dismissed H-1B Case: Human Resources

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 4839596 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-IB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 20, 2020 
The Petitioner, a multi-state tire dealer, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an "HR analyst" 
under the H-1 B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-IB program allows a 
U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a position that requires both (a) the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and (b) the attainment 
of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty ( or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite 
for entry into the position . 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. On appeal, the Petitioner 
submits additional evidence and contends that the petition should be approved. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 1 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, 
and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a 
non-exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered 
position must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
1 We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 
(AAO 2010). 
(]) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We construe the term "degree" to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal 
Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in a 
specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular 
position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary as an HR analyst, and asserts that its minimum 
requirement for the proffered position of HR Analyst is a bachelor's degree in Human Resources. In 
response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided an overview of the 
duties of the proffered position along with the percentage of time the Beneficiary will be expected to 
devote to each duty, paraphrased below: 
• 15% Administer and communicate various benefit plans 
o Communicate details regarding 401(k) plan, health insurance, and voluntary benefits 
to the employees across six ( 6) states, working with them throughout enrollment 
process to ensure compliance with ACA regulations, HIPP A and the IRS. Please see 
Exhibit D, complex benefit plans utilized by the company across all of its operations 
[Petitioner] offers a multitude of insurance plans including long term health, dental, 
accidental death and dismemberment, supplemental, and more, specialized for each 
role within the company. 
• 20% Collect and analyze compensation, benefits and related HR data and prepare reports 
o Build complex reports in HRIS software for analysis of data on medical benefit 
eligibility, voluntary benefit eligibility, 401 (k) eligibility, census reports, ACA reports, 
Life and LTD reports, and insurance claim reports. Please see Exhibit E, screenshots 
of the HR systems. 
o Maintain reports during high employee turnover rate, adjusting each report as required. 
• 10% Track trends and developments in assigned HR functional areas 
o Ensure compliance with all applicable laws and regulations within each state that 
[Petitioner] operates. 
2 
o Ensure that all employees and managers are informed about issues and concerns 
relevant to the company. 
• 5% Oversee maintenance of employee benefit records online and in HRIS 
o Ensure management software is up to date and determine whether employees have 
active benefits and are up to date on payments. 
o Ensure that 40l(k) contributions do not exceed the standards of the IRS, and examine 
factors for leaves of absence of employees are in compliance with state and federal 
regulations. 
o Utilize Kronos software to ensure that all details are recorded properly, and ensure that 
there are no possibilities for disputes between the company and the employee. 
• 5% Maintain database of employment records and files. 
o Record activity of over 1,600 employees, maintaining each individual's file 
appropriately including loans taken and paid off: insurance waived, and other benefit 
activities. 
• 7% Consult with management to develop and implement personnel policies and procedures. 
o Create standards used for each employee within the company taking into consideration 
the interaction of federal and state laws, and protection of the company against 
employee claims. 
o Work with top level management to communicate the decisions made by all levels of 
management and ensure they are uniform across all branches of the company, and all 
1,600 employees. 
• 4% Oversee monthly new hire enrollment process by informing new hires of benefit plans. 
o Guide new hires through eligibility for a wide range of complex insurance plans, 
providing them with insights throughout the process. 
o Run reports for new hires weekly as there is a high volume of turnover across the 
company. Please see Exhibit F, New Hires/Rehires reports. 
• 5% Ensure all necessary termination paperwork is completed for off-boarding. 
o Upon employee termination, ensure that all benefits are deactivated. Please see Exhibit 
G, Termination Report. 
o Prepare and send letters to ex-employees notifying them of deadlines and 40l(k) 
separation packets. 
• 8% Review monthly claims reports for accuracy, identifying claims problems, and rectifying. 
o Work on monthly reports of claims from insurance companies, ensuring there are no 
problems with each claim, and the company is paying appropriately. 
o Ensure compliance with data protection guidelines, keeping insurance records secure 
and encrypted. 
