dismissed H-1B Case: Financial Information Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8721228 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 13, 2020 
The Petitioner, a company engaged in multi-media financial information services, seeks to temporarily 
employ the Beneficiary as a "technical specialist" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for 
specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 
8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(l5)(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 Petitioner did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
On appeal , the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Director erred in denying 
the petition. Upon de nova review , we will dismiss the appeal. 1 
I. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the entire record , for the reasons set out below, we have determined that the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 2 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. In her decision, the Director thoroughly discussed the Petitioner's failure to 
meet any of the four regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J)-(4). Upon consideration 
of the entire record, including the evidence submitted and arguments made on appeal , we adopt and 
affirm the Director 's decision with the comments below . See Matter of P. Singh, Attorney , 
26 I&N Dec. 623 (BIA 2015) (citing Matter of Burbano, 20 l&N Dec. 872,874 (BIA 1994)); see also 
Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 7-8 (1st Cir. 1996) ("[I]f a reviewing tribunal decides that the facts and 
1 We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 
(AAO 2010). 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-lB petition , including evidence regarding the proffered position 
and its business operations . Although we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered 
each one. 
evaluative judgments prescinding from them have been adequately confronted and correctly resolved 
by a trial judge or hearing officer, then the tribunal is free simply to adopt those findings" provided 
the tribunal's order reflects individualized attention to the case). 
The Petitioner repeatedly asserts that the educational requirement for the proffered position is a 
bachelor's degree in a relevant field, or the equivalent. Throughout these proceedings, the Petitioner 
has not specified any specific specialty or discipline associated with the degree. Instead, it has only 
required a degree "in a relevant field" without indicating what concentrations it would find acceptable. 
Without specific information relating to these areas, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered 
position meets the definition of 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 bachelor's degree without further specification, does not establish the 
position as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 
(Comm'r 1988). To prove that a job requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of 
highly specialized knowledge as required by section 214(i)(l) of the Act, a petitioner must establish 
that the position requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specialized field of study 
or its equivalent. 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner stated that the Director ignored the evidence submitted byl I 
We disagree as the Director reviewed this letter and noted that I I stated that the proffered 
position requires a bachelor's degree in a relevant field, or the equivalent. As noted above, the 
Petitioner did not indicate the requirements of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty as required. 
In addition, on appeal, the Petitioner stated that the Director erred on how it interpreted the Petitioner's 
intention for submitting the evidence regarding the Master of Science in Computer Engineering degree 
program froml !University. The Petitioner clarified that this documentation was submitted 
to support the letter written byl I On appeal, the Petitioner stated that "USCIS then 
alleged that in presenting the information, the petitioner 'was arguing that the proffered position 
qualifies as a speciation occupation based on the specialized knowledge acquired by the beneficiary."' 
However, upon review of the decision, the Director never made this statement. 
As explained above, the statutory and regulatory definition of a specialty occupation requires a degree 
in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position, which the Petitioner did not 
establish in this matter. 
II. 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 here, 
and the petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2