dismissed H-1B Case: Strategic Planning And Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 21 , 2024 In Re: 30474330 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-IB nonimmigrant 
classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
10l(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 nonimmigrant 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 of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not establish 
that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The matter is now before us on appeal 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
The Act at Section 214(i)(l) , 8 
U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "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 proffered 
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 pos1t10ns 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 proffered position meets 
the definition of a specialty occupation. See K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) 
(holding that construction 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 construe the term "degree" in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any baccalaureate 
or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered position 
supporting the statutory definition of specialty occupation. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 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"). 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-1 B 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 proffered 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. 
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). 
2 
II. THE PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner is offering the Beneficiary the position of "Manager, Strategic Planning and Finance." 
The petition included a certified labor condition application (LCA) certified for a position located 
within the "Budget Analysts" occupational category corresponding to the Standard Occupational 
Classification code 13-2031. The proffered job description aligns with the duties of the "Budget 
Analysts" occupational category. 
The Petitioner stated in its support letter that the "Manager, Strategic Planning and Finance" position 
requires a bachelor's degree in business administration or a closely related field. In its response to the 
Director's request for additional evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted a detailed job duties letter, 
its organizational chart, a copy of the "Budget Analyst" entry in the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau 
of Labor Statistics Occupational Information Network (O*NET) and Occupational Outlook Handbook 
(Handbook), the resume of a former employee who held the proffered position previously, job 
postings, an expert opinion statement from ___________________ and 
copies of the Beneficiary's educational credentials to establish that the proffered position met all four 
of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). The Petitioner wholly resubmits the supporting 
documents and contentions it made in response to the Director's RFE to support its assertions on 
appeal. 
III. ANALYSIS 
The record of proceedings contains the Petitioner's stated requirements for the proffered position. The 
Petitioner states that they accept a bachelor's degree in business administration or closely related field, 
with no further specialization, as a minimum qualification for entry into the proffered position. The 
Petitioner's appeal strenuously asserts that this requirement is sufficient for it to establish their 
proffered job's eligibility as a specialty occupation. But the Petitioner's educational threshold for 
entry into their proffered job falls far short of satisfying the requirement that the proffered position 
require the theoretical and practical application of a body of specialized knowledge and that the 
position requires attainment of a bachelor's degree in the specific specialty to perform the job duties. 
Or in other words, a minimum requirement for a bachelor's degree in business administration or a 
closely related field is insufficient to meet the statutory or regulatory definition of the term "specialty 
occupation." 
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." Contrary to the Petitioner's strident assertions, a general degree requirement like 
a bachelor's degree in business administration standing alone without any further specialization is not 
a "business specialty." And this excludes any proffered position accepting such a degree as a 
minimum requirement for entry into the position from consideration as a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner's representation of the field of business administration as a specialty is foundationless 
and misplaced. A bachelor's degree in business administration 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. It simply cannot provide an individual with the "body of highly 
specialized knowledge" required to perform the duties of a specialty occupation. 
3 
Accordingly, with faithfulness to the statutory and regulatory requirements, USCIS has consistently 
disfavored general purpose bachelor's degree in business administration with no additional 
specialization. See Matter ofLing, 13 I&N Dec. 35 (Reg'l Comm'r 1968); Matter ofMichael Hertz 
Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558 (Comm'r 1988); Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988). 
Even after Congress revamped the H-lB program as part of the Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 
101-649, 104 Stat. 4978, the agency's concerns with a general-purpose bachelor's degree in business 
administration with no additional specialization continued. See e.g. Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 
2d 1151 (D. Minn. 1999); 2233 Paradise Road, LLC v. Cissna, No. 17-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); Xpress Group v. Cuccinelli, No. 3:20-CV-00568-DSC, 2022 WL 433482 
(W.D.N.C. Feb. 10, 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-lB 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner advances a generalized allegation that the Director "ignored evidence and 
misapplied the law and the governing regulations" because they did not make a "careful and 
individualized determination." The Petitioner cited Lot v. INS, 123 F.3d 644 (7th Cir. 1997), Bohai v. 