• 7% Review and assure compliance with laws related to employee benefits, FMLA and 40l(k). 
o Ensure compliance of all offices across six ( 6) states with laws relating to medical leave 
and retirement programs. 
• 5% Prepare special reports as needed for HR benefits and other departments. 
o Build a variety of complex and proprietary reports for upper level management 
including the calculation of hours for insurance purposes, length of employment for 
40l(k) plan eligibility requirements, claim calculation, and weekly, monthly and 
quarterly reports for group life and LTD. 
• 6% Develop and maintain a system of procedures to process timely qualified medical court 
orders and qualified family status changes with payroll and health insurance vendors. 
3 
o Work with employees upon the receipt of court orders, checking eligibility for, and 
ensuring that dependents are included on insurance plan. 
o Run court orders against employee paycheck to determine eligibility to support the 
insurance for their dependents. 
o Maintain in depth records of employees in system and work with insurance vendors to 
incorporate changes. 
• 3% Prepare communication and educational materials regarding the benefits package for all 
the ensured employees. 
o Check eligibility of employees for insurance benefits monthly, compiling detailed 
reports for each benefit, and educating individual employees surrounding their benefits. 
According to the Petitioner, the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree in human resources or 
a closely related field of study. 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 2 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its 
equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 3 
We acknowledge that the Beneficiary has a master's degree in business administration conferred by 
the University ofl I and while we appreciate the detailed description of the duties of the 
proffered position provided by the Petitioner, we are simply not convinced that the position itself 
constitutes a specialty occupation. Based on the Petitioner's description of the position, it seems 
apparent that this HR Analyst position in particular could be performed by an individual with any of 
a wide variety of bachelor's degrees, or perhaps no bachelor's degree at all. 
A. First Criterion 
The criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(]) requires that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular 
position. To inform this inquiry, we recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational 
Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of 
the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 4 
2 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
3 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H- IB petition, including evidence regarding the proffered position 
and its business operations. Although we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered 
each one. 
4 We do not maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. That is, the occupational category 
designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered 
position, and we regularly review the Handbook on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of 
occupations that it addresses. Nevertheless, to satisfy the first criterion, the burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to 
submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position would normally have a minimum, specialty 
degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
4 
On the labor condition application (LCA)5 submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Compensation, Benefits and Job 
Analysis Specialists," corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 13-1141. The 
subchapter of the Handbook titled "How to Become a Compensation, Benefits and Job Analysis 
Specialist" states, in relevant part, that these positions typically require "a combination of a bachelor's 
degree and related work experience," that many "have a degree in human resources, business 
administration, finance, communication, or a related field," and that "[s]ome employers may accept 
additional related work experience in lieu of a degree." 6 These statements do not indicate that a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, is normally required. 
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 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, 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. 7 Section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act ( emphasis 
added). 
Here, although the Handbook indicates that a bachelor's or higher degree is required, it also indicates 
that baccalaureate degrees in various fields are acceptable for entry into the occupation. In addition 
to recognizing degrees in disparate fields, i.e., finance and communications as acceptable for entry 
into this field, the Handbook also states that others have degrees in business administration. As noted 
above, although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business administration, may 
be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not 
justify a conclusion that a particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty 
occupation. Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. Therefore, the Handbook's recognition that a general, 
non-specialty degree in business administration is sufficient for entry into the occupation strongly 
suggests that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is not a standard, minimum entry requirement 
for this occupation. 
The Handbook therefore does not support the particular position proffered here as being a specialty 
occupation. First, it indicates that a range of bachelor's degrees, including a general-purpose 
5 A petitioner submits the LCA to DOL to demonstrate that it will pay an H-IB worker the higher of either the prevailing 
wage for the occupational classification in the area of employment or the actual wage paid by the employer to other 
employees with similar duties. experience, and qualifications. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.731 (a). 
6 Bureau of Labor Statistics. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Compensation, Benefits, and Job 
Analysis Specialists. at https://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and- financial/compensation-benefits-and-job-analysis­
specialists. htm (visited Feb. 19. 2020). 
