dismissed H-1B Case: Food Retail

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF HM-M- CORP 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 10,2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a retailer of Asian specialty food products, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a part-time '·purchasing manager"" under the H-1 B nonimmigrant classification for 
specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 
8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a 
qualified foreign worker in a position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application 
of a body of highly specialized knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in 
the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director, California Service Center. denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner had not established that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal. the Petitioner submits additional 
documentation and asserts that the profTered position is a specialty occupation under the applicable 
statutory and regulatory provisions. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
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 protTered 
position must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
Matter of HM-M- Corp 
(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 
(.J) 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). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has consistently 
interpreted 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 proposed 
position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Cherto.fj; 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"); Defensor v. Meissner. 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner identified the proffered position as a part-time ''purchasing manager" on the I I-1 B 
petition, and attested on the required labor condition application (LCA) that the occupational 
classification for the position is .. Purchasing Managers," corresponding to Standard Occupational 
Classification code 11-3061 at a Level I wage. 
In a letter of support and in an addendum to the H-1 B petition, the Petitioner stated that the duties to 
be performed in the protTered position. in generaL are as follows: 
• Recommend retail price of various seasoning. dried foods. snacks. beverage. 
frozen foods, canned foods, raw fish, fruits and vegetables. kitchen equipments 
[sicl and home appliances, as appropriate; 
• Develop display arrangement and space management; 
• Coordinate the purchase of seasoning. dried foods, snacks, beverage, frozen 
foods, canned foods, raw fish, fruits and vegetables. kitchen equipments [sic] and 
home appliances to ensure appropriate assortment to achieve sales and profit 
objectives; 
• Prepare marketing proposals of seasoning, dried foods. snacks. beverage. frozen 
foods, canned foods. raw fish, fruits and vegetables, kitchen equipments [sic] and 
home appliances to increase sales and profitability; 
2 
Matter 4 HM-M- Corp 
• Communicate and follow up with vendors, marketing and operation divisions inr 
new product specification and costs; 
• Coordinate the merchandising activities including hiring, setting pertnrmance 
objectives, assigning individual tasks. providing guidance, technical assistance as 
required, and evaluating the results achieved; 
• Evaluate the operational perfnrmance of newly implemented plans and programs, 
measuring against project goals, and identify opportunities fnr further 
improvement as appropriate; 
• Develop, direct and/or lead merchandising projects assigned by determining the 
requirement of new or modified programs, procedures and processes that support 
the merchandise operations functions; and 
• Maintain awareness of other companies in Korean specialty fnod products and 
kitchen equipments [sic] retail industries in order to evaluate their merchandising 
support methodologies, control and reporting mechanisms fnr possible application 
to our company. 
The Petitioner stated that the mm1mum requirement to perform the proffered positiOn IS .. a 
Bachelor's degree in Business Administration, Management, or related field of study. or 
progressively responsible work experience." 
In response to the Director's request fnr evidence (RFE). the Petitioner expanded upon the position's 
duties and allocated an approximate percentage of time its part-time purchasing manager would 
spend on each of the duties. 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and fnr the reasons set out below, we detennine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 1 
Specifically. the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background. or 
its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 2 
As a preliminary matter, the Petitioner's claim that a bachelor's degree in business administration is 
a suflicient minimum requirement fnr entry into the profTered position is inadequate to establish that 
the proposed position qualifies as a specialty occupation. A petitioner must demonstrate that the 
profTered position requires a precise and specific course of study that relates directly and closely to 
the position in question. 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 
1 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-I 8 petition, including evidence regarding the protTered 
position and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
3 
Matter <~f HM-M- Corp 
occupation. C.'l Afatter 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. As discussed supra, USCIS interprets 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. Although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business administration. 
may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position. requiring such a degree. without more, will 
not justify a finding that a particular position qualities for classification as a specialty occupation. 
Royal Siam Corp. v. Cherf(?ff, 484 F.3d at 147.3 
Again, the Petitioner in this matter claims that the duties of the proffered position can be performed 
by an individual with only a general-purpose bachelor's degree, i.e., a bachelor's degree in business 
administration. Without more, this assertion alone indicates that the proffered position is not in fact 
a specialty occupation. The Director's decision must therefore be atlirmed and the appeal dismissed 
on this basis alone. 
