dismissed H-1B Case: Hospitality Management

(b)(6)
DATE: JUN 1 9 2015 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION RECEIPT#: 
U.S. Department of Homeland St·curity 
U.S. Citi1.enship and Immigration Servi~:c: 
Administrative Appeals Oni~.:.: 
20 Massadmsdls Ave .. N.W .. MS 2090 
Washington. DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section lOI(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(I5)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. 
If you believe we incorrectly decided your case, you may file a motion requesting us to reconsider our 
decision and/or reopen the proceeding. The requirements for motions are located at 8 C.F.R. § I 03.5. 
Motions must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form 1-2908) within JJ days of the date of this 
decision. The Form I-290B web page (www.uscis.gov/i-290b) contains the latest information on fee, filing 
location, and other requirements. Please do not mail any motions directly to the AAO. 
Thank you, 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECIS!Of\. 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. 
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
I. PROCEDURALBACKGROUND 
On the Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129), the petitioner describes itself as a 
business established in engaged in "Hospitality Management & Ownership." fn order to 
employ the beneficiary in what it designates as a part-time "International Business Analyst" 
position, the petitioner seeks to classify him as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation 
pursuant to section IOI(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). 
The Director denied the petition, finding the evidence insufficient to establish that the proffered 
position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation position. On appeal, the petitioner 
asserts that the Director's basis for denial was erroneous and contends that it satisfied all evidentiary 
requirements. 
The record of proceeding before us contains: (l) the petitioner's Form I-129 and the supporting 
documentation filed with it; (2) the service center's request for additional evidence (RFE); (3) the 
petitioner's response to the RFE; (4) the Director's denial letter; and (5) the Form 1-2908 and the 
petitioner's submissions on appeal. We reviewed the record in its entirety before issuing our 
decision.
1 
For the reasons that will be discussed below, we agree with the Director's decision that the petitioner 
has not established eligibility for the benefit sought. Accordingly, the Director's decision will not be 
disturbed. The appeal will be dismissed. 
II. THE PROFFERED POSITION 
The petitioner claims in the Labor Condition Application (LCA) submitted to support the visa 
petition that the proffered position corresponds to Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 
and title 13-1111, Management Analysts, from the Occupational Information Network (O*N ET). 
The LCA further states that the proffered position is a wage Level I, entry-level, position.2 
An addendum to the Form I-129 provided the following description of the duties of the proffered 
position [bullet points added for clarity]: 
1 We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See So/tune v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). 
See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Pofi9; Guidance, 
Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/N PWHC _ Guidance_Revised_l I_ 2009.pdf. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECIS!Ol'v 
Page 3 
• Conduct comprehensive analysis of the various aspects of the Petitioner entity to determine 
suitability for expanding operations overseas; 
• Identify suitable territories within India, Sri Lanka and Nepal for conducive expansion of 
petitioner's business; 
• Identify issues related to business laws/systems/environment between US and overseas and 
prepare comparative charts to identify what challenges will have to be dealt with while 
expanding overseas; 
• Gather and organize comprehensive data on each target territory in order to identify the 
problems areas and other issues which need to overcome in order to expand internationally; 
• Analyze data so gathered to come up with the effective solutions suitable to the budgetary 
limits of the Petitioner to overcome such challenges identified; 
• Develop and prepare proposals involving cost, and staffing requirements for Petitioner once 
the business in overseas is identified to be taken over; 
• Assist the Petitioner in acquisition of the business in foreign territory and prepare detailed 
analysis of such acquisition in order to have the road map; 
• Make recommendations in order to develop new or abolish old management systems and 
replace it with newer systems/techniques aiming to be cost effective in the long run; 
• Develop Management manuals for foreign acquired businesses to train the staff in best 
management systems as exists in US; 
• Prepare comparative analysis as to the differences in operating business internationally and 
in US to facilitate transition; and 
• Advise the executive on any issues pertaining to investment or other management related 
areas. 
