dismissed H-1B Case: Transportation Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
InRe: 7051288 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN . 2, 2020 
The Petitioner, a transportation services business, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an 
"administrative services manager" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(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 temporarily employ a qualified 
foreign worker in a position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body 
of highly specialized knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific 
specialty ( or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Director erred in denying 
the petition. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 1 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l) , defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, 
and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor 's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition , the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
1 We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 
(AAO 2010). 
(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. 
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. 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"). 
II. THE PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary as an "administrative services manager" andstated that 
the minimum entry requirement for the proffered position is a bachelor's degree in business or a related 
field. The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will be responsible for planning, directing and 
coordinating the administrative services of the company, and described the specific duties of the 
proffered position as follows: 
• Supervising clerical and administrative personnel and drivers. 
• Developing, managing, and monitoring records. 
• Recommending changes to policies or procedures in order to improve operations. 
• Monitoring the facility to ensure that it remains safe, secure, and well-maintained. 
• Ensuring the maintenance and repair of vehicles. 
• Ensuring that facilities meet environmental, health, and security standards and 
complying with government regulations. 
• Planning routes for drivers. 
• Responsible for terminal and dispatching activities, communication operations, and 
assignment of drivers. 
• Responsible for ensuring that the vehicles are clean and meet maintenance 
standards and requirements. 
• Point of contact for charter operations for vehicles. Reports services issues and 
ensures they are resolved. Tracks all variable expenses to include mileage and 
additional rental costs. 
2 
• Responding to and resolving customer complaints. Using appropriate level of 
authority to supervise and discipline drivers and take immediate action concerning 
customer complaints and issues. 
• Initiating investigations into causes of accidents, interviews operators concerned to 
determine responsibility, and taking actions on findings or submitting reports to 
General Manager. Taking appropriate action when drivers fail to report accident. 
Reporting all accidents to the insurance broker. 
• Checking trip and dispatch logs for conformance with schedules. 
• Dispatching replacement vehicles involved in accidents or mechanical failures. 
• Directing the preparation and retention of dispatch and vehicle operations records 
and reports. 
• Making calls though the day to track progress of drivers. 
• Maintaining mileage records for taxes. 
• Ensuring all drivers including new hires are road tested and meet DOT 
requirements. 
• Responsible for meeting requirements for state and federal agencies such as OSHA, 
DOT. 
III. LABOR CONDITION APPLICATION 
As a preliminary matter, we find that the labor condition application (LCA) 2 submitted in support of 
the H-lB petition, does not correspond to the petition. The purpose of the LCA wage requirement is 
"to protect U.S. workers' wages and eliminate any economic incentive or advantage in hiring 
temporary foreign workers." 3 It also serves to protect H-lB workers from wage abuses. A petitioner 
submits the LCA to the Department of Labor (DOL) to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B 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. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.73l(a). While DOL certifies the LCA, 
USCIS determines whether the LCA's content corresponds with the H-lB petition. See 20 C.F.R. 
§ 655.705(b) ("DHS determines whether the petition is supported by an LCA which corresponds with 
the petition ... "). 
To assess whether the wage level listed on the LCA corresponds with the proffered position, we apply 
DOL's guidance, which provides a five step process for determining the appropriate wage level. U.S. 
Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, 
Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009) (DOL guidance). 
2 A petitioner submits the LCA to DOL to demonstrate that it will pay an H-IB 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. Section 2 l 2(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.731 (a). 
3 See Labor Condition Applications and Requirements for Employers Using Non immigrants on H- I B Visas in Specialty 
Occupations and as Fashion Models; Labor Certification Process for Permanent Employment of Aliens in the United 
States, 65 Fed. Reg. 80,110, 80, 110-11 (proposed Dec. 20, 2000) (to be codified at 20 C.F.R. pts. 655-56). 