7 Whether read with the statutory "the" or the regulatory "a," both readings denote a singular "specialty." Section 
214(i)(l)(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). Still, we do not so narrowly interpret these provisions to exclude 
positions from qualifying as specialty occupations if they permit, as a minimum entry requirement, degrees in more than 
one closely related specialty. As just stated, this also includes even seemingly disparate specialties provided the evidence 
of record establishes how each acceptable, specific field of study is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
particular position. 
5 
bachelor's degree in business administration, would adequately prepare an individual to perform the 
duties of the proffered position. Moreover, it indicates that the range of acceptable degrees could be 
even broader than the specific fields it identifies. As noted, the Handbook only states that many 
individuals employed in this field possess a bachelor's degrees in one of the many stated fields. It 
does not, however, state that those degrees are normally required. In other words, just because an 
employee happens to possess a given degree it does mean their possession of that degree was a 
prerequisite to their hiring. Finally, the Handbook specifically makes provision for the acceptance of 
work experience "in lieu of a degree." For all of these reasons, the Handbook does not establish the 
Petitioner's eligibility under the first criterion. 
In the absence of support from the Handbook the Petitioner submits additional evidence for our 
consideration under this criterion, including references to the DOL's Occupational Information 
Network (O*NET) and citations to several district court decisions. 
First and foremost, we note that O*NET does not aid the Petitioner's case. The O*NET summary 
report provides general information regarding the Compensation, Benefits and Job Analysis Specialist 
occupation but does not support the Petitioner's assertion regarding the educational requirements for 
these positions. For example, the Compensation, Benefits and Job Analysis Specialist occupation is 
designated as Job Zone Four, a zone for which "Most of these occupations require a four-year 
bachelor's degree, but some do not." The Specialized Vocational Preparation (SVP) rating cited 
within O*NET's Job Zone Four designates this occupation as 7 < 8. An SVP rating of 7 to less than 
("<") 8 indicates that the occupation requires "over 2 years up to and including 4 years" of 
training. While the SVP rating indicates the total number of years of vocational preparation required 
for a particular position, it is important to note that it does not describe how those years are to be 
divided among training, formal education, and experience - and it does not specify the particular type 
of degree, if any, that a position would require. 8 
Further, the summary report provides the educational requirements of "respondents," but does not 
account for 100% of the "respondents." The respondents' positions within the occupation are not 
distinguished by career level (e.g., entry-level, mid-level, senior-level). Additionally, the graph in the 
summary report does not indicate that the "education level" for the respondents must be in a specific 
specialty. 9 Thus, O*NET does not establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner also discusses some federal district court cases. 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 Matter 
of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715, 719-20 (BIA 1993). Although we will give due consideration to the 
reasoning underlying a district judge's decision when it is properly before us, we need not follow the 
analysis as a matter oflaw. Id. 
The Petitioner cites to Residential Finance Corp. v. USCIS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012), 
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 
8 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/help/online/svp. 
9 We nonetheless observe that this response chaii indicates only 70% of respondents rep01ied having, at minimum, a 
bachelor's degree. 
6 
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." 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 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, 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. Section 214(i)(l )(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 famished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition are 
analogous to those in Residential Finance. 10 It is important to note that in a subsequent case reviewed 
in the same jurisdiction, the court agreed with our analysis of Residential Finance. See Health 
Carousel, LLC v. USCIS, No. 1:13-CV-23, 2014 WL 29591 (S.D. Ohio 2014). 
The Petitioner also cites Next Generation Tech., Inc. v. Johnson, (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2017) as relevant 
here. The court in Next Generation discussed our reading of the Handbook's discussion of the entry 
requirements for positions located within a different and separate occupational category "Computer 
Programmers" rather than the "Compensation, Benefits and Job Analysis Specialists" category 
designated by the Petitioner in the LCA relating to this case. As noted above, the Handbook 
specifically states that for this occupational category "Many specialists have a degree in human 
resources, business administration, finance, communication, or a related field. Some employers may 
accept additional related work experience in lieu of a degree." Again, we conclude that a range of 
degrees are acceptable to perform this occupation, or even no degree at all. 
