dismissed H-1B Case: Human Resources

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: WAC 04 063 54237 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 1 4 2005 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S .C. !j 1 10 l(a)( lS)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 04 063 54237 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and the matter is now before 
the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. The petition will be denied. 
The petitioner is a healthcare services/business rentals/investment company that seeks to employ the 
beneficiary as a human resources manager. The petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a 
nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to section lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition because the proffered position is not a specialty occupation and the 
beneficiary is not qualified to perform the duties of a specialty occupation. On appeal, the petitioner submits a 
brief. 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 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. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, the 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. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) interprets the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 214.2(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. 
The record of proceeding before the AAO contains: (1) Form 1-129 and supporting documentation; (2) the 
director's notice of intent to deny the petition; (3) the petitioner's response to the director's notice; (4) the 
WAC 04 063 54237 
Page 3 
director's denial letter; and (5) Form I-290B and supporting documentation. The AAO reviewed the record in 
its entirety before issuing its decision. 
The petitioner is seeking the beneficiary's services as a human resources manager. Evidence of the 
beneficiary's duties includes: the 1-129 petition; the petitioner's December 29, 2003 letter in support of the 
petition; and the petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence. According to this evidence, the 
beneficiary would perform duties that entail: planning, developing and implementing the petitioner's policies 
and procedures relative to personnel administration; staying abreast of the state regulatory changes in 
personnel management and the standards and guidelines of the U.S. Department of Labor; evaluating and 
recommending qualified applicants; planning and developing orientation programs for new employees; and 
coordinating with other managers to ensure full compliance of personnel management within the pre- and 
post-employment period. The petitioner indicated that a qualified candidate for the job would possess a 
bachelor's degree in business administration, management, communication arts or a related field. 
The director found that the proffered position was not a specialty occupation. The director found further that 
the petitioner failed to establish any of the criteria found at 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
On appeal, the petitioner states that it would be the actual employer of the beneficiary. The petitioner also 
states that its record of filing numerous petitions relates to its business of staffing other organizations, and that 
it has a high turnover rate. The petitioner further asserts that previous petitions, which were identical to the 
current petition, were approved. 
Upon review of the record, the petitioner has established none of the four criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. 
3 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Therefore, the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 
The AAO turns first to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2 (h)(4)(iii)(A)(I) and (2): a baccalaureate or higher 
degree or its equivalent is the normal minimum requirement for entry into the particular position; a degree 
requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations; or a particular 
position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree. 
Factors often considered by CIS when determining these criteria include: whether the Department of Labor's 
Occupational Outlook Handbook (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 
fm 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 Hirfllaker COT. v. Suva, 712 F. 
Supp. 1095,1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
The AAO routinely consults the Handbook for its information about the duties and educational requirements of 
particular occupations. The Handbook states that employers hiring human resources, training and labor 
relations managers and specialists usually seek college graduates for entry-level jobs and that "[mlany prefer 
applicants who have majored in human resources, personnel administration or industrial and labor relations. 
Others look for college graduates with a technical or business background or a well-rounded liberal arts 
education." 
WAC 04 063 54237 
Page 4 
As noted above, CIS 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. The Act defines the term "specialty occupation" as an occupation that requires "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." Section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1184(i)(l). (Emphasis added). 
Regarding parallel positions in the petitioner's industry, the petitioner submitted five Internet job postings for 
human resources managers. There is no evidence, however, to show that the employers issuing those postings 
are similar to the petitioner, or that the advertised positions are parallel to the instant position. In addition, 
while all of the postings state that a bachelor's degree is required, only one gives a specific specialty. Thus, 
the advertisements have little relevance. 
The record also does not include any evidence from professional associations regarding an industry standard, 
or documentation to support the complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position. The petitioner has, thus, 
not established the criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. $214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l) or (2). 
The AAO now turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3) - the employer normally requires a 
degree or its equivalent for the position. There is no evidence in the record regarding the petitioner's previous 
hiring practices. 
Finally, the AAO turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(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. 
To the extent that they are depicted in the record, the duties do not appear so specialized and complex as to 
require the highly specialized knowledge associated with a baccalaureate or higher degree, or its equivalent, 
in a specific specialty. Therefore, the evidence does not establish that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation under 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
The director also found that the beneficiary would not be qualified to perform the duties of the position 
because her coursework was not related to the duties of the position. The petitioner submitted an educational 
evaluation that indicated that the beneficiary has the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in business 
administration from a U.S. university. A petitioner must demonstrate that the proffered position requires a 
precise and specific course of study that relates directly and closely to the position in question. Since there 
must be a close corollary between the required specialized studies and the position, the requirement of a 
degree with a generalized title, such as business administration or liberal arts, without further specification, 
does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. Matter of Michael Hertz Associates, 19 I&N Dec. 
558 (Comrn. 1988). 
As related in the discussion above, the petitioner has failed to establish that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation. Accordingly, the AAO shall not disturb the director's denial of the petition. 
WAC 04 063 54237 
Page 5 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.