dismissed H-1B Case: Insurance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-I-C-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE L 2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an insurance provider. seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a pm1-time 
··budget analyst" under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification. 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 temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a position that requires both (a) 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and (b) the 
attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum 
prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
position offered to the Beneficiary did not qualify as a specialty occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in 
finding that the proffered position is not a specialty occupation as it met one of the four criteria listed 
under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. 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) largely restates this statutory definition. but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition. the regulations provide that the profiered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
Matter <?fS-1-C-
(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 
( -1) 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). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has consistently 
interpreted 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 proposed 
position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Cherhdl; 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 l'. Meissner. 201 F.3d 384. 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
In the H-1 B petition. the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a --budget analyst." In 
response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided the following job 
duties for the position (verbatim): 
(A) 80% - Budget Analysis (16 hours per week) 
Percentage of time/Hours per week ofvvork: 
Approximately 80% or 16 hours per week. [the Beneficiary] will apply principles of 
economics and statistics to conduct studies. which will provide detailed cost 
information not supplied, by the company's general budgeting system. She will be in 
charge of preparing annual and special rcposts and evaluating budget proposals. 
Also. she will monitor company performance variances to stated quotas and 
standards. 
Specific job duties: 
• Provide forecasts for projects to be undertaken based on past and present 
financial performances. 
2 
Matter ofS-1-C-
• Analyze obtained data to ensure that the company is operating effectively 
and efficiently. 
• Analyze changes in insurance product trends. new insurance policies. and 
new services provided to determine effects on costs. 
• Compile cost information to be used in operating budget preparation and 
make cost estimates of new and proposed projects or service costs. 
• Analyze financial information and select the plans that atTord maximum 
probability of profit and effectiveness in relation to cost or risk. 
• Examine budget estimates for completeness, accuracy. and conformance 
with procedures and regulations. 
• Collect data to determine cost of business activity and translating them in 
such a way as to guide the core management into making the right 
decisions. 
• Plan costing systems and methods. investment analysis. project 
management. and cost audit. 
(B) 20% - Communications and Recommendations ( 4 hours per week) 
Percentage of time/Hours per week of work: 
Approximately 20% or 4 hours per week, [the Beneficiary] will communicate and 
recommend her findings to the management so as to develop the company" s budgets. 
Specific job duties: 
• Assist with management to ensure that managerial decisions are well 
within the cost prescriptions. 
• Summarize budgets and submit recommendations for approval and 
disapproval of funding requests. 
• Consult with management to ensure that budget adjustments are made in 
accordance with procedures and regulations. 
• Analyze costs of each expansion and marketing project before it starts to 
assist the management vvith decision making. 
According to the Petitioner, the position requires a bachelor's degree m finance. business. 
economics, or a closely related field. 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualities as a specialty occupation. 1 
1 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter ofS-1-C-
Specifically. the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or 
its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 2 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-1 B petition. the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category ··Budget Analysts" correspondin g 
to the Standard Occupational Classification code 13-2031. The Petitioner also stated in the LC A that 
the wage level for the proffered position is a Level I (entry level) and claimed that the prevailin g 
wage m California) for the proffered position is $27.53 per hour.3 
In response to the RFE and on appeaL the Petitioner states that its budget analyst position is similar 
to a financial analyst position, and thus ... should be considered alternative positions." 4 While the 
occupational categories .. Financial Analysts" and ·'Budget Analysts'' may have some general duties 
in common, they are distinct and separate occupational categories. 5 When the duties of the proffered 
position involve more than one occupational category, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) 
provides guidance tor selecting the most 
relevant Occupational lntonnation Network (O*NET) code 
classification. 
The ·'Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" by DOL states 
the following: 
In determining the nature q{thejob (?ff'er, the first order is to review the requirements 
of the employer 's job otTer and determine the appropriate occupational classi tication. 
The O*NET description that corresponds to the employer's job offer shall be used to 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 B petition . including evidence regarding the proffered 
position and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted , we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
' The Petitioner classified the protTered position at a Level I wage (the lowest of four assignable wage levels). We will 
consider this selection in our analysis of the position. The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance'" issued by 
the DOL provides a description of the wage levels. A Level I wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which 
the Petitioner expect s the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the occupation . This wage rate indicates: (I) that 
the Beneficiary will be expec ted to perfonn routine tasks that require limited. if any, exercise of judgment ; (2) that she 
will be closely supervised and her work closely monitored and reviewed tor accuracy; and (3) that she will receive 
specific instruction s on required tasks and expected results. U.S. Dep"t of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Pri>vailing 
lt 'age Determinarion Policy Guidance, Nonagric . Immigration Programs (rev . Nov. 2009) , available at 
http://tlcdatacenter.com /download /N PWHC _Guidance _ Revised _ II _ 2009 .pdf A prevailing wage determination starts 
with an entry level wage and progresses to a higher wage level after considering the experience. education. and skill 
requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. !d. 
