dismissed H-1B Case: Furniture Import/Sales

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF Z-E-
Non- Precedent Decision. of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 15,2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a.furniture import & sales business, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"Business/Import Analyst" under the H-1B 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. The appeal 
will be dismissed. 
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. 1 
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. 
1 We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. Matter ofSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 l&N Dec. 542 (AAO 2015); see 
also 5 U.S.C. § 557(b) ("On appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would 
have in making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); Dar v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 
I 002 n.9 (2d Cir. 1989). 
Matter ofZ-E-
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 
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: 
(1) 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. 
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)(1) 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 
of language 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 of W-F-, 
21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). As such, the criteria stated in 8 C.VR. § 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. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter ofZ-E-
As such and consonant with section 214(i)(1) 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, USC IS regularly approves H -1 B petitions for qualified 
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-1B 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 
On the Form I-129, the Petitioner described itself as a furniture import and sales business with six 
employees. The Petitioner seeks to continue its employment of the Beneficiary in a Business/Import 
Analyst position. 
The labor condition application submitted to support the visa pet1t10n states that the proffered 
position corresponds to Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code and occupation title 
15-2031, "Operations Research Analysts," from the Occupational Information Network (O*NET). 
The LCA further states that the proffered position is a Level I, entry-level, position. 
In a letter dated September 18, 2012, the Petitioner explained that it is a California corporation doing 
business as and ' " The Petitioner further explained that it 
specializes in "hand-crafted and hand finished" wood and 
iron furnishings, including custom 
wrought iron gates, wall ornaments, beds, table bases, and solid wood furnishings. The Petitioner 
stated that it has "a 4,000 square foot shop in the back and superior craftsmen" that provides 
"limitless" capabilities in wood. The Petitioner confirmed that it currently employs six staff. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter ofZ-E-
Regarding the proffered position, the Petitioner attested that it "need[ s] a Business/Import Analyst 
with a business background to properly oversee of the expansion and the development of our 
business overseas." The Petitioner asserted that the Business/Import Analyst will be required to 
"process, project and analyze the business and expansion projects." The Petitioner then listed the 
specific duties of the proffered position as follows: 
Business- 70% 
• 20% of time - Expanding and organizing the existing business, including a detailed 
review and analysis of the operations and sales; analyzing and researching regional 
market trends; and reviewing economic conditions, trends and availability of our 
service in a wider regional market; determining the demands of clients and the market 
in general in reference to antiques and one-of-a-kind furniture items; traveling to 
India, Thailand and Indonesia to secure required items at the best possible price while 
maintaining quality. 
• 20% of time - Analyzing problems in terms of management information and 
conceptualizing and defining problems; evaluating implementation and effectiveness 
of analysis; developing and applying time and cost networks to plan and control 
company expansion project; preparing for management reports defining problem, 
evaluation, and possible solution; studying information and selecting plan from 
competitive proposals that afford maximum probability of profit or effectiveness 
relating to cost or risk; authentication of antique and one-of-a-kind furniture before 
shipping and also evaluating and repairing any damage done in transit to preserve the 
authenticity of the item; international liaison between and various 
overseas companies; anticipating potential problems and aiding in communication 
through the ability to speak both languages. 
• 20% of time - Negotiating with suppliers to draw up procurement contracts, 
including: negotiating[,] administering, extending, terminating, and renegotiating 
contracts, and creating, analyzing, and tracking quarterly forecasts of operations; 
directing and coordinating activities of workers engaged in formulating bid proposals 
for our expansion and services, including: analyzing budget by comparing with actual 
expenditures on a monthly and annual basis for review by President; identifying 
opportunity and risks of company finances and budgets. 
• 10% of time - Evaluating and monitoring contract performance to determine 
necessity for amendments or extensions of contracts, and compliance to contractual 
obligations, and preparing analysis reports on market conditions; approving and 
rejecting requests for deviations from contract specifications and delivery schedules; 
and analyzing price proposals, financial reports, and other data to determine 
reasonable of prices, including: conducting price and statistical trend survey within 
competitors' markets to determine competitive expenditure data and operational 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter ofZ-E-
management costs and preparing operational budget, researching and contacting 
similar organization at conferences and meetings to set wages and policy on a semi­
annual basis, as well as, conducting research and resolving problems that arise 
concerning operations costs. 
