dismissed H-1B Case: Healthcare Products

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
InRe: 8916270 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 27, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "business operations manager" under the 
H-IB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section 10l(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 know ledge 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 record did not establish 
that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
The petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence.1 
The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) reviews the questions in this matter de novo. 2 Upon de 
nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Act defines an H-IB nonimmigrant as a foreign national "who is 
coming temporarily to the United States to perform services ... in a specialty occupation described in 
section 214(i)(l) ... " (emphasis added). 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 "theoretical and practical application of a 
body of highly specialized knowledge , and 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 section 214(i)(l) of the Act but adds a 
non-exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) provides that the 
proffered position must meet one of four criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation position. 3 Lastly, 
1 Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofChawathe , 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
2 See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
3 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must be read with the statutory and regulatory definitions ofa specialty occupation under 
section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) . We construe the te1m "degree " to mean not just any 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(l) states that an H-IB classification may be granted to a foreign national 
who "will pe1.form services in a specialty occupation ... " ( emphasis added). 
Accordingly, to determine whether the Beneficiary will be employed in a specialty occupation, we 
look to the record to ascertain the services the Beneficiary will perform and whether such services 
require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge attained 
through at least a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty or its equivalent. Without 
sufficient consistent evidence regarding the duties the Beneficiary will perform, we are unable to 
determine whether the Beneficiary will be employed in an occupation that meets the statutory and 
regulatory definitions of a specialty occupation and a position that also satisfies at least one of the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). The services the Beneficiary will perform in the position determine: (1) 
the nmmal minimum educational requirement for entry into the particular position, which is the focus 
of criterion 1; (2) industry positions which are parallel to the proffered position and thus appropriate 
for review for a common degree requirement, under the first alternate prong of criterion 2; (3) the level 
of complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position, which is the focus of the second alternate prong 
of criterion 2; ( 4) the factual justification for a petitioner normally requiring a degree or its equivalent, 
when that is an issue under criterion 3; and (5) the degree of specialization and complexity of the 
specific duties, which is the focus of criterion 4. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
By regulation, the Director is charged with dete1mining whether the petition involves a specialty 
occupation as defined in section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(2). The Director 
may request additional evidence in the course of making this determination. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(8). 
In addition, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the petition and must continue to 
be eligible through adjudication. 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(1 ). 
II. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. Specifically, the record 
does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, 
commensurate with a specialty occupation. In particular, the Petitioner has not established the 
substantive nature of the position, which precludes a determination that the proffered position qualifies 
as a specialty occupation under at least one of the four regulatory specialty-occupation criteria 
enumerated at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4). 4 
A. Nature of the Position 
The Petitioner states that it is a medical and healthcare products and solutions provider established in 
2009. On the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, filed in April 2019, the Petitioner 
baccalaureate or higher degree. but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal 
Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in a specific specialty" as 
"one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular position"). 
4 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered position 
and its business operations. Although we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered 
each one. 
2 
claims it employs five individuals in the United States and has a gross annual income of $532,897.5 
On the labor condition application (LCA)6 submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "General and Operations Managers" 
corresponding to the standard occupational classification (SOC) code 11-1021 at a level IV wage. The 
Petitioner noted that the Beneficiary would work in two locations on the LCA, the home office in 
I I Rhode Island, and at a second location in I I Massachusetts. 7 The Petitioner 
initially provided a broad description of the proposed tasks of the occupation stating that the 
Beneficiary will perform the following duties: 
• Use training and education in business management to develop strategic business 
strategies and plans ensuring their alignment with short-term and long-term 
objectives 
• Lead and motivate subordinates directly to advance employee engagement and 
develop a high performing managerial team 
• Direct management of all operations and business activities to ensure they produce 
the desired results and are consistent with the overall strategy and mission 
• Use training and experience in management strategy performance and strategy 
execution to make high-quality investing decisions to advance the business and 
increase profits 
• Enforce adherence to legal guidelines and in-house policies to maintain the 
company's compliance and business ethics 
• Review financial and non-financial reports to devise business operations and 
management solutions or improvements 
• Build trust relations with key partners and stakeholders and act as a point of contact 
for important shareholders 
• Report to the Company Board and the President on quarterly, annual and long-term 
business goals, customer acquisition, revenue, and strategy of the company 
These duties, however, are so broadly described we cannot ascertain whether the duties fall within the 
occupation designated on the certified LCA, or some other occupation. 8 We note that the Petitioner's 
incorporating documents show that the Beneficiary is the chief executive officer of the company. 
