dismissed H-1B Case: Pharmacy

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF R-S- LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 11, 2015 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a retail pharmacy, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a management analyst and to 
classify her as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation. See Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act) § 10l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 
110l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The matter is now 
before us on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The Director reviewed the record of proceeding and determined that the Petitioner did not establish 
eligibility for the benefit sought. Specifically, the Director stated that the Petitioner had not 
established that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation in accordance with the 
applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. The Director denied the petition. 
The record of proceeding contains: (1) the Petitioner's Form I-129 and supporting documentation; 
(2) the Director's request for evidence (RFE); (3) the Petitioner's response to the RFE; ( 4) the 
Director's decision; and (5) the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion and supporting 
documentation. We reviewed the record in its entirety before issuing our decision.
1 
For the reasons that will be discussed below, we agree with the Director's decision that the Petitioner 
has not established eligibility for the benefit sought. Accordingly, the Director's decision will not be 
disturbed. The appeal will be dismissed. 
I. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
To meet its burden of proof in establishing the proffered position as a specialty occupation, the 
Petitioner must establish that the employment it is offering to the Beneficiary meets the following 
statutory and regulatory requirements. 2 
1 
We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). 
2 The "preponderance of the evidence" standard requires that the evidence demonstrate that the applicant's claim is 
"probably true," where the determination of "truth" is made based on the factual circumstances of each individual 
case. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010) (citing Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77,79-80 (Comm'r 
1989)). 
Matter of R-S- LLC 
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) 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 
oflanguage which takes into account the design of the statute as a whole is preferred); see also COlT 
2 
Matter of R-S- LLC 
Independence Joint Venture v. Federal 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 387. 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)(l) 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 -1 B petitions for qualified aliens 
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 -1 B 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. USCIS must examine the 
ultimate employment of the alien, 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 nor 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. Proffered Position 
On the Form I-129, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would be employed as a part-time 
management analyst. In the support letter, the Petitioner provided a description of the proffered 
position and stated that the position requires a bachelor's degree. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner provided a revised job description of the proffered position as 
follows: 
3 
Matter of R-S- LLC 
• Developing new and innovative strategies for more efficient distribution 
networking, marketing, coordinating logistics and expansion; 
• Formulating management strategies to expand client base and client retention 
strategies and working on management business related analysis for preparing 
forecast by managing the pharmaceutical manufacturer relationship and 
negotiations on rebates and contracts; 
• Studying trends in pharmaceutical and related business and performing strategic 
planning and establish management control systems; 
• Developing strategies by monitoring and coordinating entire cycle of pharmacy 
business, planning and designing management ideas from analyzing and 
development of existing business and expansion to assist in growth of the 
operations[;] 
• Coordinating the advertising campaigns and marketing by planning to negotiate 
contracts to perform research studies by developing goals and objectives for the 
staff; 
• Sourcing new partnerships within the US to ensure continuous profitability on 
business; 
• Researching marketing conditions and gathering data to forecast local trends and 
provide information regarding promotional policies and strategies; 
• Establishing positive vendor relationship and timely procurement of 
products/services consistent with pertinent management considerations to obtain 
optimum efficiency and reduce costs; 
• Attending professional conferences to keep the management informed of the 
current status in the pharmaceutical industry; 
• Formulate all strategic plans, growth initiatives, programs and objectives to 
promote and ensure the company's profitability[;] 
• Identify and develop plans for managing marketing strategies and market 
expansion including pricing competitive sourcing and trend evaluations; 
• Work as a team member to maintain proper business budgets and financial plans 
and executing the financial and assortment plans to analyze performance and 
maximize opportunities; 
• Execute the strategic and tactical operational growth plans for the company, with 
particular emphasis on achieving profitability with sales and future expansion into 
new markets[;] 
• Drive the development and implementation of new technology, with a focus on 
rapid development methodology, flexibility and nimbleness, security and financial 
integrity, speed to market, bottom line result, coordinating logistics and entry into 
web marketing strategy[; and] 
• Help to identify strategic alliance for growing business. 
