dismissed H-1B Case: Management Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 17420378 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-1B) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 31, 2021 
The Petitioner, a management consulting services and analytics company, seeks to temporarily employ 
the Beneficiary as an "assistant vice president business development" under the H-1B nonimmigrant 
classification for specialty occupations. 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 of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief 
and asserts that the Director erred by denying the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the 
questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(I) 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 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 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. 
We note as a threshold issue that 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must logically be read together with 
section 214(i)(1) 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 COIT 
Independence Joint Venture v. Fed. Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989); Matter of W-F-, 
21 l&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). As such, the criteria stated in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) should 
logically be read as being necessary but not necessarily sufficient to meet the statutory and regulatory 
definition of specialty occupation. To otherwise interpret this section as stating the necessary and 
sufficient conditions for meeting the definition of specialty occupation would result in particular 
positions meeting a condition under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory or regulatory 
definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). To avoid this result, 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must therefore be read as providing supplemental criteria that must be met in 
accordance with, and not as alternatives to, the statutory and regulatory definitions of specialty 
occupation. 
As such and consonant with section 214(i)(1) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii), we construe the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to 
mean not just any baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related 
to the proffered position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) 
( describing "a degree requirement in a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and 
responsibilities of a particular position"). Applying this standard, USCIS regularly approves H-1B 
petitions for qualified individuals who are to be employed as engineers, computer scientists, certified 
public accountants, college professors, and other such occupations. These professions, for which 
petitioners have regularly been able to establish a minimum entry requirement in the United States of 
a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, directly related to the duties 
and responsibilities of the particular position, fairly represent the types of specialty occupations that 
Congress contemplated when it created the H-1B visa category. 
2 
To determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, we do not rely simply upon 
a position's title or the broader occupational category within which a petitioner claims the position is 
located. The specific duties of the proffered position, combined with the nature of the petitioning 
entity's business operations, are factors to be considered. We must examine the ultimate employment 
of the individual, and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. See generally 
Defensor, 201 F. 3d 384. The critical element is not the title of the position or an employer's self­
imposed standards, but whether the position actually requires the theoretical and practical application 
of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in 
the specific specialty as the minimum for entry into the occupation, as required by the Act. 
By regulation, the Director is charged with determining whether the petition involves a specialty 
occupation as defined in section 214(i)(1) 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)(1). 
II. THE PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary will work as an "assistant vice president business 
development" and submitted a labor condition application (LCA) certified for a position located within 
the "Sales Managers" occupational category, corresponding to the Standard Occupational 
Classification code 11-2022. The Petitioner stated in its support letter that the proffered position 
requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree in business, economics, accounting, finance, mathematics, 
or another unnamed, "specialty quantitative" field. 
Ill. ANALYSIS 
As a result of the Petitioner's own stated requirements, the proffered position does not meet the 
statutory or regulatory definition of the term "specialty occupation." 1 As noted, both definitions 
require the Petitioner to demonstrate that the proffered position requires: (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 record of proceedings satisfies neither. 
That the Petitioner would find acceptable a bachelor's degree in business, with no further 
specialization, alone precludes a dete1mination that the position involves a "body of highly specialized 
knowledge" or that it requires the attainment of a bachelor's degree in a "specific specialty." The First 
Circuit Court of Appeals explained in Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147, that: 
The courts and the agency consistently have stated that, although a general-purpose 
bachelor's degree, such as a business administration degree, may be a legitimate 
prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not 
1 The Petitioner submitted documentation in support of the H-1B 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. 
3 
justify the granting of a petition for an H-1B specialty occupation visa. See, e.g., Tapis 
Int'lv. 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. 2 
For this reason alone, the record satisfies neither the statutory nor the regulatory definitions of the term 
"specialty occupation," and we could end our analysis here and dismiss the appeal on that basis . But 
we wi 11 not do so, because even if we were to set the issue of the "business" degree aside we would 
still find that the Petitioner's acceptance of a bachelor's degree from a wide variety of fields would 
similarly preclude it from satisfying both definitions. 
As examples of the specific types of fields from which it would accept bachelor's degrees for this 
position, the Petitioner has specifically identified business, economics, accounting, finance, and 
mathematics . But the Petitioner also indicates that it would accept a bachelor's degree from even more 
2 Id. But see India House, Inc. v. McAleenan, 449 F. Supp. 3d 4 (D.R.I. 2020). In India House the court distinguished 
Royal Siam on factual grounds but did not dispute its central reasoning: that a position whose duties can be fulfilled by an 
individual with a general-purpose bachelor's degree in business is not a specialty occupation. Instead, it distinguished 
Royal Siam on factual grounds. Here, the Petitioner specifically recognizes an unspecialized bachelor's degree in business 
as being one of the degrees it considers as providing an adequate preparation to perform the duties of the proffered position . 
The agency has longstanding concerns regarding general-purpose bachelor's degrees in business with no additional 
specialization. For example, in Matter of Ling, 13 I. & N. Dec. 35 (Reg'! Comm'r 1968), the agency stated that attainment 
of a bache lor's degree in business administration alone was insufficient to qualify a foreign national as a member of the 
professions pursuant to section 101(a)(32) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(32). Twenty years later, the agency looked to 
the nature of the position itself and clarified that a requirement for a degree with a generalized title, such as business, 
without further specification, was insufficient to qualify a position as one that was professional pursuant to section 
101(a)(32) of the Act. Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 l&N Dec. at 560. See also Matter of Caron Int '!, Inc., 19 l&N Dec. 791 
(Comm'r 1988) (vice president for manufacturing in a textile company was not a professional position because individual 
holding general degree in business, engineering or science could perform its duties). 
