dismissed H-1B Case: Fitness

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 5035659 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 13, 2020 
The Petitioner, a member-based fitness facility, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"Facility Administrator" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified 
foreign worker in a position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body 
of highly specialized knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific 
specialty ( or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation . 
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. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, 
and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation : 
1We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 
(AAO 2010). 
(]) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We construe the term "degree" to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. 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"). 
II. THE PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a facility administrator in its fitness facility. His 
proposed role would involve planning, directing, and coordinating the administrative aspects of the 
business, including marketing analysis and operational efficiency. Before addressing why the 
proffered position does not qualify as a specialty occupation under any of the four regulatory criteria, 
we wish to discuss a number of inconsistencies 2 concerning the proffered position itself 
First, the Petitioner initially articulated its minimum entry requirement as a "bachelor's degree in, or 
with a concentration/specialization in, Business Administration, Operations Management, or other 
related fields." Other documents submitted with the initial filing state that the minimum requirement 
is "a Bachelor's degree Business Administration, Management, Industrial Engineering, or related 
fields." In its RFE response, the Petitioner stated the minimum qualification was "[a]t least a 
bachelor's degree in the Business Administration or related fields." In other words, the Petitioner 
appeared to initially state that an unspecified bachelor's degree in any field, if combined with a mere 
concentration/specialization in business administration, operations management, or related fields, 
would sufficiently satisfy its requirements. Yet, in another iteration of the same qualifications, a 
concentration/specialization is not mentioned as being sufficient. Also conspicuously different are the 
"Operations Management," and the "Management, Industrial Engineering" portions of the stated 
requirements. Here we see the acceptable fields of study differ markedly with no explanation for the 
change. In the Petitioner's final iteration of its minimum requirements, the fields of operations 
2 Though we will not discuss the Beneficiary's qualifications in depth, we do wish to note an additional inconsistency. The 
equivalency evaluation of the Beneficiary's undergraduate transcripts feature a different spelling of the Beneficiary's 
name. This calls into question the authenticity and validity of the document as whole. 
2 
management, management, and industrial engineering drop away, leaving business administration as 
the sole specified field. 
Further inconsistencies noted within the record add confusion to the nature of the proffered position. 
Though the Petitioner stated during the initial filing of the petition that the minimum credential it 
requires is a bachelor's degree, on appeal, the Petitioner states that the "position offered is directly 
related to the specialty of the beneficiary's master's degree education." The Petitioner then 
specifically references the "Master of Business Administration" degree in a collective manner when 
referring to the Beneficiary's "college education" as the reason he is capable of performing the duties 
of the position. The record reflects numerous pivots between referencing a bachelor's degree in 
various fields as the minimum requirement and statements that the Beneficiary is qualified because of 
his master's degree. As further evidence of this pivot, the opinion letter ofl I submitted 
on appeal provides a chart indicating that the Beneficiary is prepared for the duties of the proffered 
position at least in part because of his MBA degree. These numerous inconsistencies indicate that the 
Petitioner has not clearly defined its minimum qualifications for the position. 
Finally, we observe in various parts of the record that the proffered Facility Administrator position is 
referred to as a "Facility Administration Manager." The Petitioner fails to articulate whether or not 
these two differently titled positions encompass the same or similar duties or whether the Petitioner 
uses the titles interchangeably and why. 
A few errors or minor discrepancies are not reason to question the credibility of a beneficiary or a 
petitioner seeking immigration benefits. 3 However, anytime a petition includes numerous errors and 
discrepancies, and a petitioner does not resolve those errors and discrepancies after USCIS provides 
an opportunity to do so, those inconsistencies will raise serious concerns about the veracity of the 
petitioner's assertions. Doubt cast on any aspect of a petitioner's proof may undermine the reliability 
and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. 4 In this case, the 
discrepancies and errors catalogued above lead us to conclude that the evidence of the proffered 
position is not credible. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established the position's eligibility for 
H-lB classification and the petition cannot be approved for these reasons alone. 
III. ANALYSIS 
In addition to the above, we have determined that the proffered position does not qualify as a specialty 
occupation. 5 For the reasons set out below, we conclude that two separate factors independently bar 
approval of this petition: (1) the Petitioner's lack of a requirement for a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or the equivalent; and (2) the Petitioner's failure to satisfy at least one of the four regulatory 
specialty-occupation criteria enumerated at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4). 
