dismissed H-1B Case: Marketing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF J-S- INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 10.2016 
PETITION: FORM I-129. PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a frozen pasta manufacturer, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
'·market researcher'" under the H-1 B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act)§ 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The 
H-1 B 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 ofhighly 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, Vermont Service Center. initially approved the petition. Upon subsequent review, the 
Director revoked the approval of the petition, concluding that the record did not include credible 
evidence establishing that the Beneficiary is qualified to serve in a specialty occupation position in 
accordance with the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. The Director also entered a 
finding of fraud. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner asserts that the evidence it presented 
establishes the Beneficiary's qualifications to perform the duties of the proffered position. and that 
the Director improperly entered a finding of fraud. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. REVOCATION 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may revoke the approval of an H-1 B petition. on 
notice and an opportunity to rebut. pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(ll )(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: 
(I) 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 
Matter (~f J-S- Inc. 
(2) The statement of facts contained in the petition was not true and 
correct, inaccurate, fraudulent, or misrepresented a material fact; or 
(3) The petitioner violated terms and conditions of the approved petition: 
or 
(4) The petitioner violated requirements of section 101(a)(l5)(H) ofthe 
Act or paragraph (h) of this section; or 
(5) The approval of the petition violated paragraph (h) of this section or 
involved gross error. 
(B) Notice and decision. The notice of intent to revoke shall contain a detailed 
statement of the grounds tor the revocation and the time period allowed for the 
petitioner's rebuttal. The petitioner may submit evidence in rebuttal within 30 days 
of receipt of the notice. The director shall consider all relevant evidence presented 
in deciding whether to revoke the petition in whole or in part. If the petition is 
revoked in part, the remainder of the petition shall remain approved and a revised 
approval notice shall be sent to the petitioner with the revocation notice. 
We find that the basis specified for the revocation action in the instant matter is a proper ground for 
such action. The Director's statements in the notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) regarding the evidence 
submitted to show that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of a specialty occupation were 
adequate to notify the Petitioner of the intent to revoke the approval of the petition in accordance with 
the provision at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)(ll )(iii)(A)(2). 
As will be evident in the discussion below, we find that, fully considered in the context of the entire 
record of proceedings. the Petitioner has not credibly established the Beneficiary's academic 
education. The documents submitted in response to the NOIR and on appeal do not efTectively rebut 
and overcome the basis tor revocation specified at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(ll)(iii)(A)(2). Accordingly. 
the appeal will be dismissed, and the approval of the petition will remain revoked. 
II. BENEFICIARY'S QUALIFICATIONS 
A. Beneficiary's Education 
The Petitioner submitted photocopies of the Beneficiary's diplomas. as summarized below: 1 
• Two different translated documents regarding the Beneficiary's high school 
diploma. One document, which appears to be a translated version of the 
1 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 8 petition. While we may not discuss every document 
submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of.I-S- Inc. 
Beneficiary's high school diploma, indicates that the Beneficiary participated in 
the 1995 session of the State Examination and that the diploma was issued in 
November 1999? The second document is a Certificate of Authenticity of High 
School diploma which also shows that the Beneficiary was awarded his high 
school diploma in November 1999. 
• A diploma, number awarding the Beneficiary an associate's degree in 
commercial sciences, major in marketing, dated November 10, 2002, issued by 
the - -
• A diploma, number . awarding the Beneficiary a bachelor's degree in 
commercial sciences, major in marketing, dated February 2, 2005. issued by the 
; 
• A diploma, number awarding the Beneficiary the title 
''Technician in Management,'' dated October 15, 2009, issued by 
The record also includes three evaluations of the _Beneficiary's foreign education prepared by 
and issued by 
• The May 16, 2012, evaluation referenced only the Beneficiary's two years of 
study ending in 2005, and concluded that the Beneficiary's two years of academic 
coursework and examinations at the University and resulting degree of''Licencie'' 
is equivalent to a bachelor's of business administration degree from an accredited 
institution of higher education in the United States. 
