dismissed H-1B Case: Investments/Real Estate

(b)(6)
MATTER OF S-M- LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 1, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an "Investments/Real Estate" business, seeks to extend the Beneficiary 's temporary 
employment as a "Manager of Investments/Real Estate" under the H -1 B nonimmigrant 
classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The matter is 
now before us on appeal. Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. ISSUES 
The Director denied the petition, finding that the evidence of record: (1) did not establish that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation; and (2) did not establish that the Beneficiary is 
qualified to perform services in a specialty occupation. Beyond the decision of the Director, we will 
also address whether the Form I-129 was supported by a corresponding labor condition application 
(LCA) and whether the Form I-129 was properly completed. 
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 
On the Form I-129, the Petitioner indicted that it is a two-employee "Investments/Real Estate" 
business located in Connecticut. The Petitioner seeks to extend the Beneficiary 's 
employment in a full-time "Manager of Investments/Real Estate" position at an annual salary of 
$61,006. 
The LCA states that the proffered position corresponds to Standard Occupational Classification 
(SOC) code and occupation title 13-2051, "Financial Analysts," from the Occupational Information 
Network (O*NET). The LCA further states that the proffered position is a Level I (entry) position. 
In a support letter dated July 18, 2014, the Petitioner described itself as "an international investment 
company ... [whose] day to day business dealings include domestic and international investments, 
real estate negotiations, complex financial transactions, interpretations and evaluations of highly 
technical international commerce compliance, and constant interaction with international attorneys 
hired to effectuate all business dealings within the company." The Petitioner also stated that "in 
addition to its large portfolio of commercial and residential real estate properties, [it] also is part 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-M- LLC 
owner of a winery located in Czech Republic ... and [it] partners m three (3) multinational 
businesses operating mainly out of the Czech Republic." 
The Petitioner described the proffered position as follows: 
As a Manager of Investments/Real Estate, [the Beneficiary] will be 
responsible for accounting/bookkeeping and staff supervision for projects located in 
the United States and the Czech Republic. [The Beneficiary] will handle all areas of 
oversight, review and supervision from the . CT location for both Czech 
Republic and US projects. The employee will also aid in translating documents and 
translation services between US and Czech counterparts from the , CT 
location. [The Beneficiary] will travel with other employees of [the Petitioner] for 
the annual investor conference in the Czech Republic. [The Beneficiary] will act as 
property manager and bookkeeper for various properties in and 
Connecticut. 
. . . [The Beneficiary] is expected to organize and manage complex 
international investments, a task [the Beneficiary] is competent to perform because of 
his political science background. [The Beneficiary] is also expected to manage large 
portfolios of commercial and residential real estate and partake in the day to day 
operations of three (3) multinational businesses which operate out of the Czech 
Republic. [The Beneficiary] is expected to deal daily with international commerce 
compliance. Such tasks involve the meeting and communicating with various 
individuals, the reading and analyzing complex documents, the ability to 
communicate and negotiate various matters, and the proper and accurate 
interpretation of complex documents, all tasks necessitating a strong background in 
analysis, logic, negotiations, mediation, critical thinking, problem solving, computer 
skills, the skills [the Beneficiary] obtained as a result of his baccalaureate degree with 
a polity science focus. 
. . . The position of Manager of Investments/Real Estate requires the 
theoretical and practical application of highly specialized knowledge, as the 
incumbent will be called upon to provide expertise with regard to marketing and 
business analysis. Therefore, the duties of this professional position could only be 
satisfactorily discharged by an individual having knowledge of financial analysis and 
economic principles associated with the completion of at least a Bachelor's degree in 
Political Science, International Relations, Economics, Finance, Marketing, or a 
related analytic discipline, or the equivalent thereof. This is a standard requirement 
within our organization due to our specialized and sophisticated needs and the 
responsibility vested within this position. Further, the degree requirement is standard 
to the industry at large. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-M- LLC 
The Petitioner also stated that its minimum educational requirement for entry into the proffered 
position is at least a "Bachelor's degree in Political Science, International Relations, Economics, 
Finance, Marketing, or a related analytic 
discipline, or the equivalent thereof." 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner further elaborated upon the 
duties of the proffered position, as follows: 
[The Beneficiary] manages and organizes [the Petitioner 's] portfolio of 
commercial and residential real estate, creates financial reports, reviews and 
negotiates contract and insurance proposals, negotiates lease contracts. He develops 
reports on 3 multinational businesses which operate in the Czech Republic. He 
manages our investment in [the Petitioner's] Winery located in the Czech Republic 
which distributes wine throughout Europe. On behalf of the winery, [the Beneficiary] 
communicates with the accounting company based in the Czech Republic, translating 
and interpreting financial statements. [The Beneficiary] manages international 
commerce compliance on a daily basis. Such tasks involve meetings and 
communication with various individuals, reading and analyzing complex documents, 
their proper and accurate interpretation and all tasks which necessitate a strong 
background in logic, negotiation, mediation, problem solving and computer skills. 
