dismissed H-1B Case: Janitorial Services

MATTER OF H-C-0-A-, LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 2, 2016 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITIQN FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a janitorial services company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an 
"operations manager" 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-1B 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, Vermont Service Center, revoked the approval of the petition. The matter is now 
before us on appeal. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erroneously revoked the 
approval of the petition and resubmits some of the previously submitted evidence. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. REVOCATION FRAMEWORK 
In general, the authority to revoke approval of an H-1B petition is found at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(11), 
which states, in pertinent part, the following: 
Revocation of approval of petition. 
(i) General. 
(A) The Petitioner shall immediately notify the Service of any 
changes in the terms and conditions of employment of a 
beneficiary which may affect eligibility under section 
101(a)(15)(H) of the Act and paragraph (h) of this section. An 
amended petition on Form I -129 should be filed when the 
petitioner continues to employ the Beneficiary .... 
(B) The Director may revoke a petition at any time, even after 
expiration of the petition. 
Matter of H-C-0-A-, LLC 
(iii) Revocation on notice-
(A) Grounds for revocation. The Director shall send to the 
petitioner a notice of intent to revoke the petition in relevant 
part if he or she finds that: 
(1) The Beneficiary is no longer employed by the Petitioner 
in the capacity specified in the petition .... ; or 
(2) The statement of facts contained in the petition ... was 
not true and correct, inaccurate, fraudulent, or 
misrepresented a material fact; or 
(3) The Petitioner violated terms and conditions of the 
approved petition; or 
( 4) The Petitioner violated requirements of section 
101(a)(15)(H) of the Act or paragraph (h) of this 
section; or 
(5) The approval of the petition violated [paragraph] (h) of 
this section or involved gross error. 
(B) Notice and decision. The notice of intent to revoke shall 
contain a detailed statement of the grounds for the revocation 
and the time period allowed for the Petitioner's rebuttal. The 
petitioner may submit evidence in rebuttal within 30 days of 
receipt of the notice. The Director shall consider all relevant 
evidence presented in deciding whether to revoke the petition 
in whole or in part .... 
We find that the content of the Director's notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) the approval of the 
petition comported with the regulatory notice requirements, as it provided a detailed statement that 
conveyed the proposed grounds for revocation encompassed by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(ll)(iii)(A), and that it also allotted the Petitioner the required time for the submission of 
evidence in rebuttal that is specified in the regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)(ll )(iii)(B). 
2 
Matter of H-C-0-A-, LLC 
II. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
A. 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) 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. 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"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
B. Proffered Position 
In the H -1 B petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as an "operations manager" 
and submitted th~Jollowing duties for the proffered position: · 
3 
\\ 
Matter of H-C-0-A-, LLC 
• Provide strategic leadership for the company; 
• Establish long-range goals, strategies, plans and policies; 
• Plan, develop, organize, implement, direct and evaluate company's operational 
function and performance, in conjunction with the standard operations procedures of 
the franchisor. 
• Establish and carry out departmental or organizational goals, policies, and 
procedures. 
• Direct and oversee an organization's financial and budgetary activities. Plan, 
develop, organize, implement, direct and evaluate company's financial and fiscal 
functions and performance. 
o Order, instruct, purchase or carry out any banking transactions, operations or 
products/services. · 
o Opening and closing of any checking, savings or other bank accounts. 
o) Instructing, ordering of bank transfers and payments. 
o Obtain bank statements and conduct any communications. in connection with 
any of the acts and operation~ carried for the company. 
o Establish procedures for the quick and efficient creation of corporate credit 
history and credit rating. 
• Analyze financial statements, sales reports, and other performance indicators. 
• Appoint department heads and managers, hire an office manager 
• Set up operations~, office by means of lease, purchase of furniture and 
computer/telecom hardware. 
• Negotiate, approve and establish supply contracts with utility providers, equipment 
and materials vendors. 
• Prepare, negotiate, conclude, sign, amend and terminate declarations, acts, 
agreements and any other legal instruments with the company's clients, suppliers and 
any other counterparties or entities in accordance with company's business activity. 
• Take any other action, measures and execute any other documents or legal 
instruments as they are incidental to carrying on the business in accordance with 
applicable laws. 
• Initiate and follow up on contracts with potential customers. 
• Contracting facilities for letters of credit (LIC) and/or letters of guarantee (LIG). 
• Manage general activities related to making products and providing services. 
