dismissed H-1B Case: Management Analysis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 24, 2024 In Re: 31145753 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-IB nonimmigrant 
classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) . The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to 
temporarily employ a qualified nonimmigrant worker in a position that requires both (a) the theoretical 
and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and (b) the attainment of a 
bachelor 's or higher degree in the specific specialty ( or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for 
entry into the position. 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not establish 
that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The matter is now before us on appeal 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
The Act at Section 214(i)(l) , 8 
U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: (A) the 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) is a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) adds a non-exhaustive list of fields of endeavor to the 
statutory definition. And the regulation at 8 C .F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii) requires that the proffered 
position must also 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 pos1t10ns 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. 
The statute and the regulations must be read together to make sure that the proffered position meets 
the definition of a specialty occupation. 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 statue as a whole is 
preferred); see also COIT Independence Joint Venture v. Fed. Sav. And Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 
(1989); Matter of W-F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). Considering the statute and the regulations 
separately leads to scenarios where a Petitioner satisfies a regulatory factor but not the definition of 
specialty occupation contained in the statute. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 
2000). The regulatory criteria read together with the statute gives effect to the statutory intent. See 
Temporary Alien Workers Seeking Classification Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 56 Fed. 
Reg. 61111, 61112 Dec. 2, 1991). 
So, we construe the term "degree" in 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 
supporting the statutory definition of specialty occupation. 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"). USCIS' application of this 
standard has resulted in the orderly approval ofH-lB petitions for engineers, accountants, information 
technology professionals and other occupations, commensurate with what Congress intended when it 
created the H-1 B category. 
And job title or broad occupational category alone does not determine whether a particular job is a 
specialty occupation under the regulations and statute. The nature of the Petitioner's business 
operations along with the specific duties of the proffered job are also considered. We must evaluate 
the employment of the individual and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. See Defensor, 201 F.3d 384. So, a Petitioner's self-imposed requirements are not as 
critical as whether the position the Petitioner offers requires the application of a theoretical and 
practical body of knowledge gained after earning the required baccalaureate or higher degree in the 
specific specialty required to accomplish the duties of the job. 
By regulation, the Director is charged with determining whether the petition involves a specialty 
occupation as defined in section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(2). The Director 
may request additional evidence in the course of making this determination. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8). 
In addition, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the petition and must continue to 
be eligible through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
2 
II. THE PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner is offering the Beneficiary the position of "Associate." The petition included a labor 
condition application (LCA) certified for a position located within the "Management Analysts" 
occupational category corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 13-1111. The 
proffered job description generally aligns with the duties of positions in the "Management Analysts" 
occupational category. 
In its response to the Director's request for additional evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted a letter 
from its senior director/associate partner listing the detailed duties of the proffered position, copies of 
the "Management Analyst" entries in the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics 
Occupational Information Network (O*NET) and Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook), 
printouts from the Petitioner's website and its Form 10-K annual report, job postings, samples of 
"Word Product" that the associate performs at the Petitioner, and the Beneficiary's educational 
documents to establish that the proffered position met all four of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). The Petitioner stated in its response to the RFE that the "Associate" position 
requires a bachelor's degree in business administration or a "closely related quantitative field." On 
appeal the Petitioner mainly resubmits the supporting documents and contentions it made in response 
to the Director's RFE to support its assertions on appeal. It also supplements the record with an expert 
opinion position analysis conducted by Dr. I Iand a 
list of the individuals employed by the Petitioner's as "Associates" with their educational backgrounds 
and Linkedin profiles. 