In a letter dated July 24, 2014, signing as the petitioner's president, reiterated that duty 
description and stated that the "offered position is complex enough and requires specialized 
knowledge and a minimum of a bachelor's degree ." 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner submitted an evaluation of the pos1t1on of [nternational 
Business Analyst by Ph.D., Chair, Management Department, 
School of Business, which indicates that "at least an undergraduate degree in Business 
Administration with a concentration in Management and International Business" is required tor the 
proffered position. 
The petitioner also explained in response to the RFE that it is the owner of a and 
managing partner of another and a . The petitioner indicated that it is in need 
of an international business analyst because it is "now looking into international expansion of its 
business." 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DEC/SIO!' 
Page 4 
III. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
The issue is whether the petitioner has provided sufficient evidence to establish that it will employ 
the beneficiary in a specialty occupation position. 
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. 
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 specitic 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 m1111mum 
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 nom1ally 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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DEC/S/01\ 
Page 5 
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. Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989); Maller 
of W-F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503 (8IA 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. 
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. ChertojJ; 484 F.3d 139, 147 (lst 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, USCIS regularly approves H-1 8 petitions for qualified aliens 
who are to be employed as engineers, computer scientists, certified public accountants, college 
professors, and other such occupations. These professions, for which petitioners have regularly 
been able to establish a minimum entry requirement in the United States of a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
particular position, fairly represent the types of specialty occupations that Congress contemplated 
when it created the H-18 visa category. 
To determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCIS does not simply 
rely on a position's title. The specific duties of the proffered position, combined with the nature of 
the petitioning entity's business operations, are factors to be considered. USCIS must examine the 
ultimate employment of the alien, and detem1ine whether the position qualities as a specialty 
occupation. See generally Defensor v. Afeissner, 201 F. 3d 384. The critical element is not the title 
of the position nor an employer's self-imposed standards, but whether the position actually requires 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty as the minimum for entry 
into the occupation, as required by the Act. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECIS/01\ 
Page 6 
B. Analysis 
We find that despite the Director's request for additional evidence demonstrating that the proffered 
position is a specialty occupation under any criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). the record is 
devoid of substantial documentary evidence as to the specific duties of the proffered position. We 
note that nearly all of the stated duties of the proffered position are directly related to the petitioner's 
claimed international investment and acquisition initiatives; for example, the beneficiary's duties 
include "identify[ing] suitable territories within India, Sri Lanka and Nepal," "identify[ing] issues 
related to business laws/systems/environment between US and overseas," and "assist[ing] the Petitioner 
in acquisition ofthe business in foreign territory." However, the record is devoid of any corroborative 
evidence that the petitioner conducts business overseas or has concrete plans to expand overseas. 
Given the lack of detail and corroborating evidence, we cannot determine that the proffered position 
substantially reflects the duties of an international business analyst. 
Thus, the record, as constituted, precludes a determination that the duties of the proffered position are 
those of an international business analyst. Thus, there is insufficient basis upon which it can be 
determined that the petitioner has demonstrated a need for an international business analyst and that the 
beneficiary will be performing the claimed duties of an international business analyst. Going on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of 
proof in these proceedings. Malter q{Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Maller 
ofTreasure Craft qfCal~{ornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm'r 1972)). Furthermore, doubt cast on 
any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and 
sufficiency ofthe remaining evidence offered in support ofthe visa petition. Malter ofHo, 19 I&N 
Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iv) provides that "[a]n H-1 B petition involving a specialty 
occupation shall be accompanied by [d]ocumentation ... or any other required evidence sufficient 
to establish ... that the services the beneficiary is to perform are in a specialty occupation." Failure 
to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying 
the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l4). Furthermore, there must be sufficient, corroborating evidence 
in the record that demonstrates not only actual, non-speculative employment for the beneficiary, but 
also enough details and specificity to establish that the work the beneficiary will perform for the 
petitioner will more likely than not be in a specialty occupation. While the petitioner provides a 
description of the proffered position's claimed duties, there is insufficient evidence in the record that 
the petitioner, a small ten-employee firm that operates motels, requires an international business 
analyst requiring the "theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge" to perform these claimed duties. See INA § 214(i)( 1 ). 
users regulations affirmatively require a petitioner to establish eligibility for the benefit it is 
seeking at the time the petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(1) and 103.2(b)(12). The failure to 
establish the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the beneficiary precludes a finding 
that the proffered position is a specialty occupation under any criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), because it is the substantive nature ofthat work that determines (1) the normal 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECIS!Otv 
Page 7 
mmmmm educational requirement for 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. 