Additionally, the Petitioner's website identifies the Beneficiary as the company's chief executive 
5 The Petitioner does not identify the year of the gross annual income and the record does not include tax documents or 
other evidence identifying when the gross annual income was accumulated. Thus, it is unclear whether this figure refers 
to the previous 2018 year, whether the Petitioner operates under a fiscal year different than the calendar year. or whether 
this figure is for revenue generated in the first few months of 2019, the year the petition was filed. The supporting 
information, while not required, would assist in understanding the scope and viability of the Petitioner's operations. 
6 A petitioner submits the LCA to DOL to demonstrate that it will pay an H- lB worker the higher of either the prevailing 
wage for the occupational classification in the area of employment or the actual wage paid by the employer to other 
employees with similar duties, expe1ience, and qualifications. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(a). 
7 The address inl I Massachusetts, appears to be an apartment complex. The Petitioner does not offer any 
information on the nature or purpose of this location. 
x We observe that many of the duties the Petitioner desciibes incorporate verbatim tasks used in templates to recruit chief 
executive officers. See e.g. https://breezy.hr/resources/job-descriptions/ceo; see also, https://resources.workable.com/ceo­
job-description. 
3 
officer. It appears that the proposed position may more properly fall under the "Chief Executive 
Officers" occupation, not the "General and Operations Managers" occupation. 9 
We also reviewed the Petitioner's response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) for any 
clarifying evidence establishing (1) the specific duties of the position, and (2) that the proffered 
position falls within the parameters of the "General and Operations Managers" occupation. The 
Petitioner added a nairntive to each of the categories listed above. However, much of the additional 
narrative skews toward a "Chief Executive Officer" occupation, rather than the occupation designated 
on the certified LCA. For example, the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary will utilize particular 
models to "develop sound financial plan" which appears to correspond to the "Chief Executive 
Officers" task of "[p ]reparing budget plans for approval" and coordinating the development or 
implementation of budgetary control systems, directing or coordinating an organization's financial or 
budget activities. 10 Similarly, coordinating business intelligence and analysis, carrying out 
negotiations with vendors, suppliers, and customers, and liaising with the legal team to oversee 
contracts appear to relate to the task of negotiating and approving contracts with suppliers, distributors, 
or other organizational entities, a task listed in the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) 
summary report for "Chief Executive Officers." 11 Likewise the additional narrative of building trust 
relations with key partners and stakeholders and acting as a point of contact for shareholders appears 
to correspond to the "Chief Executive Officers" task of serving as a liaison between organizations, 
shareholders, and outside organizations. 12 
We also note that the duties which focus on financial accounting, financial evaluation for newly 
launched projects, and using strategic financial management tools to evaluate and execute projects 
overlap with those of a "Financial Managers" occupation, SOC 11-3031.02. 13 These duties may 
include oversight by a "Chief Executive Officers" position over a financial manager or CFO position, 14 
rather than duties of a financial managers position. The descriptions are not sufficiently detailed to 
ascertain the position's focus. Although there may be overlap between various executive-level 
occupations, the record must include sufficient information to distinguish these positions, so that we 
may ascertain the substantive nature of the proposed position and analyze whether the petition is 
supported by an LCA which corresponds with the petition. The duties here are so broadly described, 
we cannot ascertain either the application of knowledge needed to perform the position, or the 
occupation and wage level required. 15 
9 We reviewed the Petitioner's organizational chart which shows the Beneficiaiy in the position ofbusiness development 
manager reporting to the president and chief strategy officer. This organizational chart identifies 12 employees which does 
not comport with the Petitioner's indication on the Form I-129 that it has 5 employees. The accuracy of the organizational 
chart is thus, questionable. The Petitioner must resolve these inconsistencies in the record with independent, objective 
evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
10 See O*NET summary report for "Chief Executive Officers" at https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/11-101 l .OO. 
II Id. 
12 Id. 
13 See O*NET summary report for "Financial Managers" at https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/11-3031.02. 
14 The Petitioner's organizational chart and website show an individual in the Petitioner's chief financial officer (CFO) 
position, thus any overlap appears more likely to correspond to an individual who would have oversight of the CFO 
position. 
