dismissed H-1B Case: Human Resources

(b)(6)
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 27,2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a manufacturer of consumer drones, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"human resources generalist" under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). The H-1B 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, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner had not established that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
' 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Director erred in her 
decision. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. 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) 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: 
(b)(6)
Matter of 
(1) 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.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We have consistently interpreted the term "degree" in the criteria at 
8 C.P.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 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 
On the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, the Petitioner described itself as a 
nine-employee consumer drones developer located in California. The Petitioner indicated 
that the Beneficiary will work as a full-time human resources (HR) generalist at one of its other 
offices in California. The Petitioner further indicated that the Beneficiary will be paid an 
annual salary of $55,000. 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational 
category "Human Resources Specialists" 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 13-1071, at a Level I wage 
rate.' Consistent with the Form l-129 petition, the Petitioner represented on the LCA that the 
Beneficiary's sole place of employment will be at the Petitioner's office. 
In the initial letter of support, the Petitioner provided a general description of the job duties for its 
human resources generalist position. In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the 
Petitioner clarified that the proffered position "is a senior level position" that "will be responsible for 
1 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to USC IS to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B 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 experience and qualifications who are performing the same 
services. See Matter ofSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 545-546 (AAO 20 15). 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of 
delivering critical company-wide HR initiatives." The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will 
serve "as a key member of the compa1;1y's HR Group, [and] will support three offices 1 
and which currently have over 30 associates and are estimated to grow to 50 
associates in 2016." The Petitioner emphasized the complexity and specialization of the 
Beneficiary's duties, stating that he "holds a high-level position which requires regular interaction 
and collaboration with managers as well as senior-level management at Headquarters. This position 
holds a high level of discretionary authority and requires a highly advanced and specialized 
knowledge of Human Resource Management." According to the Petitioner, the proffered position 
requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree in human resources, business management, or a closely 
related field, or the equivalent. 
The Petitioner provided the following table listing the proffered job duties and the percentages of 
time the Beneficiary will spend on each duty: 
Percentage of Expanded Description of Duties 
Time Spent 
5% Recruitment 
• Responsible for all U.S. campus recruiting events for [the Petitioner] 
10% On boarding 
• Revamp onboarding process 
• Implement onboarding process for every new hire, including preparation 
of all related legal and company required documents (e.g., I-9, E-Verify, 
W-4, direct deposit, Employee Record, and Email Account) and 
creation and delivery of orientation presentation to new employees on 
their first day 
10% Performance Evaluation and Training 
• Streamline performance evaluation process 
• Educate, coach, and partner with managers to effectively conduct 
performance evaluations and develop employees 
15% HRIS (Human Resources Information Sl:stem} 
• Work with outside vendor to design functionalities in the e-HR system 
based on internal needs 
• Lead communication training for management and employees 
15% Pal:roll 
• Conduct payroll survey and design semi-annual compensation 
adjustment strategies that align with [the Petitioner's] U.S. business 
goals 
15% Benefits 
• Negotiate with vendors and brokers to upgrade current benefits offering 
• Keep current on compensation trends and ensure that company's total 
compensation is competitive in the market to attract the best talent for 
[the Petitioner] in the U.S. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of 
10% HR Analities 
• Develop and interpret reports on different workforce topics, such as 
recruiting and retention, to identify trends and problem areas for all HR 
teams 
5% Training 
• Collaborate with internal customers to identify and assess training needs 
• Build and execute legal compliance required training for all employees 
5% Em~loyee Action and Termination Process Management 
• Work with managers to streamline the employee exit process, including 
processing of final paycheck and COBRA coverage management 
• Ensure that all documentation and processes are followed correctly to 
minimize potential legal risks 
10% Em~loyee Relations and Em~lo1:ee Engagement 
• Effectively manage employee conflict and grievance 
• Champion the Employee Engagement Program, from engagement 
survey design, to result interpretation and recommendation proposal 
• Provide morale initiatives to ensure employees are engaged and inspired 
to deliver great business results 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director misunderstood the nature and scope of the 
Petitioner's overall operations and the proffered position. The Petitioner explains that it is a global 
company headquartered in China, with around 5,000 employees worldwide. Within the United 
States, the Petitioner (located in California) serves as "the U.S. Headquarters for the 
company." It also serves as "the parent company of three legal entities which employ a total of 180 
employees in five (5) U.S. offices." The Petitioner's three subsidiaries consist of: (1) a research and 
development company in California, with 28 employees; (2) a customer support and 
logistics company in California, with 103 employees; and (3) a marketing and business 
development company spread out into three office locations: California, with 35 
employees; California, with 
9 employees; and New York, with 5 employees. 
