dismissed H-1B Case: Tourism And Hospitality

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 12636383 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-1B) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN . 29, 2021 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification 
for specialty occupations.1 The H-1B 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 Vermont Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's 
burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a preponderance of the evidence.2 We 
review the questions in this matter de nova. 3 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(I) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(I), 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: 
1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) , 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
2 Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
3 See Matter of Christa's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
(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. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We construe the term "degree" to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position.4 
11. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner is a "full-service tourism and hunting guide service company" specializing in "custom 
created adventures." It states the Beneficiary will be employed as a "property manager" and provides 
the following job duties for the position:5 
I Responsible for the maintenance, security, organization, and supervision of the 
entire operation, including budgetary management, supervision of staff, and 
organization of various events. 
I Responsible for the payroll for full-time and contract/seasonal employees, as well 
as the negotiations and payments of security, landscaping, contractors, and 
delivery of supplies. 
I Responsible for the ordering and inventorying of necessary supplies necessary to 
maintain the properties all year long. 
I Will monitor all finances and be responsible for the financial record keeping. 
I In charge of hiring, training, supervising, and directing of all staff in accordance 
with the standards set by the company and mandated by the particular events. 
I Will draft manuals for each activity and coordinate the planning of group events. 
I Will oversee major renovation, design and construction, and land altering 
projects. 
I Will negotiate contracts for all third-party service contractors. 
I Will be providing monthly financial reports to the senior management. 
4 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"); Defensor v. Meissner, 
201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
5 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1B 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. 
2 
Ill. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we conclude that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Specifically, the Petitioner does not establish that (1) a degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, 
is a minimum for entry into the occupation; and (2) one of the four regulatory specialty-occupation 
criteria enumerated at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4) is satisfied. 
A. Minimum Requirements 
To prove that a job requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge as required by section 214(i)(l) of the Act, a petitioner must establish that the position 
requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specialized field of study or its equivalent 
that relates directly and closely to the position in question. The Petitioner states the proffered position 
requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree in management, business administration, or related field, 
or equivalent work experience. It asserts that its required education and experience meets the 
regulatory definition of a specialty occupation. 6 However, the Petitioner does not define "related 
field," nor does it identify degree concentrations or specific training or experience that may qualify 
the proffered position as a specialty occupation. This lack of specialization differentiates the proffered 
position from the cases the Petitioner cites in support. 7 In other words, an entry requirement of a 
bachelor's or higher degree in business administration or management with a concentration in a 
specific field, or a bachelor's or higher degree in business administration or management combined 
with relevant education, training, and/or experience may, in certain instances, qualify the proffered 
position as a specialty occupation. However, a general-purpose degree, without further specification, 
precludes a determination that the position involves a "body of highly specialized knowledge" or 
requires the attainment of a bachelor's degree in a "specific specialty."8 
Therefore, the record satisfies neither the statutory nor the regulatory definitions of the term "specialty 
occupation." 
6 The Petitioner cites to several cases where courts found the Petitioner established specialty occupation and the minimum 
degree requirement was in business administration, such as, Tapis lnt'I v. INS, 94 F. Supp. 2d 172 (D. Mass. 2000), RELX, 
Inc. v. Baran, 397 F. Supp. 3d 41 (D.D.C. 2019), Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d 139, among others. 
7 The First Circuit Court of Appeals explained in Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147, that 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 the granting of a 
petition for an H-1B specialty occupation visa" citing Tapis lnt'I v. INS, 94 F.Supp.2d at 175-76; Shanti, 36 F. Supp. 2d 
1151 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). 
8 See Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147; see also Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151 (D. Minn. 1999); Vision Builders, LLC 
v. USCIS, No. CV 19-3159-TJK, 2020 WL 5891546 (D.D.C. Oct. 5, 2020); Parzenn Partners v. Baran, No. 19-cv-11515-
ADB , 2019 WL 6130678 (D. Mass., Nov. 19, 2019); XiaoTong Liu v. Baran, No. 18-00376-JVS, 2018 WL 7348851 (C.D. 
Cal., Dec. 21, 2018); 2233 Paradise Road, LLC v. Cissna, No. 17-cv-01018-APG-VCF , 2018 WL 3312967 (D. Nev., 
July 3, 2018). 
3 
B. Specialty Occupation 
Even if we set the issue of minimum requirements aside, we would still conclude that the proffered 
position is not a specialty occupation because the record does not satisfy at least one of the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(1)-(4). 
1. First Criterion 
We turn first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(1), which requires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. To inform this inquiry, we will consider the information contained 
in the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) regarding the 
duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations it addresses. 9 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-1B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "General and Operations Managers" 
corresponding to the standard occupational classification (SOC) code 11-1021, 10 at a Level IV (fully 
competent) wage. 
