dismissed H-1B Case: Restaurant Management

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington. DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: LIN 04 09 1 5 1484 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 5Ep 0 7 2005 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U. S.C. fj 1 10 1 (a)(15)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
LIN 04 091 51484 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and the matter is now before 
the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. The petition will be denied. 
The petitioner is a restaurant that seeks to employ the beneficiary as an assistant manager. The petitioner 
endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to 
5 10 l(a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 1 (a)(lS)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition because the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. On appeal, 
counsel submits a brief. 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 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. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, the position must meet one of 
the following criteria: 
(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. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) interprets the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is 
directly related to the proffered position. 
The record of proceeding before the AAO contains: (1) Form 1-129 and supporting documentation; (2) the 
director's request for additional evidence; (3) the petitioner's response to the director's request; (4) the 
director's denial letter; and (5) Form I-290B and supporting documentation. The AAO reviewed the record in 
its entirety before issuing its decision. 
The petitioner is seeking the beneficiary's services as an assistant manager. Evidence of the beneficiary's 
duties includes: the 1-129 petition; the petitioner's November 20, 2003 letter in support of the petition; and the 
petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence. According to this evidence, the beneficiary would 
LIN 04 091 51484 
Page 3 
perform duties that entail: directing dining room and coordinating food service activities; supervising and 
training employees; and handling payroll and banking. The petitioner indicated that a qualified candidate for 
the job would possess a bachelor's degree in tourism. 
The director found that the proffered position was not a specialty occupation because the proposed duties are 
not so complex as to require a baccalaureate degree. Citing to the Department of Labor's (DOL) 
Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook), 2002-2003 edition, the director noted that the minimum 
requirement for entry into the position was not a baccalaureate degree or its equivalent in a specific specialty. 
The director found further that the petitioner failed to, establish any of the criteria found at 8 C.F.R. 
$ 2 14.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
On appeal, counsel states, in part, that the petitioner, which is a fine dining establishment, demands the 
highest caliber of employees with the highest standards of training and service. Counsel states further that the 
DOL's O*Net indicates that a significant level of training and education are necessary for first-line 
supervisors and managers of food preparation and serving workers. Counsel also states that the Dictionary of 
Occupational Titles (DOT) assigns the position an SVP rating of 3, indicating that some positions may require 
a bachelor's degree, which, according to counsel, is true for the proffered position. 
Upon review of the record, the petitioner has established none of the four criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. 
$ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Therefore, the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 
The AAO turns first to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I) and (2): a baccalaureate or higher 
degree or its equivalent is the normal minimum requirement for entry into the particular position; a degree 
requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar orginizations; or a particular 
position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree. 
Factors often considered by CIS when determining these criteria include: 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 fms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms 
"routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1 15 1, 1 165 (D. 
Minn. 1999)(quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Suva, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1 102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
The AAO routinely consults the Handbook for its information about the duties and educational requirements of 
particular occupations. The AAO does not concur with counsel that the proffered position, which is primarily 
that of a food service manager, is a specialty occupation. No evidence in the Handbook, 2004-2005 edition, 
indicates that a baccalaureate or higher degree, or its equivalent, is required for a food service manager job. 
Counsel's reference to and assertions about the relevance of information from O*Net and the DOT are not 
persuasive. Neither the DOT'S SVP rating nor a Job Zone category indicates that a particular occupation 
requires the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree, or its equivalent, in a specific specialty as a 
minimum for entry into the occupation. An SVP rating and Job Zone category are meant to indicate only the 
total number of years of vocational preparation required for a particular position. Neither classification 
describes how those years are to be divided among training, formal education, and experience, nor specifies 
the particular type of degree, if any, that a position would require. 
LIN 04 091 51484 
Page 4 
The record does not include any evidence regarding parallel positions in the petitioner's industry. The record 
also does not include any evidence from professional associations regarding an industry standard, or 
documentation to support the complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position. The petitioner, therefore, 
has not established the criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I) or (2). 
The AAO now turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3) - the employer normally requires a 
degree or its equivalent for the position. On appeal, counsel states that the petitioner demands the highest caliber 
of employees. The record, however, does not contain any evidence of the petitioner's past hiring practices and 
therefore, the petitioner has not met its burden of proof in this regard. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. 
Matter of Soflci, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Coinm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
Finally, the AAO turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4) - the nature of the specific duties is 
so specialized and complex that knowIedge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. 
To the extent that they are depicted in the record, the duties do not appear so specialized and complex as to 
require the highly specialized knowledge associated with a baccalaureate or higher degree, or its equivalent, 
in a specific specialty. Therefore, the evidence does not establish that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation under 8 C.F.R. 5 2 14.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
As related in the discussion above, the petitioner has failed to establish that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation. Accordingly, the AAO shall not disturb the director's denial of the petition. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.