As the evidence of record is devoid of sufficient, credible evidence of the actual job duties the 
beneficiary will perform, it does not demonstrate that the proffered position more likely than not 
requires a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent as a minimum for entry. 
See rNA § 214(i)(l ). Thus, the petitioner has not met its burden of proof in this regard, and, therefore, 
it cannot be found that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The appeal will be 
dismissed and the petition denied for this reason. 
Nevertheless, assuming, for the sake of argument that the proffered duties as described by the 
petitioner would in fact be the duties to be perfom1ed by the beneficiary, we will nevertheless 
analyze them and the evidence of record to determine whether the proffered position as described 
would qualify as a specialty occupation. 
A baccalaureate or higher degree in a .spec[fic .specialty, or its equivalent, is 
normally the minimum requirement/or entry into the particular position 
We will first discuss the record of proceeding in relation 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. 
We recognize the U.S . Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook), cited 
by the petitioner, as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of the wide 
variety of occupations that it addresses. 3 The Handbook states the following about the educational 
requirements of management analyst positions: 
A bachelor's degree is the typical entry-level requirement for management analysts. 
However, some employers prefer to hire candidates who have a master's degree in 
business administration (MBA). 
Few colleges and universities offer formal programs in management consulting. 
However, many fields of study provide a suitable education because of the range of 
areas that management analysts address . Common fields of study include business, 
management , economics, political science and government , accounting , finance, 
marketing, psychology , computer and information science, and English. 
The Handbook , which is available in printed form, may also be accessed on the Internet, at 
http ://www.bls.gov /oco /. Our references to the Handbook are to the 2014-2015 edition available online. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DEC!S!Olv 
Page 8 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., 
"Management Analysts," http:/ /www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-tinancial/management-analysts.htm# 
tab-4 (last visited June 18, 20 15). 
When reviewing the Handbook, we must note that the petitioner designated the wage level of the 
proffered position as a Level I position on the LCA. This designation is indicative of a 
comparatively low, entry-level position relative to others within the occupation and signifies that the 
beneficiary is only expected to possess a basic understanding of the occupation and carries 
expectations that the beneficiary perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of 
judgment; that he would be closely supervised; that his work would be closely monitored and 
reviewed for accuracy; and that he would receive specitic instructions on required tasks and 
expected results. 4 Furthermore , DOL guidance indicates that a Level I designation is appropriate for 
a position as a research fellow , a worker in training, or an intern. 
While the Handbook indicates that a bachelor's degree is the typical entry-level requirement for 
management analysts, it does not indicate that a degree in a spec{fic specialty is normally the 
minimum requirement for entry into these positions. The Handbook reports that many fields of 
study provide a suitable education for management analysts because management analysts address a 
range of areas . Common areas of study identified by the Handbook for management analysts 
include business, management, economics, political science and government, accounting, finance, 
marketing , psychology, computer and information science , and English. There is insufficient 
evidence in the record establishing that these fields encompass a specific specialty. 
ln general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g ., chemistry and biochemistry, a minimum 
of a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty is recognized as satisfying the "degree in 
the specific specialty" requirement of section 214(i)( 1 )(B) of the Act. In such a case , the required 
"body of highly specialized knowledge" would essentially be the same. Since there must be a close 
correlation between the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" and the position, a 
minimum entry requirement of a degree in disparate fields, such as finance and English, would not 
meet the statutory requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)," 
unless the petitioner establishes how each field is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of 
the particular position such that the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" is essentially 
an amalgamation of these different specialties. Section 214(i)(l)(B) ofthe Act (emphasis added). 
Furthermore, the Handbook indicates that a common field of study for this occupation is business 
and that some employers prefer to hire candidates who have an advanced degree in business 
4 See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, 
Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), availahle at 
http://www.foreignlaborcert .doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC _ Guidance_Revised _II_ 2009.pdf. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DEC '/S/01\ 
Page 9 
administration.