INS, 985 F.2d252, 255 (6th Cir. 1993) and ChungSongJa Corp. v. USCIS, 96 F.Supp 3d 1191, 1198 
(W.D. Wash 2015) to support a general contention of "abuse of discretion" because the Director did 
not "consider all relevant factors" and "consider[ ed] irrelevant factors." But the evidence the 
Petitioner identifies on appeal does not support their bare assertion that a bachelor's degree in business 
administration without specialization provides a body of theoretical and practical knowledge 
composing a specialty that the Director ignored. The Director correctly applied the law and governing 
regulations as outlined above demonstrating 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-1 B specialty occupation 
visa." See Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147. 
The Petitioner cites to the Handbook entry for Budget Analysts to contend that their proffered position 
is a specialty occupation because the entry "states that the typical education and training for a Budget 
Analyst is a bachelor's degree." But a simple requirement for any general bachelor's degree, as 
suggested by the Petitioner when they mention the Handbook, cannot sustain a conclusion that a 
proffered position is a specialty occupation. Counsel's assertion combined with their citation to the 
4 
Handbook in sum seeks to advance the proposition that any bachelor's degree requirement for a 
proffered position renders the position a specialty occupation and provide inapplicable authority in 
support. Were we limited solely to reviewing a petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, an 
organization could bring any individual with a bachelor's degree to the United States to perform any 
occupation so long as the petitioning entity created a token bachelor's degree requirement. See 
Defensor, 201 F.3d 384, 387. 
The Petitioner also asserts that the Handbook entry states that occupations like the proffered position 
falling with the classification "typically need at least a bachelor's degree in fields such as business, 
social science, psychology or mathematics." The Petitioner's requirements for entry to their proffered 
position do not make allowance for any fields other than business administration without 
specialization. However, even if the Petitioner had listed a grouping of fields identical to that 
contained in the Handbook, we would still conclude their proffered position is not a specialty 
occupation. We interpret the statutory "the" and the regulatory "a" to mean a singular specialty. But 
we do not so narrowly interpret the statute and regulation such that multiple closely related fields of 
study would not constitute a specialty to perform the duties of a related specialty occupation. In 
general, a minimum of a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty is recognized as 
satisfying the "degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)" requirement of section 214(i)(l)(B) 
of the Act provided the specialties are closely related such that they constitute a common specialty 
required to perform the duties of the position. If they constitute a common specialty, then the required 
"body of highly specialized knowledge" would essentially be the same. If the required degree fields 
do not constitute a common specialty, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in disparate fields 
would not meet the statutory requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty ( or its 
equivalent)." A minimum entry requirement that did include disparate fields of study, such as 
philosophy and engineering for example, would require the Petitioner to establish how each field is 
directly related to all of the duties and responsibilities of the particular position. Section 214(i)(l )(B) 
of the Act ( emphasis added). Whilst there is no requirement in the statute for the required education 
to consist of one specific degree or major, there must be a close relation between the required 
specialized studies to constitute a common "specialty" and that "specialty" must be related to the duties 
of the position as supported by the case law cited by the Petitioner in their appeal. A minimum 
threshold of entry to a proffered position of a bachelor's degree from a wide variety of seemingly 
unconnected fields as described in the Handbook (business, social science, psychology, or 
mathematics) cannot support a specialty occupation unless the grouping of fields is directly related to 
each another and to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position such that it constitutes a 
"specialty." The fields mentioned in the Handbook constitute a wide variety of unconnected fields 
that are not related to one another and to the duties of the position in a manner that constitutes a 
specialty. 
The Petitioner also contends that caselaw in Warren Chiropractic & Rehab Clinic, P. C. v. USCIS, No. 
SACV 14-0964 AG RNBx), 2015 WL 732428 (C.D. Cal. 2015) 1 and Tapis Intern. v. INS, 94 
F.Supp.2d 172 (D. Mass. 2000) supports a conclusion that a wide range of degrees can constitute a 
specialty required to perform the duties of a specialty occupation. The Petitioner's assertions are 
1 In contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case law of a United States circuit court, we are not bound to follow 
the published decision of a United States district court in matters arising even with the same district. See Matter ofK-S-, 
20 l&N Dec. 715 (BIA 1993). 