3 See, e.g., Spencer Ente1prises, Inc. v. United States, 345 F.3d 683, 694 (9th Cir. 2003). 
4 Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). 
5 The Petitioner submitted documentation in support of the H-1 B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
3 
A. Lack of a Requirement for a Bachelor's Degree in a Specific Specialty, or the Equivalent 
First, the petition is not approvable because the Petitioner's claimed entry requirement for at least a 
bachelor's degree, or equivalent, in business administration or a related field, without more, is inadequate 
to establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 6 A petitioner must demonstrate 
that the proffered position requires a precise and specific course of study that relates directly and closely 
to the position in question. There must be a close correlation between the required specialized studies 
and the position. Thus, the mere requirement ofa general degree, such as business administration, without 
further specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. 7 Without more, it cannot 
be found that the proffered position requires anything more than a general bachelor's degree, if that. 
Accordingly, it does not qualify under the definition of a specialty occupation. 
B. The Specialty-Occupation Criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(])-(4) 
Even setting aside the foregoing analysis, we still conclude that the proffered position is not a specialty 
occupation because the evidence of record does not satisfy any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(])-(4). 
1. First Criterion 
We turn first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(]), 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. We recognize DOL' s Handbook as an authoritative source on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 8 
On the LCA submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner designated the proffered position 
under the occupational category "Administrative Services Managers" corresponding to the SOC code 
11-3011. 9 The Handbook's subchapter entitled "How to Become an Administrative Services Manager," 
6 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 with a concentration in a 
specific field, or a bachelor's or higher degree in business combined with relevant education, training, and/or experience 
could, 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. 
7 Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147 (a general-purpose bachelor's degree in business may be a legitimate prerequisite for 
a particular position. but such a degree, without more, will not justify a finding that a particular position qualifies for 
classification as a specialty occupation). See also Irish Help at Home LLC v. Melville, No. 13-cv-00943-MEJ. 2015 WL 
848977 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 24.2015). aff'd 679 Fed. App'x 634 (9th Cir.2017). 
8 We do not maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. That is, the occupational category 
designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered 
position, and we regularly review the Handbook on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of 
occupations that it addresses. To satisfy the first criterion, however, the burden ofproofremains on the Petitioner to submit 
sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position would normally have a minimum, specialty degree 
requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
9 The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level TT wage. A wage determination starts with an entry-level wage 
(Level I) and progresses to a higher wage level (up to Level TV) after considering the experience, education. and skill 
requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage 
4 
states, in pertinent part, that administrative services managers typically have a bachelor's degree in 
business, engineering, facility management, or information management. However, the Handbook 
further states that some administrative services managers may be able to enter the occupation with a high 
school diploma. The Handbook, therefore, does not support the assertion that at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for these positions. 
The Petitioner also references DOL's O*NET summary report for "Administrative Services Managers" 
listed as SOC code 11-3011.00. The summary report provides general information regarding the 
occupation; however, it does not support the Petitioner's assertion regarding the educational requirements 
for these positions. For example, the SVP rating, which is defined as "the amount oflapsed time required 
by a typical worker to learn the techniques, acquire the information, and develop the facility needed for 
average performance in a specific job-worker situation," cited within O*NET's Job Zone designates this 
position as having an SVP 6 < 7, not "7.0 to< 8.0," as stated by the Petitioner. The SVP range indicates 
that the occupation requires "over 1 year up to and including 2 years" of training. 10 While the SVP rating 
provides the total number of years of vocational preparation required for a particular position, it is 
important to note that it does not describe how those years are to be divided among training, formal 
education, and experience - and it does not specify the particular type of degree, if any, that a position 
would require. 11 The O*NET summary report for this occupation also does not specify that a bachelor's 
degree is required, but instead states, "most occupations in this zone require training in vocational schools, 
related on-the-job experience, or an associate's degree." Similar to the SVP rating, the Job Zone Three 
designation does not indicate that any academic credentials for Job Zone Three occupations must be 
directly related to the duties performed. 