The Petitioner also provided the following "Daily Responsibilities": 
[The Petitioner 's 1 International Investments- 40% 
[The Beneficiary] manages all European based investments for [the Petitioner] 
including our partnership with the and [the Petitioner's] 
Winery. [The Petitioner] has an investment of over 5 Million Euros in these 
activities. His duties include all areas of analysis, business reporting, and contract 
negotiation. 
[The Petitioner's 1 International Business Trips - 15% 
The principals of [the Petitioner] travel outside the United States quarterly to our 
projects in Europe and New Zealand. [The Beneficiary] coordinates these trips and 
meetings as part of his day to day duties. [The Beneficiary] also travels to Czech 
Republic twice a year to inspect [the Petitioner ' s] investments . 
[The Petitioner 's1 Domestic Prop erty- California 15% 
Using his expertise gained by advising [the Petitioner] with [the Petitioner's] Winery, 
[the Beneficiary] is responsible for the lease and negotiation activities with our 
400,000 square foot Wine Processing facility in California. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter ofS-M- LLC 
[The Petitioner 's} Domestic Properties- Other 20% 
[The Petitioner] owns and operates office, retail and land development activities in 
Connecticut and Colorado. [The Beneficiary] is responsible for the day to day 
management and reporting on all real estate projects. 
[The Petitioner 's} Administration- 10% 
[The Beneficiary] is responsible for the reporting and administration of [the 
Petitioner's] global portfolio which includes ownership of a 
multiple international private equity investments and a portfolio of domestic publicly 
traded stocks. 
The Petitioner also stated that the proffered position "has a minimum requirement of a Bachelor's 
Degree" and that the Beneficiary's predecessor holds a bachelor's degree in business administration. 
On appeal, the Petitioner distinguishes the proffered position from a property manager position, and 
asserts that the proffered position is properly classified under the financial analyst occupational 
classification. The Petitioner also states that the duties of the proffered position "require the 
minimum of a bachelor's degree in political science/international relations or equivalent." The 
Petitioner further explains why a degree in political science/international relations is "an essential 
requirement" for the individual performing the "wide range of tasks from several disciplines," 
including knowledge of "economics, business climate, and laws and regulations of each state that 
[the Petitioner] has investments and assets in, notably the Czech Republic." 
III. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
A. Legal Framework 
Section 214(i)(l) ofthe 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 [(1)] 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 
4 
Matter of S-M- LLC 
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 
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). In other words, this regulatory 
language must be construed in harmony with the thrust of the related provisions and with the statute 
as a whole. See K 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. Fed. 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)( 1) 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-lB petitions for qualified 
Matter ojS-M- LLC 
individuals 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 -1 B visa category. 
To determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCIS 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. users must examine the 
ultimate employment of the individual, and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. The critical element is not the title 
of the position or 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 baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty as the minimum for entry into 
the occupation, as required by the Act. 
B. Analysis 
Upon review, we find that the evidence of record is insufficient to establish that the proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
First, we find that the Petitioner has provided inconsistent information regarding the mm1mum 
educational requirements for the proffered position. For instance, the Petitioner initially stated that it 
requires a "Bachelor's degree in Political Science, International Relations, Economics, Finance, 
Marketing, or a related analytic discipline." In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner stated 
that it "has a minimum requirement of a Bachelor's Degree," without further specification, and the 
Beneficiary's predecessor was qualified for the proffered position by virtue of his degree in business 
administration. The Petitioner now asserts on appeal that it requires a "minimum of a bachelor's 
degree in political science/international relations or equivalent." No explanation for the variances in 
educational requirements was provided by the Petitioner. It is thus not clear whether the Petitioner 
requires: (1) a bachelor's degree in political science, international relations, economics, finance, 
marketing, or a related field; (2) simply a general bachelor's degree and/or a business administration 
degree; or (3) a bachelor's degree specifically limited to the fields of political science and/or 
international relations. 
