dismissed H-1B Case: Human Resources

(b)(6)
DAT I:f.iAY 1 3 2015 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
OFF ICE: VE RMONT SER VICE CENT ER 
U.S. Department of Homcl11nd Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Scrvi(;CS 
i\<.lminislrativt: Appeals Office (i\A<)) 
20 Massachusetts i\ve .. N.W .. MS 2090 
Washington. DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section I 0 I (a)( 15 )(H)(i )(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1 101(a)(I5)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIO NER : 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Encl osed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (F orm 1-2908) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form 1-2908 instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.P.R. § 103.5 . Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank�
�
f{J � 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director (hereinafter "director") denied the nonimmigrant visa 
petition, and the matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will 
be dismissed. The petition will be denied. 
I. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND 
On the Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129), the petitioner describes itself as a 
41-employee "Digital Agency" established in In order to employ the beneficiary in what it 
designates as an "HR Associate" position, the petitioner seeks to classify her as a nonimmigrant 
worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to section 10l(a )(l 5)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
The director found the initial evidence insufficient to establish eligibility for the benefit sought, and 
issued a Request for Evidence (RFE). Thereafter, the petitioner responded to the director's RFE. 
The director reviewed the information and determined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility 
for the benefit sought. The director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to establish 
that it would employ the beneficiary in a specialty occupation position: On appeal, the petitioner 
asserted that the director's basis for denial was erroneous and contended that the petitioner satisfied 
all evidentiary requirements. 
We base our decision upon our review of the entire record of proceeding, which includes: 
( 1) the petitioner's Form I -129 and the supporting documentation; (2) the service center's RFE; (3) 
the petitioner's response to the RFE; (4) the director's denial letter; and (5) the Notice of Appeal or 
Motion (Form I-290B) and the petitioner's submissions on appeal. We reviewed the record in its 
entirety before issuing our decision. 1 
As will be discussed below, we have determined that the director did not err in her decision to deny 
the petition on the specialty occupation issue. Accordingly, the director's decision will not be 
disturbed. The appeal will be dismissed, and the petition will be denied. 
II. PROFFERED POSITIO N 
The March 14, 2014 job offer indicates that the petitioner proposes to employ the beneficiary as a 
full-time HR Associate and states the following as the duties of the proffered position: 
• Managing full-cycle recruiting process by sourcing, screening, scheduling and 
conducting interviews as well as on-boarding new employees 
1 We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.Jd 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DEC!SIO! 
• Attending career fairs or college recruiting events to recruit skilled entry level 
professionals and maintaining a pool of talented candidates for future workforce 
needs 
• Managing [the petitioner's] summer internship program 
• [P lanning] and performing new hire orientations/on-boarding as well as 
completing highly confidential paperwork 
• Creating, up-dating and maintaining effective job descriptions 
• Conducting salary surveys to determine compensation for new employees as well 
as maintaining internal and external equity 
• Administering benefit programs including but not limited to health insurance, life 
and dental insurance, disability insurance, paid time off. 401 K and bonus plan 
• Assisting managers and employees in completing quarterly performance reviews 
• Ensuring accuracy of information and tracking progress of applicants in A TS 
[Applicant Tracking System] 
• Designing and delivering efficient training programs to address developmental 
needs 
• Communicating, implementing and providing guidance to employees on company 
policies and regulations 
• Ensuring compliance with various federal and state laws e.g. HIP A and OSHA 
• Performing investigations related to employee relations matters 
• Conducting exit interviews to understand reasons for departure and analyzing 
trends 
• Ensuring employees have the right tools and technologies to perform their job 
successfully 
• Organizing company-wide employee events and activities 
• Promoting diversity in the workplace through various HR initiatives and programs 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
• Leading special or ad hoc projects requmng advanced knowledge within a 
particular area of HR 
• Creating and maintaining a happy engaged workforce through constant 
improvement in HR services and solutions 
In a letter dated March 30, 2014, the petitioner states: "In order to perform the duties outlined 
above, the job applicant must have at least a bachelor's degree (and preferably a master's degree) in 
human resources from an accredited college or university." With the visa petition, the petitioner 
submitted evidence that the beneficiary received a master's degree in management from 
The beneficiary's resume states that she also received a bachelor's degree in 
management studies from in India. 
