dismissed H-1B Case: Management Consulting

Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 28510990 Date: NOV. 14, 2023 
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-lB nonimmigrant classification 
for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 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 Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not establish 
that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. The matter is now before us on appeal. 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 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
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 could lead to scenarios where a petitioner could obtain approval by satisfying 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). Reading the regulatory criteria together with the statute 
gives effect to the Act's clear 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"). 1 USCIS' application of this 
standard has resulted in the orderly approval ofH-1B 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 
1 This is a long-standing interpretation. and it is in line with the former Immigration and Naturalization Service's (INS) 
understanding of the matter when it drafted this regulatory definition. INS specifically addressed the "specific specialty" 
requirement at that time as follows: 
Thirty-one commenters suggested that the definition of specialty occupation was too severe and would 
exclude certain occupations from classification as specialty occupations. Most of these commenters 
suggested that the definition should be expanded to include those occupations which did not require a 
bachelor's degree in the specific specialty. The definition of specialty occupation contained in the statute 
contains this requirement. Accordingly, the requirement may not be amended in the final rule. 
Temporary Alien Workers Seeking Classification Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 56 Fed. Reg. 61111, 61112 
(Dec. 2, 1991). 
2 
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). 
II. THE PETITIONER AND ITS PROFFERED JOB 
The Petitioner is offering the Beneficiary the position of associate (management consultant). The 
petition included a labor condition application (LCA) certified for a position located within the 
"Management Analysts" occupation category corresponding to the Standard Occupational 
Classification code 13-1111.00. The proffered job's duties appear to generally align with the duties 
of positions located within the "Management Analysts" occupational category. In its response to the 
Director's request for additional evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted a brief in support to establish 
that the proffered position met all four of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) and referenced 
evidence submitted earlier in these proceedings. 2 
We note the Petitioner,.__ _________ __. United States, identifies itself as "an international 
management consulting firm whose function is to assist corporations, government entities and 
charitable organization worldwide to solve major business problems." We also acknowledge its self-­
identification as "the 3 of the mana ement consultin indust " and claimed su erlative
The Petitioner states that it employs "hundreds of 
Management Consultants at each of its offices" who all follow a common career path culminating in 
election to senior partner if eligible. As stated above, the Petitioner states that it services clients across 
a vast range of "corporations, government entities and charitable organizations" worldwide. 
Because of its large census of similarly engaged employees and self-professed wide range of clients, 
the Petitioner's requirements for the associate (management consultant) position appear accordingly 
broad and disparate. The Petitioner stated in its support letter that the associate (management 
consultant) position requires "completion of at least Bachelor's-level program in a specific, directly 
related quantitative and analytical field ... such as Business, Law, Economics, and Engineering or other 
fields that are directly related to the role's responsibilities and industry specialty, such as Business 
Administration." 
But the Petitioner's requirements as stated in the petition, appropriate as these requirements may be in 
the context of the Petitioner's business, are incompatible with the statutory and regulatory framework 
of the H-lB program on three separate bases, with each one independently requiring denial of the 
petition. 
2 While we may not discuss every document submitted we have reviewed and considered each one 
3 
III. ANALYSIS 
The statutory and regulatory framework of the H-1 B program offers no alternative other than denial 
of the petition before us today. The Petitioner's acceptance of a general business or business 
administration degree without specialization does not satisfy the statutory and regulatory definition of 
specialty occupation, and that acceptance alone mandates the petitioner's denial. And even ifwe were 
to set this issue to the side, we would still conclude that the Petitioner's acceptance of a bachelor's 
degree from the wide variety of fields is specifies also precludes the Petitioner from satisfying both 
the statutory and regulatory definition of specialty occupation. That deficiency alone would also 
mandate the petition's denial. Finally, even ifwe were to set both of those fatal deficiencies aside, we 
would still conclude that the evidence the Petitioner has submitted into the record does not demonstrate 
that performance of the proffered job's duties requires an individual with a bachelor's degree in a 
specific related specialty, or the equivalent under any of the criteria contained at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(h)(4)(iii). We will discuss each of the independent bases requiring denial of the petition in tum 
below. 