"[I]t is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve the inconsistencies by independent objective evidence." 
Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). Any attempt to explain or reconcile such 
inconsistencies will not suffice unless the Petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to 
where the truth lies. Id. at 591-92. 
If it is the Petitioner's claim that bachelor's degrees in political science, international relations, 
economics, finance, marketing, or a related field, are sufficient minimum requirements for entry into 
Matter of S-M- LLC 
the proffered position, this claim is inadequate to establish that the proposed position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. In general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry and 
biochemistry, a minimum of a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty is recognized 
as satisfying the "degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)" requirement of section 
214(i)(l )(B) of the Act. In such a case, the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" would 
essentially be the same. Since there must be a close correlation between the required "body of 
highly specialized knowledge" and the position, however, a minimum entry requirement of a degree 
in disparate fields, such as political science and marketing, would not meet the statutory requirement 
that the degree be "in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)," unless the Petitioner establishes how 
each field is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position such that the 
required "body of highly specialized knowledge" is essentially an amalgamation of these different 
specialties. 1 Section 214(i)(l )(B) ofthe Act (emphasis added). 
It is not readily apparent that fields such as political science and marketing are closely related to 
each other, or that these fields are directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular 
position proffered in this matter. For example, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained what 
courses of study are common between degrees in political science and marketing. Nor has the 
Petitioner specifically explained how a degree in marketing would provide an individual with the 
knowledge necessary to perform duties such as investment and property management. Absent this 
evidence, it cannot be found that the particular position proffered in this matter has a normal 
minimum entry requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, 
under the Petitioner's own standards. "[G]oing on record without supporting documentary evidence 
is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings." Matter ofSojjici, 
22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter ofTreasure Craft of Cal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 
(Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
Even if the Petitioner's educational requirement is only a degree in political science and/or 
international relations, this too is inadequate to establish that the proposed position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. The Petitioner has not sufficiently established that a degree in political science 
and/or international relations is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular 
position proffered in this matter. That is, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that a degree 
in political science and/or international relations would provide an individual with the knowledge 
necessary to perform financial and economics-related duties reflective of the financial analyst 
occupational classification chosen here. 
1 In other words, while the statutory "the" and the regulatory "a" both denote a singular "specialty," we do not so 
narrowly interpret these provisions to exclude positions from qualifying as specialty occupations if they permit, as a 
minimum entry requirement, degrees in more than one closely related specialty. See section 214(i)( I )(B) of the Act; 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). This also includes even seemingly disparate specialties providing, again, the evidence of record 
establishes how each acceptable, specific field of study is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
particular position. 
Matter ofS-M- LLC 
For example, the Petitioner asserted that "the duties of this professional position could only be 
satisfactorily discharged by an individual having knowledge of financial analysis and economic 
principles." The Petitioner has consistently emphasized the nature of its business operations dealing 
with investments, "complex financial transactions" and "highly technical international commerce 
compliance." These assertions are consistent with the Department of Labor's (DOL's) Occupational 
Outlook Handbook (Handbook), which states that financial analysts study and evaluate financial data 
and economic trends, and lists the fields of study that provide "appropriate preparation" for entry 
into the occupation as including "accounting, economics, finance, statistics, and mathematics." 2 See 
U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., 
"Financial Analysts," http://www. b ls. gov I oo h/business-and- financial/print/financial-analysts .htm 
(last visited Mar. 8, 20 16). However, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained and documented 
which courses leading up to an established curriculum in political science and/or international 
relations would provide such "knowledge of financial analysis and economic principles." While the 
Petitioner asserts that a political science degree provides "strong skills" in "statistical data," the 
Petitioner has not established that skills in "statistical data" are equivalent to skills and knowledge in 
"financial analysis and economic principles." 
Alternatively, if it is the Petitioner's claim that a general bachelor's degree without further 
specification, or a bachelor's degree in business administration, are sufficient for entry into the 
position, this claim still is inadequate to establish that the proposed position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. Again, 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. There must be a 
close correlation between the required specialized studies and the position; thus, the mere 
requirement of a general degree, or 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) ("The mere requirement of a college 
degree for the sake of general education, or to obtain what an employer perceives to be a higher 
caliber employee, also does not establish eligibility."). 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 finding that a particular position 
qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation.3 Royal Siam Corp. v. Cherto.fj, 484 F.3d 139, 
147 (1st Cir. 2007). 4 
2 We recognize the Handbook as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety 
of occupations that it addresses. The Handbook, which is available in printed form, may also be accessed online at 
http://www.bls.gov/oco/. All our references to the Handbook are to the 2016- 17 edition available online. 