Marketing -15% 
• Showcasing products in International trade shows, i.e. 
Managing all logistics from show registration to designating which products 
are most beneficial to display, booth set-up, promotional material, ordering and 
customer relations. 
Finance - 15% 
• Determining the most efficient amount of inventory/furniture/supplies to be kept on 
hand and analyzing purchasing arrangements with buyers, and examine storage-cost 
data provided by the accounting department; and preparing all financial reports, such 
as income statements, balance sheets, analyses of future earnings and expenses; 
planning and conducting audits of data processing system and applications to 
safeguard assets, ensure accuracy of data and promote operational efficiency. 
The Petitioner concluded that "the job responsibilities described above are typically learned at the 
university level in Business College due to the advanced and complex nature of the skills involved 
in understanding business and management." The Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary is "well 
qualified" for the proffered position based on his "equivalent U.S. Bachelor's Degree based on his 
combined education and experience." 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner elaborated upon the proffered 
duties, as follows: 
Business- 70% 
• 20% of time - Additional duties include: start a project by listening to managers 
describe a problem. Then, formally define the problem[,] study the problem, 
breaking it into its components. Then, he would gather information from a variety of 
sources and determine the optimal inventory, and discuss purchasing arrangements 
with buyers, and examine storage-cost data provided by the accounting department. 
• 20% of time - Additional duties include: Assist management in the design and 
running of the department; ensuring the efficient reconciliation of all import entries 
for the site; liaise with Procurement, Finance, and Customs brokers to ensure cost 
effectiveness of Import I Export Department; manage all documentation relating to 
import entries; complete import entry audits following the correct processes and 
Matter of Z-E-
procedures; deal with Customs Broker and US Customs inquiries and requests as 
required. 
• 20% of time - Additional duties include: Act as the primary liaison between the 
business community, international factories/developers, and other external partners 
for all project requirements during the analysis phase of [] each large purchasing 
project. He will conduct interviews with all international stakeholders to elicit 
functional furniture and stability requirements, modeling those requirements in an 
organized manner, then managing and communicating those requirements throughout 
the project life cycle. 
• 10% of time - Additional duties include: Identify the items to be ordered and 
correlate them with the manufacturers in the various countries we are dealing with to 
let them know what we are looking for, negotiate prices and determine a shipping 
timeline; coordinate all information received in various formats concerning the import 
status of commercial merchandise during the purchase to import process; create and 
update contract sheets; create shipping advice and distribute to import and warehouse. 
Marketing - 15% - Additional duties include: Solicit financial participation from the 
suppliers for the trade shows, reducing the company's [expense] in doing so and 
increasing profits. 
Finance -15%- Additional duties include: Assist the business with the implementation 
of new end user processes as well as internal support processes in order to streamline, 
standardize and create increased efficiency; assists in implementing new software and 
technologies to meet business needs and maintain vendor support. 
The Petitioner further elaborated that the Beneficiary "will not be a mere 'Buyer' or 'Sales 
Representative."' The Petitioner asserted that the duties of purchasing managers, buyers, and 
purchasing agents "are quite different than the Beneficiary's duties and may not require a Bachelor's 
degree." In particular, the Petitioner highlighted the Beneficiary's "high level of responsibility with 
the suppliers" and duties involving sourcing, finances, shipping and logistics, damaged products, 
traveling abroad, marketing, and trade shows. The Petitioner stated that "the duties clearly require 
someone with the minimum of a Bachelor's degree" and that "[t]his job cannot be performed by 
anyone with less than a Bachelor's degree." 
On appeal, the Petitioner affirms that "[t]he job responsibilities described above are typically learned 
at the college/university level due to the advanced and complex nature of the skills involved in 
understanding business and management." The Petitioner stated that it "has clearly shown that a 
bachelor's degree or its equivalent is required for this specialty position." 
6 
Matter ofZ-E-
C. Analysis 
In establishing the position as a specialty occupation, the Petitioner must describe the specific duties 
and responsibilities to be performed by the Beneficiary in the context of the Petitioner's business 
operations. users looks at the nature of the business offering the employment and the description 
of the specific duties of the position as it relates to the particular employer, as described in the Form 
I-129 and the documents filed in support of the petition. It is only in this manner that the agency can 
determine the exact position offered, the location of employment, the proffered wage, and other 
salient aspects of the proposed employment. 
