being necessary but not necessarily sufficient to meet the statutory and 
regulatory definition of specialty occupation. To otherwise interpret this section as stating the 
necessary and sufficient conditions for meeting the definition of specialty occupation would result in 
particular positions meeting a condition under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory or 
regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). To avoid this 
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 statutory and regulatory definitions of 
specialty occupation. 
As such and consonant with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) consistently interprets the 
term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered position. See 
Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 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"). Applying this standard, US CIS regularly approves H -1 B petitions for qualified 
2 
MatterofW-
individuals who are to be employed as engineers, computer scientists, certified public accountants, 
college professors, and other such occupations. These professions, for which petitioners have 
regularly been able to establish a minimum entry requirement in the United States of a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent directly related to the duties and 
responsibilities of the particular position, fairly represent the types of specialty occupations that 
Congress contemplated when it created the H-lB visa category. 
To determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCIS does not simply 
rely on a position's title. The specific duties of the proffered position, combined with the nature of 
the petitioning entity's business operations, are factors to be considered. USCIS must examine the 
ultimate employment of the individual, and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. The critical element is not the title 
of the position or an employer's self-imposed standards, but whether the position actually requires 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty as the minimum for entry into 
the occupation, as required by the Act. 
B. The Proffered Position 
The Petitioner identified the proffered position as a "Finance Administrator" on the Form I-129, and 
attested on the required labor condition application (LCA) that the occupational classification for the 
position is "Financial Managers," Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) (ONET/OES) Code 
11-3031, at a Level I (entry) wage. 
In a letter, submitted in support of the petition, the Petitioner described the duties to be performed in 
the proffered position as follows: 
• This position is responsible for Managing the Budgeting and Financial Operations 
reporting activities for the oversight/preparation of weekly management reporting; 
• Develop appropriate business metrics to assess the educational related activities of 
the organization; 
• Develop and manage detail monthly and annual budget; 
• Provide ad hoc and trend reporting as required by the board; 
• Ensure financial management reporting processes are in place to support the 
ongoing and future needs of the organization; 
• Manage financial stability to achieve profitability; 
• Provide ongoing business financial modeling and analysis; 
• Execute all aspects of the accounting system including journal entries, general 
ledger account maintenance, monthly close-outs, expenditures and billings, 
capital asset management, procurement and vendor management; 
• Prepares statements and reports of estimated future costs and revenues; 
• Review of accounting and administrative controls; 
3 
Matter ofW-
• Establishes system controls for new financial systems and develops procedures to 
improve existing systems; 
• Develop and maintain the Fixed Asset Inventory system. Includes creation of 
database tracking system, depreciation methods and rates, useful life, purchase, 
lease, and disposal of fixed assets; 
• Maintain functional knowledge to operate in a sophisticated computer 
environment that is constantly changing, including performing evaluations and 
participating in selecting computer software for both reporting and operations 
within revenue cycle management; 
• Participate in cross-functional business technology and consulting team efforts to 
leverage technology applications; 
• Participate in cost analysis for IT projects from both a business process and 
technical integration complexity perspective; 
• Provide leadership in identification and resolution of data quality issues; 
• Support and assess potential IT projects using analysis/expertise to identify and 
recommend business process changes that better leverage system capabilities 
across multiple operating and/or business units; 
• Developing business cases to support extending information technology 
applications; and 
• Assess potential technology projects for organizational readiness, strategic fit with 
the business plan and business benefits. 
The Petitioner also submitted a copy of its employment offer to the Beneficiary, dated March 30, 
20 15, substantially repeating the above-listed duties. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner referenced new duties that 
the Beneficiary may perform, including completing risk analysis, locating additional investors, and 
advising on how to raise funds. The Petitioner also noted that the Beneficiary would direct and 
advise its Certified Public Accountant (CPA) and the CPA's accounting clerk. The Petitioner 
indicated further that the proffered position included "drafting financial plans and analysis" and 
preparing bilingual business reports. The Petitioner asserted that the job duties are very complicated 
and that "the incumbent should not have this specific knowledge and work until he or she has 
studied in the field of marketing theory, finance, management, international business, auditing, tax, 
etc for at least 4 years." 
C. Analysis 
A baccalaureate or higher degree in a spec(fic specialty, or its equivalent, is 
normally the minimum requirementfor entry into the particular position 
We will first discuss the record of proceedings in relation 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. 