In addition, the Petitioner provided the approximate percentage of time the Beneficiary would spend 
performing the following duties: 
4 
Matter of R-S- LLC 
[The Beneficiary] will spend 50% of her time developing new and innovative 
strategies for more efficient pharmacy operations and business plans by coordinating 
logistics. She will work with the staff to revise objectives of the company and assure 
that said objectives are in line with our goals. As a Management Analyst she will 
assist in smooth functioning of the operations and coordinate with the Owner 
regarding the efficient of the pharmacy's operations. Her duties will also include 
providing assistance in preparation of various reports that are used by the Pharmacist, 
who is responsible for filing mandatory reporting requirements. As a Management 
Analyst the beneficiary will be required to study pharmacy policies interrelated to 
company's personal needs. 
In addition, [the Beneficiary] will spend 30% of her time in studying trends in 
pharmaceutical and related business and do strategic planning of existing and 
potential business to help refine and coordinate management status and establish 
management control systems. She will help in locating and identifying new business 
opportunities. She will have the authority to make independent decisions and 
exercise discretionary authority over daily operations by supporting the marketing 
and discussing with Pharmaceutical professionals. Additionally, she will gather data 
on competitors and examine and analyze statistical data to coordinate business 
activities to obtain optimum efficiency and reduce costs. She will be responsible for 
preparing reports to rate the efficiency and productivity of the Pharmacy's operations 
and ensure the same corresponds with our growth expectations. 
Finally, [the Beneficiary] will dedicate the rest of her time, about 20%, assisting in 
our expansion plans of servicing to Nursing homes, Medical Centers, etc. by assisting 
in planning and implementation of promotional programs to establish Pharmacy 
control systems. She will assist management in operating efficiently by supporting 
compliance in State/Federal requirements and develop operating procedures, 
coordinating the logistics/diagnostic codes entered in the system. 
The Petitioner also stated that the proffered position requires "at least a Bachelor's degree m 
Business Administration, or a related field." 
C. Analysis 
To demonstrate 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. As discussed above, 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. Thus, as a preliminary matter, we note that the Petitioner's claim that a bachelor's degree 
in "Business Administration" is a sufficient minimum requirement for entry into the proffered 
position is inadequate to establish that the proposed position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Matter of R-S- LLC 
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. See 
Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d at 147.3 
A petitioner must demonstrate that the proffered position requires a precise and specific course of 
study that relates directly and closely 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. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Associates, 19 I&N 
Dec. 558 (Comm'r 1988). For this reason alone, the position does not qualify as a specialty 
occupation and the petition cannot be approved. 
Nevertheless, for the purpose of performing a comprehensive analysis of whether the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation, we now turn to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A). 
A baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is 
normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position 
We will first discuss the record of proceeding in relation to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(l), 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. 
USCIS recognizes the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook 
(Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements ofthe wide variety 
of occupations that it addresses. The Petitioner attested in the Labor Condition Application (LCA) 
that the proffered position falls under the "Management Analysts" occupational category.4 
3 Specifically, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit explained in Royal Siam that: 
!d. 
[t]he 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 8 specialty 
occupation visa. See, e.g., Tapis tnt'/ 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. 
4 The Petitioner also designated the proffered position as a Level I (entry level) position. The "Prevailing Wage 
Determination Policy Guidance" issued by DOL provides a description of the wage levels. A Level I wage rate is 
described by DOL as follows: 
Matter of R-S- LLC 
We reviewed the chapter of the Handbook entitled "Management Analysts," including the sections 
regarding the typical duties and requirements for this occupational category. 5 The subchapter ofthe 
Handbook entitled "How to Become a Management Analyst" states the following about this 
occupational category: 
Most management analysts have at least a bachelor's degree. The Certified 
Management Consultant (CMC) designation may improve job prospects. 
Education 
A bachelor's degree is the typical entry-level requirement for management analysts. 
However, some employers prefer to hire candidates who have a master's degree in 
business administration (MBA). 
Few colleges and universities offer formal programs in management consulting. 
However, many fields of study provide a suitable education because of the range of 
areas that management analysts address. Common fields of study include business, 
management, economics, political science and government, accounting, finance, 
marketing, psychology, computer and information science, and English. 
Analysts also routinely attend conferences to stay up to date on current developments 
in their field. 
