dismissed H-1B Case: Social Management

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
ldentipvlng hta lo 
pre~-~ @~~*vw U. S. Citizenship 
@WRW& D* and Immigration Services 
PUBLIC COPY 
FILE: SRC 04 069 50973 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: APR 2 5 2088 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonirnrnigrant Worker Pursuant to Section lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC 04 069 50973 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director denied the nonirnrnigrant visa petition and the matter is now before 
the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. The petition will be denied. 
The petitioner is a new business that provides social management services. It seeks to employ the beneficiary 
as a researcher in social management. The petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a nonirnrnigrant 
worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to 5 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition because the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. On appeal, the 
petitioner's president submits a brief. 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an occupation 
that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) 
as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, the position must meet one of 
the following criteria: 
(I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum requirement 
for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its particular position is 
so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
(4) The nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that knowledge required to 
perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher 
degree. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) interprets the term "degree" in the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific 
specialty that is directly related to the proffered position. 
The record of proceeding before the AAO contains: (1) Form 1-129 and supporting documentation; (2) the 
director's request for additional evidence; (3) the petitioner's response to the director's request; (4) the 
director's denial letter; and (5) Form I-290B and supporting documentation. The AAO reviewed the record in 
its entirety before issuing its decision. 
The petitioner is seeking the beneficiary's services as a researcher in social management. Evidence of the 
beneficiary's duties includes: the 1-129 petition; the petitioner's attachment listing the proposed duties; and 
SRC 04 069 50973 
Page 3 
the petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence. According to this evidence, the beneficiary 
would perform duties that entail: planning and implementing projects; preparing and delivering seminars to 
various segments of the community; promoting communication, self-esteem, assertiveness, visualization, 
decision-making, growth, human relationships, and values; providing attention and orientation to children; 
providing telephonic assistance to individuals seeking help; and providing status reports to the petitioner. The 
petitioner indicated that a qualified candidate for the job would possess a bachelor's degree in psychology. 
The director found that the proffered position was not a specialty occupation because the job is not so 
complex as to require a bachelor's degree. The director found further that the petitioner failed to establish any 
of the criteria found at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
On appeal, the petitioner's president states, in part, that the proffered position is so complex as to require a 
bachelor's degree in psychology. She states further that the record contains surveys as evidence that this 
degree requirement is common to the industry. 
Upon review of the record, the petitioner has established none of the four criteria outlined in 
8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Therefore, the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 
The AAO turns first to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l) and (2): a baccalaureate or higher 
degree or its equivalent is the normal minimum requirement for entry into the particular position; a degree 
requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations; or a particular 
position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree. 
Factors often considered by CIS when determining these criteria include: whether the Department of Labor's 
Occupational Outlook Handbook (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 
finns or individuals in the industry attest that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." 
See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1 15 1, 1 165 (D. Minn. 1999)(quoting Hird/Blaker Coy. v. Suva, 712 F. 
Supp. 1095,1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
The AAO routinely consults the Handbook for its information about the duties and educational requirements of 
particular occupations. The proffered position is similar to that of a social worker and/or counselor. Although a 
review of the Handbook finds that social worker/counselor positions, in some instances, may qualify as a 
specialty occupation, the AAO does not concur with the petitioner that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation. Upon review of the record in its entirety, the nature of the proffered position is unclear. It is noted that 
the petitioner is located in a residential apartment. Although the director requested additional documentation 
related to the nature of the petitioner's business, including evidence of business transactions, the record does not 
contain this evidence. Nor does the record contain a list of businesses where the beneficiary would be providing 
social management services. The information provided about the program in which the beneficiary would be 
employed is abstract and skeletal, does not establish specific tasks that the beneficiary would perform, and does 
not establish that any entity would contract for use and development of that project. The petitioner's assertion 
that the proffered position is professional in nature is noted. Simply going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for the purpose of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. 
Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). In view of the foregoing, the exact nature of the proffered position is 
SRC 04 069 50973 
Page 4 
unclear. Furthermore, the petitioner must establish that the position offered to the beneficiary when the petition is 
filed is a specialty occupation. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248, 249 (Reg. Comrn. 1978). 
The petitioner submits the results of her own surveys whose subjects assert that positions such as the proffered 
position require a related bachelor's degree. The record, however, does not establish the subjects as experts. 
Furthermore, the survey responses are not probative, as the evidence of record does not establish and the 
survey did not provide substantive content of the project in which the beneficiary would work. Even an 
expert's opinion is not persuasive if based on abstract information. The AAO may, in its discretion, use as 
b 
advisory opinion statements submitted as expert testimony. However, where an opinion is not in accord with 
other information or is in any way questionable, the AAO is not required to accept or may give less weight to 
that evidence. Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Cornm. 1988). Further, this information is 
not convincing evidence that the position of a researcher in social management is a specialty occupation in 
this case, based on the deficiencies discussed above. In view of the foregoing, the petitioner has not 
demonstrated that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty is required for the proffered position. 
The record does not include sufficient evidence regarding parallel positions in the petitioner's industry. The 
record also does not include sufficient evidence from firms, individuals, or professional associations 
regarding an industry standard, or documentation to support the complexity or uniqueness of the proffered 
position. The petitioner, therefore, has not established the criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l) 
or (2). 
The AAO now turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3) - the employer normally requires a 
degree or its equivalent for the position. As the proffered position is a new position, the petitioner, therefore, has 
not established the criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
Finally, the AAO turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(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. 
To the extent that they are depicted in the record, the duties do not appear so specialized and complex as to 
require the highly specialized knowledge associated with a baccalaureate or higher degree, or its equivalent, 
in a specific specialty. Therefore, the evidence does not establish that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation under 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
As related in the discussion above, the petitioner has failed to establish that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation. Accordingly, the AAO shall not disturb the director's denial of the petition. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.