~ When responding to a request for evidence or on appeal. the Petitioner cannot offer a new position to the Beneficiary. 
materially change a position's associated job responsibilities, or alter the claimed occupational category of a position. 
The Petitioner must establish that the position offered to the Beneficiary when the petition was filed merits classificatio n 
for the benefit sought. Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 l&N Dec. 248, 249 (Reg. Comm"r 1978). If significant changes 
are made to the initial reque st for approval. the Petitioner must file a new petition rather than seek approval of a petition 
that is not supported by the facts in the record. 
5 For more information regarding the "'Financial Analysts" occupational classification corresponding to Standard 
Occupational Classification (SOC) code 13-2051. see the Occupational lnfonnation Network Details Report for 
"Financial Analysts ." http://www. onetonline.org/link /details / I 3-2051.00 (last 
visited Apr. 27, 2016 ). 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter ofS-1-C-
identify the appropriate occupational classification . . . . If the employer's job 
opportunity has worker requirements described in a combination of O*NET 
occupations, the [determiner] should default directly to the relevant O*NET-SOC 
occupational code for the highest paying occupation. For example, if the employer· s 
job offer is for an engineer-pilot. the [determiner] shall use the education. skill and 
experience levels for the higher paying occupation when making the wage level 
determination. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin. , Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance. 
Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009). available at 
http://w-ww.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC _ Guidance_Revised _11_2009.pdC 
The occupational category '"Financial Analysts" has a higher prevailing wage than the occupational 
category "Budget Analysts.'' 6 The fact that the Petitioner did not select the .. Financial Analysts" 
occupational classification on the LCA undermines the Petitioner's assertion that the proffered 
position should also be treated as a financial analyst position , and raises questions regarding the 
substantive nature ofthe position. 7 
Moreover, the Petitioner's descriptions of the position's duties are not explained with sufficient 
detail to convey the actual tasks the Beneficiary would perform within the context of the Petitioner's 
operations. For instance, the Petitioner stated the Beneficiary would perform the job duty of 
·'[a]nalyze financial information and select the plans that afford maximum probability of profit and 
effectiveness in relation to cost or risk ... 8 The Petitioner did not further explain, for example. whose 
financial information the Beneficiary would analyze. what types of plans she would select. and 
perhaps more importantly, for whom this information would be prepared . Notably , the Petitioner 
states on appeal that the Beneficiary would '·assist [Mandarin-speaking customers] with contract 
review for their chosen insurance policies" and would also ·'be able to suggest the most beneficial 
6 The prevailing wage for ·'Financial Analysts" (SOC code 13-2051) in the C A 
Metropolitan Division, CA Metropolitan Division for the period 7/2014 - 6/2015 is $28.36 per hour. For more 
information , see http ://www.tlcdatacenter.com /OesQuickResults .aspx?code = 13-2051 & &year= 15&sourc e= I 
(last visited Apr. 27, 2016) . 
7 Under the H-1 B program, a petitioner must offer a beneficiary wages that are at least the actual wage level paid by a 
petitioner to all other individuals with similar experience and qualifications for the specific employment in question. o r 
the prevailing wage level for the occupational classification in the area of emplo yment , whichever is greater, based on 
the best information available as of the time of filing the application. See section 212(n)(l )(A) of the Act. 
8 U.S.C. ~ 1182(n)( I )(A). 
As such. if the proffered position combines the duties of a financial analyst as claimed, then the Petitioner has not 
established that (I) it submitted a certified LCA that properly corresponds to the claimed occupation and duties of the 
proffered position; and (2) it would pay the Beneficiary an adequate salary for her work, as required under the Act. if the 
petition were granted. 
The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary would spend 80% of her time on job duties including this particular duty . 
However, the Petitioner did not further specify how much of this 80% of time she would spend on this particular duty. 
