dismissed H-1B Case: Real Estate

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9872070 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 28, 2020 
The Petitioner, a real estate company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "business 
analyst" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations . See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) . The H-lB 
program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a position that 
requires both: (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge; 
and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty ( or its equivalent) as a 
minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the evidence of 
record does not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the 
questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. 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) 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: 
( I) 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. 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"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. THE PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a business analyst. The Petitioner provided job 
descriptions for the proffered position which identified the primary duties and responsibilities of the 
Beneficiary, along with the percentage of time to be devoted to each duty. 1 The Petitioner indicated 
that the minimum entry requirement for the proffered position is a bachelor's or master's degree, or 
equivalent, in business administration. 2 
III. ANALYSIS 
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. 3 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its 
equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 4 
1 For the sake of brevity, we will not quote the job descriptions; however, we have closely reviewed and considered them. 
2 We note that the Petitioner's minimum degree requirements fluctuate throughout the record. The Petitioner indicates in 
its initial support letter that the proffered position requires at least a master's degree in business administration, but amends 
that requirement to a minimum of a bachelor's degree in business administration in response to the Director's request for 
evidence. On appeal, the Petitioner again states that a minimum of a master's degree in business administration is required. 
No explanation for these discrepancies was provided. 
3 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
4 The Petitioner submitted documentation to suppmt the H-lB 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. 
2 
A. Degree Requirements 
Preliminarily, we note that the Petitioner's degree requirements are insufficient to qualify under the 
H-1 B program. The Petitioner states that at least a bachelor's ( or master's) degree in business 
administration would be sufficient to enter into the position. We note generally that a claimed entry 
requirement for at least a bachelor's degree, or equivalent, in business administration, without more, is 
inadequate to establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 5 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. There must be a close correlation between the required specialized 
studies and the position. Thus, the mere requirement of a general degree, such as business administration, 
without further specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. 6 
Therefore, if a bachelor's ( or master's) degree in business administration is sufficient to enter into the 
proffered position, it cannot be concluded that the proffered position requires anything more than a 
general bachelor's degree. Accordingly, the proffered position does not qualify under the definition of a 
specialty occupation and the appeal must be dismissed on this basis alone. Even setting aside the 
foregoing analysis, we still conclude that the proffered position is not a specialty occupation because the 
evidence ofrecord does not satisfy any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-( 4). 
B. First Criterion 
We tum first 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. To inform this inquiry, we will consider the information contained 
in the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) regarding the 
duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations it addresses. 7 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Management Analysts," 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 13-1111. 8 
5 A general degree requirement does not necessarily preclude a proffered position from qualifying as a specialty 
occupation. For example, an entry requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in business administration with a 
concentration in a specific field, or a bachelor's or higher degree in business combined with relevant education, training, 
and/or experience could, in certain instances, quality the proffered position as a specialty occupation. In either case, it 
must be demonstrated that the entry requirement is equivalent to a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty that 
is directly related to the proffered position. 
6 Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147 (a general-purpose bachelor's degree in business may be a legitimate prerequisite for 
a particular position, but such a degree, without more, will not justity a finding that a particular position qualifies for 
classification as a specialty occupation). See also Irish Help at Home LLC v. Melville, No. 13-cv-00943-MEJ, 2015 WL 
848977 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 24, 2015), aj('d 679 Fed. App'x 634 (9th Cir. 2017). 
7 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. Nevertheless, 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. 
8 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to demonstrate 
3 
Although the Handbook states that "[a] bachelor's degree is the typical entry-level requirement for 
management analysts," it also states that "common fields of study include business, management, 
economics, accounting, finance, marketing, and psychology." 9 Based on the wide range of degrees 
the Handbook indicates is acceptable for entry into this occupation, the Handbook does not support 
the conclusion that a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally 
the minimum requirement for entry into a management analyst position. 
In addition, the Handbook confirms that a general-purpose bachelor's degree ( e.g., a bachelor's degree 
in business, with no further specialization) would adequately prepare an individual to perform the 
duties of these positions. 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. 10 
Therefore, the Handbook's recognition that a general, non-specialty field of study in business is 
sufficient for positions located within this occupational category strongly suggests that a bachelor's 
degree in a spec[fic specialty is not normally the minimum entry requirement for this occupation. 