Further, we note that the summary report provides the educational requirements of "respondents," but 
does not account for 100% of the "respondents." The respondents' positions within the occupation are 
not distinguished by career level ( e.g., entry-level, mid-level, senior-level). Additionally, the graph in the 
summary report does not indicate that the "education level" for the respondents must be in a specific 
specialty. The survey indicates that 24% of"respondents" claim to hold a bachelor's degree. 12 However, 
the same survey indicates that compared to the bachelor's degree respondents, even more respondents, 
34%, reported possessing at most a high school diploma or equivalent, 13% reported possessing at most 
a post-secondary certificate, and further, 29% are unaccounted respondents. Regardless, a requirement 
for merely a bachelor's degree is not sufficient. Instead, we construe the term "degree" to mean not just 
any baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed 
position.13 Accordingly, O*NET also does not support the assertion that at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for these positions. 
Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised_ 11 _ 2009.pdf 
10 This training may be acquired in a school, work, military, institutional, or vocational environment. Specific vocational 
training includes: vocational education, apprenticeship training, in-plant training, on-the-job training, and essential 
experience in other jobs. 
11 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/help/ 
online/svp. 
12 It is not apparent whether these credentials were prerequisites to these individuals' hiring. 
13 See Royal Siam Co1p., 484 F.3d at 147 (describing "a degree requirement in a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly 
to the duties and responsibilities of a particular position"). 
5 
The record lacks sufficient probative evidence to support a finding that the proffered position is one for 
which a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry. For the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner has not met its burden to establish 
that the particular position offered in this matter requires a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, directly related to its duties in order to perform those tasks. Thus, the 
Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I). 
2. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs: 'The degree requirement is common to the industry 
in parallel positions among similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree[.]" 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong casts its gaze upon the common 
industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific position. 
a. 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 if there is such a common degree requirement: whether the 
Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the industry's professional association has 
made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether letters or affidavits from firms or individuals 
in the industry attest that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." 14 
The Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which the Handbook ( or other 
independent, authoritative sources) reports an industry-wide requirement for at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, we incorporate by reference the previous discussion on the 
matter. Also, there are no submissions from the industry's professional association indicating that it has 
made a degree a minimum entry requirement. 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." However, we note that the Petitioner submitted a letter from its 
franchisor, attesting to an industry standard among its franchisees, of which the Petitioner is one. This 
letter makes general sweeping statements about the educational levels of the employees 15 within the 
franchise partners, but provides little evidence to support the statements. Further, the letter makes no 
mention of any specific duties such that we can ascertain whether the franchisor is even aware of what 
the proffered position or any of the other franchisee positions entail. Finally, the letter refers to the 
position as "Facility Administration Manager," which, as previously discussed, cannot be determined to 
be the same or similar to the proffered position of"Facility Administrator." Accordingly, this letter offers 
very little probative value in establishing an industry standard. 
14 See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 1999) (quoting Hird/Blaker Cmp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 
1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) ( considering these "factors" to infmm the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
15 See Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988) ("The mere requirement of a college degree 
for the sake of general education, or to obtain what an employer perceives to be a higher caliber employee, also does not 
establish eligibility."). 
6 
The Petitioner also submitted job vacancy announcements for our consideration under this prong. To be 
relevant for this consideration, the job vacancy announcements must advertise "parallel positions," and 
the announcements must have been placed by organizations that (1) conduct business in the Petitioner's 
industry and (2) are also "similar" to the Petitioner. These job vacancy announcements do not satisfy that 
threshold. Upon review of the documents, we find that the Petitioner's reliance on the job announcements 
is misplaced. 
We will first consider whether the advertised job opportunities could be considered "parallel positions." 
All of the job postings advertise full-time jobs, which the proffered position is not. Further, the position 
duties cannot be considered parallel when one of the fitness centers includes the additional responsibility 
of overseeing a spa as part of its duties (VIDA Fitness), another requires coverage of an entire region 
comprised of various geographical locations as part of its duties (National Fitness Company), and the 
third (Merritt Clubs) includes duties such as "provide energy, motivation, leadership, career and 
educational guidance to all staff' which are dissimilar to the duties of the proffered position. 
Further, the Petitioner did not supplement the record of proceedings to establish that these organizations 
are similar to it. From the title of the organization, we can ascertain only that the organizations all have 
a physical fitness component. The advertisements details indicate that the positions are located in cities 
geographically nearby, but not within the same state as the Petitioner. The record does not contain 
information on the relative size, staffing, income, structure, or any other data points so as to sufficiently 
establish the Petitioner's similarity to the employers referenced in the postings. 