4 
Matter ofW-
We recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL's) Occupational Outlook Handbook 
(Handbook), as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of the wide 
variety of occupations that it addresses. 
1 
The Handbook states the following about the educational 
requirements of financial manager positions: 
Financial managers typically have a bachelor's degree and 5 years or more of 
experience in another business or financial occupation, such as an accountant, 
securities sales agent, or financial analyst. 
Education 
A bachelor's degree in finance, accounting, economics, or business administration is 
often the minimum education needed for financial managers. However, many 
employers now seek candidates with a master's degree, preferably in business 
administration, finance, or economics. These academic programs help students 
develop analytical skills and learn financial analysis methods and software. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., 
"Financial Managers," http://www. bls.gov/ ooh/management/financial-managers.htm#tab-4 (last 
visited Mar. 9, 2016). 
A review of the Handbook does not indicate that, simply by virtue of its occupational classification, 
a financial manager position qualifies as a specialty occupation. More specifically, the information 
in the Handbook indicates at most that a bachelor's or higher degree in a number of fields, including 
the general field of business administration, may be a common preference for entry into a financial 
manager position. Since there must be a close correlation between the required specialized studies 
and the position, the requirement of a degree with a generalized title, such as business 
administration, without further specification, does not establish the position as a specialty 
occupation. Cf Matter o.f Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). To prove 
that a job requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge 
as required by section 214(i)( 1) of the Act, a petitioner must establish that the position requires the 
attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specialized field of study or its equivalent. As 
discussed supra, USCIS interprets the degree requirement at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to require 
a degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. 
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. Royal Siam Corp. v. 
Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007). Here, the Handbook's report that a bachelor's degree in 
business administration may be sufficient to enter the profession indicates that financial manager 
1 
The Handbook, which is available in printed form, may also be accessed on the Internet, at http://www.bls.gov/oco/. 
Our references to the Handbook are to the 2016-2017 edition available online. 
5 
Matter ofW-
positions, as a category, do not qualify as specialty occupations? The Handbook does not support 
the claim that the proffered position falls under an occupational group for which normally the 
minimum requirement for entry is a baccalaureate degree (or higher) in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
When reviewing the Handbook, we also must look at the Petitioner's attestation on the LCA. Here 
the Petitioner designated the proffered position as a Level I (entry) position on the LCA.3 The wage 
levels are defined in DOL's "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance." A Level I wage 
rate is described as follows: 
Level I (entry) wage rates are assigned to job offers for beginning level employees 
who have only a basic understanding of the occupation. These employees perform 
routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment. The tasks provide 
experience and familiarization with the employer's methods, practices, and programs. 
The employees may perform higher level work for training and developmental 
purposes. These employees work under close supervision and receive specific 
instructions on required tasks and results expected. Their work is closely monitored 
and reviewed for accuracy. Statements that the job offer is for a research fellow, a 
worker in training, or an internship are indicators that a Level I wage should be 
considered. 
See 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 
Thus, in designating the proffered position at a Level I wage, the Petitioner has indicated that the 
proffered position is a comparatively low, entry-level position relative to others within the 
occupation. That is, in accordance with the relevant DOL explanatory information on wage levels, 
this wage rate indicates that the Beneficiary is only required to have a basic understanding of the 
occupation and carries expectations that the Beneficiary perform routine tasks that require limited, if 
any, exercise of judgment; that she would be closely supervised; that her work would be closely 
monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and that she would receive specific instructions on required 
tasks and expected results. Based upon the Petitioner's designation of the proffered position as a 
2 
A general degree requirement does not necessarily preclude a proffered position from qualifying as a specialty 
occupation. For example, an entry requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in business administration with a 
concentration in a specific field, or a bachelor's or higher degree in business administration combined with relevant 
education, training, and/or experience may, in certain instances, qualify the proffered position as a specialty occupation. 
In either case, it must be demonstrated that the entry requirement is equivalent to a bachelor's or higher degree in a 
specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d at 147. 
3 
Wage levels should be determined only after selecting the most relevant O*NET code classification. Then, a prevailing 
wage determination is made by selecting one of four wage levels for an occupation based on a comparison of the 
employer's job requirements to the occupational requirements, including tasks, knowledge, skills, and specific vocational 
preparation (education, training and experience) generally required for acceptable performance in that occupation. 
MatterofW-
Level I (entry) position, it does not appear that the Beneficiary will be expected to serve in a senior 
or leadership role or work at an advanced level. 