Moreover, it also cannot be found that the proffered position is a specialty occupation because the 
Petitioner has not satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). To reach this 
conclusion. we will now discuss the record of proceedings in relation to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
A. First Criterion 
We tum first 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. To inform this inquiry. we recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's 
(DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses.'-l 
3 Specifically, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit explained in Royal Siam that: 
!d. 
The courts and the agency consistently have stated that, although a general-purpose bachelor's degree. 
such as a business administration degree, may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, 
requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify the granting of a petition for an H-1 B specialty 
occupation visa. See, e.g.. Tapis Int'l v. INS, 94 F.Supp.2d 172, 175-76 (D. Mass. 2000): Shanti, 36 F. 
Supp. 2d at 1164-66; Lf Matter (?{Michael Hert= Assoc.~ .• 19 I & &N Dec. 558,560 ([Comm'r] 1988) 
(providing frequently cited analysis in connection with a conceptually similar provision). This is as it 
should be: elsewise, an employer could ensure the granting of a specialty occupation visa petition by 
the simple expedient of creating a generic (and essentially artificial) degree requirement. 
4 In support of the petition, the Petitioner relied upon the 2014-15 edition ofthe Handbook. The Handbook. which may 
be accessed at the Internet site http://www.bls.gov/ooh/, is now in its 2016-17 edition. The 2016-17 edition of the 
4 
Matter <?f HM-M- Corp 
The 2014-15 edition of the Handbook chapter on '·Purchasing Managers, Buyers, and Purchasing 
Agents,'' a copy of which the Petitioner submitted for the record, states that •'[p ]urchasing managers 
usually have at least a bachelor's degree and some work experience in the field. A master's degree 
may be required for advancement to some top-level purchasing manager jobs.'' 5 The 2016-17 
edition of the Handbook chapter on .. Purchasing Managers" similarly states that .. [p]urchasing 
managers usually have at least a bachelor's degree and some work experience in procurement. A 
master's degree may be required for advancement to some top-level purchasing manager jobs." U.S. 
Dep 't of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook. 2016-17 ed., 
·'Purchasing Managers." http://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/ print/purchasing-managers.htm (last 
visited Apr. 28, 20 16). Both editions of the Handbook state that •'[p ]urchasing managers typically 
must have at least 5 years of experience as a buyer or purchasing agent.'' Id 
A review of the Handbook does not indicate that. simply by virtue of its occupational classification, 
a purchasing manager position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The Handbook does not state a 
normal minimum requirement of a U.S. bachelor's or higher degree in a .spec[fic .specialty. or its 
equivalent for entry into this occupational category. More specifically. while the Handbook states 
that purchasing managers '·usually have at least a bachelor"s degree," it does not specify whether the 
bachelor's degree must come from a specific field of study. As previously stated. a general degree 
requirement is insufficient to establish a position as a specialty occupation. S'ee Royal Siam Corp. \'. 
Chertoff, 484 F.3d at 147; c:f' Matter (~l Michael Hertz Assocs .. 19 I&N Dec. at 560. While the 
Handbook also states that purchasing managers .. typically must have at least 5 years of experience as 
a buyer or purchasing agent," it does not specify whether this required work experience, combined 
with an otherwise unspecified bachelor's degree. equates to at least a U.S. bachelor's or higher 
degree in a spec[fic specialty, and if so, in what specific specialty. 
Handbook separates the occupation of purchasing managers from purchasing buyers or agents, a change which is 
relevant to the Petitioner's assertions under this criterion. We therefore will analyze both the 2014-15 and 2016-17 
editions ofthe Handbook. 
