dismissed H-1B Case: Restaurant Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF P-E- INC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE23,2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a restaurant chain, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an "area coach 
operations-in training" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(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, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
evidence of record does not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation in 
accordance with the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
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: 
(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: 
Matter of P-E- Inc 
(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). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has consistently 
interpreted 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 proposed 
position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertojj; 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. PROFFERED POSITION 
In the H-lB petitiOn, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as an "area coach 
operations-in training" (ACO-IT). According to the Petitioner, the proffered position is a "potential 
trainee" position in which the incumbent learns to perform the tasks of an area coach of operations 
position. The Petitioner stated the ACO-IT works with operations leadership to be trained for the 
following: 
• Recruiting high caliber managerial candidates 
• Developing associates 
• Ensuring the delivery of exceptional guest experience 
• Achieving financial targets 
• Maximizing effectiveness by working closely with support center team 
In response to the Director's request for evidence(RFE), the Petitioner submitted a more detailed job 
description, along with the educational requirements for the position. Specifically, the Petitioner 
stated the following: 
2 
Matter of P-E-Ine 
People 
• Culture: Lives and cultivates [the Petitioner's] Culture and Values to ensure the 
2020 vision is alive and in action. 
• Recruitment: Works with assigned Operations leaders (ACOs/RDOs) on 
recruiting high caliber store management and staffing stores effectively; learns to 
develop a pipeline of internal and external talent, including successors for every 
store and Area management position. 
• Training: Works closely with Area and Regional leaders on how to effectively 
communicate and train store management on company policies and procedures 
and on Operation standards; Assists ACOs in overseeing the training of AMITs 
and OMITs delivered by Area Training Leaders (TLs ). 
• People Development: Is trained to actively coach store management in people 
development to build bench of qualified associates; Engages in the Region's Area 
people planning process to understand [the Petitioner's] process for assessing 
internal talent and creating IDPs for management and hourly associates. 
• Associate Relations/Environment: Promotes a safe and empowering environment 
for Team [Petitioner] to listen, appreciate and challenge each other; Works with 
HR to learn how to handle associate relations claims effectively. 
• Work Safety: Learns to effectively communicate work and food safety guidelines; 
Works with Risk management to understand the company's safety guidelines and 
their consistent implementation. 
Guest 
• Exceptional Guest Experience: Works with Area and Regional leadership on how 
to coach store team members on building connections with guests; Learns how to 
ensure operational standards that produce fantastic food, service, and ambience. 
• Brand Awareness: Works with Field Marketing to learn how to build brand 
awareness through community engagement. Receives training on effective ways 
to implement local and national marketing initiatives and promotions. 
• Guest Relations: Works with operations leaders and with Field Marketing to learn 
how to coach store management on resolving guest relations issues related to 
products and guest experience. 
Financial 
• Financial Results: Works with Operations leaders to gain operational expertise for 
achieving business results. Conduct operational effectiveness and efficiency 
reviews in assigned stores to ensure functional or project systems are applied and 
functioning as designed. Compare, review and analyze financial/accounting 
reports including Profit and Loss (Income Statement) of all stores assigned, 
Detailed General Ledger, etc. and marketing and survey reports on spreadsheets, 
charts, and document findings of studies and prepare recommendations 
• Learns how to become accountable for an assigned Area's financial results. 
3 
Matter of P-E- Inc 
• Strategic Planning: Works with Operations leaders to learn how to conduct 
strategic planning for the Area. Learns how to coach store management to identify 
opportunities to improve performance and develop action plans for 
implementation. 
• Store Openings and Site Selection: Works with Area and Regional leadership and 
with Marketing leaders on successful approaches to new store openings and learns 
how to coach lower level Operations managers on these approaches. 
Work Hours: 40 hours per week plus O.T. 
Education Requirement: Bachelor's Degree in Business Administration, Hospitality 
Management or related or equivalent (e.g. two-year Associate's Degree in Business 
Administration, Hospitality Management or related plus 6 years work related 
experience). 
The Petitioner also stated that the major job duties for the position are as follows: 1 
• Recruiting high caliber managerial candidates (I 0%) 
• Training and developing associates (30%) 
• Ensuring delivery of exceptional guest experience and brand building (15%) 
• Achieving financial targets (35%) 
• Strategic planning and execution of all aspects of operations in conjunction with 
Support Center to achieve sustained efficiency and effectiveness (I 0%) 
On appeal, the Petitioner submitted another detailed description of the pro tiered position. 
