dismissed H-1B Case: Health Care Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF H-H-H-C-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 21, 2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a home health care/hospice company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as 
a "chief strategy officer" under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a 
position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the Director erred in its determination that the proffered position is not a specialty 
occupation. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. 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. 
Matter of H-H-H-C-, Inc. 
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)(l) 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 o.fW-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. 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 
Matter of H-H-H-C-, Inc. 
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 (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. 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, US CIS 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. Proffered Position 
In the labor condition application (LCA) submitted to support the visa pet1t10n, the Petitioner 
indicated that the proffered position corresponds to the occupational category "General and 
Operations Managers" with SOC (ONET/OES) code 11-1021, at a Level I (entry level) wage. 
The Petitioner submitted a description of job duties in which it states that the Beneficiary will 
perform the following duties as a chief strategy officer, with percentages: 
• Devising strategy for business development through targeted marketing based on 
research and available resources. Communicating, implementing and monitoring 
marketing strategies by working closely with marketing dept. Direct involvement in 
leading potential client engagements. Devising and implementing plans to form 
productive coalitions to optimize growth [ 40%] 
• Devising, executing and monitoring strategies to ensure elimination of wasteful 
expenses and optimum utilization of resources [ 10%] 
3 
Matter of H-H-H-C-, Inc. 
• Assessing and implementing ways to ensure highest standards of clinical services are 
available to clients. Actively ensuring company's policies and procedures are in 
tandem with any changes in Health Care industry & Medicare and are communicated 
internally and externally to all employees, partners and other resource[s]. Devising 
strategy to ensure integrity of the company is of highest standards through initiating 
appropriate staff and management training sessions [15%] 
• Productive assessment of recruiting and hiring needs based on current census and 
projected growth to ensure human resource consistently matches the skills offered. 
Devising, implementing and monitoring strategy to minimize staff turnover by 
driving decision making at all levels. [25%] 
• Reporting and consulting with CEO via meetings or verbal & written communication 
and lead a team of 4 to 6 junior associates in the department [ 1 0%] 
(Errors in Original.) 
C. Analysis 
For H -1 B approval, a petitioner must demonstrate a legitimate need for a position to exist and to 
substantiate that it has H-1B caliber work for the Beneficiary for the period of employment 
requested in the petition. It is incumbent upon a petitioner to demonstrate it has sufficient work to 
require the services of a person with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, to perform duties at a level that requires the theoretical and practical application of at 
least a bachelor's degree level of a body of highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty for 
the period specified in the petition. 
As a preliminary matter, we find that the Petitioner's claimed entry requirement of at least a master's 
or a bachelor's degree in any field, so long as the candidate possesses at least five years of work 
experience in a loosely-defined "business environment," 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 Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 
(Comm'r 1988) ("The mere requirement of a college degree for the sake of general education, or to 
obtain what an employer perceives to be a higher caliber employee, also does not establish 
eligibility."). Thus, while a general 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. Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d at 147. 
As noted, the Petitioner requires an individual with least a master's or a bachelor's degree in any 
field, so long as the candidate possesses at least five years of work experience in a loosely-defined 
"business environment" without further requmng that the degree be in any specific specialty. 
4 
Matter of H-H-H-C-, Inc. 
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 appeal dismissed 
on this basis alone. 
Moreover, it also cannot be found that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation as 
the Petitioner has not satisfied any of the supplemental, additional criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). To reach this conclusion, we tum next to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
A baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is 
normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position 
We recognize the U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an 
authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations 
that it addresses. 1 As noted, the Petitioner submitted an LCA certified for use with a job prospect 
located within the "General and Operations Managers" occupational category, which the Handbook 
discusses within its "Top Executives" entry. In relevant part, the Handbook states the following: 
Although education and training requirements vary widely by position and 
industry, many top executives have at least a bachelor's degree and a considerable 
amount of work experience. 
Education 
Many top executives have a bachelor's or master's degree in business 
administration or in an area related to their field of work. Top executives in the public 
sector often have a degree in business administration, public administration, law, or 
the liberal arts. Top executives of large corporations often have a master's degree in 
business administration (MBA). 
College presidents and school superintendents are typically required to have a 
master's degree, although a doctorate is often preferred. 