The Labor Condition Application (LCA) submitted to support the visa petitiOn states that the 
proffered position is an HR Associate position, and that it corresponds to Standard Occupational 
Classification (SOC) code and title 43-4161, Human Resources Assistants, Except Payroll and 
Timekeeping, from the Occupational Information Network (O*NET). The LCA further states that 
the proffered position is a wage Level I, entry-level, position. 
III. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
The issue is whether the petitioner has provided sufficient evidence to establish that it will employ 
the beneficiary in a specialty occupation position. 
A. The Law 
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) states, in pertinent part, the following: 
Specialty occupation means an occupation which [(I)] requires theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in fields of human 
endeavor including, but not limited to, architecture, engineering, mathematics, 
physical sciences, social sciences, medicine and health, education, business 
specialties, accounting, law, theology, and the arts, and which [(2)] requires the 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as 
a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
· 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, a proposed position must 
also meet one of the following criteria: 
(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. 
As a threshold issue, it is noted that 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must logically be read together 
with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F. R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). [n other words, this regulatory 
language must be construed in harmony with the thrust of the related provisions and with the statute 
as a whole. SeeK Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) (holding that construction 
of language which takes into account the design of the statute as a whole is preferred); see also COlT 
Independence Joint Venture v. Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989); Matter ofW­
F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). As such, the criteria stated in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) 
should logically be read as being necessary but not necessarily sufficient to meet the statutory and 
regulatory definition of specialty occupation. To otherwise interpret this section as stating the 
necessary and sufficient conditions for meeting the definition of specialty occupation would result in 
particular positions meeting a condition under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory or 
regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). To avoid this 
result, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must therefore be read as providing supplemental criteria that 
must be met in accordance with, and not as alternatives to, the statutory and regulatory definitions of 
specialty occupation. 
As such and consonant with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) consistently 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. 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" ). Applying this standard, USCIS regularly approves H-l B petitions for qualified aliens 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
who are to be employed as engineers, computer scientists, certified public accountants, college 
professors, and other such occupations. These professions, for which petitioners have regularly been 
able to establish a minimum entry requirement in the United States of a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
particular position, fairly represent the types of specialty occupations that Congress contemplated 
when it created the H-I B visa category. 
To determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCJS does not simply 
rely on a position's title. The specific duties of the proffered position, combined with the nature of 
the petitioning entity's business operations, are factors to be considered. USCJS must examine the 
ultimate employment of the alien, and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. See generally Defensor v. 1\1eissner, 201 F. 3d 384. The critical element is not the title 
of the position nor an employer's self-imposed standards, but whether the position actually requires 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the 
attainment of a baccaJaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty as the minimum for entry into 
the occupation, as required by the Act. 
B. Analysis 
Turning to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), we will first discuss the record of 
proceeding in relation 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. 
We recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an 
authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations 
that it addresses.4 The petitioner claims in the LCA that the proffered position corresponds to SOC 
code and title 43-4161, Human Resources Assistants, Except Payroll and Timekeeping, from 
O*NET. Upon review, we find that most of the duties attributed to the proffered position are 
consistent with the duties of human resources generalists as described in the Handbook's chapter on 
"Human Resources Specialists. " Accordingly, we find that the proffered position is a human 
resources specialist as described in the Handbook. 
The Handbook describes the occupation of ''Human Resources Specialists" as follows: 
What Human Resources Specialists Do 
Human resources specialists recruit, screen, interview, and place workers. They also 
may handle human resources work in a variety of other areas, such as employee 
relations, payroll and benefits, and training. 
The Handbook, which is available in printed form, may also be accessed on the Internet, at 
http://www .bls.gov/oco/. Our references to the Handbook are to the 2014- 20 15 edition avai I able on1 in e. 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISIOJ 
Duties 
Human resources specialists typical ly do the following: 
• Consult with employers to identify employment needs and preferred 
qualifications 
• Interview applicants about their experience, education, training, and 
skills 
• Contact references and perform background checks on job applicants 
• Inform applicants about job details, such as duties, benefits, and 
working conditions 
• Hire or refer qualified candidates for employers 
• Conduct or help with new employee orientation 
• Keep employment records and process paperwork 
Many specialists are trained in all human resources disciplines and do tasks 
throughout all areas of the department. In addition to recruiting and placing workers, 
these specialists help guide employees through all human resources procedures and 
answer questions about policies. They often administer benefits, process payroll, and 
handle any associated questions or problems. They also ensure that all human 
resources functions comply with federal, state, and local regulations. 
