dismissed H-1B Case: Shipping Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 10, 2025 In Re: 36682815 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
The Petitioner, a shipping services location, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
management analyst under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to file a petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) 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 California Service Center Director denied the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 
(petition) on three bases. First, due to the position prerequisites the position did not qualify as a 
specialty occupation. Next, the Petitioner did not establish the substantive nature of the position based 
on the offered position's generalized and abstractly described duties. Finally, the Petitioner did not 
adequately demonstrate its evidence satisfied any of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4) . All three of these issues lead into the ultimate determination that the 
record did not establish the offered position qualified as a specialty occupation. The matter is now 
before us on appeal under 8 C.F .R. § 103.3. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate 
eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N 
Dec. 369,375 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de novo. Matter ofChristo 's Inc., 
26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
On appeal, the Petitioner only acknowledges the specialty occupation definition, provides a detailed 
job description in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) and subsequent denial, and 
addresses some of the requirements within the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l) - (4). 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
The Act at Section 214(i)(l), 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the tenn "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: (A) the 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) is a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) adds a non-exhaustive list of fields of endeavor to the 
statutory definition. And the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii) requires that the offered position 
must also meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
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. 
The statute and the regulations must be read together to make sure that the offered position meets the 
definition of a specialty occupation. See K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) 
(holding that constrnction of language which takes into account the design of the statue as a whole is 
preferred); see also COIT Independence Joint Venture v. Fed. Sav. And Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 
(1989); Matter of W-F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). Considering the statute and the regulations 
separately leads to scenarios where a Petitioner satisfies a regulatory factor but not the definition of 
specialty occupation contained in the statute. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 5th Cir. 
2000). The regulatory criteria read together with the statute gives effect to the statutory intent. See 
Temporary Alien Workers Seeking Classification Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 56 Fed. 
Reg. 61111, 61112 Dec. 2, 1991). 
So, we constrne the term "degree" in 8 C.F.R. § 2 l 4.2(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 offered position supporting 
the statutory definition of specialty occupation. See Royal Siam C01p. v. Chert off, 484 F .3d 139, 147 
( I st Cir. 2007) ( describing "a degree requirement in a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly 
to the duties and responsibilities of a particular position"). USCIS' application of this standard has 
resulted in the orderly approval ofH-lB petitions for engineers, accountants, information technology 
professionals and other occupations, commensurate with what Congress intended when it created the 
H-lB category. 
And job title or broad occupational category alone does not determine whether a particular job is a 
specialty occupation under the regulations and statute. The nature of the Petitioner's business 
operations along with the specific duties of the offered job are also considered. We must evaluate the 
employment of the individual and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
See Defensor, 201 F.3d 384. So, a Petitioner's self-imposed requirements are not as critical as whether 
the position the Petitioner offers requires the application of a theoretical and practical body of 
knowledge gained after earning the required baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty 
required to accomplish the duties of the job. 
2 
By regulation, the Director is charged with determining whether the petition involves a specialty 
occupation as defined in section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(2). The Director 
may request additional evidence in the course of making this determination. 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(8). 
In addition, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the petition and must continue to 
be eligible through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
II. THE OFFERED POSITION AND ITS PREREQUISITES 
The duties the Petitioner presented before the Director consisted of the following: 
• Help with personnel management, including recruiting, training & scheduling; 
• Schedule work assignments and help facilitate weekly or monthly staff meetings; 
• Monitor, evaluate, and help maximize customer service delivery and satisfaction; 
• Help to develop and implement the marketing program; 
• Help to manage financials, profit ratio, royalty filing, and account reporting; 
• Manage and control inventory; 
• Help oversee maintenance, including cleanliness, safety, and organization; 
• Help to maintain and operate software like UPM, CMS, MPOS, Center Management, and 
QuickBooks; 
• Compile and arrange data on issues or practices; 
• Speak with the staff to make sure that the recently established processes or procedures are 
operating successfully; 
• Evaluate the information acquired and create different courses of action; 
• Record study results and suggestions for introducing new policies, practices, or organizational 
adjustments; and 
• Plan research on work-related issues and practices, such as cost analysis, integrated production 
processes, communications, information flow, organizational change, and inventory control. 
