dismissed H-1B Case: Gasoline Business

(b)(6)
DATE: MAR 3 1 2015 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citi�:cnship and Immigration Service 
Administrative Appeals Oflice (/\/\0) 
20 Massachusetts 1\vt: .. N.W .. MS 2090 
Washington. DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
OF FICE: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 1 01 (a)( 15)( H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § I IO I(a)(I5)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCT IONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish 
agency policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or 
policy to your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider 
or a motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion 
(Form I-290 B) within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form 1-2908 instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www. uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The acting service center director (director) denied the nonimmigrant visa petition, 
and the matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. The petition will be denied. 
I. INTRODUCTION 
On the Form I-129 visa petition, the petitioner describes itself as a gasoline business' established in 
In order to employ the beneficiary in what it designates as a part-time financial manager 
position at a salary of $23.78 per hour2 the petitioner seeks to classify him as a nonimmigrant 
worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the evidence of record does not demonstrate that 
the proffered position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. 
The record of proceeding before us contains the following: (1) the Form l-129 and supporting 
documentation; (2) the director's request for additional evidence (RFE); (3) the petitioner's response 
to the RFE; ( 4) the director's letter denying the petition; and (5) the 
Form I-290B and supporting documentation. 
Upon review of the entire record of proceeding, we find that the evidence of record does not overcome 
the director's ground for denying this petition. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed, and the 
petition will be denied. 
II. STANDARD OF PROOF 
In light of counsel's references to the application of the correct standard of proof on appeal, we 
affirm that, in the exercise of our appellate review in this matter, as in all matters that come within 
our purview, we follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in the controlling 
precedent decision, Matter o.fChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-376 (AAO 2010). In pertinent part, 
that decision states the following: 
1 The petitioner provided a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code of 44 7100. This 
code is not listed in the NAICS database. However, 4471, "Gasoline Stations," is a listed code. U.S. Dep't of 
Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, North American Industry Classification System, 2012 NAICS Definition, 
"44 71 00 Gasoline Stations." http://www. census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch (last visited March 27, 
2015). 
2 The Labor Condition App lication (LCA) submitted by the petitioner in support of the petition was certified 
for use with a job prospect within the "Financial Managers" occupational classification, 
SOC (O*NET/OES) Code , and a Level I (entry-level) prevailing wage rate, the lowest of the four 
assignable wage- levels. 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
!d. 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Except where a different standard is specified by law, a petitioner or applicant in 
administrative immigration proceedings must prove by a preponderance of evidence 
that he or she is eligible for the benefit sought. 
* * * 
The "preponderance of the evidence" of "truth" 1s made based on the factual 
circumstances of each individual case. 
* * * 
Thus, in adjudicating the application pursuant to the preponderance of the evidence 
standard, the director must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative 
value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the 
evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true. 
Even if the director has some doubt as to the truth, if the petitioner submits relevant, 
probative, and credible evidence that leads the director to believe that the claim is 
"more likely than not" or "probably" true, the applicant or petitioner has satisfied the 
standard of proof. See INS v. Cardoza-Foncesca, 480 U.S. 42 1, 431 (1 987) 
(discussing "more likely than not" as a greater than 50% chance of an occurrence 
taking place). If the director can articulate a material doubt, it is appropriate for the 
director to either request additional evidence or, if that doubt leads the director to 
believe that the claim is probably not true, deny the application or petition. 
As footnoted above, we conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOJ, 38 1 F.Jd 
143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). In doing so, we apply the preponderance of the evidence standard as 
outlined in Matter of Chawathe. Upon our review of the present matter pursuant to that standard, 
however, we find that the evidence in the record of proceeding does not support counsel's 
contentions that the evidence of record requires that the petition at issue be approved. Applying the 
preponderance of the evidence standard as stated in Matter of Chawathe, we find that the director's 
determinations in this matter were correct. Upon our review of the entire record of proceeding, and 
with close attention and due regard to all of the evidence, separately and in the aggregate, submitted 
in support of this petition, we find that the petitioner has not established that its claims are "more 
likely than not" or "probably" true. As the evidentiary analysis of this decision will reflect, the 
petitioner has not submitted relevant, probative, and credible evidence that leads us to believe that 
the petitioner's claims are "more likely than not" or "probably" true. 
III. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
A. Law 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
As noted, the director's sole basis for denying this petition was her determination that the proffered 
position is not a specialty occupation. To meet its burden of proof in establishing the proffered 
position as a specialty occupation, the petitioner must establish that the employment it is offering to 
the beneficiary meets the following statutory and regulatory requirements. 
Section 21 4(i)(l) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 11 84(i)( l) defines the 
term "specialty occupation" as one 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 term "specialty occupation" is further defined at 8 C.F.R. § 21 4.2(h)(4)(ii) as: 
An occupation which requires [( 1)] 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 requires [(2)] 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. § 21 4.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, the position must 
also meet one of the following criteria: 
(/) 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 posttwns 
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. § 21 4.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must logically be read together 
with section 21 4(i)( l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 21 4.2(h)(4)(ii). In other words, this regulatory 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
language must be construed in harmony with the thrust of the related provisions and with the statute 
as a whole. See K 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 . Federal 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.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) should logically be read as being necessary but not necessarily sufficient to 
meet the statutory and regulatory definition of specialty occupation. To otherwise interpret this 
section as stating the necessary and sufficient conditions for meeting the definition of specialty 
occupation would result in particular positions meeting a condition under 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214.2( h)(4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory or regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Afeissner, 201 
F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). To avoid this result, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must therefore be 
read as providing supplemental criteria that must be met in accordance with, and not as alternatives 
to, the statutory and regulatory definitions of specialty occupation. 
As such and consonant with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(ii), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USC IS) 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. Cherto.ff, 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, USCJS regularly approves H-1 B petitions for qualified aliens 
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-l B 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 alien, 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 nor 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. Analysis 
We will now address the director's finding that the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 
Based upon a complete review of the record of proceeding, we agree with the director and find that 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page6 
the evidence of record does not establish that the position as described constitutes a specialty 
occupation. 
In the petitioner's letter dated July 23, 2013, the proffered position is described as follows: 
• Providing and interpreting Financial Information[.] 
• Monitoring and Interpreting cash flows and predicting future trends[.] 
• Formulating strategic and long-term business plans(.] 
• Conducting reviews and evaluations for cost-reduction opportunities[.] 
• Managing company's financial accounting, monitoring and reporting 
systems[.] 
• Liaising with auditors to ensure annual monitoring is carried out[.] 
• Producing accurate financial reports to specific Deadlines[.] 
• Managing Budgets and analysing [sic] change. 
In the petitioner's March 21, 2014 response to the director's January 17 , 2014 RFE, the proffered 
position is described as follows: 
• Providing and interpreting financial information; 
• Monitoring and interpreting cash flows and predicting future trends; 
• Formulating strategic and long-term business plans; 
• Researching and reporting on factors influencing business performance; 
• Analyzing comP.etitors and market trends; 
• Developing financial management mechanisms that minimize financial risk; 
• Conducting reviews and evaluations for cost-reducti on opportunities; 
• Managing company's financial acco unting, monitoring and reporting systems; 
• Producing accurate financial reports to specific deadlines; 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISI ON 
• Managing budgets and procurement related duties; 
• Arranging new sources of finance for a company's debt facilities; [and] 
• Supervising staff and coordinating all financial activities of operation[.] 
The petitioner stated that the proffered position requires "any combination of education, training, 
and/or experience equivalent to completion of at least a Bachelor's degree." As a preliminary 
matter, the petitioner's claim that a bachelor's degree is a sufficient minimum requirement for entry 
into the proffered position is inadequate to establish that the proposed 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 As sociates, 19 I&N Dec. 558 (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."). Thus, while a 
general-purpose bachelor's degree may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, 
requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify a finding that a particular position qualifies 
for classification as a specialty occupation. See Royal Siam Cor p . v. Chertojf, 484 F .3d at 14 7 (1st 
Cir. 2007). 