3 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. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 
(1st Cir. 2007). 
Matter of S-M- LLC 
The Petitioner cites to Residential Finance Corp. v. USCIS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012) 
and Tapis Int'l v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 94 F. Supp. 2d 172 (D. Mass. 2000) for 
the proposition that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is what is important. Diplomas 
rarely come bearing occupation-specific majors. What is required is an occupation that requires 
highly specialized knowledge and a prospective employee who has attained the credentialing 
indicating possession of that knowledge." The Petitioner thus asserts that "because there is no such 
thing as a degree that is specifically tailored to fit the job description of the Manager of 
Investments/Real Estate, [the Petitioner] has indicated that an individual who possesses a Bachelor's 
Degree in Political Science/International Relations would possess the suitable training, skills, and 
knowledge to be able to perform the required job duties." 
The Petitioner's reliance upon these cases is misplaced. While we agree with the general proposition 
cited above, we do not agree that it applies to the situation at hand. The issue here is that the 
Petitioner has not consistently established what its minimum educational requirement is, and how its 
entry requirement- whether it is a bachelor's degree in political science, international relations, or 
marketing, or merely a general degree such as business administration - is directly and closely 
related to the position in question. As discussed above, the Petitioner has not adequately explained 
its changing requirements for the proffered position during these proceedings. For these reasons, the 
petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed. 
Second, we find that the evidence of record is insufficient to establish the substantive nature of the 
proffered position. 
The job descriptions lack sufficient detail and concrete explanation to establish the substantive nature of 
the work that would be performed within the context of the Petitioner's particular business operations. 
For instance, the Petitioner stated that 40% of the Beneficiary's duties "involves the management of all 
of Petitioner's European-based investments," while 20% of his duties include "the day to day 
management and reporting on all real estate projects." The Petitioner also stated that the Beneficiary 
It is also important to note that a position may not qualify as a specialty occupation based solely on either a preference 
for certain qualifications for the position or the claimed requirements of a petitioner. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 
384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). Instead, the record must establish that the performance of the duties of the proffered position 
requires both the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as the minimum for entry into the 
occupation. See section 214(i)( 1) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty occupation"). 
4 Specifically, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit explained in Royal Siam 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 B specialty occupation visa. See, e.g., Tapis lnt 'I 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 artificial) degree requirement. 
I d. 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter ofS-M- LLC 
will spend 10% of his time on the "reporting and administration" of the Petitioner's "global portfolio."5 
The Petitioner has not sufficiently delineated what specific tasks the Beneficiary will perform (e.g., 
what is meant by the vague terms "management," "handle all areas of oversight, review and 
supervision," and "reporting and administration") and the percentages of time spent on each distinct 
duty (e.g., how the 40% of time spent on "all of the Petitioner's European-based investments" is 
further broken down into distinct duties such as property management, financial reporting, and 
contract negotiation). 
Notably, many of the Beneficiary's job duties include supervisory and managerial duties, including 
"staff supervision for projects located in the United States and the Czech Republic." However, the 
Petitioner has not further explained what "staff' (e.g., their names, titles, and position duties) the 
Beneficiary will supervise, or what specific "projects" the Beneficiary will manage in the United 
States and abroad. We note that the Petitioner claimed on the Form I-129 to have only two 
employees, but has not identified who these two employees are and what their duties are within the 
company.6 The lack of such details regarding the Petitioner's business operations further precludes 
an understanding ofthe substantive nature of the proffered position. 
Furthermore, some of the proffered duties are so broadly described that they could reasonably 
encompass duties that do not involve specialty occupation work at all. To illustrate, the Petitioner 
stated that the Beneficiary "will be responsible for accounting/bookkeeping. " The Petitioner also 
stated that the Beneficiary "coordinates " the quarterly international business trips and meetings. 
However, these duties - as so generally described - could potentially encompass non-qualifying 
duties, such as routine bookkeeping and administrative duties, which constitute a substantive portion 
of the proffered duties. While no provision in the law for specialty occupations permits the 
performance of non-qualifying duties, we will view the performance of duties that are incidental to 
the primary duties of the proffered position as acceptable when they are unpredictable, intermittent, 
and of a minor nature. 7 Anything beyond such incidental duties, however, e.g., predictable, 
recurring, and substantive job responsibilities, must be specialty occupation duties or the proffered 
position as a whole cannot be approved as a specialty occupation. 