3 
DOL guidance states that wage levels should be determined only after selecting the most relevant 
occupational code classification. Then, a prevailing wage determination is made by selecting one of 
four wage levels for an occupation based on a comparison of the employer's job requirements to the 
occupational requirements, including tasks, knowledge, skills, and specific vocational preparation 
( education, training and experience) generally required for acceptable performance in that 
occupation. Factors to be considered when determining the wage level for a position include the 
complexity of the job duties, as well as the levels ofjudgment, supervision, and understanding required 
to perform the job duties. 
On the LCA submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner designated the proffered position 
under the occupational category "Administrative Services Managers" corresponding to the Standard 
Occupational Classification (SOC) code 11-3011 at a Level I wage rate. DOL guidance states that a 
Level I ( entry) wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which the Petitioner expects the 
Beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the occupation. This wage rate indicates: (1) that the 
Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; 
(2) that she will be closely supervised and her work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and 
(3) that she will receive specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. 4 
Step 3 of the DOL guidance regards education requirements. Here, the Petitioner stated that the 
proffered position requires a bachelor's degree. As will be discussed below, the DOL Occupational 
Information Network (O*NET) for "Administrative Services Managers" listed as SOC code 
11-3011.00, the SOC code listed by the Petitioner on the LCA, indicates that the occupation is a Job 
Zone Three 5 and has a specific vocational preparation (SVP) range of 6 < 7. 6 An education 
requirement of a bachelor's degree is more than that required for Job Zone Three and SVP range of 
6<7 occupations, and should have resulted in a one level increase in the wage. 
Therefore, the Petitioner's requirement of a bachelor's degree does not appear to be reflected in the 
wage level chosen by the Petitioner on the LCA. 7 The requirement of a bachelor's degree for this 
position appears to be materially inconsistent with the certification of the LCA for a Level I 
position. This conflict challenges the overall credibility of the petition in establishing the nature of 
the proffered position and in what capacity the Beneficiary will be employed. Therefore, we are 
precluded from finding that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
4 DOL guidance. 
5 A Job Zone Three designation states that "most occupations in this zone require training in vocational schools, related 
on-the-job experience, or an associate's degree." 
6 This SVP is defined as "[o]ver 1 year up to and including 2 years." https://www.onetonline.org/help/online/svp 
7 A petitioner must distinguish its proffered position from others within the occupation through the proper wage level 
designation to indicate factors such as 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. Through the wage level, the Petitioner 
reflects the job requirements, experience, education, special skills/other requirements and supervisory duties. See DOL 
guidance. 
4 
Even if we set this issue aside we would still conclude that the proffered position is not a specialty 
occupation because the evidence of record does not satisfy at least one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(l)-( 4). 8 
IV. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
For the reasons set out below, we have determined that the proffered position does not qualify as a 
specialty occupation. 9 Specifically, we find that two separate factors independently bar approval of 
this petition: (1) the Petitioner's lack of a requirement for a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, 
or the equivalent; and (2) the Petitioner's failure to satisfy at least one of the four regulatory specialty­
occupation criteria enumerated at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4). 
A. Lack of a Requirement for a Bachelor's Degree in a Specific Specialty, or the Equivalent 
First, the petition is not approvable because the Petitioner's claimed entry requirement of at least a 
bachelor's degree, or equivalent, in business or a related degree, without more, is inadequate to establish 
that the proposed position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
A petitioner must demonstrate that the proffered position requires a precise and specific course of study 
that relates directly and closely to the position in question. There must be a close correlation between the 
required specialized studies and the position; thus, the mere requirement of a general degree, such as 
business, without further specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. 10 Royal 
Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147 (a general-purpose bachelor's degree in business may be a legitimate 
prerequisite for a particular position, but such a degree, without more, will not justify a finding that a 
particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation). See also Irish Help at Home 
LLC v. Melville, No. 13-cv-00943-MEJ, 2015 WL 848977 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 24, 2015), aff'd 679 Fed. 