The petitioner asserts that its minimum requirement for the proffered position is only a bachelor's 
degree, without further requiring that that degree be in any specific specialty. Without more, the 
petitioner's statement alone indicates that the proffered position is not in fact a specialty occupation. 
The director's decision must therefore be affirmed and the petition denied on this basis alone. 
We will now discuss the application of each supplemental, alternative criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)( iii)(A) to the evidence in this record of proceeding. 
We will first discuss the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which is satisfied by 
establishing that a baccalaureate or higher degree, or its equivalent, in a specific specialty is 
normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position that is the subject of the 
petition. 
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 it addresses. 3 As noted above, the LCA that the petitioner submitted in support of this 
petition was certified for a job offer falling within the "Financial Managers" occupational category. 
3 The Handbook, which is available in printed form, may also be accessed online at 
http://www.stats.bls.gov/oco/. Our references to the Handbook are from the 20 14-15 edition available 
online. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
The Handbook states the following with regard to the duties of positions falling within the 
"Financial Managers" occupational categories: 
Financial managers are responsible for the financial health of an organization. They 
produce financial reports, direct investment activities, and develop strategies and 
plans for the long-term financial goals of their organization. 
Duties 
Financial managers typically do the following: 
• Prepare financial statements, business activity reports, and forecasts 
• Monitor financial details to ensure that legal requirements are met 
• Supervise employees who do financial reporting and budgeting 
• Review company financial reports and seek ways to reduce costs 
• Analyze market trends to find opportunities for expansion or for acqumng other 
compames 
• Help management make financial decisions 
The role of the financial manager, particularly in business, is changing in response to 
technological advances that have substantially reduced the amount of time it takes to 
produce financial reports. Financial managers' main responsibility used to be 
monitoring a company's finances, but they now do more data analysis and advise 
senior managers on ideas as to how to maximize profits. They often work on teams, 
acting as business advisors to top executives. 
Financial managers also do tasks that are specific to their organization or industry. 
For example, government financial managers must be experts on government 
appropriations and budgeting processes, and healthcare financial managers must 
know about issues in healthcare finance. Moreover, financial managers must be aware 
of special tax laws and regulations that affect their industry. For more information on 
chief financial officers, see the profile on top executives. 
The following are examples of types of financial managers: 
Controllers direct the preparation of financial reports that summarize and forecast the 
organization's financial position, such as income statements, balance sheets, and 
analyses of future earnings or expenses. Controllers also are in charge of preparing 
special reports required by governmental agencies that regulate businesses. Often, 
(b)(6)
Page 9 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
controllers oversee the accounting, audit, and budget departments of their 
organization. 
Treasurers and finance officers direct their organization's budgets to meet its 
financial goals. They oversee the investment of funds and carry out strategies to raise 
capital (such as issuing stocks or bonds) to support the firm's expansion. They also 
develop financial plans for mergers (two companies joining together) and acquisitions 
(one company buying another). 
Credit managers oversee their firm's credit business. They set credit-rating criteria, 
determine credit ceilings, and monitor the collections of past-due accounts. 
Cash managers monitor and control the flow of cash that comes in and goes out of 
the company to meet the company's business and investment needs. For example, 
they must project cash flow (amounts coming in and going out) to determine whether 
the company will not have enough cash and will need a loan or will have more cash 
than needed and so can invest some of its money. 
Risk managers control financial risk by using hedging and other strategies to limit or 
offset the probability of a financial loss or a company's exposure to financial 
uncertainty. Among the risks they try to limit are those due to currency or commodity 
price changes. 