The Petitioner stated the following for the position's prerequisites: "As with any Management Analyst 
position, the usual minimum requirement for performance of the job duties is a bachelor's degree ( or 
equivalent) in business administration, management or a related field and relevant experience." 
Lacking from this statement was any further detail or guidance regarding what the petitioning 
organization would consider as "relevant experience" ( e.g., what amount or type of experience it 
would require). This is an important aspect because this requirement could impact the prevailing wage 
level the Petitioner must designate on the labor condition application depending on the amount of 
required experience. 
Because the Petitioner provided vague requirements, this calls into question whether it has satisfied 
its burden of proof that the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) the ETA Form 9035 & 9035E, Labor 
Condition Application for Nonimmigrant Workers (LCA) corresponds with and supports the petition. 
See 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b) (clearly stating, "In [accepting an employer's petition with the 
DOL-certified LCA attached], the DHS determines whether the petition is supported by an LCA which 
corresponds with the petition, whether the occupation named in the labor condition application is a 
specialty occupation ... , and whether the qualifications of the nonimmigrant meet the statutory 
requirements for H-1 B visa classification."). See also Matter ofSimeio Solutions, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 
3 
546 n.6 (AAO 2015). Also see section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. In evaluating the evidence, 
the truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. See Chawathe, 
25 I&N Dec. At 376. 
III. ANALYSIS 
We adopt and affirm the Director's decision. See Matter of Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 
(BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of 
adopting and affirming the decision below "is not only common practice, but universally accepted"). 
A. Specialty Occupation Definition 
As we noted above, the Petitioner only acknowledges what the definition of a specialty occupation is 
and makes a conclusory statement that they met that definition. But they make no effort to explain 
why the Director was wrong to determine that they failed to meet that standard. The failure to 
demonstrate a position satisfies the specialty occupation definition is fatal to the petition's outcome. 
Such an adverse outcome is mandated here because the regulation requires a petitioner to demonstrate 
that a petition "involves a specialty occupation as defined in section 214(i)(l) of the Act." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(2). 
Because the Petitioner does not argue how the Director incorrectly decided on the specialty occupation 
definition requirement, this means they have waived or forfeited that issue on appeal. Matter Khan, 
28 I&N Dec. 850, 852 n.4 (BIA 2024) (finding a topic is waived that was an issue before the lower 
adjudicative body but the filing party does not raise it on appeal); Chmukh v. Garland, 124 F.4th 670, 
675 n.1 (9th Cir. 2024) ( deciding the failure to address a claim in the appeal brief waives that issue on 
appeal). 
Even so, we offer additional insight into the Director's reasoning. The record contains the Petitioner's 
stated requirements for the offered position: "a bachelor's degree (or equivalent) in business 
administration, management, or a related field and relevant experience." The Petitioner's acceptance 
of a general business degree without specialization does not satisfy the statutory and regulatory 
definition of a specialty occupation, and that acceptance alone mandates the petition's denial. 
Historically, the agency has consistently disfavored a general-purpose bachelor's degree in business 
administration with no additional specialization in accordance with the statutory and regulatory 
requirements. For example, in Matter ofLing, 13 I&N Dec. 35, 39 (Reg'l Comm'r 1968), the agency 
stated that attainment of a bachelor's degree in business administration alone was insufficient to 
qualify a foreign national as a member of the professions pursuant to section 101(a)(32) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(32). In Matter ofMichael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988), 
the agency clarified that a requirement for a degree with a generalized title, such as business 
administration, without further specification, was insufficient to qualify the position as one that is 
professional upon an examination of the nature of the position itself pursuant to section 101(1)(32) of 
the Act. And in Matter of Caron Int 'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988), a vice presidential position 
for manufacturing in a textile company was deemed to not be a professional position because an 
individual holding a general degree in business, engineering, or science could perform its duties. 