A. General Degree Requirement. 
The proffered position does not meet the statutory or regulatory definition of the term "specialty 
occupation." The Petitioner has not satisfied 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. The record of 
proceedings contains the Petitioner's stated requirements for the proffered position. The Petitioner 
states that it accepts among numerous other degrees a bachelor's degree in business and business 
administration, with no further specialization, as a minimum qualification for entry into the proffered 
position.4 
Historically, the agency has consistently disfavored general purpose bachelor's degree in business 
administration with no additional specialization in accordance with the statutory and regulatory 
requirements. For example in Matter of Ling, 13 I&N Dec. 35 (Reg'l Comm'r 1968), the agency 
stated that attainment of a bachelor's degree in business administration alone was insufficient to 
qualify a foreign national as a member of the professions pursuant to section 10l(a)(32) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(32). In Matter ofMichael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558 (Comm'r 1988), the 
agency clarified that a requirement for a degree with a generalized title, such as business 
administration, without farther specification, was insufficient to qualify the position as one that is 
professional upon an examination of the nature of the position itself pursuant to section 101 (1 )(32) of 
the Act. And in Matter of Caron Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988), a vice president for 
4 The Petitioner describes the relative benefits of a master's in business administration to the Petitioner's work and its 
majority representation amongst employees situated in roles same or similar to the associate (management consultant) role 
the Petitioner offers here. We dispute none of that. But for purposes of establishing eligibility for the benefit sought via 
this petition, it is unpersuasive because the Petitioner's proffered job does not require a master's in business administration 
as a minimum requirement for entry into the position. In other words, these benefits the Petitioner describes are, for 
purposes of this petition, irrelevant. 
4 
manufacturing in a textile company was not deemed to be a professional position because an individual 
holding a general degree in business, engineering, or science could perform its duties. 
When Congress revamped the H-1B program as part of the Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-
649, 104 Stat. 4978, it shifted its focus from the prior H-1B standard's examination of whether a 
proffered position was professional and instead required petitioners to demonstrate that a proffered 
position was a specialty occupation. Even after this adjustment, 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-1B 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. 5 
The Petitioner forcefully advances its contention that "a position accept[ing] degrees in ... a more 
generalized field such as Business Administration is not disqualifying for the H-1 B visa category." 
This is categorically incorrect. 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." A general degree requirement like 
a bachelor's degree in business or business administration, standing alone without any further 
specialization, is not a requirement for a degree in a specialty.6 And this excludes any proffered 
position accepting such a degree as a minimum requirement for entry into the position, like the 
Petitioner associate (management consultant) position, from consideration as a specialty occupation. 
5 But see India House, Inc. v. McA!eenan, 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 administration 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 and business administration as being one of many degrees it considers as providing an adequate 
preparation to perform the duties of the proffered position. 
6 But see InspectionXpert Corporation v. Cuccinelli, 2020 WL 1062821 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 5, 2020). In InspectionXpert the 
court considered whether the educational requirement of an engineering degree without further specialization was too 
broad for a quality engineer position. Whilst the court found that a generalized engineering requirement did comprise a 
specialty, it also distinguished engineering from other broad degrees, such as liberal mis or business administration degrees. 
Id. at *24. Our holding today therefore does not conflict with lnspectionXpert. 
5 
A requirement of a bachelor's degree in business or 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. So it cannot provide an individual with the 
"body of highly specialized knowledge" required to perform the duties of a specialty occupation. And 
the Petitioner spotlights this when it contends that "Business Administration degrees can indeed 
include several sub-concentrations, such as operations, strategy, management, finance or marketing; 
however, the majority of Business Administration degree programs provide an individual with the 
same body of highly specialized quantitative, analytical, financial and operations knowledge ... " We 
agree with that statement. But if a generalized degree like business administration provides the 
knowledge required to perform the duties of the position along all its broad sub-concentrations, like 
strategy, then it follows that the knowledge common amongst the fields is general. So 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. On 
that basis alone, we could dismiss the appeal in alignment with longstanding agency policy without 
any further discussion. 
