dismissed H-1B Case: Management Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-&M-C-, LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 30,2015 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a management and marketing consulting services firm, seeks to temporarily employ 
the Beneficiary as an "Administrative Services Manager" under the H-1 B nonimmigrant 
classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101 ( a)(15)(H)(i)(b ). The Director, Vermont Service Center, revoked the approval of the petition. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
I. ISSUE 
The issue before us is whether the Director properly revoked the approval of the petition. 1 
II. REVOCATION FRAMEWORK 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may revoke the approval of an H-1B petition 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(11)(iii), which states the following: 
(A) Grounds for revocation. The director shall send to the petitioner a notice of 
intent to revoke the petition in relevant part if he or she finds that: 
(1) The beneficiary is no longer employed by the petitioner in the capacity 
specified in the petition, or if the beneficiary is no longer receiving 
training as specified in the petition; or 
(2) The statement of facts contained in the petition or on the application for a 
temporary labor certification was not true and correct, inaccurate, 
fraudulent, or misrepresented a material fact; or 
1 We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. Matter ofSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542 (AAO 2015); see 
also 5 U.S.C. § 557(b) ("On appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would 
have in making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 
1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989). 
Matter of M-&M-C-, LLC 
(3) The petitioner violated terms and conditions of the approved petition; or 
(4) The petitioner violated requirements of section 101(a)(15)(H) of the Act or 
paragraph (h) ofthis section; or 
(5) The approval of the petition violated paragraph (h) of this section or 
involved gross error. 
III. AVAILABILITY OF SPECIALTY OCCUPATION WORK 
Upon review of the record, we determine that the Director properly revoked the approval of the 
petition pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(ll)(iii)(A)(5). The Director's approval of the petition 
violated paragraph (h) of this section and involved gross error, in that the evidence of record was 
insufficient to establish that the Petitioner was conducting business and had specialty occupation 
work available for the Beneficiary at the time of filing the petition. 
A. Legal Framework 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, 
and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) states, in pertinent part, the following: 
Specialty occupation means an occupation which [(1)] requires theoretical. and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in fields of human 
endeavor including, but not limited to, architecture, engineering, mathematics, 
physical sciences, social sciences, medicine and health, education, business 
specialties, accounting, law, theology, and the arts, and which [(2)] requires the 
attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as 
a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, a proposed position must 
meet one of the following criteria: 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
2 
Matter of M-&M-C-, LLC 
(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. 
As a threshold issue, it is noted that 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must logically be read together 
with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). In other words, this regulatory 
language must be construed in harmony with the thrust of the related provisions and with the statute 
as a whole. SeeK Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) (holding that construction 
of language which takes into account the design of the statute as a whole is preferred); see also COlT 
Independence Joint Venture v. Fed. Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989); Matter of W-F-, 
21 I&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), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) consistently interprets 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-lB 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. 
To determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCIS does not simply 
rely on a position's title. The specific duties of the proffered position, combined with the nature of 
the petitioning entity's business operations, are factors to be considered. users must examine the 
3 
Matter of M-&M-C-, LLC 
ultimate employment of the individual, and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 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. 
B. Analysis 
We first find that the evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner was conducting 
business at the time the petition was filed, and, thus, it has not been demonstrated that the Petitioner 
had specialty occupation work available for the Beneficiary at the time of filing. Therefore, it was 
gross error on the part of the Director to approve the petition and the revocation was proper pursuant 
to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(ll)(iii)(A)(5). 
For H-IB approval, the Petitioner must demonstrate that a legitimate need for an employee exists 
and that it has secured H -1 B caliber work for the Beneficiary for the entire period of employment 
requested in the petition.2 In addition, USCIS regulations affirmatively require a petitioner to 
establish eligibility for the benefit it is seeking at the time the petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. 
103.2(b)(l). A visa petition may not be approved based on speculation of future eligibility or after 
the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Michelin Tire 
Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. Comm 'r 1978). 