Although many mayors, governors, or other public sector executives have at 
least a bachelor's degree, these positions typically do not have any specific education 
requirements. 
1 All references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
http://www.bls.gov/OCO/. The excerpts of the Handbook regarding the duties and requirements of the referenced 
occupational category are hereby incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of H-H-H-C-, Inc. 
Work Experience in a Related Occupation 
Many top executives advance within their own firm, moving up from lower 
level managerial or supervisory positions. However, other companies may prefer to 
hire qualified candidates from outside their organization. Top executives who are 
promoted from lower level positions may be able to substitute experience for 
education to move up in the company. For example, in industries such as retail trade 
or transportation, workers without a college degree may work their way up to higher 
levels within the company to become executives or general managers. 
Chief executives typically need extensive managerial experience. Executives 
are also expected to have experience in the organization's area of specialty. Most 
general and operations managers hired from outside an organization need lower level 
supervisory or management experience in a related field. 
Some general managers advance to higher level managerial or executive 
positions. Company training programs, executive development programs, and 
certification can often benefit managers or executives hoping to advance. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., 
"Top Executives," available at http://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/top-executives.htm#tab-4 (last 
visited Mar. 18, 2016). 
These statements from the Handbook do not indicate that a bachelor's degree or the equivalent, in a 
specific specialty, is normally required for entry into positions located within this occupational 
category. Instead, the Handbook's information indicates that these positions generally impose no 
specific degree requirement on individuals seeking employment. The statement that "many" workers 
in this occupational category have college degrees is not synonymous with the "normally required" 
standard imposed by this criterion. To the contrary, such a statement does not even necessarily indicate 
that a majority of individuals working within this occupational category possess such a degree. While 
the Handbook indicates that top management positions may be filled by individuals with a broad range 
of degrees, its subsequent discussion of the training and education necessary for such employment 
clearly states that companies also hire executives based on lower-level experience within their own 
organizations or management experience with another business. Moreover, the Handbook does not 
state that those positions which do require a bachelor's degree or the equivalent require that the degree 
be in a specific specialty. 
The Handbook, therefore, does not support a finding that the proffered position IS a specialty 
occupation. 
While the letters submitted as expert opinions are acknowledged, we find that they do not satisfy the 
first criterion. The Petitioner submits two such letters: one from Assistant 
Professor and Director of the Graduate Program MS Strategic Design and Management at 
(b)(6)
Matter of H-H-H-C-, Inc. 
and one from Professor Emeritus of Accounting and Operations 
Management at Both individuals indicate that a bachelor's degree in business 
administration would adequately prepare an individual to perform the duties of the proffered 
position. However, the requirement of a bachelor's degree in business is inadequate to establish that 
a position qualifies as a specialty occupation. As discussed, a petitioner must demonstrate that the 
proffered position requires a precise and specific course of study that relates directly to the position 
in question. Since there must be a close correlation between the required specialized studies 
and the 
position, the requirement of a degree with a generalized title, such as business, without further 
specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz 
Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). To prove that a job requires the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge as required by section 214(i)(l) of 
the Act, a petitioner must establish that the position requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher 
degree in a specialized field of study or its equivalent. These letters do not carry the Petitioner's 
burden for this reason alone. 
Next, we find that neither author discussed the duties of the proffered position in detail sufficiently 
meaningful to allow us to ascertain the degree to which they analyzed them prior to formulating their 
opmwns. In similar fashion, neither author discussed the Petitioner's business operations in 
substantive detail. It does not appear that these authors visited the Petitioner's business premises or 
otherwise communicated with anyone affiliated with the Petitioner regarding what performance of 
the proffered duties would actually require. Nor do the authors articulate whatever familiarity they 
may have obtained regarding the particular content of the work that the Petitioner would require of 
the Beneficiary. These factors detract further from the probative value of these letters. For all of 
these reasons, these letters carry little evidentiary weight, and they do not establish the proffered 
position as a specialty occupation. 
We may, in our discretion, use advisory opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as expert 
testimony. Matter ofCaron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). 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. !d. For efficiency's sake, we hereby incorporate 
the above discussion regarding the letters into our analysis of each criterion at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). 
The Petitioner's citation to Chung Song Ja Corp. v. US Citizenship and Immigration Services, No. 
