dismissed H-1B Case: Risk Management

MATTER OF S-R-. LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY4.2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129. PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a consulting firm, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an "enterprise risk 
management (ERM) analyst" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). 
The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a 
position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that there is 
insutlicient evidence to 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. On appeaL the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the Director's basis for denial of the petition was erroneous and contends that it satisfied 
all evidentiary requirements. 
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 ojS-R-, LLC 
(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 
( .J) 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 initial letter of support, the Petitioner provided the following description for its part-time ERM 
analyst position: 
The Enterprise Risk Management Analyst will analyze and address the full spectrum 
of a client's risks and manage the combined impact of those risks as an interrelated 
risk portfolio, in order to support the achievement of the client's objectives. The 
Enterprise Risk Management Analyst will be responsible for the management of 
internal risk reporting, including Board level reports. The Enterprise Risk 
Management Analyst will manage periodic reporting to the various internal 
governance bodies on key risk metrics, emerging risks and performance of the 
client's organization against risk goals set. The Enterprise Risk Management Analyst 
will administer defined procedures, analyses, and report preparation. 
The position of Enterprise Risk Management Analyst requires, at a minimum. a 
Bachelor's Degree in Economics, Statistics, or related field. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner elaborated upon the duties of 
the proffered position, and percentages of time spent on each duty, as summarized below: 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-R-. LLC 
I. Calculation of risk tolerance with Microsoft Excel. The Enterprise Risk Management 
Analyst will build financial models to calculate VaR, Value at Risk, and Value per 
Share using Excel and . (30% of time) 
2. Creating risk heat map is a critical aspect of the duties of the position. After 
gathering risk assessments, the Enterprise Risk Management Analyst will create a 
heat map using Excel and SharePoint. (30% oftime) 
3. After applying metadata information to risk assessment findings and creating a heat 
map, this role's ongoing responsibility is to maintain and enhance the structure of a 
platform for client's documentation , communication, and collaboration in SharePoint. 
While all of this work takes place in an office environment, the platform is a Cloud 
based technology, allowing [the Petitioner's] clients easy accessibility with any 
device using the Internet. (20% of time) 
4. Combine all the information and results from risk management and prepare internal 
risk reports to clients, including Board level reports. Such reports will include 
executive summary, Enterprise Risk Management program introduction, the ERM 
process, Enterprise Risk Assessment results summary, Enterprise Risk Assessment 
heat maps, Enterprise Risk Mitigation overview, and contact information. (20% of 
time) 
The Petitioner further stated that the proffered position --requires, at a mm1mum. a Bachelor's 
Degree in Finance, Economics, Statistics, or related field.'' With the RFE response. the Petitioner 
submitted ofter letter to the Beneficiary. which stated. in part, that as a condition of employment. he 
would need to provide transcripts showing that he possessed at least a bachelor's degree in business 
or a related field. 
In the appeal, the Petitioner provides additional information regarding the duties of the position and 
states that it requires a bachelor's or higher degree in risk management finance, or business 
administration. 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position satisfies any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) and, therefore, 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 occupation. 1 
First, the Petitioner has not consistently demonstrated what the minimum entry requirement is for the 
proffered position. Initially, the Petitioner stated that the position requires a degree in economics, 
1 The Petitioner submitted documentation in support of 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. 
3 
Matter ojS-R-, LLC 
statistics, or related field. Thereafter, the Petitioner added finance as an acceptable field of study. 
However, in the Petitioner's offer letter, it indicated that a bachelor's degree in business is 
sufficient? Finally, the Petitioner modified its requirements in the appeal letter to include risk 
management, finance, or business administration. The Petitioner did not address this discrepancy. 
Second, and as will be discussed in more detail below. the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) and, therefore, has not demonstrated that the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
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.3 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.4 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-18 petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "'Financial Specialists, All Other" 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 13-2099 at a Level I \vage.5 
2 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 or business administration without further specification. does not 
establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of Michael Hert= Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558. 560 (Comm'r 
1988). Although a general-purpose business degree 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. Cherto.ff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007). 