5 
Although a general-purpose bachelor's or master's degree, such as a degree in 
business or business administration, may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, the 
acceptance of such a degree, without more, will not justify a finding that a particular position 
qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Cherto,jj; 484 F.3d 
139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007). 6 Therefore, the Handbook's recognition that a general, non-specialty 
degree in business/business administration is sufticient for entry into the occupation strongly 
suggests that a bachelor's or higher degree in a .~pecific specialty is not normally the minimum entry 
requirement for this occupation. Accordingly, as the Handbook indicates that entry into the 
management analyst occupation does not normally require a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, the Handbook does not support the proffered position as being a specialty 
occupation. Even if it did, the record lacks sufficient evidence to supp01i a finding that the 
particular position proffered here (an entry-level position in comparison to others within the 
occupation), would normally have such a minimum, specialty degree requirement or its equivalent. 
It is incumbent upon the petitioner to provide persuasive evidence that the proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation under this criterion, notwithstanding the absence of the 
Handbook's support on the issue. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iv) provides that "[a]n H­
I B petition involving a specialty occupation shall be accompanied by [ d]ocumentation ... or any 
other required evidence sufficient to establish ... that the services the beneficiary is to perform are 
in a specialty occupation." Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter (~l Soffici, 22 
I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter a./Treasure Craji o(Cali/(Jrnia, 14 I&N Dec. 190). 
As previously mentioned, the petitioner submitted an advisory opinion letter from 
, Ph.D., Chair, Management Department, School of Business, 
which indicates that "at least an undergraduate degree in Business Administration with a 
concentration in Management and International Business" is required for the proffered position. We 
5 We note that a preference for a candidate with a master's degree in business administration is obviously not 
an indication of a requirement for the occupation. 
6 Specifically, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit explained in Royal Siam that: 
!d. 
[t]he courts and the agency consistently have stated that, although a general-purpose 
bachelor's degree, such as a business administration degree, may be a legitimate prerequisite 
for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify the granting 
of a petition for an H-1 8 specialty occupation visa. See, e.g., Tapis lnt'l v. INS, 94 F.Supp.2d 
172, 175-76 (D.Mass.2000); Shanti, 36 F. Supp.2d at 1164-66; c.f ivfatler of' Michael Hertz 
Assocs., 19 I & N Dec. 558, 560 ([Comm'r] 1988) (providing frequently cited analysis in 
connection with a conceptually similar provision). This is as it should be: elsewise, an 
employer could ensure the granting of a specialty occupation visa petition by the simple 
expedient of creating a generic (and essentially artificial) degree requirement. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DEC/S/0!1 
Page I 0 
have reviewed the opinion letter in its entirety. However, as discussed below, the letter from Dr. 
is not persuasive in establishing the proffered position as a specialty occupation position. 
Specifically, the content of the professor's letter does not demonstrate that his opinion is based upon 
sufficient information about the particular position at issue . First, the letter reveals that the 
professor's knowledge of the position is limited to the duties submitted by the petitioner to USCIS . 
Second, the professor does not relate any personal observations of those operations or of the work 
that the beneficiary would perform, nor does he state that that he has reviewed any projects or work 
products related to the proffered position. Third, the professor's opinion does not relate his 
conclusions to specific, concrete aspects of this petitioner's business operations to demonstrate a 
sound factual basis for his conclusions about the educational requirements for the particular position 
here at issue. 
We conclude that the conclusions reached by Dr. lack the requisite specificity and detail 
and are not supported by independent , o~jective evidence demonstrating the manner in which he 
reached his conclusions. There is an inadequate factual foundation established to support the 
opinion and we find that the opinion is not m accord with other information in the record. 
Therefore, we find that the letter from Or. does not establish that the proffered position is 
a specialty occupation. As such, neither Dr. findings nor his ultimate conclusions are 
worthy of any deference, and his opinion letter is not probative evidence towards satisfying any 
criterion of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 2l4.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
We may, in our discretion , use as advisory opinion statements submitted as expert testimony . 
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. lvfatter ol Caron 
International, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988) . As a reasonable exercise of our discretion, we 
discount the advisory opinion letter as not probative of any criterion of 8 C.F.R . 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). 