As the U.S. Headquarters, the Petitioner "provides legal, HR, IT, accounting, and policy support for 
the U.S. operation[s]." 
Regarding the proffered position, the Petitioner asserts that, as a member of the company's "local 
HR Team," the Beneficiary "will provide HR support and services to all of its 180 employees who 
are employed in its five (5) U.S. offices." The Petitioner states: "[The Beneficiary] is one of two 
local HR Team members who will su~~ort all of [the Petitioner's] U.S. o~erations. He is a 
critical member of the team and has a broad scope of responsibility for managing the entire 
HR operations in the U.S. (emphasis in original)." The Petitioner further states that "[t]he Global 
HR Team for [the worldwide company] currently has fifty (50) employees and the company has 
seven (7) local HR Team members." 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of 
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. 
Specifically, the record provides inconsistent information regarding the proffered position, and 
consequently, whether it requires an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a 
specialty occupation. 2 
A. Nature of Proffered Position 
When determining whether a position is a specialty occupation, we must look at the nature of the 
business offering the employment and the description of the specific duties of the position as it 
relates to the particular employer. To ascertain the intent of a petitioner, USCIS looks to the Form 
1-129 and the documents filed in support of the petition. It is only in this manner that the agency can 
determine the exact position offered, the location of employment, the proffered wage, and other 
material aspects of the position. Here, the Petitioner has provided inconsistent information about 
both the proffered position and the company's operations such that we are unable to understand the 
nature of the position being offered. 
Regarding its operations, the Petitioner attested on the Form I-129 that it is a nine-employee 
company established in 2015. We note that all attestations on the Form 1-129 are made under the 
penalty of perjury. Further, on the H-IB and H-lBl Data Collection and Filing Fee Exemption 
Supplement to the Form 1-129, the Petitioner represented that it does not employ 50 or more 
individuals in the United States (section 1, question 1 ). Moreover, it represented that it currently 
employs a total of 25 or fewer full-time equivalent employees in the United States, including all 
affiliates or subsidiaries of the company, and therefore does not need to pay the higher filing fee 
mandated by the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement (ACWIA) Act of 1998 
(section 2, question 9).3 The Director relied upon the information provided by the Petitioner on the 
Form I-129 and filing fee supplement to assess the position's qualification as a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, however, the Petitioner asserts that it "is not a company with nine (9) employees but 
employs a total of 180 employees in five (5) U.S. offices." But the Petitioner does not explain why 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
3 
ACWIA was enacted to, among other things, provide protections in the H-1 B process against the displacement of 
United States workers. ACWIA requires that every petitioner pay a "training" fee for each H-1 B petition that it 
files. The ACWIA fee is currently $750 for petitioners who employ a total of 25 or fewer full-time workers in the 
United States, and $1500 for petitioners who employ 26 or more fuiHime workers in the United States. As indicated 
above, question 9 on the supplement form specifically instructs a petitioner to include affiliates or subsidiaries in its total 
employee count. 
The Petitioner paid the lower fee of $750, attesting that its company, including all affiliates and subsidiaries, employs a 
total of25 or fewer full-time employees in the United States. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of 
it represented itself as a nine-employee company exempt from paying the higher ACWIA fee. The 
Petitioner has not elucidated why we, like the Director, should not rely upon on the information 
provided on the Form I-129 and filing fee supplement.4 
It is incumbent upon the Petitioner to resolve inconsistencies in the record by competent objective 
evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Doubt cast on any aspect of the Petitioner's proof may lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and 
sufficiency of the remaining evidence. !d. In addition, an inaccurate statement anywhere on the 
Form I-129 or in the evidence submitted in connection with the petition mandates its denial. See 
8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(h)(lO)(ii), 103.2(b)(l). Without independent, objective evidence reconciling the 
inconsistencies in the record, we must question the credibility of the Petitioner's assertions. 5 
Not only is the record inconsistent with regard to the Petitioner's operations, but it is also 
inconsistent with regard to the proffered position's associated job duties, responsibilities, and level 
of authority within the organization. Critical to this matter is the Petitioner's repeated emphasis on 
the proffered position's complexity, specialization, and high level of responsibility. The Petitioner 
stated, for example, that the proffered position "is a senior level," "high-level position ... that holds 
a high level of discretionary authority and requires a highly advanced and specialized knowledge of 
Human Resource Management." According to the Petitioner's appeal, the Beneficiary will be "a 
critical member of the team and has a broad scope of responsibility for managing the entire HR 
operations in the U.S." 