3 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap. we will address each of the criteria individually. 
4 All of our references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook, available at 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 USCIS 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. 
5 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 ofthe Petitioner's job opportunity. We will consider the Petitioner's 
classification of the proffered position at a Level I wage (the lowest of four assignable wage levels) in our analysis of the 
position. 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: (1) that the Beneficiary will be expected to 
perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that she will be closely supervised and her 
work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that she will receive specific instructions on required tasks 
and expected results. U.S. Dep't of Labor. Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Polh:r Guidance. 
Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009). available at http:/!flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance 
_Revised_II_2009.pdf. A Level I wage should be considered for research fellows. workers in training. or internships. 
!d. 
4 
Matter of S-R-. LLC 
Although the Handbook covers the employment details for hundreds of occupations. there are 
additional occupations for which detailed occupational information is not developed. The Handbook 
suggests that for at least some of the occupations, little meaningful information could be developed.6 
The occupational category "Financial Specialists. All Other" is one of these categories. 
When the Handbook does not support a petitioner's assertion that a position meets the statutory and 
regulatory provisions of a specialty occupation, it is incumbent upon the Petitioner to provide 
persuasive evidence that the proffered position qualifies, notwithstanding the absence of the 
Handbook's support on the issue. 7 We will consider and weigh all of the evidence presented. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted a printout of the 
Occupational Information Network (O*NET) OnLine Summary Report for ""Risk Management 
Specialists." Even assuming, arguendo, that the printout for this occupation is relevant to the 
proffered position, 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. 8 
Further, the summary report provides the educational requirements of "respondents," but does not 
account for 100% 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 and the Job Zone 4 designation do not indicate that the ··education lever· must 
be in a specific specialty. Thus, the summary report provides general information regarding the 
occupational category, but it does not corroborate the Petitioner's claim regarding the minimum 
educational requirements for these jobs. 
6 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., "'Data for Occupations 
Not Covered in Detail," http://www.bls.gov/ooh/ About/Data-for-Occupations-Not-Covered-in-Detail.htm (last visited 
Apr. 29, 2016). 
7 In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted an excerpt from the Handbook regarding the occupational 
category "Financial Analysts'' corresponding to the SOC code 13-2051. We note, however. that this is a separate 
occupational category from "'Financial Specialists, All Other''-· SOC code 13-2099. DOL provides clear guidance for 
selecting the most relevant occupational code classification. That is, DOL's ''Prevailing Wage Determination Policy 
Guidance" states that if a Petitioner's job opportunity is a combination of occupations. the Petitioner should select the 
relevant occupational code for the highest paying occupation, which in the instant case would be "Financial Analysts ... 
Here, the Petitioner selected "Financial Specialists, All Other," Therefore, without further explanation. the Petitioner has 
not established the relevancy of the "Financial Analysts" printout to the instant matter. 
8 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpagc available at http://www.onetonline.org/help 1 
online/svp. 
5 
Matter ofS-R-, LLC 
The Petitioner has not provided documentation from a probative source to substantiate its assertion 
regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. Thus, the Petitioner has 
not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J). 
B. Second Criterion 
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. 
1. 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 .%anti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151. 1165 (D. Minn. 
1999) (quoting Hird!Blaker Corp. v. Suva, 712 F. Supp. 1095. 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner submitted several postings for jobs with other companies.9 
The Petitioner's reliance on these postings, however, is misplaced. First. without futther 
information, the advertisements appear to be for organizations that are not similar to the Petitioner -
and the Petitioner has not provided any evidence to suggest otherwise or explained which aspects or 
traits (if any) it shares with the advertising organizations.
10 
Second, the record also contains 
9 The Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how representative these job advertisements are of the 
particular advertising employers' recruiting history for the type of jobs advertised. Further, as they are only solicitations 
for hire. they are not evidence of the employers' actual hiring practices. 
