dismissed H-1B Case: Hotel Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C.G-H-, LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 8, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a hotel business, seeks t,o extend the temporary employment of the Beneficiary as a 
"hotel manager" under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act) § 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The Director, Vermont Service 
Center, denied the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
I. ISSUE 
The issue before us is whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation m 
accordance with the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. 
1 
II. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
A. Legal Framework 
To meet its burden of proof, the Petitioner must establish that the employment it is offering to the 
Beneficiary meets the following statutory and regulatory requirements. 
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: 
1 We reviewed the record in its entirety before issuing our decision. We conduct appellate review on a de novo 
basis. Matter of Simeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542 (AAO 20 15); see also 5 U .S.C. § 557(b) ("On appeal from or 
review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have in making the initial decision except as 
it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, I 002 n.9 (2d Cir. 1989). 
Matter ofC.G-H-, LLC 
Specialty occupation means an occupation which [ (1)] requires theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in fields of human 
endeavor including, but not limited to, architecture, engineering, mathematics, 
physical sciences, social sciences, medicine and health, education, business 
specialties, accounting, law, theology, and the arts, and which [(2)] requires the 
attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as 
a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, a proposed position 
must meet one of the following criteria: 
(I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
(4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
As a threshold issue, it is noted that 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must logically be read together 
with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). In other words, this regulatory 
language must be construed in harmony with the thrust of the related provisions and with the statute 
as a whole. SeeK Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) (holding that construction 
oflanguage which takes into account the design of the statute as a whole is preferred); see also COlT 
Independence Joint Venture v. Fed. Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989); Matter ofW-F-, 
21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). As such, the criteria stated in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) should 
logically be read as being necessary but not necessarily sufficient to meet the statutory and 
regulatory definition of specialty occupation. To otherwise interpret this section as stating the 
necessary and sufficient conditions for meeting the definition of specialty occupation would result in 
particular positions meeting a condition under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory or 
regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). To avoid this 
result, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must therefore be read as providing supplemental criteria that 
must be met in accordance with, and not as alternatives to, the statutory and regulatory definitions of 
specialty occupation. 
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 
2 
Matter ofC.G-H-, LLC 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered position. See 
Royal Siam Corp. v. Cherto.ff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in 
a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular 
position"). Applying this standard, US CIS regularly approves H -1 B petitions for qualified 
individuals who are to be employed as engineers, computer scientists, certified public accountants, 
college professors, and other such occupations. These professions, for which petitioners have 
regularly been able to establish a minimum entry requirement in the United States of a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent directly related to the duties and 
responsibilities of the particular position, fairly represent the types of specialty occupations that 
Congress contemplated when it created the H-lB visa category. 
To determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCIS does not simply 
rely on a position's title. The specific duties of the proffered position, combined with the nature of 
the petitioning entity's business operations, are factors to be considered. USCIS must examine the 
ultimate employment of the individual, and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. The critical element is not the title 
of the position or an employer's self-imposed standards, but whether the position actually requires 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty as the minimum for entry into 
the occupation, as required by the Act. 
B. The Proffered Position 
The Petitioner identified the proffered position as a "Hotel Manager" on the Form I-129, and attested 
on the required Labor Condition Application (LCA) that the occupational classification for the 
position is "Lodging Managers," Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) (ONET/OES) Code 
11-9081, at a Level II wage. 
In a letter dated May 19, 2014, the Petitioner stated that its hotel manager's duties are as follows: 
The Hotel Manager's duties are to hire and train, organize, supervise and schedule 
personnel to work in each facility, to set room rates and standards of housekeeping 
and other customer services, and to assure that rates and standards are maintained. 
The Manager contracts for utilities and services, including telephone, internet, cable 
and satellite television and vending machines, and negotiate[s] terms to minimize our 
operational costs and maximize our total revenues. He is also responsible for 
arranging linen, pool maintenance, carting and gardening services, and monitoring the 
performance of the service providers. He makes arrangements for customers' 
requests for special services to be provided by other staff members, and responds to 
customers' complaints and/or other issues, by directing staff to correct them in a 
timely manner. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter ofC.G-H-, LLC 
The Petitioner noted that it requires "a person with a degree in business or law or related field or the 
equivalent thereof, and some hospitality management experience" for the proffered position. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner noted that it employed the 
Beneficiary but that the Beneficiary also assisted the Petitioner's managing partner in managing 
other hotels in the area. The Petitioner listed five additional properties owned by entities other than 
the Petitioner as the other properties managed. The Petitioner also added further details regarding 
the nature of the Beneficiary's work in managing the various properties. 