In contrast, the Petitioner characterized the proffered position on the LCA as a Level I position 
within the "Human Resources Specialists" occupational classification. This occupational 
classification does not inherently encompass managerial duties. To support this conclusion, we rely 
on the Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) and the 
Occupational Information Network (O*NET), both of which we consider authoritative sources on 
duties of the wide variety of occupations that they address. Neither source indicates that "Human 
Resources Specialists" are typically responsible for duties amounting to the management of a 
company's human resources operations, as the Petitioner states about the proffered position.6 
4 
Even the number of employees in each of the Petitioner's U.S. subsidiaries does not align with the information on the 
Form 1-129 that the Petitioner has 9 employees. The Petitioner listed its office as its address on the Form 1-129. 
According to the Petitioner's appeal, the office has 35 employees. The only place of employment listed on the 
Form 1-129 and LCA was the Petitioner's office, which has 28 employees. The Petitioner's office 
has 9 employees, but the Petitioner did not list its address as a place of employment for the Beneficiary. 
5 We additionally must question whether the Petitioner has met all filing requirements, and whether this appeal is 
properly before us. For example, if the Petitioner's payment of the lower ACWIA fee was improper, then the instant 
petition was not properly filed with all required fees. 8 C.F.R. § I 03.2(a)(l) (requiring every benefit request to be filed 
with fee(s) as required by regulation. If filed without proper fees, the instant petition should have been rejected, and an 
appeal would not have been available to the Petitioner. 8 C.F.R. § I 03.2(a)(7)(i) (a benefit request which is submitted 
with an incorrect fee will be rejected); 8 C.F.R. § I 03.2(a)(7)(iii) (there is no_ appeal for a rejected benefit request). 
Nevertheless, since the record does not demonstrate the proffered position as a specialty occupation and therefore the 
petition cannot be approved, the Petitioner's payment of all required fees is a moot issue. 
6 For more information about the typical job duties for this occupational category, see e.g., the Handbook chapter on 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of 
The "Human Resources Specialists" occupational classification seems even more at odds with the 
Petitioner's characterization of the proffered position when we also consider the Level I (entry) wage 
rate selected on the LCA. According to 'the Department of Labor's (DOL) "Prevailing Wage 
Determination Policy Guidance," a Level I wage rate is generally appropriate for entry-level 
positions for which the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the 
occupation. 7 This wage rate indicates: (1) that the Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine 
tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that he will be closely supervised and his 
work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that he will receive specific instructions 
on required tasks and expected results.8 The Petitioner's selection of a Level I, entry-level wage rate 
for a position within an occupational category that does not inherently convey managerial 
responsibilities does not support the position's claimed "senior level" or "high-level" of 
responsibilities. 
Instead, the claimed high-level managerial responsibilities and job duties appear more appropriate 
for a position within the "Human Resources Managers" occupational 
classification corresponding to 
SOC code 11-3121. Whereas "Human Resources Specialists" typically perform the daily tasks 
related to human resources functions, "Human Resources Managers" typically plan, direct, or 
coordinate these activities and serve as a link between management and employees. For example, 
the Handbook states that "Human Resources Managers" typically "[l]ink an organization's 
management with its employees" and "[serve] as a consultant with other managers advising them on 
human resource issues."9 Similarly, O*NET states that "Human Resources Managers" typically 
"[serve] as a link between management and employees by handling questions, interpreting and 
administering contracts and helping resolve work-related problems," and "[a]dvise managers on 
organizational policy matters.': 10 These descriptions generally align with the Petitioner's statement 
that the Beneficiary will have "a broad scope of responsibility for managing the entire HR operations 
in the U.S." 
"Human Resources Specialists," available at http://www. bls.gov/ooh/business-and- financiallprint/human-resources­
specialists.htm (last visited Feb. 22, 2017), as well as the O*NET Details Report for "Human Resources Specialists," 
available at https://www.onetonline.org/linkldetails/13-l 071.00 (last visited Feb. 22, 20 17). These 
sources do not 
indicate that "Human Resources Specialists" typically are responsible for the management of a company's human 
resources operations. 
7 U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. 
Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://tlcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _ 
Guidance_ Revised _II_ 2009.pdf. 