B. Wide and Disparate Acceptable Degree Field Range 
Even if we were to leave to the side the dis positive issue of the Petitioner's acceptance of a business 
administration degree with no further specialization, we would still conclude that the Petitioner's 
acceptance of a bachelor's degree from the wide variety of fields it specifies would preclude the 
Petitioner from satisfying both the statutory and regulatory definition of specialty occupation. The 
record of proceedings reflects that along with a bachelor's degree in business or business 
administration with no further specialization, the Petitioner would also accept other varied bachelor's 
degrees in law, economics, engineering, or other related "quantitative or analytical field[ s ]" for entry 
into the proffered job. 
The Director correctly found this acceptable range of degrees too wide and denied the petition. The 
Petitioner's grouping of business or business administration with no further specialization in 
combination with law, economics, and engineering is not adequately supported in the record with 
evidence highlighting its composition as collectively forming a singular specialty a body of highly 
specialized knowledge. In fact, the Petitioner clarifies that "the range of skills in areas such as 
quantitative analysis, logical reasoning, and strategic thinking" is common across the business, 
business administration, law, economics, and engineering fields it accepts as a minimum baccalaureate 
level educational credential for entry into the occupation. The Petitioner's clarification of skills in 
combination with its mass grouping of degree fields constitutes a range so broad that it cannot compose 
a "specialty" required to perform the duties of a "specialty occupation." When the desired skills of 
"quantitative analysis," "logical reasoning," and "strategic thinking" can be gained from any number 
of seemingly unrelated degrees, spanning from hard sciences such as engineering to humanities­
adjacent fields such as "law," the only conclusion can be that these skills are fundamental and not 
specialized. In fact, numerous unrelated specialties would fall within the Petitioner's minimum 
educational requirements with the Petitioner's desired range of skills. This could lead to a scenario 
where the Petitioner would accept an individual with any bachelor's degree so long as it provided the 
Petitioner's desired range of quantitative skills. Such a position would not be considered specialized. 
See Caremax v. Holder, 40 F.Supp.3d 1182, 1187-88 (N.D. Cal. 2014)("A position that requires 
6 
applicants to have any bachelor's degree, or a bachelor's degree in a large subset of field, can hardly 
be considered specialized."). The record as it is presently composed does not establish how this range 
of skills could form a body of highly specialized knowledge or a specific 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 its wide range of 
degrees can constitute a specialty required to perform the duties of a specialty occupation. The 
Petitioner's arguments are not persuasive. 
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. In other words, the court in Residential Finance did not 
state that a Petitioner can cobble any grouping of degree fields and call it a specialty, as the Petitioner 
seems to imply. To the contrary, the plaintiff in Residential Finance prevailed because the court 
determined that the plaintiff's grouping of degree fields was a specialty. The foundational principle 
leading to the holding in Residential Finance is also present in several other cases, including cases the 
agency lost on other grounds. InRelx v. Baran, 397 F.Supp.3d 41 (D.D.C. 2019), the court determined 
that a specialty occupation existed only after determining that the occupation required a specialized 
course of study the plaintiff had earned. Relx, 397 F.Supp.3d at 55. In CARE v. Nielsen, 461 F. 
Supp.3d 1289 (N.D. Ga. 2020) the court stated that most occupations in the proffered job's 
occupational classification require a bachelor's degree as a minimum educational requirement for 
entry but only after recognizing that the statute and regulation must be read together to require a 
baccalaureate or higher education in a specific specialty. CARE, 461 F. Supp.3d at 1304. 
In its appeal, the Petitioner notes that the "fact that a position accepts degrees in various fields .. .is not 
disqualifying for the H-1 B visa category." We agree, but the issue here is not that the Petitioner would 
accept degrees in various fields. The issue here is that the Petitioner's stated spectrum of acceptable 
degrees is too broad to support a finding that the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or the equivalent. 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 a petitioner 
7 
to establish how each field is directly related to all the duties and responsibilities of the particular 
position. Section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act ( emphasis added). 