App'x 634 (9th Cir. 2017). Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558,560 (Comm'r 1988) 
("The mere requirement of a college degree for the sake of general education, or to obtain what an 
employer perceives to be a higher caliber employee, also does not establish eligibility."). For this reason 
alone the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 
8 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
9 The Petitioner submitted documentation in support of the H-lB 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. 
10 A general degree requirement does not necessarily preclude a proffered position from qualifying as a specialty 
occupation. For example, an entry requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in business with a concentration in a 
specific field, or a bachelor's or higher degree in business combined with relevant education, training, and/or experience 
may, in certain instances, quality the proffered position as a specialty occupation. In either case, it must be demonstrated 
that the entry requirement is equivalent to a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the 
proffered position. 
5 
B. The Specialty-Occupation Criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(])-(4) 
Even if we set that issue aside as well we would still conclude that the proffered position is not a specialty 
occupation because the evidence of record does not satisfy at least one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(])-(4). 
1. First Criterion 
We turn first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(]), 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. We recognize DOL' s Handbook as an authoritative source on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 11 
On the LCA submitted in support of the H-1B petition, the Petitioner designated the proffered position 
under the occupational category "Administrative Services Managers" corresponding to the SOC code 
11-3011. The Handbook's subchapter entitled "How to Become an Administrative Services Manager," 
states, in pertinent part, that administrative services managers typically have a bachelor's degree in 
business, engineering, facility management, or information management. However, the Handbook 
further states that some administrative services managers may be able to enter the occupation with a high 
school diploma. 
The Handbook, therefore, does not support the assertion that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for these positions. 
The Petitioner also references DOL's O*NET summary report for "Administrative Services Managers" 
listed as SOC code 11-3011.00. The summary report provides general information regarding the 
occupation; however, it does not support the Petitioner's assertion regarding the educational requirements 
for these positions. For example, the SVP rating, which is defined as "the amount oflapsed time required 
by a typical worker to learn the techniques, acquire the information, and develop the facility needed for 
average performance in a specific job-worker situation," cited within O*NET's Job Zone designates this 
position as having an SVP 6 < 7. This indicates that the occupation requires "over 1 year up to and 
including 2 years" of training. 12 While the SVP rating provides the total number of years of vocational 
preparation required for a particular position, it is important to note that it does not describe how those 
years are to be divided among training, formal education, and experience - and it does not specify the 
11 We do not maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source ofrelevant information. That is, the occupational category 
designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered 
position, and we regularly review the Handbook on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of 
occupations that it addresses. To satisfy the first criterion, however, the burden ofproofremains 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. 
12 This training may be acquired in a school, work, military, institutional, or vocational environment. Specific vocational 
training includes: vocational education, apprenticeship training, in-plant training, on-the-job training, and essential 
experience in other jobs. 
6 
particular type of degree, if any, that a position would require.13 The O*NET summary report for this 
occupation also does not specify that a bachelor's degree is required, but instead states, "most occupations 
in this zone require training in vocational schools, related on-the-job experience, or an associate's degree." 
Similar to the SVP rating, the Job Zone Three designation does not indicate that any academic credentials 
for Job Zone Three occupations must be directly related to the duties performed. 
Further, we note that the summary report provides the educational requirements of "respondents," but 
does not account for 100% of the "respondents." The respondents' positions within the occupation are 
not distinguished by career level ( e.g., entry-level, mid-level, senior-level). Additionally, the graph in the 
summary report does not indicate that the "education level" for the respondents must be in a specific 
specialty. The survey indicates that 24% of "respondents" claim to hold a bachelor's degree. However, 
the same survey indicates that compared to bachelor's degree respondents, more respondents, 34%, 
reported possessing at most a high school diploma or equivalent, 13% reported possessing at most a post­
secondary certificate, and further, 29% are unaccounted for. Regardless, a requirement for a bachelor's 
degree alone is not sufficient. Instead, 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.14 See 
Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147 (describing "a degree requirement in a specific specialty" as "one that 
relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular position"). 
O*NET, therefore, also does not support the assertion that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for these positions. 
Nor is the case law the Petitioner cites sufficient to satisfy the first criterion. First, the Petitioner cites 
to a district court case, Raj and Co. v. USCIS, 85 F. Supp. 3d 1241 (W.D. Wash. 2015), and claims 
that it is relevant here. 15 We reviewed the decision; however, the Petitioner has not established that 
the duties and responsibilities, level of judgment, complexity, supervisory duties, independent 
judgment, or amount of supervision in that case are analogous to the position proffered here. There is 
little indication that the positions are similar. 