15 We reviewed the Petitioner's table of duties which included the Beneficiary's coursework the Petitioner claimed is 
relevant to those duties; however, the titles of these courses, without more, do not establish their subject-matter relevance 
4 
We also reviewed the Petitioner's letter submitted on appeal, which refers to tasks the Beneficiary has 
been performing, including evaluating handheld devices for child respiration, business operations 
strategy for a particular product, and financial analysis to project costs and develop financial outcomes 
for product expansion. These tasks, as well as business negotiation with third party companies and 
other analyses, do not further illuminate the substantive nature of the position. These duties are 
equivocal and again appear to fall within the parameters of different occupations, including 
occupations that require a higher-paying wage. The descriptions of duties throughout the record are 
insufficient to establish the substantive nature of the proposed position and that such duties correspond 
to and support the certified LCA. 16 
In that regard, it is essential that a petitioner provides sufficient consistent, detailed evidence regarding 
a proposed position so that we may ascertain the nature of the proposed position and ensure that the 
content of the Department of Labor-certified LCA "corresponds with" the content of the H-lB 
petition. 17 While DOL certifies the LCA, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
determines whether the LCA's content corresponds with and supports the H-lB petition. 18 When 
comparing the SOC code or the wage level indicated on the LCA to the claims associated with the 
petition, USCIS does not purport to supplant DOL's responsibility with respect to wage 
determinations. There may be some overlap in considerations, but USCIS' responsibility at its stage 
of adjudication is to determine the corollary nature of the proffered position's elements as represented 
in an LCA when compared with those same elements as represented on the Form I-129. Without such 
a comparison, it is unclear how USCIS would comply with its responsibilities under the statute.19 
Furthe1more, USCIS precedent notes that according to section 212(n)(l)(G)(ii) of the Act, DOL 
reviews LCAs "for completeness and obvious inaccuracies" and will certify the LCA absent a 
determination that the application is incomplete or obviously inaccurate. In contrast, USCIS must 
to the job duties, including the knowledge and skills impaiied through the courses to perform the position's tasks. 
Moreover, the courses do not assist in identifying the substantive nature of the proposed position, as the coursework 
referenced would prepare a beneficiary to perform any number of occupations. 
16 We also reviewed the Petitioner's letter, dated February 27, 2020, which provides similar infmmation regarding the 
Beneficiai·y's current work and also adds that the Beneficiary is planning and executing customer acquisition strategy using 
third-party platforms and is providing big data analysis of raw material supply chain and logistics and p1icing. Again, the 
Petitioner does not demonstrate how these current duties c01Telate with the specific occupation designated on the certified 
LCA. 
17 The LCA serves as the critical mechanism for enforcing section 2 l 2(n)( I) of the Act, 8 U. S.C. § l l 82(n)( 1 ). See Labor 
Condition Applications and Requirements for Employers Using Nonimmigrants on H-lB Visas in Specialty Occupations 
and as Fashion Models; Labor Cetiification Process for Permanent Employment of Aliens in the United States, 65 Fed. 
Reg. 80,110, 80, 110-11 (proposed Dec. 20, 2000) (to be codified at 20 C.F.R. pts. 655-56) (indicating that the wage 
protections in the Act seek "to protect U.S. workers' wages and eliminate any economic incentive or advantage in hiring 
temporary foreign workers" and that this "process of protecting U.S. workers begins with [the filing of an LCA] with 
[DOL]."). It also serves to protect H-lB workers from wage abuses. While DOL is the agency that certifies LCA 
applications before they are submitted to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), DOL regulations note that 
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (i.e., its immigration benefits branch, USCIS) is the department responsible 
for determining whether the content of an LCA filed for a particular Form I-129 actually supports that petition. See 
20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b ). The regulation at 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b) requires that USCIS ensure that "the petition is supported 
by an LCA which corresponds with the petition .... " 
IX See 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b) ("DHS determines whether the petition is supported by an LCA which corresponds with the 
petition .... "). See also Matter ofSimeio Solutions, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 546 n.6 (AAO 2015). 
19 See section 212(n)(l) of the Act. 
5 
determine whether the attestations and content of an LCA correspond to and support the H-IB visa 
petition. 20 
It is important to emphasize that if the duties of a proffered position involve more than one related 
occupational category (i.e., "Chief Executive Officers" and "General and Operations Managers"), the 
DOL's "Prevailing Wage Dete1mination Policy Guidance" states that the employer "should default 
directly to the relevant O*NET-SOC occupational code for the highest paying occupation." 21 As 
discussed above, the evidence strongly suggests the proffered position should properly be categorized 
as a "Chief Executive Officer" on the certified LCA 22 and such an occupation requires a significantly 
higher wage. A "Chief Executive Officer," SOC code 11-1011, requires an annual wage of$282,942 
at the location inl I Massachusetts and $267,613 at the location inl I Rhode 
Island at the wage level designated on the LCA. Although the position may include a few general and 
operations managers duties, and a few duties that are common to both occupations, 23 the record does 
not include a sufficiently detailed description to conclude that more likely than not the Beneficiary 
will be employed in a "General and Operations Managers" occupation, rather than that of the "Chief 
Executive Officer," or some other occupation. 
