dismissed H-1B Case: Hospitality

MATTER OF H-1-A-S- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 30, 2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a hotel, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "general manager" under the 
H-1B 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)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-1B 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 of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had 
not established that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Director's decision was in 
error. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. 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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
Matter of H-1-A-S- Inc. 
(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. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We have consistently interpreted the term "degree" to mean not just 
any baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related. to the 
proposed 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"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
In the support letter filed with the H-1B petition, the Petitioner provided a job description, and stated 
that the position requires a Bachelor's degree in business administration, business management, or 
related fields with report writing, training and monitoring expertise. In response to the Director's 
request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner further elaborated on the Beneficiary's day-to-day 
responsibilities as follows: 
RESPONSIBILITIES % OF TIME ALLOCATED 
Access the inventory and control system, 10% 
take into consideration physical and 
budgetary constraints in making proposals 
for a new or enhanced service and marketing 
strategy, identify and solve a variety of 
marketing and service related problems and 
clarify objectives. 
Supervise the Managers that rup the various 60% 
departments and areas of the Hotel, including 
the Front Desk Manager, 
Banquet/Conference Center Manager, and 
House Keeping Manager, oversees the 
various departmental managers and ensures 
that their departments are running smoothly, 
2 
Matter of H-1-A-S- Inc. 
efficiently and profitably, communicate with 
the managers to plan large events, make 
decisions and develop new management 
plans. 
Monitor the implementation of new policies 10% 
and services, and ensures that company rules 
and procedures are being followed, 
periodically review goal achievements to 
determine areas needing cost reduction and 
program improvement, establish and 
implements departmental policies, goals, 
objectives and procedures. 
Develop, implement and facilitate annual 10% 
marketing plan, review and analyze 
information to develop solutions and 
transform company's requirements to 
specifications for further development and 
expanding market reach. 
Establishes and implements departmental 5% 
policies, goals, objectives and procedures. 
Coordinate marketing efforts, and monitor 5% 
market changes to adjust marketing 
strategies, analyze and propose ways to 
improve the company's structure, efficiency 
and profits. 
III. ANALYSIS 
/ 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 1 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or 
its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 2 
A. First Criterion 
We tum first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which requires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. To inform this inquiry, we recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's 
1 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
2 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 
Matter of H-1-A-S- Inc. 
(DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses? 
On the labor condition application (LCA)4 submitted in support of the H-1B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category for "general and operations 
managers" corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 11-1 021.5 The 
Handbook discusses this occupational category in a subchapter entitled "How to Become a Top 
Executive."6 
The Handbook does not indicate that at least a bachelor's degree in a, spec(fic specialty, or its 
equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation. The Handbook 
indicates that "workers without a college degree may work their way up to higher levels within the 
company to become . . . general managers." It also reports that "[ m ]ost general and operations 
managers hired from outside an organization need lower level supervisory or management 
experience in a related field." Therefore, the Handbook does not indicate that a baccalaureate or 
higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent is necessary for entry into this occupation. 
The provided information regarding the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) summary 
report is also insufficient to establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. O*NET 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." O*NET 
does not indicate that four-year bachelor's degrees required by Job Zone Four occupations must be 
in a specific specialty directly related to the occupation. Further, contrary to the Petitioner's 
3 All of our references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not, however, maintain 'that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant 
information. That is, the occupational category designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the 
general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered position, and USC IS regularly reviews the Handbook on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. To satisfy the first criterion, however, the 
burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position 
would normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
4 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to USCIS to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 8 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 experience and qualifications who are performing the same 
services. See tvfatter ofSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 545-546 (AAO 20 15). 
5 The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level I wage (the lowest of four assignable wage levels). We will 
consider this selection in our analysis of the position. The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" issued by 
the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) provides a description of the wage levels. A Level I wage rate is generally 
appropriate for positions for which the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the 
occupation. This wage rate indicates: (1) that the Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require 
limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that he will be closely supervised and his work closely monitored and reviewed 
for accuracy; and (3) that he will receive specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. 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_ll_2009.pdf 
6 
For more information on this occupational category, see Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational 
Outlook Handbook, Top Executives (20 16-17 ed.). 
4 
Matter of H-1-A-S- Inc. 
assertions on appeal that the position has a specific vocational preparation (SVP) rating of 8 and 
above, the summary report indicates that this occupation is designated as 7 < 8. An SVP rating of 7 
to less than ("<") 8 indicates that the occupation requires "over 2 years up to and including 4 years" 
of training. While the SVP rating indicates the total number of years of vocational preparation 
required for a particular position, it is important to note that it does not describe how those years are 
to be divided among training, formal education, and experience - and it does not specify the 
particular type of degree, if any, that a position would require. 7 
Further, the summary report provides the educational requirements of "respondents," but does not 
account for 100% of the "respondents." The respondents' positions within the occupation are not 
distinguished by career level (e.g., entry-level, mid-level, senior-level). Additionally, the graph in 
the summary report does not indicate that the "education level" for the respondents must be in a 
specific specialty. Further, while the graph indicates that 29% of respondents reported that a 
bachelor's degree is required, the majority of respondents reported that some college (no degree) or a 
high school diploma (or equivalent) is sufficient. Thus, the summary report provides general 
information regarding the occupational category, but it does not indicate that these positions require 
an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 
In response to the RFE and on appeal, the Petitioner repeatedly asserts that a bachelor's degree is 
normally the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. However, a petitioner 
must demonstrate that the proffered position requires a precise and specific course of study that 
r~lates 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. C.f 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-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., 484 F.3d at 147. Therefore, the Pet"itioner'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. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(J). 
B. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two alternative prongs: "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 
7 
For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/help/ 
, online/svp. 
5 
.
Matter of H-1-A-S- Inc. 
individual with a degree[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong 
casts its gaze upon the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
We generally consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there such a common 
degree requirement: 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 establish that such firms "routinely 
employ and recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 
(D. Minn. 1999) (quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp, 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) 
(considering these "factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook, or other authoritative source, reports a 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. Also, there are no submissions from the industry's professional association indicating 
such a degree is a minimum entry requirement for the position. 
As evidence, the Petitioner submitted copies of three job postings for other hotels. While the 
employers appear to be in the same industry, the postings lack sufficient information regarding their 
business operations to conduct a legitimate comparison to the Petitioner. Further, while the postings 
state that they require a bachelor's degree, they do not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent is required. The postings, therefore, do not establish that a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty is common to the industry. Further, unlike the proffered position, the 
positions in NY, and OH, require a minimum of two years of experience as a 
general manager, and the position in CA, requires five to seven years of experience. 
Therefore, the advertised positions appear to be for more senior position than the proffered position, 
and the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the degree requirement is 
common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
The president and owner of the petitioning company, who claims that he owns one other hotel and 
has been in the industry for five years, submitted an affidavit stating that he "know[ s] for a fact that 
this degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions similarly situated." 
However, he did not substantiate his assertion with documentary evidence. Unsupported testimonial 
evidence alone is not sufficient to meet this criterion. Absent additional documentary evidence, the 
Petitioner's affidavit is not sufficient to satisfy the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)(2). 
6 
Matter of H-1-A-S- Inc. 
2. Second Prong 
The Petitioner does not claim and the record does not establish that the Petitioner meets 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. Therefore, we will not address this 
criterion any further. 
C. Third Criterion 
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. 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 actual performance requirements of 
the position. See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. If we were solely limited to reviewing the 
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 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. !d. Evidence provided in 
support of this criterion may include, but is not limited to, documentation regarding the Petitioner's 
past recruitment and hiring practices, as well as information regarding employees who previously 
held the position. 
Although the president and owner of the petitioning company states in his affidavit that he has 
"always made it a point to employ General Managers with a Business Management Degree," he did 
not submit any evidence of previous or current employees in the same position to support his 
claim. Further~ we note that a degree in business management without any specialization is 
insufficient to establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. A petitioner 
must demonstrate that the proffered position requires a precise and specific course of study that 
relates directly and closely to the position in question. 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. C.f Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. at 560. 
While the Petitioner submitted two job postings for "Hotel General Manager" for its location from 
2016, they both state that it requires a bachelor's degree in business administration, business 
management or related field, without further specification. Therefore, they do not establish that the 
Petitioner normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for the 
proffered position, and we cannot find that the Petitioner has met this criterion. 
D. Fourth Criterion 
.
Matter of H-1-A-S- Inc. 
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. 
The Petitioner states that the proffered position "is a senior management position which requires 
experienced management personnel" and contends that "[ c ]ontrary to the assertions of the Service, 
the proffered position is more complex and/or unique than other similar positions within the same 
industry." The Petitioner relies on the job duties of the proffered position and the fact that it is part 
of the chain, but does not distinguish the duties of the proffered position from other 
general manager positions such that it refutes the Handbook's information that workers without a 
college degree may work their way up to higher levels within a company to become executives or 
general managers. 
The Petitioner asserts that 60% of the Beneficiary's duties include "supervis[ing] managers that run 
the various departments and areas of the hotel." In support, the Petitioner submitted an organization 
chart. Notably, while the Petitioner indicates that it has 16 employees, the organization chart 
includes a CEO, general manager (proffered position), director of sales and marketing, area director, 
and five managers of various departments. It follows then that there are only seven employees for 
rooms and housekeeping, food and beverages, event organization, outdoor maintenance, electrician, 
front desk clerks, sales and purchase of hotel supplies, and night auditor. We find that it is 
reasonable to assume that the size of an employer's business has or could have an impact on the 
claimed duties of a particular position. See EG Enters., Inc. v. Dep 't of Homeland Sec., 467 F. Supp. 
2d 728 (E.D. Mich. 2006). The size of a petitioner may be considered as a component of the nature 
of the petitioner's business, as the size impacts upon the actual duties of a particular position. The 
Petitioner has not credibly established that the Beneficiary will spend majority of his time 
supervising managers that run various departments of the hotel. In turn, the Petitioner did not 
establish that the duties of this position are more specialized and complex than general manager 
positions that are not usually assoc,iated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. The Petitioner also has not sufficiently explained how these duties require the theoretical 
and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment of a bachelor's 
or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent). 
More importantly, the Petitioner's statements contradict the evidence in the record, specifically its 
designation of a Level I wage (the lowest of four assignable wage-levels) relative to others within 
the same occupational category.8 The Petitioner has not demonstrated in the record that its proffered 
position is one with specialized and complex duties to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
8 
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, a 
Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty occupation, just as a 
Level IV wage-designation does not definitively establish such a classification. In certain occupations (e.g., doctors or 
8 
Matter of H-1-A-S- Inc. 
The Petitioner also references the Beneficiary's qualifications. However, the qualifications of the 
Beneficiary do not establish whether or not the duties of the position are 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 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not established that the prof(ered position is one with 
duties sufficiently specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)( 4). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of H~I-A-S- Inc., ID# 520883 (AAO June 30, 2017) 
lawyers), a Level I, entry-level position would still require a minimum oJ a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent, for entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designation would not reflect ~hat 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 relevant factor but is not 
itself conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)( I) of the Act. 
9