Level I (entry) wage rates are assigned to job offers for beginning level employees who have only a 
basic understanding of the occupation. These employees perform routine tasks that require limited, if 
any, exercise of judgment. The tasks provide experience and familiarization with the employer's 
methods, practices, and programs. The employees may perfonn higher level work for training and 
developmental purposes. These employees work under close supervision and receive specific 
instructions on required tasks and results expected. Their work is closely monitored and reviewed for 
accuracy. Statements that the job offer is for a research fellow, a worker in training, or an internship 
are indicators that a Level I wage should be considered. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. 
Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at . http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/ 
pdf!N PWHC _Guidance_ Revised _I I_ 2009 .pdf. 
5 The Handbook, which is available in printed form, may also be accessed on the Internet, at http:// 
www.stats.bls.gov/oco/. Our references to the Handbook are to the 2014 - 2015 edition available online. We hereby 
incorporate into the record of proceeding the chapter ofthe Handbook regarding "Management Analysts." 
The occupational category designated by a petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the general tasks and 
responsibilities of a proffered position, and USCIS regularly reviews the Handbook on the duties and educational 
requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. However, to satisfY the first criterion, 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. 
Matter of R-S- LLC 
Licenses, Certifications, and Registrations 
The Institute of Management Consultants USA (IMC USA) offers the Certified 
Management Consultant (CMC) designation to those who meet minimum levels of 
education and experience, submit client reviews, and pass an interview and exam 
covering the IMC USA's Code of Ethics. Management consultants with a CMC 
designation must be recertified every 3 years. Management analysts are not required 
to get certification, but it may give jobseekers a competitive advantage. 
Work Experience in a Related Occupation 
Many analysts enter the occupation with several years of work experience. 
Organizations that specialize in certain fields typically try to hire candidates who 
have experience in those areas. Typical work backgrounds include management, 
human resources, and information technology. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., 
Management Analysts, available at http://www.bls.gov/oohlbusiness-and-financial!management­
analysts.htm#tab-4 (last visited September 9, 2015). 
The Handbook reports that although management analysts are not required to obtain certification, 
doing so may give jobseekers a competitive advantage. According to the Handbook, the Institute of 
Management Consultants USA (IMC USA) offers the Certified Management Consultant (CMC) 
designation to those who meet minimum levels of education and experience, submit client reviews, 
and pass an interview and exam covering the IMC USA's Code of Ethics. There is no indication 
that the Petitioner requires the Beneficiary to have obtained the CMC designation or any other 
professional designation to serve in the proffered position. 
The Handbook states that many fields of study provide a suitable education for management 
analysts. The narrative further indicates that common fields of study include business, management, 
economics, political science and government, accounting, finance, marketing, psychology, computer 
and information science, and English. According to the Handbook, a range of programs can help 
people prepare for jobs in this occupation. It states that many analysts enter the occupation with 
several years of work experience, and that typical work backgrounds include management, human 
resources, and information technology. The Handbook does not conclude that normally the 
minimum requirement for entry into these positions is at least a bachelor's degree in a spec?fic 
specialty, or its equivalent. 
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" 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 disparate fields (such as business, management, 
economics, political science and government, accounting, finance, marketing, psychology, computer 
(b)(6)
Matter of R-S- LLC 
and information science, and English) would not meet the statutory requirement that the degree be 
"in the specific specialty," 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. 6 Section 214(i)(l )(B) of the 
Act (emphasis added). 
In other words, while the statutory "the" and the regulatory "a" both denote a singular "specialty," 
we do not so narrowly interpret these provisions to exclude positions from qualifying as specialty 
occupations if they permit, as a minimum entry requirement , degrees in more than one closely 
related specialty. See section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). This also includes 
even seemingly disparate specialties providing, again, the evidence of record establishes how each 
acceptable, specific field of study is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular 
position. 
Here, the Handbook indicates baccalaureate degrees in various fields are acceptable for entry into 
the occupation. In addition to recognizing degrees in disparate fields (i.e., business, management, 
economics, political science and government, accounting , finance, marketing, psychology, computer 
and information science, and English), the Handbook states that a degree in business is acceptable. 
