dismissed H-1B Case: Human Resources

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 13570745 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR . 1, 2021 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-lB nonimmigrant 
classification for specialty occupations .1 The H-lB 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 initially approved the petition. Upon review, the Director 
issued a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) the approval. The Director ultimately revoked the approval, 
concluding that the proffered position did not qualify as a specialty occupation. On appeal , the 
Petitioner asserts that the Director erred and the Petitioner has established eligibility for this benefit. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. 2 We review the questions in this matter de nova. 3 Upon de nova 
review , we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. REVOCATION 
The approval of an H-lB petition may be revoked on notice under five specific circumstances. 4 To 
properly revoke the approval of a petition , the Director must issue a NOIR that contains a detailed 
statement of the grounds for the revocation and the time period allowed for rebuttal. 5 
The Director's statements in the NOIR noting deficiencies in the record at the time of filing were 
adequate to notify the Petitioner of the intent to revoke the approval of the petition in accordance with 
the provision at 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(h)(l l)(iii)(A)(5) . The Petitioner claims on appeal that the revocation 
does not "clarify[y] which portion of [214.2(h)(l l)(iii)(A)(5)] the Service is basing its decision on." 
In the NOIR, the Director clearly raised the issue of whether the proffered position qualifies as a 
1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l( a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) , 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). 
2 See Section 291 of the Act; see also Matter ofChawath e, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
3 See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . 
4 See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(ll)(iii )(A). 
5 See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(ll)(iii )(B). 
specialty occupation under the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Therefore, the Petitioner had 
adequate notice of why the approval of the petition violated paragraph (h) of this section. For the 
reasons set out below, we conclude that the record does not establish that the proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation under the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) and the Director 
properly revoked the approval of the petition. 
II. 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: 
( 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. 
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. 6 
III. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner describes itself as an "in-house office management company," providing 
"administrative support in Information Technology, Human Resources, Accounting, Media and Web 
6 See Royal Siam COip. v. Chertof(, 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). 
2 
Development, as well as additional business services." The Petitioner states the Beneficiary will be 
employed as a "human resources coordinator" performing the following job duties: 
• [P]rovide personnel assistance in identifying, evaluating, and resolving human 
relations and work performance problems, to facilitate communication and improve 
employee human relations skills and work performance ... 
• [T]alk informally with establishment personnel and attend meetings of managers 
and supervisors, to facilitate effective interpersonal communication among 
participants ... 
• [ A ]scertain human relations and work related problems that adversely affect 
employee morale and establishment productivity ... 
• [M]eet with supervisors and managers to determine effective remediation 
techniques, such as job skill training or personal intervention to resolve HR issues 
among personnel. .. 
• [D]evelop and construct training to instruct establishment managers, supervisors, 
and workers in supervisory skills, conflict resolution skills, and interpersonal 
communication skills ... 
• [W]ork to improve individual work performance by scheduling individuals for 
technical job-related skills training ... 
• [E]nsur[e] that the company is running properly and professionally ... 
• [E]nsur[e] that all employees are kept content and are operating proficiently ... 
• [P]repare file credentialing applications, maintain records on credentials and 
licensures, and collect, track, and submit medical billing ... 
• [ A ]ssist[] the HR Department, and billing and credentialing directors ... 
• [E]nsur[ e] that all doctors are properly licensed and accounted for, and that the 
company remains profitable through timely and accurate recordkeeping and billing. 
According to the Petitioner, the position requires at least a bachelor's degree in human resources, 
management, business administration, or a related field. 7 
IV. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we conclude that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Specifically, the record (1) does not describe the position's duties with sufficient substantive detail; 
and (2) does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, 
commensurate with a specialty occupation. 