In its response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner referenced the DOL's 
Occupational Information Network (O*NET) summary report for "Management Analysts," listed as 
SOC code 13-1111. The summary report provides general information regarding the occupation; 
however, it does not support the Petitioner's assertion that the position is a specialty 
occupation. Specifically, the O*NET does not establish that the degree must be in any specific 
specialty. 11 
Similarly, the Petitioner's reliance on Tapis Int'! v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 94 F. 
Supp. 2d 172 (D. Mass. 2000) and Residential Finance Corp. v. USCIS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. 
Ohio 2012) is also misplaced. In Tapis, the U.S. district court found that while the former Immigration 
and Naturalization Service (INS) was reasonable in requiring 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 U.S. district court, INS's interpretation was not 
reasonable because then H-lB 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." Tapis Int'l v. INS, 94 F. Supp. 2d 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. 
We agree with the district court judge in Tap is, that in satisfying the specialty occupation requirements, 
both the Act and the regulations require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, 
that it will pay the Beneficiary 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 experience and qualifications who 
are performing the same services. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(a). 
9 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Management Analysts, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/management-analysts.htm (last visited Aug. 14, 2020). 
10 See Royal Siam COip., 484 F.3d at 147. 
11 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/help/ 
online/svp. 
4 
and that this language indicates that the degree does not have to be a degree in a single specific 
specialty. 12 Moreover, we also agree that, if the requirements to perform the duties and job 
responsibilities of a proffered position are a combination of a general bachelor's degree and experience 
such that the standards at both section 214(i)(l )(A) and (B) of the Act have been satisfied, then the 
proffered position may qualify as a specialty occupation. We do not conclude, however, that the U.S. 
district court is stating that any position can qualify as a specialty occupation based solely on the 
claimed requirements of a petitioner. 
The Petitioner also cites to Residential Finance, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985, 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." As previously discussed, 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. Again, 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, 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. Section 214(i)(l)(B) of 
the Act ( emphasis added). For the previously discussed 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 any event, the Petitioner has famished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition 
are analogous to those in Tapis or Residential Finance. 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 Petitioner also provided a list of several of our non-precedent decisions in which we determined 
that the occupations proffered in those matters qualified as a specialty occupation. The Petitioner has 
12 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)(1 )(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 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 pa1iicular position. 
Section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). 
5 
not furnished copies of those unpublished decisions, nor has it furnished evidence to establish that the 
facts of the instant petition are analogous to those in the unpublished decisions. 13 These decisions were 
not published as precedents and therefore do not bind USCIS officers in future adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3(c). Non-precedent decisions apply existing law and policy to the specific facts of the individual 
case, and may be distinguishable based on the evidence in the record of proceedings, the issues 
considered, and applicable law and policy. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a letter from~---------~ Associate Professor of 
Business Administration atl I University, who concludes that the duties of the proffered 
position require "at least a Master's degree in Business Administration or a related field." We 
carefully evaluated the professor's assertions in support of the instant petition but, for the following 
reasons, determined the letter does not have significant weight in this matter. 
The professor does not discuss the duties of the proffered position in any substantive manner beyond 
what was detailed in the Petitioner's letter. Rather, he quotes, then paraphrases, the duties and 
description of tasks provided by the Petitioner. Like the Petitioner, he opines that the proffered 
position requires at least a master's degree in business administration, without specifying any 
particular concentration for this broad-based, general degree 
As previously noted, even if established by the evidence of record, the requirement of a bachelor's 
degree in business administration is inadequate to establish that a position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. 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 Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 
(Comm'r 1988). In addition to demonstrating that a job requires the theoretical and practical 
application of a body of specialized knowledge as required by section 214(i)(l) of the Act, a petitioner 
must also establish that the position requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a 
specialized field of study or its equivalent. As explained above, we interpret 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) as requiring a degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed 
position. We have consistently stated that, although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a 
degree in business administration, 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. Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. 
Moreover, the professor's conclusion does not acknowledge or discuss other methods that appear to 
be readily available to perform the duties of the position, such as a bachelor's degree in management, 
economics, accounting, finance, marketing, or psychology, as indicated by the Handbook. The lack 
of cogent analysis specific to nature of the Petitioner's position strongly suggests that the professor 
13 Any suggestion that USCTS must review unpublished decisions and possibly request and review each case file relevant 
to those decisions, while being impractical and inefficient, would also be a shift in the evidentiary burden in these 
proceedings from the Petitioner to USCTS, which would be contrary to section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. ~ 1361. 