As previously discussed, 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 finding that a particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty 
occupation. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d at 147. Therefore, the Handbook's 
recognition that a general, non-specialty degree in business is sufficient for entry into the occupation 
strongly suggests that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is not normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into this occupation. Even if it did, the record lacks sufficient evidence to 
support a finding that the particular position proffered here, an entry-level management analyst 
position (as indicated on the LCA), would normally have such a minimum , specialty degree 
requirement, or its equivalent. 
The Petitioner also submitted an opm10n letter from of 
University. The letter is dated August 28, 2014. Upon review, we find that has not 
adequately established his expertise to render the opinion made in this matter. 
provided a summary of his education and experience and attached a copy of his curriculum vitae. 
Based upon a complete review of letter and curriculum vitae, we find that, while 
may, in fact, be a recognized authority on various topics, he does not provide 
sufficient information regarding the basis of his claimed expertise on this particular issue. 
6 Whether read with the statutory "the" or the regulatory "a," both readings denote a singular "specialty ." Section 
214(i)(I)(B) of the Act; 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) . Still, we do not so narrowly interpret these provisions to exclude 
positions from qualifying as specialty occupations if they permit, as a minimum entry requirement, degrees in more than 
one closely related specialty. As just stated , this also includes even seemingly disparate specialties provided the 
evidence of record establishes how each acceptable, specific field of study is directly related to the duties and 
responsibilities of the particular position. 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter of R -S- LLC 
claims that he is qualified to comment on the position of management analyst because of 
the position he holds at University. However, without further clarification, it is unclear 
how his position teaching courses such as management, marketing, and business ethics at 
University would translate to expertise or specialized knowledge on the issue here: whether the 
proffered position in this particular petition requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, its 
equivalent. 
opinion letter and curriculum vitae do not cite specific instances in which his past 
opinions have been accepted or recognized as authoritative on this particular issue. There is no 
indication that he has published any work or conducted any research or studies pertinent to the 
educational requirements for management analysts (or parallel positions) in the petitioner's industry 
for similar organizations , and no indication of recognition by professional organizations that he is an 
authority on those specific requirements. The opinion letter contains no evidence that it was based 
on scholarly research conducted by in the specific area upon which he is opining. 
For instance, in reaching his determination , provides no documentary support for his 
ultimate conclusion regarding the education required for the position (e.g., statistical surveys, 
authoritative industry or government publications , or professional studies). asserts a 
general industry educational standard for organizations similar to the petitioner, without referencing 
any supporting authority or any empirical basis for the pronouncement. 
Upon review of the opinion letter, we also find no indication that possesses any 
knowledge of the Petitioner's proffered position beyond the job description. The fact that he 
attributes a degree requirement to such a generalized treatment of the proffered position undermines 
the credibility of his opinion. does not demonstrate or assert in-depth knowledge of 
the Petitioner 's specific business operations or how the duties of the position would actually be 
performed in the context of the Petitioner's business enterprise. His opinion does not relate his 
conclusion to specific, concrete aspects of this Petitioner's business operations to demonstrate a 
sound factual basis for the conclusion about the educational requirements for the particular position 
here at issue. For example, there is no evidence that has visited the Petitioner's 
business, observed the Petitioner's employees, interviewed them about the nature of their work, or 
documented the knowledge that they apply on the job . provides general conclusory 
statements regarding the proffered position, but he does not provide a substantive, analytical basis 
for his opinion and ultimate conclusions . 
Further, there is no indication that the Petitioner advised that it characterized the 
proffered position as a low, entry-level position under relative to other positions within the 
"Management Analysts" occupational category (as indicated by the wage-level on the LCA). We 
consider this a significant omission, as it appears that would have found this 
information relevant for his opinion letter. Moreover, without this information, the Petitioner has 
not demonstrated that possessed the requisite information necessary to adequately 
assess the nature of the Petitioner's position and appropriately determine similar positions based 
upon job duties and responsibilities. 
10 
(b)(6)
Matt er of R-S- LLC 
In summary, and for each and all of the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the advisory 
opinion rendered by is not probative evidence to establish the proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. The conclusions reached by lack the requisite 
specificity and detail and are not supported by independent , objective evidence demonstrating the 
manner in which he reached such conclusions. There is an inadequate factual foundation established 
to support the opinion and we find that the opinion is not in accord with other information in the 
record. 