• Purchase or leased the vehicles needed for the operations. 
• Register the company with all pertinent local, state, and federal agencies. 
• Consult with other executives, staff, and board members about general operations. 
• Identify places to cut costs and to improve performance, policies, and programs. 
The Petitioner initially stated that the proffered position "requires, at a minimum, a Bachelor's of 
Arts or Bachelor's of Science degree." The Petitioner later stated that the proffered position 
"requires, at a minimum, a Bachelor's of Arts or Bachelor's of Science degree in Operations 
Management, Business Administration, or relevant field.'' 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of H-C-0-A-, LLC 
C. 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 proffer~d position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Specifically, the record (1) does not describe the position's duties with sufficient detail; and (2) does 
not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate 
with a specialty occupation. 1 
1. Description of Proffered Position 
While we acknowledge that the Petitioner has provided rather lengthy descriptions of the duties, we find 
that the duties of the proffered position, and the position itself, are not sufficiently described within the 
context~ of the Petitioner's actual business operations. In establishing a position as a specialty 
occupation, a petitioner must describe the specific duties and responsibilities to be performed by ·a 
beneficiary in the context of its business operations as they existed at the time of filing, not based on 
speculation of future eligibility. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248, 249 (Reg'l 
Comm'r 1978). USCIS regulations affirmatively require a petitioner to establish eligibility for the 
benefit it is seeking at the time the petition is filed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
According to the H-lB petition (filed in April2014), the Petitioner was recently established in 2013 and 
employs only one individual. The Petitioner's operations consist of a cleaning services franchise, 
The Petitioner submitted, inter alia, its business plan 
and other documentation related to its franchise as evidence of its current operations. . 
However, the Petitioner described the duties of the proffered position in terms that are not consistent 
with the Petitioner's limited operations as a one-employee janitorial. service. For example, the job 
duties of "[e]stablish and carry out departmental or organizational goals, policies, and procedures," 
"[d]irect and oversee an organization's financial and budgetary activities," and "[m]anage general 
activities related to making products and providing services," all contemplate the existence of 
additional staffing and a more complex organizational structure in order for the Beneficiary to 
actually perform the claimed managerial, executive, or leadership duties. That is, if there are no 
other employees to perform the operational duties of producing the company's financial reports, 
making products, and providing services (among others), it is not apparent who the Beneficiary will 
be directing and managing. 2 Nor is it apparent how the Beneficiary will be carrying out 
"departmental" goals within a one-company business . Even the proffered job duty of"[ c ]onsult with 
other executives, staff, arid ·board members about general operations" expressly requires the 
existence of other executives, staff, and officers. 
1 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 The Petitioner does not identify what ,;products" the company makes. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of H-C-0-A-, LLC 
These and other stated job duties give an appearance of a much larger company with more complex 
operations than can be supported by the Petitioner's operations at the time of filing. It is reasonable 
to consider a petitioner's size and scope as having an impact on the claimed duties of a particular 
position. See EG Enters., Inc. v. Dep 't of Homeland Sec., 467 F. Supp. 2d 728 (E.D. Mich. 
2006). The size and scope of a petitioner are components of the nature of a position, as the size and 
scope impact upon the actual duties of a particular position. Here, the Petitioner purports to employ 
the Beneficiary as its operations manager to perform managerial, executive, or leadership duties, yet 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated that it employs other staff to support the Beneficiary in such a 
capacity. Collectively, this brings into question the reliability of the Petitioner's descriptions of the 
proffered position and its constituent duties.3 
A petitioner's unsupported statements are of very limited weight and normally will be insufficient to 
carry its burden of proof, particularly when supporting documentary evidence would reasonably be 
available. See Matter ofSoffici, 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). In addition, "it is incumbent upon the 
petitioner to resolve the inconsistencies by independent objective evidence." Matter of Ho, 19 I&N 
Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). "Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course , lead 
to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the 
visa petition. " !d. 
The Petitioner has expressed plans to expand its business ventures beyond The Petitioner 
specifically stated that it intends to have new business lines "to 
be started in the future." The Petitioner 
also stated that "[a]fter successful start-up and consolidation of [the line of business, the plan 
was to reallocate the available financial resources to establish new lines of business" in (1) wholesale 
export to Eastern Europe; (2) financial trading; and (3) real estate investing. The Petitioner explained 
that all of these future business ventures will be initiated by the Beneficiary once he· is in the United 
States in approved H-1B status. 