The following are types of human resources specialists: 
Employment interviewers work in an employment office and interview potential 
applicants for job openings. They then refer suitable candidates to employers for 
consideration. 
Human resources generalists handle ali aspects of human resources work. They may 
have duties in all areas of human resources including recruitment, employee relations, 
payroll and benefits, training, and administration of human resources policies, 
procedures, and programs. 
Labor relations specialists interpret and administer a labor contract, regarding issues 
such as wages and salaries, employee welfare, healthcare, pensions, and union and 
management practices. They also handle grievance procedures, which are a formal 
process through which employees can make complaints. 
Placement specialists match employers with qualified jobseekers. They search for 
candidates who have the skills, education, and work experience needed for jobs, and 
they try to place those candidates with employers. They also may help set up 
interviews. 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Recruitment specialists, sometimes known as personnel recruiters, find, screen, and 
interview applicants for job openings in an organization. They search for job 
applicants by posting job listings, attending job fairs, and visiting college campuses. 
They also may test applicants, contact references, and extend job offers. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook. 2014-15 ed., 
"Human Resources Specialists," http://vvww .bls.gov/ooh/Business-and-Financial/Human-resources­
specialists.htm#tab-2 (last visited May I, 20 15). 
The Handbook states the following about the educational requirements of human resources specialist 
positions, in part: 
How to Become a Human Resources Specialist 
Most positions require that applicants have a bachelor's degree. However, the level of 
education and experience required to become a human resources specialist varies by 
position and employer. 
Education and Work Experience 
Most positions require a bachelor's degree. When hiring a human resources generalist, 
for example, most employers prefer applicants who have a bachelor's degree in 
human resources, business, or a related field. 
Although candidates with a high school diploma may qualify for some interviewing 
and recruiting positions, employers usually require several years of related work 
experience as a substitute for education. 
Some positions, particularly human resources generalists, may require work 
experience. Candidates often gain experience as human resources assistants, in 
customer service positions, or in other related jobs. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., 
"Human Resources Specialists," http://www . bls.gov/ooh/Business-and- Financial/Human-resources­
specialists.htm#tab-4 (last visited May 1, 20 15). 
The Handbook does not report that a bachelor's degree, let alone one in a specific specialty, is 
normally required for entry into the occupation. The Handbook only reports that "[m]ost positions 
require a bachelor's degree" and "when hiring a human resources generalist, for example, most 
employers prefer applicants who have a bachelor's degree in human resources, business, or a related 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
field," 5 and also that "the level of education and experience to become a human resources specialist 
varies by position and employer." 
Also, the Handbook recognizes that degrees in different fields, i.e., human resources or business, are 
acceptable for entry into this field. Although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree 
in business, may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, 
without more, will not justify a finding that a particular position qualifies for classification as a 
specialty occupation. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d at 147. Therefore, the Handbook's 
recognition that a general, non-specialty "background" in business is sufficient for entry into the 
occupation strongly suggests that a bachelor's degree in a specffic ,specialty is not a normal, 
minimum entry requirement for this occupation. Accordingly, as the Handbook indicates that 
working as a human resources specialist does not normally require at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty or its equivalent for entry into the occupation, it does not support the proffered 
position as being a specialty occupation. 
Where, as here, the Handbook does not support the proposition that the proffered position satisfies 
this first criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it is incumbent upon the petitioner to provide 
persuasive evidence that the proffered position otherwise satisfies this criterion by a preponderance 
of the evidence standard, notwithstanding the absence of the Handbook's support on the issue. In 
such a case, it is the petitioner's responsibility to provide probative evidence (e.g., documentation 
from other authoritative sources) that supports a favorable finding with regard to this criterion. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iv) provides that "[a]n H-18 petition involving a specialty 
occupation shall be accompanied by [d]ocumentation ... or any other required evidence sufficient 
to establish .. . that the services the beneficiary is to perform are in a specialty occupation." 