We may, in our discretion , use as advisory opm10n statements submitted as expert testimony. 
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. Matter of Caron International, 
19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm 'r 1988). As a reasonable exercise of its discretion we discount the 
advisory opinion letter as not probative of any criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). For 
efficiency 's sake, we hereby incorporate the above discussion and analysis regarding the opinion 
letter into each of the bases in this decision for dismissing the appeal. 
On appeal, the Petitioner cites to Residential Fin. Corp. v. U.S Citizenship & Immigration Services, 
839 F. Supp. 2d 997 (S.D. Ohio 2012), for the proposition that "[t)here is no apparent requirement 
that the specialized study needed to be in a single academic discipline." We observe that in the 
Residential Fin. Corp. matter, the U.S. district court found 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." As previously noted, since there must be a close correlation between the required 
"body of highly specialized knowledge" and the position, a minimum entry requirement of a degree 
in disparate fields would not meet the statutory requirement that the degree be "in the specific 
specialty," 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 reasons discussed in this decision, however, the Petitioner has not 
met its burden and established that the particular position offered in this matter requires a bachelor's 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, that is directly related to the position's 
duties in order to perform those duties. 
Further, the Petitioner has furnished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition are 
analogous to those in Residential Fin. Corp. v. U.S Citizenship & Immigration Services.7 We also 
7 
It is noted that the district judge ' s decision in that case appears to have been based largel y on the many factual errors 
made by the service center in its decision denying the petition. We further note that the Service Center Director's 
decision was not appealed to us. Based on the district court's findings and description of the record, if that matter had 
first been appealed through the available administr ative proces s, we may very well have remanded the matter to the 
11 
Matter of R-S- LLC 
.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 M~atter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715 (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 of law. !d. at 719. 
In the instant case, 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. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(l). 
The requirement of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel 
positions among similar organizations 
Next, we will review the record regarding the first of the two alternative prongs of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). This prong alternatively calls for a petitioner to establish that a requirement 
of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common for positions 
that are identifiable as being (1) in the petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered position, and 
also (3) located in organizations that are similar to the petitioner. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by 
USCIS include: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the 
industry's professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether 
letters or affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms "routinely employ 
and recruit only de greed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 
1999) (quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook (or other authoritative source) reports a standard industry-wide requirement for at 
least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, we incorporate by reference 
the previous discussion on the matter. Also, there are no submissions from the industry's 
professional association indicating that it has made a degree a minimum entry requirement. 
The Petitioner submitted copies of job advertisements in support of the assertion that the claimed 
degree requirement is common to the petitioner's industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations. However, upon review of the documents, we find that the Petitioner's reliance on the 
job announcements is misplaced. 
service center for a new decision for many of the same reasons articulated by the district court if these errors could not 
have been remedied by us in our de novo review of the matter. 
12 
(b)(6)
Matter of R-S- LLC 
In the Form I-129, the Petitioner stated that it is a retail pharmacy with seven employees. The 
petitioner also reported its gross annual income as "[ o ]ver $1 million," and did not provide its net 
annual income. The Petitioner designated its business operations under the North American Industry 
Classification System (NAICS) code 446110.8 This NAICS code is designated for "Pharmacies and 
Drug Stores." The U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau website describes this NAICS 
code as follows: "This industry comprises establishments known as pharmacies and drug stores 
engaged in retailing prescription or nonprescription drugs and medicines." See U.S. Dep't of 
Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definition, 446110- Pharmacies and Drug Stores, 
available at http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch (last visited September 9, 2015). 
For the petitioner to establish that an organization in its industry is also similar under this criterion of 
the regulations, it must demonstrate that the petitioner and the organization share the same general 
characteristics. Without such information, evidence submitted by a petitioner is generally outside 
the scope of consideration for this criterion, which encompasses only organizations that are similar 
to the petitioner. 
We will briefly note that, without more, the job postings do not appear to involve organizations 
similar to the Petitioner.9 When determining whether the petitioner and the organization share the 
same general characteristics, such factors may include information regarding the nature or type of 
organization, and, when pertinent, the particular scope of operations, as well as the level of revenue 
and staffing (to list just a few elements that may be considered). It is not sufficient for the petitioner 
to claim that an organization is similar and in the same industry without providing a legitimate basis 
for such an assertion . Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient 
for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sojjici, 22 I&N Dec. 