However, we cannot consider the Petitioner's future plans and any other claimed aspects of its 
operations that were not in existence at the time of filing. Again, the Petitioner must establish 
eligibility at the time of filing,, 8 C.F .R. § I 03 .2(b )(1 ), and not based on speculation of future 
eligibility, Matter of Michelin Tire Corp ., 17 I&N Dec. at 249. Accordingly, we will only consider 
those aspects of the proffered position and its constituent job duties which can actually be supported 
by th'e Petitioner's one-employee janitorial operations in our analysis ofthe position. 4 
3 The Petitioner stated that, by the time of the Beneficiary ' s U.S. Consulate interview, the company was "employing and 
paying 7 E-Verified employees, all performing cleaning jobs at our customer 's sites." However, the Petitioner did not 
submit objective evidence, such as payroll or earnings statements , to corroborate its assertions. Nevertheless, we 
highlight the Petitioner's statement that all of its other employees are "performing cleaning jobs." Thus, even if 
corroborated , the existence of cleaning staff does not sufficiently explain how the Beneficiary will perform all of the 
stated duties, including directing the organization 's financial and budgetary activities , and managing activities related to 
making products. 
4 The agency made clear long ago that speculative employment is not permitted in the H-1 8 program. For example, a 
1998 proposed rule documented this position as follows: 
6 
Matter of H-C-0-A-, LLC 
2. Educational Requirement 
Further, the Petitioner initially stated that the proffered position requires a general bachelor's degree, 
without further specification of any particular specialty that the bachelor's degree must be in. This 
degree requirement, in itself, is insufficient to demonstrate that the proffered 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. There must be a close correlation 
between the required specialized studies and the position; thus, the mere requirement of a general 
degree, 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."). 
In response to the Director's NOIR, the Petitioner clarified that the proffered position "requires, at a 
minimum, a Bachelor's of Arts or Bachelor's of Science degree in Operations Management, 
Business Administration, or relevant field." Subsequent to filing the petition, however, the 
Petitioner cannot materially change a position's educational requirement or other salient aspects of 
the position. Again, the Petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.P.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(1); see Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. at 249. The Petitioner may not make 
material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS 
requirements. See Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). 
Historically, the Service has not granted H-1 B classification on the basis of speculative, or 
undetermined, prospective employment. The H-1 B classification is not intended as a vehicle for an 
alien to engage in a job search within the United States, or for employers to bring in temporary foreign 
workers to meet possible workforce needs arising from potential business expansions or the 
expectation of potential new customers or contracts. To determine whether an alien is properly 
classifiable as an H-1 B nonimmigrant under the statute, the Service must first examine the duties ofthe 
position to be occupied to ascertain whether the duties of the position require the attainment of a 
specific bachelor's degree. See section 214(i) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act (the "Act"). The 
Service must then determine whether the alien has the appropriate degree for the occupation. In the 
case of speculative employment, the Service is unable to perform either part of this two-prong analysis 
and, therefore, is unable to adjudicate properly a request for H-1 B classification. Moreover, there is no 
assurance that the alien will engage in a specialty occupation upon arrival in this country. 
Petitioning Requirements for the H Nonimmigrant Classification, 63 Fed. Reg. 30,419, 30,419-20 (proposed June 4, 
1998) (to be codified at 8 C.F.R. pt. 214). Compare with 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) (permitting L-IA managers or 
executives to come to the United States to open a "new office" in the United States). In other words, and in contrast to 
the L-1 A new office regulations, no provision in the law relevant to H-1 B nonimmigrants provides an initial grace period 
during which the Beneficiary may be employed to "perform all actions and duties necessary to properly start up the very 
existence and initiate the growth ofthe company," if those actions and duties encompass non-qualifying duties. 
7 
Matter of H-C-0-A-, LLC 
Nevertheless, even if we were to consider the Petitioner's revised educational requirement of a 
degree in operations management, business administration, or a related field, we still would find it 
insufficient to demonstrate that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. To prove 
that a job requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge 
as required by section 214(i)(1) 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. Although 
a general-purpose bachelor's degree in business administration may be a legitimate prereq~isite for a 
particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, still would not justify a finding that a 
particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. See Royal Siam Corp. v. 
Chertoff, 484 F.3d at 147 (recognizing a bachelor's degree in business administration as a "general­
purpose bachelor's degree"). 