Accordingly, neither the Director nor our office was required to request and/or obtain a copy of the unpublished decisions 
cited by the Petitioner. 
6 
was asked to confirm a preconceived notion as to the required degree, not objectively assess the 
proffered position and opine on the minimum bachelor's degree required, if any. 
For the reasons discussed, we find that the opinion letter provided lends little probative value to the 
matter here. As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as 
advisory. Matter of Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, we will reject 
an opinion or give it less weight if it is not in accord with other information in the record or if it is in 
any way questionable. Id. We are ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding 
an individual's eligibility for the benefit sought; the submission of expert opinion letters is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id.; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, 502 n.2 (BIA 
2008) ("[E]xpert opinion testimony, while undoubtedly a form of evidence, does not purport to be 
evidence as to 'fact' but rather is admissible only if 'it will assist the trier of fact to understand the 
evidence or to determine a fact in issue."'). For the sake of brevity, we will not address other 
deficiencies within the professor's analyses of the proffered position. 
In the instant matter, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation from a probative, 
authoritative source to substantiate its assertion regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this 
particular position. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
C. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs: "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 .... " 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong concentrates on 
the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific 
position. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. We generally 
consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there is such a common degree requirement: 
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 establish that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed 
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) (considering these "factors" to 
inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that an authoritative source reports at least 
a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent is required for the proffered position, and 
we incorporate our previous discussion on this matter. In addition, there are no submissions from the 
industry's professional association indicating that it has made a degree a minimum entry requirement. 
7 
Furthermore, the Petitioner did not submit any letters or affidavits from similar firms or individuals in 
the Petitioner's industry attesting that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed 
individuals." 
In support of this prong, the Petitioner submitted job advertisements from other organizations in its 
industry. The Petitioner asserts that all the advertisements satisfy the three main elements that the 
degree requirement is common: (1) to the industry, (2) among similar organizations, and (3) in parallel 
positions. When determining whether the Petitioner and other organizations share the same general 
characteristics, such factors may include information regarding the nature or type of organization, and, 
when pertinent, the size, scope, or scale of operations, expenditures, 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. 
The Director noted deficiencies with most of the job postings. For example, the Director found that 
while some of the postings did not identify a specific specialty, they likewise did not limit the field of 
study to a particular field but rather allowed for a wide variety of fields. Specifically, the Director 
noted that many of the postings merely stated a "preference" for a bachelor's degree as opposed to a 
minimum requirement. The Director determined that the mere preference for a bachelor's degree was 
not sufficient, and the indication in several postings that any bachelor's degree would be accepted was 
too broad to demonstrate the degree requirements were in a specific specialty. 
Upon review, we reach the same determinations as the Director. The job postings are general and 
vague, and therefore it is unclear whether the advertising organizations are similar to the Petitioner 
and whether the duties identified in the advertised position equate to the duties and functions of the 
offered position. Additionally, the mere preference for a bachelor's degree in the majority of the 
postings, without farther specification, does not equate to a routine requirement for a specialty degree 
for parallel positions within the Petitioner's industry. Finally, some postings accept a general degree 
in business/business management, which again is a broad field and farther undermines the claim that 
the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 14 
Moreover, the Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence as to how representative these 
particular job advertisements are of the particular advertising employers' recruiting history for the 
types of job advertised. As the advertisements are only solicitations for hire, they are not evidence of 
the employers' actual hiring practices. 15 
14 Even if all of the job postings indicated that a requirement of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is common to 
the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations (which they do not), the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from the 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). Moreover, given that there is no indication that the advertisements were randomly 
selected, the validity of any such inferences could not be accurately determined even if the sampling unit were sufficiently 
large. See id. at 195-196 (explaining that "[r]andom selection is the key to [the] process [of probability sampling]" and 
that "random selection offers access to the body of probability theory, which provides the basis for estimates of population 
parameters and estimates of error"). 
15 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. That is, not every deficit of eve1y 
job posting has been addressed. 
8 
Without more, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first prong of 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
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. However, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated how the duties of the proffered position require the theoretical and practical application 
of a body of highly specialized knowledge such that a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform them. 