10 On appeal, the Petitioner claims that "it is simply impossible to find job postings specifically for an Enterprise Risk 
Management by other companies that are within the industry." Contrary to the Petitioner's assertion in the appeal brief: 
we note that for a petitioner to establish that an organization is similar, it must demonstrate that it and the organization 
share the same general characteristics. Without such evidence, documentation submitted by a petitioner would be 
outside the scope of consideration for this criterion, which encompasses only organizations that are similar to the 
petitioner. When determining whether the Petitioner and the organization share the same general characteristics, such 
factors may include information regarding the nature or type of organization and, when pertinent. the particular scope of 
operations, as well as the level of revenue and staffing (to list just a few elements that may be considered). Moreover, it 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter ofS-R-, LLC 
advertisements from companies for which little or no information regarding the hiring employers is 
provided. Consequently, there is insufficient information regarding these employers' business 
operations to conduct legitimate comparison to the Petitioner's operations. 
Third, contrary to the purpose for which the advertisements were submitted, some job postings do 
not indicate that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty (or its equivalent) is required. 11 
For example, the posting for states that a degree or 2 years of experience is acceptable. 
Furthermore, many of the job postings state that a degree is required, but they do not specify any 
particular field of study. 
Finally, some of the advertisements do not appear to be for parallel positions. For example. some of 
these advertised positions appear to be for more senior positions than the proffered position. More 
importantly, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the primary duties and responsibilities 
of these advertised positions are parallel to the proffered position. 
As the documentation does not establish that the Petitioner has met this prong of the regulations, 
further analysis regarding the specific information contained in each of the job postings is not 
necessary.12 
Also under this criterion, the Petitioner submitted two letters from , Director of Risk 
Management for the We carefully evaluated 
assertions in support of the instant petition but, for the following reasons, determined his letters do 
not have significant weight in this matter. 
In his first letter. attests that ERM analyst positions in the industry require "a minimum 
bachelor degree. professional business skills, experience with risk management infonnation systems 
and related knowledge." This letter does not state that the degree must be in a specific specialty. 
In addition, letter cites to a 2013 Risk Management Compensation Survey of the 
educational backgrounds of ERM analysts. Not only is this survey silent as to whether these with 
higher degrees are from any particular field(s), but it also indicates that a high school diploma, an 
is not sufficient for a petitioner to claim that an organization is similar and in the same industry without providing a 
legitimate basis for such an assertion. 
11 The degree requirement set by the statutory and regulatory framework of the H-1 B program is not just a bachelor's or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the duties of the position. Further, requiring a 
general-purpose bachelor's degree, without more, will not justify a finding that a particular position qualifies for 
classification as a specialty occupation. See Royal Siam C017J. v. Chert(d!; 484 F.3d at 147. 
12 Further, the Petitioner does not demonstrate what statistically valid inferences, if any. can be drawn from the 
advertisements with regard to determining the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in 
similar organizations. See general~v Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 ( 1995). Moreover, there is 
no indication that the advertisements were randomly selected, thus, the validity of any such inferences could not be 
accurately determined even if the sampling unit were sufficiently large. See id. at 195-196 (explaining that ··[r]andom 
selection is the key to [the] process [of probability sampling]" and that "random selection offers access to the body of 
probability theory, which provides the basis for estimates of population parameters and estimates of error'"). 
(b)(6)
Matter ofS-R-. LLC 
associate's degree, and a general-purpose business administration degree are adequate for such 
positions.13 
In his second letter, attests to a different set of requirements altogether. stating: ''at least a 
Bachelor's 
degree in Finance or a related field" is necessary. Yet, the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
explained or submitted evidence to reconcile apparently inconsistent letters as to the 
requirements for ERM analyst positions. 14 
The Petitioner also submitted a letter from , concluding that ERM analyst positions 
in the industry typically require a bachelor's degree in risk management, finance. insurance. and 
related disciplines. However, we accord this letter little probative value, as the writer does not 
explain the factual basis for his conclusion. He does not reference, cite, or discuss any studies, 
surveys, industry publications, authoritative publications, or other sources of empirical information 
which he may have consulted to complete his assessment on this issue. He simply references a 
survey as to the ''type of organization'' where an unidentified individuals are employed. 
