dismissed H-1B Case: International Wire Transfers

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 5441167 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 30, 2020 
The Petitioner, a company engaged in international wire transfers, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as 
an "operations manager" under the H-lB nonirnrnigrant 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 temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a 
position that requires both: (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge; and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty ( or its 
equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the evidence of 
record does not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation . On appeal , 
the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in the decision . 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal.' 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, 
and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
1 We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard. Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010) . 
(]) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 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. Chertojf, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree 
requirement in a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a 
particular position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
In the H-lB petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as an "operations manager." 
The Petitioner initially provided the position's description, and expanded on those duties in response 
to the Director's request for evidence (RFE). For the sake of brevity, we will not quote the most recent 
version; however, we note that we have closely reviewed and considered the duties. According to the 
Petitioner, the proffered position requires a Bachelor's degree in business administration, 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 qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its 
equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 2 
A. First Criterion 
We tum first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(]), which requires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
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. 
2 
entry into the particular position. We recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational 
Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements 
of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 3 
On the labor condition application (LCA)4 submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "General and Operations Managers" 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 11-1021. 
The Handbook's discussion of the duties and entry requirements for "General and Operations 
Managers" is contained within its discussion of the "Top Executives" occupational category. 5 The 
Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is 
normally required for entry into these positions. Instead, the Handbook indicates that these positions 
generally impose no specific degree requirement on individuals seeking employment. It states that 
education and training for positions located within this occupational category "vary widely by position 
and industry," and that some individuals may be able to substitute work experience for education. 
The Handbook also states that many possess a bachelor's degree in business administration which is 
not a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. A petitioner must demonstrate that the proffered 
position requires a precise and specific course of study that relates directly to the position in 
question. Since there must be a close correlation between the required specialized studies and the 
position, the requirement of a degree with a generalized title, such as business administration, without 
further specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of Michael 
Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558,560 (Comm'r 1988). To prove that a job requires the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge as required by section 214(i)(l) of the 
Act, a petitioner must establish that the position requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher 
degree in a specialized field of study or its equivalent. As explained above, we interpret the degree 
requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to require a degree in a specific specialty that is directly 
related to the proposed position. We have consistently stated that, although a general-purpose 
bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business administration, may be a legitimate prerequisite for a 
particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify a conclusion that a particular 
position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147.6 
3 We do not maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. That is, the occupational category 
designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered 
position, and we regularly review the Handbook on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of 
occupations that it addresses. To satisfy the first criterion, however, the burden ofproofremains 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. 
4 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCTS) to demonstrate 
that it will pay the Beneficiary the higher of either the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the "area of 
employment" or the actual wage paid by the employer to other employees with similar experience and qualifications who 
are performing the same services. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(a). 
5 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Top Executives 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/top-executives.htm (last visited Jan. 29, 2020). 
6 Specifically, the judge explained in Royal Siam, 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, 
3 
See also Irish Help at Home LLC v. Melville, 13-cv-00943-MEJ, 2015 WL 848977 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 
24, 2015), ajf'd, 679 F. App'x 634 (9th Cir. 2017). 7 
The Handbook therefore does not support the assertion that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for these positions and does not 
support the particular position proffered here as being a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner also referenced DOL's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) summary report 
for "General and Operations Managers" listed as SOC code 11-1021. The summary report provides 
general information regarding the occupation; however, it does not support the Petitioner's assertion 
regarding the educational requirements for these positions. 
We will first focus on the Specific Vocational Preparation (SVP) rating. DOL assigns the occupation 
"General and Operations Managers" an SVP 7 < 8. This indicates that the occupation requires "over 
2 years up to and including 4 years" of training. While the SVP rating provides the total number of 
years of vocational preparation required for a particular position, it is important to note that 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. 8 
Next, we will address DOL's designation in the summary report of the occupation as a Job Zone Four. 