III. ANALYSIS 
The record of proceeding contains the Petitioner's stated requirements for the proffered position. The 
Petitioner stated that they would accept a bachelor's degree in business administration or "closely 
related quantitative field," with no further specialization, as a minimum qualification for entry into the 
proffered position. The Petitioner's appeal strenuously asserts that this requirement is sufficient for it 
to establish their proffered job's eligibility as a specialty occupation. But the Petitioner's educational 
threshold for entry into their proffered job falls far short of satisfying the requirement that the proffered 
position require the theoretical and practical application of a body of specialized knowledge and that 
the position requires attainment of a bachelor's degree in the specific specialty to perform the job 
duties. Or in other words, a minimum requirement for a bachelor's degree in business administration 
or a closely related field is insufficient to meet the statutory or regulatory definition of the term 
"specialty occupation." 
If a position is a "specialty occupation" under the statute and regulations, it is one which involves a 
"body of highly specialized knowledge" attained after completing a bachelor's degree or higher in a 
"specific specialty." Contrary to the Petitioner's strident assertions, a general degree requirement like 
a bachelor's degree in business administration standing alone without any further specialization is not 
a requirement for a degree in a specialty. The Petitioner's representation of the field of business 
administration as a specialty is foundationless and misplaced. A bachelor's degree in business 
administration without further specialization is so broad that it could apply to a position in finance as 
well as general business operations and management in a variety of endeavors. It simply cannot 
provide an individual with the "body of highly specialized knowledge" required to perform the duties 
3 
of a specialty occupation. And this excludes any proffered position accepting such a degree as a 
minimum requirement for entry into the position from consideration as a specialty occupation. 
Accordingly, with faithfulness to the statutory and regulatory requirements, USCIS has consistently 
disfavored general purpose bachelor's degree in business administration with no additional 
specialization. See Matter ofLing, 13 I&N Dec. 35 (Reg'l Comm'r 1968); Matter ofMichael Hertz 
Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558 (Comm'r 1988); Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988). 
Even after Congress revamped the H-lB program as part of the Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 
101-649, 104 Stat. 4978, the agency's concerns with a general-purpose bachelor's degree in business 
administration with no additional specialization continued. See e.g. Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 
2d 1151 (D. Minn. 1999); 2233 Paradise Road, LLC v. Cissna, No. l 7-cv-01018-APG-VCF, 2018 
WL 3312967 (D. Nev., July 3, 2018); XiaoTong Liu v. Baran, No. 18-00376-JVS, 2018 WL 7348851 
(C.D. Cal., Dec. 21, 2018); Parzenn Partners v. Baran, No. 19-cv-11515-ADB, 2019 WL 6130678 
(D. Mass., Nov. 19, 2019); Xpress Group v. Cuccinelli, No. 3:20-CV-00568-DSC, 2022 WL 433482 
(W.D.N.C. Feb. 10, 2022). 
As the First Circuit Court of Appeals explained in Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147: 
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 granting of a petition for an H-lB specialty occupation visa. See e.g., Tapis Int'l 
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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner advances a generalized allegation that the Director "incorrectly determined 
that a baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is not normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position." The Petitioner cites Matter of Shin, 11 I&N Dec. 686 (Dist. Dir. 
1966) and Matter of Chu, 11 I&N Dec. 881 (Reg'l Comm'r 1966) in support of their assertion that a 
bachelor's degree in business administration without specialization provides a body of theoretical and 
practical knowledge constituting a specialty required to perform the duties of their proffered associate 
position. They further distinguish the holding in Matter of Ling, 13 I&N Dec. 35 (RC 1968) to bolster 
their contentions. But the Petitioner's cited cases are inapplicable to the matter at hand. In the first 
instance, neither Matter ofShin nor Matter of Chu involved an H-1 B petition. Those cases relate to 
an immigrant visa proceeding, and the question to be resolved in these cases was whether its 
beneficiary was a member of the professions as the term is defined in section 10l(a)(32) of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. § 110l(a)(32), and as interpreted in 1966. The issue before us today is whether the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation, not whether it is a profession. 1 And while we acknowledge 
1 The primary and fundamental difference between qualifying as a profession and qualifying as a specialty occupation is 
that specialty occupations require the U.S. bachelor's or higher degree to be in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, 
4 
the same could be said regarding Michael Hertz and Ling, the difference is that their core rationale 
was later confirmed in Royal Siam 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 granting of a petition for an H-1 B specialty occupation 
visa." See Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147. 