Insurance managers decide how best to limit a company's losses by obtaining 
insurance against risks such as the need to make disability payments for an employee 
who gets hurt on the job and costs imposed by a lawsuit against the company. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 
ed., "Financial Managers," http://www .bls.gov/ooh/m anagement/financial-managers.htm#tab-2 (last 
visited March 27, 2015). 
The Handbook states the following with regard to the educational requirements necessary for 
entrance into positions within this occupational category: 
Financial managers typically have a bachelor's degree and 5 years or more of 
experience in another business or financial occupation, such as loan officer, 
accountant, auditor, securities sales agent, or financial analyst. 
Education 
A bachelor's degree in finance, accounting, economics, or business administration is 
often the minimum education needed for financial managers. However, many 
employers now seek candidates with a master's degree, preferably in business 
administration, finance, or economics. These academic programs help students 
develop analytical skills and learn financial analysis methods and software. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
Licenses, Certifications, and Registrations 
Professional certification is not required, but some financial managers still get it to 
demonstrate a level of competence. The CF A Institute confers the Chartered Financial 
Analyst (CF A) certification to investment professionals who possess at least a 
bachelor's degree, have 4 years of work experience, and pass three exams. The 
Association for Financial Professionals confers the Certified Treasury Professional 
credential to those who pass an exam and have a minimum of 2 years of relevant 
expenence. 
Work Experience in a Related Occupation 
Financial managers usually have experience in another business or financial 
occupation, such as loan officer, accountant or auditor, securities sales agent, or 
financial analyst. 
In some cases, companies provide formal management trammg programs to help 
prepare highly motivated and skilled financial workers to become financial managers. 
Important Qualities 
Analytical skills. Financial managers increasingly are assisting executives in making 
decisions that affect their organization, a task for which these managers need 
analytical ability. 
Communication skills. Excellent communication skills are essential because financial 
managers must explain and justify complex financial transactions. 
Detail oriented. In preparing and analyzing reports such as balance sheets and income 
· statements, financial managers must pay attention to detail. 
Math skills. Financial managers must be skilled in math, including algebra. An 
understanding of international finance and complex financial documents also is 
important. 
Organizational skills. Financial managers deal with a range of information and 
documents and so must stay organized to do their jobs effectively. 
!d. at http://www .bls.gov/ooh/management/financial-managers.htm#tab-4 (last visited March 27, 
2015). 
Counsel asserts that the evidence of record does not demonstrate that the proffered position is that 
of a financial manager; and that the duties listed by the petitioner are more detailed than those listed 
in the Handbook. However, the petitioner submitted an LCA certified for a position located within 
the "Financial Managers" occupational category, SOC (O*NET/OES) Code 11-3031. In addition, the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
job duties submitted by the petitioner are similar to those in the Handbook. Accordingly, we will 
analyze the proffered position as a financial manager. 
According to the Handbook, a bachelor's degree in business administration is a sufficient minimum 
requirement for entry into the occupation. Again, 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. Since there must be a close correlation between the required specialized 
studies and the position, the requirement of a degree with a generalized title, such as business 
administration, without further specification, does not establish the position as a specialty 
occupation. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Associates, 19 I&N Dec. at 558. 
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 
pos1t10n. 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 qualifies for classification as a 
specialty occupation. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d at 14 7.4 
Accordingly, as the Handbook indicates that working as a financial manager does not normally 
require at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for entry into the 
occupation, it does not support the particular position proffered here as being a specialty 
occupation. 
The materials from DOL's Occupational Information Network (O*NET OnLine) also do not 
establish that the proffered position satisfies the first criterion described at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). O*NET OnLine does not indicate that four-year bachelor's degrees in a 
specific specialty directly related to the occupation are required by Job Zone Five occupations. 
4 Specifically, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit explained in Royal Siam that: 
!d. 
[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. 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 ; cf Matter of 
Michael Hertz Assocs., 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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
Therefore, O*NET OnLine information is not probative of the proffered position being a specialty 
occupation. 