So there is no requirement in the statute for the required education to consist of one specific degree or 
major but 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 Petitioner in its appeal. When a petitioner would accept a bachelor's degree 
from a wide variety of seemingly unconnected fields, like the range of fields the Petitioner presents 
here, it cannot establish that the fields constitute a "specialty" if it does not establish how each accepted 
and specific field of study is directly related to each another and to the duties and responsibilities of 
the particular position. The record as it is currently constituted does not support a conclusion that the 
Petitioner's mass grouping of degree-fields is sufficiently narrow to conclude that it comprises a 
"specialty" required to perform the duties of the "specialty occupation." 
C. The Petitioner's Assertions on Appeal 
The record contains the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook), 
Linkedln screenshots reflecting the credentials of individuals employed by competitors, and a chart 
naming its current employees, its employee's job titles, and its employee's educational credentials to 
support the Petitioner's assertion that its proffered position requires a bachelor's degree in a specific 
field of study comprising a body of specialized knowledge or a specialty required to perform the duties 
of the position. But, as we discuss below, the supplemental regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(])-(4) cannot be satisfied without the express requirement of a baccalaureate or 
higher degree providing the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge. 
The Handbook reports that "management analysts typically need at least a bachelor's degree and 
several years of work experience." See 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. Here the Petitioner does not indicate that its proposed position 
requires any work experience. And the Handbook also indicates that as management analysts address 
a range of topics, "many fields of study provide a suitable educational background." Id. 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. Thus, the Handbook recognizes this occupation as multidisciplinary, as well as 
acknowledging that a general business degree (without additional specialization) is a common field of 
study. As the Handbook does not identify a specific discipline required to perform the duties of the 
occupation, it does not support a conclusion that these positions comprise an occupational group for 
which normally 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 whether a particular occupation may be a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner may present other sources to establish that a specific degree is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the position or may establish that its particular position requires a bachelor's 
level, or other, degree in a specific discipline or fields of disciplines constituting a specialty or 
theoretical or practical body of specialized knowledge required to perform the duties of the position. 
8 
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 highlights "hundreds of Linked/n profiles of employees ofl Itwo main 
competitors, I I and I I filling "consultant" roles. 
The Petitioner avers that this evidence demonstrates that these roles parallel its associate (management 
consultant) position. It further asserts that this evidence supports its contention that requirements 
similar to those it has established for its proffered position are widely held across its industry. To be 
relevant for consideration, the Petitioner's evidence must demonstrate that its competitors' employees 
occupy "parallel positions." The Petitioner indicates that the commonality of its proffered job's title 
with the job title of the positions of its competitor's employees establishes that the two positions are 
parallel. We do not agree. We do not consider a job title to be determinative to demonstrating the 
similarities between two positions. The contents of the current record do not contain any indication 
of the job duties, objectives or minimum requirements of the jobs described on the Linked/n pages of 
the Petitioner's competitors' employees. A comparison and evaluation of the positions without these 
datapoints is incomplete and therefore insufficient to a demonstration of eligibility. 
And the chart the Petitioner provided purporting to source directly from the Petitioner's "HR records" 
is nothing more than a list of employees, the employee's job titles, and the employee's possession of 
master's degree in business administration. In the first instance, the Petitioner's minimum 
requirement for the associate (management consultant) position does not include a master's degree in 
business administration; the minimum educational requirement as identified above is a bachelor's 
degree in business or business administration with no further specialization, and other varied 
bachelor's degrees in law, economics, engineering, or other related "quantitative or analytical 
field[s]." Whilst its chart may indicate the Petitioner's preference for a master's degree in business 
administration, it does not demonstrate the Petitioner's requirement of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, related to the performance of the position's job duties. The record must 
establish that a petitioner's stated degree requirement is not a matter of preference for high-caliber 
candidates but is necessitated instead by performance requirements of the position. See Defensor, 201 
F.3d at 387-88. 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 degree requirement. Id. Here, the 
evidence in the record simply supports the Petitioner's preference for individuals with master's 
degrees in business administration in its associate (management consultant) position. The Petitioner 
does not provide any additional evidence or documentation which could have helped evaluate its 
eligibility under this criterion, such as current or prior job announcements, a list of current of former 
employees with position titles like the proffered position's title and degree titles, or copies of current 
or former employee's paystubs, degree, and resumes. 