The Petitioner cites to the Handbook's entry for management analysts to contend that their proffered 
position is a specialty occupation because the entry "establishes that the minimum educational 
requirement for professional Management Analyst positions is at least a Bachelor's Degree in 
'Business' or a related specialized field." The Petitioner specifically noted that the Handbook 
specified "a bachelor's degree is the typical entry-level requirement for management analysts." In 
essence, the Petitioner's assertion combined with their citation to the Handbook in sum seeks to 
advance the proposition that any bachelor's degree requirement for a proffered position renders the 
position a specialty occupation and provide inapplicable authority in support. A simple requirement 
for any general bachelor's degree, as suggested by the Petitioner when they mention the Handbook, 
cannot sustain a conclusion that a proffered position is a specialty occupation. Were we limited solely 
to reviewing a petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, an organization could bring any 
individual with a bachelor's degree to the United States to perform any occupation so long as the 
petitioning entity created a token bachelor's degree requirement. See Defensor, 201 F.3d 384, 387. 
The Petitioner's requirements for entry to their proffered position do not make allowance for any fields 
other than business administration without specialization. The Handbook states that the "field of 
bachelor's degree study" for management analysts may include such broad, diverse, and unrelated 
groupings of degree fields such as "business, social science, and engineering." But, even if the 
Petitioner had listed a grouping of fields identical to the one contained in the Handbook, we would 
still conclude their proffered position is not a specialty occupation. We interpret the statutory "the" 
and the regulatory "a" to mean a singular specialty. But we do not so narrowly interpret the statute 
and regulation such that multiple closely related fields of study would not constitute a specialty to 
perform the duties of a related specialty occupation. In general, 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 provided the specialties are closely 
related such that they constitute a common specialty required to perform the duties of the position. If 
they constitute a common specialty, then the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" would 
essentially be the same. If the required degree fields do not constitute a common specialty, a minimum 
entry requirement of a degree in disparate fields would not meet the statutory requirement that the 
degree be "in the specific specialty ( or its equivalent)." A minimum entry requirement that did include 
disparate fields of study, such as philosophy and engineering for example, would require the Petitioner 
to establish how each field is directly related to all of the duties and responsibilities of the particular 
position. Section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). Whilst there is no requirement in the 
statute for the required education to consist of one specific degree or major, there must be a close 
relation between the required specialized studies to constitute a common "specialty" and that 
"specialty" must be related to the duties of the position as supported by the case law cited by the 
although an occupation may be specifically identified as qualifying as a profession as that term is defined in section 
10l(a)(32) of the Act, that occupation would not necessarily qualify as a specialty occupation unless it met the definition 
of that term at section 2 l 4(i)(l) of the Act. 
5 
Petitioner in their appeal. A minimum threshold of entry to a proffered position of a bachelor's degree 
from a wide variety of seemingly unconnected fields as described in the Handbook (business, social 
science, and engineering) cannot support a specialty occupation unless the grouping of fields is directly 
related to each another and to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position such that it 
constitutes a "specialty." The fields mentioned in the Handbook constitute a wide variety of 
unconnected fields that are not related to one another and to the duties of the position in a manner that 
constitutes a specialty. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director applied an incorrect legal standard when they 
denied the petition because caselaw in Residential Finance Corporation v. US. Citizenship & 
Immigration Servs., 839 F.Supp.2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012) supports a conclusion that a wide range of 
degrees can constitute a specialty required to perform the duties of a specialty occupation. The court 
in Residential Finance was considering whether the statute required that only one specific degree be 
accepted for a position to be specialized. It does not stand for the proposition that a wide variety of 
degrees can constitute a specialty required to perform the duties of a specialty occupation. Quite the 
opposite, Residential Finance found for the Plaintiff only after determining that the Plaintiff had 
established their minimum requirements capture the necessity of a baccalaureate degree in a 
specialized course of study in a field related to the proffered job's duties as a minimum. Residential 
Finance Corporation, 839 F.Supp.2d at 996. So, the Petitioner's assertion is unpersuasive. 