Even assuming the writers possessed expertise on the degree requirements for ERM analysts. their 
opinion letters do not substantiate their conclusions, such that we can conclude that the Petitioner has 
met its burden of proof. The writers do not demonstrate in-depth knowledge of the Petitioner's 
operations or how the duties of the position would actually be performed in the context of its 
business enterprise. Further. the record does not indicate whether the writers were aware that, as 
indicated by the Level I wage on the LCA, the Petitioner considered the proffered position to be for 
an entry level employee. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that they possessed the requisite 
information to adequately assess the nature of the position and appropriately determine parallel 
positions based upon the job duties and level of responsibilities. Additionally, there is no indication 
that they have conducted any research or studies pertinent to the educational requirements for such 
positions (or parallel positions) in the Petitioner's industry for similar organizations. 
We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Mauer l?l 
Caron Int '1, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791. 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, where an opinion is not in any 
way questionable, we are not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. !d. 
13 Again, the requirement of a general-purpose degree business or business administration degree, alone. is insufficient to 
establish eligibility as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of Michael Hert= Assoc.~ .. 19 I&N Dec. at 560 (a general 
college degree does not establish eligibility); Royal Siam Corp. v. Chert(?[(, 484 F.3d at 147 (a business administration 
degree does not establish eligibility). 
14 The Petitioner submitted the second letter on appeal, apparently in response to the Director's finding that 
the first letter was insufficient because it makes "no indication that an applicant for the proffered position would require 
a bachelor's degree in any specific field." However, a petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an eiTort 
to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter of f=ummi, 22 l&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. 
Comm 'r 1998). Thus, it is not sufficient for the Petitioner to merely submit a second letter attesting to a different set of 
requirements, without further explanation and evidence to support the changes. 
8 
Matter ofS-R-. LLC 
We reviewed the evidence submitted, however, the Petitioner has not satisfied 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. 
In support of its assertion that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. the 
Petitioner described the proffered position and its business operations. The Petitioner referred to the 
··complex nature" of its business operations. as well as its focus on providing consulting advice to 
.. large organizations," which are subject to ·'increased government regulatory scrutiny." The 
Petitioner also made brief references to its .. proprietary cloud based tool and relevant ERM 
consulting.'' However, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained and documented these claimed 
.. complex'' or .. proprietary" aspects of its business operations. 
In addition. we considered the Petitioner's designation of the proffered position as an entry-level 
position within the occupational category (by selecting a Level I wage). 15 This designation. when 
read in combination with the Petitioner's job descriptions, further suggests that the particular 
position is not so complex or unique that the duties can only be performed by an individual with a 
bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. While related courses may be 
beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how an 
established curriculum of 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. 
Accordingly, 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. 
15 Nevertheless, a low wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty 
occupation, just as a high wage-designation does not definitively establish such a classification. In certain occupations 
(e.g., doctors or lawyers), a Level I 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 
qualifies 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 relevant factor but 
is not itself conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)(l) ofthe Act. 
9 
Matter ofS-R-, LLC 
To merit approval of the petition under this criterion, however, 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 cannot 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 Defensor 
v. Meissner, 201 F.3d at 388. Evidence provided in support ofthis criterion may include, but is not 
limited to, documentation regarding the Petitioner's past recruiting and hiring practices, as well as 
information regarding employees who previously held the position. 
Under this criterion, the Petitioner asserts that it has always required either a bachelor's degree in 
finance, or a combination of sufficient experience while hiring its employees. The Petitioner 
submits copies of the degrees and resumes for its two employees who ·'are expected to perform 
similar job duties as the proffered position.'' The individual are: (1) the founder/president - who 
holds a degree in liberal arts16 and (2) Steven Wadle- who holds a degree in physics and a master"s 
of business administration. 