For all of these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that these job vacancy announcements are 
relevant. Even if that threshold had been met, we would still find that they did not satisfy this prong of 
the second criterion, as they do not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the 
equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 16 Two of the 
three postings indicate that a bachelor's degree is required, but not that the degree must be in any specific 
specialty or field (or its equivalent). 17 The third posting indicates that a bachelor's degree in 
"Kinesiology, Exercise Science, or related/applicable degree" is required, which suggests that the duties 
of the position are not parallel to those of the proffered position and would likely be more fitness focused 
than facility focused. Overall, these postings are insufficient to establish that a specific degree or its 
equivalent is common to the industry. 18 
16 The Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how representative the job postings are of the particular 
advertising employers' recruiting history for the type of job advertised. As the advertisements are only solicitations for 
hire, they are not evidence of the actual hiring practices of these employers. 
17 As discussed. the degree requirement set by the statutory and regulatory framework of the H-lB program is not just a 
bachelor's or higher degree, but a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the duties of the 
position. Section 214(i)(l)(b) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). See Royal Siam Co1p., 484 F.3d at 147. 
18 Even if all of the job postings indicated that a requirement of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is common to 
the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations (which they do not), the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be draV1rn from the advertisements with regard to determining the common 
educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice 
of Social Research 186-228 (1995). Moreover, given that there is no indication that the advertisements were randomly 
selected, the validity of any such inferences could not be accurately determined even if the sampling unit were sufficiently 
large. See id. at 195-196 (explaining that "[r]andom selection is the key to [the] process [of probability sampling]" and 
that "random selection offers access to the body of probability theory, which provides the basis for estimates of population 
parameters and estimates of error"). 
7 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient probative evidence to establish that a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 2 l 4.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
b. Second Prong 
The second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) is satisfied if the Petitioner shows that 
its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with at least 
a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
We reviewed the Petitioner's statements regarding the proffered position, however many of the duties 
are routine and basic in nature, including a foll 10% of time devoted to "routine communication and 
clerical tasks." Other duties as described appear too generalized and vague to determine whether they 
require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge. For 
instance, the duty "maintain accurate and complete records as required by law" does not provide 
sufficient detail so that we may determine what the Beneficiary will actually do when performing this 
duty. Similarly, the duty "[a]nalyze internal processes and recommend procedural or policy changes" 
does not explain how the Beneficiary will perform the analysis, what internal processes he will be 
analyzing, and what kind of changes he might be expected to recommend. 
Though the duties include numerous action words such as "oversee," "assess," and "prepare," the 
detail provided following the action words do not allow us to understand what the Beneficiary would 
actually do as he carries out the undefined tasks. For example, the duties of"[ o ]versee the maintenance 
and repair of machinery, equipment, and electrical and mechanical systems" and "[ o ]versee 
construction and renovation projects ... " do not sufficiently explain the Beneficiary's day-to-day work. 
We cannot ascertain whether "oversee" means, among a variety of possible interpretations, that the 
Beneficiary watches over someone else perform the repairs and construction, whether the Beneficiary 
is to perform the actual repairs and construction himself, whether he merely determines if the facility 
needs such maintenance or projects, or whether the Beneficiary is responsible for contracting others 
to perform the repairs and construction. 
Even if the Petitioner described the duty with sufficient detail so that we may understand the actual 
work to be performed, the Petitioner has not explained why any of the duties are so complex or unique 
that it can be performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. Overall, we note that the duty descriptions from the record of proceedings do not 
distinguish the proffered position from other positions falling within the "Administrative Service 
Managers" occupational category, which, as the Handbook and O*NET indicate, do not require a 
person with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent to enter those positions. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submitted an opinion letter authored by ,__ ______ _,, Professor of 
Marketing, Associate Dean & Director of Graduate Programs in the School of Business, Government, 
& Economics at I I University. In his letter, I lo) describes the credentials that 
he asserts qualify him to opine upon the nature of the proffered position; (2) briefly lists some of the 
duties proposed for the Beneficiary; and (3) states that these duties require a bachelor's degree, or 
8 
equivalent, in business administration or a related field. We carefully evaluated ~I ---~I assertions 
in support of the instant petition but find them insufficient. 19 
~---~I states that his assessment is based upon the Handbook and O*NET descriptions of 
Administrative Service Managers positions, the Petitioner's support letter and organizational chart, 
and the Beneficiary's academic records. While I lprovides a brief: general description of the 
Petitioner's business activities, he does not demonstrate in-depth knowledge of its operations or how 
the duties of the position would actually be performed in the context of its business enterprise. 