Thus, a crucial aspect of this matter is whether the Petitioner has adequately described the duties of 
the proffered position, such that users may discern the nature of the position and whether the 
position indeed requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge attained through at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific discipline. We find that the 
Petitioner has not done so here. 
First, the Petitioner has described the duties comprising the proffered position in relatively abstract and 
generalized terms that do not sufficiently illuminate the substantive nature of the work to be performed. 
For example, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's duties include "[a]nalyzing problems in terms 
of management information and conceptualizing and defining problems" and "evaluating 
implementation and effectiveness of analysis." However, the Petitioner has not further identified the 
specific tasks the Beneficiary will perform in the furtherance of these broadly-termed duties. The 
Petitioner also listed several other duties involving analyzing, defining, and resolving "problems," but 
has not explained in detail the nature of these "problems" nor given concrete examples of the types 
of "problems" under the Beneficiary's responsibility. 
We observe that several of the job duties provided by the Petitioner have been taken almost directly 
from the occupational category "Operations Research Analysts" as described in O*NET. See 
O*NET Online Details Report for "Operations Research Analysts," 
http://www.onetonline.org/link/details/15-2031.00 (last visited Jan. 14, 2016)_2 However, while this 
type of generalized description may be appropriate when defining the range of duties that may be 
performed within an occupational category, it generally cannot be relied upon by the Petitioner when 
discussing the duties attached to specific employment for H-1B approval. That is, the description for 
an occupational category is inadequate to convey the substantive work that the Beneficiary will 
perform within the Petitioner's business operations. 
In fact, despite the Petitioner's reliance upon the general descriptions ofthe occupational category 
"Operations Research Analysts" as found in O*NET, the evidence of record is insufficient to 
establish that the "Operations Research Analysts" occupational classification corresponds to the 
2 
For example, the O*NET Online Details Report for the occupational category "Operations Research Analysts" lists 
duties including "[a]nalyze information obtained from management to conceptualize and define operational problems" and 
"[p]repare management reports defining and evaluating problems and recommending solutions." !d. 
7 
(b)(6)
Matter ofZ-E-
proffered position. According to O*NET, one of the core duties for "Operations Research Analysts" 
is to "[f]ormulate and apply mathematical 
modeling and other optimizing methods to develop and 
interpret information that assists management with decision making, policy formulation, or other 
managerial functions." Id. Consistent with O*NET, the Department of Labor's Occupational 
Outlook Handbook (Handbook) summarizes the duties of "Operations Research Analysts" as to "use 
advanced mathematical and analytical methods to help organizations investigate complex issues, 
identify and solve problems, and make better decisions." 3 U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., "Operations Research Analysts," 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/mathloperations-research-analysts.htm#tab-1 (last visited Jan. 14, 20 16). 
However, the Petitioner has not specifically explained in detail what mathematical and analytical 
methods the Beneficiary will utilize. The Petitioner also has not explained in detail the nature of the 
"problems" that the Beneficiary will address, and why such "problems" would require "advanced 
mathematical and analytical methods" to be resolved. 
In addition, there are several job duties which involve expanding and developing the Petitioner's 
overseas business. For instance, the Petitioner specifically stated that the Beneficiary will "properly 
oversee of the expansion and the development of our business overseas." The Petitioner also listed 
duties such as "developing and applying time and cost networks to plan and control company 
expansion project" and "directing and coordinating activities of workers engaged in formulating bid 
proposals for our expansion and services." However, the Petitioner has not provided additional 
details regarding its overseas business and expansion plans. Another one of the proffered duties is to 
"conduct interviews with all international stakeholders," but the Petitioner has not identified who 
these "international stakeholders" are and their relationship to the company. 