C. Analysis 
We will now discuss the record of proceedings m relation to the four criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
A baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is 
normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position 
The criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), 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), as an 
authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations 
that it addresses.2 As noted above, the Petitioner claims on the LCA that the proffered position 
corresponds to a lodging manager position. The Handbook states the following about the 
educational requirements of lodging manager positions: 
Many applicants can qualify as a lodging manager by having a high school diploma 
and several years of experience working in a hotel. However, most large, full-service 
hotels require applicants to have a bachelor's degree. Hotels that provide fewer 
services generally accept applicants who have an associate's degree or certificate in 
hotel management or operations. 
Education 
Currently, some states and the offer high school academic 
training for prospective lodging managers. 
Most full-service hotel chains hire candidates with a bachelor's degree in hospitality 
or hotel management. Hotel management programs typically include instruction in 
2 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 2016-2017 edition available online. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter ofC.G-H-, LLC 
hotel administration, accounting, marketing and sales, housekeeping, food service 
management and catering, and hotel maintenance and engineering. System's training 
is also an integral part of many degree programs, because hotels use hospitality­
specific software in reservations, billing, and housekeeping management. The 
Accreditation Commission for Programs in Hospitality 
Administration accredits 
about 60 hospitality management programs. 
At hotels that provide fewer services, candidates with an associate's degree or 
certificate in hotel, restaurant, 
or hospitality management may qualify for a job as a 
lodging manager. 
Also, many technical institutes and vocational and trade schools offer courses that are 
recognized by the hospitality industry that may help in getting a job. 
Work Experience in a Related Occupation 
Hotel employees who do not have hospitality management training, but who show 
leadership potential and have several years of related work experience, may qualify 
for assistant manager positions. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., 
"Lodging Managers," http://www. bls.gov/ ooh/management/lodging-managers.htm#tab-4 (last 
visited Jan. 31, 2016). 
The Handbook reports that there are a number of paths available to gain employment as a lodging 
manager. The Handbook does not indicate that lodging manager positions require a minimum of a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or the equivalent. Rather, it indicates that experience alone 
or vocational training of an undetermined length of time, or an associate's degree will suffice for 
most lodging manager positions. Although the Handbook also indicates that "[m]ost full-service 
hotel chains hire candidates with a bachelor's degree in hospitality or hotel management," the 
Petitioner here has not submitted evidence that it is a full-service hotel. In fact, the 
record of 
proceedings does not demonstrate the type of hotel the Petitioner operates and the services that the 
hotel provides.3 The Handbook does not support the assertion that lodging manager positions are 
specialty occupation positions. 
Moreover, the Petitioner indicates in its letter dated May 19, 2014, that a degree in business and 
some hospitality management experience is sufficient to perform the duties of the proffered 
position.4 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 or business 
administration, without further specification, does not establish the position as a specialty 
3 The Petitioner stated in response to the Director's RFE that it operates under the name and that it is 
"soon to be 
4 The Petitioner does not quantify the exact amount of hospitality experience it would find acceptable and does not 
define the type of hospitality experience it would deem sufficient. 
5 
Matter ofC.G-H-, LLC 
occupation. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Cornm'r 1988). To prove 
that a job requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge 
as required by section 214(i)(l) of the Act, a petitioner must establish that the position requires the 
attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specialized field of study or its equivalent. As 
discussed supra, USCIS interprets the degree requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to require 
a degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. Although a general­
purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business or business administration, may be a 
legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not 
justify a finding that a particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. Royal 
Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007). 