4 
When Congress revised the H-1 B program as part of the Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 
101-649, 104 Stat. 4978, it shifted its focus from the prior H-1B standard's examination of whether an 
offered position was professional, and instead required petitioners to demonstrate that a position was 
a specialty occupation. 
Even after this adjustment, the agency's concerns with a general-purpose bachelor's degree in business 
administration with no additional specialization did not falter. See e.g. Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. 
Supp. 2d 1151 (D. Minn. 1999); 2233 Paradise Road, LLCv. Cissna, No. l 7-cv-01018-APG-VCF, 
2018 WL 3312967 (D. Nev., July 3, 2018); XiaoTong Liu v. Baran, No. 18-00376-JVS, 2018 WL 
7348851 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 21, 2018); Parzenn Partners v. Baran, No. 19-cv-11515-ADB, 2019 WL 
6130678 (D. Mass., Nov. 19, 2019); Vision Builders, LLC v. USCIS, No. CV 19-3159 (TJK), 2020 
WL 5891546, at *5 (D.D.C. Oct. 5, 2020); Xpress Group v. Cuccinelli, No. 3:20-CV-00568-DSC, 
2022 WL 433482 (W.D.N.C. Feb. l0, 2022). 
As the First Circuit Court of Appeals explained in Royal Siam, 484 F .3d at 147: 
The courts and the agency consistently have stated that, although a general-purpose 
bachelor's degree, such as a business administration degree, may be a legitimate 
prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not 
justify granting of a petition for an H-1B specialty occupation visa. See e.g., Tapis Int 'l 
v. INS, 94 F. Supp.2d 172, 175-76 (D. Mass. 2000); Shanti, 36 F.Supp.2d at 1164-66; 
cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 ([Comm'r] 1988) 
(providing frequently cited analysis in connection with a conceptually similar 
provision). This is as it should be: elsewise, an employer could ensure the granting of 
a specialty occupation visa petition by the simple expedient of creating a generic ( and 
essentially artificial) degree requirement. 1 
If a position is a "specialty occupation" under the statute and regulations, it is one which involves a 
"body of highly specialized knowledge" attained after completing a bachelor's degree or higher in a 
"specific specialty." A general degree requirement like a bachelor's degree in business or business 
administration, standing alone without any further specialization, is not a requirement for a degree in 
a specialty. 2 And this excludes any offered position accepting such a degree as a minimum 
requirement for entry into the position-like the Petitioner's position-from qualifying as a specialty 
occupation. 
1 But see India House, Inc. v. McAleenan, 449 F.Supp 3d 4 (D.R.I. 2020). In India House the court distinguished Royal 
Siam on factual grounds but did not dispute its central reasoning that a position whose duties can be fulfilled by an 
individual with a general-purpose bachelor's degree in business administration is not a specialty occupation. Instead, it 
distinguished Royal Siam on factual grounds. Here, the Petitioner specifically recognizes an unspecialized bachelor's 
degree in business administration as being one of many degrees it considers as providing an adequate preparation to 
perform the duties of the offered position. 
2 But see InspectionXpert C01poration v. Cuccinelli, 2020 WL 1062821 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 5, 2020). In InspectionXpert the 
court considered whether the educational requirement of an engineering degree without further specialization was too 
broad for a quality engineer position. While the court found that a generalized engineering requirement did comprise a 
specialty, it also distinguished engineering from other broad degrees, such as liberal arts or business administration degrees. 
Id. at *24. Our holding today therefore does not conflict with InspectionXpert. 
5 
A requirement for a bachelor's degree in business without further specialization is so broad that it 
could apply to a position in finance as well as general business operations and management in a variety 
of endeavors. So, it cannot provide an individual with the "body of highly specialized knowledge" 
required to perform the duties of a specialty occupation. 