5 
Matter ofS-1-C-
insurance policies to each customer and will eventually help Petitioner to achieve its goal of 
expansion.'' The Petitioner has not explained how these job duties directly involving the Petitioner's 
customers are consistent with the ""Budget Analysts" occupational classification chosen here or are 
otherwise consistent with the Petitioner's other job descriptions. Without more. the record does not 
adequately demonstrate the nature of the proffered position and its constituent duties. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner's claim that a bachelor's degree in business is a sunicient mmunum 
requirement for entry into the proffered position is inadequate to establish that the proposed position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. A petitioner must demonstrate that the proffered position 
requires a precise and specific course of study that relates directly and closely to the position in 
question. 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. (l Maller (~j' Michael Her/:; 
Assoc.\· .. 19 I&N Dec. 558,560 (Comm'r 1988). Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertqff; 484 F.3d at 147.
9 
For 
this additional reason. the record does not demonstrate the proffered position as a specialty 
occupation. 10 
A. First Criterion 
Nevertheless, for the purpose of performing a comprehensive analysis of whether the prof1ercd 
position qualities as a specialty occupation. we now tum 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 recognize DOL's Occupational Outlook Ham/hook (Handbook) as an 
authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations 
that it addresses. 11 
9 
Specifically. the court explained in Royal Siam Corp. v. Cheru?ff, 484 F.3d at 147. that: 
The courts and the agency consistently have stated 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 8 specialty 
occupation visa. See, e.g., Tapis Int '/ v. INS. 94 F.Supp.2d 172, 175-76 (D. Mass. 2000); Shanti. 36 F. 
Supp. 2d at 1164-66; (:f Matter (1(/'vfichael Hert= Assocs., 19 I & &N Dec. 558,560 (lComm'rl 1988) 
(providing frequently cited analysis in connection with a conceptually similar provision). This is as it 
should be: elsewise. an employer could ensure the granting of a specialty occupation visa petition by 
the simple expedient of creating a generic (and essentially artificial) degree requirement 
10 A general degree requirement does not necessarily preclude a proffered position from qualifying as a specialty 
occupation. For example. an entry requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in business administration with a 
concentration in a specific field. or a bachelor's or higher degree in business administration combined with relevant 
education. training. and/or experience may. in certain instances, qualify the proffered position as a specialty 
occupation. In either case, it must be demonstrated that the entry requirement is equivalent to a bachelor's or higher 
degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. ( 'hert(!ff. 484 F.3d 
at 147. 
11 Although the Petitioner and Director referenced the 2014-15 edition of the I landhook, all of our references in this 
decision are to the 2016-20 I 7 edition of the Ham/hook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter ofS-1-C-
As discussed. the Petitioner designated the proffered position under the occupational category 
"Budget Analysts'" on the LCA. The Handbook subchapter entitled ·'How to Become a Budget 
Analyst'" states, in pertinent part. that .. [e]mployers generally require budget analysts to have at least 
a bachelor's degree."'12 It also states that ··[s]ometimes. budget-related or finance-relat ed work 
experience can be substituted for formal education."' 13 
A review of the Handbook does not indicate that simply by virtue of its occupational classific ation. 
a budget analyst position qualities as a specialty occupation. The Handbook reports that budget or 
finance-related work experience can be substituted for formal education , but does not specify the 
amount ofwork experience or the type of formal education that can be substituted. 
The Petitioner also submitted a printout of the O*NET OnLine Summary Report for .. Budget 
Analysts."' The summar y report provides general information regarding the occupation: however. it 
does not support the Petitioner's assertion regarding the educational requirem ents tor the occupation. 
For example, the Specialized Vocational Preparation (SVP) rating cited within O*NET' s Job Zone 
designates this occupation as 7 < 8. An SVP rating of 7 to less than ('"<'') 8 indicate s that the 
occupation requires ·'over 2 years up to and including 4 years'" of training. While the SVP rating 
indicates the total number ofyears of vocational preparation required for a particular position. it does 
not describe how those years are to be divided among training, formal education. and experience -
and it does not specify the particular type of degree. if any. that a position would require. 14 
Furthermore , the Occupation Pro1ile for '·Budget Analysts'" from 
submitted by the Petitioner with the initial petition, is also insufticient to establish that the protlered 
position qualities as a specialty occupation. The report states, in pertinent part, that the '' [tJypical 
education needed for entry'" into the position is a "'Bachelor's degree:· The 
reference to a ··Bachelor's degree'" - without specification of any particular academic 
concentration or major - is not evidence that a bachelor's degree in a spec[fic specialty. or its 
equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into this occupation. Therefore. despite 
http:/iwww .bls.gov/ooh/. No substantive changes to the relevant subchapter on "!low to Become a Budget Analyst" 
were made from the 20 14-15 edition . 