• The September 10, 2013 evaluation explained that the Beneficiary's three years of 
academic coursework and examinations (ending in 2002) is the first cycle of 
postsecondary education and results in a ·'Diplome de Gradue, .. and that the 
Beneficiary's subsequent two years of academic coursework and examinations 
(ending in 2005) is the second cycle of postsecondary education and results in a 
"Licencie.'' 5 The evaluator stated that the Beneficiary's first three years of study 
is equal to "three years of undergraduate coursework from an accredited 
institution of higher education in the United States:· and that the first year of the 
two years of additional study (undertaken upon the completion of the ''Diplom e de 
Gradue") is equal to the final year of an undergraduate program in the United 
States. The evaluator concluded that based on these documents the Beneficiary 
has attained the equivalent of a bachelor's of business administration degree from 
an accredited institution of higher education in the United States. 
2 A copy of the original document was not provided tor the record. 
·' The record also includes a laminated version of this document printed in color. 
4 
The record further contains an evaluation from Chair of the Department of Marketing at 
This evaluation will be discussed in Section Ill . infra. 
·' The evaluator also referred to the ''Diplome de Gradue" as "Grade de Gradue," and to the "Lic:encie'' as "Licence·· and 
"Grade de Licencie." 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of J-S- Inc. 
• The December 30, 2014 evaluation , submitted in response to the Director's 
NOIR, reiterated the information included in the September 10, 2013, evaluation. 
The record further includes a letter, signed by the chief executive otlicer of 
stating that ''[a] review of the education system in the Democratic Republic of 
Congo shows a clear progression tor higher education ... [which] is completed in two cycles.,. as 
described in the evaluations submitted. 
In addition, the record includes the following evidence of the Beneficiary's academic history: 
• Excerpts from the Official Academic Records at the 
listing attendees and graduates, which included the Beneficiary's 
name, tor the 1998-1999, 2000-2001 , 2002-2003. and 2003-2004 academic years. 
• Partial translations of "Attestation of Success'' letters issued to the Beneficiary tor 
the 1998-1999, 1999-2000, 2000-200 I, and 2003-2004 academic years; 
• Partial translations of "Attestation of Attendance" letters issued to the Beneficiary 
for the 1998-1999, 1999-2000, and 2000-200 I academic years under the 
"Gradual" program, and tor the 2002-2003 , 2003-2004, and 2004-2005 academic 
years under the "Licence'' program. 
• Transcripts for the Beneficiary for the 2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2002-2003, 2003-
2004, and 2004-2005 academic years at the . and 
a transcript for the 2008-2009 academic year at the 
The record also contains a summary of an investigative report conducted by the U.S. Embassy in 
Democratic Republic of the Congo, a copy of which was provided to the Petitioner in 
conjunction with the issuance of the NOIR. In the NOIR, the Director informed the Petitioner that 
based on the investigative report, it appeared the Beneficiary's degree presented by the Petitioner 
was fraudulent as it was never registered with the college and was never issued by 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director and the U.S. Embassy both mistakenly believed 
that the Beneficiary had completed only two years of postsecondary education and that this error led 
to finding that the Beneficiary had not completed sufficient coursework to attain the equivalent of a 
U.S. bachelor's degree. The Petitioner also asserts that where discrepancies are found in the 
documents, the U.S. Embassy should submit those documents for forensic analysis. 
6 
The summary report provided to the Petitioner indicates that an investigator visited the 
registrar's office to inquire about the Beneficiary's degree on December I 9, 2013. We note that the full 
account of the investigative report refers to a copy of the degree attached. The attachment includes a photocop y of the 
Beneficiary's degree issued in 2002 ("'Diplome de Gradue") and a photocopy of the Beneficiary's degree issued in 2005 
(''Grade de Licencie''). Both degrees have the word "FAUX" and the college's representative' s signature handwritt en on 
the photocopy . In addition, the college representative indicates on the "Licencie" diploma that the college does not use 
the numbers identified as the diploma number on the diploma. 
4 
(b)(6)
Malter of J-S- Inc. 