A. First Criterion 
We tum first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which 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 will consider the information contained 
7 The Petitioner submitted documentation in support of the H-lB petition. While we may not discuss every document 
submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 
in the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) regarding the 
duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations it addresses. 8 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Human Resources Specialists" 
corresponding to the standard occupational classification (SOC) code 13-1071. 9 
We reviewed the information in the Handbook regarding this occupational category and conclude that 
the Handbook does not establish that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is required for "Human 
Resources Specialists." The subchapter of the Handbook entitled "How to Become a Human 
Resources Specialists" states they "usually must have a bachelor's degree in human resources, 
business, or a related field." 10 By identifying business as an acceptable field for entry into the 
occupation, the Handbook strongly suggests that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is not a 
standard, minimum entry requirement for this occupation. A petitioner must demonstrate that the 
proffered position requires a precise and specific course of study that relates directly to the position in 
question. Since there must be a close correlation between the required specialized studies and the 
position, the requirement of a degree with a generalized title, such as business, without further 
specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. 11 
While the Handbook does not support the claim that the occupational category "Human Resources 
Specialists" is one for which normally the minimum requirement for entry is a baccalaureate degree 
( or higher) in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, it does not preclude the Petitioner from establishing 
its particular position is a specialty occupation with other authoritative sources or under one of the 
other regulatory criteria. 
As an alternate authoritative source, the Petitioner includes a printout of the Occupational Information 
Network (O*NET) for "Human Resources Specialists." More specifically, it references this 
occupation's Job Zone "Four" rating, which groups it among occupations for which "most ... require 
a four-year bachelor's degree, but some do not." 12 We note that the O*NET provides general 
information regarding the occupation, and does not indicate that four-year bachelor's degrees required 
by Job Zone Four occupations must be in a specific specialty directly related to the 
8 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 . Neve1theless, 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 nonnally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, 
or its equivalent, for entry. 
9 A petitioner submits the LCA to DOL to demonstrate that it will pay an H-lB 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. See Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.73l(a). 
10 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Human Resources Specialists, 
https://www.bls.gov /ooh/business-and-financial/human-resources-specialists.htm (last visited Jan. 27, 2021 ). 
11 See Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147; see also Shanti,Jnc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d l 15l(D. Minn. 1999); 2233 Paradise Road, 
LLCv. Cissna, No. 17- cv- 01018- APG- VCF, 2018 WL 3312967 (D. Nev., July 3, 2018); XiaoTong Liu v. Baran , No. 
18-00376-JVS, 2018 WL 7348851 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 21 , 2018) ; Parzenn Partners v. Baran , No. 19-cv-11515-ADB , 2019 
WL 6130678 (D. Mass., Nov . 19, 2019). 
12 O*NET OnLine Summary Report for "13-1071.00 Human Resources Specialists," 
https:/ /www .onetonline .org/ Archive_ ONET-SOC _ 201 O _Taxonomy_ 09 _ 2020/link/summary/l 3-1071.00 (last visited 
Jan. 27, 2021). 
4 
occupation. Therefore, the O*NET is not probative of the proffered position being a specialty 
occupation. The Petitioner also submits an excerpt from study.com, which discusses the occupation's 
career outlook and generic duties, and repeats information found in the Handbook. According to the 
excerpt, "human resource specialists pursue degrees in business or similar majors." Of note, the record 
does not establish the extent to which study.com is recognized as providing authoritative information 
regarding requirements for entering occupations. Moreover, whether a given degree prepares or 
qualifies an individual to perform the duties of a proffered position is not the focus of the first criterion. 
The focus is whether a given degree is normally required, which the article does not address. 
The Petitioner claims that the minimum requirement for entry into its particular position is a bachelor's 
degree in human resources, management, business administration, 13 or a related field. 14 It is not 
readily apparent that these fields of study are closely related or that any one field provides a specific 
course of study directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position proffered in 
this matter. 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" 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 disparate fields would not meet the statutory 
requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty," unless the petitioner establishes how each 
field is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position such that the required 
"body of highly specialized knowledge" is essentially an amalgamation of these different specialties. 15 
Here, the Petitioner does not identify any knowledge, much less specialized knowledge, attained from 
management and human resources degrees that would be directly related to the duties and 
responsibilities of the proffered position. 
