dismissed H-1B Case: Program Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 12, 2025 In Re: 36680612 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for 
specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) , 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-IB 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 the record did not establish 
the Petitioner 's proffered job qualified as a specialty occupation under section IO I ( a)( l 5)(H)(i)(b) of 
the Act. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and reiterates the same arguments and discusses evidence 
already on record and does not specifically address the Director's grounds for denial. The Petitioner 
did not provide any new evidence which overcome the Director's determination. 
We adopt and affirm the Director's decision and add a brief analysis below in response to arguments 
reiterated on appeal. See Matter of Burbano , 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also Giday v. 
INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of adopting and affirming the decision 
below "is not only common practice, but universally accepted"). 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a program manager III - MBA. The Petitioner 
explained that the education requirement for this position is at least a bachelor's degree in business 
administration with a concentration in operations strategy, supply chain, or marketing, or a related 
field or foreign equivalent. The Petitioner contends that the submitted evidence shows that both the 
Petitioner and industry normally and commonly require a degree or its equivalent for the offered 
position . 
On appeal, the Petitioner again references the O*NET summary report for "Transportation, Storage, 
and Distribution Managers" - SOC code 11-3071. As noted by the Director, the O*NET Summary 
Report provides general information regarding the occupation, but it does not support the Petitioner's 
assertion regarding the educational requirements for the occupation to include a bachelor's degree in 
a specific specialty. For example, the Job Zone Four designation indicates that most, but some do not, 
require a four-year bachelor's degree and it does not specify the specific field of study, if any, from 
which the degree must come. The occupation's Specialized Vocational Preparation (SVP) rating of 7 
< 8 is even less persuasive. An SVP rating of 7 to less than ("<") 8 indicates that the occupation 
requires "over 2 years up to and including 4 years" of training. While the SVP rating indicates the 
total number of years of vocational preparation required for a particular position, it is important to note 
that it does not describe how those years are to be divided among training, experience, and formal 
education which, by definition, includes high school education and commercial or shop training. 
The Petitioner also cites to Next Generation Tech., Inc. v. Johnson, 382 F.Supp.3d 252 (S.D.N.Y. 
201 7) as relevant here and uses it to support a conclusion concerning the meaning of what is 
"normally" the minimum requirement for the position. We question the applicability of Next 
Generation Tech., Inc. in the instant matter, as the court in Next Generation Tech., Inc. analyzed our 
reading of the U.S Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) concerning 
the entry requirements for positions located within the different and separate occupational category of 
"Computer Programmers," rather than the category designated by the Petitioner in the LCA relating 
to this case. And the court in Next Generation Tech., Inc. relied in part on a U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration (USCIS) policy memorandum specific to "Computer Programmers" indicating generally 
preferential treatment toward computer programmers, and "especially" toward companies in that 
particular petitioner's industry. 
On appeal, the Petitioner also notes that there is no requirement in the statute that only one type of 
degree be accepted for a position to be specialized. The Petitioner cites to Raj & Co. vs. USCIS, 85 
F.Supp.3d 1241 (W.D. Wash 2015) and Residential Finance Corporation v. US. Citizenship & 
Immigration Servs., 839 F.Supp.2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012) to conclude that its wide range of degrees 
can constitute a specialty required to perform the duties of a specialty occupation. We agree in so far 
that we interpret the statutory "the" and the regulatory "a" to mean a singular specialty, but we do not 
so narrowly interpret the statute and regulation such that multiple closely related fields of study would 
not constitute a specialty to perform the duties of a related specialty occupation. In general, 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 2 l 4(i)(l )(B) of the Act 
provided the specialties are closely related such that they constitute a common specialty required to 
perform the duties of the position. If they constitute a common specialty, then the required "body of 
highly specialized knowledge" would essentially be the same. And in Relx v. Baran, 397 F.Supp.3d 
41 (D.D.C. 2019), the court determined that a specialty occupation existed only after determining that 
the occupation required a specialized course of study the plaintiff had earned. Relx, 397 F.Supp.3d at 
55. 
The Petitioner contends on appeal that the Director denied the appeal based on a misconception that a 
degree in business administration is a generalized degree. But, contrary to the Petitioner's assertion, 
the issue here is that the proffered position here is not a specialty occupation because the record of 
proceedings does not establish that the proffered position requires both: (1) the theoretical and practical 
2 
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge; and (2) the attainment of a bachelor's degree 
in the specific specialty. The Petitioner cannot satisfy any of the supplemental specialty-occupation 
criteria enumerated at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4). So, the Petitioner has not established that 
the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner also states that its job posting for "similarly offered positions" indicate that 
the minimum educational requirement for these positions is a bachelor's degree. However, upon 
review of the Petitioner's job advertisement, the job requires a bachelor's degree in business, 
technology, engineering, or finance. Without further information, it is not clear how the Petitioner's 
job advertisement that requires a bachelor's degree in different specialties from those listed by the 
Petitioner for the proffered position evidence that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the position. The 
Petitioner did not discuss if the acceptable range of degrees for a singular specialty form a body of 
highly specialized knowledge. The Petitioner did not offer evidence that preponderantly demonstrates 
it normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the postings previously submitted from different employers is 
sufficient evidence that the degree requirement is common in the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations. Although the Director stated that the Petitioner did not submit sufficient 
evidence to establish that the job advertisements were for similar companies or that the degree 
requirements in the postings were the same as the requirements indicated in the petition, the Petitioner 
did not provide evidence to overcome these concerns. The Petitioner states on appeal that the job 
advertisements are from similar employers because they are "large and complex business 
organizations," and points again to a paper prepared by Deloitte in 2021 entitled, "Global Powers of 
Retailing 2021," as evidence that the companies listed in the job advertisements are similar to the 
Petitioner. However, several of the companies from the submitted job advertisements are not even 
listed in this document and the Petitioner does not provide additional evidence. In addition, the job 
postings list several different acceptable degrees such as business, finance, supply chain, industrial 
engineering, management, computer science, operations, and information systems, and the Petitioner 
did not explain how these degree requirements constitute a common specialty required to perform the 
duties of the position. The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate the organizations in the 
announcements were comparable to the petitioning organization and that the job duties were akin to 
the duties of the proffered position. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the duties and the opinion letter submitted in response to the 
Director's request for evidence demonstrates the position's duties can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree and specific skills and knowledge in business administration with a 
concentration in operations strategy, supply chain, or marketing, or a related field. The Director 
discussed deficiencies found in the opinion letter. On appeal, the Petitioner resubmits the same 
opinion letter and does not provide new arguments or evidence to overcome the Director's conclusion. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 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. 
3