The Petitioner contends that "8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) does NOT mention the need for a 
specific field of study." We disagree. The regulation at 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 term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) must logically be read 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 at 14 7. 
Based on the Petitioner's stated educational requirement for the proffered position, the Petitioner has 
not established that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, 
commensurate with a specialty occupation. 
3. Criteria Analysis 
Keeping in mind the Petitioner's limited operations at the time of filing and its general degree 
requirement, we will now proceed to our analysis of the proffered position under the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 5 
a. First Criterion 
We tum first 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 the U.S. Department ofLabor's 
5 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
8 
Matter of H-C-0-A-, LLC 
(DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses.6 
On the labor condition application submitted to support the H-1B petition, the Petitioner designated 
the proffered position under the occupational category "General and Operations Managers" 
corresponding to Standard Occupational Classification code 11-1021. 
The occupation most closely related to the Petitioner's proffered position of a general and operations 
manager is in the subsection of the .Handbook chapter on "Top Executives." The Handbook 
subchapter entitled "How to Become a Top Executive" states in pertinent part: "Although education 
and training requirements vary widely by position and industry, many top executives have at least a 
bachelor's degree and a considerable amount of work experience." 7 
The Handbook 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 entry into a general and operations 
manager position. Rather, the Handbook reports that education and training requirements vary 
widely by position and industry, and although many top executives have at least a bachelor's degree, 
the Handbook does not report that it must be in a specific specialty. As previously discussed, the 
requirement of a general or general-purpose bachelor's degree, without further specification, does 
not justify a finding that a particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. 
See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d at 147; c.f Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 
at 560. 
Additionally, the Handbook recognizes that "in industries such as retail trade or transportation, 
workers without a college degree may work their way up to higher levels within the company." 8 The 
Handbook emphasizes that top executives require a considerable amount of work experience and 
that most general and operations managers, if hired from outside an organization, need lower level 
supervisory or management experience in a related field. The Handbook does not further specify the 
amount of work experience needed, and thus, doe,s not conclude that normally the minimum 
requirementfor entry into these positions is at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. Rather, it reports that there are a number of viable paths, in addition to a general 
bachelor's degree, to becoming a general and operations manager. 
6 All of our references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook, available at http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not, 
however, 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 USCIS regularly reviews 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 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. 
7 For additional information regarding the occupational category "Top Executives," see U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of 
Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-2017 ed., Top Executives, available at http://www.bls.gov/ooh 
/management/print/top-executives.htm (last visited Nov. I, 20 16). 
8 Jd. 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter of H-C-0-A-, LLC 
The Petitioner cited to the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) information on the "General 
and Operations Managers" occupational classification as "the most objective and reputable source of 
information." In particular, the Petitioner highlighted that 27% of persons within this occupation 
possess a bachelor's degree, and 32% possess an associate's degree. The Petitioner stated: 
"Therefore, the majority (57%) of Operations Managers have to meet the requirement of having at 
least a Baccalaureate Degree." However, the fact that 32% of individuals within this occupational 
category possess an associate's degree- compared to only 27% with a bachelor's degree- directly 
undermines the Petitioner's assertion that "General and Operations Managers" positions normally 
require at least a bachelor's-level degree. That is because a U.S. bachelor's degree generally 
requires four years of education, whereas an associate's degree requires substantially less than four 
years. See Matter ofShah, 17 I&N Dec. 244 (Reg'l Comm'r 1977). 
j 
The Petitioner also relied heavily on the advisory opinion letter from 
Associate Dean, Academic Affairs at the to demonstrate that the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. We reviewed the opinion letter in its entirety. However, 
as discussed below, the letter is not persuasive in establishing the proffered position as a specialty 
occupation position. 
In the letter, asserts that the proffered position merits someone with a bachelor's 
degree in business administration, operations management, or a related area, at a minimum. As 
previously indicated, a degree in business administration, without further specification, is 
insufficient to qualify a position as a specialty occupation. See Royal Siarrl Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 
F.3d at 147; cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. at 560. 
Moreover, there is no indication that possesses any knowledge of the Petitioner's 
proffered position beyond the limited information provided by the Petitioner in support of the instant 
petition. did not demonstrate or assert in-depth knowledge of the Petitioner's specific 
business operations or how the duties of the position would actually be performed in the context of 
the Petitioner's operations. There is no indication that considered, or was even aware 
of, the tact that the Petitioner's operations consist of a one-employee janitorial services enterprise. 
