dismissed H-1B Case: Human Resources

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT 28, 2024 In Re: 34580391 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimrnigrant Worker (H-lB) 
The Petitioner is a biotechnology company that seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
human resources specialist under the H-lB 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-lB program allows a U.S. employer to file a petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) 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 Vermont Service Center Director denied the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 
(petition), concluding that the record did not establish that the offered position qualified as a specialty 
occupation. The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to 
demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act; Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de novo. 
Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will 
dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 101 (a)( l 5)(H)(i)(b) of the Act defines an H-1 B nonimmigrant as a foreign national "who is 
coming temporarily to the United States to perform services . . . in a specialty occupation described in 
section 214(i)(l) .... " (emphasis added). Section 214(i)(I) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(I), defines 
the term "specialty occupation" as an occupation that requires "theoretical and practical application of 
a body of highly specialized knowledge, and 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 section 214(i)(l) of the Act, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. 
In addition, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) provides that the offered position must meet one of four 
criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation position. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must be read with 
the statutory and regulatory definitions of a specialty occupation under section 214(i)(1) of the Act 
and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 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"). Lastly, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(l) states that an H-lB classification may be granted 
to a foreign national who "will pe1form services in a specialty occupation ... " ( emphasis added). 
Accordingly, to determine whether the Beneficiary will be employed in a specialty occupation, we 
look to the record to ascertain the services the Beneficiary will perform and whether such services 
require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge attained 
through at least a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
By regulation, the Director is charged with determining whether the petition involves a specialty 
occupation as defined in section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(2). The Director 
may request additional evidence in the course of making this determination. 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(8). 
In addition, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the petition and must continue to 
be eligible through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner stated that the position "usually requires the candidate to possess a bachelor's degree 
in Human Resources Management, Labor Studies, Business Communication with the specific 
knowledge in Personnel Administration industries." In the same letter the Petitioner noted it "hires 
only candidates who have, at a minimum, a bachelor's degree or higher in Human Resources 
Management." It is unclear why they provided different position requirements and within the same 
letter. The Petitioner repeated this inconsistency in its response to the Director's request for evidence 
(RFE) and within this appeal. These inconsistencies weigh in opposition of the Petitioner's eligibility 
as they should ameliorate this discrepant information through the submission ofrelevant, independent, 
and objective evidence that reveals which facts are accurate. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 
591-92 (BIA 1988); see also 2233 Paradise Rd., LLCv. Cissna, No. 17-CV-01018-APG-VCF, 2018 WL 
3312967, at *3 (D. Nev. July 3, 2018) (finding a petitioner's inconsistent position requirements to be a 
detriment to the filing party). 
The Petitioner initially provided the position's description with 11 bullet points and expanded on those 
duties in its RFE response. For the reasons discussed below, we have determined that the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that the offered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 1 Specifically, we 
conclude that the record does not establish the job duties require an educational background, or its 
equivalent, corresponding with a specialty occupation. 2 
1 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation to supp01i the petition, including evidence regarding the position and its business 
operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 
A. First Criterion 
We begin with 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 recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's 
(DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as one possible resource on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. While we do not 
maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information, the Petitioner relies on this 
resource here. To satisfy the first criterion, the burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to submit 
sufficient evidence to support a determination that its particular position would normally have a 
minimum specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. "[T]he choice of what reference 
materials to consult is quintessentially within an agency's discretion .... " Royal Siam C01p., 484 
F.3d at 146. 
The Petitioner submitted the required DOL ETA Form 9035 & 9035E, Labor Condition Application 
for Nonimmigrant Workers with this petition, where it classified the offered position under the 
occupational title "Human Resources Specialists," corresponding to the standard occupational 
classificational code 13-1071. We agree with and incorporate the Director's analysis under this 
criterion and their discussion relating to the Handbook. In summary, the Handbook's inclusion of a 
degree in business without some specialization is generally inadequate to demonstrate a specialized 
bachelor's degree is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the Director "reconstructed the Congress [sic] intent of the specialty 
occupation requiring theoretical and practical application of highly specialized knowledge including 
business specialties. The Services concluded that the offered position is not a specialty occupation 
because the [Handbook] included a major in business for the position." The Petitioner further states 
the submitted evidence supports their requirement of at least a bachelor's degree in human resources. 