Notwithstanding, 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 USCIS regularly reviews 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 of 
proof remains on the Petitioner to submit sutlicient evidence to support a finding that its particular position would 
normally have a minimum. specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, tor entry. Whenever more than one 
authoritative source is presented by the Petitioner, an adjudicator will consider and weigh all of the evidence presented to 
detennine whether the particular position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
5 The Petitioner asserts that the Director "misunderstood'' the relevant part in the 2014-15 edition of the Handbook by 
confusing the requirements for purchasing managers with the requirements for the lower positions of buyers and 
purchasing agents. However. this assertion is not persuasive. As quoted above. the 2014-15 edition ofthe Ham/hook set 
forth specific requirements tor purchasing managers. in addition to more general requirements tor the occupational 
classification as a whole. Regardless. the fact that the 2016-17 edition of the Handbook now (1) separates purchasing 
managers from buyers and purchasing agents, and (2) makes similar statements to the 20 14-15 edition of the Handbook 
regarding the requirements for purchasing managers, should help avoid any misinterpretation of the Handbook. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of HM-M- Corp 
The Petitioner highlights the language in the 2014-15 edition of the Handbook that ··r m ]any 
manufacturing firms put an even greater emphasis on formal training. preferring applicants who have 
a bachelor's or master's degree in engineering, business, economics, or one of the applied sciences:· 
The Petitioner asserts that, based on this highlighted language, ··we can infer that those specific 
specialties required to perform the duties of purchasing manager are engineering, business, 
economics, or one of the applied sciences." However. the Petitioner's assertions are unpersuasive. 
First, we note that a preference is not a requirement. Second, even if these degrees were required. a 
requirement of degrees in broad and potentially disparate tields. such as '·business" or any ··one of 
the applied sciences." is insufficient to establish a requirement of a degree ·'in the specific specialty 
(or its equivalent)." Section 214(i)(l)(B) ofthe Act (emphasis added). 
In addition, we have reviewed the opinion letter prepared by . Associate 
Dean of Academic Affairs, School of Business at the , which the Petitioner 
submits on appeal. opines that the proffered position requires a minimum of "a 
Bachelor's Degree in Business Administration, Operations Management. Marketing. or a related 
area. or the equivalent.,. 
Upon review of opinion, we find that does not explain the empirical 
basis for his conclusions. For instance, does not indicate that he visited the 
Petitioner's business premises or spoke with anyone affiliated with the Petitioner. so as to ascertain 
and base his opinions upon the substantive nature and educational requirements of the proposed 
duties as they would be actually performed. also docs not discuss the pertinent 
occupational information provided in the Handbook on the position of a purchasing manager. and 
differentiate the protlered position from those purchasing managers that the Handbook reports are 
performed by persons who have only a general degree and some experience. 
Moreover, confinns the Petitioner's statement that the proffered position can be 
performed by an individual with a general-purpose business administration degree. Again, a general 
degree requirement is insufficient to establish a position as a specialty occupation. See Royal Siam 
Corp. v. Cherll?ff; 484 F.3d at 147: cf Matter l?( Michael Hertz Assoc.\·., 19 I&N Dec. at 560. 
For all of the reasons discussed above, we find that opinion letter is not probative 
evidence towards satisfying the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). or any other criteria. 
We may. in our discretion. use 
as advisory opinion statements submitted as expert testimony . 
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. Matter l?( Caron International, 
19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988). 
The duties and requirements of the position as described in the record of proceedings 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)( 1). 
Matter (?f HM-M- CmJJ 
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 performed only by an 
individual with a degree[.]'" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong 
contemplates common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
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 have reviewed the printouts of the online job announcements submitted by the Petitioner in 
response to the Director's RFE and on appeal. This documentation, however, does not establish that 
the protiered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
To satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must establish that an advertising organization is similar to it 
and in the same industry. Without such evidence. documentation submitted by a petitioner is 
generally outside the scope of consideration for this criterion. It is not sufficient for a petitioner to 
claim that an organization is similar and in the same industry without providing a legitimate basis for 
such an assertion. 
Here, none of the submitted advertisements provide sufficient information regarding the advertising 
organizations to establish that the advertising organizations are similar to the Petitioner. For 
example, some of the advertising organizations appear to be statling organizations that do not 
disclose the actual client, another is a large retail organization, and others do not appear to be in the 
Petitioner's industry. Upon review, the information provided is insufficient to demonstrate that 
these advertising organizations are similar in type, scope, and size to this Petitioner. 