Whenl I writes that, "I am intimately familiar with facility administrator/ general manager 
positions across industries and while the application of these positions to a particular product, industry 
or client may differ, the education and skills required to excel sufficiently in the position are the same." 
In so doing, he appears to lump together the proffered position with all positions located within the 
Administrative Service Managers occupational category. As we have already discussed previously, 
the information contained in the Handbook and O*NET does not support a conclusion that 
Administrative Service Manager positions are specialty occupations. 20 As such, it is necessary to 
examine the proffered position specifically and not in the aggregate of the occupational category 
generally. Ifl I does not deem it necessary to carefully and individually consider the specifics 
of the proffered position and its duties, his opinion that the position is a specialty occupation has little 
credibility. 
The cursory treatment of the proffered position as requiring the same education and skills as all others 
within the Administrative Service Managers category evidences that I I has not sufficiently 
examined the proffered position specifically. We observe further support for this assessment w~ 
we note thatl I analysis includes information not contained in the record. For instance,LJ 
D states that the Beneficiary will be responsible for the "advanced collection ... of information" 
and will perform "specialized and complex research." However, none of the Petitioner's lists of duties 
contain such information. Moreover, I I mentions the proffered position is the "Facility 
Administration Manager," which as previously discussed, differs from the title of the proffered 
position. Though I I states that "[ f]urther direct interaction with the company would not add 
to my understanding of the company or the position," we conclude otherwise. In order forl I 
opinion to add value to the discussion, his letter must evidence a conscientious examination of the 
specific nature of the proffered position. 
Finally,! I statement that "[h]aving an MBA is also tantamount to having a bachelor's degree 
in business administration" leaves us confused as to its meaning. Without any clarifying explanation, 
this statement suggests that I I considers a bachelor's degree and a master's degree to be the 
same. Overall, an unsubstantiated claim such as this, combined with the cursory inspection of the 
proffered position, undermines! I credibility. It appears as thoughl I has not devoted 
19 We hereby incorporate our discussion oti.__ _ ____.l' letter into our discussion of the other 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) 
criteria. 
20 1 I does not address the fact that O*NET places jobs located within this occupational category into Job Zone 
Three: "[m]ost occupations in this zone require training in vocational schools, related on-the-job experience, or an 
associate' s degree." 
9 
sufficient time to writing an opinion with cogent and logical analysis. As such, we cannot afford much 
weight tol !opinion on the matter here. 21 
The Petitioner did not sufficiently develop a relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the 
duties of the position, and it did not identify any tasks that are so complex or unique that only a 
specifically degreed individual could perform them. Thus, 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). 
3. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it normally 
requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. The Petitioner 
did not submit evidence of previous or current employees who have served in the proffered 
position. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
4. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature of 
the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is usually 
associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
For the same reasons we discussed under the second prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), we find 
that the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one with duties sufficiently specialized 
and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). We incorporate our earlier discussion and 
analysis on this matter. 
V. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and 
alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is a petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner 
has not met that burden. 22 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
21 Matter of Caron Int'!, 19 l&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (The service is not required to accept or may give less 
weight to an advisory opinion when it is "not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable."). 
22 As discussed, the proffered position is not a specialty occupation and the appeal will be dismissed on that basis. Because 
the petition is not otherwise approvable, we will not address in detail any of the other deficiencies we have observed in the 
record of proceedings, other than to advise the Petitioner that there are two additional factors that would also preclude the 
agency from approving this petition. First, the Virginia Secretary of State's website states that the Petitioner's business 
status was "automatically canceled" shortly after this petition was filed. Second, we question whether the LCA 
corresponds to and supports the H-1 B petition, as required. As discussed, the Petitioner submitted an LCA certified for a 
Level TT position. However, given (I) that O*NET places the Administrative Services Manager occupational category into 
Job Zone Three, and (2) the Petitioner's indication that the proffered position may require a master's degree, we question 
whether the LCA should have been ce1iified for a Level III position. The Petitioner should be prepared to address both of 
these issues in any future H-IB filings. 
10