Accordingly, in certain instances, the Handbook is not determinative. When the Handbook does not 
support the proposition that a proffered position is one that meets the statutory and regulatory 
provisions of a specialty occupation, it is incumbent upon the Petitioner to provide persuasive 
evidence that the proffered position more likely than not satisfies this or one of the other three 
criteria, notwithstanding the absence of the Handbook's support on the issue. In such case, it is the 
Petitioner's responsibility to provide probative evidence (e.g., documentation from other objective, 
authoritative sources) that supports a finding that the particular position in question qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. Whenever more than one authoritative source exists, an adjudicator will 
consider and weigh all of the evidence presented to determine whether the particular position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. The Petitioner in this matter did not submit sufficient 
documentary evidence supporting a finding that the particular position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. 
The Handbook does not support the claim that the occupational category of lodging managers is one 
for which normally the minimum requirement for entry is a baccalaureate degree (or higher) in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. Even if it did, the record lacks sufficient evidence to support a 
finding that the particular position proffered here would normally have such a minimum, specialty 
degree requirement or its equivalent. The duties and requirements of the position as described in the 
record of proceedings do not indicate that this particular position proffered by the Petitioner is one 
for which a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the 
minimum requirement for entry. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(l). 
The requirement of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel 
positions among similar 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 for positions 
that are identifiable as being (1) in the petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered position, and 
also (3) located in organizations that are similar to the petitioner. 
Matter ofC.G-H-, LLC 
As stated earlier, in determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often 
considered by USCIS include: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; 
whether the industry's professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and 
whether letters or affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms "routinely 
employ and recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 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 sources) 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 
individuals." 
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 parallel positions with organizations that are in 
the Petitioner's industry and otherwise similar to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has not, therefore, 
satisfied the criterion ofthe first alternative prong of8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by 
an individual with a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
spec(fzc specialty, or its equivalent 
The record also does not satisfy the second alternative prong of 8 C.P.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." To begin with and as discussed 
previously, the Petitioner itself does not require at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. In addition, the record does not credibly demonstrate exactly what the 
Beneficiary will do on a day-to-day basis such that complexity or uniqueness can even be 
determined. Furthermore, the record does not sufficiently develop relative complexity or uniqueness 
as an aspect of the proffered position. 
Specifically, even though the Petitioner claims that the proffered position's duties are so complex 
and unique that a bachelor's degree is required, the Petitioner does not demonstrate how the 
described duties 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 it claims are so complex and unique. While a few related courses 
may be beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
how an established curriculum of such courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the duties of the proffered position. 
Matter ofC.G-H-, LLC 
This is further evidenced by the LCA submitted by the Petitioner in support of the instant 
petition. The Petitioner attested on the submitted LCA that the wage level for the proffered position 
is a Level II (qualified) wage. Such a wage level is for an employee who has a good understanding 
of the occupation but who will only perform moderately complex tasks that require limited 
judgment. See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination 
Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://www. foreignlaborcert. do leta. gov /pdf/NPWH C _Guidance_ Revised _11_ 2 009. pdf. Therefore, 
it does not appear that the position is one with complex duties, as such a higher-level position would 
be classified as a Level III or Level IV position, requiring a significantly higher prevailing wage. 
Therefore, the evidence of record does not establish that this position is significantly different from 
other lodging manager positions such that it refutes the Handbook's information to the effect that 
there is a spectrum of preferred degrees acceptable for lodging manager 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 other closely related 
positions that can be performed by persons without at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. 
The Petitioner claims on appeal that the proffered position is complex by virtue of the Beneficiary's 
duties which involve "overseeing five different properties." The Petitioner's assertion that the 
Beneficiary will manage other properties, however, has not been shown to be relevant to the matter 
at hand, as the other properties do not appear to be assets of the Petitioner in this proceeding. A 
corporation is a separate and distinct legal entity from its owners or stockholders. See Matter of M-, 
8 I&N Dec. 24, 50-51 (A.G., BIA 1958); Matter of Aphrodite Invs. Ltd., 17 I&N Dec. 530 (Comm'r 
1980); and Matter ofTessel, Inc., 17 I&N Dec. 631 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1980). The Petitioner 
concedes that the Petitioner "is the entity which employs [the Beneficiary] directly .... " Although 
the Petitioner's managing member may operate multiple hotels and retail shops, the issue in this 
matter is whether this particular Petitioner has specialty occupation work for this Beneficiary. In any 
event, other than tax records, the record of proceedings is devoid of documentary evidence regarding 
the operations of the Petitioner as well as the other entities the Petitioner claims the Beneficiary will 
also manage. Without sufficient evidence regarding the Petitioner's operations and the nature of the 
work to be performed by the Beneficiary, the complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position 
cannot be ascertained. 