The Petitioner avers that the documents submitted. including the Beneficiary's diplomas and 
transcripts. ''are at least as persuasive as an unnamed individual at the registrar's otlice:' The 
Petitioner also notes the Beneficiary's concern ''that the Registrar's office may not have 
acknowledged his degree due to a cont1ict over a tuition payment that may remain outstanding:' 
The Petitioner submits copies of the Beneficiary ' s student identification cards for the 2002-2003 and 
2003-2004 academic years, and three signed statements from the Beneficiary's former classmates. 
B. Analysis of Beneficiary's Education 
Upon review of the totality of the record. we find that the Petitioner has not submitted consistent 
credible, probative evidence ofthe Beneficiary's foreign education. 
For example, the record does not include a consistent timeline of the dates the Beneficiary attended 
the . The Petitioner submitted documents titled ·'Official Academic 
Record" which include the Beneficiary's name tor the years 1998-1999, 2000-2001,2002-2003 , and 
2003-2004. The Petitioner has not, however, submitted "Official Academic Records" for the 
Beneficiary tor the 1999-2000 and 2001-2002 academic years. Additionally. the Petitioner has not 
submitted a corresponding transcript for the years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000. The Petitioner also 
submitted copies of the Beneficiary's student ID cards tor only two years of his academic history. 
Moreover, the record includes translated copies of the Beneficiary's high school diploma indicating 
he was awarded the high school diploma in November 1999. However, the Petitioner has not 
explained nor documented why or how the Beneficiary's name is included in the official records of 
the tor the 1998-1999 or 1999-2000 school years. prior to the date 
he received his high school diploma. In other words. the Petitioner has not explained how the 
Beneficiary would even have been eligible to enroll in and attend the _ 
prior to receiving his high school diploma. 7 We observe that, according to the 
evaluations by "[g]raduation from high school and 
competitive entrance examination scores are requirements for admission and enrollment in the 
In addition, the "Attestation of Attendance '' letters show the Beneficiary attending the 
in 1998-1999. 1999-2000, and 2000-2001 (three academic years) tor the 
7 The Beneficiary's diploma states that he participated in the ·• 1995 session of the State Examination.'' but did not receive 
his actual diploma until November 1999. The Petitioner has not explained the reason for this tour-year gap between the 
date of the Beneficiary ' s exam and the date he received his diploma. Nevertheless, the diploma and other evid ence of 
record reflect that the Beneficiary was awarded his high school diploma in November 1999. Thus. it is not appar ent how 
the Beneficiary could have enrolled in and attended University prior to receiving his high school diploma. 
Furthermore, both of the Beneficiary's claimed high school documents refer to him by another name that has not been 
identified on the Form 1-129 (on question 1.3, Part 3, which asks for "All Other Names Used'' 
by the Beneficiary). The 
Petitioner has not submitted reliable , objective documentation. such as a birth certificate , to establish that these high 
school documents pertain to the Beneficiary . 
5 
(b)(6)
Maller of J-S- Inc. 
"Gradual" program, and 2002-2003, 2003-2004, and 2004-2005 (three additional academic years) 
for the "Licence" program. However, these dates do not correspond to the dates found on the 
Beneficiary's transcripts for these programs. More specifically, his transcripts show that he attended 
the "Gradual" program in 2000-200 I, 200 I -2002, and 2002-2003, and the "Licence" program in 
2003-2004 and 2004-2005. The Petitioner does not offer an explanation for the inconsistencies 
between the years attended and the years of study shown by the transcripts. Furthermore , the 
Petitioner does not explain why the attendance letters show that the Beneficiary attended the 
"Licencie" program tor three academic years, when elsewhere in the record. the Petitioner claims 
that the "Licencie" program is a two-year program. 
The Petitioner also submitted three letters from the Beneficiary's former classmates, one of whom 
attests to have attended classes with the Beneficiary "in the first graduate during the academic year 
2002-2003 and also in 2003-2004 in the second graduate [year]." 8 However, as stated above, the 
Beneficiary's transcripts indicate that the Beneficiary's first graduate year, i.e .. the first year of the 
'·Licence" program, was 2003-2004 (not 2002-2003, as claimed). The Beneficiary's transcripts 
fm1her indicate that the Beneficiary's second graduate year, i.e., the second year of the .. Licence·· 
program, was 2004-2005 (not 2003-2004, as claimed). The Petitioner has not reconciled these 
discrepancies and deficiencies. "[l]t is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve the inconsistencies 
by independent objective evidence." Matter (?f llo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). Any 
attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits 
competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. !d. at 591-92. ''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.'' !d. at 591. 