C14-0177RSM, 2015 WL 1058110 (W.D. Wash. 2015) is not persuasive, as the position proffered in 
that case was not located within the same occupational category as the one proffered here. 
Furthermore, in contrast to a practice of acquiescence to the holdings of a circuit court in cases 
arising within the jurisdiction of that circuit, we are not required to accept an adverse determination 
by one circuit court of appeals as binding throughout the United States. Matter of Anselmo, 20 I&N 
Dec. 25, 31 (BIA 1989); cf Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715, 719-20 (BIA 1993). Although the 
reasoning underlying a circuit court's decision will be given due consideration when it is properly 
before us, the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of law. See Matter of Anselmo, 20 
I&N Dec. at 31. 
(b)(6)
Matter of H-H-H-C-, Inc. 
The Petitioner has not established that the proffered position falls under an occupational category for 
which the Handbook, or other authoritative source, indicates that normally the minimum requirement 
for entry is at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, the Petitioner 
has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
The requirement of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty , 
or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel 
positions among similar organization s 
Next, we find that the Petitioner has not satisfied the first of the two alternative prongs of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). This prong alternatively calls for the 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. 
Again, 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 (quoting 
Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. at 1102). 
As already discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook (or any other independent, authoritative source) reports an industry-wide requirement 
for at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, we incorporate by 
reference the previous discussion on the matter. 
The record contains a letter submitted for consideration under this prong from 
President for Law at the 
Vice 
However, as with 
the letters discussed above, does not state that the proffered positiOn requires a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent. Instead, he indicates that a bachelor's 
degree in any field of study would suffice. 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. 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 A ssocs., 19 I&N Dec. at 560 
("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."). 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. Royal Siam Corp. v. Cherto.ff, 484 F.3d at 147. 
In support of the assertion that the degree requirement is common to the Petitioner's industry in 
parallel positions among similar organizations, the Petitioner also submitted copies of job vacancy 
(b)(6)
Matter of H-H-H-C- , Inc. 
announcements. However, upon review of the documents, we find that the Petitioner's reliance on 
the these documents is misplaced. 
As noted, the Petitioner claims to be a home health care/hospice company, and designated its 
business operations under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 
621610? This NAICS code is designated for "Home Health Care Services." The U.S. Department 
of Commerce, Census Bureau website describes this NAICS code by stating the following: "This 
industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing skilled nursing services in the 
home, along with a range of the following: personal care services; homemaker and companion 
services; physical therapy; medical social services; medications; medical equipment and supplies; 
counseling; 24-hour home care; occupation and vocational therapy; dietary and nutritional services; 
speech therapy; audiology; and high-tech care, such as intravenous therapy." U.S. Dep't of 
Commerce, U.S Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definition, 621610- Home Health Care Services, 
http://www.census.gov/cgi-binlsssd/naics/naicsrch (last visited Mar. 18, 20 16). 
For the Petitioner to establish that other organizations are similar, it must demonstrate that they share 
the same general characteristics . Without such evidence, documentation submitted by the Petitioner 
is generally outside the scope of consideration for this criterion, which encompasses only 
organizations that are similar to the Petitioner. When determining whether the Petitioner and the 
organization share the same general characteristics, such factors may include information regarding 
the nature or type of organization, and, when pertinent, the particular scope of operations, as well as 
the level of revenue and staffing (to list just a few elements that may be considered). Notably, it is 
not sufficient for the Petitioner to claim that an organization is similar and in the same industry 
without providing a legitimate basis for such an assertion. 
The advertisements submitted by the Petitioner include positions at 
. an electronic manufacturing service company; and a deliverer of 
information, tools, and services to the healthcare industry. However, there is insufficient 
information to establish that these advertisements were placed by organizations "similar" to the 
Petitioner. Nor has the Petitioner established that the duties and the requirements for the advertised 
positions parallel those of the proffered position. For example, requires a 
bachelor's degree with "7 -
1 0+ years progressive healthcare provider organization experience with 
at least 3 years previous consulting firm experience in healthcare strategy, business development or 
operations." 