Nor does the record of proceeding contain any persuasive documentary evidence from any other 
relevant authoritative source establishing that the proffered position's inclusion within any of these 
occupational categories is sufficient in and of itself to establish the proffered position as, in the 
words of this criterion, a "particular position" for which "[a] baccalaureate or higher degree or its 
equivalent is normally the minimum requirement for entry." 
As the evidence in the record of proceeding does not establish that at least a baccalaureate degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the 
particular position that is the subject of this petition, the evidence of record does not satisfy the 
criterion described at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
Next, we find that the evidence of record does not satisfy the first of the two alternative prongs of 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). This prong alternatively calls for a petitioner to establish that a 
requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common for 
positions that are identifiable as being (1) in the petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered 
position, and also (3) located in organizations that are similar to the petitioner. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by 
USCIS include: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the 
industry's professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether 
letters or affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms "routinely employ 
and recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d at 1165 
(D.Minn. 1999) (quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
Here and as already discussed, the petitioner has not established that its proffered position falls within 
an occupational category for which the Handbook reports an industry-wide requirement for at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
The petitioner has submitted job advertisements from a global commodity trading company, an 
offshore contract drilling services company and an automotive financing serves company. These job 
listings are not from organizations that are located within the petitioner's industry and similar to the 
petitioner. The advertisements submitted by the petitioner do not establish that these employers are 
"similar" to the petitioner in size, scope, and scale of operations, business efforts, expenditures, or in 
any other relevant extent. Furthermore, two of the advertisements require experience, ranging from 
five to eight years, and one prefers experience of three to five years. However, as noted above the 
petitioner submitted an LCA certified for a Level I, entry-level position, therefore indicating that the 
positions are not parallel. The advertisements do not establish that the positions are the same or 
similar to the proffered position, and do not satisfy this prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 5 
5 USCIS "must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both 
individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
Nor does the record contain any submissions from professional associations in the petitioner's industry 
attesting that individuals employed in positions parallel to the proffered position are routinely required 
to have a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for entry into those 
positions. 
Therefore, the petitioner has not satisfied the first of the two alternative prongs described at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), as the evidence of record does not establish a requirement for at 
least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent is common for positions that are 
identifiable as being (1) in the petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered position, and also 
(3) located in organizations that are similar to the petitioner. 
Next, we find that the evidence of record does not satisfy the second alternative prong of 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which provides that "an employer may show that its particular 
position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree." 
In this particular case, the evidence of record does not credibly demonstrate that the duties the 
beneficiary will perform on a day-to-day basis constitute a position so complex or unique that it can 
only be performed by a person with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its 
equivalent. 
The record of proceeding does not contain evidence establishing relative complexity or uniqueness 
as aspects of the proffered position, let alone that the position is so complex or unique as to require 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge such that a 
person with a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent is required to 
perform the duties of that position. Rather, we find, that, as reflected in this decision's earlier 
quotation of duty descriptions from the record of proceeding, the evidence of record does not 
distinguish the proffered position from other positions falling within the "Financial Managers" 
occupational category, which, the Handbook indicates, do not necessarily require a person with at 
least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent to enter those positions. 
The statements of counsel and the petitioner with regard to the claimed complex and unique nature 
of the proffered position are acknowledged. However, those assertions are undermined by the fact 
that the petitioner submitted an LCA certified for a job prospect with a wage-level that is only 
appropriate for a comparatively low, entry-level position relative to others within its occupation. 
is probably true." Matter ofChmvathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 20 I 0). As just discussed, the petitioner 
has failed to establish the relevance of the job advertisements submitted to the position proffered in this case. 
Even if their relevance had been established, the petitioner still fails to demonstrate what inferences, if any, 
can be drawn from these few job postings with regard to determining the common educational requirements 
for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations in the same industry. See generally Earl Babbie, The 
Practice of Social Research 186-228 ( 1995). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
We reiterate our earlier discussion regarding the Handbook's entries for positions falling within the 
"Financial Managers" occupational category. Again, the Handbook does not indicate that a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, is a standard, minimum requirement to 
perform the duties of such positions, and the assertion that a Level I, entry-level position has such a 
requirement is not supported by the record. 