We also share the Director's concern that the documents purportedly issued by the 
contain formatting. grammatical, and other technical issues that further cast doubt 
upon their authenticity. For example, the seals of the dit1er 
significantly between various documents. In addition. the ''Attestation of Attendance'' letter tor the 
academic year of 2003-2004 misspells the University's name on its own letterhead. Fm1hennore. 
the Beneficiary's name is misspelled on the extract from the Official Academic Record for the 2000-
200 I academic year. 
On appeal, the Petitioner dismisses any discrepancies in the formatting and seals of the documents 
submitted as endemic issues in the Congo and not evidence of fraud. We find, however, that it is not 
only the formatting and seals that suggest the documents may be fabricated, but rather, the 
underlying inconsistent information submitted to demonstrate the Beneficiary's attendance at and 
diplomas from the Thus, the Petitioner's explanations on this point 
are not persuasive. 
The Petitioner further dismisses the significance of the discrepancies by asserting that USCIS should 
conduct forensic analysis on these documents to determine their authenticity. However, we 
8 The writer of this letter does not appear on the "Official Academic Record'' documents submitted for the record. 
6 
(b)(6)
Maller <if.I-S- Inc. 
emphasize that it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1361; Matter <?fOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). The Petitioner has submitted poor 
quality photocopies of the pertinent documents and one laminated color version of the Beneficiary ' s 
2005 degree. The Petitioner has not submitted any original documents for the record, nor has the 
Petitioner submitted any original documents it may have in its possession for forensic analysis on its 
own volition. More importantly , the Petitioner has not explained how forensic analysis would 
explain and overcome the discrepancies in the record, such as regarding the Beneficiary's eligibilit y 
to enroll in University prior to receiving his high school diploma , or regarding the dates the 
Beneficiary attended the "Licencie" program. 
The Petitioner also expresses the Beneficiary's concern '"that the Registrar's office may not have 
acknowledged his degree due to a conflict over a tuition payment that may remain outstanding.' ' 
The Petitioner further states on appeal that it is "confident that [it] will be able to provide compelling 
evidence that The Institute had demanded that the Beneficiary make an unnecessary and exorbit ant 
payment to the school in order for them to confirm his attendance and graduation ,'' and that the 
Beneficiary "refused to succumb to that quasi-blackmail. '' However, the Petitioner's statement that 
the Beneficiary owes an "outstanding" '·tuition payment" on one hand, and that the school 
''demanded" "an unnecessary and exorbitant payment" on the other hand. are two different claims. 
The Petitioner has not explained and submitted objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
!d. at 591-92. Moreover, the Petitioner has not further explained what "compelling evidenc e" of the 
University's claimed "quasi-blackmail'' it possesses , nor has the Petitioner provided copies of 
such 
evidence, despite the Petitioner's "confiden[ce]" that it will be able to provide such evidence. 
"[G]oing on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings.' ' Mauer f?l S<~ffici , 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 
(Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter o.fTreasure Crqfi <?{Cal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
The Petitioner has not submitted sufficient explanations to overcome these inconsistenci es and 
deficiencies in the documents, as explained above. These inconsistencies and deficiencies 
undermine the reliability and authenticity of the submitted documents, and therefore. preclude a 
finding that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of a specialty occupation by virtue of 
possessing at least a U.S. bachelor's degree in a specific specialty directly related to the proffered 
position, or its equivalent. Again , ·'it is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve the inconsistencies 
by independent objecti ve evidence,'' and attempts to explain or reconcile such inconsistenci es with 
competent objective evidence will not suffice. Matter o_{Ho. 19 I&N Dec. 591-92. '·Doubt cast on 
any aspect of the petitioner ' s proof may, of course , lead to a reevaluation of the reliabilit y a nd 
sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition.'' !d. at 591. 