Thus, as the evidence of record fails to establish a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position, 
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 first prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), contemplates common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows 
13 The Petitioner's acknowledgment that a bachelor's degree in "business administration" is a sufficient minimum 
requirement for entry into the proffered position further establishes that the proposed position does not qualify as a specialty 
occupation. As discussed previously, there must be a close correlation between the required specialized studies and the 
position, and the requirement of a degree with a generalized title, such as business administration, without further 
specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Associates, 19 T&N 
Dec. 558 (Comm'r 1988). The Petitioner identifies no specific training or experience required with its general degree 
requirement. While the Petitioner identifies courses taken by the Beneficiary in pursing her bachelor's degree in business 
administration, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the skill set or education of a proposed 
beneficiary, but whether the position itself qualifies as a specialty occupation. In addition, the courses do not identity a 
particular concentration within the business administration degree that may qualify the proffered position as a specialty 
occupation. 
14 The Petitioner does not define "related field." 
15 See Section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). 
5 
its focus to the Petitioner's specific position. 16 To satisfy this first prong, 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 an authoritative source 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." 17 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that an authoritative source reports at least 
a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required for the proffered position, and 
we incorporate our previous discussion on this matter. 18 The Petitioner also does not submit evidence 
from an industry professional association indicating such a degree is a minimum requirement for entry 
into the position or any letters or affidavits from similar firms or individuals in the Petitioner's industry 
attesting that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." 
The Petitioner submits two job advertisements as evidence that its degree requirement is standard among 
its peer organizations for parallel positions in the industry. However, for the petitioner to establish that 
an advertising organization is similar, it must demonstrate that the petitioner and the organization share 
the same general characteristics. Without such evidence, postings submitted by a petitioner are 
generally outside the scope of consideration for this criterion, which encompasses only organizations 
that are similar to the petitioner. When determining whether the petitioner and the advertising 
organization share the same general characteristics, such factors may include information regarding 
the nature or type of organization, and, when pertinent, the particular scope of operations, as well as 
the level ofrevenue and staffing (to list just a few elements that may be considered). One advertising 
company is a packaging company and the other is not described in the advertisement but appears to 
be a recruiting firm from its title. The record does not establish how these two companies are similar 
in nature to the Petitioner, a management and administrative support company. For this reason, the 
Petitioner does not establish these job advertisements are for organizations similar to the Petitioner. 
In addition, the Petitioner does not establish that the positions advertised are parallel to the proffered 
position. The advertisements are worded generally and of the duties described, many are not parallel 
to the Beneficiary's. For example, one of the job advertisements focuses the duties on preparing 
payroll, taxes and relevant state reporting returns and requires general accounting knowledge. The 
other advertisement describes the duties as promoting occupational health and safety and supporting 
talent acquisitions. The Petitioner does not explain the discrepancies or how the positions are parallel. 
16 As the Petitioner combines its arguments in support of the second prong of the second criterion with criterion four, we 
will analyze these two criteria together. 
17 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)). 
18 In discussing this criterion, the Petitioner assumes the Handbook "establishes" a bachelor's degree requirement in 
"human resources, business or a related field" and therefore asserts it has met its burden in evidencing a degree common 
to the industry. As discussed previously, the Handbook does not establish that the occupation requires a degree in a specific 
specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. 
6 
Even if the job postings indicated that a requirement of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is 
common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations (which they do not), the 
Petitioner does not demonstrate what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from two 
consciously selected postings with regard to the common educational requirements for entry into 
parallel positions in similar organizations. 19 Moreover, given that there is no indication that the 
advertisements were randomly selected, the validity of any such inferences could not be accurately 
determined even if the sampling unit were sufficiently large. 20 
Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first prong of the criterion at 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. 
In response to the NOIR, the Petitioner states it meets the specialty occupation under every criterion. 
However, the Petitioner does not provide evidence in support of this criterion, which may include, but 
is not limited to, documentation regarding the Petitioner's past recruitment and hiring practices, as 
well as information regarding employees who previously held the position. While a petitioner may 
believe or otherwise assert that a proffered position requires a degree in a specific specialty, that 
opinion alone without corroborating evidence cannot establish the position as a specialty 
occupation. Were we limited solely to reviewing a petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, 
then any individual with a bachelor's degree could be brought to the United States to perform any 
occupation as long as the employer artificially created a token degree requirement, whereby all 
individuals employed in a particular position possessed a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. 21 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
D. Second Prong of Second Criterion and Fourth Criterion 
The second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) 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. 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. 
