dismissed H-1B Case: Restaurant Management

MATTER OF J-P-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 27,2015 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a restaurant, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an "Operations 
Manager" under the H -1 B nonimmigrant classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act)§ 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The Director, Vermont Service Center, 
denied the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
I. ISSUE 
The issue before us is whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation m 
accordance with the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. 1 
II. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
A. 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) states, in pertinent part, the following: 
Specialty occupation means an occupation which [ ( 1)] requires theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in fields of human 
1 We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. Matter ofSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542 (AAO 2015); see 
also 5 U.S.C. § 557(b) ("On appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would 
have in making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); Dar v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 
I 002 n.9 (2d Cir. 1989). 
Matter of J-P-, Inc. 
endeavor including, but not limited to, architecture, engineering, mathematics, 
physical sciences, social sciences, medicine and health, education, business 
specialties, accounting, law, theology, and the arts, and which [(2)] requires the 
attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as 
a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualifY as a specialty occupation, a proposed position must 
meet one of the following criteria: 
(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. 
As a threshold issue, it is noted that 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must logically be read together 
with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). In other words, this regulatory 
language must be construed in harmony with the thrust of the related provisions and with the statute 
as a whole. SeeK Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) (holding that construction 
oflanguage which takes into account the design of the statute as a whole is preferred); see also COlT 
Independence Joint Venture v. Fed Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989); Matter ofW-F-, 
21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). As such, the criteria stated in 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A) should 
logically be read as being necessary but not necessarily sufficient to meet the statutory and 
regulatory definition of specialty occupation. To otherwise interpret this section as stating the 
necessary and sufficient conditions for meeting the definition of specialty occupation would result in 
particular positions meeting a condition under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory or 
regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). To avoid this 
result, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must therefore be read as providing supplemental criteria that 
must be met in accordance with, and not as alternatives to, the statutory and regulatory definitions of 
specialty occupation; 
As such and consonant with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) consistently interprets the 
term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 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. See 
Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in 
2 
Matter of J-P-, Inc. 
a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular 
position"). Applying this standard, USCIS regularly approves H -1 B petitions for qualified 
individuals who are to be employed as engineers, computer scientists, certified public accountants, 
college professors, and other such occupations. These professions, for which petitioners have 
regularly been able to establish a minimum entry requirement in the United States of a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, directly related to the duties and 
responsibilities of the particular position, fairly represent the types of specialty occupations that 
Congress contemplated when it created the H -1 B visa category. 
To determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCIS does not simply 
rely on a position's title. The specific duties of the proffered position, combined with the nature of 
the petitioning entity's business operations, are factors to be considered. users must examine the 
ultimate employment of the individual, and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. The critical element is not the title 
of the position or an employer's self-imposed standards, but whether the position actually requires 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty as the minimum for entry into 
the occupation, as required by the Act. 
B. The Proffered Position 
The Petitioner claims in the Labor Condition Application (LCA) submitted to support the visa 
petition that the proffered position corresponds to Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 
and title 11-1021, General and Operations Managers, from the Occupational Information Network 
(O*NET). The Petitioner further stated in the LCA that the proffered position is a wage Level I 
position. 
In a letter dated November 6, 2014, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will be "involved in the 
daily operations of the business and management of employees" and provided the following 
description of the duties of the proffered position: 
o Business Operations Assessment/Implementation (40%) 
• Assess current operational processes, procedures, and systems, identify 
areas for improvements and changes, and implement initiatives and 
procedures to increase productivity, efficiency, profitability, and 
performance of the business 
• Develop detailed short- and long-term plans for operations that 
establish policies, goals, and objectives, and analyze allocation and use 
of resources, projected timeline for and rate of growth, estimated costs 
and expenses, inventory supply and management and contingency 
3 
Matter of J-P-, Inc. 