The evidence of record therefore does not establish how the beneficiary's responsibilities and day­
to-day duties comprise a position so complex or unique that the position can be performed only by 
an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
Consequently, as it has not been shown that the particular position for which this petition was filed 
is so complex or unique that it can only be performed by a person with at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty or its equivalent, the evidence of record does not satisfy the second alternative 
prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)( A)(2). 
We turn next to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3), which entails an employer 
demonstrating that it normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent 
for the position. 
Our review of the record of proceeding under this criterion necessarily includes whatever evidence 
the petitioner has submitted with regard to its past recruiting and hiring practices and employees 
who previously held the position in question. 
To satisfy this criterion, the record must contain documentary evidence demonstrating that the 
petitioner has a history of requiring the degree or degree equivalency, in a specific specialty, in its prior 
recruiting and hiring for the position. Additionally, the record must establish that a petitioner's 
imposition of a degree requirement is not merely a matter of preference for high-caliber candidates but 
is necessitated by the performance requirements of the proffered position.6 
Were USCIS limited solely to reviewing a petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, then any 
individual with a bachelor's degree could be brought to the United States to perform any occupation 
as long as the employer artificially created a token degree requirement, whereby all individuals 
employed in a particular position possessed a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific 
specialty or its equivalent. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d at 387. In other words, if a 
petitioner's assertion of a particular degree requirement is not necessitated by the actual 
performance requirements of the proffered position, the position would not meet the statutory or 
regulatory definition of a specialty occupation. See section 214(i)( 1) of the Act; 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty occupation"). 
6 Any such assertion would be undermined in this particular case by the fact that the petitioner indicated in 
the LCA that its proffered position is a comparatively low, entry-level position relative to others within the 
same occupation. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
The director's January 17, 2014 RFE specifically requested the petitioner to document its past 
recruiting and hiring history with regard to the proffered position. The RFE includes the following 
specific requests for such documentation: 
If you have previously employed individuals besides the beneficiary, in the position 
of Financial Manager, submit documentary evidence such as W-2 Forms and copies 
of degrees and transcripts to verify: 
• The number of indi victuals you have employed in this position in the past; 
• The level of education held by each individual; and 
• The field of study in which the degree was earned. 
The petitioner asserts that its president used to handle the duties of a financial manager. First, we 
do not consider a single previous hire sufficient evidence of a past history of employing only 
persons with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, to establish 
eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J). In addition, the evidence provided is for the 
petitioner's current president. The record does not include supporting evidence to establish that the 
petitioner's current president previously performed the same job duties of the proffered position. 
Lastly, we again note the petitioner's own claim that a non-specific bachelor's degree is a sufficient 
minimum requirement for entry into the proffered position is inadequate to establish that the 
proposed 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. 
As the record of proceeding does not demonstrate that the petitioner normally requires at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for the proffered position, it does not 
satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 21 4.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(J ). 
Next, we find that the evidence of record does not satisfy the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4), which requires the petitioner to establish that the nature of the 
proffered position's 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 the specific specialty or 
its equivalent. 
The petitioner claims that the nature of the specific duties of the position in the context of its 
business operations is so specialized and complex. We reviewed the petitioner's statements 
regarding its business operations. However, upon review of the entire record of proceeding we find 
that the submitted documentation fails to support the assertion that the proffered position satisfies 
this criterion of the regulations. More specifically, in the instant case, relative specialization and 
complexity have not been sufficiently developed by the petitioner as an aspect of the proffered 
position. 