As the documentation does not establish that the Petitioner has met this prong of the regulations, 
further analysis regarding the specific information contained in each of the job postings is not 
2 According to the U.S. Cen sus Bureau , the North American Industry Classification System (NAlCS) is used to classify 
business establishments according to type of economic activity and each establi shment is classified to an industry 
according to the primary busines s activity taking place there. See http:/ /www .census.gov/eos/www/naics / (last visited 
Mar. 18, 20 16). 
9 
Matter of H-H-H-C-, Inc. 
necessary. That is, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed.3 Therefore, for the 
reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by 
an individual with a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent 
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 evidence of record does not develop relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the 
position. The Petitioner did not submit evidence to demonstrate that the proffered position entails 
work that is more complex or unique that it can only be performed by someone with a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty. Further, the LCA submitted by the Petitioner indicates a wage level at 
a Level I (entry) wage, which is the lowest of four assignable wage levels.4 Without further 
3 Although the size of the relevant study population is unknown, the Petitioner does not demonstrate what statistically 
valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from these advertisements with regard to determining the common educational 
requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar companies. See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social 
Research 186-228 (1995). Moreover, given that there is no indication that the advertisements were randomly selected, 
the validity of any such inferences could not be accurately determined even if the sampling unit were sufficiently large. 
See id. at 195-196 (explaining that "[r]andom selection is the key to [the] process [of probability sampling]" and that 
"random selection offers access to the body of probability theory, which provides the basis for estimates of population 
parameters and estimates of error.") 
As such, even if the job announcements supported the finding that the position of chief strategy officer for companies 
that are similar to the Petitioner requires a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, it cannot 
be found that such a limited number of postings that appear to have been consciously selected could credibly refute the 
findings of the Handbook that such a position does not require at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent, for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The wage levels are defined in DOL's "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance." A Level I wage rate is 
described as follows: 
Level 1 (entry) wage rates are assigned to job offers for beginning level employees who have 
only a basic understanding of the occupation. These employees perform routine tasks that require 
limited, if any, exercise of judgment. The tasks provide experience and familiarization with the 
employer's methods, practices, and programs. The employees may perform higher level work for 
training and developmental purposes. These employees work under close supervision and receive 
specific instructions on required tasks and results expected. Their work is closely monitored and 
reviewed for accuracy. Statements that the job offer is for a research fellow, a worker in training, or an 
internship are indicators that a Level I wage should be considered. 
10 
Matter of H-H-H-C-, Inc. 
evidence, the record of proceeding does not indicate that the proffered position is complex or unique 
as such a position falling under this occupational category would likely be classified at a higher­
level, such as a Level III (experienced) or Level IV (fully competent) position, requiring a 
significantly higher prevailing wage. 5 For example, 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." 6 The evidence of record does not establish that this position is 
significantly different from other positions in the occupational category such that it refutes the 
Handbook's information that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent is not 
required for the proffered position. 
Upon review, we find that the Petitioner has not sufficiently developed relative complexity or 
uniqueness as an aspect of the proffered position. For instance, the Petitioner did not submit 
information relevant to a detailed course of study leading to a specialty degree and did not establish 
how such a curriculum is necessary to perform the duties it may believe are so complex and 
unique. While a few related courses may be beneficial, or even required, in performing certain 
duties of the position, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how an established curriculum of such 
courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is 
required to perform the duties of the proffered position. The description of the duties does not 
specifically identify any tasks that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed 
individual could perform them. The record lacks sufficiently detailed information to 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. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. 
Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/ 
NPWHC_Guidance_Revised _11_2009.pdf. 
Thus, in accordance with the relevant DOL explanatory information on wage levels, this wage rate indicates that the 
Beneficiary is only required to have a basic understanding of the occupation and carries expectations that the Beneficiary 
perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; that she would be closely supervised; that her 
work would be closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and that she would receive specific instructions on required 
tasks and expected results. DOL guidance indicates that a Level I designation should be considered for positions in 
which the employee will serve as a research fellow, worker in training, or an intern. 
5 The issue here is that the Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position undermines its claim 
that the position is particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same 
occupation. Nevertheless, it is important to note that a Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position 
from classification as a specialty occupation. In certain occupations (doctors or lawyers, for example), an 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 qualifies 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 consideration but is not a substitute for 
a determination of whether a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)(l) ofthe Act. 