We reviewed the information in the Handbook regarding this occupational category and conclude that 
the Handbook does not establish that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is required. The 
Handbook's discussion of the duties and entry requirements for "General and Operations Managers" 
is contained within its discussion of the "Top Executives" occupational category.11 The subchapter 
of the Handbook entitled "How to Become a Top Executive" indicates that these positions generally 
impose no specific degree requirement on individuals seeking employment.12 It states that degrees 
vary depending on the field of work13 and some individuals may be able to substitute work experience 
for education.14 However, the Handbook does not define the amount or type of work experience that 
would suffice as a substitution. The Handbook therefore does not support the Petitioner's assertion 
9 We do not 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. Nevertheless, to satisfy the first criterion, 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. 
10 A petitioner submits the LCA to DOL to demonstrate that it will pay an H-lB worker the higher of either the prevailing 
wage for the occupational classification in the area of employment or the actual wage paid by the employer to other 
employees with similar duties, experience, and qualifications. See Section 212(n){l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(a). 
11 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Top Executives, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/top-executives.htm (last visited Jan. 28, 2021). 
12 Id. 
13 The Petitioner asserts that the "broader entry requirements" discussed in the Handbook refer to "public sector" 
employees. The Petitioner states the proffered position is not in the public sector but is similar to a "chief executive," 
which requires a degree in business administration or in an area related to the position's field of work. As discussed 
previously, the requirement of a bachelor's degree in business administration or management, without more, will not justify 
a conclusion that a particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. We hereby incorporate our 
discussion of the minimum degree requirements to the four 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) criteria. 
14 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Top Executives, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/top-executives.htm (last visited Jan. 28, 2021). 
4 
that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum 
requirement for these positions and does not support the particular position proffered here as being a 
specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner references the Level IV wage-designation on the LCA and asserts "[r]eaching the 
pinnacle of the profession requires the practical application of a body of specialized knowledge and a 
bachelor's degree or its equivalent in a specific field." While a position's wage level designation may 
be a relevant factor, it is not itself conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements 
of section 214(i)(1) of the Act. For example, a Level IV wage-designation would not reflect that an 
occupation qualifies as a specialty occupation if, as is the case here, that higher-level position does not 
have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent.15 
As an alternative authoritative source, the Petitioner references the DOL's Occupational Information 
Network (O*NET) summary report for the proffered position's educational requirements. The 
summary report assigns this occupation a Job Zone "Four" rating, which groups it among occupations 
for which "most ... require a four-year bachelor's degree, but some do not."16 Further, O*NET, 
which only provides general information regarding the occupation, does not indicate that four-year 
bachelor's degrees required by Job Zone Four occupations must be in a specific specialty directly 
related to the occupation.17 Therefore, O*NET information is not probative of the proffered position 
being a specialty occupation. Moreover, the Petitioner has not provided documentation from another 
authoritative source to substantiate its assertion regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this 
particular position.18 
Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(1). 
2. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs. The first prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), contemplates common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows 
15 In support of its assertion, the Petitioner also states the Beneficiary is "among the highest paid and most sought after 
employee □ within his field." However, the Petitioner is confusing the issue of a beneficiary's qualifications with the issue 
of a proffered position's qualifications as a specialty occupation. The test to establish a position as a specialty occupation 
is not the skill set or education of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Thus, whether or not the Beneficiary, in this case, has the required education and experience in the specific specialty is 
irrelevant to the issue of whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, i.e., whether the duties of the 
proffered position require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and the 
attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. See Section 214{i)(I) of the Act; 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
16 O*NET Online Summary Report for "11-1021.01 - General and Operations Managers," 
https://www.onetonline.org/Archive _ ONET-SOC _ 2010 _Taxonomy_ 09 _ 2020/1 ink/summary/11-1021.00 (last visited Jan. 
28, 2021). 
17 See Id. 
18 The Petitioner cites to Matter of Shin, 11 l&N Dec. 686 (Dist. Dir. 1966), in support of the proffered position 
categorically qualifying as a specialty occupation. However, the findings in Matter of Shin pertained to an immigrant visa 
petition and whether the beneficiary was a member of the professions as defined in section 101(a)(32) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(32), and as interpreted at that time. The primary issue here is whether the Petitioner's proffered position qualifies 
as a nonimmigrant H-1B specialty occupation and not whether it is a profession. 
5 
its focus to the Petitioner's specific position.19 To satisfy this first prong, 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. 
