dismissed H-1B Case: Marketing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 8, 2024 In Re: 32955729 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimrnigrant Worker (H-lB) 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-IB nonimmigrant 
classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) . The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to 
file a petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to temporarily employ a 
qualified foreign worker in a position that requires both: (a) the theoretical and practical application 
of a body of highly specialized knowledge; and (b) the attainment of a bachelor 's or higher degree in 
the specific specialty ( or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. The matter is now before us on appeal 
pursuant to 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 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter ofChristo 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) of the Act defines an H-lB nonimrnigrant as a foreign national "who is 
coming temporarily to the United States to perform services ... in a specialty occupation described in 
section 214(i)(l) ... "(emphasis added). Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 184(i)(l), defines 
the term "specialty occupation" as an occupation that requires the "theoretical and practical application 
of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the 
specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates section 214(i)(l) of the Act, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. 
In addition, 8 C.F.R. § 2 l 4.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A) provides that the proffered position must meet one of four 
criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation position. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must be read with 
the statutory and regulatory definitions of a specialty occupation under section 214(i)(l) of the Act 
and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). We construe the term "degree" to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal 
Siam Corp. v. Chertojf, 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"). 
Accordingly, to determine whether a beneficiary will be employed in a specialty occupation, we look 
to the record to ascertain the services the beneficiary will perform and whether such services require 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge attained through at 
least a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
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. ANALYSIS 
The issue on appeal is whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The Director 
concluded, based on the position's educational requirements, that the Petitioner did not establish that 
the position is a specialty occupation as defined by the statute and regulations. Specifically, the 
Director found that the Petitioner's entry requirement for the position includes a variety of disparate 
fields of study, and that the position therefore does not require the theoretical and practical application 
of a body of highly specialized knowledge and attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific 
specialty. The Director also found that the Petitioner indicated that one of the usual minimum entry 
requirements for the proffered position is a degree in business administration, without further 
specialization, and that the Petitioner did not explain how such a generalized field of study qualifies 
as a "body of highly specialized knowledge." 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director mischaracterized the degree requirement for the 
position. The Petitioner asserts that it will not accept degrees in a variety of disparate fields and will 
not accept "a degree that is just [b]usiness [a]dministration." Rather, the Petitioner claims on appeal 
that it requires "someone who has earned at least a [b]achelor's [d]egree that combines both business 
and fashion, such as the Beneficiary's [ m ]aster's [ d]egree in [t]he [b]usiness of [ f]ashion" ( emphasis 
in original). For the reasons discussed below and upon de novo review, we agree with the Director 
and conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner states that it specializes in the creation and distribution of "uniquely curated 
subscription boxes that cater to pop culture enthusiasts." The proffered position is that of "Licensing 
and Product Development Coordinator." On the certified labor condition application (LCA) submitted 
in support of the petition, the Petitioner designated the proffered position to be in the occupational 
category of "Market Research Analysts and Marketing Specialists" with a standard occupational 
classification (SOC) code of 13-1161.00. 
2 
Although the Petitioner contends on appeal that it will not accept a bachelor's degree in only business 
administration but instead requires a bachelor's or higher degree in the field of "business 
administration and fashion" or a related field, this claim is not supported by the evidence in the record. 
Rather, the evidence in the record primarily demonstrates that the Petitioner will in fact accept a 
bachelor's degree in business administration, without further specialization, as an entry requirement 
into the position. While in the initial filing the Petitioner described its degree requirement as "a 
bachelor's degree in business administration and fashion or a related field," in response to the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted evidence that clarified that it will 
accept a bachelor's degree in business administration without further specialization. 
First, in support of the Petitioner's claim that the position qualifies as a specialty occupation under 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-which requires that a bachelor's or higher degree is normally the 
minimum requirement for entry into the occupation-the Petitioner notes that Department of Labor's 
Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) entry for the occupation of "Market Research Analysts" 
states that this occupation typically requires a bachelor's degree. See Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. 
Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Market Research Analysts (Apr. 17, 2024), 
www.https://bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/market-research-analysts.htm. However, the 
requirement of a bachelor's degree, on its own, is insufficient to establish that the position qualifies as 
a specialty occupation. As noted above, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must be read with the statutory 
and regulatory definitions of a specialty occupation under section 2 l 4(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii). We construe the term "degree" as used in the four criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any bachelor's or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty 
that is directly related to the proposed position. Additionally, the Petitioner states, in an expanded job 
description submitted with the RFE response, that its degree requirement is a bachelor's degree 
business administration or fashion, or the equivalent. Therefore, this evidence does not establish that 
a degree that combines both business and fashion is normally the minimum requirement for entry into 
the occupation. 