5 The Director found that the job duties regarding administration and management of the Petitioner's "global portfolio ," 
including ownership of a and part ownership in a winery , constituted a material change in the 
position. We will withdraw this finding. Although vague, the Petitioner's initial letter, dated July 18, 2014 , did state 
that the company's "day to day business dealings include domestic . .. investments." The Petitioner addition ally stated 
that it "also is part owner of a winery located in the Czech Republic ." The Petitioner then stated that the Beneficiary 
"will handle all areas of oversight , review and supervision .. . for both Czech Republic and US projects ." Because of the 
overly broad nature of the Petitioner's descriptions, we cannot find that the above job duties relating to the "global 
portfolio" and winery were inconsistent, and thus, we do not find that they constitute material changes. 
6 It is not apparent whether these two employees include the Beneficiary, who has been working for the Petitioner in 
H-1 B status for several years. We also note that the Petitioner stated in its July 18, 2014, letter that the Beneficiary "will 
travel with other employees of [the Petitioner] (plural emphasized) ," therefore implying that the Petitioner has more than 
two employees . 
7 The two definitions of "incidental" in Webster 's New College Dictionary are " I. Occuning or apt to occur as an 
unpredictable or minor concomitant . . . [and] 2. Of a minor, casual, or subordinate nature .... " Incidental , Webster's 
New College Dictionary (3rd ed. 2008). 
10 
Matter ofS-M- LLC 
Some of the proffered job duties also do not reasonably fall within the scope of duties for the 
financial analyst occupation chosen here. Neither the Handbook nor the DOL's Occupational 
Information Network (O*NET) indicates that financial analysts perform duties related to accounting, 
bookkeeping, property management, travel coordination, marketing, and "partak[ing] in the day to 
day operations of three (3) multinational businesses," for example. 8 See U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau 
of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., "Financial Analysts," 
http:/ /www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and- financial/print/financial-analysts.htm (last visited Mar. 8, 
2016); O*NET Online Details Report for "13-2051, Financial Analysts" 
http://www.onetonline.org/link/details/13-2051.00 (last visited Mar. 8, 2016). 
While the Handbook states that portfolio managers, a type of financial analyst, "are responsible for 
the overall performance of the portfolio," the Handbook does not indicate that they actually manage 
the "day to day operations" of the investments under the portfolio. See U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau 
of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., "Financial Analysts," 
http://www. bls.gov/ ooh/business-and- financial/print/financial-analysts.htm (last visited Mar. 8, 
20 16). Nor has the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary actually selects the mix of investments 
under the company's portfolio, which he will then manage. See id. O*NET, similarly contains no 
references to managerial-type duties for financial analysts. See O*NET Online Details Report for 
"13-2051, Financial Analysts," http://www.onetonline.org/link/details/13-2051.00 (last visited Mar. 
8, 2016). 
Moreover, some of the duties of the proffered position do not appear consistent with the Level I, 
entry-level, wage rate selected here. Here, the Petitioner has repeatedly emphasized the "complex," 
"sophisticated," and "specialized" nature of the proffered job duties.9 In accordance with the 
relevant DOL explanatory information on wage levels, however, a Level I wage rate indicates that 
the proffered position is a comparatively low, entry-level position relative to others within the 
occupation. It also indicates that the Beneficiary is only required to have a basic understanding of 
the occupation, and will perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment. 10 
8 We also recognize O*NET as an authoritative source on the duties of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 
9 The issue here is that the Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position undermines its claim 
that the position is particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same 
occupation. Nevertheless, it is important to note that a Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position 
from classification as a specialty occupation. In certain occupations (doctors or lawyers, for example), an 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 consideration but is not a substitute for a 
determination of whether a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)(l) ofthe Act. 
10 
A Levell wage rate is described as follows: 
Level I (entry) wage rates are assigned to job offers for beginning level employees who have 
only a basic understanding of the occupation. These employees perform routine tasks that require 
limited, if any, exercise of judgment. The tasks provide experience and familiarization with the 
11 
Matter of S-M- LLC 
The Petitioner's designation of the proffered pos1t10n as a Level I, entry-level pos1t10n thus 
undermines the credibility of any claim as to the proffered position or the duties comprising it as 
being particularly complex, specialized, or unique. Again, "it is incumbent upon the petitioner to 
resolve the inconsistencies by independent objective evidence." Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. 