In sum, the Petitioner's citations to the case law they identify are misplaced. The Director adhered to 
established law and precedent to conclude the Petitioner's proffered job was not a specialty 
occupation. 
On appeal the Petitioner submits an expert opinion position analysis prepared by Dr. _____ 
dean and professor of management at __________ As a matter of discretion, we may 
use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron Int 'I, Inc., 19 I&N 
Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). But an opinion statement has less weight where there is cause to 
question or doubt the opinion, or if it is not in accord with other information in the record. The 
submission of expert opinion letters is not presumptive evidence in any event. Id.; see also Matter of 
V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, 502 n.2 (BIA 2008). 
Dr. I I states that their academic qualifications, history as an educator in the field, research and 
published work in combination with their authorship of numerous expert opinion letters, and analyses 
of the academic and professional credentials of candidates for university admission and employment 
positions in business administration and management render them qualified to provide on opinion in 
this matter. They further indicate that they reviewed documentation in the form of the Petitioner's 
support letter and detailed job description. Dr.I I also refers to their individual research and 
experience in the fields of management and business administration. They list the proffered job duties 
the sole academic academic prerequisites of the proffered job, the requirement of a bachelor's degree 
in business administration without specialization or a closely related quantitative field, concluding that 
the proffered position fits within the statue and regulations as a "specialty occupation." But the 
opinion does not address the deficiencies inherent to a petition in which a bachelor's degree in business 
administration with no further specialization is acceptable. So, the Petitioner's reliance on this 
evaluation is misplaced. The evaluation is not probative, and we decline to assign it any significant 
evidentiary weight. 
6 
We therefore cannot conclude that the proffered position's minimum requirement for entry into the 
job is anything more than a general bachelor's degree. The Petitioner has not satisfied the statutory 
definition of a "specialty occupation" at section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act nor the regulatory definition 
of a specialty occupation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
Without the express requirement of a baccalaureate or higher degree providing the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, or the equivalent, the supplemental 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4) cannot be satisfied. The supplemental 
regulatory criteria are read together within the related regulations and the statute as a whole. So, where 
the regulations refer to the term "degree," we interpret that term to mean a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in a specific specialty related to the proffered position. See Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147. The 
word "degree" is mentioned in each prong of the supplemental regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)( 1)-( 4). And where, as here, a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty 
is not required as a minimum requirement of entry, it follows that each prong under 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)( 1)-( 4) remains unsatisfied. So, we will not consider the Petitioner's arguments and 
the evidence it submits in support of its contention that it satisfies the supplemental regulatory criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4). 
The proffered position here is not a specialty occupation because the Petitioner set a bachelor's degree 
in business administration without specialization as a minimum requirement for entry into the position. 
The record of proceeding does not support the Petitioner's assertion that the proffered position requires 
both: (1) the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge; and (2) 
the attainment of a bachelor's degree in the specific specialty. The Petitioner has satisfied neither the 
statutory definition of a "specialty occupation" at section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act nor the regulatory 
definition of a specialty occupation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). As the Petitioner had not satisfied 
that threshold requirement, it cannot satisfy any of the supplemental specialty-occupation criteria 
enumerated at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(])-(4). So, the Petitioner has not established that the 
proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
A bachelor's degree in business administration with no further specialization is not a degree in a 
specific specialty. And the fact that the Petitioner would accept such a degree as a minimum 
qualification for entry to the proffered position does not satisfy the statutory and regulatory definitions 
of specialty occupation. Accordingly, we must dismiss the appeal. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be 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. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7