To fill this void, the petitioner cited the inclusion of the proffered position in O*NET's Job Zone 
"Three" to demonstrate that it requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its 
equivalent. However, inclusion in Job Zone "Three" does not demonstrate that a position requires a 
bachelor's degree. Contrary to the assertions of the petitioner, O*NET OnLine does not state a 
requirement for a bachelor's degree. Rather, it assigns this occupation a Job Zone "Three" rating, 
which groups it among occupations of which "most," but not all, "require training in vocational 
schools, related on-the-job experience, or an associate's degree." It provides no indication that 
human resources assistants require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. Therefore, O*NET 
OnLine information is not probative of the proffered position being a specialty occupation. 
Finally, we find that, to the extent that they are described in the record of proceeding, the numerous 
duties that the petitioner ascribes to the proffered position indicate a need for a range of knowledge 
of human resources practices, but do not establish any particular level of formal, postsecondary 
education leading to a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty as minimally necessary to 
attain such knowledge. 
5 A preference for a cand idate with a bachelor's degree in human resources, business, or a related field is not 
a requirement that the individual have such a degree to quality for the position. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
As the evidence of record does not establish that the particular position here proffered is one for 
which the normal minimum entry requirement is a baccalaureate or higher degree, or the equivalent, 
m a specific specialty, the petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
Next, we find that the petitioner has not satisfied the first of the two alternative prongs of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). This prong alternatively calls for a petitioner to establish that a requirement 
of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common for positions 
that are identifiable as being (I) in the petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered position, and 
also (3) located in organizations that are similar to the petitioner. 
In determining whether there is a common degree requirement, factors often considered by USCIS 
include: 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 attest that such firms "routinely employ and 
recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d at 1165 (quoting 
Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava. 712 F. Supp. at 1102. 
In the instant case, the petitioner has not established that the proffered position falls under an 
occupational category for which the Handbook, or other reliable and authoritative source, indicates 
that there is a standard, minimum entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent. Also, there are no submissions from professional associations in the 
petitioner's industry attesting that individuals employed in positions parallel to the protfered position 
are routinely required to have a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its 
equivalent for entry into those positions. 
The record does contain the letter from senior vice president, human resources, at 
stating that at her company and at others for which she has worked, in hiring for 
certain duties specified in an attachment, she has always required a minimum of a bachelor's degree 
in human resources or a related field. However, the attachment to which she referred was not 
provided. As such, the duties that she asserts require a specialized degree, and whether they are 
similar to the duties of the proffered position, are both unknown to us. Further, what array of 
subjects she would consi der to be sufficiently closely related to human resources is not revealed. 
Finally, the practices of the companies for which one person has worked in human relations is 
insufficient to establish an industry-wide requirement. 
The petitioner did provide several vacancy announcements issued by other companies. Those 
vacancy announcements are for positions entitled Human Resources Associate or HR Associate, 
Human Resources Representative, Human Resources Assistant, HR Talent Associate, and Associate 
HR Business Partner. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page II 
Those vacancy announcements were placed by, inter alia, 
the ; an organization identified as 
; and a manufacturer of prescription lenses. None of the advertising organizations has been 
shown to be in the petitioner's industry and to be otherwise similar to the petitioner, and some are 
clearly not. As such, they are of no direct relevance to the criterion of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
Some of those vacancy announcements state a requirement of a bachelor's degree, but not that the 
degree must be in any specific specialty. Clearly, those vacancy announcements do not state a 
requirement of a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
One vacancy announcement states that the position announced requires a bachelor's degree in 
"Business Administration, Social Science, Liberal Arts, or other related field." Another states, 
"Bachelor's degree desired in Business or Human Resources-related fteld." A degree with a 
generalized title, such as business administration, without further specification, is not a degree in a 
specific specialty. C.f Matter of Michael Hertz Associates, 19 l&N Dec. 558 (Comm'r 1988). As 
such, an educational requirement that may be satisfied by an otherwise undifferentiated bachelor's 
degree in business administration is not a requirement of a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty or its equivalent. Those vacancy announcements do not state a requirement of a 
minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
One vacancy announcement states that one or two years of experience may be substituted for the 
otherwise required bachelor's degree. Another vacancy announcement states, "Pertinent personnel 
experience at the professional level may be substituted for education requirement on a year to year 
basis." One or two years of experience has not been demonstrated to be equivalent to a bachelor's 
degree. 