158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft ofCalifornia , 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg' l 
Comm'r 1972)). 
We further observe that some of the advertisements do not appear to involve parallel positions. For 
example, the posting from states that the position of management analyst I requires a degree 
and five or more years of relevant experience. In addition, the advertisement from 
for the position of business analyst II requires a degree and a minimum of three years of work 
related technical or operational experience. The announcement from 
also requires a degree and five years of experience as a pharmacy technician or directly related field. 
As previously discussed, the petitioner designated its proffered position as a wage level I (entry 
level) on the LCA. The advertised positions therefore appear to involve more senior positions than 
8 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the North American Industry Classification System (NA!CS) is used to classify 
business establishments according to type of economic activity and, each establishment is classified to an industry 
according to the primary business activity taking place there. See http://www.census .gov/eos/www/naics/ (last visited 
September 9, 20 15). 
9 The postings include the following: (1) a provid er of finance and accounting ; (2) a provider of dental service s; (3) 
providers of health benefit plans ; and ( 4) a provider of health care . It does not appear that the advertisements are tfom 
companies primarily engaged in information technology services . 
13 
Matter of R-S- LLC 
the proffered position. More importantly, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the 
primary duties and responsibilities ofthe advertised positions parallel those of the proffered position. 
In addition, none of the postings indicate that at least a bachelor's degree in a directly related 
specific specialty (or its equivalent) is required. 10 The job postings suggest, at best, that although a 
bachelor's degree is sometimes required for management analyst positions, a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty (or its equivalent) is not.11 
As the documentation does not establish that the Petitioner has met this prong of the regulations, 
further analysis regarding the specific information contained in each of the job postings is not 
necessary. 12 That is, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. 
Thus, based upon a complete review of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not 
established that a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, is common to the petitioner's industry in positions that are (1) in the petitioner's 
industry, (2) parallel to the proffered position, and also (3) located in organizations that are similar to 
the petitioner. For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative 
prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
10 
As discussed, the degree requirement set by the statutory and regulatory framework of the H-1 B 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) ofthe Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
To reiterate, since there must be a close correlation between the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" and the 
position, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in disparate fields would not meet the statutory requirement that the 
degree be "in the specific specialty," 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). 
In addition, as previously discussed, 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 finding that a 
particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d at 
147. 
11 It must be noted that even if all of the job postings indicated that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations (which they do not), the 
petitioner does not demonstrate what inferences, if any, can be drawn from these advertisements with regard to 
determining the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. See 
generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 ( 1995). 
As such, even if the job announcements supported the finding that the position required a bachelor's or higher degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent (for organizations in the same industry that are similar to the petitioner), it cannot be 
found that such a limited number ofpostings that appear to have been consciously selected outweigh the findings of the 
Handbook published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics that such a position does not normally require at least a 
baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
12 The petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how representative the job postings are of the particular 
advertising employers' recruiting history for the type of job advertised. As the advertisements are only solicitations for 
hire, they are not evidence of the actual hiring practices of these employers. 
14 
Matter of R-S- LLC 
The particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by 
an individual with a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
·equivalent. 
In support of its assertion that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, the 
petitioner described the proffered position and its business operations. Upon review, we find that the 
Petitioner has not sufficiently developed relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the 
proffered position. For instance, the Petitioner did not submit information relevant to a detailed 
course of study leading to a specialty degree and did not establish how such a curriculum is 
necessary to perform the duties it may believe are so complex and unique. While a few related 
courses may be beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated how an established curriculum of such courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the duties of the proffered 
position. The description of the duties does not specifically identify any tasks that are so complex or 
unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. The record does not establish 
which of the duties, if any, of the proffered position would be so complex or unique as to be 
distinguishable from those of similar but non-degreed or non-specialty degreed employment. 13 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well qualified for the position, and references her 
qualifications. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education 
or experience of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner has not satisfied the second 
alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)(2). 