In the instant case , the evidence of record does not establish that the proffered position falls under an 
occupational category for which the Handbook, or other reliable and authoritative source, indicates 
that there is a standard , minimum entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent. Furthermore, the duties and requirements of the proffered position as 
described in the record of proceeding and as initially stated by the petitioner do not indicate that the 
position is one for which a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent is 
normally the minimum requirement for entry. On the contrary, and as noted above, the petitioner's 
initial attestations regarding the requirements for the position indic ate at most that a general 
bachelor's degree may be required but not one in a specific specialty or its equivalent. Thus, the 
evidence ofrecord does not satisfy the first criterion of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
(b)(6)
Page II 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISIO J\ 
The requirement ~fa baccalaureate or higher degree in a spec(fic .~pecialty, 
or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel 
positions among similar organizations 
Next, we will review the record regarding the first of the two alternative prongs of 8 C.F.R . 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). This prong alternatively calls for a petitioner to establish that a requirement 
of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common tor positions 
that are: (1) in the petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered position, and also (3) located in 
organizations that are similar to the petitioner. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement , factors often considered by 
USCIS include: \\rhether 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 finns ''routinely employ and 
recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d J 151, 1165 (D. Minn. 1999) 
(quoting Hird!Blaker Corp. v. Sava. 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D .N.Y . 1989)). 
Here and as already discussed, the petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for 
which the Handbook (or 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. Also, there are no submissions from the industry's 
professional association indicating that it has made a degree a minimum entry requirement. 
Furthermore, the petitioner did not submit any letters or affidavits from similar firms or individuals 
in the petitioner's industry attesting that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed 
indi victuals." 
Thus, the evidence of record does not establish that a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to positions parallel positions with organizations 
that are in the petitioner's industry and otherwise similar to the petitioner. The evidence does not, 
therefore, satisfy the criterion of the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. ~ 2l4.2(h)( 4 )(ii i)(A)(2). 
The particular position is so complex or unique that it can be pe~jiJrmed only hy 
an individual with a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
spec{jic !Jpecialty, or its equivalent 
The evidence of record also does not satisfy the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2), which provides that "an employer may show that its particular position is so 
complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree." A review of the 
record indicates that the evidence of record does not credibly demonstrate that the duties that 
comprise the proffered position entail such complexity or uniqueness as to constitute a position so 
complex or unique that it can be performed only by a person with at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty . 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISIOA 
Page 12 
Specifically, the evidence of record does not demonstrate how the duties that collectively constitute 
the proffered position require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly 
specialized knowledge such that a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, is required to perform them. 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 of the proffered position. While a few related courses 
may be beneficial, or even required, in performing certain duties of the proffered position, the 
evidence of record does not demonstrate 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 particular position here. 
Further, as was also noted above, the LCA submitted in support of the visa petition is approved for a 
wage Level I management analyst, an indication that the proffered position is an entry-level position 
for an employee who has only a basic understanding of management analysis. 7 This does not 
support the proposition that the proffered position is so complex or unique that it can only be 
performed by a person with a specific bachelor's degree, especially as the Handbook suggests that 
some management analyst positions do not require such a degree. 
Therefore, the evidence of record does not establish that this position is significantly different from 
other positions in the occupation such that it refutes the Handbook's information to the effect that 
there is a spectrum of degrees acceptable for such positions, including degrees not in a specific 
specialty. In other words, the record lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish the 
proffered position as unique from or more complex than positions that can be performed by persons 
without at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. As the petitioner did not 
demonstrate how the proffered position is so complex or unique relative to other positions within the 
same occupational category that do not require at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty 
or its equivalent for entry into the occupation in the United States, it cannot be concluded that the 
petitioner has satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
7 The issue here is that the petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level posttton 
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)( I) of the Act. 
(b)(6)
Page 13 
NON-PRECEDENT DECJS/01\ 
The employer normally requires a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
.\pec(fic specialty, or its equivalenl, .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 usually review the petitioner's past recruiting and hiring practices, as well as 
information regarding employees who previously held the position. 