2 The agency made clear long ago that speculative employment is not permitted in the H-1 B program. For example, a 
1998 proposed rule documented this position as follows: 
Historically, the Service has not granted H-1 B classification on the basis of speculative, or 
undetermined, prospective employment. The H-1 B classification is not intended as a vehicle for an 
alien to engage in a job search within the United States, or for employers to bring in temporary foreign 
workers to meet possible workforce needs arising from potential business expansions or the 
expectation of potential new customers or contracts. To determine whether an alien is properly 
classifiable as an H-18 nonimmigrant under the statute, the Service must first examine the duties of the 
position to be occupied to ascertain whether the duties of the position require the attainment of a 
specific bachelor's degree.· See section 214(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the "Act"). The 
Service must then determine whether the alien has the appropriate degree for the occupation. In the 
case of speculative employment, the Service is unable to perform either part of this two-prong analysis 
and, therefore, is unable to adjudicate properly a request for H-1 B classification. Moreover, there is no 
assurance that the alien will engage in a specialty occupation upon arrival in this country. 
Petitioning Requirements for the H Nonimmigrant Classification, 63 Fed. Reg. 30,419, 30,419-20 (proposed June 4, 
1998) (to be codified at 8 C.F.R. pt. 214). As such, the agency may not consider facts not in existence at the time the 
instant petition was filed pursuant to the law and legal precedent cited, supra. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(9)(i)(B) also contemplates that speculative employment is not permitted stating 
that a "petition may not be filed ... earlier than 6 months before the date of actual need for the beneficiary's services or 
training .... " 
4 
Matter of M-&M-C-, LLC 
On the Form I-129, the Petitioner indicated that it was a newly-established "[m]anagement and 
marketing consulting services" company with zero employees. The Petitioner sought to employ the 
Beneficiary as an "Administrative Services Manager" to "[p ]Ian[,] direct and coordinate supporting 
administrative services of an organization." The Petitioner's July 1, 2008, letter to USCIS explained 
that it was "a start-up company that intends to grow to a personnel group of approximately 5-6 
professionals to provide a wide range of services in the areas of business management and 
marketing." The Petitioner further stated that it was "actively in the process of negotiating contracts 
with prospective clients" and that "[ n]o contracts will be signed with prospective clients until [it] 
receive[s] a decision on the H-1B petition as [the Petitioner does] not want to promise services to 
[its] clients which [it] cannot deliver." 
In the same letter, the Petitioner explained the nature of its services as "providing consulting services 
in highly complex matters of administration such as contract administration, productivity 
management, budgeting, and formulation and implementation of administrative policies to ensure 
increased productivity." With respect to the proffered position, the Petitioner described the 
Beneficiary's "general duties" as including the following: 
Plan, direct, or coordinate supportive services of an organization, such as 
recordkeeping, mail distribution, telephone operator/receptionist, and other office 
support services. Oversee facilities planning and maintenance and custodial 
operations. Analyze internalprocesses and recommend and implement procedural or 
policy changes to improve operations, such as supply changes or the disposal of 
records. Set goals and deadlines for the business. Analyze and direct human 
resources management in relation to administrative services/staff. Prepare and 
review operational reports and schedules to ensure accuracy and efficiency. Plan, 
administer and control budgets for contracts, equipment and supplies. Administer 
contracts regarding to [sic} procurement, maintenance, and facilities acquisition. 
The Petitioner clarified that the Beneficiary "is to provide her services . . . to clients" and that her 
work "will be performed at the clients' locations ... providing ham~s on services and training, as 
well as at the home office where she will analyze information provided to her by the company and 
she will be expected to help the clients implement the strategic changes developed." The Petitioner 
stated that "the percentage of time spent in each duty varies with client needs." The Petitioner 
further stated that the . skills needed to perform the proffered position could only be obtained "by 
undergoing at least undergraduate studies in the area of business administration." 
In another letter to USCIS, dated July 9, 2008, the Petitioner again stated that it was a start-up 
company. The Petitioner stated: "At the moment the only personnel of the company are its owners 
who are working in negotiating contracts with potential clients for services to be performed in the 
near future. However, nothing is finalized as of yet because this is conditional upon approval of the 
H-1B petition." On appeal, the Petitioner stated that it "was a start-up company with zero business 
at the time of filing." The Petitioner acknowledged that while the Beneficiary's work would be 
provided to clients, the company had not finalized any contracts with any clients. 
5 
Matter of M-&M-C-, LLC 
We recognize the Petitioner's claim that it "cannot secure contracts" without the Beneficiary and that 
the Beneficiary's services are "essential to running [the] business and soliciting clients." However, 
the record of proceedings does not contain evidence that the Petitioner was conducting business at 
the time of filing the visa petition and there is insufficient evidence of the proposed work to be 
performed by the Beneficiary. There is no evidence that the Petitioner was negotiating contracts and 
would have work for the Beneficiary to perform upon approval of the visa petition.3 The Petitioner 
must establish eligibility at thetime of filing the nonimmigrant visa petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). 