When determining whether a position is a specialty occupation, we look at whether the position 
actually requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge 
attained through at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific discipline. However, the inconsistencies 
19 See generally Earl Babbie. The Practice of Social Research 186-228 (7th ed. 1995). 
20 See id. at 195-96 (explaining that "[r]andom selection is the key to [the] process [of probability sampling]" and that 
"random selection offers access to the body of probability the01y, which provides the basis for estimates of population 
parameters and estimates of error"). 
21 See Defensor, 201 F. 3d at 387. 
7 
in the record, paired with the overly broad description of the duties occlude the substantive nature of 
the position and prevents an analysis of whether the proffered position is so "complex or unique" or 
"specialized and complex" that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is required. 
The duties are a crucial aspect in discerning the nature of the position. However, the description 
provided lacks substantive detail and context for the duties, which is further highlighted by the absence 
of information on the structure of the company. 22 Without information on the organizational structure, 
we are unable to ascertain from the broadly worded duties the Beneficiary's overall role, for example, 
what level of management the Beneficiary will be meeting with or training or what level of authority 
or responsibility is afforded to the position in "ensuring the company is running properly and 
professionally." Moreover, without a more meaningful job description, we are also unable to ascertain 
the requisite knowledge and experience 23 necessary to perform the duties of the position. For example, 
the Petitioner states the Beneficiary will be required to ensure that "all employees are kept content and 
are operating proficiently." The Petitioner does not explain how the Beneficiary is to keep employees 
operating proficiently, and what knowledge would be required to do so. Another duty states the 
Beneficiary will assist the "HR Department, and billing and credentialing directors," but does not 
explain what type of assistance she will provide and how the duty is so "complex or unique" or 
"specialized and complex" that it can be performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner, focused on establishing the proffered position as entry level, 
states the duties call for "limited, if any, exercise of judgment." The Petitioner describes the position 
as "merely assist[ing] the Human Resources Manager," and "merely attend[ing] .. [and] merely 
facilitat[ing]" manager and supervisory meetings. It clarifies that the Beneficiary would not be 
responsible for resolving HR issues, "[r]ather she will meet with supervisors and managers ... to give 
her input." According to the Petitioner, the Beneficiary has "no authority to hire, fire, or discipline 
any ... employees" and "merely has the responsibility of drafting and making reports." The 
Beneficiary will "merely prepar[ e] applications and maintain[] records. . . nothing more than 
administerial acts." With respect to the Beneficiary's training duties, they "do[] not require any 
advanced education or training to be able to perform." In its efforts to minimize the proffered 
position's required experience, the Petitioner describes a position less like "Human Resources 
22 According to the petition and initial support letter, the Petitioner is comprised of 50 employees in the United States. The 
Petitioner's response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) states it is comprised of40 employees. The Petitioner's 
response to the NOIR states it is comprised of 22 employees. This discrepancy, which would go to the general 
characteristic of the company, is not explained. The Petitionyx's ~ocuments do not include an organizational chaii. The 
Petitioner submitted a letter from the Beneficiary's supervisor J who states her title is Manager, Human 
Resources, but she provides no information on the proffered position's management chain, how many other "human 
resources coordinators" she supervises or additional details on the proffered position's duties. The response to the RFE 
also identifies al I as the only person responsible for making administrative decisions, such as hiring, firing, 
and disciplining[] employees." However, this individual's position in the company is not identified and further clouds the 
hierarchy of the human resources section of the company. 
23 The record is inconsistent on the amount of experience needed for the proffered position and does not identify the type 
of experience required. The Petitioner's response to the RFE states "the Petitioner did NOT require as a condition of 
employment any prior work experience in this particular job, or even a related job, in a related field." However, its response 
to the NOIR states, "[p ]rior work experience is required, in addition to the attainment of a Bachelor's Degree." However, 
the Petitioner does not state how many years of experience or what area of expertise is required. 