In any event , w e do not maintain that the Handhook is the exclusive source of relevant information . That i s, the 
occupational categor y designated by the Petitioner is con sidered as an aspect in establishing the general tasks and 
responsibilities of a proffered position. and USCIS regularly reviews the 1/andhook on the duties and educational 
requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addr esses. To satisfy the first criterion, however. the burden of 
proof remains on the Petitioner to submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position would 
normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent. for entry. 
12 For additional information. see U.S. Dep't of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Ham/hook. 
2016-17 ed., "Budget Analy sts." http: //www .bls .gov/ooh/business-and-financial /print /budget-anal ysts.htm (last visited 
Apr. 27, 2016). 
" !d 
I ~ 
For additional information , 
http://www .oneton I ine.org/he I pion line/svp. 
see the O*NET Online Help webpa ge available at 
(b)(6)
Matter ofS-1-C-
the Petitioner's assertions to the contrary, the information is also not 
probative of the proffered position qualifying as a specialty occupation. 
In the instant case, the Petitioner has not provided documentation from a probative source to 
substantiate its assertion regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. 
Thus. the Petitioner 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) (emphasis added). 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 this first prong of the second criterion, 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. 
In detennining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by 
USCIS include: whether the Handbook rep011s that the industry requires a degree: whether the 
industry's professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether 
letters or at1idavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms "routinely employ 
and recruit only degreed individuals." See ,%anti, 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)). 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook or another authoritative source reports a requirement for at least a bachelor's degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, we incorporate by reference the previous discussion on 
the matter. Also. there are no submissions from the industry's professional association indicating 
that it has made a degree a minimum entry requirement. Furthermore. the Petitioner did not submit 
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." 
In support of this criterion of the regulations, the Petitioner submitted three job advertisements for 
financial analyst positions. 15 Upon review, we find that the advertisements do not appear to involve 
15 The Petitioner doe s not demonstrate what inferences. if any, can be drawn from these advertisements with regard to 
determining the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. See 
general(v Earl Babbie. The Practice of Social Research 186-228 ( 1995). The Petitioner also does not provide any 
8 
Matter ofS-1-C-
parallel positions. For example, the posting for a financial analyst II or senior level financial analyst 
III position states that a degree and a minimum of five years of relevant work experience in finance. 
accounting. or economics is required. As previously noted, the Petitioner designated its proffered 
position as a wage level I (entry level) position on the LCA. The advertised position therefore 
appears to involve a more senior position than the proffered position. More importantly. the 
Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the primary duties and responsibilities of the 
advertised financial analyst positions are parallel to those of the proffered budget analyst position. 
Nor has the Petitioner submitted sufficient information about the general characteristics of the 
advertising organizations to demonstrate that they are similar to the Petitioner. On appeaL the 
Petitioner states that .. a ·similar· organization is not defined as one that is similar sized or one that 
generates similar incomes." The Petitioner further asserts that .. [s]ince there is no clear definition of 
·similar organization,"' the submitted postings .. should be viewed as [from] similar organizations 
based on their similar type of business." 
However, the Petitioner does not cite to any legal authority to support its assertions. For a petitioner 
to establish that an organization is similar, it must demonstrate that it shares the same general 
characteristics with the advertising organization. which may include factors such as the particular 
scope of operations, as well as the level of revenue and staffing (to list just a few elements that may 
be considered). It is not sufficient tor a petitioner to claim that an organization is similar to it 
without providing a legitimate basis for such an assertion. Moreover, the regulatory criterion 
requires the Petitioner to demonstrate that .. [t]he degree requirement is common to the indus/!}' in 
parallel positions among similar organizations." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (italics added to 
emphasize the separate elements). Therefore, the Petitioner's request to treat these advertisements as 
from .. similar organizations'' is not persuasive. 
In addition, the postings do not demonstrate that at least a bachelor's degree in a directly related 
specific specialty (or its equivalent) is required. 16 The job postings suggest at best that although a 
bachelor's degree is sometimes required for budget analyst positions. a bachelor's degree in a 
spec!fic ,~pecialty (or its equivalent) is not. 
independent evidence of how representative the job postings are of the particular advertising employers· recruiting and 
hiring history, as the advertisements are only solicitations for hire and not evidence of these employers' actual hiring 
practices. Without more, it cannot be found that this limited number of postings that appear to have been consciously 
selected outweigh the findings of the Handbook that such a position does not normally require at least a baccalaureate 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
16 
One posting requires a "BS degree preferably with emphasis on Accounting, Finance." Another posting requires 
"Four-year college degree with Finance, Economics, Accounting, Business. or related field preferred.'' However. a 
preference for a degree in a field is not necessarily an indication of a minimum requirement. Fm1her, as discussed 
previously, the degree requirement set by the statutory and regulatory framework of the H-1 B program is not just a 
general-purpose bachelor's or higher degree such as a degree in ··business." but a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty that is directly related to the duties of the position. See section 214(i)(l)(b) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
9 
Afatter ofS-1-C-
As the documentation does not establish that the Petitioner has met this prong of the regulations. 