Specifically, the record contains varying requirements for the proffered position. In its support letter, 
the Petitioner initially stated that the position requires at least a master's degree in business 
administration. In response to the RFE, the Petitioner claimed that at least a bachelor's degree in 
business administration was sufficient. On appeal, the Petitioner reverts back to its claim that at least 
a master's degree in business administration is required. However, it submitted job advertisements 
which did not require a degree at all, but merely expressed a "preference" for a degree. Moreover, 
several of the postings which required a degree would accept degrees in various fields including 
accounting, accounting systems, real estate, business management, and finance. The record contains 
no explanation for varying degree and experience requirements. The Petitioner must resolve these 
inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 
19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Unresolved material inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate 
the reliability and sufficiency of other evidence submitted in support of the requested immigration 
benefit. Id. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well qualified for the pos1t10n, and references his 
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 did not submit information relevant to 
a detailed course of study leading to a specialty degree and establish how such a curriculum would be 
necessary to perform the duties it believes are so complex and unique. While some related courses 
may be beneficial, or even required, 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 proffered position's duties. 
The Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties 
of the position. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
9 
D. Third Criterion 
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. 
The record must establish that a petitioner's stated degree requirement is not a matter of preference 
for high-caliber candidates but is necessitated instead by performance requirements of the position. 
See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. Were we limited solely to reviewing a petitioner's claimed 
self-imposed requirements, an organization could bring any individual with a bachelor's degree to the 
United States to perform any occupation as long as the petitioning entity created a token degree 
requirement. Id. Evidence provided in support of this criterion may include, but is not limited to, 
documentation regarding the Petitioner's past recruitment and hiring practices, as well as information 
regarding employees who previously held the position. 
We note the Petitioner's assertion that it requires a degree in business administration for the position. 
Our review of the record, however, reveals no evidence of the Petitioner's past or current hiring 
practices for the proffered position. On appeal, the Petitioner does not address or contest the Director's 
finding under this criterion and does not make any farther assertions regarding its past recruitment and 
hiring practices. Without more, the Petitioner has not persuasively established that it normally requires 
at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
E. 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. 
As discussed, neither the Handbook nor another authoritative source indicates that a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, is normally required for positions located within this 
occupational category, and the Petitioner's description of the proffered position's duties provides 
insufficient information to determine whether the nature of the position is so specialized and complex 
that it can be performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent. 
Nevertheless, we have again reviewed the duties of the proffered position in foll. The descriptions do not 
detail the specialized and complex nature of specific duties the Beneficiary will perform. Although some 
tasks may connote a requirement of familiarity with general business principles, the record is insufficient 
to establish that the duties require anything more than a few basic courses and a broad educational 
background. While a few such courses may be beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, 
the Petitioner, who bears the burden of proof: 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 Petitioner does not develop relative 
specialization and complexity as an aspect of the proffered position. The proposed duties do not include 
a meaningful discussion of what the Beneficiary will actually be required to do in the proffered position 
10 
and how those duties require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge. The Petitioner has not established that the proffered position is more specialized and 
complex or unique than a management analyst position that requires only a general bachelor's degree. 
We again reviewed! l's position evaluation wherein he opines that the duties of the 
proffered position require at least a master's degree in business administration. The professor repeats 
the Petitioner's description of duties and draws this concludes with no substantive analysis regarding 
the manner in which the duties of the position are specialized and complex. 
Again, the professor's conclusion does not acknowledge or discuss other methods that appear to be 
readily available, such as a general bachelor's degree or a bachelor's degree in a number of disparate 
fields, to perform the duties described. Again, as a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements 
submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. However, we will reject an opinion or give it less weight if it 
is not in accord with other information in the record or if it is in any way questionable. For the reasons 
discussed, the position evaluation proffered here does little to assist in establishing that the proposed 
position is specialized and complex or unique and satisfies the statutory and regulatory definitions of 
a specialty occupation. 
In the instant case, relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by the 
Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. While the position may require that the Beneficiary 
possess some skills and technical knowledge in order to perform the duties, the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently explained how the identified tasks elevate the position to one so specialized and complex 
that a specialty degree is required to perform them. We conclude that the Petitioner has not established 
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). 
Consequently, the Petitioner has not satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
11