• Ensure that business documents are accurate, up-to-date, and valid, 
and business contracts are delivered in a timely and adequate manner, 
and ensure unification of contracts with suppliers 
• Maintain and develop relationships with suppliers, vendors, 
distributors; Develop strong working relationships with internal 
departments 
• Confer with personnel and management to assess effectiveness and 
deficiencies of newly implemented operational processes and 
procedures 
• Monitor compliance with health and fire regulations regarding food 
preparation and serving and building maintenance 
o Financial Management/Budgeting (30%) 
• Review financial statements, such as profit and loss statements, 
quarterly reports, sales reports, and other financial data, to measure 
performance 
• Establish financial strategies, budget, and goals that enhance 
productivity and goal achievement 
• Conduct financial analysis to determine areas for investment, cost 
reduction, improvement, and changes 
• Review expenses for payroll, including calculation and distribution of 
wages and other benefits, equipment maintenance, ingredients, 
insurance, and other costs, and establish accurate forecasts regarding 
expenses and revenues 
• Oversee overall budgeting preparation, management, and monitoring 
processes 
• Develop standard accounting procedures to improve financial 
operations efficiency 
o New Service/Market Development (20%) 
• Research and analyze existing and new mark~t opportunities and new food 
products and services, and develop new business expansion plans in new 
sectors and locations 
• Monitor competitor activities and stay updated about latest industry trends and 
developments 
• Direct and coordinate promotions, advertisements, and other marketing 
strategies to promote the restaurant and its services and to reach new markets 
and obtain competitive position 
o Human Resource Management (1 0%) 
4 
Matter of J-P-, Inc. 
• Supervise the sales managers, manage staff, and prepare work 
schedules and assign specific duties and tasks 
• Interview and recruit staff and make other personnel decisions 
• Train new employees about business practices, standards, guidelines, 
systems, policies, customer service, and quality control 
• Coordinate meetings with team to communicate and discuss 
operational and organizational information 
In that letter, the Petitioner stated that the proffered position requires "a bachelor's degree m 
business administration or a related field." 
On appeal, the Petitioner further adds that the Beneficiary will be responsible for the following 
duties, inter alia: (1) checking "quantity, quality, and freshness of food supplies"; (2) checking "all 
materials used in food preparation and serving to ensure that they meet restaurant healthy and safety 
regulations"; (3) create "weekday lunch special combo items based on seasonal food supplies"; ( 4) 
"[s]atisfy frequent patrons"; and (5) "managing inventories." 
C. Analysis 
Initially, we observe that the Petitioner asserts that a bachelor's degree in business administration, 
without further requiring that that degree be in any specific specialty, is sufficient for entry into the 
proffered position. 
A degree with a generalized title, such as business administration, without further specification, is 
not a degree in a specific specialty. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558 (Comm'r 
1988). As such, an educational requirement that may be satisfied by an otherwise undifferentiated 
bachelor's degree in business administration is not a requirement of a minimum of a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. Without more, the Petitioner's statement that the 
proffered position requires a bachelor's degree in business administration, without specifying any 
specialty within that general subject, indicates that the proffered position is not, in fact, a specialty 
occupation. The Director's decision must therefore be affirmed and the appeal dismissed on this 
basis alone. 
Nevertheless, for the purpose of performing a comprehensive analysis of whether the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation, we will discuss the record of proceeding in relation to 
the four criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
Matter of J-P-, Inc. 
A baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is 
normally the minimum requirementfor entry into the particular position 
As noted above, the Petitioner claims in the LCA that the proffered position corresponds to a 
General and Operations Manager position as described in O*NET, and that it is a wage Level I, 
entry-level, position. 2 
The Petitioner claims in the Labor Condition Application (LCA) that the proffered pos1t10n 
corresponds to SOC code and title 11-1021, General and Operations Managers, from O*NET. 3 The 
LCA further states that the proffered position is a wage Level I, entry-level, position. 
We recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an 
authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations 
that it addresses. 4 The Handbook discusses general and operations managers in its Top Executives 
chapter. The Handbook states the following about the educational requirements of top executive 
positions, including general and operational manager positions: 
Education 
Many top executives have a bachelor's or master's degree in business administration 
or in an area related to their field of work. Top executives in the public sector often 
have a degree in business administration, public administration, law, or the liberal 
arts. Top executives of large corporations often have a master of business 
administration (MBA). College presidents and school superintendents typically have 
2 See 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/pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _11_ 2009.pdf 
3 
We observe that the description of the duties of the proffered position is generally consistent with the description of the 
duties of a food service manager contained in the Handbook. See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., "Food Service Managers," http://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/food­
service-managers.htm#tab-2 (last visited Nov. 25, 20 15). According to the Handbook, food service managers are 
responsible for the daily operation of restaurants and other establishments that prepare and serve food and beverages. 
