dismissed H-1B Case: Management Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 18236418 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 20, 2021 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-lB nonimmigrant 
classification for specialty occupations. 1 The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily 
employ a qualified foreign worker in a position that requires both : (a) the theoretical and practical 
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge; and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher 
degree in the specific specialty ( or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Vermont Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner had not established 
that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the petition 
should be approved . 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. 2 Upon de nova review , we will dismiss the appeal. 3 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Act defines an H-lB nonimmigrant as a foreign national "who is 
coming temporarily to the United States to perform services ... in a specialty occupation described in 
section 214(i)(l) ... " ( emphasis added). Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § ll 84(i)(l), defines the 
term "specialty occupation" as an occupation that requires "theoretical and practical application of a 
body of highly specialized knowledge, and 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 section 214(i)(l) of the Act, but adds a 
non-exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) provides that the 
proffered position must meet one of four criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation position .4 Lastly, 
1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
2 See section 291 of the Act; Matter ofChawath e, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
3 See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
4 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must be read with the statutory and regulatory definitions ofa specialty occupation under 
section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). We construe the term "degree" 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"). 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(J) states that an H-IB classification may be granted to a foreign national 
who "will perform services in a specialty occupation ... " ( emphasis added). 
Accordingly, to determine whether the Beneficiary will be employed in a specialty occupation, we 
look to the record to ascertain the services the Beneficiary will perform and whether such services 
require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge attained 
through at least a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty or its equivalent. Without 
sufficient evidence regarding the duties the Beneficiary will perform, we are unable to determine whether 
the Beneficiary will be employed in an occupation that meets the statutory and regulatory definitions of 
a specialty occupation and a position that also satisfies at least one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). The services the Beneficiary will perform in the position determine: (1) the normal 
minimum educational requirement for entry into the particular position, which is the focus of criterion 
l; (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. 5 
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.6 In addition, a petitioner must establish 
eligibility at the time of filing the petition and must continue to be eligible through adjudication. 7 
II. ANALYSIS 
For the reasons set out below, we determine that the proffered position does not qualify as a specialty 
occupation. Specifically, the record contains insufficient information regarding the proffered position, 
which in tum precludes us from understanding the position's substantive nature and determining 
whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation under sections 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 
214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(l), 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) and (iii)(A). 8 
The Petitioner states on the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, that it is a "Management 
and IT Consulting Firm." In its letter in support of the petition, the Petitioner adds that it provides 
consulting services in management technology, automation, and product development" and that its 
services "include strategic market planning, technology strategy, and total quality management." 
On the labor condition application (LCA)9 submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner 
5 See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
6 See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(2). 
7 See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
8 The Petitioner submitted documentation in the underlying record to support the H-IB petition, including some evidence 
regarding the proffered position and its business operations. Although we may not discuss every document submitted, we 
have reviewed and considered each one. 
9 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to demonstrate 
that it will pay the Beneficiary the higher of either the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the "area of 
employment" or the actual wage paid by the employer to other employees with similar experience and qualifications who 
are perfmming the same services. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.73l(a). 
2 
designates the proffered position under the occupational category "Management Analysts" corresponding 
to the standard occupational classification (SOC) code 13-1111, with a level I wage. 
A. Nature of the Position 
The Petitioner provides an overview of the occupation but does not include substantive detail 
regarding the actual duties it expects the Beneficiary to perform. The Petitioner also does not provide 
the context for the performance of the duties. Thus, the generic duties are described in a vacuum and 
without sufficient concrete information so that we may ascertain the substantive nature of the position 
and conclude that the position satisfies the statutory and regulatory definitions of specialty occupation. 
For example, the Petitioner initially indicates that the Beneficiary will: provide research and analysis 
within the operational and IT sectors of its clients' business functions; will design, develop, and deploy 
sophisticated operational systems; will prepare reports and procedures findings to assist management 
to operate more efficiently and effectively; will participate in innovation initiatives with clients; will 
provide expert recommendations, including designing the integration of new systems with existing 
architecture; will contribute to internal marketing, recruiting and business development; will provide 
advice on governmental regulations market dynamics, and reimbursement systems; will conduct 
organizational, data process, and systems evaluations to assess the health and performance of client 
businesses procedures; will deliver key project tasks and work with teams comprised of other 
consultants and clients; and will assist with practice building activities, including sales support, 
marketing initiatives, thought leadership development, recruitment interviews, and training and 
development. 