Ill. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the entire record, we determine that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. Specifically, the record does not establish that 
the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty 
• 2 occupatiOn. 
A. Job Duties 
The Petitioner requested that the petition be approved for a three-year period for a position "in­
training." The job duties, as described, largely reflect that the Beneficiary will receive training and 
1 In the initial petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would be "trained" for these virtually all of these duties. 
However, in response to the RFE, the Petitioner claimed that these are the major job duties of the position. 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 B 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. 
4 
Matter of P-E- Inc 
work with others to learn various tasks as reflected by the phrases in the descriptions, such as "works 
with," "is trained to," "learns to," "learns how," and "assists." However, these statements do not 
explain the particular tasks the Beneficiary will - or will not - be responsible for performing as a 
"trainee." Moreover, anything beyond incidental duties, e.g., predictable, recurring, and substantive 
job responsibilities, must be specialty occupation duties or the proffered position as a whole cannot 
be approved as a specialty occupation. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner provided an organizational chart but stated that the ACO-lT's 
subordinates are not assigned until the training is completed. As the Petitioner has requested that the 
Beneficiary be approved for an "in training" position, we must therefore conclude that the 
organizational chart does not reflect the Beneficiary's role in this position, but rather is speculative 
of some potential hierarchy scheme that may occur a year or more in the future. 
On appeal, the Petitioner reported that the incumbent in this trainee position "usually supervises 9 to 
15 employees in one store [in the] first year" and then will "develop new stores in the following 
years." However, the submitted job descriptions do not include the duties the Beneficiary will 
perform in supervising a single store location for the first year of the requested three-year validity 
period, and the Petitioner does not clarify what it means by "develop new stores," how many "years" 
it is referring to, and whether this job duty encompasses all the other stated job duties. 
B. Requirements 
According to the Petitioner, an associate's degree in business administration, hospitality 
management or a related field and six years of work related experience are sufficient for the position. 
We note that on appeal, the Petitioner states that its policy is to count three. years of experience as 
equal to one year of college education. However, the Petitioner has not established that this 
combination of education and experience is equivalent to at least a baccalaureate in a specific 
specialty. For example, there is no indication that such experience must entail progressively 
responsible experience in the specialty and achieved recognition of expertise in the specialty.3 
Therefore, without more, the Petition'er has not demonstrated that the position satisfies the 
requirements for a specialty occupation. 
Further, the Petitioner states that a degree in business administration, without turther specification, is 
a sufficient minimum requirement for entry into the position. Based on this requirement alone, we 
cannot find that the proffered position requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specially, or 
its equivalent, in order to qualifY as a specialty occupation. 
To demonstrate 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. As previously noted, USCIS interprets the degree requirement at 8 C.F.R. 
3 For additional information, see 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4) and 8 C.F.R, § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5). 
5 
Matter of P-E- Inc 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) to require a degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed 
position. 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 l&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). 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 finding that a particular 
position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertojj; 484 
F.3d at 147 (finding a business administration degree to be a "general-purpose" degree).4 
Nevertheless, for the purpose of performing a comprehensive analysis, we will discuss the evidence 
of record under each criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 5 
A. 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 recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's 
(DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 6 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-IB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "General and Operations 
Managers," corresponding to Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 11-1021.7 The 
4 A general degree requirement does not necessarily preclude a proffered posmon 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 administration combined with relevant 
education, training, and/or experience may, in certain instances, qualify 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. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d at 147. 
5 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each criterion individually. 
6 All of our references are to the 2016-17 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not, however, 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 USC IS regularly reviews the Handbook on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. To satisfy the first criterion, however, 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. 
7 The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Levell wage (the lowest of four assignable wage levels). We will 
consider this selection in our analysis of the position. The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" issued by 
the DOL provides a description of the wage levels. A prevailing wage determination starts with an entry level wage and 
progresses to a higher wage level after considering the experience, education, and skill requirements of the Petitioner's 
job opportunity. A Level I wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which the Petitioner expects the 
Beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the occupation. This wage rate indicates: (I) that the Beneficiary will be 
expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that he will be closely supervised 
6 
Matter of P-E- Inc 
Handbook states, in pertinent part, that "workers without a college degree may work their way up to 
higher levels within the company to become ... general managers." 8 It also reports that "(m]ost 
general and operations managers hired from outside an organization need lower level supervisory or 
management experience in a related field."9 According to the Handbook, the "educational 
requirements [for general and operations mangers] vary by industry, but candidates who can 
demonstrate strong leadership abilities and experience getting positive results will have better job 
· · , I 0 opportuml!es. 