There is no indication that visited the Petitioner's business, observed or interviewed 
the Petitioner's sole employee, or documented the knowledge applied on the job. 
opinion does not relate his conclusions to specific, concrete aspects of this Petitioner's business 
operations to demonstrate a sound factual basis for the conclusion about the educational 
requirements for· the particular position here at issue. The author's omission of such important 
factors significantly diminishes the evidentiary value of his assertions. 
For the reasons discussed above, we find that the opinion letter lends little probative value to the 
matter here. Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (The service is not 
required to accept or may give less weight to an advisory opinion when it is "not in accord with 
other information or is in any way questionable."). 9 
9 For all of the reasons discussed, letter also does not satisfy any of the remaining criteria at 8 C.F.R . 
. / 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter of H-C-0-A-, LLC 
( 
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 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. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by 
USCIS include: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires_ a degree; whether the 
industry's professional association has madea degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether 
letters or affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms "routinely employ 
and recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 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." 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 ir can be 
§ 214 .2(h)(4)(iii)(A). For the sake of brevity, we hereby incorporate our discussion regarding 
our analysis of the remaining criteria _ 
1 1 
letter into 
Matter of H-C-0-A-, LLC 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
We have reviewed the Petitioner's statements regarding the proffered position; however, in the 
appeal brief, the Petitioner does not assert that it satisfies this prong of the second criterion. Further, 
the Petitioner has not sufficiently developed relative complexit-y or uniqueness as an aspect of the 
proffered position. We reiterate our earlier comments and findings regarding the Petitioner's limited 
operations as a one-person janitorial services franchise, and our inability to consider aspects of the 
Petitioner's future, speculative operations that did not exist at the time of filing. Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2), either. 
c. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.P.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. 10 
The record of proceedings does not establish the Petitioner's prior history of recruiting and hiring 
required to satisfy this particular criterion. Notably, the Petitioner is a "newly formed," "fresh start­
up" company established one year prior to filing. While a first-time hiring for a position is certainly 
not a basis for precluding a position from recognition as a specialty occupation, it is unclear how an 
employer that has not previously recruited and hired for the position would be able to satisfy the 
criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3) which contemplates an employer's normal employment 
practices. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(3). 
d. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.P.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. 
10 To merit approval of the petition under this criterion, the record must establish that a petitioner's imposition of a 
degree requirement is not a, matter of preference for high-caliber candidates but is necessitated by performance 
requirements of the position. While a petitioner may assert that a proffered position requires a specific degree, that 
statement alone without corroborating evidence cannot establish the position as a specialty occupation. Were USCIS 
limited solely to reviewing the Petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, then any individual with a bachelor's 
degree could be brought to the United States to perform any occupation as long as the Petitioner created a token degree 
requirement, whereby all individuals employed in a particular position possessed a baccalaureate or higher degree in the 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. See Defensor v. Meissner, 20 I F3d at 388. Evidence provided in support of this 
criterion may include, but is not limited to, documentation regarding the Petitioner's past recruiting and hiring practices, 
as well as information regarding employees who previously held the position. 
12 
Matter of H-C-0-A-, LLC 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner provided descriptions of the proffered position's duties and 
information regarding its business operations. Considering the totality of the duty description 
provided by the Petitioner, we find 'that the evidence of record does not establish the depth, complexity, 
or level of specialization, or substantive aspects of the matters upon which the Petitioner claims that the 
Beneficiary will engage. We again reiterate our earlier comments and findings regarding the 
Petitioner's limited operations as they existed at the time of filing. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well qualified for the position, and references his 
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. The Petitioner has not 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)( 4). 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
established that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
III. THE BENEFICIARY'S QUALIFICATIONS 
The Director also found that the Beneficiary was not qualified to perform the duties of the proffered 
position. However, a 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 evidence of record does 
not establish that the proffered position requires a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, and therefore, an assessment of the Beneficiary's qualifications was not 
necessary. 
Nonetheless, in order to address the Director's decision and the Petitioner's appeal, we will discuss 
whether the evidence submitted was sufficient to demonstrate that the. Beneficiary is qualified to 
perform the duties of a specialty occupation. 