When the Handbook does not support the proposition that a proffered position is one that meets the 
statutory and regulatory provisions of a specialty occupation, it is incumbent upon the Petitioner to 
provide persuasive evidence that the proffered position more likely than not satisfies this or one of 
the other three criteria, notwithstanding the absence of the Handbook's support on the issue. In such 
cases, it is the Petitioner's responsibility to provide probative evidence (e.g., documentation from 
other objective, authoritative sources) that supports a finding that the particular position in question 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. Whenever more than one authoritative source exists, an 
adjudicator will consider and weigh all of the evidence presented to determine whether the particular 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
In that regard, we have reviewed the Petitioner's statement that the "job preparation for this job is 
SVP 8," thus demonstrating that the position is a specialty occupation. First, we note that O*NET 
Online divides the financial manager occupation into sub-occupations, SOC Code 11-3031.01 -
"Treasurers and Controllers," with a SVP rating of 8, and SOC Code 11-3031.02 - "Financial 
Managers, Branch or Department" with a SVP rating of 7 < 8. Even if the Petitioner's financial 
manager occupation carries an SVP value of eight, the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) 
does not support the assertion that the assignment of such an SVP rating is indicative of a specialty 
occupation. This conclusion is apparent upon reading Section II of the DOT's Appendix C, 
Components of the Definition Trailer, which addresses the SVP rating system.4 The section reads: 
II. SPECIFIC VOCATIONAL PREPARATION (SVP) 
Specific Vocational Preparation is defined as the amount of lapsed 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. 
This training may be acquired in a school, work, military, institutional, or vocational 
environment. It does not include the orientation time required of a fully qualified 
worker to become accustomed to the special conditions of any new job. Specific 
vocational training includes: vocational education, apprenticeship training, in-plant 
training, on-the-job training, and essential experience in other jobs. 
Specific vocational training includes training given in any of the following 
circumstances: 
4 
The Appendix can be found at the following Internet site: http://www.oalj.dol.gov/PUBLIC/DOT/ 
REFERENCES/DOTAPPC.HTM. 
(b)(6)
MatterofW-
a. Vocational education (high school; commercial or shop training; technical school; 
art school; and that part of college training which is organized around a specific 
vocational objective); 
b. Apprenticeship training (for apprenticeable jobs only); 
c. In-plant training (organized classroom study provided by an employer); 
d. On-the-job training (serving as learner or trainee on the job under the instruction of 
a qualified worker); 
e. Essential experience in other jobs (serving in less responsible jobs which lead to 
the higher grade job or serving in other jobs which qualify). 
The following is an explanation of the various levels of specific vocational 
preparation: 
Level 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
Time 
Short demonstration only 
Anything beyond short demonstration up to and including 1 month 
Over 1 month up to and including 3 months 
Over 3 months up to and including 6 months 
Over 6 months up to and including 1 year 
Over 1 year up to and including 2 years 
Over 2 years up to and including 4 years 
Over 4 years up to and including 10 years 
Over 1 0 years 
Note: The levels of this scale are mutually exclusive and do not overlap. 
Thus, an SVP rating of 8 does not indicate that at least a four-year bachelor's degree is required, or 
more importantly, that such a degree must be in a specific specialty closely related to the occupation 
to which this rating is assigned. Therefore, the DOT information is not probative of the proffered 
position qualifying as a specialty occupation. 
We have also reviewed the opinion letter signed by , the Petitioner's CPA, submitted on 
appeal. 5 repeats the Petitioner's description of duties for the proffered position and claims 
that "[a]ll of these specific job duties are very complicated and the incumbent should not have this 
specific knowledge and work ability until he or she has studied in the field of marketing theory, 
finance, management, international business, auditing, tax etc for at least 4 years. "6 
5 Two of the submitted organizational charts show that is either the Petitioner's Program Director or Program 
Manager. The Petitioner's Forms 941, Quarterly Wage Reports, for the first and second quarters of 2015, show that 
was one of three of the Petitioner's employees and was paid $1,000 the first quarter of2015 and $3,000 the 
second quarter of 2015. 
6 We note that language tracks the language in the Petitioner's letter submitted in its response to the 
Director's RFE. It is thus questionable whether this opinion is the opinion of or is simply a reiteration of the 
Petitioner's claim. 