We will now briefly address the evaluations from and 
The evaluations include language that the "evaluation relies upon copies of the original 
documents provided by [the Beneficiary] and represented by [the Beneticiary] to be authentic and 
true copies of those documents ," and that "[t]here are no apparent grounds for us to disbelie ve the 
authenticity and accuracy of the documentation presented to _ 
on behalf of [the Beneficiary].' ' However, as detailed above and in the Director's 
decision, the evidence of record contains many inconsistencies that cast doubt on the authenticity of 
(b)(6)
Maller ofJ-S- Inc. 
the documents and the Beneficiary's claimed qualifications. For instance. does not indicate 
whether he considered, or was even aware ot: the formatting inconsistencies and misspellings in the 
documents issued by the also does not indicate whether 
he considered, or was aware of. the Beneficiary's claimed attendance at the 
prior to receiving his high school diploma in November 1999. We consider these to be 
significant omissions , in that it suggests an incomplete or inaccurate review of the Beneficiary's 
qualifications and a faulty factual basis for his conclu sions. None of these omissions were addressed 
in the letter from CEO of either. 
We thus accord the evaluations from _ little probative 
weight. We may, in our discretion, use an evaluation of a person's foreign education as an advisory 
opinion. Matter (~(Sea. Inc. , 19 I&N Dec. 817, 820 (Comm'r 1988). However. where an opinion is 
not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we may discount or give Jess 
weight to that evaluation . !d. 
The record does not include probative , consistent evidence that the Beneficiar y obtained the degrees 
identified in the petition and as evaluated by Accordingl y, 
the record does not include suflicient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary obtained a foreign 
degree or degrees equivalent to at least a U.S. baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty . The 
record therefore supports the revocation of the approval of the petition pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(11 )(iii)(2), in that the statement of facts contained in the petition was not true and coiTect. 
inaccurate, fraudulent, or misrepresented a material fact. For this reason , the appeal will be dismissed 
and the approval of the petition will remain revoked. 
C. Finding of Fraud 
A finding of fraud requires a determination that the Petitioner made a false representation of a 
material fact with knowledge of its falsity and with the intent to deceive an immigration officer. 
Furthermore, the officer must have believed and acted upon the false representation. Matter of G-G, 
7 I&N Dec. 161, 164 (BIA 1956): Ortiz-Bouche! v. US. Atty. Gen.. 714 F.3d 1353, 1356-57 (1 lth 
Cir. 2013) (defeiTing to the Board of Immigration Appeal's definition of the tetm ··fraud"). 
As discussed in detail above, the documents submitted appear to have been falsified and/or contain 
false representations in terms of the dates the Beneficiary claimed to have attended the 
and received the resulting diplomas. The Beneficiary's academic 
qualification is a material element in the H-IB petition, as the Petitioner must establish that the 
Beneficiary possesses at least a U.S. baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty directly related to 
the duties of the proffered position, or its equivalent , to be qualified for the proffered position. 9 In 
() A ta lse statement is material if it .. has a natural tendenc y to influence or was capable of influencing. the decision of the 
decisionmaking body to which it was addressed.' ' Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759. 770 ( 1988) (citations omitted); 
see also Monter v. Gonzal es, 430 F.3d 546, 553-57 (2d Cir. 2005) . 
8 
Matter of J-S- Inc. 
addition, the Director initially believed and acted upon the false representations (i.e., approving the 
petition based upon the false documents and representations). 
The Director in this matter properly gave notice of derogatory information found regarding the 
Beneficiary's academic qualifications. In response to the NOIR and again on appeaL the Petitioner 
claims that the submitted documents are authentic and that they accurately represent the 
Beneficiary's academic history, despite probative evidence to the contrary. 
The signature portion of the Form I-129. at part 7, requires the Petitioner to make the following 
affirmation: "I certify, under penalty of perjury that this petition and the evidence submitted with it 
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge." On the basis of this affinnation made under 
penalty of perjury, and the continuing fabrication of evidence, we find that the Petitioner knowingly 
made false representations regarding the Beneficiary's academic history which are material to the 
Beneficiary's eligibility. Upon review, we find that the record suppmis a finding that the Petitioner 
made false representations regarding the Beneficiary's academic history and qualification. 