The Handbook does not support the Petitioner's assertion that a baccalaureate or higher in a specific 
specialty (or its equivalent) is necessary for entry into this occupation. Rather, the Handbook does 
not indicate that there are any specific degree requirements for these jobs, and instead emphasizes 
the importance of strong leadership abilities and experience for this occupation. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner references the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) 
OnLine Summary Report for "General and Operations Managers." However, it does not support the 
Petitioner's assertion that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty (or its equivalent) is required for 
entry. More specifically, the summary report provides general information regarding the occupation, 
including a Specialized Vocational Preparation (SVP) rating. According to the SVP rating cited in 
the summary report, this occupation is designated as 7 < 8. An SVP rating of 7 to less than ("<") 8 
indicates that the occupation requires "over 2 years up to and including 4 years" of training. While 
the SVP rating indicates the total number of years of vocational preparation required for a particular 
position, it is important to note that it does not describe how those years are to be divided among 
training, formal education, and experience - and it does not specify the particular type of degree, if 
any, that a position would require. 11 
Further, the summary report provides the educational requirements of "respondents," but does not 
account for I 00% of the "respondents." The respondents' positions within the occupation are not 
distinguished by career level (e.g., entry-level, mid-level, senior-level). Additionally, the graph in 
the summary report does not indicate that the "education level'' for the respondents must be in a 
specific specialty. Further, while the graph indicates that 29% of respondents reported that a 
bachelor's degree is required, the majority of respondents reported that some college (no degree) or a 
high school diploma (or equivalent) is sufficient. Thus, the summary report provides general 
information regarding the occupational category, but it does not corroborate the Petitioner's claim 
and his work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that he will receive specific instructions on required 
tasks and expected results. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy 
Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://flcdatacenter.com/download!NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _I I_ 2009.pdf. 
8 For more information on this occupational category, see U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational 
Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., "Top Executives," http://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/top-executives.htm#tab-4 (last 
visited June 20, 20 16). 
9 !d. 
10 !d. 
11 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/help/ 
online/svp. 
7 
(b)(6)
Matter of P-E-Ine 
regarding that these positions require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate 
with a specialty occupation. 
In its RFE response and on appeal, the Petitioner also cites to the Handbook ·s chapter on "Training 
and Development Managers." However, we find the Petitioner's reliance on this Handbook chapter 
misplaced. That is, despite the Petitioner's assertions that the proffered position encompasses the 
duties of "Training and Development Managers," the Petitioner submitted an LCA for a position 
located under the "General and Operations Managers" occupational classification. The Petitioner 
has not sufficiently explained how its reliance on the Handbook's chapter on "Training and 
Development Managers" is appropriate and consistent with the LCA. 12 
Subsequent to filing the petition, the Petitioner cannot offer a new position to the Beneficiary or 
materially change the associated job responsibilities, requirements, or other salient aspects of the 
proffered position. The Petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing, i.e., that the position 
offered to the Beneficiary when the petition was filed merits classification for the benefit sought. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l); .Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248, 249 (Reg'l Comm'r 1978). 
We therefore will not further consider the Handbook's information or the Petitioner's assertions 
regarding "Training and Development Managers" under this criterion. 
The Petitioner has not provided documentation from a probative source to substantiate its assertion 
regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. The Petitioner has not 
satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
B. Second Criterion 
12 With respect to the LCA, DOL guidance states that if an employer's job opportunity has worker requirements 
described in a combination of O*NET occupations, then the employer should choose the most relevant O*NET-SOC 
occupational code for the highest paying occupation on the LCA. 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 _II_ 2009 .pdf. 
As indicated on the LCA, the prevailing wage for a Level I "General and Operations Managers'' position in the 
IA MSA , for the time period 7/2015- 6/2016, is $41,766 per year. In comparison, the prevailing wage for a 
Level I "Training and Development Managers" (SOC code 11-3131) position in the same MSA and time period is 
$48,589 per year. For more information regarding the prevailing wage for "Training and Development Managers'' in the 
lA MSA for the time period 7/20 15 6/20 16, see 
http://www.flcdatacenter.com /OesQuickResults.aspx?code= 11-3131 & &year= 16&source=l (last visited June 
20, 2016). 