A. Legal Framework 
Section 214(i)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(2), states that an alien applying for classification as 
an H-lB nonimmigrant worker must possess: 
(A) full state licensure to practice in the occupation, if such licensure is required to 
practice in the occupation, 
(B) completion ofthe degree described in paragraph (l)(B) for the occupation, or 
(C) (i) experience in the specialty equivale~t to the completion of such degree, · 
and 
13 
Matter of H-C-0-A-, LLC 
(ii) recognition of expertise in the specialty through progressively responsible 
positions relating to the specialty. 
In implementing section 214(i)(2) of the Act, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C) states 
that an alien must also meet one of the following criteria in order to qualify to perform services in a 
specialty occupation: 
(1) Hold a United States baccalaureate or higher degree required by the specialty 
occupation from an accredited college or university; 
(2) Hold a foreign degree determined to be equivalent to a United States 
baccalaureate or higher degree required by the specialty occupation from an 
accredited college or university; 
(3) Hold an unrestricted state license, registration or certification which 
authorizes him or her to fully practice the specialty occupation and be 
immediately engaged in that specialty in the state of intended employment; or 
( 4) Have education, specialized training, and/or progressively responsible 
experience that are equivalent to completion of a United States baccalaureate 
or higher degree in the specialty occupation, and have recognition of expertise 
in the specialty through progressively responsible positions directly related to 
the specialty. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4) requires a demonstration that the Beneficiary's 
education, specialized training, and/or progressively responsible experience is equivalent to the 
completion of a United States baccalaureate or higher degree in the specialty occupation, and that the 
Beneficiary also has recognition of that expertise in the specialty through progressively responsible 
positions directly related to the specialty. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D), equating a 
beneficiary's credentials to a United States baccalaureate or higher degree under 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4) is determined by at least one of the following: 
J 
(1) An evaluation from an official who has authority to grant college-level credit 
for training and/or experience in the specialty at an accredited college or 
university which has a program for granting such credit based on an 
individual's training and/or work experience; 
(2) The results of recognized college-level equivalency examinations or special 
credit programs, such as the College Level Examination Program (CLEP), or 
Program on Noncollegiate Sponsored Instruction (PONSI); 
(3) An evaluation of education by a reliable credentials evaluation service which 
14 
Matter of H-C-0-A-, LLC 
specializes in evaluating foreign educational credentials; 11 
( 4) Evidence of certification or registration from a nationally-recognized 
professional association or society for the specialty that is known to grant 
certification or registration to persons in the occupational specialty who have 
achieved a certain level of competence in the specialty; 
(5) A determination by the Service that the equivalent of the degree required by 
the specialty occupation has been acquired through a combination of 
education, specialized training, and/or work experience in areas related to the 
specialty and that the alien has achieved recognition of expertise in the. 
specialty occupation as a result of such training and experience. 
In accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5): 
For purposes of determining equivalency to a baccalaureate degree in the 
speci~lty, three years of specialized training and/or work experience must be 
demonstrated for each year of college-level training the alien lacks .... It must 
be clearly demonstrated that the alien's training and/or work experience included 
the theoretical and practical application of specialized knowledge required by the 
specialty occupation; that the alien's experience was gained while working with 
peers, supervisors, or subordinates who have a degree or its equivalent in the 
specialty occupation; and that the alien has recognition of expertise in the 
specialty evidenced by at least one type of documentation such as: 
(i) 
(ii) 
(iii) 
(iv) 
Recognition of expertise in the specialty occupation by at least two 
recognized authorities in the same specialty occupation; 12 
Membership in a recognized foreign or United States association or 
society in the specialty occupation; 
Published material by or about the alien in professional publications, trade 
journals, books, or major newspapers; 
Licensure or registration to practice the specialty occupation in a foreign 
11 The Petitioner should note that, in accordance with this provision, we will accept a credentials evaluation service's 
evaluation of education only, not experience. \ 
12 Recognized authority means a person or organization with expertise in a particular field, special skills or knowledge in 
that field, and the expertise to render the type of opinion requested. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). A recognized authority's 
opinion must state: (I) the writer's qualifications as an expert; (2) the writer's experience giving such opinions, citing 
specific instances where past opinions have been accepted as authoritative and by whom; (3) how the conclusions were 
reached; and (4) the basis for the conclusions supported by copies or citations of any research material used. !d. 
15 
(b)(6)
Matter of H-C-0-A-, LLC 
country; or 
(v) Achievements which a recognized authority has determined to be 
significant contributions to the field of the specialty occupation. 