8 !d. A prevailing wage determination starts with an entry level wage and progresses to a higher wage level after 
considering the experience, education, and skill requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. !d. A Level I wage 
should be considered for research fellows, workers in training, or internships. !d. 
9 For more information about the ''Human Resources Managers" occupational category in the Handbook, see 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/print/human-resources-managers.htm (last visited Feb. 22, 20 17). 
1° For more information about the "Human Resources Managers" occupational category in O*NET, see the O*NET 
Details Report for "Human Resources Managers," available at https:l/www.onetonline.org/link/details/ll-3121.00 (last 
visited Feb. 22, 20 17). 
7 
(b)(6)
Matter of 
We note that several ofthe Beneficiary's proposed job duties, such as "work with outside vendor to 
design functionalities in the e-HR system" and "negotiate with vendors and brokers to upgrade 
current benefits offerings," were previously performed by according to the copy 
of her resume (submitted in response to the Director's RFE). But although the Petitioner identified 
as an individual who is or was "employed in the same or similar position (HR Generalist 
or HR Specialist)," her resume identifies her position as the Petitioner's "HR Supervisor/HR 
Business Partner." 
We also note that or 
another human resources manager located within the United States, 
is no longer depicted on the Petitioner's organizational chart (submitted on appeal). Instead, the 
Petitioner's organizational chart depicts the company's U.S. human resources department as 
composed solely of two human resources personnel, including the Beneficiary. The Beneficiary is 
overseen by a human resources manager located in China. The Petitioner confirms on appeal that 
the Beneficiary is one of only two local human resources team members who will support "all of 
[the Petitioner's] U.S. operations," and will be a "critical member of the team and has a broad scope 
of responsibility for managing the entire HR operations in the U.S." That the Beneficiary is one of 
only two personnel responsible for managing the Petitioner's entire U.S. human resources 
operations, again, conflicts with the Petitioner's characterization of the proffered position as a 
Level I, entry-level position within the "Human Resources Specialists" occupational category. 11 
There are other discrepancies in the record as well. For example, as noted above, the Petitioner's 
organizational chart depicts only two human resources personnel, including the Beneficiary, within 
the United States. The Petitioner likewise states on appeal that it currently has two "local HR Team 
members located in the U.S." But the Petitioner also confusingly states on appeal that it has 
"seven (7) local HR Team members." Further still, in the same appeal brief, the Petitioner states that 
"[s]ince its establishment in 2013, [the Petitioner] has employed a total of four individuals in an HR 
capacity," and that "[a]ll four of those local HR Team members [are located] in the U.S." The 
11 
Although not asserted by the Petitioner, we note that if the Petitioner had believed its position to be a combination of 
"Human Resources Specialists" and "Human Resources Managers" positions, then it should have chosen the "Human 
Resources Managers" occupational classification on the LCA. For purposes of the LCA, the DOL instructs that, when 
the duties of a proffered position involve a combination of more than one occupational category, an employer should 
choose the highest paying occupation. U.S. Dep) of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination 
Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC _Guidance _Revised _11_2009.pdf. 
Pursuant to the Petitioner's certified LCA, the Level I prevailing wage for "Human Resources Specialists" in the area 
and time period of intended employment is $53, I 23 per year. But the prevailing wage for a Level I "Human Resources 
Managers" in the same area and time period of intended employment is $I 0 I, I 50 per year. For more information 
regarding the wages for "Human Resources Managers" (SOC code 11-3121) in the 
Metropolitan Statistical Area for the period 7/2015 6/2016, see 
http://www.flcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResults.aspx?code= 11-3121 &area= &year= 16&source= 1 (last visited 
Feb. 22, 2017). The proffered wage of $55,000 per year does not cover the Beneficiary's performance of job duties 
involving human resources management. 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter of 
record is therefore unclear as to how many individuals the Petitioner employs in its local human 
resources department. 
The record is also unclear as to the Beneficiary's place(s) of employment. The Petitioner 
represented on the Form I-129 and 
LCA that the Beneficiary will only work at the Petitioner's office 
in California. But on appeal the Petitioner identifies its worksite as the location 
of its research and development center. The Petitioner also claims on appeal that the company's 
U.S. headquarters, located in California, will provide human resources support services for 
its U.S. operations. The Petitioner has not clarified why the Beneficiary will apparently work from 
its research and development office instead of its headquarters office, which is responsible for all 
U.S. human resources functions. 
