dismissed H-1B Case: Project Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 18, 2024 In Re: 33861453 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-IB nonimmigrant 
classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § l 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to 
file a petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to temporarily employ a 
qualified foreign worker in a position that requires both: (a) the theoretical and practical application 
of a body of highly specialized knowledge; and (b) the attainment of a bachelor 's or higher degree in 
the specific specialty ( or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. The matter is now before us on appeal 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter ofChristo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Act defines an H-lB nonirnmigrant as a foreign national "who is 
coming temporarily to the United States to perform services ... in a specialty occupation described in 
section 214(i)(l) ... "(emphasis added). Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l) , defines 
the term "specialty occupation" as an occupation that requires the "theoretical and practical application 
of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the 
specific specialty ( or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates section 214(i)(l) of the Act, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. 
In addition, 8 C.F .R. § 2 l 4.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A) provides that the proffered position must meet one of the 
following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation position: (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. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must be read with the statutory and regulatory 
definitions of a specialty occupation under section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
We construe the term "degree" to mean not just any baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a 
specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. 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"). 
Accordingly, to determine whether a beneficiary will be employed in a specialty occupation, we look 
to the record to ascertain the services the beneficiary will perform and whether such services require 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge attained through at 
least a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
By regulation, the Director is charged with determining whether the petition involves a specialty 
occupation as defined in section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(2). The Director 
may request additional evidence in the course of making this determination. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(8). 
In addition, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the petition and must continue to 
be eligible through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary in the position of "engineer project manager." On the 
certified labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the petition, the Petitioner 
designated the position to be in the occupational category of "Project Management Specialists," with 
Standard Occupational Category (SOC) code 13-1082. The Petitioner did not initially provide its 
minimum educational requirements for the position, but stated that the position is recognized by the 
U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) as a professional position which normally requires a bachelor's or 
higher degree in a specific specialty based upon the DOL's Occupational Outlook Handbook 
(Handbook). See Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 
Project Management Specialists (Aug. 29, 2024), www.https://bls.gov/ooh/business-and­
financial/project-management-specialists.htm. The Handbook states that individuals in this 
occupational category typically need "a bachelor's degree in business, project management, or a 
related field" and that some employers "prefer to have candidates who have a degree in a technical 
field related to the industry in which they will work, such as computer and information technology or 
engineering." In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner still did not 
articulate its minimum requirement for the position. Instead, the Petitioner asserted that the position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation based upon the Handbook's guidance, based upon the educational 
requirements of other employers' positions, and based upon the specialized and complex nature of the 
position's job duties. 
2 
The Director denied the petition, finding that the Petitioner did not specify its minimum educational 
requirements for the position and therefore did not establish that the position is a specialty occupation 
as defined by the statute and regulations. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that it need not state its minimum requirements for the position to 
establish that the position is a specialty occupation. Instead, the Petitioner claims that, based upon the 
statutory and regulatory language, the appropriate question is the educational requirement for the 
occupational category in general, and not the specific requirements for the Petitioner's proffered 
position. The Petitioner also points to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii)(A) in support of this 
claim, and notes that the third criterion, at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii)(A)(3), states that a position can 
be a specialty occupation if the employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position. 
Because a petitioner need only establish one of the four criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii)(A), the 
Petitioner claims that it only needs to demonstrate its own minimum requirements if it is seeking to 
establish eligibility based upon this criterion. The Petitioner contends that, by requiring it to state its 
minimum requirements, USCIS is improperly requiring it to establish the third criterion, regardless of 
whether the position establishes any other criterion. 
The Petitioner's claim that it need not describe its minimum requirements for the proffered position in 
order to establish eligibility is not persuasive. Although the occupational category is an important 
consideration when determining whether a position is a specialty occupation ( and the designation of a 
specific occupational category is necessary for obtaining the requisite certified LCA), it is the actual 
services that the Beneficiary will provide, in addition to the general occupational category, that we 
look to in determining whether the Beneficiary will be employed in a specialty occupation. As stated 
above, we look to the record to ascertain the services the Beneficiary will perform and whether such 
services require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge 
attained through at least a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty or its equivalent. The 
Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate that it requires the 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. Section 2 l 4(i)(l) of the Act. Without defining a minimum educational requirement, 
the Petitioner has not met its burden to establish that its position requires a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty. 