(b)(6)
Matter ofW-
asserts that based on his knowledge, most of his non-profit clients have hired financial officers in 
order to help their organization conduct budgeting issues. opines that "the [P]etitioner's 
nonprofit organization 
would still require services of financial manager for the purpose of the control 
of expense and budgeting issues." The record also includes resume which shows that he 
is currently a self-employed CPA and does not include any other employment. 
Upon review of opinion letter, we note that he does not discuss in detail the pertinent 
occupational information provided in the Handbook on the occupation of a financial manager. He 
also does not appear to claim that the proffered position requires bachelor-level study in a specific 
specialty but rather that courses, including marketing theory, management, and international 
business, would prepare the Beneficiary to perform the duties of the proffered position. He does not 
differentiate the proffered position from those financial managers, that the Handbook reports are 
performed by persons who have only a general business degree and not a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in a specific specialty. To the extent that opinion suggests that a financial 
manager position comprises an occupational class that requires a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or the equivalent, the opinion conflicts with the information in the Handbook- and does 
so without acknowledgement of the fact or explanation. 
Further, upon review of opinion letter and the attached resume we do not find a 
sufficient basis to accord deference to his opinion with regard to the minimum education 
requirements for the performance of the particular position that is the subject of this petition. Even 
considered in the aggregate, resume, including his professional, academic, and 
educational experiences, do not show that he has published, conducted research, run surveys, or 
engaged in any enterprise, pursuit, or employment - academic or otherwise - to provide him with 
special knowledge in the particular area upon which he opines. While may have anecdotal 
information regarding the educational requirements of financial managers of nonprofit organizations, 
he has not supplied any relevant research, studies, surveys, or other authoritative publications as part 
of his review and/or as a foundation for his opinion. "[G]oing on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings." Matter of So.ffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure 
CraftofCal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
Moreover, does not discuss the fact that the Petitioner submitted an LCA certified for a 
wage-level that is appropriate for a comparatively low, entry-level position, relative to others within 
the financial manager occupation, and which signifies that the Beneficiary is only expected to 
possess a basic understanding of the occupation. The omission of such important information 
diminishes the evidentiary value of his opinion. We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements 
submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter ofCaron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 
1988). However, where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way 
questionable, we are not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Id. For the 
reasons discussed above, the opinion letter is not sufficient probative evidence towards satisfying 
any criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). For efficiency's sake, we hereby incorporate the 
9 
MatterofW-
above discussion and analysis regarding the opinion letter into each of the bases in this decision for 
dismissing the appeal. 
In this case, the Petitioner has not established that the proffered position falls under an occupational 
category for which the Handbook, or other authoritative source, indicates that normally the 
minimum requirement for entry is at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. The record lacks sufficient evidence to support a finding that the particular position 
proffered here, an entry-level financial manager position (as indicated on the LCA), would normally 
have such a minimum, specialty degree requirement or its equivalent. The duties and requirements 
of the position as described in the record of proceeding do not indicate that this particular position 
proffered by the Petitioner is one for which a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry. Thus, the Petitioner has not 
satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
The requirement of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel 
positions among similar organizations 
Next, we will review the record regarding the first of the two alternative prongs of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). This prong alternatively calls for a petitioner to establish that a requirement 
of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common for positions 
that are identifiable as being (1) in the petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered position, and 
also (3) located in organizations that are similar to the petitioner. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by 
USCIS include: 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 attest 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 discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which the 
Handbook (or other independent, authoritative source) 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." 
Thus, the record does not establish that a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is common to parallel positions with organizations that are in the 
10 
MatterofW-
Petitioner's industry and otherwise similar to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has not, therefore, 
satisfied the criterion ofthe first alternative prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by 
an individual with a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent 
The record also does not satisfy the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), 
which provides that "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." A review of the record of proceedings 
indicates that the Petitioner has not credibly demonstrated that the duties the Beneficiary will be 
responsible for or perform on a day-to-day basis constitute a position so complex or unique that it 
can only be performed by a person with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. Even when considering the Petitioner's description of duties submitted in response to 
the Director's RFE, the evidence of record does not establish why a few related courses or industry 
experience alone is insufficient preparation for the proffered position. While a few related courses 
may be beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
how an established curriculum of such courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the duties of the proffered position. 