We generally consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there is such a common degree 
requirement: whether an authoritative source 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 establish that such firms "routinely employ 
and recruit only degreed individuals."20 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that an authoritative source reports at least 
a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required for the proffered position, and 
we incorporate our previous discussion on this matter. The Petitioner also does not submit evidence 
from an industry professional association indicating such a degree is a minimum requirement for entry 
into the position. 
The Petitioner submits copies of thirteen job advertisements as evidence that its degree requirement is 
standard among its peer organizations for parallel positions to the proffered position. For the petitioner 
to establish that an advertising organization is similar, it must demonstrate that the petitioner and the 
organization share the same general characteristics. Without such evidence, postings submitted by a 
petitioner are generally outside the scope of consideration for this criterion, which encompasses only 
organizations similar to the petitioner. When determining whether the petitioner and the advertising 
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). While the 
advertising companies do not substantively describe themselves in their advertisements, there is 
enough information to note that they are companies that provide, e.g. transportation logistics, sell 
medical devices, provide clinical services, are educational institutions, are in retail, property 
management, government contracting or hospitality, which differs from the Petitioner's recreational 
activities business. The Petitioner does not provide an explanation for how these companies share the 
same general characteristics and are thereby within the scope of consideration. 21 
19 As there are arguments and documents submitted in support of the second prong of the second criterion that overlap 
with criterion four, we will analyze these two criteria together. 
20 See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 1999) (quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 
1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (considering these "factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
21 The Director's denial states that the Petitioner must establish how the companies and their job postings are similar in 
nature to the Petitioner's. The Petitioner asserts that the Director ignores precedent by failing to articulate any difference 
between the postings presented and the proffered position, citing to Info Labs Inc. v. USCIS, No. CV 19-684 (RC), 2020 
WL 1536251, at *6 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2020). The Petitioner has not established how the facts of Info Labs Inc. are 
analogous to the present case. For example, the Petitioner here provided no analysis in its response to the Director's 
request for evidence (RFE) of how its business is similar in nature to the advertising companies, whose similarities are not 
self-evident. It is the Petitioner's burden to establish its claim and we do not interpret Info Labs Inc. as shifting that burden 
of proof. For the first time on appeal, the Petitioner broadly describes itself as a hospitality and customer service centered 
company and summarily states it is similar to two of the advertising companies that deal in hospitality and customer 
6 
Furthermore, by showing the common degree requirement as business administration, management or 
a related field, the job advertisements do not evidence a degree requirement in a specific specialty. 
The job advertisements support the Handbook's statement that "experience is expected to be in the 
organization's area of specialty,"22 as the area of expertise varies with each advertisement, e.g. account 
management, sales, billing, accounting, research, administrative support, retail, management, navy 
logistics, leadership and hospitality. The Petitioner does not identify an area of expertise23 and we 
cannot determine from the advertisements if the Petitioner is similar in nature to any of these 
companies enough to recognize a common concentration or experience requirement. 
The Petitioner submits an opinion letter b Interim Associate Dean for Graduate 
Programs atc=}Jniversity in,__ __ ___, However, the professor's letter does not discuss a common 
degree requirement in the industry, and therefore lends little probative value to establish this prong.24 
Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
3. 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. Evidence 
provided in support of this criterion may include, but is not limited to, documentation regarding the 
Petitioner's past recruitment and hiring practices, as well as information regarding employees who 
previously held the position. 
The Petitioner has not submitted evidence in support of this criterion. Instead, the Petitioner states, 
"The position offered to the Beneficiary conforms 100% to this company policy, which requires a 
bachelor's degree (or its equivalent) in a specific field of study." However, the record does not 
establish if this is a first time hiring or if it has had "property managers" in the past. The record must 
service. However, the two companies it states are similar, a children's hospital and a food and beverage bar, do not provide 
much information on the nature of its business and require different experience and skills, one requiring 10 years of 
hospitality experience and the other requiring 2 years of leadership experience. 
22 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Top Executives, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/top-executives.htm (last visited Jan. 28, 2021). 
23 The Petitioner, who bears the burden of proof in this proceeding, does not identify what experience would be required 
to perform the duties of the position. While the record includes an evaluation of the Beneficiary's work experience and 
indicates that the Beneficiary's sixteen years of managerial experience qualifies him for the position, this document in and 
of itself does not clarify the Petitioner's requirement, and becomes relevant only after the Petitioner has established the 
proffered position is in a specialty occupation. Furthermore, the Petitioner does not explain if its experience requirement 
is limited to management, it does not explain if the management experience should be in a specific area, nor does it state 
how many years of experience it requires. 