Further, in Raj, the court stated that a specialty occupation requires the attainment of a bachelor's 
degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The court confirmed that this issue is well­
settled in case law and with the agency's reasonable interpretation of the regulatory framework. In 
the decision, the court noted that "permitting an occupation to qualify simply by requiring a 
generalized bachelor degree would run contrary to congressional intent to provide a visa program for 
specialized, as opposed to merely educated, workers." The court stated that the regulatory provisions 
13 For additional information. see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/help/ 
online/svp. 
14 Nor is it apparent whether these credentials were prerequisites to these individuals' hiring. 
15 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 within the same district. See Matter of 
K-S-, 20 l&N Dec. 715 (BIA 1993). Although the reasoning underlying a district judge's decision will be given due 
consideration when it is properly before us, the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of law. Id. at 719. 
7 
do not restrict qualifying occupations to those for which there exists a single, specifically tailored and 
titled degree program; but rather, the statute and regulations contain an equivalency provision. 16 
In Raj, the court concluded that the employer met the first criterion. We must note, however, that the 
court stated that "[t]he first regulatory criterion requires the agency to examine the generic position 
requirements of a market research analyst in order to determine whether a specific bachelor's degree 
or its equivalent is a minimum requirement for entry into the profession." Thus, the decision misstates 
the regulatory requirement. That is, the first criterion requires the petitioner to establish that a 
baccalaureate or higher degree (in a specific specialty) or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position. 
Consequently, if the court meant to suggest that any position classified under the occupational category 
"Market Research Analysts" would, as it stated, "come within the first qualifying criteria" - we must 
disagree. 17 The occupational category designated by a petitioner is considered as an aspect in 
establishing the general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered position, and USCIS regularly reviews 
the Handbook on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it 
addresses. However, 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. That is, to determine whether a 
particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCIS does not simply rely on a position's title or 
designated occupational category. The specific duties of the proffered position, combined with the 
nature of the petitioning entity's business operations, are factors to be considered. USCIS must 
examine the ultimate employment of the Beneficiary, and determine whether the position qualifies as 
a specialty occupation. See generally Defensor, 201 F.3d 384. 
Nevertheless, it is important to note that the court in Raj determined that the evidence in the record 
demonstrated that the particular position proffered required a bachelor's degree in market research or 
its equivalent as a minimum for entry. Further, the court noted that "[t]he patently specialized nature 
of the position sets it apart from those that merely require a generic degree." The position in Raj can, 
therefore, be distinguished from the instant position. Here, the duties and requirements of the position 
as described in the record of proceeding do not indicate that this particular position proffered by the 
Petitioner is one for which a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is 
normally the minimum requirement for entry. 
16 We agree with the comt that a specialty occupation is one that requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree 
in a specific specialty or its equivalent. We further note that a petitioner must also demonstrate that the position requires 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in accordance with section 
214(i)(l)(B) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii), and satisfies one of the four criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 2 l 4.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). 
17 In Raj, the court quoted a brief excerpt from the Handbook; however, the quotation is from the 2012-2013 edition rather 
than the current edition (which contains several revisions). Further, we observe that the coUii did not address the section 
of the Handbook indicating that there are no specific degree requirements to obtain the Professional Researcher 
Ce1tification credential - and therefore to work as a market research analyst. 
8 
The Petitioner also cited Residential Finance Corp. v. USCIS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012). 
We agree that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is what is important." However, in 
general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry and biochemistry, 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 2 l 4(i)(l )(B) of the Act. In such a case, 
the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" would essentially be the same. Since there must 
be a close correlation between the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" and the position, 
however, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in two disparate fields, such as business and 
medical-related, would not meet the statutory requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty 
( or its equivalent)," unless the Petitioner establishes how each field is directly related to the duties and 
responsibilities of the particular position. Section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). 18 For the 
aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner has not met its burden to establish that the particular position 
offered in this matter requires a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, 
directly related to its duties in order to perform those tasks. 