They direct staff to ensure that customers are satisfied with their dining experience and the business is profitable." !d. 
Further still, in attempting to demonstrate that the proffered position is a specialty occupation position, the Petitioner 
provided numerous vacancy announcements for other food service manager positions. 
The Handbook makes clear that food service managers do not, as a category, require a minimum of a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, as it indicates that a high school diploma is sufficient for many 
positions. Further, even as to those food service manager positions that may require some post-secondary education, the 
Handbook does not indicate that they require a bachelor's degree, nor that the post-secondary studies must be in any 
specific specialty. See id. at http://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/food-service-managers.htm#tab-4. We observe that, 
therefore, if the proffered position were correctly characterized as a food service manager position, and analyzed as such, 
this would not improve the likelihood that it would be found to be a specialty occupation position. 
4 The Handbook, which is available in printed form, may also be accessed on the Internet, at http://www.bls.gov/oco/. 
Our references to the Handbook are to the 2014-2015 edition available online. 
Matter of J-P-, Inc. 
a doctoral degree m the field m which they originally taught or m education 
administration. 
Work Experience in a Related Occupation 
Many top executives advance within their own fi~, moving up from lower level 
managerial or supervisory positions. However, other companies may prefer to hire 
qualified candidates from outside their organization. Top executives that are 
promoted from lower level positions may be able to substitute experience for 
education to move up in the company. For example, in industries such as retail trade 
or transportation, workers without a college degree may work their way up to higher 
levels within the company to become executives or general managers. 
Chief executives typically need extensive managerial experience. Executives are also 
expected to have experience in the organization's area of specialty. Most general and 
operations managers hired from outside an organization need lower level supervisory 
or management experience in a related field. 
Some general managers advance to higher level managerial or executive positions. 
Company training programs, executive development programs, and certification can 
often benefit managers or executives hoping to advance. Chief executive officers 
often become a member of the board of directors. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., 
"Top Executives," http://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/top-executives.htm#tab-4 (last visited Nov. 
25, 2015). 
The Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's degree or the equivalent, in a specific specialty, is 
normally required for entry into a top executive position. Instead, the Handbook finds that these 
positions generally impose no specific degree requirement on individuals seeking employment. The 
statement that "many" top executives, which category includes general and operations managers, have 
college degrees is not synonymous with the "normal[] minimum requirement" standard imposed by this 
criterion. To the contrary, such a statement does not even necessarily indicate that a majority of top 
executives possess such a degree. While the Handbook indicates that top management positions may be 
filled by individuals with a broad range of degrees, its subsequent discussion of the training and 
education necessary for such employment clearly states that companies also hire executives based on 
lower-level experience within their own organizations or management experience with another 
business. Moreover, the Handbook does not state that those positions which do require a bachelor's 
degree or the equivalent require that the degree be in a specific specialty. 
Accordingly, in certain instances, the Handbook is not determinative. When the Handbook does not 
support the proposition that a proffered position is one that meets the statutory and regulatory 
provisions of a specialty occupation, it is incumbent upon the Petitioner to provide persuasive 
evidence that the proffered position more likely than not satisfies this or one of the other three 
Matter of J-P-, Inc. 
criteria, notwithstanding the absence of the Handbook's support on the issue. In such case, it is the 
Petitioner's responsibility to provide probative evidence (e.g., documentation from other objective, 
authoritative sources) that supports a finding that the particular position in question qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. Whenever more than one authoritative source exists, an adjudicator will 
consider and weigh all of the evidence presented to determine whether the particular position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner's previous attorney asserted that operations manager positions are classified in SVP 
Level 7 in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT), and cited that as evidence that the proffered 
position requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree. The DOT does not support the assertion that 
assignment of an SVP rating of 7 is indicative of a specialty occupation. This conclusion is apparent 
upon reading Section II of the DOT's Appendix C, Components of the Definition Trailer, which 
addresses the SVP rating system. 5 The section reads: 
II. SPECIFIC VOCATIONAL PREPARATION (SVP) 
Specific Vocational Preparation is defined as the amount of lapsed time required by a 
typical worker to learn the techniques, acquire the information, and develop the 
facility needed for average performance in a specific job-worker situation. 