Second, in support of the Petitioner's claim that the position qualifies as a specialty occupation under 
the first part of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2)-which requires that the degree requirement is 
"common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations"-the Petitioner provided 
job listings from other companies for positions that it contends are parallel. However, the educational 
requirements for these positions include a bachelor's degree in "business administration," or in 
"business." The job postings do not state that these positions require a bachelor's degree in both 
business administration and fashion. The evidence therefore does not demonstrate that it is common 
to the industry to require a bachelor's degree that combines both business administration and fashion, 
but rather that a degree in business alone is sufficient. 
Third, in support of the Petitioner's claim that the position qualifies as a specialty occupation under 
the second part of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2)-that the position is "so complex that it can be 
performed only by an individual with a degree"-and under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4)-that 
the nature of the duties is specialized and complex- the Petitioner submitted opinion letters from two 
university professors. However, both professors describe the position as requiring a bachelor's degree 
in business administration or a related field, and not a degree that combines both business 
administration and fashion. One of the professors states that the proffered position "would normally 
be filled by a graduate with a minimum of a [b]achelor' s [ d]egree in [b]usiness [ a ]dministration, a 
3 
related area, or the equivalent," and that "[i]t is my opinion that the Licensing & Product Development 
Coordinator for [the Petitioner] requires a minimum of a [b]achelor's [d]egree in [b]usiness 
[ a ]dministration, a related area, or the equivalent to equip the person to handle the specialized and 
complex duties" of this position. The second professor similarly opines that "[u]pon thorough scrutiny 
of the job responsibilities, it becomes evident that a minimum of a [b]achelor' s degree in [b]usiness 
[ a ]dministration or a related field is essential for entering this profession and effectively managing its 
complex duties." The second professor also concludes that "it is my opinion that the Licensing and 
Product Development role is clearly a specialty position and requires the services of someone with a 
minimum of training through a [b]achelor's in [b]usiness [a]dministration, or a closely related field." 
Throughout both letters, the professors describe the position as requiring a bachelor's degree in 
business administration or a related field, and neither professor discusses the position as requiring a 
degree either in fashion or in a combination of business and fashion. 
Finally, in support of the Petitioner's claim that the position qualifies as a specialty occupation under 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3)-that the employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for 
the position-the Petitioner asserted in response to the RFE that it currently has one employee in a 
similar position and that this employee possesses a bachelor's degree. In support of this claim, the 
Petitioner submitted a copy of the individual's Linkedln profile page, which states that the individual 
possesses a bachelor's degree in journalism. Again, this evidence does not support the Petitioner's 
claim that it requires a bachelor's degree that combines both business and fashion for the proffered 
position. 
We have consistently stated that, although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in 
business, may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without 
more, will not justify a conclusion that a particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty 
occupation. See Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. But throughout the Petitioner's RFE response 
brief, the Petitioner characterizes the position as requiring "the attainment of at least a [b]achelor' s 
degree in business administration or the equivalent;" states that the knowledge needed to perform the 
position "can be acquired through coursework in the areas of business administration;" and claims that 
all "similar positions at [the Petitioner] have obtained at least a [b]achelor's degree in business 
administration or the equivalent in education and work experience." 
Although the Petitioner attempts on appeal to characterize its degree requirement as a bachelor's 
degree in both business administration and fashion, as detailed above, this is not supported by the 
evidence in the record and the claims made in response to the RFE. Additionally, the new evidence 
submitted on appeal does not demonstrate that the position requires a degree that combines both 
business and fashion. For example, the Petitioner submits on appeal a letter from the dean of the 
college at which the Beneficiary obtained her master's degree which states that the Beneficiary has an 
exceptional academic record, that she would be an ideal candidate for an H-lB visa, and describes the 
college's unique degree programs that focus on the business of fashion. The Petitioner also submits 
on appeal a letter from its chief operating officer, who also states that the Beneficiary has exceptional 
qualifications and that she will excel in the proffered position. The Petitioner also submits articles 
about the licensing of products in the fashion industry. However, none of this evidence describes the 
Petitioner's minimum requirement for the position and does not overcome the Director's conclusion 
4 
that the Petitioner will accept a bachelor's degree m business administration for the proffered 
position. 1 
Because the evidence reflects that the Petitioner will accept a bachelor's degree in business 
administration, without further specialization, for the proffered position, the Petitioner's minimum 
requirement to perform the duties does not satisfy the statutory and regulatory definitions of the H-1B 
program. See section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). The degree requirement set by 
the statutory and regulatory framework is not a just a bachelor's degree, or a bachelor's degree in 
disparate fields, but a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the duties of 
the position. For this reason alone, the record satisfies neither the statutory nor the regulatory 
definitions of the term "specialty occupation," regardless of whether the position satisfies any of the 
four specialty-occupation criteria enumerated at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is a 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. The Petitioner has not 
met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
1 An entry requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in business administration with a concentration in a specific field 
may, in certain instances, qualify the proffered position as a specialty occupation. However, we need not consider whether 
a position that requires a bachelor's or higher degree in business administration with a specialization in fashion would 
qualify as a specialty occupation, because the evidence here does not demonstrate that this is the Petitioner's minimum 
requirement for the position. 
5