Similar to the SVP rating, the summary report does not indicate that any academic credentials for Job 
Zone Four occupations must be directly related to the duties performed. Finally, we note that the 
summary report provides the educational requirements of "respondents," but does not account for 
100% of the "respondents." The respondents' positions within the occupation are not distinguished 
by career level (e.g., entry-level, mid-level, senior-level). Additionally, the graph in the summary 
report does not indicate that the "education level" for the respondents must be in a specific specialty. 9 
We conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the proffered position is located within an 
occupational category for which the Handbook, or any other relevant, authoritative source, indicates 
that the normal minimum entry requirement is at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
the equivalent. Moreover, the Petitioner has not provided documentation from another probative 
source to substantiate its assertion regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular 
position. The Petitioner therefore has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify the granting of a petition for an H-lB 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; cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I & &N Dec. 558,560 ([Comm'r] 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 miificial) degree requirement. 
7 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. 
8 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/help/ 
online/svp. 
9 Nor is it apparent that these individuals' credentials were hiring prerequisites. 
4 
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 casts its gaze upon 
the 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. 
We generally consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there 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." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 1999) 
(quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. at 1102 (considering these "factors" to inform the 
commonality of a degree requirement). 
The Petitioner provided job vacancy announcements placed by other companies that we reviewed. 
Notably, the Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how representative these job 
advertisements are of the particular advertising employer's recruiting history for the type of job 
advertised. Further, as they are only solicitations for hire, they are not evidence of what qualifications 
were ultimately required for the positions. 
In addition, the Petitioner did not provide sufficient information regarding the hiring employer such 
that we can determine whether they are "similar organizations," as required by the regulations. When 
determining whether the Petitioner and the organization share the same general characteristics, such 
factors may include information regarding the nature or type of organization, and, when pertinent, the 
particular scope of operations, as well as the level ofrevenue and staffing (to list just a few elements 
that may be considered). It is not sufficient for the Petitioner to claim that an organization is similar 
and conducts business in the same industry without providing a legitimate basis for such an assertion. 
For instance, the Petitioner did submit information regarding the employers' revenue or staffing. In 
addition, the Petitioner is engaged in wire transfers but the advertising companies were involved in 
different fields including a company involved in global education; a company engaged in defense 
aircraft sustainment; a hotel management company; a technology company; and a technology 
company in aerospace and defense industry. The Petitioner did not sufficiently supplement the record 
of proceedings to establish that these advertising organizations are similar. 
Further, some of the postings do not include sufficient information about the tasks and responsibilities 
for the advertised positions. Thus, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the primary duties 
and responsibilities of the advertised positions are parallel to those of the proffered position. 
5 
In addition, some of the postings do not indicate that at least a bachelor's degree in a directly related 
specific specialty ( or its equivalent) is required. 10 For instance, the posting placed by the Suddath 
Companies states that a bachelor's degree is required, but it does not state that a specific specialty is 
required. The posting by Adtalem Global Education stated that a bachelor's degree is required but 
only stated "preferably in a technical discipline." Furthermore, four postings indicated that a 
bachelor's degree is "preferred" or "desired." A preference for a degree in a field is not necessarily 
an indication of a minimum requirement. Overall, the job postings suggest, at best, that although a 
bachelor's degree is sometimes required for these positions, a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty 
( or its equivalent) is not. 
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. 11 That is, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. 
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. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
We will now 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. 
When discussing H-lB employment, the Petitioner's description must be comprehensive enough to 
properly ascertain the minimum educational requirements necessary to perform those duties. The 
Petitioner's job description does not detail the complexity or uniqueness of the job duties, supervisory 
duties (if any), independent judgment required, or the amount of supervision received. The Petitioner 
also provided a letter from a firm,I I that works with the Petitioner that stated the 
"work and services provided by [the Petitioner] are of a high-end and complex nature, which requires 
specialized, knowledgeable, skilled professionals in order to accomplish this goal." The Petitioner did 
not explain in detail the working relationship with this firm, and one firm's opinion does not satisfy 
the requirements for this criterion. The Petitioner has not distinguished the proffered position as more 
complex or unique from other positions that can be performed by persons without a degree in a specific 
specialty. 