The Petitioner submitted what it described as a "detailed explanation of an Associate (Management 
Consultant) role from initiation to conclusion of a specific project." The Director considered the 
Petitioner's "detailed explanation," and correctly concluded that it did not establish that the 
Petitioner's requirements for its associate (management consultant) position comprised a specialty or 
required application of a theoretical and practical body of specialized knowledge gained after earning 
a baccalaureate degree in a field or fields comprising the specialty to perform the proffered job duties. 
We agree. Specifically, the Petitioner's "detailed explanation" broadly or generally states at numerous 
9 
points that nothing more than a "Bachelor's degree in a directly related field of study" is required to 
perform the job duties. 7 The "detailed explanation" therefore does not correspond to the requirements 
the Petitioner has expressed for the proffered position in the petition. Whilst the Petitioner stated that 
it services clients across a vast range of "corporations, government entities and charitable 
organizations" worldwide, there is no evidence in the record as it is currently composed which would 
reflect what client or client category the associate (management consultant)'s job duties would 
support. This omission is important because had the Petitioner included it, we might have been able 
to evaluate whether the Petitioner's job requirements compose a specialty or constitute a body of 
theoretical or practical knowledge gained from a baccalaureate level education or its equivalent 
applied to perform the duties of a specialty occupation. The Petitioner's appeal brief appears to 
obliquely reference business administration as an industry specialty, but the record does not 
sufficiently clarify that business administration is the field within which the Petitioner's associate 
(management consultant) would perform their job duties. Even if business administration were the 
industry specialty for the Petitioner's associate (management consultant) position described in this 
petition, we would conclude the record does not support that performance of the associate 
(management consultant)'s duties require the application of a theoretical or practical body of 
knowledge composing a specialty related to the job's duties because of the Petitioner's acceptance of 
a general bachelor's degree in business or business administration without specification and the wide, 
disparate, and unconnected degree fields it would also accept at a baccalaureate or equivalent level for 
entry into the position. 
The Petitioner's RFE response refers to an analysis of positional requirements ( evaluation) to argue 
that the range of fields it requires for the position is not disparate, and that the fields constitute a 
specialty closely related together and with the duties of the position. As a matter of discretion, we 
may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron Int 'l, 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). 
The Petitioner's reliance on this evaluation to supports its argument that the range of fields of study it 
accepts is closely related is misplaced. The evaluation does not provide a strong enough basis to 
understand how the wide range of degrees accepted by the Petitioner are related to one another to form 
a body of specialized knowledge. Nor does it show how that body of specialized knowledge relates to 
the duties of the proffered job. 8 The writer of the evaluation formulated their opinion based on their 
knowledge of the wider field of business management, economics and finance gained as a professor 
of marketing a~ ICollege i~ IN ew York. The writer has taught courses in business, media, 
7 In other words, at some points in the record the Petitioner seems to be stating that a bachelor's degree in any field of 
study-not even limited to the wide-ranging catalogue of degrees we discussed earlier-would suffice. Not only do these 
statements lend yet more weight to our determination that the proffered position does not require a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, but they also introduce inconsistencies into the record. And given that the position's actual requirements 
are central to the issue of whether it is a specialty occupation, they are significant inconsistencies that strike directly at the 
heart of the Petitioner's claim. Given our determination on the merits that this position is not a specialty occupation, we 
will not explore the ramifications of this inconsistency on the petition's overall credibility further, other than to advise the 
Petitioner that it should be mindful of this issue in future H-lB filings. 