Moreover, the Petitioner's descriptions of the proffered duties are not consistent with the company's 
claimed staffing and organizational structure. According to the Petitioner's organizational charts, 
the company's staffing and organizational structure consists of the President , a 
Financial Manager , a Business/Import Analyst (the Beneficiary), an Office 
Manager , and three to four Factory Workers.4 
The Petitioner in the instant matter is a furniture retail sales business.5 The Petitioner describes itself 
on its website and promotional material as a furniture store with a large, one-half acre showroom 
offering "the largest selection of rustic furniture in the area." The Petitioner specifically 
stated in its RFE response that the Beneficiary will "incorporate his knowledge with the ideas of the 
sales staff as to what items are most appealing to advertise." However, the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently explained and documented which of its six employees constitutes its "sales staff' or 
3 We recognize the Handbook as authoritative sources on the duties of the wide variety of occupations that they address. 
The Handbook, which is available in printed form, may also be accessed on the Internet, at http://www.bls.gov/oco/. All 
our references to the Handbook are to the 2016- 2017 edition available online. 
4 
The Petitioner's first organizational chart depicted four factory workers. Its second organizational chart depicted three 
factory workers. All other positions were the same in the two organizational charts. 
5 
On its 2011 federal tax return, the Petitioner listed its primary business activity as "furniture retail." 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter ofZ-E-
otherwise performs the day-to-day sales duties that are at the core of the Petitioner's business 
operations. The Petitioner's organizational charts do not depict any sales or showroom staff. Nor 
does the Petitioner expressly list sales or showroom duties for the Beneficiary in its descriptions of 
the proffered position. In fact, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary's duties "are quite 
different" from duties of sales representatives. The apparent lack of any sales staff raises questions 
regarding the reliability of the Petitioner's descriptions of its claimed staffing and organizational 
structure, as well as the Beneficiary's claimed duties. "[I]t is incumbent upon the petitioner to 
resolve the inconsistencies by independent objective evidence." Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 
591 (BIA 1988). "Doubt cast on any aspect of the Petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a 
reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the 
visa petition." Id. at 591. 
Upon review of the evidence of record, it appears that the Beneficiary is performing the actual sales 
duties for the Petitioner. More specifically, in the online reviews of the Petitioner's business 
submitted in support the petition, many reviews referenced tlie Beneficiary (also identified as · 
on the Form I-129) as performing sales duties such as working with customers to pick out new paint 
stains, helping customers find unique pieces of furniture, and helping customers create custom 
pieces for their homes. The letter from also references the Beneficiary as "a 
Good Businessman whose selling skills are increasing the [Petitioner's] sales." This aspect of the 
Beneficiary's job duties further undermines the Petitioner's credibility. See id. 
The Petitioner's descriptions of the proffered duties are inconsistent with the company's claimed 
staffing and organizational structure in other aspects as well. For example, some of the duties 
include "discuss purchasing arrangements with buyers" and "liaise with Procurement." However, 
the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained and documented who its "buyers" (in the plural) or 
"Procurement" personnel are. The Petitioner's organizational charts do not depict any such 
positions. As another example, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will "ensure cost 
effectiveness of Import I Export Department." The Petitioner's organizational charts do not depict 
an "Import I Export Department" or any personnel subordinate to the Beneficiary in his position as 
the sole Business/Import Analyst. 6 The Petitioner similarly stated that the Beneficiary will be 
"directing and coordinating activities of workers engaged in formulating bid proposals for our 
expansion and service." Again, there is no explanation and documentation of who these "workers" 
(in the plural) are, whose actions the Beneficiary will purportedly be directing. There are also 
references to the Petitioner's "accounting department," but insufficient explanation and 
documentation regarding this claimed department. 7 
Furthermore, the Petitioner's breakdown of the percentage of time the Beneficiary will spend on his 
duties is too broad to elucidate the substantive nature of the proffered position. To illustrate, the 
6 The Petitioner stated in its RFE response that the Beneficiary "does not supervise any employees" and "is not a 
manager." 
7 
The organizational chart only depicts one "Financial Manager," 
was an unpaid, volunteer intern. 
9 
whom the Petitioner later clarified 
Matter ofZ-E-
Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will spend 20% of time on a wide variety of duties, ranging 
from "[ e ]xpanding and organizing the existing business" to traveling abroad to purchase pieces for 
the store. 8 The Petitioner did not further break down how much of this 20% would be spent on each 
particular and distinct duty. In addition, while the Petitioner broke down the Beneficiary's 
"Business" duties into four different groups (three groups each accounting for 20% of his time, and 
one group accounting for 10% of his time), the duties described in these groups are not sufficiently 
distinguishable from one another. 9 We are thus unable to discern the approximate amount of time 
the Beneficiary will dedicate to each of his duties, many of which are quite different in nature. 