Furthermore, we reiterate our earlier comments and findings with regard to the implication of the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 16 
petitioner's designation of the proffered positiOn in the LCA as a Level I (the lowest of four 
assignable levels). That is, the Level I wage designation is indicative of a low, entry-level position 
relative to others within the occupational category, and hence one not likely distinguishable by 
relatively specialized and complex duties. As noted earlier, DOL indicates that a Level I 
designation is appropriate for "beginning level employees who have only a basic understanding of 
the occupation." Without further evidence, it is not credible that the petitioner's proffered position 
is one with specialized and complex duties as such a position would likely be classified at a higher­
level, such as a Level Ill (experienced) or Level IV (fully competent) position, requiring a 
significantly higher prevailing wage. For instance, a Level IV (fully competent) position is 
designated by DOL for employees who "use advanced skills and diversified knowledge to solve 
unusual and complex problems." The petitioner has submitted inadequate probative evidence to 
satisfy the criterion of the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
For all of these reasons, the evidence in the record of proceeding does not establish that the 
proposed duties meet the specialization and complexity threshold at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)( 4). 
As the evidence of record does not satisfy at least one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2( h)(4)(iii)(A), it cannot be found that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
IV. BENEFICARY QUALIFICATIONS 
We do not need to examine the issue of the beneficiary's qualifications, because the petitioner has 
not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation. In other words, the beneficiary's credentials to perform a particular job are relevant 
only when the job is found to be a specialty occupation. 
As discussed in this decision, the petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence regarding the 
proffered position to determine whether it will require a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent. Absent this determination that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty or its equivalent is required to perform the duties of the proffered position, it also 
cannot be determined whether the beneficiary possesses that degree or its equivalent. Therefore, we 
need not and will not address the beneficiary's qualifications further, except to note that, in any 
event, the combined evaluation of the beneficiary's education and work experience submitted by the 
petitioner is insufficient to establish that the beneficiary possesses the equivalent of a U.S. 
bachelor's degree in any specific specialty. Specifically, as the claimed equivalency was based in 
part on experience, there is no evidence that the evaluator 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 and that 
the beneficiary also has recognition of expertise in the specialty through progressively responsible 
positions directly related to the specialty. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4) and (D)(l). As 
such, since evidence was not presented that the beneficiary has at least a U.S. bachelor's degree in 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 17 
any specific specialty, or its equivalent, the petition could not be approved even if eligibility for the 
benefit sought had been otherwise established. 
V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 
As set forth above, we agree with the director's findings that the evidence of record does not 
demonstrate that the proffered position qualifies for classification as a specialty oc cupation. 7 
Acco rdingly, the director's decision will not be disturbed. 
An application or petition that does not comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by us even if the service center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial 
decis ion. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 10 25, 10 43 (E. D. Cal. 
200 1) , ajfd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DO.!, 38 1 F.3d 14 3, 14 5 (3d Cir. 
2004) (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
Moreover, when we deny a petition on multiple alternative grounds, a plaintiff can succeed on a 
challenge only if it shows that we abused our discretion with respect to all of the enumerated 
grounds. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United Stales, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 10 37, aff'd. 345 F.3d 
683; see also BDPCS, Inc. v. Fed. Communications Comm' n, 35 1 F.3d 11 77, 11 83 (D.C. Cir. 2003) 
(" When an agency offers multiple grounds for a decision, we will affirm the agency so long as any 
one of the grounds is valid, unless it is demonstrated that the agency would not have acted on that 
basis if the alternative grounds were unavailable."). 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 29 1 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 13 61; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 12 7, 12 8 
(BIA 20 1 3). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied. 
7 As the issue discussed above precludes approval of this petrt10n, we will not address the numerous 
additional issues we have identified on appeal, except to note that if the petitioner is able to overcome the 
director's basis for denial, the following issues must be explored and resolved before the petition can be 
approved: (I) whether the beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of the position; (2) whether the 
petitioner has paid the beneficiary an appropriate wage; (3) whether the petitioner has maintained valid 
corporate status; and ( 4) whether the LCA submitted in support of this petition actually corresponds to it.