This training may be acquired in a school, work, military, institutional, or vocational 
environment. It does not include the orientation time required of a fully qualified 
worker to become accustomed to the special conditions of any new job. Specific 
vocational training includes: vocational education, apprenticeship training, in-plant 
training, on-the-job training, and essential experience in other jobs. 
Specific vocational training includes training given in any of the following 
circumstances: 
a. Vocational education (high school; commercial or shop training; technical school; 
art school; and that part of college training which is organized around a specific 
vocational objective); 
b. Apprenticeship training (for apprenticeable jobs only); 
c. In-plant training (organized classroom study provided by an employer); 
d. On-the-job training (serving as learner or trainee on the job under the instruction of 
a qualified worker); 
5 The Appendix can be found at the following Internet site: http://www.oalj.dol.gov/PUBLIC/DOT/ 
REFERENCES/DOT APPC.HTM. 
Matter of J-P-, Inc. 
e. Essential experience in other jobs (serving in less responsible jobs which lead to 
the higher grade job or serving in other jobs which qualify). 
The following is an explanation of the various levels of specific vocational 
preparation: 
Level 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
Time 
Short demonstration only 
Anything beyond short demonstration up to and including 1 month 
Over 1 month up to and including 3 months 
Over 3 months up to and including 6 months 
Over 6 months up to and including 1 year 
Over 1 year up to and including 2 years 
Over 2 years up to and including 4 years 
Over 4 years up to and including 10 years 
Over 1 0 years 
Note: The levels of this scale are mutually exclusive and do not overlap. 
Thus, an SVP rating of 7 does not indicate that at least a four-year bachelor's degree is required, or 
more importantly, that such a degree must be in a specific specialty closely related to the occupation 
to which this rating is assigned. That general and operations managers are placed in SVP Level 7 
does not indicate that such positions require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty 
or its equivalent. 
The record of proceeding does not contain sufficient persuasive documentary evidence from any 
relevant authoritative source establishing that the proffered position's inclusion within the top 
executive category would establish the proffered position as, in the words of this criterion, a 
"particular position" for which "[a] baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the 
minimum requirement for entry." 
Further, we find that, to the extent that they are described in the record of proceeding, the numerous 
duties that the Petitioner ascribes to the proffered position indicate a need for a range of knowledge 
of business operations, but do not establish any particular level of formal, postsecondary education 
leading to a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty as minimally necessary to attain such 
knowledge. 
As the evidence of record does not establish that the particular position here proffered is one for 
which the normal minimum entry requirement is a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)(l). 
9 
Matter of J-P-, Inc. 
The requirement of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel 
positions among similar organizations 
Next, we will review the record regarding the first of the two alternative prongs of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)(2). This prong alternatively calls for a petitioner to establish that a requirement 
of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common for positions 
that are: (1) in the petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered position, and also (3) located in 
organizations that are similar to the petitioner. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by 
USCIS 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 firms 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 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 
1999) (quotingHird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
Here and as already discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for 
which the Handbook (or other independent, authoritative source) reports an industry-wide 
requirement for at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. Thus, we 
incorporate by reference the previous discussion on the matter. Also, there are no submissions from 
the industry's professional association indicating that it has made a degree a minimum entry 
requirement. 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 
de greed individuals." 
The Petitioner did submit vacancy announcements in support of its assertion that the degree 
requirement is common to parallel positions in the Petitioner's industry among similar organizations. 
Those vacancy announcements are for positions entitled Restaurant General Manager, General 
Manager- Restaurant, Restaurant Manager, Restaurant Assistant Manager, Associate Manager (of a 
restaurant), and General Manager (of a restaurant). Some of those vacancy announcements state that 
a bachelor's degree is preferred for the positions they announce, rather than required. Obviously, a 
preference is not a minimum requirement. For this reason, those vacancy announcements do not 
support the proffered position that positions parallel to the proffered position require a minimum of a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
Further, some of those vacancy announcements state a requirement of a college degree, but not that 
the degree must be in any specific specialty. For this additional reason, they do not support the 
proposition that the proffered position, based on its similarity to those positions, is likely to require a 
minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
Further still, each of those vacancy announcements contains an experience requirement, whereas the 
proffered position is designated as wage Level I on the LCA, indicating that it is an entry-level 
position. See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination 
10 
Matter of J-P-, Inc. 
Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _11_ 2009.pdf For this 
additional reason, those vacancy announcements do not support the proposition that positions 
parallel to the proffered position require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or 
its equivalent. 
Finally, even if all of the vacancy announcements were for parallel positions with organizations 
similar to the Petitioner and in the Petitioner's industry and required a minimum of a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent, the Petitioner has not demonstrated what statistically 
valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from the provided announcements with regard to the common 
educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. 6 
Thus, the evidence of record does not establish that a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to positions parallel positions with organizations 
that are in the Petitioner's industry and otherwise similar to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has not, 
therefore, satisfied the criterion ofthe first alternative prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by 
an individual with a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent 
The evidence of record also does not satisfy the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which provides that "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." A review of the 
record of proceeding indicates that the Petitioner has not credibly demonstrated that the duties the 
Beneficiary will be responsible for or perform on a day-to-day basis constitute a position so complex 
or unique that it can only be performed by a person with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. Even when considering the Petitioner's general descriptions of the 
proffered position's duties, the evidence of record does not establish why a few related courses or 
industry experience alone is insufficient preparation for the proffered position. While a few 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 
duties of the proffered position. The description of the duties does not specifically identify any tasks 
that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. The 
6 USCIS "must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true." Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 20 l 0). As just discussed, the Petitioner has not established the relevance of the 
job advertisements submitted to the position proffered in this case. Even if their relevance had been established, the 
Petitioner still would not have demonstrated what inferences, if any, can be drawn from these job postings with regard to 
determining the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations in the same 
industry. See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 (1995). 
11 
Matter of J-P-, Inc. 
record lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish the proffered position as more complex 
or unique from other positions that can be performed by persons without at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
The evidence of record does not demonstrate that the duties that collectively constitute 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. For instance, the Petitioner did not submit information relevant to a detailed course 
of study leading to a specialty degree and did not establish how such a curriculum is necessary to 
perform the duties of the proffered position. While a few related courses may be beneficial, or even 
required, in performing certain duties of the proffered 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 duties of the particular position here. 
Therefore, the evidence of record does not establish that this position is significantly different from 
other positions in the occupation such that it refutes the Handbook's information to the effect that 
such positions do not require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its 
equivalent. 
In other words, the record lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish the proffered position 
as unique from or more complex than positions that can be performed by persons without at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. As the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
how the proffered position is so complex or unique relative to other positions within the same 
occupational category that do not require at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty or its 
equivalent for entry into the occupation in the United States, it cannot be concluded that the 
Petitioner has satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)(2). 
The employer normally requires a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position 
We will next address the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3), which may be satisfied if the 
Petitioner demonstrates that it normally requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent for the proffered position. In this case, the Petitioner provided insufficient 
evidence pertinent to anyone, other than the Beneficiary, whom it has previously employed in the 
proffered position. As such, the record contains insufficient evidence pertinent to the third criterion 
of 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A), and the Petitioner cannot be deemed to have satisfied that criterion. 
While a petitioner may believe or otherwise assert that a proffered position requires a specific 
degree, that opinion alone without corroborating evidence cannot establish the position as a specialty 
occupation. Were USCIS limited solely to reviewing a petitioner's claimed self-imposed 
requirements, then any individual with a bachelor's degree could be brought to the United States to 
perform any occupation as long as the petitioner artificially created a token degree requirement, 
whereby all individuals employed in a particular position possessed a baccalaureate or higher degree 
12 
Matter of J-P-, Inc. 
in the specific specialty or its equivalent. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d at 388. In other 
words, if a petitioner's stated degree requirement is only designed to artificially meet the standards 
for an H-lB visa and/or to underemploy an individual in a position for which he or she is 
overqualified and if the proffered position does not in fact require such a specialty degree or its 
equivalent to perform its duties, the occupation would not meet the statutory or regulatory definition 
of a specialty occupation. See § 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term 
"specialty occupation"). 