6 For additional information regarding wage levels as defined by DOL, see U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training 
Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available 
at http://www.flcdatacenter.com/download!NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _11_ 2009.pdf 
11 
Matter of H-H-H-C-, Inc. 
The Petitioner did not establish that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can only be 
performed by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The employer normally requires a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position 
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. To 
this end, we review the Petitioner's past recruiting and hiring practices, as well as information 
regarding employees who previously held the position, and any other documentation submitted by 
the Petitioner in support of this criterion of the regulations. 
To merit approval of the petition under this criterion, 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 performance requirements of the position. While a petitioner may assert that a 
proffered position requires a specific degree, that statement alone without corroborating evidence 
cannot establish the position as a specialty occupation. Were we 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 Petitioner 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 388. In other words, if a petitioner's stated degree requirement is only 
designed to artificially meet the standards for an H-1B visa and/or to underemploy an individual in a 
position for which he or she is overqualified and if the proffered position does not in fact require 
such a specialty degree or its equivalent, to perform its duties, the occupation would not meet the 
statutory or regulatory definition of a specialty occupation. See § 214(i)(1) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty occupation"). 
To satisfy this criterion, the evidence of record must show that the specific performance 
requirements of the position generated the recruiting and hiring history. We must examine the actual 
employment requirements, and, on the basis of that examination, determine whether the position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. In this 
pursuit, the critical element is not the title of the position, or the fact that an employer has routinely 
insisted on certain educational standards, but whether performance of 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. 
The evidence of record indicates that this is first time the Petitioner has filled this position. In 
response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted job descriptions relating to positions whose occupants 
it claimed performed at the same level of the one proffered here. The positions included a Director 
12 
Matter of H-H-H-C-, Inc. 
of Human Resources, a Hospice Director of Quality, and a Controller/Chief Financial Officer. 
However, those individuals did not perform the same duties as those proposed for the Beneficiary. 
Even if the Petitioner were able to demonstrate that these other positions in fact paralleled the chief 
strategy officer position proffered here, which it did not, we would still be compelled to note that the 
Petitioner appears to find a wide variety of degrees and experience adequate preparation for these 
positions. As noted, the Petitioner has not claimed that it requires an individual with a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, to perform these duties. We hereby incorporate the 
prior discussion at the beginning of the analysis section regarding the Petitioner's stating that the 
position requires only a bachelor's degree generally, without stating that the degree must be in a 
specific specialty. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the third criterion of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
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 in a spec(fic specialty, or its equivalent 
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. 
Upon review of the record of the proceeding, we find that the Petitioner has not provided sufficient 
evidence to satisfy this criterion of the regulations. In the instant case, relative specialization and 
complexity have not been credibly developed by the Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. 
That is, the proposed duties have not been described with sufficient specificity to establish that they 
are more specialized and complex than positions that are not usually associated with at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
We further incorporate our earlier discussion and analysis regarding the duties of the proffered 
position, and the designation of the proffered position in the LCA as a Level I position (the lowest of 
four assignable wage-levels) relative to others within the occupational category. Without more, the 
position is one not likely distinguishable by relatively specialized and complex duties. That is, 
without further evidence, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that its proffered position is one with 
specialized and complex duties as such a position falling under this occupational category would 
likely be classified at a higher-level, such as a Level III (experienced) or Level IV (fully competent) 
position, requiring a substantially higher prevailing wage. 
The Petitioner has submitted insufficient evidence to satisfy this criterion of the regulations. We, 
therefore, conclude that the Petitioner did not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)( 4). 
13 
Matter of H-H-H-C- .. Inc. 
For the reasons related in the preceding discussion, the Petitioner has not established that it has 
satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) and, therefore, it cannot be found that 
the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
II. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 
As discussed, the evidence of record does not demonstrate that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation. Consequently, the appeal will be dismissed.7 
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 
(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 ofH-H-H-C-, Inc., ID# 15907 (AAO Mar. 21, 2016) 
7 As this issue precludes approval of the petition, we will not address any of the additional issues we have observed in 
the record of proceeding, except to note that if the Petitioner is able to overcome the specialty-occupation issue at a 
future date, the Director should explore the following issues prior to approving the petition: (l) whether the current 
evidence of record demonstrates that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of a specialty occupation; and (2) 
whether the LCA corresponds to and supports the petition. 
14