5 
I 
unpersuasive. As we stated before, the Petitioner does not require anything more than a bachelor's 
degree in business administration without specialization. So, the Petitioner has not provided a range 
of fields we could evaluate to determine if they constitute a specialty required to perform the duties of 
the proffered job. But, even if the Petitioner had listed a grouping of degree fields, the cases the 
Petitioner cited would not support their assertions of eligibility. Warren Chiropractic does not apply 
to the Petitioner's matter because the dispute centered around whether USCIS correctly concluded the 
Petitioner misclassified their proffered job. It did not consider whether a requirement of a degree in a 
wide variety of unconnected fields would serve as an appropriate threshold for entry into a specialty 
occupation. In fact the court stated unequivocally to the contrary in holding that a specialty occupation 
to requires a bachelor's degree or higher in the specific specialty or its equivalent. And in Tapis 
Intern., the court said that it "was not unreasonable [to interpret the regulations] to demand that an 
employer require a degree in a specific field. Otherwise a position would qualify if any bachelor's 
degree were required." See Tapis Intern., 94 F. Supp.2d at 175. 
So the Petitioner's citations to the case law they identify are misplaced. The Director did not abuse 
their discretion when they adhered to established law and precedent to conclude the Petitioner's 
proffered job was not a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner indicated on appeal that their RFE response contained an expert opinion position 
analysis prepared by _______ dean and professor of management at _____ 
As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as 
advisory. Matter ofCaronint'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). But an opinion statement 
has less weight where there is cause to question or doubt the opinion, or if it is not in accord with other 
information in the record. The submission of expert opinion letters is not presumptive evidence in any 
event. Id.; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, 502 n.2 (BIA 2008) . 
___states that their academic qualifications, history as an educator in the field, research and 
published work in combination with their authorship of numerous expert opinion letters, and analyses 
of the academic and professional credentials of candidates for university admission and employment 
positions in business administration and management render them qualified to provide on opinion in 
this matter. They further indicate that they reviewed documentation in the form of the Petitioner's 
support letter and detailed job description. I I also refers to their individual research and 
experience in the fields of management and business administration. They list the proffered job duties, 
the academic prerequisites of the proffered job, and attempt to establish the suitability of each required 
field of study to a selected portion of the proffered job's overall duties. The evaluation also tries to tie 
in a bachelor's degree in business administration without specialization to the duties of the position, 
concluding that the proffered position fits within the statue and regulations as a "specialty occupation." 
But the opinion does not address the deficiencies inherent to a petition in which a bachelor's degree 
in business administration with no further specialization is acceptable. So, the Petitioner's reliance on 
this evaluation is misplaced. The evaluation is not probative, and we decline to assign it any significant 
evidentiary weight. 
We therefore cannot conclude that the proffered position's minimum requirement for entry into the 
job is anything more than a general bachelor's degree. The Petitioner has not satisfied the statutory 
definition of a "specialty occupation" at section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act nor the regulatory definition 
of a specialty occupation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
6 
Without the express requirement of a baccalaureate or higher degree providing the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, or the equivalent, the supplemental 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4) cannot be satisfied. The supplemental 
regulatory criteria are read together within the related regulations and the statute as a whole. So, where 
the regulations refer to the term "degree," we interpret that term to mean a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in a specific specialty related to the proffered position. See Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147. The 
word "degree" is mentioned in each prong of the supplemental regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 
2 l 4.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)( 1)-( 4). And where, as here, a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty 
is not required as a minimum requirement of entry, it follows that each prong under 8 C.F.R. § 
2 l 4.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(l)-( 4) remains unsatisfied. So we will not consider the Petitioner's arguments and 
the evidence it submits in support of its contention that it satisfies the supplemental regulatory criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4). 
The proffered position here is not a specialty occupation because the Petitioner set a bachelor's degree 
in business administration without specialization as a minimum requirement for entry into the position. 
The record of proceeding does not support the Petitioner's assertion that the proffered position requires 
both: (1) the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge; and (2) 
the attainment of a bachelor's degree in the specific specialty. The Petitioner has satisfied neither the 
statutory definition of a "specialty occupation" at section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act nor the regulatory 
definition of a specialty occupation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). As the Petitioner had not satisfied 
that threshold requirement, it cannot satisfy any of the supplemental specialty-occupation criteria 
enumerated at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4). So, the Petitioner has not established that the 
proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
A bachelor's degree in business administration 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 proffered position does not satisfy the statutory and regulatory definitions 
of specialty occupation. Accordingly we must dismiss the appeal. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7