The petitioner has not expressly asserted eligibility nor submitted evidence under this criterion. 
Further, in a letter dated July 28,2014, counsel stated that the proffered position is a new position. 
While a first-time hiring for a position is certainly not a basis for precluding a position from 
recognition as a specialty occupation, it is unclear how an employer that has never recruited and 
hired for the position would be able to satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3), 
which requires a demonstration that it normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a speci fie 
specialty or its equivalent for the position. We cannot conclude that the petitioner has satisfied the 
third criterion of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
While a petitioner may believe or otherwise assert that a proffered position requires a specific 
degree, that opinion alone without corroborating evidence cannot establish the position as a 
specialty occupation. Were USClS 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 Delensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d at 388. In other 
words, if a petitioner's stated degree requirement is only designed to artiticially meet the standards 
for an H-1 B 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)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term 
"specialty occupation"). 
The nature o.fthe .specific duties is so .1pecialized and complex !hal know/e((f!,e 
required to perform the duties is usually as·sociated with the attainmenl qla 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a .specific .specialty, or its equivalent 
Finally, the petitioner has not satisfied the fourth criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A), which is 
reserved for positions with specific duties so specialized and complex that their performance 
requires knowledge that is usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Again, relative specialization and complexity have not been 
sufficiently developed by the petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. The duties of the 
proffered position, such as conducting analyses to determine whether the petitioner should expand 
its operations to other countries, identifying suitable foreign locations for expansion, identifying 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECIS/01\ 
Page 14 
issues that will be encountered in such a business expansion into other countries, assisting in the 
acquisition of foreign businesses, etc., contain insufficient indication of a nature so specialized and 
complex that they require knowledge usually associated with attainment of a minimum of a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
In other words, the proposed duties have not been described with sufficient specificity to show that 
they are more specialized and complex than management analyst positions that are not usually 
associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
Overall, the evidence of record is inadequate to establish that the duties of the pos1t10n are so 
specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with 
the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The 
evidence of record does not, therefore, satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(-I). 
Finally, on appeal, the petitioner cites to Tapis· Int'l v. INS, 94 F. Supp. 2d 172 (D. Mass. 2000) and 
Residential Fin. Corp. v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 
2012). 
We note that in Tapis lnt'l v. INS, the U.S. district court found that while the former Immigration 
and Naturalization Service (INS) was reasonable in requiring a bachelor's degree in a specific field, 
it abused its discretion by ignoring the portion of the regulations that allows for the equivalent of a 
specialized baccalaureate degree. According to the U.S. district court, INS's interpretation was not 
reasonable because then H-1B visas would only be available in fields where a specific degree was 
offered, ignoring the statutory definition allowing for "various combinations of academic and 
experience based training.'' Tapis lnt'l v. INS, 94 F. Supp. 2d at 176. The court elaborated that "[i]n 
fields where no specifically tailored baccalaureate program exists, the only possible way to achieve 
something equivalent is by studying a related field (or fields) and then obtaining specialized 
experience." !d. at 177. 
We agree with the district court judge in Tapis lnt'l v. INS, that in satisfying the specialty occupation 
requirements, both the Act and the regulations require a bachelor's degree in a specitic specialty or 
its equivalent, and that this language indicates that the degree does not have to be a degree in a 
single specitic specialty. In general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry and 
biochemistry, a minimum of a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty is recognized 
as satisfying the "degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)" requirement of section 
214(i)(l)(B) of the Act. In such a case, the required "body ofhighly specialized knowledge" would 
essentially be the same. Since there must be a close correlation between the required "body of 
highly specialized knowledge" and the position, however, a minimum entry requirement of a degree 
in disparate fields, such as philosophy and engineering, would not meet the statutory requirement 
that the degree be "in !he specific specialty (or its equival'ent)," unless the petitioner establishes how 
each field is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position such that the 
required body of highly specialized knowledge is essentially an amalgamation of these different 
specialties. Section 214(i)(l )(B) (emphasis added). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECJS/0!1 
Page 15 
Moreover, we also agree that, if the requirements to perform the duties and job responsibilities of a 
proffered position are a combination of a general bachelor's degree and experience such that the 
standards at both section 214(i)( 1 )(A) and (B) of the Act have been satisfied, then the proffered 
position may qualify as a specialty occupation. We do not find, however, that the U.S. district court 
is stating that any position can qualify as a specialty occupation based solely on the claimed 
requirements of a petitioner. 