Overall, we find the evidence of record insufficient to establish the substantive nature of the work to 
be performed by the Beneficiary. We are therefore precluded from finding that the proffered 
position satisfies any criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), because it is the substantive nature of 
that work that determines (1) the normal minimum educational requirement for entry into the particular 
position, which is the focus of criterion 1; (2) industry positions which are parallel to the proffered 
position and thus appropriate for review for a common degree requirement, under the first alternate 
prong of criterion 2; (3) the level of complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position, which is the 
focus of the second alternate prong of criterion 2; (4) the factual justification for a petitioner normally 
requiring a degree or its equivalent, when that is an issue under criterion 3; and (5) the degree of 
specialization and complexity of the specific duties, which is the focus of criterion 4. Accordingly, as 
the Petitioner has not established that it has satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A), it cannot be found that the proffered position qualifies for classification as a 
specialty occupation. 
The proffered position also cannot be found to quality for classification as a specialty occupation 
based upon the Petitioner's stated minimum educational requirement for the proffered position. 
The Petitioner has not clearly stated whether it requires at least a bachelor's degree in a spec(fic 
specialty. While the Petitioner has consistently declared that the proffered position requires a 
bachelor's degree, it has not specified whether the required bachelor's degree must be in any specific 
field of study. Requiring a bachelor's degree alone, without further specification, is insufficient to 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 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 of a 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) ("The mere requirement of a college degree for the 
8 The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will travel abroad approximately four times a year. 
9 For instance, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will spend an undetermined proportion of 20% on "a detailed 
review and analysis of the operations and sales," another undetermined proportion of 20% on "[a]nalyzing problems in 
terms of management information and conceptualizing and preparing management reports," another undetermined 
proportion of 20% on creating, analyzing, and tracking quarterly forecasts of operations, and an undetermined proportion 
of 10% "conducting research and resolving problems that arise concerning operations costs." 
10 
Matter ofZ-E-
sake of general education, or to obtain what an employer perceives to be a higher caliber employee, 
also does not establish eligibility."). Thus, a requirement of a general-purpose bachelor's 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 at 147. 
While not clear, some of the Petitioner's statements imply that the proffered position requires at least 
a bachelor's degree in business administration. The Petitioner attested that the Beneficiary is 
qualified for the proffered position by virtue of his degree and experience, which the Petitioner 
claimed is the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in business administration. The Petitioner also 
stated that "the job responsibilities . . . are typically learned at the university level in Business 
College" and require an "understanding business and management." 
However, a requirement of a bachelor's degree in business administration is still insufficient to 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, as a degree in business 
administration is considered a general-purpose degree.10 See id. (characterizing a business 
administration degree as a general-purpose degree). 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. Accordingly, although a general-purpose bachelor's 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 qualifies for classification as 
. 1 . . h Td 11 a spec1a ty occupatiOn, e1t er. 1• . 
10 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. 
It is also important to note that a position may not qualify as a specialty occupation based solely on either a preference 
for certain qualifications for the position or the claimed requirements of a petitioner. See Defensor v. Meissner, 20 I F.3d 
384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). Instead, the record must establish that the performance of the duties of the proffered position 
requires both the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as the minimum for entry into the 
occupation. See section 214(i)(l) ofthe Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty occupation"). 
11 
Specifically, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit stated in Royal Siam that "[t]he 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." !d. (citing Tapis fnt 'l v. INS, 94 F.Supp.2d 172, 175-76 
(D. Mass. 2000); Shanti, 36 F. Supp. 2d at 1164-66; cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 
([Comm'r] 1988)). 
