dismissed H-1B Case: Operations Research

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF W- LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 24, 2019 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an.__ ____________ __., seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 
as a "senior product associate" under the H-1B 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-1B program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified 
foreign worker in a position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body 
of highly specialized knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific 
specialty ( or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation . 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief contending that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 1 
I. 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. 
1 We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 
(AAO 2010). 
Matter of W- LLC 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a 
non-exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered 
position must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
(]) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel 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. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 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"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
In the H-lB petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a "senior product 
associate." The Petitioner initially provided the position's description, and expanded on those duties 
in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE). For the sake of brevity, we will not quote 
the most recent version; however, we note that we have closely reviewed and considered the duties. 
According to the Petitioner, the proffered position requires a Bachelor's degree in electrical 
engineering, engineering management, industrial engineering, or a related quantitative field. 
III. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded the evidence was insufficient to establish that the position qualified as a 
specialty occupation under at least one of the criteria in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). On appeal, the 
Petitioner discusses the position's qualification as a specialty occupation solely under the criterion in 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(]) and (4). It does not provide new documentary evidence, or otherwise 
challenge the Director's determination of ineligibility, under the criteria in subsections (2), or (3) of 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Therefore, we will focus our discussion on whether the position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation under the criterion in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(]) and (4). 
2 
Matter of W- LLC 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 2 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its 
equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 
A. First Criterion 
We tum to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(]), which requires that a baccalaureate or 
higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry 
into the particular position. To inform this inquiry, we recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) 
Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and educational 
requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 
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. 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. 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-1 B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Operations Research Analysts" 
( corresponding to the Standard Occupational Category code 15-2031 ). 3 The subchapter of the 
Handbook titled "How to Become an Operations Research Analyst" states, in relevant part, "although 
some employers prefer to hire applicants with a master's degree, many entry-level positions are 
available for those with a bachelor's degree." 4 The Handbook farther states, that while "some schools 
offer bachelor's and advanced degree programs in operations research, some analysts have degrees in 
other technical or quantitative fields, such as engineering, computer science, analytics, or 
mathematics." 5 The Handbook indicates farther that courses in various fields such as engineering, 
mathematics, computer science, economics, and political science are useful because "operations 
research is a multidisciplinary field with a wide variety of applications." 6 Because the Handbook 
recognizes this occupation as multidisciplinary, and does not identify a specific discipline to perform 
the duties of the occupation, the Handbook does not support a conclusion that these positions comprise 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H- IB petition, including evidence regarding the proffered position 
and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each 
one. 
3 A petitioner submits the LCA to DOL to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B worker the higher of either the prevailing 
wage for the occupational classification in the area of employment or the actual wage paid by the employer to other 
employees with similar duties. experience, and qualifications. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.73l(a). 
4 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Operations Research Analysts, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/math/operations-research-analysts.htm#tab-4 (last visited Aug. 7, 2019). 
5 Id. 
6 Id. 
3 
Matter of W- LLC 
an occupational group for which normally the minimum requirement for entry is at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
The Petitioner also references DOL's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) summary report 
for "Operations Research Analysts" listed under SOC 15-2031 for our consideration under this 
criterion. Though relevant, the information the Petitioner submits from the O*NET does not establish 
the Petitioner's eligibility under the first criterion, as it does not establish that a bachelor's degree in 
a specific specialty, or the equivalent, is normally required. The summary report provides general 
information regarding the occupation; however, it does not support the Petitioner's assertion regarding 
the educational requirements for these positions. For example, the Specific Vocational Preparation 
(SVP) rating, which is defined as "the amount oflapsed time required by a typical worker to learn the 
techniques, acquire the information, and develop the facility needed for average performance in a 
specific job-worker situation," cited within the O*NET's Job Zone designates this occupation as 
having an SVP of 8.0 and above. 7 This indicates that the occupation requires "over 4 years up to and 
including 10 years" of training. 
While the SVP rating provides the total number of years of vocational preparation required for a 
particular position, it is important to note that it does not describe how these years are to be divided 
among training, formal education, and experience - and it does not specify the particular type of 
degree, if any, that a position would require. 8 Further, the summary report provides the educational 
requirements of"respondents," but does not account for 100% of the "respondents." The respondents' 
positions within the occupation are not distinguished by career level (e.g., entry-level, mid-level, 
senior-level). Additionally, the graph in the summary report does not indicate that the "education 
level" for the respondents must be in a specific specialty. 
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 
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 
7 https://onetonline.org/link/summary/15-2031.00 (last visited Aug. 7, 2019). 
8 https://www.onetonline.org/help/online/svp (last visited Aug. 7, 2019). 
4 
Matter of W- LLC 
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. 
The Petitioner also cites Tapis Int'l v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 94 F. Supp. 2d 172, 
175-76 (D. Mass. 2000) to support the premise that the knowledge obtained while earning a degree, 
not the title of the degree, is the focus of the specialization requirement, particularly where a specific 
degree is not available in a particular field. 