But that is the topic of criterion three, and we will discuss their arguments under that criterion. 
Even though the Petitioner claims on appeal that the evidence in the record satisfies this criterion, they 
did not indicate what that evidence consisted of or when they submitted it. Unsupported assertions 
have little evidentiary value and are insufficient to establish a filing party has satisfied their burden of 
proof; such assertions do not even make a prima facie eligibility showing. See Matter of 
Mariscal-Hernandez, 28 I&N Dec. 666, 673 (BIA 2022); see also Matter ofAzrag, 28 I&N Dec. 784, 
787 (BIA 2024). In their RFE response, the Petitioner only provided the Handbook profile for Human 
Resources Specialists and the Director adequately addressed that evidence. 
And to close the book on the issue of the Handbook, federal courts have found that when that resource 
includes a general business degree as a qualifying degree, that resource does not demonstrate eligibility 
under the first criterion. See Vision Builders, LLC v. USCIS, No. CV 19-3159 (TJK), 2020 WL 
5891546, at *5 (D.D.C. Oct. 5, 2020) (citing 2233 Paradise Rd., LLC, 2018 WL 3312967, at *3; see 
also Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147 (finding that "although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, 
such as a business administration degree, may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, 
requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify the granting of a petition for an H-1 B specialty 
occupation visa"); Matter ofMichael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558,560 (BIA 1988). 
3 
The Petitioner has not provided documentation from a probative source to substantiate its assertion 
regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. Therefore, it has not 
satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
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). 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 the second criterion's 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. As recognized in federal court cases 
(RELX, Inc. v. Baran, 397 F. Supp. 3d 41, 54 (D.D.C. 2019); 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))), 
we generally consider the following sources of evidence to determine ifthere 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. 
As previously discussed, 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. 
Petitioner provided job postings under this prong and the Director denied on two bases. First that the 
Petitioner did not show it was sufficiently similar to the other organizations, and second that some of 
the job postings had a requirement for only a bachelor's degree in business administration. On appeal, 
the Petitioner only offers two sentences for this prong summarizing the Director's findings then 
stating: "Although the size of the company and the location of the company vary but all of them 
require a bachelor's degree in business specialties, or human resources management." 
After reviewing the four job announcements the Petitioner offered in the RFE response, we do not 
agree that all of them require a bachelor's degree in business specialties. Although two announcements 
mandate a bachelor's degree in human resources management, those also require a certain number of 
years of experience, which the Petitioner did not include for this offered position. This suggests that 
those announcements are for positions more senior than the position in this petition. Also, those two 
announcements reflected those companies would accept a degree related to human resources 
management but didn't specify what fields it considered to be a degree that was related to a human 
resources management degree. This further weighs against the Petitioner's claims that the jobs in the 
4 
announcements were for parallel positions. And we incorporate the Director's findings regarding the 
Petitioner's failure to demonstrate the organizations in the announcements were similar to the 
petitioning organization. 
Without more, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations. Consequently, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first 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. 
In support of its assertion that the offered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, the Petitioner 
described the offered position and its business operations. The Director concluded their description 
did not reflect the position was sufficiently complex or unique, nor did it differentiate the position 
from other similar positions that did not have a qualifying degree as a prerequisite. Within the appeal, 
the Petitioner does not specifically identify an erroneous conclusion of law or fact relating to this 
requirement. The Petitioner provides a general statement of disagreement with the Director's decision 
and restates their previous claims. But the Petitioner does not identify what, if any, evidence the 
Director might have disregarded or how its previously claims demonstrated eligibility. 
The reason for filing an appeal is to provide an affected party with the means to remedy what they 
perceive as an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact within a decision in a previous 
proceeding. See 8 C.F.R. § I 03.3(a)(l )(v). It is insufficient to merely assert that the Director made 
an improper determination. Where a question of law is presented, supporting authority should be 
included, and where the dispute is on the facts, there should be a discussion of the particular details 
contested. Matter of Valencia, 19 I&N Dec. 354, 355 (BIA 1986). 