Overall, we find the evidence of record insufficient to establish the substantive nature of the work 
the Beneficiary will perform. We are therefore precluded from finding that the proffered position 
satisfies any criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A), because it is the substantive nature of that work 
that determines (1) the normal minimum educational requirement for entry into the particular position, 
which is the focus of criterion 1; (2) industry positions which are parallel to the proffered position and 
thus appropriate for review for a common degree requirement, under the first alternate prong of 
criterion 2; (3) the level of complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position, which is the focus of the 
second alternate prong of criterion 2; (4) the factual justification for a petitioner normally requiring a 
degree or its equivalent, when that is an issue under criterion 3; and (5) the degree of specialization and 
complexity of the specific duties, which is the focus of criterion 4. 
Accordingly, as the Petitioner has not established that it has satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A), it cannot be found that the proffered position qualifies for classification as a 
specialty occupation. The appeal will be dismissed and the petition denied for this additional reason. 
IV. BENEFICIARY QUALIFICATIONS 
The Director also found that the Beneficiary would not be qualified to perform the duties of the 
proffered position if the job had been determined to be a specialty occupation. However, we do not 
need to examine the issue of the Beneficiary's qualifications, because the Petitioner has not provided 
sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. In other 
words, the Beneficiary's credentials to perform a particular job are relevant only when the job is 
found to be a specialty occupation. 
As discussed in this decision, the Petitioner did not submit sufficient, consistent evidence regarding 
the proffered position to determine whether it requires a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent. Absent this determination that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty or its equivalent is required to perform the duties of the proffered position, it also 
cannot be determined whether the Beneficiary possesses that degree or its equivalent. 
employer's methods, practices, and programs. The employees may perform higher level work for 
training and developmental purposes. These employees work under close supervision and receive 
specific instructions on required tasks and results expected. Their work is closely monitored and 
reviewed for accuracy. Statements that the job offer is for a research fellow, a worker in training, or an 
internship are indicators that a Level I wage should be considered. 
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_ Revised _11_2009.pdf 
12 
Matter of S-M- LLC 
V. LCA 
Beyond the decision of the Director, we find that the Petitioner did not submit an LCA that 
corresponds to the petition. On the LCA, the Petitioner specified that the occupational classification 
for the proffered position corresponds to SOC (O*NET/OES) Code and Title 13-2051, "Financial 
Analysts," at a Level I wage rate. By completing and submitting the LCA, and by signing the LCA, 
the Petitioner attested that the information contained in the LCA was true and accurate. 
As discussed above, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how the proffered duties correspond 
to a Level I, entry-level financial analyst position. 11 We hereby incorporate our earlier discussion on 
the matter. The evidence of record is insufficient to establish whether the Petitioner has chosen the 
most appropriate and relevant O*NET occupational code classification. 12 
Nevertheless, even assuming arguendo that the financial analysts occupational classification is 
appropriate, we still could not find that the submitted LCA supports and corresponds to the proffered 
position. More specifically, we find that the Petitioner listed an incorrect prevailing wage on the 
LCA, and has not offered a wage equal to or exceeding the wage required by law. See Section 
212(n)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(n)(l)(A) (the Petitioner must offer wages that are at least 
"the actual wage level paid by the employer to all other individuals with similar experience and 
qualifications for the specific employment in question" or "the prevailing wage level for the 
occupational classification in the area of employment, whichever is greater.") 
11 While the Petitioner explained how the duties of the proffered position "exceed[] the scope and competence of a 
typical property manager," the Petitioner has not accounted some of the other proffered duties, such as the accounting, 
marketing, and managerial duties, that appear outside the scope ofthe financial analyst occupational classification 
12 With respect to the LCA, DOL provides clear guidance for selecting the most appropriate, relevant O*NET 
occupational code classification. The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" states the following: 
In determining the nature of the job offer, the first order is to review the requirements of the 
employer's job offer and determine the appropriate occupational classification. The O*NET 
description that corresponds to the employer's job offer shaii be used to identify the appropriate 
occupational classification .... If the employer's job opportunity has worker requirements described 
in a combination ofO*NET occupations, the NPWHC 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 NPWHC 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://www. foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _l I_ 2009 .pdf 
In this case, some of the job duties appear to correspond to a combination of other O*NET occupations. However, 
without sufficient information regarding these other occupations and their prevailing wages, we cannot determine if the 
financial analysts occupational classification represents the highest paying occupation, and thus, the most appropriate 
and relevant classification. 