It is always worth noting that, by its very terms, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5) is a matter strictly 
for USCIS application and determination, and that, also by the clear terms of the rule, experience 
will merit a positive determination only to the extent that the record of proceedings establishes all of 
the qualifying elements at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5), including, but not limited to, a type of 
recognition of expertise in the specialty occupation. 
B. Analysis 
Here, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary qualifies for the proffered position based on a 
combination of his education and progressively responsible experience. In support, the Petitioner 
submitted the evaluation by concluding that the Beneficiary "has attained the 
equivalent of a Bachelor's Degree iri Operations Management from an accredited institution of 
higher education in the United States" based on his degree and work experience combined. 13 
As evidence of authority to grant credits, the Petitioner submitted a letter from the 
dean of the This letter states, in part, that ' 
authorizes the granting of 'life experience' credits through the 
degree completion program." 
However, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient information about the "life experience" credits 
that is authorized to grant under the program. That is, the Petitioner has not 
established that "life experience" credits are the same as "credit based on an individual's training 
and/or work experience" under the plain language of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(D)(l). 
Beyond this fundamental deficiency, we also find evaluation insufficient to explain 
why the Beneficiary qualifies for the proffered position based on 
a combination of his education and 
experience. states that he reviewed the Beneficiary's "employment verification 
letters from and 
and his resume."'
4 
But he does not discuss the experience letters in detail, and 
13 The Petitioner previously clai11)ed that the Beneficiary's foreign bachelor's degree in physics, which was deemed the 
equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree in physi<;s, is sufficient to qualify him for the proffered position. However, the 
Petitioner does not further mention the Beneficiary's physics ·degree on appeal. Nor does evaluation 
claim that a degree in physics is directly related to the proffered position. Accordingly, we will not further discuss why 
the Beneficiary's physics degree is insufficient to qualify him for this particular position. 
14 
The evidentiary weight of a resume is insignificant. It represents a claim made by the Beneficiary rather than evidence 
to support that claim, and the record of proceeding lacks documentary evidence to establish or corroborate the claims 
regarding the Beneficiary's professional experience made in his resume. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of 
Sofjici, 22 l&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 l&N Dec. 190 (Reg. 
Comm'r 1972)). 
16 
(b)(6)
Matter of H-C-0-A- , LLC 
provides little insight into how he determined that the Beneficiary's experiences, as described in the 
letters, were progressive. 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(D)( 4). The Petitioner has not submitted copies 
of personnel records, performance evaluations, pay records, or other documents that reflect 
promotion or achievement of progressively responsible positions directly related to the specialty, and 
does not explain how he ascertained that one duty was more progressive than the 
other. 
1
' The evidence of record does not support conclusion regarding whatever 
degree equival~ncy the Beneficiary may have attained through his experiehce. 
Based on these deficiencies, we do not find the evaluation submitted by the Petitioner persuasive. 
We may, in our discretion, use an evaluation of a person's foreign education as an advisory opinion. 
Matter of Sea, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 817, 820 (Comm'r 1988). However, where an opinion is not in 
. accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we may discount or give less weight to 
that evaluation. ld. 
The record is also insufficient to demonstrate that the Beneficiary possesses a foreign equivalent to a 
U.S. bachelor's degree in operations management through a Service determination. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5). No evidence has been submitted to establish, and the Petitioner does not 
assert, that the Beneficiary's work experience was gaine9 while working with peers, supervisors, or 
subordinates who have a degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. ld. Nor does the record 
sufficiently establish that his work experience included the theoretical and practical application of 
specialized knowledge required by the proffered position. ld. The record also does not establish that 
the Beneficiary achieved recognition of his expertise in the field as evidenced by at least one of the 
five types of documentation delineated in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5)(i)-(v). 
The Beneficiary does not qualify under any of the criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)­
(D). As such, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary qualifies to perform the duties of a 
specialty occupation:16 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Upon review of the record, we determine that the Director properly revoked the approval of the 
petition. The petition will remain revoked and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
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 ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
15 It is not apparent whether was aware that was created and co-owned by the 
Beneficiary and his wife, who is also the Petitioner's owner. 
16 As stated above, we have determined that the proffered position does not qualifY as a specialty occupation. However, 
we have discussed the Beneficiary's qualifications in order to address the Director 's decision. 
17 
Matter of H-C-0-A-, LLC 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of H-C-0-A-, LLC, ID# 12396 (AAO Nov. 2, 2016) 
18