dismissed H-1B Case: Health Insurance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 10344065 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : WL Y 8, 2020 
The Petitioner, a provider of health insurance products, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as 
an "associate consultant" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(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 Vermont Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
established that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the 
Director erred and that the proffered position is a specialty occupation . 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec . 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the 
questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec . 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § l 184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires : 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge , 
and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States . 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition and adds a 
non-exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. 
II. ANALYSIS 
For the reasons discussed below, we have determined that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 1 Specifically, as a result of the Petitioner's own 
requirements, the proffered position does not meet the statutory or regulatory definition of a specialty 
occupation. 
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 spec[fic specialty, or its equivalent, as the minimum for entry 
into the occupation. See section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term 
"specialty occupation"). In other words, 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. Here, the Petitioner indicated in the initial filing and again in response to the Director's 
request for evidence (RFE), that the minimum education required for the proffered position is a 
"Bachelor's degree in Healthcare Policy and Management with a focus in Business; Business 
Administration with a focus in Healthcare Policy and Management, or a related field." 2 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted a letter from 
who similarly concludes that the duties of the proffered position require at ~---------~ least "a bachelor's degree in Healthcare Policy and Management with a focus in Business; Business 
Administration with a focus in Healthcare Policy and Management, or a related field." The Petitioner 
asserts on appeal that the professor's "expert opinion testimony is based on sufficient facts/data such 
that he is familiar with the position in question at [the Petitioner's] and that the [professor] himself: as 
a professor of more than 15 years, is recognized as an authority within the field of Business 
Administration." We carefully evaluated the professor's assertions in support of the instant petition 
but, for the following reasons, determined the letter does not have significant weight in this matter. 
The professor does not discuss the duties of the proffered position in any substantive manner beyond 
what was detailed in the Petitioner's letter. Rather, he quotes, then paraphrases the duties and 
description of tasks provided by the Petitioner. 3 Further, there is no indication that the professor 
conducted any research or studies pertinent to the educational requirements for such positions ( or 
1 The Petitioner submitted documentation to suppmt the H-1 B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered position 
and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each 
one. 
2 The Petitioner also discusses the Beneficiary's previous coursework for the purpose of correlating the need for the 
Beneficiary's education with the associated job duties of the position. However, we are required to follow long-standing 
legal standards and determine first, whether the proffered position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation, 
and second, whether the Beneficiary was qualified for the position at the time the nonimmigrant visa petition was filed. Cf 
Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 l&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988) ("The facts of a beneficiary's background only 
come at issue after it is found that the position in which the petitioner intends to employ him falls within [a specialty 
occupation]."). 
3 It appears as though the professor used a template with conclusory findings and generic analysis to support the Petitioner's 
particular position as a specialty occupation. The lack of cogent analysis specific to nature of the Petitioner's position 
strongly suggests that the professor was asked to confinn a preconceived notion as to the required degrees, not objectively 
assess the proffered position and opine on the minimum bachelor's degree required, if any. 
2 
parallel positions) in the Petitioner's industry. The professor does not reference, cite, or discuss 
studies, surveys, industry publications, authoritative publications, or other sources of empirical 
information which he may have consulted to complete his evaluation. Rather, the professor opines "I 
have had ample opportunity to observe the distinctions that underlie different hierarchal roles and 
business functions across firms experiencing differing stages and forms of growth as well as observe 
the staffing infrastructures and reasonable requirements for positions in companies across a wide range 
of industries." Notably, the professor does not discuss the Petitioner's staffing infrastructure and 
organizational hierarchy within his analysis of the proffered position. 4 It is not apparent that he 
conducted any research regarding the claimed specialization and complexity of the proffered position 
within the construct of the Petitioner's business operations in order to render an objective conclusion 
regarding the associated education requirements for the position, if any, beyond studying the 
Petitioner's letter of support. 