Further, the petitioner has designated the proffered position as a wage Level f position on the LCA, 
indicating that it is an entry-level position for an employee who has only basic understanding of the 
occupation.6 However, most of the vacancy announcements provided state an experience 
requirement. As such, they do not appear to be wage Level I positions. In order to attempt to show 
that parallel positions require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its 
equivalent, the petitioner would be obliged to demonstrate that other wage Level l positions, entry­
level positions requiring only a basic understanding of the occupation, require a minimum of a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
Finally, even if all of the vacancy announcements were for parallel positions with organizations 
similar to the petitioner and in the petitioner's industry and required a minimum of a bachelor's 
6 For an explanation of wage levels, see U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage 
Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://www.foreignl aborcert.dol eta.gov/pdf/N PWHC _Guidance_ Revised _I I_ 2 009 .pdf. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent, the petltwner has failed to demonstrate what 
statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from these announcements with regard to the 
common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. 7 
Thus, the evidence of record does not establish that a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to positions that are (1) in the petitioner's industry, 
(2) parallel to the proffered position, and also (3) located in organizations that are similar to the 
petitioner. 
The evidepce of record also does not satisfy the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which provides that "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." A review of the 
record indicates that the petitioner has failed to credibly demonstrate that the duties that comprise the 
proffered position entail such complexity or uniqueness as to constitute a position so complex or 
unique that it can be performed only by a person with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty. 
Specifically, the petitioner failed to demonstrate how the duties that collectively constitute the 
proffered position require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge such that a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is 
required to perform them. For instance, the petitioner did not submit information relevant to a 
detailed course of study leading to a specialty degree and did not establish how such a curriculum is 
necessary to perform the duties of the proffered position. While a few related courses may be 
beneficial, or even required, in performing certain duties of the proffered position, the petitioner has 
failed to demonstrate how an established curriculum of such courses leading to a baccalaureate or 
higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the duties of the 
particular position here. 
Further, as was also noted above, the LCA submitted in support of the visa petition is approved for a 
wage Level I employee, an indication that the proffered position is an entry-level position for an 
employee who has only a basic understanding of the occupation. 8 This does not support the 
USCIS "must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both 
individually and within the context ofthe totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven 
is probably true." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 20 I 0). As just discussed, the petitioner 
has failed to establish the relevance of the job advertisements submitted to the position proffered in this case. 
Even if their relevance had been established, the petitioner still fails to demonstrate what inferences, if any, 
can be drawn from these few job postings with regard to determining the common educational requirements 
for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations in the same industry. See generally Earl Babbie, The 
Practice ojSocial Research 186-228 (1995). 
8 See U.S. Dep't 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 _R evised_l l_)009.pdf. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
proposition that the proffered position is so complex or unique relative to other positions in the same 
occupation that it can only be performed by a person with a specific bachelor's degree, especially as 
the Handbook suggests that some human resources specialist positions do not require such a degree. 
Therefore, the evidence of record does not establish that this position is significantly different from 
other positions in the occup ation such that it refutes the Handbook':-; information to the effect that 
there is a spectrum of degrees acceptable for such positions , including degrees not in a specitic 
specialty, and that some such positions may not require any college degree at all. In other words, the 
record lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish the protfered position as unique from or 
more complex than positions that can be perf01med by persons without at least a bachelor's degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent. As the petitioner fails to demonstrate how the proffered 
position is so complex or unique relative to other positions within the same occupational category 
that do not require at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for entry 
into the occupa tion in the United States, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner has satisfied the 
second alternative prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)( iii)(A)(2). 
We will next address the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(3), which may be satisfied if the 
petitioner demonstrates that it normally requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a speci fic 
specialty or its equivalent for the proffered position. 9 
The vacancy announcement of the proffered position states that the pos1t10n requires at least a 
bachelor's degree in human resource management or human resource development or a closely 
related field. However, in her July 15, 2014 letter, counsel revealed that vacancy announcement was 
never published. 