We have reviewed the Petitioner's claims relating to its nonprofit status and its emphasis that the 
Beneficiary will be responsible for drafting financial plans and analysis, preparing bilingual business 
reports, providing data analysis and professional advice and will be involved in budgeting and cash 
management. However, the general descriptions of the proposed duties do not identify any tasks that 
are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. The stated 
duties of the proffered position do not include the type of detail necessary to elevate the position to 
one that requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. Upon review, the record lacks 
sufficiently detailed information to distinguish the proffered position as more complex or unique 
from other positions that can be performed by persons without at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
This is further evidenced by the LCA submitted by the Petitioner in support of the instant 
petition. The Petitioner attested on the submitted LCA that the wage level for the proffered position 
is a Level I (entry) wage. As stated above, this wage rate indicates that the Beneficiary is only 
required to have a basic understanding of the occupation. It is not indicative of a position that is 
advanced or at senior level. See 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. Therefore, 
it does not appear that the position is one with particularly complex duties, as such a higher-level 
11 
Matter ofW-
position would likely be classified as a Level III or Level IV position, requiring a significantly 
higher prevailing wage. 7 
As the Petitioner did not demonstrate how the proffered position is so complex or unique relative to 
other positions within the same occupational category that do not require at least a baccalaureate 
degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for entry into the occupation in the United States, it 
cannot be concluded that the Petitioner has satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The employer normally requires a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position 
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. To 
this end, we usually review a petitioner's past recruiting and hiring practices, as well as information 
regarding employees who previously held the position. 
The Petitioner has not expressly asserted eligibility nor submitted specific evidence under this 
criterion. While the record includes the Petitioner's advertisement for the proffered position 
indicating that a master's degree with a major in finance, business administration or accounting is 
required, we also note that a petitioner's belief or assertion that a proffered position requires a degree 
in a specific specialty, alone without corroborating evidence cannot establish the position as a 
specialty occupation. Were USCIS limited solely to reviewing a 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 employer artificially created a token degree requirement, 
whereby all individuals employed in a particular position possessed a baccalaureate or higher degree 
in the specific specialty or its equivalent. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d at 387. In other 
words, if a petitioner's degree requirement is only symbolic and the proffered position does not in 
fact require such a specialty degree or its equivalent to perform its duties, the occupation would not 
meet the statutory or regulatory definition of a specialty occupation. See section 214(i)(l) of the 
Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty occupation"). 
Here, the evidence of record does not establish the referenced criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3) based on the Petitioner's normal hiring practices. 
7 The issue here is that the Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position undermines its claim 
that the position is particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same 
occupation. Nevertheless, it is important to note that a Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position 
from classification as a specialty occupation. In certain occupations (doctors or lawyers, for example), an entry-level 
position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's 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 that higher-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 consideration but is not a substitute for 
a determination of whether a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)( I) ofthe Act. 
12 
Matter ofW-
The nature of the spec[fzc 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 in a specific specialty, or its equivalent 
Finally, we will address the alternative criterion at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)( 4), which is 
satisfied if the evidence of record establishes that the nature of the specific duties is so specialized 
and complex that knowledge required to perform them is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. In the instant case, relative 
specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by the Petitioner as an aspect of 
the proffered position. The Petitioner here has provided a general overview of the duties of the 
proffered position. The description includes generic administrative and operational duties. For 
example, the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary will be involved in fundraising and conducting 
background checks on potential investors, that she will be involved in upgrading the accounting 
system and vendor management, and may provide advice on a variety of issues involving computer 
and database upgrades. The Petitioner does not establish how these general duties as described are 
complex or specialized so that they could only be performed by someone with a baccalaureate or 
higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Additionally, a majority of the duties are so 
generally stated that we cannot discern the proffered position's actual day-to-day duties and how the 
duties as described incorporate any specific complex and specialized tasks. 
We also note that although the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary will be involved in providing 
financial and budgeting and cash management advice, the Petitioner has designated the proffered 
position as requiring only a Level I (entry) wage. Again, such a designation is for a position that is 
not likely distinguishable by relatively specialized and complex duties. Upon review of the totality 
of the record, the Petitioner has not established that the nature of the specific duties is so specialized 
and complex that the knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
For the reasons discussed above, the evidence of record does not satisfy the fourth criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
The Petitioner has not satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) and, therefore, it 
cannot be found that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The appeal will be 
dismissed and the petition denied for this reason. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As set forth above, we find the evidence of record insufficient to establish that the proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed and the petition 
denied. 
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; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
13 
Matter ofW-
(BIA 2013) (citing Matter of Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493, 495 (BIA 1966)). Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofW-, ID# 16217 (AAO Mar. 25, 2016) 
14