In any event, the Petitioner has famished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition 
are analogous to those in Residential Finance. Again, we are not bound to follow the published 
decision of a United States district court in matters arising even within the same district. See K-S-, 20 
I&N Dec. at 719-20. It is also important to note that in a subsequent case reviewed in the same 
jurisdiction, the court agreed with our analysis of Residential Finance. See Health Carousel, LLC v. 
USCIS, No. 1:13-CV-23, 2014 WL 29591 (S.D. Ohio 2014). 
The record lacks sufficient probative evidence to support a finding that the proffered position is one for 
which a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry. For the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner has not met its burden to establish 
that the particular position offered in this matter requires a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, directly related to its duties in order to perform those tasks. Thus, the 
Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I). 
2. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs: 'The degree requirement is common to the industry 
in parallel positions among similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree[.]" 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong casts its gaze upon the common 
industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific position. 
18 The court in Residential Finance did not eliminate the statutory "bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty" 
language imposed by Congress, as the Petitioner seems to suggest. Rather, it found that the petitioner in that case had 
satisfied the requirement. 
9 
a. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent) 
is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
We generally consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there is such a common degree 
requirement: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the industry's 
professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether letters or 
affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms "routinely employ and recruit 
only degreed individuals." See 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)). 
The Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which the Handbook ( or other 
independent, authoritative sources) reports an industry-wide requirement for at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, we incorporate by reference the previous discussion on the 
matter. Also, there are no submissions from the industry's professional association indicating that it has 
made a degree a minimum entry requirement. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not submit any letters or 
affidavits from similar firms or individuals in the Petitioner's industry attesting that such firms "routinely 
employ and recruit only degreed individuals." 
The Petitioner submitted job vacancy announcements for our consideration under this prong. To be 
relevant for this consideration, the job vacancy announcements must advertise "parallel positions," and 
the announcements must have been placed by organizations that (1) conduct business in the Petitioner's 
industry and (2) are also "similar" to the Petitioner. These job vacancy announcements do not satisfy that 
threshold. Upon review of the documents, we find that the Petitioner's reliance on the job announcements 
is misplaced. 
We will first consider whether the advertised job opportunities could be considered "parallel positions." 
As noted, the Petitioner attested to DOL that the proffered position is a Level I, entry-level position. 
However, the advertised positions submitted require significant work experience beyond the requirements 
for an entry-level position. In particular, one of the advertised positions requires a bachelor's degree in 
public administration, and a minimum of three years of experience in transit organization administrative 
services, and another advertised position requires a bachelor's degree in business or public administration 
and five years of experience in transit planning or grants. The other advertised positions submitted for 
consideration merely reflect a minimum requirement of an unspecified "bachelor's degree." The 
Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the primary duties and responsibilities of the advertised 
positions parallel those of the proffered position. 
Nor is the evidence ofrecord sufficient to establish that the advertising organizations (1) conduct business 
in the Petitioner's industry and (2) are also "similar" to the Petitioner in size, scale and scope of operations, 
recruiting and hiring practices, or other functions. 
10 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that these job vacancy announcements are relevant. 
Even if that threshold had been met, we would still find that they did not satisfy this prong of the second 
criterion, as they do not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, is 
common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. These postings do not indicate 
that at least a bachelor's degree in a directly related specific specialty ( or its equivalent) is required. 19 As 
noted, one of the advertised positions states that a bachelor's degree in business or public administration 
is acceptable, and other advertised positions merely indicate that an unspecified "bachelor's degree" is 
acceptable, which, without further specialization, we would not consider to be a requirement for a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. Overall, the job postings suggest, at best, that although a 
bachelor's degree is sometimes required for these positions, a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty ( or 
its equivalent) is not.20 
As the documentation does not establish that the Petitioner has met this prong of the regulations, further 
analysis regarding the specific information contained in each of the job postings is not necessary. 21 That 
is, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient probative evidence to establish that a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 2 l 4.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
b. Second Prong 
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. 