Moreover, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary "will support three offices ( 
and The Petitioner has not explained how the Beneficiary will provide support 
services to these other locations which were not included on the LCA. The Petitioner must support 
its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 
369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
Finally, the Petitioner has provided inconsistent evidence about its own educational requirement for 
the proffered position. On one hand, the Petitioner states that the proffered position requires a 
minimum of a bachelor's degree in human resources, business management, or a closely related 
field, or the equivalent. On the other hand, the Petitioner's job advertisement for the proffered 
position states that a "Bachelor's degree [is] required." The Petitioner's advertisement does not state 
that the required bachelor's degree must be in any spec(fic !>pecialty. The record does not contain 
objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
As previously stated, it is incumbent upon the Petitioner to resolve inconsistencies in the record by 
competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Ho, 19 I&N.Dec. at 591-92. Because 
the Petitioner has provided incomplete, inconsistent descriptions of its business operations and the 
proffered position, we are precluded from understanding where and what exactly the Beneficiary 
will be doing, the level of complexity and specialization of his job duties, and the level and type of 
education minimally needed to perform the proffered position. In other words, the record does not 
adequately convey the substantive nature of the proffered position. 
We are therefore precluded from finding that the proffered position satisfies 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 
minimum educational requirement for the particular position, which is the focus of criterion 1; 
(2) industry positions which are parallel to the protiered 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. Because the Petitioner has not 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter of 
satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not demonstrated that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
B. Opinion Letters 
Nor do the opinion letters submitted on appeal satisfy any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) in order to demonstrate the proffered position's qualification as a specialty 
occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits an opm10n letter from a recruiting consultant 
contracting with the Petitioner to perform "staffing and recruiting services for the company." The 
Petitioner additionally submits an opinion letter from professor and chairman of 
the Department of at the 
Upon close review of these letters, we conclude that they are insufficient. 
opines that the Petitioner and companies like the Petitioner require at least "a Bachelor's 
degree or its equivalent as the minimum requirement for entry into the position of HR Generalist." 
However, letter does not corroborate the Petitioner's alternative claim that the proffered 
position requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in human resources, business management, or a closely 
related field, or the equivalent. Like the Petitioner's job advertisement, letter does not 
state that the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree in a .~pec(fic specialty, or its equivalent, 
which is required to qualify as a "specialty occupation" as defined in section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
As previously discussed, section 214(i)(l) of the Act defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires, in part, the "attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the spec(fic 
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. In the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), we have consistently interpreted 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, 484 F.3d at 147. 
Thus, if the Petitioner's minimum entry requirement for the proffered pos1t10n is a general 
bachelor's degree as stated by (and reflected in the Petitioner's job advertisement), then 
this indicates that the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 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. There must be a close correlation between the required 
specialized studies and the position; thus, the mere requirement of a degree, without further 
specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. C.f Matter of Michael Hertz 
Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988) ("The mere requirement of a college degree for the 
sake of general education, or to obtain what an employer perceives to be a higher caliber employee, 
also does not establish eligibility."). We therefore conclude that letter does not 
establish the proffered position's qualification 
as a specialty occupation. 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter of 
We do not find letter to demonstrate the proffered position's qualification as a 
specialty occupation, either. In pertinent part, characterizes the proffered position as 
"assum[ing] more advanced duties with respect to the employer's human resource management 
operations." He states that the proffered position "will play a key role in developing, managing, 
implementing, administering, and/or assisting with human programs and solutions." He further 
states: "The position does not merely execute functional or administrative routines of employee 
monitoring and management, but rather contributes to the larger integration of HR objectives with 
business strategy." 
It does not appear that opinion was based on sufficient, accurate information about 
the position proposed here. In particular, does not indicate whether he considered, or 
was even aware of, the Petitioner's designation of the proffered position as a Level I, entry-level, 
"Human Resources Specialists" position on the LCA. Nor does his letter reflect an awareness of the 
numerous other inconsistencies in the record, including about the Petitioner's operations and claimed 
educational requirement. In short, opinion does not demonstrate a sound factual basis 
for his conclusions about the duties of the proffered position and its educational requirements. 
Accordingly, we conclude that the letters from and are not sufficient to 
establish the proffered position as a specialty occupation under any criterion of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as 
advisory. Matter qfCaron lnt'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). 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. ld. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The record does not sufficiently demonstrate that the profTered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. The burden is on the Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of ID# 105235 (AAO Feb. 27, 2017) 
II