If a generalized degree like business administration provides the knowledge required to perform the 
duties of the position along all its broad sub-concentrations, like overseeing cleanliness and safety, 
then it follows that the knowledge common within the fields is general. So, a bachelor's degree in 
business with no further specialization is not a degree in a specific specialty and the fact that the 
Petitioner would accept such a degree as a minimum qualification for entry to the offered position 
does not satisfy the statutory and regulatory definitions of a specialty occupation. 
On that basis alone, we could dismiss the appeal in alignment with longstanding agency policy without 
any further discussion. 
As a final point under this section, meeting the specialty occupation definition is a threshold 
requirement to qualify for H-lB approval. Therefore, the Petitioner's waiver of its eligibility claims 
surrounding the definition of a specialty occupation issue is dispositive of the appeal and is a basis to 
dismiss the appeal outright. When one issue is dispositive of an appeal, it is unnecessary that we 
address the filing party's remaining appellate arguments. Matter of Larios-Gutierrez De Pablo & 
Pablo-Larios, 28 I&N Dec. 868, 877 n.8 (BIA 2024); Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328, 332 (2022) 
(citing INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (finding agencies are not required to make 
"purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision)); Martinez v. Barr, 
941 F .3d 907, 911 (9th Cir. 2019) ( concluding it is unnecessary to address other eligibility issues when 
another deciding element makes the case outcome clear). 
B. Generic and Generalized Duties, and Those Duties that Remain in Question 
Even if we set the dispositive specialty occupation definition issue aside, the petition is still not 
approvable. In response to the Director's determination that the job description the Petitioner provided 
was so generalized and abstract that it did not demonstrate the position's substantive nature, the 
petitioning organization now offers a more detailed job description in the appeal. Because the 
Director's RFE put the Petitioner on notice and gave it a reasonable opportunity to provide this 
evidence, we will not consider it for the first time on appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l l) (requiring 
all requested evidence be submitted together at one time); Matter of Furtado, 28 I&N Dec. 794, 
801-02 (BIA 2024) (declining to consider new evidence on appeal when the filing party was put on 
notice of the required evidence and given a reasonable opportunity to provide it for the record before 
the denial); see also Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988); Matter of Obaigbena, 
19 I&N Dec. 533, 537 (BIA 1988). The Petitioner's failure to adequately express the offered 
position's duties before the Director as we have here is an additional dispositive issue that precludes 
the petition's approval. 
We further add that we would question the substantive nature of the position as the Petitioner provided 
13 broad responsibilities of the position in which four of the duties do not appear to fall under the 
Management Analysts occupation, and three additional functions are questionable. Below we separate 
the duties into categories, all of which are overly generalized: 
6 
Appear to fall within the selected occupation: 
• Monitor, evaluate, and help maximize customer service delivery and satisfaction; 
• Compile and arrange data on issues or practices; 
• Speak with the staff to make sure that the recently established processes or procedures are 
operating successfully; 
• Evaluate the information acquired and create different courses of action; 
• Record study results and suggestions for introducing new policies, practices, or organizational 
adjustments; and 
• Plan research on work-related issues and practices, such as cost analysis, integrated production 
processes, communications, information flow, organizational change, and inventory control. 
Do not appear to be within the occupation: 
• Help with personnel management, including recruiting, training & scheduling; 
• Help to develop and implement the marketing program; 
• Manage and control inventory; and 
• Help oversee maintenance, including cleanliness, safety, and organization. 
Questionable as to whether they properly fall within the selected occupation: 
• Schedule work assignments and help facilitate weekly or monthly staff meetings; 
• Help to manage financials, profit ratio, royalty filing, and account reporting; 
• Help to maintain and operate software like UPM, CMS, MPOS, Center Management, and 
QuickBooks. 