A visa petition may not be approved at a future date after the Petitioner or Beneficiary _becomes 
eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg'l 
Comm'r 1978). As such, eligibility for the benefit sought must have been assessed and weighed 
based on the facts as they existed at the time the instant petition was filed and not based on what 
were merely speculative facts not actually in existence. 
Furthermore, without a showing that the Petitioner was conducting business at the time of filing the 
H-1B petition, it is impossible for USCIS to determine whether the Petitioner made a bonafide offer 
of employment to the Beneficiary and that it has sufficient work for the beneficiary to perform for 
the duration of the petition. To prove its job offer is bona fide, the Petitioner must demonstrate that 
it is capable of paying the proffered wage to the Beneficiary at the_ time that the petition is filed. 
Without contracts or other evidence in the record demonstrating that the Petitioner was conducting 
business at the time that the petition was filed, we cannot find, absent evidence to the contrary, that 
the Petitioner demonstrated its realistic ability to comply with the law and pay at least the prevailing 
wage to the instant Beneficiary for whom the Petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition. 
In view of the foregoing, the Petitioner has not overcome the Director's first basis for revoking the 
approval of the petition. We agree with the Director that the petition should not have been approved 
in the first place, and should therefore be revoked, based on the lack of evidence in the record that 
the Petitioner was conducting business at the time the petition was filed and had specialty occupation 
work available for the Beneficiary. 
Even if, assuming arguendo, the Petitioner had secured definitive, non-speculative work for the 
Beneficiary at the time of filing, the evidence of record was nevertheless insufficient to establish that 
the proffered position qualified as a specialty occupation. 
Here, the Petitioner attested that the minimum educational requirement for the proffered position 
was "a bachelor's degree in the area of business administration or related field." However, the 
Petitioner's claim that a bachelor's degree in business administration was a sufficient minimum 
requirement for entry into the proffered position was inadequate to establish that the proposed 
position qualified as a specialty occupation. A petitioner must demonstrate that the proffered 
position requires a precise and specific course of study that relates directly and closely to the 
3 That the Beneficiary was unable to provide sufficient details regarding the nature of the Petitioner's business and the 
services she would provide at her consular interview further bolsters the conclusion that the Petitioner did not have 
actual, non-speculative work for the Beneficiary at the time of filing. 
6 
II 
i-----------------------------~~-------------------_i 
Matter of M-&M-C-, LLC 
positiOn in question. Since there must be a close correlation between the required specialized studies 
and the position, the requirement of a degree with a generalized title, such as business 
administration, without further specification, does not establish the position as a specialty 
occupation. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558,560 (Comm'r 1988) .. 
To prove that a job requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge as required by section 214(i)(1) of the Act, a petitioner must establish that the position 
requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specialized field of study or its 
equivalent. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii), in pertinent part, defines the term "specialty 
occupation" as an occupation which requires the attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
In addition, USCIS interprets the degree requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to require a 
degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. Although a general­
purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business administration, may be a legitimate 
prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify a finding 
that a particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam Corp. v. 
Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007).4 
Again, the Petitioner in this matter claimed that the duties of the proffered position could be 
performed by an individual with only a general-purpose bachelor's degree, i.e., a bachelor's degree 
in business administration. Without more, this assertion alone indicated that the proffered position 
was not in fact a specialty occupation. 5 
4 Specifically, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit explained in Royal Siam that: 
!d. 
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 the granting of a petition for an H-1 B specialty 
occupation visa. See, e.g., Tapis Int 'I 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 A general degree requirement does not necessarily preclude a proffered position from qualifying as a specialty 
occupation. For example, an entry requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in business administration with a 
concentration in a specific field, or a bachelor's or higher degree in business administration combined with relevant 
education, training, and/or experience may, in certain instances, qualify the proffered position as a spe<;ialty 
occupation. In either case, it must be demonstrated that the entry requirement is equivalent to a bachelor's or higher 
degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertojf, 484 F.3d 
at 147. 