8 And even if it did, the Petitioner would still be left with the deficiencies discussed earlier that are inherent to a petition 
in which a bachelor's degree in business administration, with no further specialization, is acceptable. 
10 
public relations campaign planning, strategic marketing, branding, and market research. They also 
noted other professional experience and certifications. The writer states that they reviewed copies of 
a letter issued by the Petitioner outlining the job duties of the position and the required educational 
background for a candidate to hold the position, a supplemental, detailed job description issued by the 
Petitioner and the Beneficiary's academic documentation. The writer also referred to their issuance 
of "thousands of credentials equivalency evaluations" to USCIS. The writer lists the proffered job's 
duties, the job's academic prerequisites, and attempts to establish the suitability of each required field 
of study to a selected portion of the proffered job's overall duties. The evaluation also tries to tie in a 
bachelor's degree in business administration without specialization to the duties of the position and to 
the other accepted fields of study, concluding that the proffered position fits within the statute and 
regulations as a "specialty occupation." 
We have questions about the sufficiency of the writer's opinion because its conclusions are not in 
accord with information in the record. For example, the writer references research regarding the issues 
they discuss in their opinion but does not identify any of this research in the record along with their 
opinion to bolster their conclusions. The writer also refers to their evaluation of professional positions 
of employment that they relied on in forming their opinion. However, it is unclear from the record 
what positions the writer evaluated in making their opinion and whether the evaluated positions 
correspond to the proffered position. The evaluation is based on unspecified research authority and 
position evaluations not present or described in the record of proceedings. Even if we put aside our 
doubts about the basis for the writer's opinions, the writer's conclusions of each degree field's 
applicability to the proffered job duties are selectively applied to only a small portion of the overall 
job duties. The record does not support how each acceptable field of study is directly related to all the 
duties and responsibilities of the proffered job. The record does not support the writer's claims of 
familiarity with the Petitioner, nor does it adequately substantiate how consultation with recruiters and 
academic advisor and opportunities to observe students and learn their educational backgrounds 
corresponds to evaluating whether a particular position is a specialty occupation within the framework 
set by the applicable regulations and the statute. Moreover, the writer's expertise appears to be in the 
field of marketing and public relations. The record does not indicate how the writer's specific 
expertise relates to the Petitioner's proffered job. And the evidence in the record does not convincingly 
corroborate the writer's claims that business, media, public relations campaign planning, strategic 
marketing, branding, and market research focused teaching renders them qualified to provide an 
opinion about seemingly unrelated fields such as law, economics, and engineering and whether they 
qualify someone to perform the duties of the associate (management consultant) position or are related 
to one another such that they comprise a specialty required to perform those duties. 
Whilst we held in Chawathe that the standard of proof in immigration proceedings is the 
preponderance of the evidence, the burden of proof is always on the petitioner. A petitioner's burden 
of proof comprises both the initial burden of production, as well as the ultimate burden of 
persuasion. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136, 1142 n.3 (BIA 1998); see also the definition ofburden 
of proof from Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (reflecting the burden of proof includes both 
the burden of production and the burden of persuasion). A petitioner must satisfy the burden of 
production. As the term suggests, this burden requires a filing party to produce evidence in the form 
of documents, testimony, etc. that adheres the governing statutory, regulatory, and policy provisions 
sufficient to have the issue decided on the merits. When, as here, a petitioner has not met the burden 
of persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence because its evidence is not material, relevant, or 
11 
probative it follows that it has not demonstrated eligibility for the benefit that it seeks. So the 
evaluation is not probative and we decline to assign it any significant evidentiary weight. 
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, the supplemental regulatory criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(])-(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)(])­
(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)(])-( 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)(])-( 4). 
We conclude that the proffered position here is not a specialty occupation because the Petitioner's 
stated range of acceptable degree fields is too broad to constitute a single specialty required to 
accomplish the duties of proffered job. The record of proceedings does not establish 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). The Petitioner has not 
established that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
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. 
12