For the reasons discussed, we find that the opinion letter provided lends little probative value to the 
matter here. As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as 
advisory. Matter of Caron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, we will reject 
an opinion or give it less weight if it is not in accord with other information in the record or if it is in 
any way questionable. Id. We are ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding 
an individual's eligibility for the benefit sought; the submission of expert opinion letters is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id.; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, 502 n.2 (BIA 
2008) ("[E]xpert opinion testimony, while undoubtedly a form of evidence, does not purport to be 
evidence as to 'fact' but rather is admissible only if 'it will assist the trier of fact to understand the 
evidence or to determine a fact in issue."'). For the sake of brevity, we will not address other 
deficiencies within the professor's analyses of the proffered position. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that it has "demonstrated that the duties of this position are so 
specialized and complex that performing them requires a bachelor's degree or equivalent in the 
specific, specialized field of Healthcare Policy, Business Administration, or a related field." However, 
the Petitioner's stated minimum requirements, for instance - that a bachelor's degree in business 
administration - alone indicates that the proffered position is not in fact a specialty occupation. 
We conclude the Petitioner's claim that a bachelor's degree such as business administration is a 
sufficient minimum requirement for entry into the proffered position is inadequate to establish that the 
proposed position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 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 conclusion that a particular position qualifies 
for classification as a specialty occupation. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st 
Cir. 2007). Specifically, the judge explained in Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147, that: 
The courts and the agency consistently have stated that, although a general-purpose 
bachelor's degree, such as a business administration degree, may be a legitimate 
prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not 
4 The professor also appears to confuse the ability of a degreed person to qualify for - and be competent in - performing 
the duties of the proffered position with a degree requirement in order to perform the duties within the analyses presented 
in his opinion letter. 
3 
justify the granting of a petition for an H-lB specialty occupation visa. See, e.g., Tapis 
Int'lv. 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. 
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 farther 
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). 
We acknowledge that in satisfying the specialty occupation requirements both the Act and the 
regulations require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, and that this language 
indicates that the degree does not have to be a degree in a single specific specialty. However, in 
promulgating the H-1 B regulations, the former INS made clear that the definition of the term "specialty 
occupation" could not be expanded "to include those occupations which did not require a bachelor's 
degree in the specific specialty." Temporary Alien Workers Seeking Classification Under the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 56 Fed. Reg. 61,111, 61,112 (Dec. 2, 1991) (to be codified at 8 
C.F.R. pt. 214). More specifically, in responding to comments that "the definition of specialty 
occupation was too severe and would exclude certain occupations from classification as specialty 
occupations," the former INS stated that "[t]he definition of specialty occupation contained in the 
statute contains this requirement [for a bachelor's degree in the specific specialty, or its equivalent]" 
and, therefore, "may not be amended in the final rule." Id. The issue here is the Petitioner's 
requirement of a general bachelor's degree such as business administration for the proffered position, 
which does not constitute a bachelor's in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 5 
For all of these reasons, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position requires 
anything more than a general bachelor's degree. As explained above, the statutory and regulatory 
definition of a specialty occupation requires a degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to 
the proposed position. 
As a result, it is unnecessary to address the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4). 
We acknowledge that the Director concluded the evidence was insufficient to establish that the 
position qualified as a specialty occupation under at least one of the criteria in 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). 6 On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the proffered position meets criterion ( 4) of 
5 Section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
6 The regulations provide that the offered position must also meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty 
occupation: 
( I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position; 
4 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), and does not challenge the Director's determination of ineligibility 
under criteria(]), (2), or (3) of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). However, even if the Petitioner were to 
demonstrate that it satisfied one of the listed criteria, this would not result in this petition's approval, as 
it still has not shown that the proffered position satisfies the statutory or regulatory definition of a 
"specialty occupation." See section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). The statutory 
definition constitutes the primary requirement for a position to qualify as a specialty occupation. Only 
after this antecedent requirement has been met, may a petitioner move to demonstrate how it may satisfy 
one of the supplementary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
III. CONCLUSION 
In visa petition proceedings, it is a petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. In this matter, the Petitioner has not met that 
burden. 
ORDER: 
(2) 
(3) 
(4) 
The appeal is dismissed. 
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; 
The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
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. 
5