8 
Specialists," 24 and more like "Human Resources Assistants," SOC 43-4161, a more supportive role.25 
While we acknowledge some overlap in the two occupations, the Petitioner does not specify which 
tasks are major functions of the proffered position, what percentage of time the Beneficiary will spend 
on performing each duty, and what each duty entails. Without information on the order of importance 
or frequency of occurrence ( e.g., regularly, periodically, or at irregular intervals) with which the 
Beneficiary will perform each duty, compounded with the lack of substantive detail describing the 
duties, we are unable to distinguish between the occupational duties and whether its particular position 
is so "complex or unique" or "specialized and complex" that it can be performed only by an individual 
with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
The Petitioner's response to the NOIR raises additional inconsistencies that farther obscures the 
substantive nature of the proffered position. For example, it states the proffered position "has evolved" 
and describes additional duties as: 
• [M]anaging HR ... 
• [H]andling specific medical credentialing ... 
• [C]orresponding and managing worker's comp, disability and unemployment 
cases ... 
• [E]valuat[ing] salary compliance, and overtime requirements ... 
• [M]anag[ing] benefits including health, disability, and 401k. 
While the additional duties are not described in detail, they hold more responsibility and imply a more 
experienced role. The Petitioner does not reconcile this new description of the duties with the duties 
as presented at the time of filing, 26 and does not explain how these duties would not require a wage 
level increase. 27 As a result, the inconsistencies in the record undermine the overall credibility of the 
filing and the Petitioner's claims regarding the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the 
Beneficiary. 
24 "Human Resources Specialists" perform human resources activities and do not "merely assist." See O*NET OnLine 
Summary Report for "13-1071.00 - Human Resources Specialists," https://www.onetonline.org/Archive_ONET­
SOC _ 2010 _ Taxonomy_09 _ 2020/link/summary/13-l 071.00 (last visited Jan. 27, 2021 ). Among other duties, "Human 
Resources Specialists" hire employees, select qualified job applicants, develop recruiting strategies, and maintain current 
knowledge of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) and affirmative action guidelines and laws. 
25 "Human Resources Assistants" provide assistance, compile and prepare reports, and coordinate, manage or train others 
to accomplish goals. See O*NET OnLine Summary Report for "43-4161.00 - Human Resources Assistants, Except 
Payroll and Timekeeping," https://www.onetonline.org/ Archive_ ONET­
SOC _ 2010 _Taxonomy_ 09 _ 2020/link/summary/43-4161.00 (last visited Jan. 27, 2021). As a Job Zone "Three" this 
occupation requires less preparation, education, and training than "Human Resources Specialists." Id. 
26 The Petitioner must resolve these inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
27 The Petitioner selected the Level I wage on the LCA as consonant with the job requirements, necessary experience, 
education, and special skills/other requirements of the proffered position. A prevailing wage determination starts with an 
entry level wage and progresses to a higher wage level atter considering the experience, education, and skill requirements 
of the Petitioner's job opportunity. See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination 
Policy Guidance, available at http://t1cdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised_ 11 _ 2009.pdf Any special 
skills or other requirements which are not usually part of the occupation will generally require an increase in the wage 
level. The employer's requirements for experience, education, training, and special skills shall be compared to those 
generally required for an occupation as described in O*NET. If there are any requirements above those generally required 
for an occupation, then one or more points should be added to the appropriate wage column(s). See U.S. Dep't of Labor, 
Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs, supra. 
9 
Thus, the Petitioner has not sufficiently developed relative specialization as an aspect of the duties of 
the position, and it has not identified tasks that are sufficiently complex or unique to satisfy the second 
alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) or specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)( 4). 
V. CONCLUSION 
Upon review of the totality of the evidence submitted, the Petitioner has not established that more 
likely than not, the proffered position is a specialty occupation under any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility 
for the immigration benefit sought. 28 The Petitioner has not met that burden. The Director properly 
revoked the approval of this petition. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
28 See Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 
10