Accordingly, we affirm the Director's finding offraud. 10 
IlL SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
Finally, we will briefly address another independent ground that could have warranted initiation of 
revocation proceedings at the discretion of the Director, i.e., that the approval of the petition 
involved gross error pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(ll)(iii)(A)(5). 
The Petitioner in this matter described the profTered position as a market researcher position. The 
Petitioner stated that the .. position of Market Researcher requires the application of theoretical and 
practical knowledge which is typically and best acquired through studies leading to a Bachelor"s 
degree or its equivalent in Marketing or Business Administration." The Petitioner stated that the 
Beneficiary is qualified for the market researcher position because his foreign degree had been 
evaluated as equivalent to a bachelor's of business administration degree awarded by an institution 
of higher education in the United States. Thus, it appears that the Petitioner accepts a bachelor's 
degree in the general field of business administration as sufficient to perform the duties of the 
profTered position. 
The acceptance of a bachelor's degree in business administration to perform the duties of the 
protTered position suggests that the position qualities is not a specialty occupation. A petitioner 
must demonstrate that the proffered position requires a precise and specific course of study that 
10 
In the context of this visa petition, our determination is a ""finding of face and not an admissibility determination. The 
visa petition is not the appropriate forum for finding a beneficiary inadmissible. See Afatter (?( 0-, 8 I&N Dec. 295, 
296-97 (BIA 1959). However, the Administrative Procedure Act requires that our decision include a statement of 
findings and conclusions on all material issues of law or fact, which would necessarily include findings of fraud. 
5 U.S.C. § 557(c). After we enter a finding of fact in this decision, the Beneficiary may be found inadmissible at a later 
date in separate proceedings. 
9 
(b)(6)
Malter C?f J-S- Inc. 
relates directly to the 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. C:l Matter qlMichael Hertz Assoc.s·., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). 
To demonstrate that a job requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly 
specialized knowledge as required by section 214(i)(I) 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. 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. USCIS has 
consistently stated that, although a general-purpos e bachelor's degree, 
such as a degree in business 
administration, may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position , requiring such a d egree, 
without more, will not justify a finding that a particular position qualities for classification as a 
specialty occupation. Royal Siam Corp. v. Cheru~ft; 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007). Here, the 
Petitioner's acceptance of a bachelor's degree in business administration indicates that the position 
is not a specialty occupation. 
While the record includes an evaluation from concluding that "the inclusion of Business 
Administration as a field of study relevant to the position of Market Research Analyst does not by 
any means imply that it is no longer a specialty occupation," this evaluation is insufficient to 
establish the proffered position as a specialty occupation. We may, in our discretion, use opinion 
statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. ,Hatter (~l Caron In/ '1, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791. 
795 (Comm'r 1988). However, where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any 
way questionable , we are not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. /d. 
In particular , does not specify whether his analysis includes business administration 
degrees in all concentrations, or whether it pertains only to business administration degrees in 
specific concentrations (e.g., a business administration degree with a concentration in marketing, 
such as possesses). It is not readily apparent how business administration degree s with 
concentrations in human resources management , for example, would be closely related to the market 
research analyst position and its associated marketing duties. As stated above, a general degree in 
business administration , without further specification, is insufficient to establish a position as a 
specialty occupation. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoft ; 484 F.3d at 147: cf Maller l?l Michael 
Hertz Assoc.\·., 19 I&N Dec. at 560. See also Maller qf'Ling, 13 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''). 
Overall , the evidence of record is insufficient to demonstrate that the proffered position qualitie s as a 
specialty occupation. It thus would have been within the scope of the Director's authorit y to initiate 
revocation-on-notice proceedings regarding this issue upon proper notice to the Petitioner of her 
intent to do so. 
10 
Matter of J-S- Inc. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The burden is on the Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U .S.C. § 1361; Matter <~( Otiende. 26 I&N Dec. at 128. Here. that burden has not been 
met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter <~{J-S- Inc .. ID# 16382 (AAO May 10, 2016) 
11