dismissed H-1B Case: Real Estate Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-B- INC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 16, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a real estate property management company , seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 
as a "budget analyst" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations . See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) , 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(l5)(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 Petitioner had 
not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. On appeal, the 
Petitioner asserts that the Director erred and the evidence supp011s an approval of the petition. 
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 nonnally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
Matter of M-B- Inc 
(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"). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
In a letter submitted with the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, the Petitioner 
described the Beneficiary's duties, in part, as follows: 
• Examine budget estimates for three apartment complexes for completeness, 
accuracy, and conformance with procedures and regulations. 
• Analyze budgeting and accounting reports. 
• Direct the preparation of regular and special budget reports. 
• Analyze monthly budgeting and accounting reports to maintain expenditure 
controls. 
• Provide advice and technical assistance with cost analysis, fiscal allocation, and 
budget preparation. 
• Summarize budgets and submit recommendations to management. 
In that letter, the Petitioner also stated that the position requires at a minimum "a [b]achelor's degree 
in [ a ]ccounting, [ f]inance or [b ]usiness [ a ]dministration." In response to a request for evidence (RFE), 
the Petitioner then stated that the performance of the job duties "is usually associated with the 
attainment of a bachelor's degree in [a]ccounting, [f]inance, or [b]usiness [a]dministration with 
significant coursework in finance, accounting, statistics, economics, and/or quantitative management, 
etc." On the Form I-290B, the Petitioner states that the duties require "a level of knowledge consistent 
with a baccalaureate in finance, accounting, or business with subst. quant. coursewk (sic)." 
2 
Matter of M-B- Inc 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we conclude that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 1 
The initially-claimed requirement for a bachelor's degree in business administration without further 
specialization is inadequate to establish that the proposed 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 Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 
1988). To prove 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. We interpret 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. 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. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 
139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007). See also Irish Help at Home LLC v. Melville, 13-cv-00943-MEJ, 2015 WL 
848977 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2015), ajf'd, 679 F. App'x 634 (9th Cir. 2017). For this reason alone, the 
proffered position is not a specialty occupation, and this petition cannot be approved. 
Even ifwe set this foundational deficiency aside we would still conclude that the proffered position is 
not a specialty occupation, as the Petitioner has not sufficiently established the substantive nature of 
the proffered position such that we can discern whether the position actually requires the theoretical 
and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge attained through at least a 
baccalaureate degree in a specific discipline. If we cannot determine what the Beneficiary would 
actually be doing, then we cannot ascertain the substantive nature of the proffered position, let alone 
determine whether it is a specialty occupation. 
On the labor condition application (LCA)2 submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Budget Analysts" corresponding 
to the Standard Occupational Classification code 13-2031. According to DOL's Occupational 
Information Network (O*NET), the core duties of budget analysts include "[e]xamine budget 
1 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H- IB petition, including evidence regarding the proffered position 
and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each 
one. 
2 A petitioner submits the LCA to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) to demonstrate that it will pay an H-IB worker the 
higher of either the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the area of employment or the actual wage paid 
by the employer to other employees with similar duties, experience, and qualifications. Section 2 l 2(n)(l) of the Act; 20 
C.F.R. § 655.73 l(a). 
3 
Matter of M-B- Inc 
estimates for completeness, accuracy, and conformance with procedures and regulations. Analyze 
budgeting and accounting reports." 3 
In response to the RFE the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will advise the Petitioner about the 
value of their capital investments and the improvements associated with apartment complex ownership 
and determine the net present value of the apartment complex investment and expected rate of return. 
The Petitioner listed the equation to find net present value, and gave an example in the context of an 
investment in an apartment complex. The Petitioner farther stated budget analysts choose between 
various measures by which the capital investment is evaluated, such as internal rate of return, modified 
internal rate of return, payback, and discounted payback. Lastly, the Petitioner stated that the duties 
include capital budgeting, described as the process of analyzing proposed capital expenditures, and 
information was provided on this topic. These updated duties appear to be more in line with the 
general duties of positions located within the occupational category "Financial Analysts" 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 13-2051. For example, according to 
O*NET, the core duties of this category include "Conduct quantitative analyses of information 
affecting investment programs of public or private institutions." 4 
While the proffered position does include other duties which may be more in line with duties normally 
associated with budget analysts, the record does not include sufficient information or evidence 
conveying what the performance of these duties would actually entail. The generalized descriptions 
included in the record do not adequately convey any particular details regarding the demands, level of 
responsibilities, and requirements necessary for the performance of the duties. Such generalized 
information does not in itself establish a necessary correlation between any dimension of the proffered 
position and a need for a particular level of education, or educational equivalency, in a body of highly 
specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. The descriptions provided by the Petitioner are too 
vague and generic to conclude that the position is a wage Level II "Budget Analysts" occupation as 
designated on the certified LCA. 