We reviewed the Petitioner's statements regarding the proffered pos1t10n; however, while the 
Petitioner stated that the administrative services manager will be "will be responsible for planning, 
directing and coordinating the administrative services of the company," it has not sufficiently 
developed relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the proffered position. That is, the 
19 As discussed, the degree requirement set by the statutory and regulatory rramework of the H-1 B program is not just a 
bachelor's or higher degree, but a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the duties of the 
position. Section 214(i)(l)(b) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). See Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. 
20 Even if all of the job postings indicated that a requirement of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is common to 
the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations (which they do not), the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from the advertisements with regard to determining the common 
educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice 
of Social Research 186-228 (1995). Moreover, given that there is no indication that the advertisements were randomly 
selected, the validity of any such inferences could not be accurately determined even if the sampling unit were sufficiently 
large. See id. at 195-196 (explaining that "[r]andom selection is the key to [the] process [of probability sampling]" and 
that "random selection offers access to the body of probability theory, which provides the basis for estimates of population 
parameters and estimates of error"). 
21 The Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how representative the job postings are of the particular 
advertising employers' recruiting history for the type of job advertised. As the advertisements are only solicitations for 
hire, they are not evidence of the actual hiring practices of these employers. 
11 
Petitioner has not explained in detail how the duties listed below require the theoretical and practical 
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge. 
• Supervising clerical and administrative personnel and drivers. 
• Developing, managing, and monitoring records. 
• Recommending changes to policies or procedures in order to improve operations. 
• Monitoring the facility to ensure that it remains safe, secure, and well-maintained. 
• Ensuring the maintenance and repair of vehicles. 
• Ensuring that facilities meet environmental, health, and security standards and 
complying with government regulations. 
• Planning routes for drivers. 
• Responsible for terminal and dispatching activities, communication operations, and 
assignment of drivers. 
• Responsible for ensuring that the vehicles are clean and meet maintenance 
standards and requirements. 
• Point of contact for charter operations for vehicles. Reports services issues and 
ensures they are resolved. Tracks all variable expenses to include mileage and 
additional rental costs. 
• Responding to and resolving customer complaints. Using appropriate level of 
authority to supervise and discipline drivers and take immediate action concerning 
customer complaints and issues. 
• Initiating investigations into causes of accidents, interviews operators concerned to 
determine responsibility, and taking actions on findings or submitting reports to 
General Manager. Taking appropriate action when drivers fail to report accident. 
Reporting all accidents to the insurance broker. 
• Checking trip and dispatch logs for conformance with schedules. 
• Dispatching replacement vehicles involved in accidents or mechanical failures. 
• Directing the preparation and retention of dispatch and vehicle operations records 
and reports. 
• Making calls though the day to track progress of drivers. 
• Maintaining mileage records for taxes. 
• Ensuring all drivers including new hires are road tested and meet DOT 
requirements. 
• Responsible for meeting requirements for state and federal agencies such as OSHA, 
DOT. 
Moreover, we observed earlier the Handbook's indication that typical positions located within this 
occupational category do not carry a requirement for a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the 
equivalent. The record contains no indicia that the proffered position is any more complex or unique 
from such positions. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well qualified for the pos1t10n, and references her 
qualifications. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education or 
experience of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's degree 
12 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative complexity 
or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position, and it did not identify any tasks that are so complex 
or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. Accordingly, the Petitioner has 
not satisfied the second alternative prong of 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. We note that 
the Petitioner established its business in 2016 and appears to employ only two individuals. Therefore, 
it appears that this is the first time the Petitioner has sought to hire anyone for the proffered position, 
as it did not submit evidence of previous or current employees who have served in the proffered 
position. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
4. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature of 
the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is usually 
associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
For the same reasons we discussed under the second prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), we find 
that the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one with duties sufficiently specialized 
and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). We incorporate our earlier discussion and 
analysis on this matter. 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
V. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons outlined above, the Petitioner has not established eligibility for the benefit sought. 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 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. 
13