The generalized nature of these responsibilities, and as it appears some are not properly situated within 
the SOC code the Petitioner designated on the LCA, calls into question the substantive nature of the 
position. Providing generic job duties for an offered position is generally insufficient to establish 
eligibility. USCIS may require granularity and specifics in an employer's job description when applying 
for a range of employment-based immigration benefits. Ren v. United States Citizenship & Immigr. 
Servs., 60 F.4th 89, 94-95 (4th Cir. 2023) (citations omitted); cf Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. at 
560 (indicating USCIS must evaluate the actual tasks, demands, and duties to determine whether a 
petitioner has established the position realistically requires the specialized knowledge-both theoretical 
and applied-which is almost exclusively obtained at the baccalaureate level). 
A broad and generalized presentation of a position's responsibilities prevents USCIS from making such 
a determination. See also Sagarwala v. Cissna, 387 F. Supp. 3d 56, 68 (D.D.C. 2019); Cf Fedin Bros. 
Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990) (stating 
specifics are an important indication of the nature of a beneficiary's duties, otherwise meeting the 
requirements would simply be a matter of providing a job title or reiterating the regulations). And the 
lack of adequate specifics leaves USCIS "hamstrung in its ability to determine whether" the prospective 
employee will be employed in the role a petitioner requests and "fall[s] well short of what's required to 
demonstrate" eligibility. Ren v. United States Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 60 F.4th at 95, 97. 
7 
An overly generalized and vague job description such as this has been characterized as being "filled 
with fluffy descriptions devoid of any real substance," reading "like a collection of one-liners [more] 
useful for resume drafting than a meaningful description of the duties .... " Id. at 97. 
The DOL guidance states that for a wage level determination, it is important that the job description 
include "sufficient information to determine the complexity of the job duties, the level of judgment, the 
amount and level of supervision, and the level of understanding required to perform the job duties." U.S. 
See DOL guidance. The generic nature of the presented duties adversely affects our ability to decide 
whether the LCA corresponds with and supports the petition. Further, we are unable to assess, categorize, 
and realize the Petitioner's offered job due to the position's overly generalized duties, which hinders our 
ability to conclude whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation under any of the criteria 
enumerated at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4). 
C. Additional Points 
Also within the appeal, the Petitioner discusses the Director's analysis relating to the DOL's 
Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) for the Management Analysts occupational profile. 
When describing what the Handbook provides relating to this occupational profile, the Petitioner states 
"[the Handbook] does not state that a candidate with an associate's degree will qualify." We reviewed 
the Director's decision and it is not apparent what portion of the denial the Petitioner references here 
regarding an associate's degree. As a result, we will not address that issue further. 
Next, the Petitioner's appeal provides additional job postings for us to apply under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). The relevant portion of the regulation requires petitioners to demonstrate 
"[t]he degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations." But much like the more detailed job description we discussed above, the Director's 
RFE requested job postings or advertisements under this regulatory requirement and we will not 
consider new evidence on appeal simply because the Petitioner's previously provided documents did 
not meet the parameters specified in the regulation or those the Director outlined in the RFE. E.g., 
Furtado, 28 I&N Dec. at 801-02. 
And finally, even though the vague duties the Petitioner provided that do not appear to be within the 
occupation it specified on the LCA, from them we can determine it is likely those functions would 
require a wage rate level higher than the Level I rate the Petitioner specified on the LCA. It appears 
the Petitioner has devised distinct skills or duties that are outside of the norm for a single 
occupation. Under step four of the DOL guidance, it focuses on "Special Skills and Other 
Requirements." Although the Petitioner designated a Level I prevailing wage rate as appropriate, it 
also included skills or duties that are not properly considered under a single occupation and it appears 
it would be necessary to at least increase the wage to a Level II wage rate, which would result in an 
increase in the Beneficiary's compensation. See DOL guidance. We raise this for topic for any future 
petition the Petitioner files and we do not rely on it as a basis to dismiss this appeal. 
8 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and 
alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is a petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
9