We also conclude that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii)(A)(l) does not support the 
Petitioner's reading of the statutory and regulatory requirements, as the Petitioner claims. This first 
criterion states that a position can be a specialty occupation if a bachelor's or higher degree, or its 
equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position. Rather than 
supporting the Petitioner's assertion that we need only look to the normal requirements for the general 
occupational category, the plain language of this criterion states that we must look to the normal 
requirement for the particular position. If a proffered position falls within an occupational category 
that normally requires a bachelor's degree or its equivalent in a specific specialty-as shown, for 
example, based upon information from the Handbook-and the petitioner's own educational 
requirements reasonably align with that occupational category's normal minimum requirements, this 
would in fact be helpful in demonstrating that the position is a specialty occupation under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii)(A)(]). However, a petitioner's minimum requirements for entry into the occupation 
are still critical to our analysis and determination regarding whether a position is a specialty 
occupation. Not every position within a general occupational category will have duties which align 
3 
with that broader category, and therefore will not necessarily require the theoretical and practical 
application of a body of highly specialized body of knowledge or the attainment of a bachelor's or 
higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent, simply because the occupational category 
generally does. 
But moreover, even were we to accept that the Petitioner could rely solely on establishing the normal 
minimum requirements for the general occupational category, rather than the proffered position­
which we do not-the Petitioner's argument would still fail based upon the occupational category at 
issue here. The Petitioner urges us to rely on the Handbook's guidance, but the Handbook does not 
support a finding that positions in this occupational category generally qualify as specialty 
occupations. Rather, the guidance states that "Project Management Specialists" typically need a 
bachelor's degree that "may be in a variety of fields, including business or project management" and 
that some employers prefer candidates with a degree "in a technical field related to the industry in 
which they will work, such as computer and information technology or engineering." See Bureau of 
Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Project Management 
Specialists, supra. The Handbook therefore shows that there are a wide variety of fields that may 
prepare an individual for entry into the occupation, and not that a degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, is normally required. We also note that one of the Handbook's suggested degrees is a 
degree in business. We have consistently stated that, although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, 
such as a degree in business, may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such 
a degree, without more, will not justify a conclusion that a particular position qualifies for 
classification as a specialty occupation. See Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. Therefore, the record 
does not show that, based upon the occupational category at issue, a bachelor's degree or higher in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry. 
The Petitioner also claims on appeal that the Director did not sufficiently analyze or discuss the 
evidence submitted in response to the RFE. The Petitioner asserts that it submitted detailed 
information on multiple projects completed by the Beneficiary, examples of the Beneficiary's work 
product, and professional articles written about the industry and the complexity of the work, and that 
the Director ignored this evidence. The Petitioner states that the Director abused their discretion by 
not discussing or acknowledging this evidence, not explaining the reasoning for the denial and not 
offering a sufficient basis for the denial. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director erred 
because the Director did not cite or discuss whether the position meets any of the four criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
We acknowledge that the Director did not specifically discuss this evidence and did not analyze 
whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation under any of the four criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). However, this does not establish that the Director's decision lacks a sufficient 
basis. Rather, because the Petitioner did not describe its minimum requirements for the position, the 
Director concluded that the Petitioner did not meet its burden of proof to demonstrate that the position 
is a specialty occupation within the meaning of the statute and the regulations, regardless of whether 
it meets any of the four criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
We agree. We acknowledge the evidence in the record regarding job postings from other companies, 
evidence of the Beneficiary's work product, and information about the Petitioner's products, services, 
and industry. But as stated above, the Petitioner has not defined its minimum educational requirements 
4 
for the position and has not defined the specific specialty in which the theoretical and practical 
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge is required. Particularly where the occupational 
category supports the conclusion that a wide variety of disparate fields are acceptable for entry into 
the occupation, the Petitioner has not met its burden to establish that the position is a specialty 
occupation. 
The Petitioner did not state its minimum educational requirements for the position, and therefore did 
not define the specific specialty in which a body of highly specialized knowledge is required. The 
lack of information regarding the requirements for the proffered position impedes our ability to analyze 
whether the position requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty 
(or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry, and thus whether the position is a specialty 
occupation. This necessitates the denial of the petition. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is a 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. The Petitioner has not 
met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5