Thus, if the Petitioner believed its position were a combination of both "General and Operations Managers" and 
"Training and Development Managers" positions, it should have chosen the highest-paying occupation of "Training and 
Development Managers" on the LCA. Because the Petitioner did not do so, and did not explain why, the Petitioner 
cannot now reasonably rely upon the Handbook chapter or any other information relevant to the "Training and 
Development Managers" occupational classification. 
8 
Matter of P-E- Inc 
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 
contemplates the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
I. 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. 
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) (quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
As discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which the 
Handbook or another source reports a requirement for at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent. We incorporate our previous discussion on the matter. There are also 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 degreed individuals." 
In support of the petition, the Petitioner provided a few job postings. 13 However, the Petitioner has 
not adequately demonstrated that these advertisements are for parallel positions. The job titles for 
the positions are: regional manager, district manager, area manager, and general manager. None of 
the advertisements are for trainee positions, and the job descriptions do not focus on the incumbent 
training, learning, working with, and assisting (as noted above about the Petitioner's job 
descriptions). Rather, the advertisements appear to be for positions entailing more senior 
responsibilities and requiring significantly more experience, such as 7+ and I 0+ years of experience 
in addition to a bachelor's degree. 
Further, the advertisements do not support the conclusion that a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty is required. Instead, these advertisements suggest that a bachelor's degree in a field of 
13 The Petitioner has not demonstrated what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from these few 
advertisements regarding the common educational requirement for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. 
See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 (1995). 
9 
Matter of P-E- Inc 
general applicability, such as business, is a sufficient educational background to perform the duties 
of the advertised positions. Most of the advertisements indicate that a general or general-purpose 
bachelor's degree (e.g., degrees in business or business administration) is acceptable. 
Based upon a complete review of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established the 
first alternative prong of8 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. 
We reviewed the Petitioner's statements and documentation regarding the proffered position, and its 
business operations. The Petitioner does not specifically assert eligibility under this prong of the 
second criterion, and has not sufficiently developed relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect 
of the proffered position. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. 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. 
To merit approval of the petition under this criterion, the record must establish that a petitioner's 
imposition of a degree requirement is not a matter of preference for high-caliber candidates but is 
necessitated by performance requirements of the position. While a petitioner may assert that a 
proffered position requires a specific degree, that statement alone without corroborating evidence 
caRnot establish the position as a specialty occupation. Were USCIS limited solely to reviewing the 
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 created a token 
degree requirement, whereby all individuals employed in a particular position possessed a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty, or its equivalent. See D~fensor v. Meissner, 
201 F.3d at 388. Evidence provided in support of this criterion may include, but is not limited to, 
documentation regarding the Petitioner's past recruiting and hiring practices, as well as information 
regarding employees serving in the position. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a list of seven individuals that it claims are currently employed in 
the ACO-IT position. We note, however, that the Petitioner was established in 1990, and states that 
it operates and manages over I ,800 stores and has over 32,000 employees. Consequently, the 
Petitioner has not established how this information about seven individuals is representative of its 
employment practices for this position. The Petitioner does not specify how many individuals hold 
10 
Matter of P-E- Inc 
or have held the A CO-IT position, such that this list of individuals could be considered an objective 
depiction of the Petitioner's employment practices. 
Moreover, the salaries of these individuals vary significantly from each other and from the proffered 
wage. This suggests that they are not all serving in the same positions. 14 Further, the Petitioner did 
not provide a description of the individuals' responsibilities. The Petitioner also did not provide any 
information regarding the complexity of the job duties, supervisory duties (if any), independent 
judgment required or the amount of supervision received. Accordingly, aside from job title, it is 
unclear whether the duties and responsibilities of these individuals are the same or similar to the 