It is also important to note that a position may not qualify as a specialty occupation based solely on either a preference 
for certain qualifications for the position or the claimed requirements of a petitioner. See Defensor v. Meissner, 20 I F.3d 
384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). Instead, the record must establish that the performance of the duties of the proffered position 
requires both the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and the attainment of a 
7 
Matter of M-&M-C-, LLC 
The proffered position is further precluded from recognition as a specialty occupation for additional 
reasons. For instance, according to the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook 
Handbook (Handbook), which we recognize as an authoritative source on the duties and educational 
requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses, a bachelor's or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or the equivalent, is not a normal minimum entry requirement into the 
occupation.6 See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 
2016-17 ed., "Administrative Services Managers," 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/administrative-services-managers.htm#tab-4 (last visited Dec. 
23, 2015). While the Handbook states that a "bachelor's degree is typically required for someone to 
become an administrative services manager," the Handbook also states that some may enter the 
occupation with only a high school diploma. !d. Further, the Handbook states that "[t]hose with 
bachelor's degrees typically study business, engineering, facility management, or information 
management." !d. For the reasons discussed above, the requirement of a general-purpose 
"business" degree, without more, does not justify a finding that a particular position qualifies for 
classification as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d at 147; cf Matter of 
Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. at 560. 
When the Handbook does not support the proposition that a proffered position is one that meets the 
statutory and regulatory provisions of a specialty occupation, it is incumbent upon the Petitioner to 
provide probative evidence (e.g., documentation from other objective, authoritative sources) that 
supports a finding that the particular position in question qualifies as a specialty 
occupation.7 Whenever more than one authoritative source exists, an adjudicator will consider and 
weigh all of the evidence presented to determine whether the particular position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. The Petitioner's previously submitted materials did not establish that the 
proffered position required at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent, and 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as the minimum for entry into the 
occupation.· See section 214(i)( I) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(ii) (defining the term "specialty occupation"). 
6 The Handbook, which is also available in printed form, may be accessed on the Internet at http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. 
Our references to the Handbook are to the 2016-17 edition available online. Although we are relying upon the most 
recent 2016-17 edition of the Handbook, the older version of the Handbook upon which the Petitioner relied upon and 
submitted to support the petition also did not indicate that a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or the 
equivalent, is a normal minimum entry requirement into the occupation. Rather, that version of the Handbook stated that 
specific job requirements vary by job responsibility, and that a high school diploma or an associate degree may suffice 
for some jobs. 
7 
More specifically, the Petitioner's reliance upon the Handbook's statement that "[m]anagers of highly complex 
services, such as contract administration, generally need at least a bachelor's degree in business, human resources, or 
finance" was misplaced, as such a statement did not establish a requirement of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty (or its equivalent). To clarify, this statement is from an earlier edition of the Handbook in a chapter on 
"Administrative Services Managers" submitted by the Petitioner. While the 2016-17 edition does not contain this exact 
statement, it incorporates this statement by stating that a "bachelor's degree is typically required for someone to become 
an administrative services manager" and "[t]hose with bachelor's degrees typically study business, engineering, facility 
management, or information management." U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook 
Handbook, 2016-17 ed., "Administrative Services Managers," http://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/administrative­
services-managers.htm#tab-4 (last visited Dec. 23, 2015). 
8 
I 
Matter of M-&M-C-, LLC 
thus, was insufficient to establish that the position qualified as a specialty occupation. Based on the 
foregoing, the evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the proffered position qualified as 
a specialty occupation. Therefore, even if, assuming arguendo, the Petitioner had secured definitive, 
non-speculative work for the Beneficiary at the time of filing, the evidence of record was insufficient 
to establish that the proffered position qualified as a specialty occupation. 
IV. BENEFICIARY QUALIFICATIONS 
Furthermore, we find that the Director properly revoked the approval of the petition on the basis of 
his finding that the evidence of record did not establish that the Beneficiary was qualified to perform 
the duties of a specialty occupation and entitled to H -1 B worker status. 
A. Legal Framework 
Section 214(i)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(2), states that an individual applying for 
classification as an H-lB nonimmigrant worker must possess: 
(A) full state licensure to practice in the occupation, if such licensure is required to 
practice in the occupation, 
(B) completion of the degree described in paragraph (l)(B) for the occupation, or 
(C) (i) experience in the specialty equivalent to the completion of such degree, and 
(ii) recognition of expertise in the specialty through progressively responsible 
positions relating to the specialty. 