24 The Petitioner asserts the Director erred by not ascribing weight to its opinion letter and cites to Taylor Made Software, 
Inc. v. Cuccinelli, 453 F. Supp. 3d 237, 248 (D.D.C. 2020). However, the court in Taylor Made Software acknowledged 
that USCIS explained its reasoning and is entitled to its own reasonable evaluation of an expert opinion. Id. Furthermore, 
the Petitioner does not specify what statements made in the opinion letter with respect to the first prong of the second 
criterion were not addressed. The letter discusses the duties and degree requirements of the proffered position and does 
not analyze the commonality of the degree in the industry or how the proffered position is parallel to other positions in 
similar organizations. While we will discuss the opinion letter in the second prong of criterion two and criterion four, we 
hereby incorporate our analysis of the professor's letter to all the criteria. 
7 
establish that a petitioner's stated degree requirement is not a matter of preference for high-caliber 
candidates but is necessitated instead by performance requirements of the position. 25 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 as long as the 
petitioning entity created a token degree requirement.26 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
4. Second Prong of Second Criterion and Fourth Criterion 
The second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) 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. The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature of the specific duties is so 
specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is usually associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
When determining whether a position is a specialty occupation, we look at whether the position 
actually requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge 
attained through at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific discipline. Upon review of the totality of 
the record, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained or documented why the proffered position is 
so "complex or unique" or "specialized and complex" that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty 
is required. 
We first look to the duties of the position. A crucial aspect is whether the Petitioner has sufficiently 
described the duties of the proffered position such that we may discern the nature of the position. The 
Petitioner provides a list enumerating nine duties but does not provide the order of importance or 
frequency of occurrence (e.g., regularly, periodically, or at irregular intervals) with which the 
Beneficiary will perform the proffered position's duties. As a result, we are unable to determine how 
much time the Beneficiary will be performing administrative tasks, such as, ordering and inventorying 
necessary supplies, ensuring contractors are paid and the Petitioner's property is maintained, etc., 
versus monitoring finances, providing financial reports, and managing the budget, which would 
require different skills and/or knowledge. In addition, the record does not provide information on the 
company's hierarchy, staffing levels, or the overall role of the proffered position, such as, who the 
proffered position will report to or who the position will have control over. This ambiguity in the 
record is not overcome by the duties' description. As a result, when the duty states the Beneficiary 
will be in charge of hiring, training, supervising, and directing of all staff, we are unable to determine 
if staff includes senior management and/or seasonal employees, which affects the level of complexity 
and responsibility afforded to the proffered position. We are also unable to reconcile the inconsistency 
in the duties where the Beneficiary on one hand, will be responsible for the "maintenance, security, 
organization, and supervision of the entire operation" indicating a senior leadership role, with having 
to report to senior management, indicating a more supportive role. The general vagueness of the 
25 See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. 
26 Id. 
8 
duties' description also precludes an understanding of what the Beneficiary will actually be doing. 
For example, one duty is to "draft manuals for each activity," but it is not clear if the Beneficiary will 
be drafting company procedures or describing the recreational activities for marketing purposes, again, 
each interpretation indicating different knowledge and skillsets. 
Without a more meaningful job description, we are also unable to ascertain the level of education and 
knowledge necessary to perform the duties of the position. For example, the Beneficiary will monitor 
finances, but the Petitioner does not explain, for example, what specialized tools or programs, if any, 
would be required to perform this function. Similarly, the duties briefly state the Beneficiary will 
negotiate contracts. However, the Petitioner does not describe what "complex or unique" or 
"specialized and complex" knowledge is necessary to perform this duty, or how a degree in a specific 
specialty would provide this knowledge. 27 
To establish the specialized nature of the proffered position's duties, the Petitioner also relies on the 
opinion letter byl I The professor states he reviewed documents provided by the 
Petitioner to prepare his evaluation, but he does not identify the documents he reviewed. Most of his 
letter describes business administration and management degrees and how they relate to the proffered 
position's duties. He explains the duties require "an intimate understanding of business negotiation, 
business management and accounting, and human resources management" and these "competencies 
are unique to the domain of Business Administration, Management and closely related fields." He 
does not define what he means by a "related field" or why any other degree would not lead to a 
sufficiently similar knowledge set. Moreover, in analyzing the duties, the professor extrapolates much 
more detail than provided in the record. For example, one of the duties has the Beneficiary 
"responsible for the payroll for full-time and contract/seasonal employees, as well as the negotiation 
and payments of security, landscaping, contractor, and delivery of supplies." The professor interprets 
this task to include hiring, reassigning, firing of personnel, providing performance reviews and salary 
determinations, organizing teams, and allocating resources. Similarly, he interprets, "maintenance, 
security, organization, and supervision of the entire operation, including budgetary management, 
supervision of staff, and organization of various events" to mean "changing management systems and 
techniques, designing operational processes and other organization-wide shifts in strategy and 
process." However, he provides no explanation for how he comes to these conclusions. 