The employer normally requires a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it 
normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. To 
13 
Again, the Petitioner designated the proffered position on the LCA at a Level I wage leveL This designation indicates 
that the proffered position is a low-level, entry position relative to others within the "Management Analysts" 
occupational category. Such a designation is inconsistent with a claim that the duties of the position are complex and 
unique as such a position would likely be classified at a higher-level, such as a Level III (experienced) or LevellY (fully 
competent) position, requiring a significantly higher prevailing wage. For example, a Level IV (fully competent) 
position is designated by DOL for employees who "use advanced skills and diversified knowledge to solve unusual and 
complex problems.' For additional information regarding wage levels as defined by DOL, see U.S. Dep't of Labor, 
Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. 
Nov. 2009), available at http://www.foreignlaborcertdoleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC _ Guidance_Revised_ll_ 2009.pdf. 
15 
Matter of R-S- LLC 
this end, we review the petitioner's past recruiting and hiring practices, as well as information 
regarding employees who previously held the position, and any other documentation submitted by a 
petitioner in support of this criterion of the regulations. 
To merit approval of the petition under this criterion, the record must establish that a petitioner's 
imposition of a degree requirement is not merely a matter of preference for high-caliber candidates 
but is necessitated by performance requirements of the position. While a petitioner may assert that a 
proffered position requires a specific degree, that statement alone without corroborating evidence 
cannot establish the position as a specialty occupation. Were USers limited solely to reviewing a 
petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, then any individual with a bachelor's degree could 
be brought to the United States to perform any occupation as long as the petitioner artificially 
created a token degree requirement, whereby all individuals employed in a particular position 
possessed a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty, or its equivalent. See Defensor 
v. Meissner, 201 F.3d at 388. In other words, if a petitioner's stated degree requirement is only 
designed to artificially meet the standards for an H -1 B visa and/or to underemploy an individual in a 
position for which he or she is overqualified and if the proffered position does not in fact require 
such a specialty degree or. its equivalent, to perform its duties, the occupation would not meet the 
statutory or regulatory definition of a specialty occupation. See section 214(i)(1) of the Act; 
8 e.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty occupation"). 
To satisfy this criterion, the evidence of record must show that the specific performance 
requirements of the position generated the recruiting and hiring history. A petitioner's perfunctory 
declaration of a particular educational requirement will not mask the fact that the position is not a 
specialty occupation. users 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 v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. In this pursuit, the critical element is not the title of 
the position, or 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 the 
specific specialty as the minimum for entry into the occupation as required by the Act. To interpret 
the regulations any other way would lead to absurd results: if USCIS were constrained to recognize 
a specialty occupation merely because the petitioner has an established practice of demanding 
certain educational requirements for the proffered position - and without consideration of how a 
beneficiary is to be specifically employed - then any alien with a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty could be brought into the United States to perform non-specialty occupations, so long as 
the employer required all such employees to have baccalaureate or higher degrees. See id. at 388. 
The Petitioner stated in the Form I -129 that it has seven employees and that it was established in 
2012 (approximately two years prior to the H-1B submission). In response to the RFE, the Petitioner 
stated that it has not previously hired a management analyst. The record is therefore devoid of 
information to satisfy this criterion of the regulations. 
16 
Matter of R-S- LLC 
The Petitioner has not provided probative evidence to establish that it normally requires at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the proffered position. Thus, the 
Petitioner has not satisfied the third criterion of 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)( A). 
The nature of the spectfic 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 in a specific specialty, or its equivalent 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.P.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 claims that the nature of the specific duties of the position in the context of its 
business operations 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. We reviewed the Petitioner's statements regarding the proffered position and its 
business operations. However, relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently 
developed by the Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. That is, the proposed duties have 
not been described with sufficient specificity to establish that they are more specialized and complex 
than positions that are not usually associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent. 
We further incorporate our earlier discussion and analysis regarding the duties of the proffered 
position, and the designation of the proffered position in the LCA as a Levell position (of the lowest 
of four assignable wage-levels) relative to others within the occupational category. 14 Without more, 
the position is one not likely distinguishable by relatively· specialized and complex duties. That is, 
without further evidence, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that its proffered position is one with 
specialized and complex duties as such a position would likely be classified at a higher-level, such as 
a Level Ill (experienced) or Level IV (fully competent) position, requiring a substantially higher 
"1" 15 prevm mg wage. 
