dismissed H-1B Case: Medical Equipment

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 8819518 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : WLY 10, 2020 
The Petitioner , a "medical equipment refurbisher and wholesaler", seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary under the H- lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations . See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) , 8 U.S .C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) . The H-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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the 
questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the entire record, for the reasons set out below , we have determined that the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 1 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. In her decision, the Director thoroughly discussed the Petitioner's failure to 
meet any of the four regulatory criteria at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)( 1) - ( 4). Upon consideration 
of the entire record, including the evidence submitted and arguments made on appeal, we adopt and 
affirm the Director's decision with the comments below. See Matter of P. Singh, Attorney , 
26 I&N Dec. 623 (BIA 2015) (citing Matter of Burbano, 20 I&N Dec . 872, 874 (BIA 1994)); see also 
Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 7-8 (1st Cir. 1996) ("[I]f a reviewing tribunal decides that the facts and 
1 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-lB petition , including evidence regarding the proffered position 
and its business operations . Although we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered 
each one. 
evaluative judgments prescinding from them have been adequately confronted and correctly resolved 
by a trial judge or hearing officer, then the tribunal is free simply to adopt those findings" provided 
the tribunal's order reflects individualized attention to the case). 
The Petitioner repeatedly asserts that a bachelor's degree in business or economics is required to fill 
the proffered position. A petitioner must demonstrate that the proffered position requires a precise 
and specific course of study that 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 
bachelor's degree without farther 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)(l) 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. We 
interpret 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. 
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. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007). 2 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, without farther 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). 
The Petitioner cites to Residential Finance Corp. v. US. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS), 839 
F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012), for the proposition that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the 
degree is what is important. Diplomas rarely come bearing occupation-specific majors. What is 
required is an occupation that requires highly specialized knowledge and a prospective employee who 
has attained the credentialing indicating possession of that knowledge. 
We agree with the aforementioned proposition that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is 
what is important." In general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry and 
biochemistry, a minimum of a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty is recognized as 
satisfying the "degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)" requirement of section 214(i)(l)(B) 
of the Act. In such a case, the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" would essentially be 
2 Specifically, the judge explained in Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147, that: 
The courts and the agency consistently have stated that, although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, 
such as a business administration degree, may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, 
requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify the granting of a petition for an H-1 B specialty 
occupation visa. See, e.g., Tapis Int "Iv. 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 aiiificial) degree requirement. 
2 
the same. Since there must be a close correlation between the required "body of highly specialized 
knowledge" and the position, however, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in two disparate 
fields, such as philosophy and engineering, would not meet the statutory requirement that the degree 
be "in the specific specialty ( or its equivalent)," unless the Petitioner establishes how each field is 
directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position such that the required body 
of highly specialized knowledge is essentially an amalgamation of these different specialties. Section 
214(i)(l)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). For the aforementioned reasons, however, the Petitioner 
has not met its burden to establish that the particular position offered in this matter requires a 
bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, directly related to its duties in 
order to perform those tasks. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the reliance of the Handbook as an authoritative source is 
misguided and illegitimate based on the pronouncements made in the Handbook and documentation 
obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The pertinent disclaimer provides instructions 
on unintended uses of the Handbook, which are: (1) using the Handbook as a guide for determining 
(a) wages, (b) hours of work, ( c) the right of a particular union to represent workers, ( d) appropriate 
bargaining units, or form job evaluation systems; and (2) using the Handbook's data to compute future 
loss of earnings in adjudication proceedings involving work injuries or accidental deaths. In light of 
the BLS' own endorsement of the Handbook as a reliable source of information on occupational 
categories and their entry requirements, and in light of the examples of unintended uses cited in the 
Handbook's "Important Note," the AAO finds that, if in fact it is counsel's intent to so argue, the 
argument against the use of the Handbook in USCIS adjudications is without merit. However, the 
AAO concurs with counsel to the extent that counsel may be asserting that it would be erroneous to 
accord to the Handbook the weight or directive power of statute, regulation, or any legally binding 
document or directive. 
We do not maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. That is, the 
occupational category designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the 
general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered position, and we regularly review the Handbook on 
the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. To satisfy 
the first criterion, however, the burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to submit sufficient evidence 
to support a finding that its particular position would normally have a minimum, specialty degree 
requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
II. CONCLUSION 
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 here, 
and the petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3