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 in a specific specialty, or its equivalent 
Finally, we will address the alternative criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4), which is 
satisfied if the evidence of record establishes that the nature of the specific duties is so specialized 
and complex that knowledge required to perform them is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. In the instant case, relative 
specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by the Petitioner as an aspect of 
the proffered position. Overall, the evidence of record is inadequate to establish that the duties of 
the position are so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform the duties is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. In other words, the proposed duties have not been described with sufficient 
specificity to show that they are more specialized and complex than the duties of restaurant 
operations manager positions that are not usually associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty or its equivalent. Upon review of the totality of the record, the Petitioner has not 
established that the nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
For the reasons discussed above, the evidence of record does not satisfy the fourth criterion at 
8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)( A). 
The Petitioner has not satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) and, therefore, it 
cannot be found that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The appeal will be 
dismissed and the petition denied for this reason. 
III. BENEFICIARY QUALIFICATIONS 
Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we need not address 
another ground of ineligibility we observe in the record of proceeding. Nevertheless, we will briefly 
note and summarize it here with the hope and intention that, if the Petitioner seeks again to employ 
the Beneficiary or another individual as an H-lB employee in the proffered position, it will submit 
sufficient independent objective evidence to address and overcome this additional ground in any 
future filing. 
13 
(b)(6)
Matter of J-P-, Inc. 
The Petitioner submitted evidence that the Beneficiary received a bachelor's degree in business 
administration from in the Republic of Korea. The Petitioner also 
submitted an evaluation ofthe Beneficiary's credentials, which states that the Beneficiary's foreign 
bachelor's degree is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree in business administration. It does not 
indicate that the Beneficiary has a degree in any more specific subject. A degree with a generalized 
title, such as business administration, without further specification, is not a degree in a specific 
specialty. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., supra. 
Pursuant to the instant visa category, a beneficiary's credentials to perform a particular job are 
relevant only when the job is found to qualify as a specialty occupation. As discussed in this 
decision, the proffered position has not been shown to require a baccalaureate or higher degree, or its 
equivalent, in a specific specialty and has not, therefore, been shown to qualify as a position in a 
specialty occupation. However, an educational requirement that may be satisfied by an otherwise 
undifferentiated bachelor's degree in business administration is not a requirement of a minimum of a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. As such, the Beneficiary has not been 
shown to have a bachelor's degree in any specific specialty, and he has not been shown to be 
qualified to work in any specialty occupation position. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
We recognize that this is an extension petition. The Director's decision does not indicate whether 
the prior approvals of the other nonimmigrant petitions were reviewed. If the previous 
nonimmigrant petitions were approved based on the same unsupported and contradictory assertions 
that are contained in the current record, the approvals would constitute material and gross error on 
the part of the Director. We are not required to approve petitions where eligibility has not been 
demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See Matter of 
Church Scientology Int 'l, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). It would be "absurd to suggest 
that [USCIS] or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent." Sussex Eng 'g, 
Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F .2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987). 
A prior approval does not compel the approval of a subsequent petition or relieve the Petitioner of its 
burden to provide sufficient documentation to establish current eligibility for the benefit 
sought. Temporary Alien Workers Seeking Classification Under the Immigration and Nationality 
Act, 55 Fed. Reg. 2,606, 2,612 (Jan. 26, 1990) (to be codified at 8 C.F.R. pt. 214). A prior approval 
also does not preclude USCIS from denying an extension of an original visa petition based on a 
reassessment of eligibility for the benefit sought. See Tex. A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 F. App'x 
556 (5th Cir. 2004). Furthermore, our authority over the service centers is comparable to the 
relationship between a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director had 
approved the nonimmigrant petitions on behalf of a beneficiary, we would not be bound to follow 
the contradictory decision of a service center. See La. Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 44 F. Supp. 
2d 800, 803 (E.D. La. 1999). 
14 
Matter of 1-P-, Inc. 
As set forth above, we agree with the Director's findings that the evidence of record does not 
demonstrate that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. Accordingly, the 
Director's decision will not be disturbed. 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter o.fOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013) (citing Matter of Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493, 495 (BIA 1966)). Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of J-P-, Inc., ID# 14608 (AAO Nov. 27, 2015) 
15