In her September 12, 2014 letter, , the petitioner's director of human resources, 
stated that she has worked in human resources for 30 years, and has always required a minimum of a 
bachelor's degree in human resources or a related field when hiring for positions with responsibilities 
commensurate with those of the proffered position. In support, the petitioner submitted a copy of 
college transcript for its signatory, However, has degrees in 
management, and her degrees were apparently considered su fficiently closely related to human 
resources that she was hired as the petitioner' s director of human capital. Further, no evidence was 
9 While a petitioner may believe or otherwise assert that a proffered position requires a degree, that opinion 
alone without corroborating evidence cannot establish the position as a specialty occupation. Were USCJS 
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 
a1tificially created a token degree requirement, whereby all individuals employed in a particular position 
possessed a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. See Defensor v. Meissner, 
20 I F. 3d at 387. In other words, if a petitioner's degree requirement is only symbolic and the proffered 
position does not in fact require such a specialty degree or its equivalent to perform its duties, the occupation 
would not meet the statutory or regulatory definition of a specialty occupation. See § 214(i)( I) of the Act; 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty occupation"). 
-- ---------
--------- - ----�------ - - -
- ·- �-------- ----- ·- - - ----- · - �-- -----
(b)(6)
NON- PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
submitted to support the proposition that "management" is closely and directly related to a human 
resources position. This suggests that, although the petitioner may require a degree in a field 
periph erally related to human resources for its human resources positions, it may not, in fact require 
degree in a specifi c specialty closely and directly related to human resources. 
Further, in her July 20, 2014 letter, stated that in hiring someone to fill the proffered 
position: "It was important the next HR associate had attained some type of formal education in 
Human Resources or had over 5 years in the tech industry." This does not state a requirement of a 
minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for at least tw9 reasons. 
First, a requirement of" some type of formal education in Human Resources" is not a requirement of 
a bachelor's degree in human resources. Second, she indicated that five years of experience might be 
substituted for the otherwise required education. However, five years of employment experience has 
not been demonstrated to be equivalent to a bachelor's degree. 
Further still, in her July 15, 2014 letter, counsel stated that the petitioner never previously employed 
anyone in the proffered position, prior to hiring the beneficiary. While a first-time hiring for a 
position is certainly not a basis for precluding a position from recognition as a specialty occupation, 
it is unclear how an employer that has never recruited and hired for the position would be able to 
satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)(J), which requires a demonstration that it 
normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for the position. 
For all of those reasons, the petitioner has not demonstrated that it normally requires a minimum of a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for the proffered position, and has not, 
therefore, satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J). 
Finally, we will address the alternative criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4), which is 
satisfied if the petitioner establishes that the nature of the specific duties is so specialized and 
complex that knowledge required to perform them is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
Again, relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by the petitioner 
as an aspect of the proffered position. The duties of the proffered position, such as: conducting 
salary surveys; creating, updating, and maintaining job descriptions; recruiting employees; 
conducting orientations for new employees; providing training for employees; managing a summer 
internship program; administering benefit programs; assisting with performance reviews; completing 
otherwise unspecified "highly confidential paperwork"; etc., contain insufficient indication of a 
nature so specialized and complex they require knowledge usually associated attainment of a 
minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
Overall, the evidence of record is inadeq uate to establish that the duties of the posttiOn are so 
specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with 
the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. ln other 
words, the proposed duties have not been described with sufficient specificity to show that they are 
(b)(6)
NON -PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
more speciali zed and complex than the duties of human resource special is t positions that are not 
usually assoc iated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
Further, as was noted above, the petitio ner filed the instant visa petition for a wage Level I human 
resources assistant positi on, a position for a beginning level employee with only a basic 
understanding of such posit ions. This does not support the proposition that the nature of the spec ific 
duties of the proffered positio n is so speciali zed and complex that their performance is usually 
associated with the attainment of a min imum of a bachelor's degree in a sp ecific specialty or its 
equival ent, directly related to human resources administration, espec ially as the Handbook indi cates 
that some human resources specialist positions requ ire no such degree. 
For the reasons disc ussed above, the evidence of record does not sati sfy the crit erion at 8 C. F.R . 
§ 214 .2( h)(4)(iii )(A)( 4). 
The petitioner has faile d to establis h that it has satisfied any of the crit eria at 8 C.F.R . 
§ 2 14.2(h)(4)(iii )(A) and, therefore, it cannot be found that the proffered pos ition qual ities as a 
specialty occupation. The appeal will be dism issed and the pe titio n denied for this reason. 
IV. CONCL USI ON 
In visa petition procee ding s, it is the petit ione r's .burden to establish eligi bi lit y for the imm igration 
benefit sought. Section 29 1 of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § 13 61; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 12 7, 12 8 
(BIA 20 13 ). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.