Importantly, some of the advertisements require a degree in a field of general applicability such as 
'·business administration'' or "business." Further. some advertisements appear to accept experience 
alone or experience that the advertising company deems comparable to a bachelor's degree based on 
varying or unspecified standards. Moreover. the majority of the advertisements require that the 
successful applicant have between two and ten years of specific experience. As the Petitioner here 
has designated the proffered position as a Level I. entry-level position. it appears that the advertised 
positions are for more senior positions than the position proffered here.
6 
It is not possible to 
h A Level I wage level is the lowest of four assignable wage levels. The ·'Prevailing Wage Determination Policy 
Guidance'' issued by the DOL provides a description of the wage levels. A Levell wage rate is generally appropriate for 
positions for which the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the occupation. This wage 
Matter of HM-M- Corp 
conclude from the information provided in the advertisements that the positions are parallel to the 
proffered position. 
In addition, the Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how representative these job 
advertisements are of the particular advertising employers' recruiting history for the type of jobs 
advertised. Further. as they are only solicitations for hire, they are not evidence of the employers· 
actual hiring practices. The Petitioner also did not demonstrate what statistically valid inferences, if 
any. can be drawn from these advertisements. 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 Petitioner's industry and otherwise similar to the 
Petitioner. The Petitioner has not, therefore, satisfied the criterion of the first alternative prong of 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). which 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. 
The record does not satisfy the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
either. Even when considering the Petitioner's description of duties submitted in response to the 
Director's RFE and the allocation of the Beneficiary's time to those duties. the record does not 
sufliciently 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 Petitioner's attestation on the LCA that the \vage level for the 
proffered position is a Level I (entry) wage. As noted 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 one with complex duties, as such a higher-level position would likely be classified at 
a Level III or Level IV wage, requiring a significantly higher prevailing wage than the one proffered 
here. 7 See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy 
rate indicates: (I) that the Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited. if any, exercise of 
judgment; (2) that he will be closely supervised and his work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy: and (3) that 
he will receive specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training 
Admin .• Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance. Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009). available 
at http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance _Revised _II_ 2009.pdf A prevailing wage determination starts 
with an entry level wage and progresses to a higher wage level after considering the experience. education. and skill 
requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. !d. 
7 The Petitioner's designation of this position as a Levell. entry-level position undermines its claim that the position is 
particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation. Nevertheless. a 
Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty occupation. just as a 
8 
Matter of HM-M- Corp 
Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009). available at 
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _II_ 2009.pdf. 
The record does not establish that this position is significantly different from other positions in the 
occupation such that it refutes the Handbook's information to the effect that a general degree would 
be sutlicient. As the Petitioner did not adequately demonstrate how the protTered 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 of8 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 employer demonstrating that it 
normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. for the position. 
The Petitioner has not expressly asserted that it has employed other purchasing managers for its 
retail operation, but claimed that its affiliated companies have obtained H-lB classification for their 
purchasing manager employees. In support of its claim. the Petitioner submitted the federal tax 
return for its parent company, which is a holding company for 34 different affiliated companies 
(including the Petitioner). The Petitioner also submitted a list of receipt numbers for 11 H-I B 
petitions that were purportedly approved for the same position within the affiliated companies. along 
with the approval notices, job descriptions. and educational credentials for four of these petitions. 8 
In addition, the record includes the Petitioner"s advertisement for the proffered position stating that 
the Petitioner requires a bachelor's degree in management. business administration, or a related field. 
The Petitioner has not sufficiently established how representative the submitted evidence is of the 
overall company's employment history for this position. For instance, the Petitioner has not 
explained and documented how many total purchasing managers the company (including all 34 
affiliates) has employed throughout its operational history. The Petitioner also has not explained and 
Level IV wage-designation does not definitively establish such a classification. In certain occupations (e.g .. doctors or 
lawyers). a Level I, 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 qualities 
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 relevant factor but is not 
itself conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)( I) of the Act. 