The Petitioner has not provided the necessary consistent, probative evidence establishing the 
substantive nature of the proffered position. The descriptions do not establish the substantive nature 
of the proffered position's duties and cast significant doubt that the Petitioner properly designated the 
position on the certified LCA. Without meaningful descriptions, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
that performing the broadly described duties would require the theoretical and practical application of 
highly specialized knowledge and attainment of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or 
its equivalent. 
B. Minimum Requirements 
To perform the generally described duties, the Petitioner initially claims that the position requires "at 
least a bachelor's degree or its equivalent in Business Administration with a curriculum focusing on 
operations and talent management or a closely related specialty field." 24 The Petitioner repeats this 
claim in response to the Director's RFE. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that "[ s ]everal of the 
products that [the Petitioner] manufactures requires [sic] a sound knowledge of science and 
technology" and that "for commercialization of products, it is pertinent to have a thorough knowledge 
of business strategy, operations and business negotiation skills." The Petitioner also claims that the 
20 Simeio Solutions, 26 l&N Dec. at 546 n.6. 
21 See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. 
Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009); http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHCGuidance _Revised_ 11 _ 2009.pdf 
22 Again, the Petitioner's desc1iption of the core duties of the position appear more likely to fall within the parameters of 
a chief executive officer position, the Petitioner's incorporating documents identify the Beneficiary as its chief executive 
officer, and its website identifies the Beneficiary as its chief executive officer. 
23 If the Beneficiary will be performing the duties of a business operations manager, and also conducting the duties of a 
chief executive officer, again the Petitioner must designate the higher-paying occupation on the LCA. 
24 We note here that the Beneficiary has a master's degree in business administration but that neither the diploma nor the 
transcript indicates that the curriculum was focused on operations and talent management. Nor does the Petitioner offer 
persuasive argument that the Beneficiary's curriculum included a concentration in either of these areas rather than 
providing a general business background. 
6 
Beneficiary's "day[-]to[-]day work involves all these duties as he holds a Bachelorette [sic] in Science 
in Physics, Chemistry and a Masters degree in Business Administration." 25 
The Petitioner's new requirements offered for the first time on appeal create additional ambiguity in 
the record regarding the Petitioner's actual requirements to perform the duties it generally described. 
We also observe that a beneficia1y's educational background and experience do not establish that the 
duties of a particular position comprise the duties of a specialty occupation. The test to establish a 
position as a specialty occupation is not the skill set or education of a proposed beneficiary, but 
whether the position itself qualifies as a specialty occupation. 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 I&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]."). Additionally, the Petitioner's statement of what appears to be new requirements to 
perform the duties of the position, raises further doubts about the substantive nature of the proposed 
position. 
The Petitioner asserts that the Director did not properly consider the position evaluation prepared by 
.__ _______ ____., Adjunct Professor, I I- Cybersecurity & lnfmmation 
Assurance Department. We reviewed the position evaluation for insight into the nature of the proposed 
position and the requirements to perform the duties of the position. First, we note thatl ~ 
repeated the Petitioner's description of duties that was provided in response to the Director's RFE and 
listed the tasks outlined in the O*NET' s summary report for the "General and Operations Managers" 
occupation. I I concluded, without probative analysis, that "it is apparent the [proffered 
position] shares many of the same duties and falls under this occupational category [referring to SOC 
code 11-1021]. 26 I le did not address alternative explanations and omitted any discussion of 
what appears to be the Beneficiary's current status as the Petitioner's chief executive officer, that the 
general description also shares many of the duties for the O*NET' s "Chief Executive Officers" 
occupation, as well as including duties that appear to be more properly categorized as a "Chief 
Executive Officer" position. 27 A lack of sufficient consideration of alternatives is a basis that can 
adversely affect the evidentiary weight of such an opinion. 28 
25 In a February 20, 2020 letter, the Petitioner adds that during its nine years in business in the early startup stage, the 
Beneficiary is the only suitable person it has found that holds a bachelor's degree in science, specifically in physics and 
chemistry, and a master's degree in business administration as well as the requisite interpersonal and diplomatic skills to 
execute this unique role. The Petitioner, however, offers no evidence that it has ever advertised or otherwise searched for 
someone with similar degrees and skills, rather than simply relying on the Beneficiary, who from the Petitioner's corporate 
records, appears to have been a co-founder of the company in 2009. Moreover, the record must establish that a petitioner's 
stated degree requirement is not a matter of preference for high-caliber candidates but is necessitated instead by 
performance requirements of the position. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387-88 (5th Cir. 2000). The record 
does not establish the essential element that the generally described duties actually require a bachelor's degree or higher 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
26 Although I I indicates he spoke with the Petitioner's president/co-founder and the Beneficiaiy regarding the 
proposed position, he does not indicate he is aware of the Petitioner's website and the Beneficiaiy's current position listed 
there. 