Although some of these duties may correspond generally to a "Management Analysts" occupation, 
most of the duties could fall into any number of occupations. For instance, duties such as providing 
research and analysis, delivering key project tasks, and practice building activities including sales 
support, marketing initiatives, recruitment interviews, training and development are indeterminate. 
Additionally, tasks such as design, develop, and deploy operational systems and design the integration 
of new systems with existing architecture, suggest the Beneficiary will perform these duties rather 
than recommend actions to management. Because the tasks described are general and could include 
a wide range of tasks and levels of responsibility we cannot ascertain either the application of 
knowledge needed to perform the position or the occupation and wage level required. Further, the 
Petitioner does not include detailed information for the duties involved in participating in innovation 
initiatives with clients, contributing to internal marketing, recruiting and business development, and 
assisting with sales support, marketing initiatives, thought leadership development, etc. As the 
Petitioner does not include the necessary detail, the Beneficiary's level and depth of participation, 
contribution, and assistance cannot be determined. Thus, again the Beneficiary's role and level of 
responsibility is undefined. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary 
would spend 30 percent of her time using her education and experience to provide research and 
analysis of business functions and market-based insight and strategy relating to client products in the 
life science and healthcare industry. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation 
is not the skill set or education of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. Thus, whether or not the Beneficiary in this case has completed a specialized 
3 
course of study directly related to the proffered position 10 is irrelevant to the issue of whether the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, i.e., whether the duties of the proffered position 
require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and the 
attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Section 214(i)(l) 
of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
While the Petitioner included additional sub-tasks under this category, the sub-tasks also do not 
include the necessary detail to demonstrate the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. Duties such as providing insight into products and design, 
compiling and providing strategic advice, and recommending ways to accelerate products to market, 
providing remediation options according to strategic best practices, offering advice on corporate and 
business strategies for incorporation into product requirements, and providing guidance and insights 
for the integration of product components from suppliers and partner companies are indefinite. 
Offering insights, advice, and options is too vague to establish that such tasks require a particular level 
of education, or educational equivalency, in a body of highly specialized knowledge in a specific 
specialty. The Petitioner does not explain why an individual with a modicum amount of experience 
in business would be unable to provide similar insight or advice. There is insufficient evidence in the 
record to distinguish the proffered position from positions that do not require a bachelor's level degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
Similarly, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary will spend 40 percent of her time participating in 
innovation initiatives for clients while providing corporate and business strategy recommendations. 
The Petitioner again references the Beneficiary's education indicating she will leverage her education 
in corporate and business strategy 11 to provide client insights into their value chain for developing 
products, to advise clients on management and resolution of strategic program and development risks, 
to provide corporate and business strategies regarding novel and first in-kind products and 
technologies, and to provide management and business insights into clinical study preparation. Again, 
providing insights, offering advice to clients, and providing corporate and business strategies for 
particular products or issues are generic terms that fail to communicate (1) the actual work the 
Beneficiary would perform; (2) the complexity, uniqueness and/or specialization of the tasks; or (3) 
the correlation between that work and a need for a particular level of education of highly specialized 
knowledge in a specific specialty. 
Throughout the descriptions, the Petitioner fails to provide the context for the actual duties the 
Beneficiary will perform as those duties relate to specific projects or products. 12 Although the 
10 Moreover, as will be riefly drcussed below, the Beneficiary's diploma indicates that she has a general bachelor's of 
science degree from the College, School of Business. Her transcripts do not indicate that her coursework was 
focused on a particular concentration within the general degree. Accordingly, the record does not include probative 
evidence that the Beneficiary has completed a specialized course of study directly related to the proffered position. 
11 Again, the record does not include probative evidence that the Beneficiary's degree was concentrated in corporate and 
business strategy but appears to be a general degree. 
12 Initially, the Petitioner vaguely indicated that the Beneficiary's job duties would fall within the operational and IT sectors 
of its clients' business functions. Her duties appeared to focus on improvement and integration of "operational systems." 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner appeared to change the Beneficiary's focus to its clients' business 
functions in the life science and healthcare industry. Although not clear, from the descriptions, the descriptions in response 
to the RFE suggest that they relate to medical and life science products, their design, development, and marketability. The 
4 
Petitioner provided background information on its consulting business, including white papers on 
different healthcare related subjects, media releases, and opinion and public relations content, this 
information does not assist in establishing the substantive nature of the particular position offered here. 