10 As discussed, the degree requirement set by the statutory and regulatory rramework of the H-lB program is not just a 
bachelor's or higher degree, 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) ofthe Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). Further, a preference for a degree in a field is 
not necessarily an indication of a minimum requirement. 
11 The Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how representative the job postings are of the particular 
advertising employers' recruiting history for the type of job advertised. As the advertisements are only solicitations for 
hire, they are not evidence of the actual hiring practices of these employers. 
6 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the pos1t10n, and references the 
Beneficiary's education and experience as evidence that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation. 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. Here, the Petitioner did not sufficiently develop 
relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position, and it did not identify any 
tasks that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. 
Thus, it cannot be concluded that the Petitioner has 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 provided an organizational chart of the company with the educational background for 
each employee. The Petitioner employs four individuals that hold bachelor's degrees in Business 
Administration, Tourism, International Business and Trade, and Advertising. Although the employees 
all have a bachelor's degree, it is not clear that the proffered position requires a degree in a specific 
specialty. In addition, it does not appear that the positions of these employees are the same or similar 
to the proffered position since the positions are executive assistant, sales executives and marketing 
consultant. 
As the Petitioner does not submit sufficient probative evidence that demonstrates the academic 
qualifications of individuals previously or currently employed as an operations manager or a similar 
position, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 12 
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. 
In support of the petition, the Petitioner provided information regarding the proffered position and its 
business operations. The generalized description of the Petitioner's overall clientele and business 
operations does not give insight into the particular duties of the proffered position as it will be 
12 While a petitioner may believe or otherwise asse1i that a proffered position requires a degree in a specific specialty, that 
opinion alone without corroborating evidence cannot establish the position as a specialty occupation. Were USCTS limited 
solely to reviewing a petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, then any individual with a bachelor's degree could 
be brought to the United States to perform any occupation as long as the employer artificially created a token degree 
requirement, whereby all individuals employed in a particular position possessed a baccalaureate or higher degree in the 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. See Defensor, 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 perf01m 
its duties, the occupation would not meet the statutory or regulatory definition of a specialty occupation. See section 
214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty occupation"). 
7 
performed and whatever project(s) to which the Beneficiary will be assigned. The Petitioner's 
description does not convey the substantive nature of the work that the Beneficiary would actually 
perform, the actual systems utilized by the Petitioner, or any particular body of highly specialized 
knowledge that would have to be theoretically and practically applied to perform it. 
The description of the duties does not specifically identify any tasks that are so complex or unique that 
only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. That is, the Petitioner failed to establish 
how the Beneficiary's responsibilities and day-to-day duties are so complex or unique that the position 
can be performed only by an individual with a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
The Petitioner also submitted a letter from the executive president of I I the .... I __ ___. 
Association of Foreign Exchange, which stated the position of operations manager required a 
bachelor's degree in related areas such as business administration, international business and trade, 
economic science, and accounting. However, it appears that this association is discussing the 
Petitioner's parent company located in Brazil and is not specifically discussing the Beneficiary's 
proffered position with the Petitioner in the United States. 
As the Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative specialization and complexity as an aspect of 
the duties of the position, it has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 13 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
13 Because this is dispositive of the appeal, we need not discuss additional deficiencies we observe in the record such as 
whether the certified labor condition application (LCA) corresponds to and supports the H-lB petition. For example. the 
Petitioner's job description appears to require the usage of a foreign language. The job duties included the following: 
"follow-up with clients (in Portuguese and English) to assist in the composition of the documents for requirements; and 
"contact with advertising agency and product department at the headquarters (Portuguese)." In addition, the Petitioner 
submitted a job description of the proffered position that indicated the professional background required for the position 
is a graduate-level specialization/MBA. These requirements of an additional language and a graduate degree undermine 
the information submitted on the Labor Condition Application that categorized the proffered position as a Level I wage 
which is for an entry-level position. 
8