As recognized by another court, while the Handbook may establish the first regulatory criterion for 
certain professions, many occupations are not described in such a categorical manner. 11 See Innova 
Sols., Inc. v. Baran, 2019 WL 3753334, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2019) (declining to follow Next 
Generation Tech., Inc.). For example, "[the Handbook's] description for the Computer Programmer 
occupation does not describe the normal minimum educational requirements of the occupation in a 
categorical fashion." Id.; see also Xiaotong Liu v. Baran, 2018 WL 7348851 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 
2018). "Accordingly, [the Petitioner] could not simply rely on [the Handbook] profile, and instead 
10 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 Director in the decision denying the petition. We further note that the Director's decision was not appealed 
to us. Based on the district court's conclusions 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 articulated by the district court if these errors could not have been remedied by us in our de 
nova review of the matter. 
11 Such professions would include surgeons or attorneys, which indisputably require at least a bachelor's degree for entry 
into the occupation. 
7 
had the burden to show that the particular position offered to [the Beneficiary] was among the 
Computer Programmer positions for which a bachelor's degree was normally required." See Innova 
Sols., Inc. 2019 WL 3753334, at *8. 
Moreover, the court in Next Generation relied in part on a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) 
policy memorandum regarding "Computer Programmers" indicating generally preferential treatment 
toward computer programmers, and "especially" toward companies in that particular petitioner's 
industry. However, USCIS rescinded the policy memorandum cited by the court in Next Generation 
Tech. Inc. 12 
Here, the Handbook does not describe the normal mm1mum educational requirement for the 
occupation in a categorical manner since some employers accept less than a bachelor's degree, or a 
bachelor's degree from one of numerous fields, including a general-purpose business administration 
degree. Further, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position. 
The Petitioner has not provided documentation from another probative source to substantiate its 
assertion regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(]). 
B. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs: 'The degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show 
that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with 
a degree[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong contemplates 
common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific 
position. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
We generally consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there is such a common degree 
requirement: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the industry's 
professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether letters or 
affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry establish that such firms "routinely employ and 
recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 1999) 
(quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (considering these 
"factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
12 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0142, Rescission of the December 22, 2000 ''Guidance memo on HJB 
computer related positions" (Mar. 31, 2017), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/nativedocuments/PM-6002-
0142-H- l BComputerRelatedPositionsRecission.pdf. 
8 
As we have noted, the Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is a 
common requirement within the industry for parallel positions among similar organizations. Also, the 
Petitioner did not submit evidence from an industry professional association or from firms or 
individuals in the industry indicating such a degree is a minimum requirement for entry into the 
position. 
Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
As evidence the proffered position meets this requirement, the Petitioner points to several aspects of 
its business and the nuances of this particular position. For example, the Petitioner states the 
following: 
The complexity of the position is inherent in the fact that it requires daily analysis of 
government regulations, management of large databases, and complex data analytics 
of employees across six ( 6) different states, requiring specialized benefits programs and 
retirement plans. 
The Petitioner then discusses its needs for "detailed analytics," and cites as an example of its need for 
such analytics the high turnover rate among its technicians. The record contains evidence of such 
turnover, and the Petitioner contends that as a result of such "massive turnover" it is required to "run 
data analytics on large sets of data." 
The Petitioner then pivots to a discussion of the various benefits plans it offers among the six states in 
which it operates and emphasizes the need "to comply with the intricacies of both the individual state 
plans, and the overarching federal regulations." As an example of how state laws change, the 
Petitioner highlights a recent paid leave program adopted by the State of New York. In addition, the 
record has been supplemented richly with evidence regarding the various benefit plans the Petitioner 
offers as well as with screenshots demonstrating the various types of human resources computer 
programs the Beneficiary would utilize as she performed her duties. 
