dismissed H-1B Case: Hotel Management

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
ident&bg data deleted to 
 U.S. Citizenship 
, prevent clearly unwarranted 
 and Immigration 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonirnmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Udministrative Appeals Office 
EAC 02 242 5 1492 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: 
 The service center director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and the Administrative 
Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed a subsequent appeal. The matter is again before the AAO on a motion to 
reconsider. The motion to reconsider will be granted. The prior decision of the AAO will be affirmed. The 
petition will be denied. 
The petitioner is a motel. It reports that it has 3 employees and a gross annual income of $370,277. It seeks 
to employ the beneficiary as a motel manager and endeavors to classify him as a nonimmigrant worker in a 
specialty occupation pursuant to section 101 (a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. 9 1 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b). The director denied the petition on the ground that the proffered position does 
not qualify as a specialty occupation. The AAO affirmed the director's findings and dismissed the appeal, 
denying the petition on the ground that the proffered position did not qualify as a specialty occupation. The 
petitioner then filed a motion to reconsider stating that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The motion to reconsider meets the requirements of a motion. The motion shall accordingly be granted and a 
decision will be made on the merits of the motion. 
A motion to reconsider must: (1) state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any pertinent 
precedent decisions to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or CIS policy; 
and (2) establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the initial 
decision. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(3). 
The petitioner states in its motion that: 
1. The Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) indicates that a minimum of a bachelor's 
in hotel management is required for the proffered position; 
2. The duties of the offered position are so specialized and complex that knowledge required to 
perform them is usually associated with the attainment of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty; 
3. The SVP rating of the offered position (SVP of 8) indicates that a bachelor's degree is the 
minimum educational requirement for the position; 
4. The proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation because it was determined in 
Matter of Sun, 12 I&N Dec. 535 (DD 1966) that a hotel management position qualifies as a 
member of the professions; 
5. Previous AAO decisions have determined that a hotel manager's position requires a 
bachelor's degree; and 
6. The petitioner normally requires a degree for the offered position. 
The assertions of the petitioner will be addressed in the order noted above. 
EAC 02 242 5 1492 
Page 3 
The Handbook does not indicate that a minimum of a bachelor's degree in hotel management is required for 
entry into the proffered position. The Handbook reports that hotels increasingly emphasize specialized 
training for lodging managers. Postsecondary training in hotel or restaurant management is preferred for most 
hotel management positions, but a college liberal arts degree may be sufficient when coupled with related 
hotel experience. In the past, many managers were promoted from the ranks of hotel staff. Although some 
employees still advance to hotel management positions without education beyond high school, postsecondary 
education is preferred. There are over 800 educational facilities that have programs leading to recognition in 
hotel or restaurant management. They include community colleges, junior colleges, universities, vocational 
and trade schools. While postsecondary training in hotel or restaurant management is preferred for most hotel 
management positions, a baccalaureate level education in a specific specialty is not the normal educational 
requirement for entry into the position. 
The petitioner states that the duties of the proffered position are so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform them is usually associated with the attainment of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty. The AAO does not agree. The duties of the offered position are routine for hotel management 
positions in the industry. They are not so unique, specialized or complex that knowledge required to perform 
them is usually associated with attainment of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. They are routinely 
performed in the industry by individuals with less than a baccalaureate level education. As noted in the 
Handbook, hotel management positions are regularly staffed by individuals who have obtained their positions 
through on-the-job training, or with post secondary training available in community colleges and vocational 
institutions. The duties to be performed by the beneficiary in the petitioner's business environment do not 
require the theoretical and practical application of a body of specialized knowledge. 
The petitioner states that the SVP rating of the proffered position indicates that the minimum educational 
requirement of the position is a bachelor's degree. An SVP rating is meant to indicate only the total number 
of years of vocational preparation required for a particular position. The SVP classification does not describe 
how those years are to be divided among training, formal education, and experience, nor does it specify the 
particular type of degree, if any, that a position would require. The petitioner's assertions in this regard are 
unpersuasive. 
The petitioner cites Matter of Sun, 12 I&N 535 (DD 1966) for the proposition that a hotel management 
position qualifies as a member of the professions, and therefore, as a specialty occupation. In Sun, it was 
determined that a hotel management position in a large hotel could be considered as a profession. The case 
does not stand for the proposition that all hotel management positions qualify as specialty occupations under 
current law. This record does not contain a listing of the duties of the hotel management position in the cited 
case so that a comparison of the duties can be made with the duties of the offered position. The petitioner 
also indicates that past AAO decisions have determined that hotel manager positions require a bachelor's 
degree. Again, the record of the present proceeding does not contain the entire record of the referenced AAO 
decisions so that a comparison of the positions can be made. Each nonimmigrant petition is a separate 
proceeding with a separate record. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.8(d). In making a determination of statutory 
eligibility, the AAO is limited to the information contained in the record of proceeding. See 8 C.F.R. 
3 103.2(b)(16)(ii). It warrants noting that Congress intended this visa classification for aliens who are to be 
employed in occupations that require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge. Congress specifically stated that such occupations would require, as a minimum qualification, a 
EAC 02 242 5 1492 
Page 4 
baccalaureate or higher degree in the specialty. CIS regularly approves H-1B petitions for qualified aliens 
who are to be employed as engineers, computer scientists, certified public accountants, college professors, 
and other such professions. These occupations all require a baccalaureate degree in the specialty occupation 
as a minimum for entry into the occupation and fairly represent the types of professions that Congress 
contemplated when it created the H-1B visa category. In the present matter, the petitioner has offered the 
beneficiary a position as a motel manager. For the reasons discussed above, the proffered position does not 
require attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty as a minimum for entry into the 
occupation, and approval of a petition for another beneficiary based on identical facts would constitute 
material error, gross error, and a violation of 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h). 
Finally, the petitioner indicates that the beneficiary normally requires a degree for the offered position, and 
the position does, therefore, qualify as a specialty occupation. The present manager holds a foreign 
bachelor's degree in chemistry. The petitioner states that the chemistry degree plus the manager's job 
experience are equivalent to a bachelor's degree or higher in hotel management. The petitioner did not, 
however, submit equivalency evidence of the manager's foreign degree. Nor did it submit an experiential 
evaluation of the manager's past work history. The record does not establish that the present manager's 
education is equivalent to a bachelor's degree in hotel management or a related field from an accredited 
college or university in the United States. CIS must examine the ultimate employment of the alien, and 
determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. Cf: Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384 
(5" Cir. 2000). 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 ~ct.' To interpret the regulations any other way would lead to 
absurd results: if CIS were limited to reviewing a petitioner's self-imposed employment requirements, then 
any alien with a bachelor's degree could be brought into the United States to perform menial, 
non-professional, or an otherwise non-specialty occupation, so long as the employer required all such 
employees to have baccalaureate or higher degrees. See id at 388. 
The petitioner has not established by pertinent precedent decision that the AAO's previous decision was 
based on an incorrect application of law or CIS policy, or that the decision was incorrect based on the 
evidence of record at the timer of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(3). The record reflects, and the 
prior decision correctly states, that the petitioner failed to establish that the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). The prior decision of the AAO shall accordingly be 
affirmed. The petition will be denied. 
I 
 The court in Defensor v. Meissner observed that the four criteria at 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) present 
certain ambiguities when compared to the statutory definition, and "might also be read as merely an additional 
requirement that a position must meet, in addition to the statutory and regulatory definition." See id. at 387. 
EAC 02 242 5 1492 
Page 5 
As always, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 
29 1 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 136 1. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The decision of the AAO is affirmed. The petition is denied.