Congress created the modern H-1B program as part of the Immigration Act of 1990 , Pub. L. No. 101-649, 104 Stat. 4978. 
In doing so, it pivoted away from the prior H-1 standard of whether a position was "professional." Instead , petitioners 
were now required to demonstrate that a proffered position qualified as a "specialty occupation." Section 
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Act. In the final rule setting forth the requirements for the revamped H-lB program, the agency , 
responding to commenters suggesting that the proposed regulatory "specific specialty" requirement "was too severe and 
would exclude certain occupations from classifications as specialty occupations ," stated that "[t]he definition of specialty 
occupation contained in the statute contains this requirement." Temporary Alien Workers Seeking Classification Under 
the Immigration and Nationality Act, 56 Fed. Reg. 61111, 61112 (Dec. 2, 1991) . 
The agency's concerns regarding a general-purpose, non-specific bachelor 's degree in business , or business administration, 
continued under the revamped H-lB program. See, e.g., Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151 (D. Minn. 1999); Royal 
Siam, 484 F.3d at 147; 2233 Paradise Road, LLC v. Cissna, No. 17- cv- 01018 - APG- VCF, 2018 WL 3312967 (D. Nev., 
July 3, 2018) ; Xiao Tong 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); Vision Builders, LLC v. USCIS, No. 19-
3159, 20 WL 5891546, at *4 (D.D.C., Oct. 5, 2020) . 
To the extent the Petitioner is arguing that a bachelor 's degree in business , with no further specialization ( or the equivalent) , 
is a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty , then consistent with agency history and federal case law, we must disagree . 
4 
fields, so long as the degrees were in "another specialty quantitative field." In other words, the thread 
tying together the wide variety of fields the Petitioner would find acceptable is their "quantitative" 
nature. 
The proffered position is not a specialty occupation because the Petitioner's stated range of acceptable 
degree-fields is simply too wide and divergent. In general, provided the specialties are closely related, 
e.g., chemistry and biochemistry, a minimum of a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one 
specialty is recognized as satisfying the "degree in the specific specialty ( or its equivalent)" 
requirement of section 214(i)(1)(B) of the Act. In such a case, the required "body of highly specialized 
knowledge" would essentially be the same. Since there must be a close correlation between the 
required "body of highly specialized knowledge" and the position, however, a minimum entry 
requirement of a degree in two disparate fields, such as philosophy and engineering, would not meet 
the statutory requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty ( or its equivalent)," unless the 
Petitioner establishes how each field is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
particular position. Section 214(i)(1)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). 
In other words, while the statutory "the" and the regulatory "a" both denote a singular "specialty," we 
do not so narrowly interpret these provisions to exclude positions from qualifying as specialty 
occupations if they permit, as a minimum entry requirement, degrees in more than one closely related 
specialty. See section 214(i)(1)(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). This also includes even 
seemingly disparate specialties providing, again, the evidence of record establishes how each 
acceptable, specific field of study is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular 
position. 
Again, the Petitioner claims that the duties of the proffered position can be performed by an individual 
with a bachelor's degree in business, economics, accounting, finance, and mathematics. And the 
record indicates that the Petitioner would accept bachelor's degrees from even more fields, so long as 
those degrees were in "specialty quantitative" fields. Again, the only thread that ties together the wide 
variety of fields the Petitioner would find acceptable is that they must be "quantitative" fields. 
This mass grouping of degree-fields is simply too broad to support a finding that the proffered position 
meets the definition of a "specialty occupation." The Petitioner does not establish how each one relates 
to the duties of the proffered position, and if a degree in any of these disparate fields would equally 
prepare an individual to perform the duties of a proffered position, then we question how the position 
involves a "highly specialized body of knowledge" or requires a bachelor's degree, or the equivalent, 
in a "specific specialty." While the Petitioner does not provide a comprehensive list of the degree­
fields that meet its minimum requirements, it does provide the aforementioned list as examples of 
fields that qualify under its "quantitative" standard. Numerous unrelated specialties would appear to 
fall within the Petitioner's "quantitative" range: for example, it would appear as though a bachelor's 
degree in any non-humanities field might qualify an individual to perform the duties of the proffered 
position. 3 The current record of proceedings does not establish how this wide, far-ranging, and 
divergent range of degrees could form either a body of highly specialized knowledge or a specific 
3 Moreover, depending upon the specific coursework undertaken while obtaining the degree, certain fields within the 
humanities might also fall within the Petitioner's stated range. 
5 
specialty.4 We therefore cannot conclude that the proffered position requires anything more than a 
general bachelor's degree. The Petitioner therefore 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). 
IV. 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. 
4 "A position that requires applicants to have any bachelor's degree, or a bachelor's degree in a large subset of fields, can 
hardly be considered specialized." Caremax, Inc. v. Holder, 40 F.Supp.3d 1182, 1187-88 (N.D. Cal. 2014) 
6