We note however, that none of these statements, and none of this evidence, is sufficient to satisfy this 
prong. While we do not question the knowledge that is required to perform these duties, the record is 
not sufficient to establish that such knowledge only flows from the attainment of a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or the equivalent. The duties of the proffered position, which have been 
described in detail, align generally with those described by DOL in the Handbook and in O*NET as 
being normally performed by positions located within the "Compensation, Benefits, and Job Analysis 
Specialists" occupational category. Again, neither the Handbook nor O*NET indicates that a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, is required. While we acknowledge the 
9 
Petitioner's claim that the specific duties it has identified for the Beneficiary require an individual with 
a bachelor's degree in human resources, we question why an individual with one of the educational 
backgrounds listed in the Handbook could not perform these duties. For example, we question why 
an individual with a bachelor's degree in finance, communications, or business administration- all of 
which were specifically identified in the Handbook - could not perform the duties of the proffered 
position. Moreover, we highlight again O*NET's survey indicating that only 70% of the respondents 
to a survey reported having any bachelor's degree at all, let alone one in a specific, related field. 13 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position, and references her 
qualifications by her attainment of a master's degree in business administration with a concentration 
in human resources management. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation 
is not the education or experience of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at 
least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. As we have noted, despite the 
through description of the proffered position as provided, the Petitioner did not sufficiently develop 
relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position, and it did not identify any 
tasks that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it normally 
requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. 
To satisfy the third criterion, the record must establish that a petitioner's stated degree requirement is 
not a matter of preference for certain candidates but is necessitated instead by performance 
requirements of the position. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384 at 387-88 (5th Cir. 2000). If 
we were limited solely to reviewing a petitioner's stated, self-imposed requirements, an organization 
could bring any individual with a bachelor's degree to the United States to perform any occupation as 
long as the petitioning entity created a token degree requirement. Id. Evidence provided in support 
of this criterion may include, but is not limited to, documentation regarding a petitioner's past 
recruitment and hiring practices, as well as information regarding employees who previously held the 
position. 
The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary will be the first and only individual to hold the position of 
HR analyst within the company. In claiming eligibility under this criterion, the Petitioner relies solely 
on the Beneficiary's education and its stated need for the Beneficiary's specific skill set. However, 
the Petitioner's preference here is not sufficient as the Petitioner must establish that its own normal 
minimum educational requirement for the proffered position is a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
13 In considering this survey, the Petitioner's Level TT wage-level designation on the LCA becomes relevant. If only 70% 
of the individuals possess a bachelor's degree (and this is setting aside entirely the dual issues of (1) those bachelor's 
degrees not necessarily being in any specific specialty, and (2) an individual's possession of a degree not necessarily 
equating to an employer's minimum hiring requirement for a degree), then we question whether a position with Level II 
characteristics would in fact fall within that 70%. 
10 
D. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature 
of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
As discussed, the Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the 
equivalent, is normally required for positions located within this occupational category. The Petitioner 
states that the complexity of the position is inherent in the fact that it requires daily analysis of 
government regulations, management of large databases, and complex data analytics of employees 
across six ( 6) different states, requiring specialized benefits programs and retirement plans. Again, 
however, although the Petitioner has thoroughly described the duties of the position, such description 
and the evidence in the record of proceeding simply does not establish that the knowledge required to 
perform them is usually associated with the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. While we acknowledge the Petitioner's claim that the specific duties it has 
identified for the Beneficiary require an individual with a bachelor's degree in human resources, we 
question why an individual with a bachelor's degree in finance, communications, or business 
administration could not perform the duties of the proffered position. Based on the Petitioner's 
description of the duties of the proffered position it appears that an individual with a bachelor's degree 
in one of these other fields could effectively perform the duties of the position. 
In summation, the Petitioner has not demonstrated in the record that its proffered position is one with 
duties sufficiently specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and 
alternative basis for the decision. 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. The Petitioner 
has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
11