The Petitioner does not demonstrate how the proffered position is so complex or unique relative to 
other lodging manager positions 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 of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
Matter ojC.G-H-, LLC 
The employer normally requires a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specffic specialty, or its equivalent, for the position 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it 
normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. To 
this end, we usually review a 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. It 
appears that the only previous employee in the proffered position is the Beneficiary. However, a 
prior approval does not compel the approval of a subsequent petition or relieve the Petitioner of its 
burden to provide sufficient documentation to establish current eligibility for the benefit 
sought. Temporary Alien Workers Seeking Classification Under the Immigration and Nationality 
Act, 55 Fed. Reg. 2,606, 2,612 (Jan. 26, 1990) (to be codified at 8 C.F.R. pt. 214). A prior approval 
also does not preclude USCIS from denying an extension of an original visa petition based on a 
reassessment of eligibility for the benefit sought. See Tex. A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 F. App'x 
556 (5th Cir. 2004). Furthermore, our authority over the service centers is comparable to the 
relationship between a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director had 
approved the nonimmigrant petitions on behalf of a beneficiary, we would not be bound to follow 
the contradictory decision of a service center. See La. Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 44 F. Supp. 
2d 800, 803 (E.D. La. 1999). 
We also note that while a petitioner may believe or otherwise assert that a proffered position requires 
a degree in a specific specialty, that opinion alone without corroborating evidence cannot establish 
the position as a specialty occupation. Were USCIS 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 employer artificially created a token 
degree requirement, whereby all individuals employed in a particular position possessed a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty or its equivalent. See Defensor v. Meissner, 
201 F. 3d at 387. In other words, if a petitioner's degree requirement is only symbolic and 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 section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty 
occupation"). 
Upon review of the record, we cannot conclude that the Petitioner has satisfied the third criterion of 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
The nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent 
Finally, we will address the alternative criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4), which IS 
9 
Matter ofC.G-H-, LLC 
satisfied if the Petitioner establishes that the nature of the specific duties is so specialized and 
complex that knowledge required to perform them is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. In the instant case, relative 
specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by the Petitioner as an aspect of 
the proffered position. As noted above, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient documentary 
evidence demonstrating the complexity of the duties of the proffered position. We also refer to our 
earlier comments and findings with regard to the implication of the Petitioner's designation of the 
proffered position on the LCA as warranting only a Level II wage. Such a designation is for a 
position that is not likely distinguishable by relatively specialized and complex duties. Upon review 
of the totality of the record, the Petitioner has not established that the nature of the specific duties is 
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. 
For the reasons discussed above, the evidence of record does not satisfy the fourth criterion at 
8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)( A). 
The evidence of record does not satisfy any of the criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) and, 
therefore, it cannot be found that the proffered position qualifies for classification as a specialty 
occupation. The appeal will be dismissed and the petition denied for this reason. 5 
III. CONCLUSION 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013) (citing Matter of Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493, 495 (BIA 1966)). Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
5 
As a final matter, we note that the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary's education combined with his hotel 
management experience is needed in operating these businesses. However, USCIS cannot determine if a particular job is 
a specialty occupation based on the qualifications of a 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. USCIS is required instead to follow 
long-standing legal standards and determine first, whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, and 
second, whether the beneficiary was qualified for the position at the time the nonimmigrant visa petition was filed. Cf 
Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 l&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988) ("The facts of a beneficiary's background only 
come at issue after it is found that the position in which the petitioner intends to employ him falls within [a specialty 
occupation]."). While the Petitioner in this matter may desire to employ an individual with a specific background to 
perform the duties it describes, in order to demonstrate that the proffered position is a specialty occupation, the 
Petitioner must establish that the duties listed 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, as a 
minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. As discussed in this decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
10 
Matter ofC.G-H-, LLC 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter o.fC.G-H-, LLC, ID# 16041 (AAO Feb. 8, 2016) 
11