8 While some of these tour petitions are for "merchandising managers ... the job duties are the same as the protlered 
duties. We note that the Petitioner did not submit detailed evidence for the other seven petitions it claims were 
previously approved. It must be emphasized that each petition filing is a separate proceeding with a separate record. 
Hakimuddin v. DHS, Civ No. 4:08-cv-1261. 2009 WL 497141, at *6 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 26. 2009): see also Larita-Martine:: 
v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092. 1096 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating that the ··record ofproceeding" in an immigration appeal includes all 
documents submitted in support of the appeal). In making a determination of statutory eligibility, USCIS is limited to 
the information contained in that individual record ofproceeding. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l6)(ii). 
9 
Matter (~f HM-M- Corp 
documented the educational credentials for all the company's employees in this position. The 
Petitioner thus has not established what statistically valid and relevant inferences. if any. can be 
drawn from this limited data with regard to the company's normal employment practices. See 
generally Earl Babbie. The Practice <~lSocial Research 186-228 (7th ed. 1995 ). 
Notably, out of the four other petitions that the Petitioner submitted more detailed information about. 
the claimed educational credentials of these four employees ret1ect that the Petitioner does not 
normally require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. or its equivalent, for the position.
9 
These employees hold, for instance. bachelor's degrees in ( 1) business administration with a 
concentration in international trade, (2) agriculture economics, and (3) English language and 
literature. The Petitioner has not explained and documented how these various degrees are all 
directly related to the duties of the proffered position, such that these degrees could be considered to 
meet the statutory requirement of a degree .. in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)." Section 
214(i)(l)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). Without more, the evidence of record indicates that the 
Petitioner requires merely a general bachelor's degree which. as previously discussed. is insufficient 
to establish a position as a specialty occupation. 10 See Royal Siam Corp. v. Cherhd/: 484 F.3d at 
147; cf Matter <~lMichael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. at 560. Accordingly. the Petitioner has not 
satisfied the third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(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. 
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 did not establish how the 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. We reiterate our previous 
findings and comments regarding the insufficiency of evidence that this position is significantly 
different from other positions in the occupation such that it refutes the Handbook's information to 
9 The Petitioner did not submit copies of these individuals' diplomas and/or foreign education evaluations. Nevertheless, 
we will assume for the sake of argument that the Petitioner's statements of these individuals' educational credentials arc 
accurate. 
10 The Petitioner further refers to several unpublished AAO decisions and asserts that we determined that knowledge to 
perform the duties of a specialty occupation could be imparted through studies in a variety of academic areas. The 
Petitioner does not submit copies of those decisions and it is unclear if the Petitioner's interpretation of those 
unpublished decisions is correct. Even if so, the Petitioner has furnished no evidence to establish that the facts of the 
instant petition are analogous to those in the unpublished decisions. Moreover, while 8 C.F.R. * I 03.3(c) provides that 
our precedent decisions are binding on all USC IS employees in the administration of the Act. unpublished decisions are 
not similarly binding. 
10 
Matter of HM-M- Corp 
the effect that a general degree would be sufficient. We also point out again the Petitioner's 
designation of the proffered position as a Level L entry-level position. Such a designation is for a 
position that is not likely distinguishable by relatively specialized and complex duties. 
The Petitioner has highlighted ''[t]he specialized nature of [its] business, servicing Korean and other 
Asian immigrant population[s]." The Petitioner explains that this aspect of its operations "clearly 
distinguishes [its] business from all other supermarkets in the US which caters to the general 
population;' as the Petitioner has '·a special need to particularly tailor [its] marketing activities." 
However, these vague statements are insufficient to establish why the profTered duties require the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge that can only be 
gained from a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty. or its equivalent. For instance. 
while the Petitioner identified courses of study relevant to the profTered duties. the Petitioner did not 
explain in detail how these courses would provide the knowledge necessary to perform the proffered 
duties within the context of the Petitioner's particular operations and target immigrant audience. 
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). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualities as a specialty occupation. The burden is on the 
Petitioner to show 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 (BIA 2013 ). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofHM-M- Corp, ID# 16308 (AAO May 10, 2016) 
11