Instead, USers must examine the actual employment requirements, and, on the basis of that 
examination, determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. S'ee geneml/y 
Defensor v. Meissner, 20 l 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 a 
specific specialty as the minimum for entry into the occupation as required by the Act. 
Jn addition, the district court judge does not state in Tapis lnt'l v. INS that, simply because there is 
no specialty degree requirement for entry into a particular position in a given occupational category, 
users must recognize such a position as a specialty occupation if the beneficiary has the equivalent 
of a bachelor's degree in that field. [n other words, we do not tind that Tapis Int'l v. INS stands for 
either (l) that a specialty occupation is determined by the qualifications of the beneficiary being 
petitioned to perform it; or (2) that a position may qualify as a specialty occupation even when there 
is no specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry into a particular position in a given 
occupational category. 
First, USers cannot determine if a particular job is a specialty occupation based on the 
qualifications of the beneficiary. A beneficiary's credentials to perform a particular job are relevant 
only when the job is first found to qualify as a specialty occupation. users is required instead to 
follow long-standing legal standards and determine first, whether the proffered position qualifies as 
a specialty occupation, and second, whether an alien beneficiary was qualitied tor the position at the 
time the nonimmigrant visa petition was filed. C.f Matter of Michael Hertz Assoc., !9 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]."). 
Second, 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." 56 Fed. Reg. 61111, 61112 (Dec. 2, 1991). 
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." !d. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DEC/S/0/1, 
Page 16 
We also note that the petitioner cites to Residential Fin. Corp. v. U.S Citizenship & Inunigration 
Services, for the proposition that '"[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is what is 
important. Diplomas rarely come bearing occupation-specific majors. What is required is an 
occupation that requires highly specialized knowledge and a prospective employee who has attained 
the credentialing indicating possession of that knowledge."' 
We agree with the aforementioned proposition that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree 
is what is important." Again, in general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry 
and biochemistry, a minimum of a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty is 
recognized as satisfying the "degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)" requirement of 
section 214(i)(1)(B) of the Act. ln such a case, the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" 
would essentially be the same. We again note that since there must be a close correlation between 
the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" and the position, however , a minimum entry 
requirement of a degree in two disparate fields , such as philosophy and engineering, would not meet 
the statutory requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)," unless the 
petitioner establishes how each field is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
particular position such that the required body of highly specialized knowledge is essentially an 
amalgamation ofthese different specialties. Section 214(i)(I)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). For 
the aforementioned reasons, however, the petitioner has not met its burden to establish that the 
particular position offered in this matter requires a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, directly related to its duties in order to perform those tasks. 
In any event, the petitioner has furnished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition 
are analogous to those in Tapis Int'l v. INS and Residential Fin. Corp. v. U.S. Citizenship & 
Immigration Services. 8 We also note that, in contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case 
law of a United States circuit court, we are not bound to follow the published decision of a United 
States district court in matters arising even within the same district. See Mafler ol K-S-, 20 l&N 
Dec. 715 (BIA 1993). Although the reasoning underlying a district judge's decision will be given 
due consideration when it is properly before us, the analysis does not have to be followed as a 
matter oflaw. /d. at 719. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The petitioner has not satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) and, therefore, it 
cannot be found that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The appeal will be 
dismissed and the petition denied for this reason. 
8 It is noted that the district judge's decision in that case appears to have been based largely on the many 
factual errors made by the service center in its decision denying the petition. We further note that the service 
center director's decision was not appealed to us. Based on the district court's findings and description of the 
record, if that matter had first been appealed through the available administrative process, we may very well 
have remanded the matter to the service center for a new decision for many of the same reasons a11iculated by 
the district court if these errors could not have been remedied by us in our de novo review of the matter. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DEC/S/011 
Page 17 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter olOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here , that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.