In Tapis, the district court found that, although the former Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) reasonably required a bachelor's degree in a specific field, it abused its discretion by ignoring 
the portion of the regulations that allows for the equivalent of a specialized baccalaureate 
degree. According to the district court, the INS' s interpretation was not reasonable because then H-1 B 
visas would only be available in fields where a specific degree was offered, ignoring the statutory 
definition allowing for "various combinations of academic and experience based training." Id. at 
176. The court elaborated that "[i]n fields where no specifically tailored baccalaureate program exists, 
the only possible way to achieve something equivalent is by studying a related field (or fields) and 
then obtaining specialized experience." Id. at 177. Under Tapis, a petitioner could demonstrate the 
equivalent of a specialized bachelor's degree if "the employer can show that [it] requires a certain type 
of bachelor's degree ([ e.g.,] business or marketing) in addition to specialized experience or training 
([ e.g.,] design)." Id. at 176 ( emphasis in the original). 
The Petitioner does not establish that Tapis is applicable here, as it does not discuss how the varied 
minimum requirements for the instant position are analogous to the fact pattern presented in Tapis. 
Thus, we are not persuaded by the Petitioner's citation to Tapis. 
We also do not conclude that the Tapis court states that any position can qualify as a specialty 
occupation based solely on the claimed requirements of a petitioner. Instead, we must examine the 
actual employment requirements, and, on the basis of that examination, determine whether the position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. See generally Defensor, 201 F.3d 384. The focus is neither the 
title of the position, the knowledge of the beneficiary, nor the fact that an employer has routinely 
insisted on certain educational standards, but whether performance of 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 a specific specialty as the minimum for entry into the occupation 
as required by the Act. 
The Petitioner also cites to Raj and Co. v. USCIS, 85 F. Supp. 3d 1241, 1246 (W.D. Wash. 2015) for 
the proposition that "there is no mandate that a degree requirement be in a singular, specific field." 
Upon review, it appears that the Petitioner misinterprets Raj and confuses the issue of a beneficiary's 
qualifications with the issue of a proffered position's qualifications as a specialty occupation. 9 For 
9 Again, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the skill set or education of a proposed beneficiary, 
but whether the position itself qualifies as a specialty occupation. Thus, whether or not the Beneficiary in this case has 
completed a specialized course of study directly related to the proffered position is inelevant to the issue of whether the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, i.e., whether the duties of the proffered position require the 
5 
Matter of W- LLC 
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. 
In Raj, the court stated that a specialty occupation requires the attainment of a bachelor's degree or 
higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 10 The court confirmed that this issue is well-settled in 
case law and with users' reasonable interpretation of the regulatory framework. In the decision, the 
court noted that "permitting an occupation to qualify simply by requiring a generalized bachelor degree 
would run contrary to congressional intent to provide a visa program for specialized, as opposed to 
merely educated, workers." The court stated that the regulatory provisions do not restrict qualifying 
occupations to those for which there exists a single, specifically tailored and titled degree program; 
but rather, the statute and regulations contain an equivalency provision. 
We agree with the court that a specialty occupation is one that requires the attainment of a bachelor's 
or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. The occupational category designated by a 
petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered 
position, and users regularly reviews the Handbook on the duties and educational requirements of 
the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 
However, we again note that the degree requirement set by the statutory and regulatory framework of 
the H-1B program is not just a bachelor's or higher degree, but a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty that is directly related to the duties of the position. See section 214(i)(l)(b) of the Act, 
8 e.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). To be consistent with this statutory and regulatory framework, we construe 
the term "degree" in this and other criteria to mean not just any bachelor's or higher degree, but one 
in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d 
at 147. 
In any event, the Petitioner has famished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition 
are analogous to those in Residential Finance, Tapis, or Raj. We also note that, in contrast to the broad 
precedential authority of the case law of a United States circuit court, we are not bound to follow the 
published decision of a United States district court in matters arising even within the same district. See 
Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715, 719-20 (BIA 1993). Although the reasoning underlying a district 
judge's decision will be given due consideration when it is properly before us, the analysis does not 
have to be followed as a matter oflaw. Id. 
The record lacks sufficient evidence to support a finding that the proffered position is one for which a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and the attainment of a bachelor's degree 
or higher in a specific specialty. or its equivalent. Section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
10 The court in Raj determined that the evidence in the record demonstrated that the particular position proffered required 
a bachelor's degree in market research or its equivalent as a minimum for entry. Further, the court noted that "[t]he patently 
specialized nature of the position sets it apalt from those that merely require a generic degree." The position in Raj can, 
therefore, be distinguished from the instant position. As we have found, here the duties and requirements of the position 
as described in the record of proceeding do not indicate that this particular position proffered by the petitioner is one for 
which a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry. 
6 
Matter of W- LLC 
requirement for entry. For the aforementioned reasons, 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. Thus, 
the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(]). 
B. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature 
of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
The Petitioner provided information regarding the proffered position and its business operations, 
including the documentation previously outlined. We note the Petitioner's submission of a detailed 
overview of the proffered position. However, while the evidence submitted demonstrates that the 
position may require that the Beneficiary possess some skills and technical knowledge in order to 
perform these duties, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how these tasks require the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment of 
a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty ( or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into 
the occupation. The responsibilities for the proffered position contain generalized functions without 
providing sufficient information regarding the particular work, and associated educational 
requirements, into which the duties would manifest themselves in their day-to-day performance. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that its proffered position is one with duties sufficiently 
specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and 
alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner 
has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of W- LLC, ID# 4669201 (AAO Sept. 24, 2019) 
7