27 The Petitioner asserts on appeal that it was not provided notice in the RFE that it needed to provide additional details on 
the duties of the position prior to the denial, however, the record does not support the Petitioner's assertions. The RFE 
stated "[t]he duties you provided for your position of Property Manager seem general in nature. Therefore, you have not 
established that your proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation." The Petitioner was put on notice of the required 
evidence and given a reasonable opportunity to provide it for the record before the petition was adjudicated. 
9 
Moreover, many of the key findings28 in the professor's letter is recognized in the Handbook under the 
occupation "Operations Research Analysts," not the occupation petitioned for here.29 The professor's 
analysis therefore raises issue with whether he was fully informed on the occupational category of the 
Petitioner's "property manager" position. As a result, it is unclear whether the professor is accurately 
describing the skillsets necessary to perform the proffered position or whether he is providing an analysis 
of "Operations Research Analysts" when describing a duty, i.e. "[a]fter gathering the necessary data, 
translating it into mathematically tractable variables, and understanding constraint inequalities, it 
remains to mathematically conceptualize the fundamental problem that the operations research project 
is meant to solve." Of note, these elaborated duties do not appear to align with the duties presented by 
the Petitioner for the proffered position. 
As discussed herein, the Petitioner has the burden to provide relevant, probative, and credible evidence 
to establish that its claim is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. For much of his analysis, the 
professor did not qualify his declarations with sufficiently detailed analysis. His summary statements 
are unsupported by explanations, references to the record, or citations to studies, surveys, industry 
publications, authoritative publications,30 or other sources of empirical information. The conclusion 
the Petitioner requests us to draw from the professor's opinion is not self-evident, and we are not required 
to accept cursory or primarily conclusory statements as demonstrating eligibility.31 The professor's 
conclusory statements, coupled with the occupational inconsistencies, is insufficient to assist the 
Petitioner in satisfying its burden of proof.32 For these reasons, the opinion letter has little probative 
value in establishing the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner also provides an analysis of the relevant coursework required to perform the duties of 
the position. It identifies classes from accounting, finance, management, statistics, marketing, and 
economics. However, an explanation of the relevant knowledge these courses would provide is not 
included. Instead, the Petitioner makes summary assertions such as, "providing monthly financial 
reports to the senior management and monitoring all finances and be responsible for the financial 
record keeping are core competencies taught in any accounting coursework." The Petitioner also 
identifies courses that would "directly relate to [the] job duties" such as budget management, staff 
management, supplier management, and business strategy development. However, while a few related 
courses may be beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated how an established curriculum of such courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher 
28 The professor makes statements, such as, "[o]perations management-related duties will be a key responsibility of the 
proposed Property Manager position," "a key performance domain ... is quantitative research, study, and analysis of 
internal and external business operations, a set of activities collectively called operations research," "an organization 
decides to implement operations research to economize its processes, solve operational problems ... " and "[g]ood 
operations managers will use their expertise to find areas within the overall organizational strategy and structure where 
workers are able to organize their own processes, following a natural inclination to increase productivity." 
29 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Operations Research Analyst, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/math/operations-research-analysts.htm (last visited Jan. 28, 2021). 
30 The professor cites to the 2013 Eligibility Procedures and Accreditation Standards for Business Accreditation in his 
analysis of business administration concepts that would be relevant to the proffered position. However, the citations do 
not explain the leaps in his inferences about the duties and a copy of the publication was not provided in the record. 
31 See 1756, Inc. v. Att'y Gen, 745 F. Supp. 9, 17 (D.D.C. 1990) (finding USCIS acted properly in not crediting petitioner's 
conclusory assertions). 
32 Matter of Caron lnt'I, 19 l&N Dec. at 795(The service is not required to accept or may give less weight to an advisory 
opinion when it is "not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable."). 
10 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the duties of the proffered 
position. 
The Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative specialization as an aspect of the duties of the 
position, and it did not identify tasks that are sufficiently complex or unique to satisfy the second 
alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) or specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h )( 4)(i i i)(A)( 4). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Upon review of the totality of the evidence submitted, the Petitioner has not established that more 
likely than not, the proffered position is a specialty occupation under any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Moreover, the record does not establish that the Petitioner has satisfied the 
statutory and regulatory definitions of specialty occupation. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought.33 The Petitioner has not 
met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
33 See Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 
11