In implementing section 214(i)(2) of the Act, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C) states 
that a beneficiary must also meet one of the following criteria in order to qualify to perform services 
in a specialty occupation: 
(1) Hold a United States baccalaureate or higher degree required by the specialty 
occupation from an accredited college or university; 
(2) Hold a foreign degree determined to be equivalent to a United States 
baccalaureate or higher degree required by the specialty occupation from an 
accredited college or university; 
(3) Hold an unrestricted State license, registration or certification which authorizes 
him or her to fully practice the specialty occupation and be immediately engaged 
in that specialty in the state of intended employment; or 
( 4) Have education, specialized training, and/or progressively responsible 
experience that is equivalent to completion of a United States baccalaureate or 
9 
Matter of M-&M-C-, LLC 
higher degree in the specialty occupation, and have recognition of expertise in 
the specialty through progressively responsible positions directly related to the 
specialty. 
For purposes of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4), the provisions at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D) 
require one or more of the following to determine whether a beneficiary has achieved a level of 
knowledge, competence, and practice in the specialty occupation that is equal to that of an individual 
who has a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specialty: 
(1) An evaluation from an official who has authority to grant college-level credit for 
training and/or experience in the specialty at an accredited college or university 
which has a program for granting such credit based on an individual's training 
and/or work experience; 
(2) The results of recognized college-level equivalency examinations or special 
credit programs, such as the College Level Examination Program (CLEP), or 
Program on Noncollegiate Sponsored Instruction (PONSI); 
(3) An evaluation of education by a reliable credentials evaluation service which 
specializes in evaluating foreign educational credentials;8 
( 4) Evidence of certification or registration from a nationally-recognized 
professional association or society for the specialty that is known to grant 
certification or registration to persons in the occupational specialty who have 
achieved a certain level of competence in the specialty; 
(5) A determination by the Service that the equivalent of the degree required by the 
specialty occupation has been acquired through a combination of education, 
specialized training, and/or work experience in areas related to the specialty and 
that the alien has achieved recognition of expertise in the specialty occupation as 
a result of such training and experience .... 
In addition, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(v)(A) states: 
General. If an occupation requires a state or local license for an individual to fully 
perform the duties of the occupation, an alien (except an H-IC nurse) seeking H 
classification in that occupation must have that license prior to approval of the 
petition to be found qualified to enter the United States and immediately engage in 
employment in the occupation. 
8 
The Petitioner should note that, in accordance with this provision, we will accept a credential evaluation service's 
evaluation of education only, not training and/or work experience. 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter of M-&M-C-, LLC 
Therefore, to qualify the Beneficiary for classification as an H-1 B nonimmigrant worker under the 
Act, the Petitioner must establish that the Beneficiary possesses the requisite license or, if none is 
required, that the Beneficiary has completed a degree in the specialty that the occupation requires. 
Alternatively, if a license is not required and if the Beneficiary does not possess the required U.S. . 
degree or its foreign degree equivalent, the Petitioner must show that the Beneficiary possesses both · 
(1) education, specialized training, and/or progressively responsible experience in the specialty 
equivalent to the completion of such degree, and (2) recognition of expertise in the specialty through 
progressively responsible positions relating to the specialty. 
B. Analysis 
The evidence in the record does not establish that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties 
of a specialty occupation within the field of business. Specifically, while an evaluation of the 
Beneficiary's academic credentials prepared by states that the Beneficiary 
possesses the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in business administration, it does not designate 
any specific business specialty. A general degree in business administration alone is insufficient to 
qualify the Beneficiary to perform the services of a specialty occupation, unless the academic 
courses pursued and knowledge gained is a realistic prerequisite to a particular occupation in the 
field. See Matter of Ling, l3 I&N Dec. 35 (Reg'l Comm'r 1968) (finding that '"business 
administration' is a broad field, a field which contains various occupations and/or professions, all of 
which are related to the world of business but each requiring a different academic preparation and 
experience peculiar to its needs"). The Petitioner must demonstrate that the Beneficiary obtained 
knowledge of the particular occupation in which she will be employed. !d. The Petitioner · has not 
demonstrated that the Beneficiary has taken courses or gained knowledge considered to be a realistic 
prerequisite to any specific specialty within the field of business. Therefore, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of a specialty occupation by 
meeting the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(J)- (3). 