further analysis regarding the specific information contained in each of the job postings is not 
necessary. That is. not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. Thus. the Petitioner 
has not satisfied the first alternative prong of8 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 proffered positiOn qualifies as a specialty occupation. the 
Petitioner submitted a description of the profTered position and information regarding its business 
operations. including a copy of its 2013 income tax return. 2014 quarterly federal tax return. 
printouts of its website, photos of its oflice, and copies of contracts with insurance carriers. The 
Petitioner states on appeal that the submitted evidence demonstrates ··that the candidate should be 
equipped with the following knowledge: economics and accounting. English language, mathematics. 
administration and management and computer and electronics [sic]." 
The Petitioner has not adequately established relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the 
profTered position. Although the Petitioner broadly identified the bodies of knowledge required to 
perfonn the proffered position (i.e .. economics and accounting. English language. mathematics, 
administration and management. and computer and electronics). this information does not 
sufficiently explain how the profTered position is more complex or unique than other budget analyst 
positions that are not usually associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its 
equivalent. In fact, these identified bodies of knowledge mirror those found in the O*NET 
Summary Report for .. Budget Analysts" that was submitted by the Petitioner. This information 
about the bodies of knowledge generally required for positions within the .. Budget Analysts" 
occupational classification is insufficient to demonstrate the relative complexity or uniqueness of the 
particular position being offered here. 
We must also consider the Petitioner's designation of the proffered position as a Level L entry-level 
position within the occupational category (on the LCA). This designation. when read in combination 
with the Petitioner's job descriptions. suggests that the particular position is not so complex or 
unique that the duties can only be performed an individual with bachelor's degree or higher in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
In the letter of support, the Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position. 
and references her qualifications. However. the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation 
is not the education or experience of a proposed beneficiary. but whether the position itself requires 
at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. or its equivalent. While related courses may be 
beneficial in performing certain duties of the position. the Petitioner has not demonstrated hmv an 
10 
Matter ofS-1-C-
established curriculum of courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty. 
or its equivalent. is required to perfcnm the duties of the proffered position. 
For all the above reasons. the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 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. 
The Petitioner stated in the H-18 petition that it was established in 2011 (approximately four years 
prior to the tiling of the H-18 petition) and has eight employees. Upon review of the record. we tind 
that the Petitioner did not submit information regarding employees who currently or previously held 
the particular position being otTered here. 17 The record does not establish that the Petitioner 
normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. or its equivalent. directly 
related to the duties of the position. Therefore. the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
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 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty. or 
its equivalent. 
While the Petitioner provided a more detailed job description in response to the RFE, the description 
does not establish that the duties are more specialized and complex than positions that are not 
usually associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. or its equivalent. We 
incorporate our earlier discussion and analysis regarding the duties of the proffered position. and the 
designation of the position in the LCA as a Level I position (the lowest of four assignable wage­
levels) relative to others within the same occupational category. 18 The Petitioner has not 
17 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner states on appeal that it has hired a financial analyst with a bachelor's degree. 
As previously discussed, ""Financial Analysts" and ··Budget Analysts" arc distinct and separate occupational categories. 
Thus, this information will not be further considered. 
18 The Petitioner's designation of this position as a Levell, entry-level position undermines its claim that the position is 
particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation. Nevertheless, a 
Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty occupation, just as a 
Level IV wage-designation does not definitively establish such a classification. In certain occupations (e.g .. doctors or 
lawyers), a Level I, entry-level position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent for entry. Similarly, however. a Level IV wage-designation would not reflect that an occupation qualifies 
as a specialty occupation if that higher-level position does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. That is, a position's wage-level designation may be a relevant factor but is not 
itself conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)( I) of the Act. 
11 
Matter l?(S-1-C-
demonstrated in the record that its proffered position is one with duties sufficiently specialized and 
complex to satisfy 8 C .F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)( ..f). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one ofthe criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The burden is on the 
Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1361: Matter (?lOtiende. 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here. that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter o.lS-1-C-, ID# 17303 (AAO June L 2016) 
12