Notably, the record does not include the Petitioner's organizational chart depicting its organizational 
structure and staffing hierarchy, farther restricting analysis of the Beneficiary's role and level of 
responsibility within the company. The Petitioner does not provide adequate information to delineate 
how the proposed work translates to specific duties and responsibilities and how such work will be 
conducted within the Petitioner's business operations. Without a detailed and more precise description 
as well as some context of the particular work the Beneficiary will perform, the record does not 
establish that the proposed duties are the duties of a "Management Analysts" occupation or that the 
duties require the theoretical and practical application of highly specialized knowledge and attainment 
of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
We also reviewed the position evaluation prepared by~--------~ ,__ ____ _.l New 
York, to assist in understanding the nature of the proposed position. Significantly, the professor does 
not discuss the Petitioner's business operations in a manner sufficient to establish the scope and 
complexity of the Beneficiary's job duties therein. Rather] I assumes, without analysis, 
that the job duties are quantitative, operational, strategic, technical, and analytical in nature 13 and 
opines that the duties "require a highly specialized degree covering technical areas of operations 
analytics, business related research and data gathering, enterprise transformation, and business 
strategy and process/systems optimization" and thus the position is a specialty occupation. In many 
instances~-----~ repeats or paraphrases one of the duties listed in the descriptions and 
concludes, again without analysis, that the duties would require coursework typically found in 
bachelor or higher-level degree programs in business strategy or corporate strategy and related fields. 
HoweverJ I does not support his conclusions with explanations or analysis, nor does he 
discuss the principles and methods he used to reach his conclusions. Offering conclusory statements is 
insufficient to assist in an understanding of the nature of the position and an understanding of why the 
position requires a bachelor's level degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
Upon review, we find that the professor's opinion letter lends little probative value to the matter here. 
In our discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory.14 However, 
we are ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an individual's eligibility 
for the benefit sought; the submission of expert opinion letters is not presumptive evidence of 
eligibility. 15 For the sake of brevity, we will not address other deficiencies within the professor's 
analyses of the proffered position. 
background information provided by the Petitioner also focused on healthcare. The change in the focus of the proposed 
work creates additional ambiguity in the record regarding the actual tasks the Beneficiary will be expected to perform. 
The Petitioner must resolve this ambiguity in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth 
lies. MatterofHo, 19I&NDec.582,591-592(BIA 1988). 
13 For example,.__ ____ ~ does not discuss which duties in particular require the use of quantitative analysis or 
provide a comprehensible discussion of why he believes the duties require such analysis. It is simply unclear from the 
opinion how the professor reached his conclusions regarding the requirements for this particular position. 
14 Matter of Caron Int'l. Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). 
15 Id.; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, 502 n.2 (BIA 2008) ("[E]xpert opinion testimony, while undoubtedly a 
form of evidence, does not purport to be evidence as to 'fact' but rather is admissible only if 'it will assist the trier of fact 
to understand the evidence or to dete1mine a fact in issue."'). 
5 
B. Counsel's Assertions on Appeal 
Although unnecessary because the Petitioner has not sufficiently established the substantive nature of 
the proffered position which is dispositive of the appeal, we will briefly address the Petitioner's 
assertions regarding the Department of Labor's, Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook), 
regarding the occupation as well as the advertisements submitted to demonstrate an industry standard 
for the management analyst occupation in organizations similar to the Petitioner and for parallel 
positions . 
The Handbook reports that "management analysts typically need at least a bachelor's degree and 
several years of related work experience ." 16 Here the Petitioner does not indicate that its proposed 
position requires any work experience. Thus, in addition to the lack of information regarding the 
substantive nature of the position as discussed above, we again question whether the position is 
properly categorized as a "Management Analysts" occupation . The Handbook also indicates that as 
management analysts address a range of topics, "many fields of study provide a suitable educational 
background." 17 The Handbook identifies common fields of bachelor's degree study for a management 
analyst position as including the general field of business, natural resources, computer and information 
technology, and mathematics . 18 Thus, the Handbook recognizes this occupation as multidisciplinary, 
as well as acknowledging that a general business degree 19 is a common field of study. As the 
Handbook does not identify a specific discipline to perform the duties of the occupation, it does not 
support a conclusion that these positions comprise an occupational group for which norma11y the 
minimum requirement for entry is at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
Nevertheless, we understand that the Handbook is only one source that can be used to assist in 
demonstrating a particular occupation may be a specialty occupation. The Petitioner may present other 
sources to establish that a specific degree is nom1ally the minimum requirement for entry into the 
position or may establish that its particular position requires a bachelor's level, or higher, degree in a 
specific discipline in order to perform the duties of the position. As discussed above, the Petitioner 
has not submitted sufficient evidence regarding its particular position to satisfy the requirements 
necessary to establish the position is a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner also points to the advertisements it submitted and notes that it does not understand why 
the Director found that the positions and employers were not parallel. Upon review of the 
advertisements, we note that each of the employers identifies a general business degree as one of 
several acceptable degrees for the advertised position, but the employers also require 3, 4, or 12 years 
of experience in particular fields or sectors. Again, the Petitioner does not require additional 
experience to perform its particular position. Furthermore the record does not include evidence that 
experience in pertinent sectors would be sufficient to add specialization to a general bachelor's degree 
16 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook , Management Analysts, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial /management-analysts .htm#tab-4 (last visited Aug. 20, 2021). We note 
that the report for a management analyst position has been updated since the petition was filed. 