The only remaining criterion that the Petitioner could possibly demonstrate is the fourth criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C). Under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4), the Petitioner must establish 
both (1) that the Beneficiary's combined education, specialized training, and/or progressively 
responsible experience are equivalent to completion of a United States baccalaureate or higher 
degree in the specialty occupation, and (2) that the Beneficiary has recognition of expertise in the 
specialty through progressively responsible positions directly related to the specialty. Here, 
however, we cannot find that the Beneficiary's combined education, specialized training, and/or 
progressively responsible experience are equivalent to completion of a United States baccalaureate 
or higher degree in the specialty occupation, and that the Beneficiary has recognition of expertise in 
the specialty through progressively responsible positions directly related to the specialty. 
We are unable to make such a finding based, in part, on the fact that the Petitioner conceded that the 
Beneficiary's employment verification letter from the dated March 
1 1 
(b)(6)
Matter of M-&M-C-, LLC 
27,-2008, was "altered" by the Beneficiary.9 The Petitioner also conceded that the Beneficiary did 
not actually possess the claimed work experience as an "Administrative Manager" for the 
in which capacity she was purportedly "in charge of employee training, 
gathering and distribution of information inside the organization, control of administrative functions, 
meetings with other managers for future. planning." 10 The Beneficiary's apparent lack of managerial 
experience casts doubt upon her qualification to perform the duties of a specialty occupation in 
business administrative services management, and also casts doubt upon the claimed nature of the 
services she and the Petitioner would provide. "Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof 
may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence 
offered in support of the visa petition." Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). 
The Petitioner did not claim that the Beneficiary's degree was equivalent to a degree in any field 
other than business administration. The Petitioner also did not submit sufficient 
information in order 
for USCIS to have made an equivalency determination in accordance with 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5). Accordingly, as sufficient evidence was not presented that the Beneficiary 
has at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, we cannot find that the 
Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of a specialty occupation. The appeal will be 
dismissed and the approval ofthe petition revoked pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(ll)(iii)(A)(5)for 
this additional reason. 
9 The approval of the petition could have been revoked on these admitted facts alone. See 8 C .F.R. § 
214.2(h)(11 )(iii)(A)(2) (stating that an approved petition may be revoked on the basis of untrue, incorrect, inaccurate or 
fraudulent facts in the petition); see also 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l) (stating that "[a]ny evidence submitted in connection 
with a benefit request is incorporated into and considered part of the request"). 
10 The "altered" letter and claims regarding the Beneficiary's work experience as an "Administrative Manager" were not 
the only instances of untrue statements of fact contained in the record of proceeding. The Beneficiary's resume also 
contained, for example, the same fraudulent claim of work experience as an "Administrative Manager." Additionally, 
the Petitioner previously stated that the Beneficiary "has considerable experience in business management," arid is 
qualified to "provide services in the areas of business administrativeservices management." However, these statements 
were not corroborated by the evidence of record, as the Petitioner had not explained nor documented how the 
Beneficiary's work experience - absent her claimed experience as an "Administrative Manager" - constituted 
"considerable experience in business management" or otherwise rendered her qualified to perform "highly complex" 
managerial services. 
According to the Beneficiary's resume, her work experience prior to her claim of employment as an administrative 
manager for the consisted of the following positions: ( 1) a "Specialist" in the 
"[r ]esponsible for analysis of the reports of the 
system of the collection on the revenues ." Also, the resume states that "[t]hese reports represents results about 
the billing and collection of budgetary and non-budgetary entities and also private and household customers, preparing 
quarterly and annual reports and coordinating them with Ministries from which these entities are dependent"; (2) 
"Specialist" in the Human Resources Department of the "[p]reparing and maintaining" a 
database of around 11 ,000 employees ; and (3) a part-time " BoP Compiler" for the 
"[r]esponsible for accounting and registration of all the transactions, maintaining records and ensuring timely payment 
for staff salaries, social security payments, telephone bills and other scheduled payments, preparing the Value Added 
Tax." None of these prior duties indicated that the Beneficiary worked in a managerial capacity or performed services of 
a highly complex nature. 
12 
Matter of M-&M-C-, LLC 
V. CONCLUSION 
Upon review of the record, we determine that the Director properly revoked the approval of the 
petition pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(ll)(iii)(A)(5). The petition will be remain revoked and the 
appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013) (citing Matter of Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493, 495 (BIA 1966)). Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of M-&M-C-, LLC, ID# 13455 (AAO Dec. 30, 2015) 
13