Thus, the Petitioner's designation of the proffered position under the occupational category "Budget 
Analysts" corresponding to the SOC code 13-2031, creates inconsistency within the record. The 
Petitioner has not included sufficient detail regarding the proposed duties to conclude that the duties 
are actually those of a "Budget Analyst." We review the duties of the proffered position to assess and 
determine whether the described duties correspond to the duties and tasks listed in the O*NET 
Summary Report. Here, when comparing the generally described duties to the tasks listed in the 
O*NET Summary Report for a "Budget Analyst," they do not appear to correspond. See O*NET 
Summary Report for "Budget Analysts," SOC code 13-2031 at 
https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/13-2031.00 (last visited Sep. 11, 2019). 
We note that for positions involving duties of more than one occupational classification, the LCA shall 
3 0 *NET Summary Report for "Budget Analysts," https: //www.onetonline.org/link/ summary /13-2031.01 (last visited Sep. 
11,2019). 
4 O*NET Summary Report for "Financial Analysts," https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/13-2051.00 (last visited 
Sep.11,2019). 
4 
Matter of M-B- Inc 
reflect the occupational classification of the most relevant, i.e., highest-paying, occupation. 5 
According to the LCA, the prevailing wage for a Level II "Budget Analysts" position, corresponding 
to SOC code 13-2031, in the area and time period of intended employment is $35.21 per hour. 6 The 
Petitioner is offering the Beneficiary $35.21 per hour. But if the proffered position also includes the 
duties of a "Financial Analyst" (SOC code 13-2051) occupation, the Level II prevailing wage for that 
occupation in the relevant area and time period of intended employment is higher, at $36.31 per hour. 7 
The Petitioner has not explained why it chose to classify the proffered position under the lower-paying 
"Budget Analysts" occupation, even though the position's duties include multiple duties that fall 
within the parameters of the higher-paying "Financial Analysts" occupation. The lack of an 
explanation further precludes an understanding of the substantive nature of the proffered position. 8 
The Petitioner has not established the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the 
Beneficiary, which therefore precludes a conclusion that the proffered position satisfies any criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), because it is the substantive nature of that work that determines (1) the 
normal minimum educational requirement for entry into the particular position, which is the focus of 
criterion 1; (2) industry positions which are parallel to the proffered position and thus appropriate for 
review for a common degree requirement, under the first alternate prong of criterion 2; (3) the level of 
complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position, which is the focus of the second alternate prong of 
criterion 2; ( 4) the factual justification for a petitioner normally requiring a degree or its equivalent, when 
that is an issue under criterion 3; and ( 5) the degree of specialization and complexity of the specific duties, 
which is the focus of criterion 4. 9 For this additional reason, the petition cannot be approved. 
Accordingly, as the Petitioner has not established that it has satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it cannot be found that the proffered position qualifies for classification as a 
specialty occupation. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The record does not demonstrate that the proffered position qualifies for classification as a specialty 
occupation. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the 
5 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/pdt!NPWHC 
_Guidance_ Revised_ 1 l _ 2009. pdf 
6 Foreign Labor Certification Data Center Online Wage Library, http://www.flcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResults. 
aspx?code=l3-203l&area~year=18&source=l (last visited Sep. 11, 2019). 
7 Foreign Labor Certification Data Center Online Wage Library, http://www.flcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResults. 
aspx?code= 13-2051 &area~year= 18&source= 1 (last visited Sep. 11, 2019). 
8 It also raises significant questions as to whether the certified LCA corresponds to and supports this petition, as required. 
Though this would appear to constitute another reason why this petition cannot be approved we will not explore the matter 
farther other than to advise the Petitioner that it should be prepared to address the issue in any subsequent H-1 B filings. 
9 Even if the proffered position were established as being that ofa budget analyst, a review ofDOL's Occupational Outlook 
Handbook does not indicate that, simply by virtue of its occupational classification, such a position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation in that the Handbook does not state a normal minimum requirement of a U.S. bachelor's or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, for entry into positions located within the occupational category. See Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Budget Analysts, https://www.bls.gov/ooh/business­
and-financial/budget-analysts.htm#tab-4 (last visited Sep. 11, 2019). As such, absent evidence that the proffered position 
would satisfy one of the alternative criteria available under 8 C.F.R. § 2 l 4.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A), the instant petition could not be 
approved for this additional reason. 
5 
Matter of M-B- Inc 
immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that 
burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of M-B-Inc, ID# 4428061 (AAO Sept. 16, 2019) 
6