proffered position. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
D. 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. 
The Petitioner asserts that the duties of its proffered position are specialized and complex because 
they encompass "some of the duties of an Accountant/Financial Analyst, Business/Operations 
Analyst, and Trainer" and references the occupational category "Training and Development 
Managers." For the reasons previously discussed, we find the Petitioner's reliance upon the 
"Training and Development Managers" and other occupational categories misplaced. Again, the 
Petitioner designated the position on the LCA as a position under the "General and Operations 
Managers" occupational category. The Petitioner has not adequately explained how its references to 
the duties and requirements of other occupational classifications are appropriate and consistent with 
the LCA submitted to support the petition. 15 
The Petitioner's designation of the proffered position as a "trainee" position corresponding to a 
Level I (entry) wage rate further supports the conclusion that the Beneficiary will not perform 
specialized and complex duties compared to others within the occupation. Moreover, the Petitioner 
initially stated that the Beneficiary will assist in supervising 7 to 15 stores, but later clarified that, 
14 It appears that several of the individuals have degrees in business administration without a further concentration in any 
particular field. This information therefore suggests that the Petitioner does not normally require a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. As previously stated, the requirement of a general-purpose degree in 
business administration, without more, is generally not considered a degree requirement in a specific specialty. See 
Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertofl, 484 F.3d at 147. 
15 If the position is a combination of occupations, the Petitioner should have selected the highest-paying occupation on 
the LCA. If the proffered position encompasses these other occupational classifications, we must conclude that the 
submitted LCA does not correspond to and support the petition, which constitutes. an independent ground for denying the 
petition. 
II 
Matter of P-E- Inc 
during the first year of the Beneficiary's training, he will only supervise one store. Furthermore, 
despite the organizational chart's depiction of the Beneficiary as directly supervising other 
managerial employees, the Petitioner states on appeal that "[t]hose subordinates are not assigned 
until he finishes his training." We are thus not persuaded that this entry-level trainee position has 
duties that are distinguishable by relative specialization or complexity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the Level I wage rate offered here "does not mean the job duties 
[are] simple." 16 The Petitioner compares the position to an entry-level, Level I '"certified public 
accountant position ... in [his or her] training period." However, the Petitioner has not further 
explained and documented how the proffered position is analogous to a certified public accountant 
position in training, if such a position even exists.17 Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient to meet the burden of proof in these proceedings. Maller of 
Sojfici, 22 l&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Com111'r 1972)).18 Without more, the record lacks sufficiently detailed 
information to distinguish the level of judgment and understanding necessary to perform the duties 
as specialized and complex. 
The Petitioner asserts that the duties of its specific position requires knowledge gained in courses 
such as accounting, finance, marketing, quantitative methods, economics, and supply chain 
management. The Petitioner adds on appeal that "[i]n addition to these [courses], other management 
and necessary courses designed by university in related degree are required to prepare a leader in the 
designated area." These statements, however, do not demonstrate that the necessary knowledge for 
the proffered position is attained through an established curriculum of particular courses leading to a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
16 Again, according to DOL, a Level I wage rate indicates: (I) that the Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine 
tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that he will be closely supervised and his work closely 
monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that he will receive specific instructions on required tasks and expected 
results. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admjn., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. 
Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://flcdatacenter.com/download!NPWHC _Guidance_ 
Revised II 2009.pdf 
" The Handbook subchapter on "How to Become an Accountant or Auditor" discusses one license available for 
applicants who have completed a bachelor's degree and who desire to become a certified public accountant. The 
Handbook does not reference any "training period" for persons who are already certified public accountants. For more 
information on "Accountants and Auditors," see U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook 
Handbook. 2016-17 ed., "Accountants and Auditors," http://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/accountants-and­
auditors.htm#tab-4 (last visited June 20, 20 16). 
18 The issue here is that the Petitioner's designation of this position as a Levell, entry-level position undermines its claim 
that the position is particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same 
occupation. Nevertheless, it is important to note that a Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position 
from classification as a specialty occupation. In certain occupations (doctors or lawyers or certified public accountants, 
for example), an entry-level position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, for entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designation would not reflect that an occupation qualities as 
a specialty occupation if that higher-level position does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty or its equivalent. That is, a position's wage level designation may be a consideration but is not a 
substitute for a determination of whether a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 
12 
Matter of P-E- Inc 
The Petitioner also references the Beneficiary's qualifications and indicates that he is well-qualified 
for the position. 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 has not sufficiently 
developed specialization or complexity as aspects of the duties of the position. 
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). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The burden is on the 
Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of P-E- Inc, ID# 17309 (AAO June 23, 2016) 
13