13 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-M- LLC 
Here, the LCA listed the Beneficiary's sole place of employment in Connecticut, which 
is located in The LCA lists the prevailing wage as well as the proffered wage as 
$61,006 per year, and listed the prevailing wage source as the "2014 OFLC Online Data Center." 
The LCA was certified on July 15, 2014. 
According to the OFLC Online Data Center, the Level I prevailing wage for financial analysts in 
the 
CT" MSA, corresponding to the 
locality, for the period 7/2014- 6/2015, is $62,317 annually. For more information regarding the 
wages for "Financial Analysts" - SOC (ONET/OES Code) 13-2051, in the 
CT" MSA for the period 7/2014 6/2015, see 
http:/ /flcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResults.aspx?code= 13-2051 &area= &year= 15&source= 1 
(last visited Mar. 8, 2016). The Petitioner incorrectly stated on the LCA that the prevailing wage is 
$61,006 annually and attested on the Form I-129 and LCA that it will pay that wage to the 
Beneficiary which is $1,311 less than the required wage. 13 
While DOL is the agency that certifies LCA applications before they are submitted to USCIS, DOL 
regulations note that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (i.e., its immigration benefits 
branch, USCIS) is the department responsible for determining whether the content of an LCA filed 
for a particular Form I-129 actually supports that petition. The regulations state, in pertinent part: 
For H-1B visas ... DHS accepts the employer's petition (DHS Form I-129) with the 
DOL certified 
LCA attached. In doing so, the DHS determines whether the petition is 
supported by an LCA which corresponds with the petition, whether the occupation 
named in the [LCA] is a specialty occupation or whether the individual is a fashion 
model of distinguished merit and ability, and whether the qualifications of the 
nonimmigrant meet the statutory requirements of H-1 B visa classification. 
20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b) (emphasis added). 
The regulation at 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b) requires that USCIS ensure that an LCA actually supp01is 
the H-lB petition filed on behalf of the Beneficiary. See also 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(c) (stating, in 
pertinent part, that by completing, submitting, and signing the LCA, the employer makes certain 
representations and agrees to several attestations regarding its wage responsibilities). Here, the 
Petitioner has not submitted a certified 
LCA that corresponds to the proffered position. Therefore, 
the petition cannot be approved for this additional reason. 
13 Both the 
the 
CT and 
CT MSA covers ' 
14 
CT MSAs cover parts of however, only 
Matter of S-M- LLC 
VI. PROPERLY COMPLETED PETITION 
Finally, also beyond the Director's decision, we find that the Form I-129 was not properly signed by 
the Petitioner. The Form I-129 instructions, which are incorporated into the regulations, state that 
the petition must be properly signed. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(1). The instructions further indicate 
that a petition that is not properly signed or completed may be rejected or denied. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(a)(7)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
On page 12 of the Form I-129 Supplement H, the Petitioner did not sign the "Statement for H-1B 
specialty occupations and U.S. Department of Defense projects" certifying that it would be liable for 
the Beneficiary's reasonable costs of return transportation if he is dismissed from employment prior 
to the expiration of the period of authorized stay. See 214(c)(5) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(E). Although the Petitioner stated in its letter, dated July 18, 2014, that it "will pay 
the reasonable costs of return transportation for [the Beneficiary] to his last place of residence in the 
event of his dismissal prior to the end of the period of authorized stay," we cannot accept this 
statement in lieu of the required signature on the form. We note that the integrity of the immigration 
process depends on the employer properly signing the official immigration forms. 
As the petition was not properly signed and completed, the petition is further precluded from 
approval. Thus, for this reason as well, the petition must be denied. 
VII. CONCLUSION 
We find that the evidence of record does not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. Beyond the decision of the Director, we find that the Form I-129 was not 
supported by a corresponding LCA and the Form I-129 was not properly completed. 
We may deny an application or petition that does not comply with the technical requirements of the 
law even if the Director does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enters., Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001). 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each 
considered as an independent and alternative basis for the decision. 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; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013) (citing Matter of 
Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493, 495 (BIA 1966)). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofS-M- LLC, ID# 16117 (AAO Apr. 1, 2016) 
15