Because we find no error in the Director's analysis here, we consider the Petitioner's arguments under 
this prong to be forfeited or waived. Matter of Garcia, 28 I&N Dec. 693, 693 (BIA 2023) (finding 
arguments that do not meaningfully challenge an aspect of the underlying decision are deemed waived 
on appeal). 
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. 
The record must establish that a petitioner's stated degree requirement is not a matter of preference 
for high-caliber candidates but is necessitated instead by the position's performance requirements. See 
Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. A petitioner must demonstrate that its imposed requirements are 
genuine. Saganvala v. Cissna, 387 F. Supp. 3d 56, 69 (D.D.C. 2019); Cf Michael Hertz Assocs., 
5 
19 T&N Dec. at 560 ( finding: ( l) the requirement of a degree for the sake of general education, or to 
obtain what an employer perceives to be a higher caliber employee, does not establish eligibility; and 
(2) an analysis of eligibility includes not only the actual requirements a petitioner specifies, but also 
those the specific industry in question requires to determine, in part, the validity of a petitioner's 
requirements). 
Were USCTS limited solely to reviewing the 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 Petitioner created a token degree requirement. Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. Evidence 
provided in support of this criterion 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. 
Before the Director, the Petitioner claimed they required at least a bachelor's degree in human 
resources management, and they provided an organizational chart in addition to their Human 
Resources Director's resume. The Director explained why this evidence was insufficient noting the 
resume did not establish the employee actually possessed the claimed degree nor did the Petitioner 
demonstrate it had compensated the employee for occupying the claimed position. We reiterate the 
conflicting information that tends to undermine the organization's claims that it also required a 
bachelor's degree in human resources management, labor studies, or business communications with 
the specific knowledge in personnel administration industries. On appeal, the Petitioner provides the 
missing Human Resources Director's degree. 
But according to the employee's resume, they occupy a managerial position while the position offered 
here is not so senior. So, this employee does not appear to occupy a position sufficiently similar to 
the one on the petition and the regulation here focuses on the Petitioner's hiring requirements for "the" 
position. 
Additionally, the Petitioner did not provide the job duties and day-to-day responsibilities for this 
employee. The Petitioner also did not submit any information from the organization regarding the 
complexity of the job duties, supervisory duties, independent judgment required, or the amount of 
supervision received. Accordingly, it is unclear whether this employee's duties and responsibilities 
was the same or similar to the offered position. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner did not provide the total number of people it has employed to serve in the 
offered position. Consequently, we cannot determine how representative the Petitioner's claim 
regarding one individual is of its normal recruiting and hiring practices. See Glob. Fabricators, Inc. 
v. Holder, 320 F. App'x 576, 580 (9th Cir. 2009). The Petitioner has not persuasively established that 
it normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the 
position. Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 2 l 4.2(h )( 4)(iii)( A). 
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 
6 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
The Petitioner presented the duties to qualify under this criterion and the Director concluded that they 
were not of sufficient specialization or complexity to require a qualifying degree. The Director further 
stated the Petitioner did not sufficiently detail how the offered position's duties were more specialized 
and complex when compared to the duties normally associated with a Human Resources Specialist, 
which is a position that does not usually require a specialized bachelor's degree, or its equivalent. 
We note the position's duties here are very similar to those found in the Handbook, and that resource 
does not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is a common requirement. The 
Petitioner appears to attempt to differentiate the offered position from those similar to Human 
Resources Specialists in the Handbook that can qualify relying on a general business degree based on 
its own business operations. 
The Petitioner asserts that because those in the offered position must recruit qualified professionals 
whose expertise is in line with the company's operations, that this transforms the position here into 
one that is more specialized and complex. This assertion is not persuasive. The Petitioner lists some 
areas of academic concentration it states are directly related to the position. But they do not 
sufficiently substantiate how an established curriculum leading to a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty is necessary to perform the duties it claims are so specialized and complex. To execute some 
functions of the offered position, associated courses may be helpful or necessary. However, the 
Petitioner has not established that a prepared educational program leading to a bachelor's degree or 
higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required. We do not find the Petitioner's position 
persuasive on this issue. 
Although the Petitioner asserts that the nature of the specific duties is specialized and complex, the 
record lacks sufficient evidence to support this claim. Therefore, the Petitioner has submitted 
insufficient evidence to satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
In summary, the Petitioner has not satisfied any of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
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 a petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7