27 See Claar v. Burlington N.R.R., 29 F.3d 499, 502 (9th Cir. 1994). 
28 See Ambrosini v. Labarraque, 101 F.3d 129, 140 (D.C. Cir. 1996). 
7 
.__ ___ _.~lso concludes throughout his opinion that a bachelor's degree or its equivalent in business 
administration with a curriculum focusing on operations and talent management or a closely related 
specialty field is required to perform the duties of the position. He lists 11 courses he claims are 
generally required in a business administration major and identifies 3 courses, operations management, 
business strategy, and business management, as specific courses that prepare an individual to perform the 
duties of the proffered position. We understand that an individual who takes one or several of these 
courses may be prepared to perf mm the duties of this position; again however, the test to establish a 
position as a specialty occupation is not the skill set or education of a proposed beneficiary, but 
whether the position itself qualifies as a specialty occupation. Thus, whether or not the Beneficiary in 
this case has completed a specialized course of study directly related to the proffered position is 
irrelevant to the issue of whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, i.e., whether 
the duties of the proffered position require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly 
specialized knowledge and the attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent as required by section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). Put simply, stating 
that a person with a bachelor's degree in business administration could perform the duties of the 
proffered position is not the same as stating that such a degree is required to perform those duties. 
Moreover, although! I states that his opinion is based, in part, on following current trends in 
his academic field and experience mentoring students and graduates in pursuit of job opportunities, he 
does not discuss the principles and methods he used and he does not offer a discussion of how he applied 
such principles and methods in reaching his conclusion.I I does not indicate he has published, 
conducted research, run surveys, or engaged in any enterprise or employment regarding the minimum 
education requirements for positions such as the position proffered here. He also does not discuss relevant 
research, studies, or authoritative publications, other than the O*NET,29 he utilized as part of his review 
and foundation for his opinion. We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the 
Petitioner as advisory. 30 In this matter,I I's evaluation is insufficient to overcome the lack of 
consistent information regarding the proposed position. His evaluation does not assist in establishing 
the position's substantive nature and does little to support a claim that the proposed position requires 
a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
Without more specific and persuasive evidence regarding the nature of the proffered position's duties, 
and in the absence of a sufficiently reliable job description, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the Beneficiary. 31 This, therefore, precludes 
29 The DOL's O*NET Online summary report for "General and Operations Managers" provides general information 
regarding the occupation; but is insufficient to establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation 
normally requiring at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. O*NET OnLine does not state a 
requirement for a bachelor's degree for this occupation, rather, it assigns this occupation a Job Zone "Four" rating, which 
groups it among occupations for which "most ... require a four-year bachelor's degree, but some do not." Notably, 
O*NET OnLine does not indicate that four-year bachelor's degrees that may be required by Job Zone Four occupations 
must be in a specific specialty directly related to the occupation. Thus, at most, O*Net suggests that a bachelor's degree 
may be required, which is insufficient to establish a position is a specialty occupation. For additional information, see the 
O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/help/online/svp. 
30 However, where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we are not required to 
accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Matter of Caron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). 
31 Because the Petitioner has not established the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the Beneficiary, it has 
not demonstrated that the proffered position meets the statutory definition of a specialty occupation. See Section 2 l 4(i)(l) 
8 
analysis of whether the proffered position satisfies any criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). The 
record also does not demonstrate that performing the general duties described would require the 
theoretical and practical application of highly specialized knowledge and attainment of at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. See section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty occupation). For the reasons discussed above, we also 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the submitted LCA cmTesponds to and suppmts 
the petition. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
of the Act. Therefore, further discussion of the issues raised on appeal regarding whether the Petitioner satisfies any 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) is not necessa1y. 
9