17 Id. 
18 The previous version of the Handbook listed common fields of study for this occupation as including business, 
economics, finance, marketing, and psychology. 
19 A bachelor's degree in business is inadequate to establish that a position qualifies as a specialty occupation. We have 
consistently stated that, although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business, may be a legitimate 
prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify a conclusion that a particular 
position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam Corp., 484 F .3d at 14 7. 
6 
for the Petitioner's particular position. Accordingly, the requirements necessary in order to perform 
the duties set out in the advertisements are demonstrably distinct from the requirements of the 
proffered position. Thus, the advertised positions are not parallel to the proffered position. 
C. Beneficiary's Qualifications 
As discussed above, the Petitioner repeatedly references the Beneficiary's education in its descriptions 
of the generally described duties. The Petitioner also claims that the proffered position requires a 
bachelor's degree in business strategy, corporate strategy, or a related field and coursework in business 
management, strategy, and entrepreneurship. 20 On appeal, the Petitioner argues that its educational 
requirements for the proffered position constitute a body of highly specialized knowledge. 21 Whether 
this is the case or not, the Beneficiary here has a general bachelor of science degree issued by the 
I I College School of Business. Neither the diploma nor the transcript identifies the degree as 
including a specific concentration. 22 Upon review of the Beneficiary's transcript, it appears that she 
completed basic foundational courses in management and entrepreneurship and business analytics, as 
well as financial accounting, finance, marketing, and micro and macroeconomics. The Petitioner does 
not provide th~ I College catalog with a discussion of these courses or otherwise explain how 
lower-level foundational courses in a general degree program develops, or is the equivalent of: a body 
of specialized knowledge attained in the concentrated field of business strategy, corporate strategy, or 
entrepreneurship. 23 If the proffered position, indeed requires a bachelor's degree in business with a 
specific concentration, which has not been demonstrated in the record, we note for the Petitioner's 
information that the Beneficiary in this matter based on the current record would not qualify under the 
Petitioner's own standards. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Without more specific evidence regarding the nature of the proffered position's duties, and in the 
absence of a sufficiently reliable job description, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the Beneficiary. This, therefore, precludes 
analysis of whether the proffered position satisfies any criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). The 
record also does not demonstrate that performing the duties described would require the theoretical 
and practical application of highly specialized knowledge and attainment of at least a bachelor's degree 
20 As noted above,I I also opines that the position requires the completion of at least a bachelor's degree in 
business strategy or corporate strategy, or a related degree. As the record does not include probative evidence that the 
Beneficiary has such a degree, it appears that the Beneficiary would also not qualify for the position as understood by the 
professor. 
21 We reiterate our discussion that the lack of a detailed comprehensible description of duties precludes an understanding 
of the substantive nature of the position and thus restricts the ability to ascertain the actual academic requirements necessary 
to perform the position. 
22 Thel b 2020-2021 Undergraduate Student Handbook at page 6 indicates that "[s]tudents may elect to 
pursue a specific concentration to provide an additional focus of study within thel I curriculum. Students who 
formally declare, and successfully complete the requirements of a concentration will have that concentration noted on their 
final transcript." See https:/.__ ___________________ -=------------,----' 
23 While a few related courses may be beneficial in performing some duties of the position, the Petitioner has not established 
that those courses are part of an established cmriculum resulting in a bachelor's, or higher, degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent. 
7 
in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 24 In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. 25 The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
24 See section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty occupation). 
25 Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 
8