dismissed H-1B Case: Rehabilitation Counseling

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 14, 2025 In Re: 34887916 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 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)(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 for entry into the position. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner's job proffered job qualifies as 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 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. 
I. LAW 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires "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 2 l 4(i)(l) of the Act but adds a non-exhaustive list of fields of 
endeavor. In addition, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) provides that the proffered position must meet 
one of four 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. 
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"). Lastly, 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(l) states that an H-lB classification may be granted to a foreign national who "will 
perform services in a specialty occupation ... " (emphasis added). 
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 as a "direct support professional." It submitted a labor 
condition application (LCA) certified for a position in the occupational category of "rehabilitation 
counselors," standard occupational classification (SOC) code 21-1015.00. The Petitioner stated the 
position requires a bachelor's degree in psychology, sociology, social work, education, or a closely 
related human services field. The Director denied the petition, concluding that because the position's 
degree requirement is for a bachelor's degree in disparate fields of study, the position does not require 
a degree in a "specific specialty" or its equivalent, and therefore does not meet the statutory or 
regulatory definitions of a specialty occupation. The Director also analyzed the evidence in the record 
as to each of the four criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) and determined that the evidence did 
not establish that the position qualifies as a specialty occupation under any of the four criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. Primarily, the 
Petitioner repeats the same claims presented to the Director in response to the request for evidence 
(RFE) and does not directly address several of the specific deficiencies identified by the Director in 
the decision. For example, the Director concluded that the Petitioner materially changed its 
description of the job duties in response to the RFE. However, the Petitioner does not address this 
finding by the Director or provide any clarification regarding the altered job duties submitted in 
response to the RFE. For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the record does 
not establish that the proffered position is for a specialty occupation as defined in section 2 l 4(i)(l )(B) 
of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
2 
The Petitioner claims, among other things, that the position qualifies under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l) because this criterion should not be interpreted so narrowly as to require there 
to be a single degree program for entry into the occupation and because each of the fields in its degree 
requirement can prepare an individual for entry into the occupation. The Petitioner also asserts the 
Handbook recognizes that some employers accept a bachelor's degree for the occupation and that the 
U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) supports a bachelor's 
degree requirement for the position. 1 
While we agree that there is no requirement in the statute for the required education to consist of one 
specific degree or major, there must be a close relation between the required specialized studies to 
constitute a common "specialty" or each "specialty" must be directly related to the duties of the 
position as supported by the case law cited by the Petitioner in its appeal. When a petitioner would 
accept a bachelor's degree from a wide variety of seemingly unconnected fields, it cannot establish 
that the fields constitute a "specialty" if it does not establish how each accepted and specific field of 
study is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the proffered position. 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 214(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. If the required degree fields do not constitute a common 
specialty, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in 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 of the position. 
The Petitioner also submitted several advertisements from purportedly parallel positions at supposedly 
similar organization to support its assertion that its proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). However, the advertisements describe a 
constellation of minimum requirements in a variety of educational disciplines, including criminal 
justice, religion, and the seeming catchall "human services" field. As noted by the Director in their 
decision, the record also contains a list of "approved human services degrees" submitted in response 
to the RFE. The list includes diverse fields such as anthropology, criminal justice, nutrition, and 
divinity/religion/theology. As noted above, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) must be read in context 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). Therefore, we construe the term "degree" as used 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any bachelor's or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty 
that is directly related to the proposed position. The submitted job advertisements do not support the 
Petitioner's assertion that a specialized degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel 
positions among similar organizations. 
1 See National Center for O*NET Development, O*NET OnLine Summary Report for 21-1015.00 - Rehabilitation 
Counselors, www.https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/2l-1015/00. 
3 
The Petitioner also repeats its claim that it has demonstrated eligibility under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3) because it has submitted educational credentials for individuals who it states 
are in similar positions within the organization. However, the Petitioner did not provide documentary 
evidence that it employs the referenced individuals in the proffered position. The Petitioner provided 
diplomas, transcripts, and job offer letters. But the Petitioner did not provide employment records, 
paystubs, or other evidence that it actually employs the individuals named on the diplomas and 
transcripts to establish that it normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
Finally, the Petitioner discusses on appeal the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Loper Bright 
Enterprises v. Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244 (2024). The Petitioner notes that the decision overturned 
the longstanding doctrine of Chevron deference and asserts that the end of this doctrine makes it easier 
for U.S. employers to challenge USCIS decisions. However, the Petitioner does not explain how the 
Court's decision in Loper Bright Enterprises establishes any error in the Director's decision, nor how 
it relates to our review of the decision. As noted above, we conduct a de novo review the decision. 
Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. at 537 n.2. The Petitioner has not explained how the framework 
that governs a federal courts' review of administrative decisions or agency actions is applicable to our 
review of this matter. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not overcome the basis for the Director's denial, it 
has not established that the proffered position meets the statutory or regulatory definitions of a 
specialty occupation, and it has not demonstrated that the position satisfies any of the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
III. CONCLUSION 
In visa petition proceedings, it is a petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Upon review of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the 
proffered position is a specialty occupation. The petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4