First the Petitioner did not provide the duties of these individual, thus, it is not possible to determine 
important aspects of the jobs, such as the day-to-day responsibilities, complexity of the job duties, 
supervisory duties (if any), independent judgment required or the amount of supervision received. 
That is, the record indicates that one of the individuals is the Petitioner's owner/founder and the 
other individual was a "previous intern of the Petitioner." The documentation does not establish that 
their positions, duties, and responsibilities arc the same or parallel to the proffered position. 
Further, the fact that the Petitioner would find acceptable individuals with degrees in disparate fields. 
such as liberal arts and business. for its position does not support its assertion that it requires an 
individual with a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent. 17 
Thus, without more, the Petitioner's assertion regarding these individuals does not constitute 
sufficient evidence of the Petitioner's recruiting and hiring history necessary for analysis under this 
16 The Petitioner claims on appeal that his work experience is sufficient to be the equivalent of a bachelor's in tinance, 
risk management, insurance, or similar degree. However, the Petitioner has not explained the factual basis for this 
conclusion, nor its qualifications to render such a conclusion regarding an individual's educational equivalency. 
17 There must be a close correlation between the required ''body of highly specialized knowledge'' and the proffered 
position. Therefore, a minimum entry requirement of degrees in disparate fields, such as liberal arts and business. 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 and responsibilities of the particular position such that the 
required "body of highly specialized knowledge" is essentially an amalgamation of these different specialties. Section 
214(i)(J )(B) of the Act (emphasis added). The Petitioner has not done so here. 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter ofS-R-, LLC 
criterion.18 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 perfonn them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. 
On appeal, the Petitioner cites to another survey conducted by the 
regarding .. the educational distribution of the proffered position." 19 Assuming. 
arguendo, that these survey results are for "the proffered position'' as claimed by the Petitioner, this 
survey reflects that a high school diploma, an associate's degree, a general-purpose business 
administration degree, and other unspecified qualifications are adequate for such positions. 
Further, the Petitioner has not established that the proffered duties are more specialized and complex 
than duties for positions that are not usually associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. We again incorporate our earlier discussion and analysis regarding the 
Petitioner's designation of the position as a Level I position (the lowest of four assignable wage­
levels) relative to others within the same occupational category. 
The Petitioner therefore has not demonstrated in the record that its proffered position is one with 
duties sufficiently specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one ofthe 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.20 The burden is on the 
18 See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 (7th ed. 1995). 
19 
While the Petitioner asserts that it previously submitted these survey results, these survey results differ from the other 
survey results recited in letter. 
20 The regulations prohibit USCIS from approving an H-I B petition filed earlier than six months before the date of actual 
need for a beneficiary's services. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(9)(i)(B). For H-1 B classification, a petitioner is required to submit 
evidence of the terms of the agreement under which the beneficiary will be employed. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iv)(A) 
and (B). Further, the petitioner must demonstrate eligibility at the time of filing in accordance with 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l). 
In the instant case. the Petitioner submitted the H-I B petition on April I, 2015. With the petition, the petitioner 
submitted an offer of employment letter from the Petitioner to the Beneficiary with the terms of the agreement under 
which the beneficiary will provide her services. The letter is dated March II. 20 15 (just a few weeks prior to the 
submission of the H-1 B petition). In the letter, the Petitioner offers the Beneficiary a part-time position as an ERM 
analyst, starting on October 5, 2015. Thus, despite the October I, 2015 start date listed on the petition. the Petitioner 
11 
Matter of S-R-. LLC 
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 ofS-R-. LLC, ID# 17026 (AAO May 4, 2016) 
indicated that its actual need for the Beneficiary's services is more than six months after the H-1 B petition was filed. 
Therefore, the regulations preclude the approval of the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(9)(i)(B). 
12