14 
The Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position undermines its claim that the position is 
particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation. Nevertheless, it is 
important to note that a Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty 
occupation. In certain occupations (doctors or lawyers, for example), an entry-level position would still require a 
minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV 
wage-designation would not reflect that an occupation qualifies as a specialty occupation if that higher-level position 
does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. That is, a 
position's wage level designation may be a consideration but is not a substitute for a determination of whether a 
proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 
15 As previously discussed, a Level IV (fully competent) position is designated by DOL for employees who "use 
advanced skills and diversified knowledge to solve unusual and complex problems" and requires a significantly higher 
wage. 
1 '"7 
Matter of R-S- LLC 
Although the Petitioner asserts that the nature of the specific duties is specialized and complex, the 
record lacks sufficient evidence to support this claim. Thus, the Petitioner has submitted inadequate 
probative evidence to satisfy the criterion ofthe regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
Nor do we find any of the case law the Petitioner cites on appeal persuasive in establishing the 
proffered position as a specialty occupation. Specifically, the Petitioner has furnished no evidence to 
establish that the facts of the instant petition are analogous to those in the decisions. 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 (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 of law. !d. at 719. 
Moreover, the Petitioner refers to unpublished decisions in support of its claim that the proffered 
position is a specialty occupation. The Petitioner has furnished no evidence to establish that the 
facts of the instant petition are analogous to those in the unpublished decisions. While 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103 .3( c) provides that our precedent decisions are binding on all users employees in the 
administration of the Act, unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. 
For the reasons related in the preceding discussion, the Petitioner has not established that it has 
satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) and, therefore, it cannot be found that 
the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The appeal is dismissed and the petition 
denied; 
II. BENEFICIARY QUALIFICATIONS 
Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we need not address 
another ground of ineligibility we observe in the record of proceeding. Nevertheless, we will briefly 
note and summarize it here with the hope and intention that, if the petitioner seeks again to employ 
the Beneficiary or another individual as an H-1B employee in the proffered position, it will submit 
sufficient independent objective evidence to address and overcome this additional ground in any 
future filing. 
Beyond the decision of the Director, the evidence in the record does not establish that the 
Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of a specialty occupation. Even if the proffered 
position were a specialty occupation, which it is not, the Beneficiary would not qualify to perform 
the duties of that specialty occupation based on her education credentials, because it has not been 
demonstrated that the Beneficiary possesses a degree in a specialized field of study. 
Specifically, while an evaluation of the Beneficiary's academic credentials prepared by Park 
Evaluations states that the Beneficiary possesses the equivalent of a U.S. Bachelor of Business 
Administration degree, 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 
18 
Matter of R-S- LLC 
specialty occupation, unless the academic courses pursued and knowledge gained is a realistic 
prerequisite to a particular occupation in the field. Matter of Ling, 13 I&N Dec. 3 5 (Reg' l Comm' r 
1968). The Petitioner must demonstrate that the Beneficiary obtained knowledge of the particular 
occupation in which he or she will be employed. !d. Thus, even if the Petitioner had demonstrated 
that the proffered position requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, the petition could not be approved, because 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. For this additional reason, the petition cannot be 
approved. 
III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 
We may deny an application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the 
law even if the service center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial 
decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 
2001), aff'd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 145 (noting that the 
AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
Moreover, when we deny a petition on multiple alternative grounds, a plaintiff can succeed on a 
challenge only if it shows that we abused our discretion with respect to all of the enumerated 
grounds. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1037, aff'd, 345 F.3d 
683; see also BDPCS, Inc. v. Fed. Communications Comm 'n, 351 F.3d 1177, 1183 (D.C. Cir. 2003) 
("When an agency offers multiple grounds for a decision, we will affirm the agency so long as any 
one of the grounds is valid, unless it is demonstrated that the agency would not have acted on that 
basis ifthe alternative grounds were unavailable."). 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each 
considered as an independent and alternative basis for the decision. 16 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. 128. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of R-S-, LLC, ID# 13902 (AAO Sept. 11, 2015) 
16 
Because these issues preclude approval of the petition, we will not address the additional deficiencies we have 
observed on appeal. 
19