11 
(b)(6)
Matter ofZ-E-
Finally, we will briefly explain why we accord little probative value to the evaluation by 
concluding that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
In coming to this conclusion, the only evidence states he relied upon was the Petitioner's 
job description. As previously discussed, however, the Petitioner's job description contains 
numerous deficiencies and inconsistencies that preclude a meaningful understanding of the 
substantive nature of the proffered position. does not indicate whether he considered or 
was aware of these deficiencies and discrepancies. Additionally, does not indicate 
whether he considered or was aware of the deficiencies and inconsistencies concerning the 
Petitioner's business operations, including its claimed staffing and organization structure. We 
consider these to be significant omissions, in that it suggests an incomplete or inaccurate review of 
the proffered position and a faulty factual basis for his ultimate conclusion. 
also does not sufficiently explain the factual bases for his conclusions regarding the 
proffered position's claimed complexity and required specialized knowledge. As such, 
letter contains conclusory statements that are not entitled to probative value. "[G]oing on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of 
proof in these proceedings." In re So.ffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Cra.ftofCal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
Furthermore, concludes that the proffered position is considered a specialty occupation 
because it requires "the attainment of at least a Bachelor's in Business Administration or related 
degree." However, as discussed above, the requirement of a bachelor's degree in business 
administration, without further specialization, is inadequate to establish that a particular position 
qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d at 
147; c.f Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. at 560. 
For these reasons, we conclude that evaluation is of limited evidentiary value in this 
proceeding. We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as 
advisory. Matter of Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, where an 
Notwithstanding the deficiency of a business administration degree as a general-purpose degree, it is also not clear how 
such a degree would provide the knowledge and skills required to perform the proffered duties. For 
example, the 
Petitioner has not adequately explained what course(s) of study leading up to a business administration degree would 
provide the necessary knowledge to perform duties such as "authentication of antique and one-of-a-kind furniture." 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has repeatedly emphasized 
the cultural and language requirements of the position, stating, for 
example, that the hard-to-find, antique furniture and architectural pieces from India "can only be sourced through a 
person who knows what areas of the country to find them, as well as being able to negotiate with local cultural 
businessmen." The Petitioner also stated that "[o]nly a person who has the local knowledge of the [foreign] area and 
cultures can do this [job]." Again, the Petitioner has not explained what course(s) of study leading up to a business 
administration degree would provide the necessary knowledge of foreign cultures and language. 
12 
(b)(6)
Matter ofZ-E-
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. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The evidence of record is insufficient to establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed and the petition denied.12 
We recognize that this is an extension petition. However, we are not required to approve petitions 
where eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been 
erroneous. See Matter of Church Scientology Int 'l, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). It would 
be "absurd to suggest that [USCIS] or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding 
precedent." Sussex Eng'g, Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987). 
A prior approval does not compel the approval of a subsequent petition or relieve the Petitioner of its 
burden to provide sufficient documentation to establish current eligibility for the benefit 
sought. Temporary Alien Workers Seeking Classification Under the Immigration and Nationality 
Act, 55 Fed. Reg. 2,606, 2,612 (Jan. 26, 1990) (to be codified at 8 C.F.R. pt. 214). A prior approval 
also does not preclude users from denying an extension of an original visa petition based on a 
reassessment of eligibility for the benefit sought. See Tex. A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 F. App'x 
556 (5th Cir. 2004). Furthermore, our authority over the service centers is comparable to the 
relationship between a court of appeals and a district court. We are not bound to follow the 
contradictory decision of a service center. See La. Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 44 F. Supp. 2d 
800, 803 (E.D. La. 1999). 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
12 
Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we need not address another ground of 
ineligibility we observe in the record of proceeding. Nevertheless, we will briefly note and summarize it here with the 
hope and intention that, if the Petitioner seeks again to employ the Beneficiary as an H-1 B employee in the proffered 
position, it will submit sufficient independent objective evidence to address and overcome this additional ground in any 
future filing. 
More specifically, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary holds an "equivalent U.S. Bachelor's Degree based on his 
combined education and experience." The Petitioner submitted an evaluation from Associate 
Professor of Management Science at the concluding that the Beneficiary possesses the 
equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in business administration based upon a combination of his education and 
experience. However, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that is "an official who has authority to 
grant college-level credit for training and/or experience in the specialty at an accredited college or university which has a 
program for granting such credit based on an individual's training and/or work experience," in accordance with 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(D)(J). The "Brief Summary of Evaluator's Credentials" for states only that he "has 
evaluated students and colleagues" and "has had extensive experience reviewing foreign academic and work experience 
credentials in all disciplines." 
13 
Matter of Z-E-
(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 ofZ-E-, ID# 11157 (AAO Jan. 15, 2016) 
14