dismissed H-1B Case: Travel And Tour Services

MATTER OF T-H- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 1, 2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, which engages in "various travel and tour services, events, convention, wedding 
planning and other related services," seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an "Operations 
Manager" under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) § 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The Director, California Service 
Center, denied the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. Upon de novo review, we will 
dismiss the appeal. 
I. ISSUE 
The issue before us is whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation m 
accordance with the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. 
II. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
A. 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) states, in pertinent part, the following: 
Specialty occupation means an occupation which [ (1)] requires theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in fields of human 
endeavor including, but not limited to, architecture, engineering, mathematics, 
physical sciences, social sciences, medicine and health, education, business 
specialties, accounting, law, theology, and the arts, and which [(2)) requires the 
Matter ofT-H- Inc. 
attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as 
a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, a proposed position must 
meet one of the following criteria: 
(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. 
As a threshold issue, it is noted that 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must logically be read together 
with section 214(i)(1) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). In other words, this regulatory 
language must be construed in harmony with the thrust of the related provisions and with the statute 
as a whole. SeeK Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) (holding that construction 
oflanguage which takes into account the design of the statute as a whole is preferred); see also COlT 
Independence Joint Venture v. Fed. Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989); Matter ofW-F-, 
21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). As such, the criteria stated in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) should 
logically be read as being necessary but not necessarily sufficient to meet the statutory and 
regulatory definition of specialty occupation. To otherwise interpret this section as stating the 
necessary and sufficient conditions for meeting the definition of specialty occupation would result in 
particular positions meeting a condition under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory or 
regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). To avoid this 
result, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must therefore be read as providing supplemental criteria that 
must be met in accordance with, and not as alternatives to, the statutory and regulatory definitions of 
specialty occupation. 
As such and consonant with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) consistently interprets the 
term "degree" in the criteria at 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. 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"). Applying this standard, USCIS regularly approves H-lB petitions for qualified 
individuals who are to be employed as engineers, computer scientists, certified public accountants, 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter ofT-H- Inc. 
college professors, and other such occupations. These professions , for which petitioners have 
regularly been able to establish a minimum entry requirement in the United States of a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, directly related to the duties and 
responsibilities of the particular position, fairly represent the types of specialty occupations that 
Congress contemplated when it created the H -1 B visa category. 
To determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCIS does not simply 
rely on a position 's title. 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 individual, and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. The critical element is not the title 
of the position or an employer's self-imposed standards, but whether the position actually requires 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty as the minimum for entry into 
the occupation, as required by the Act. 
B. The Proffered Position 
The labor condition application (LCA) submitted to support the visa petition states that the proffered 
position corresponds to Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code and occupation title 11-
1021, "General and Operations Managers," from the Occupational Information Network (O*NET). 
The LCA further states that the proffered position is a Level I position. 
In a letter of support dated March 30, 2015, the Petitioner described itself as 
which employs 16 professionals plus 16 independent contractors. 1 The 
Petitioner also described the scope of its operations as consisting of "four corporate offices in 
Korea" and two "affiliated companies in Hawaii," which the Petitioner states are "separate legal 
entities with its own employees, but operate under the same management." The Petitioner's claimed 
affiliates include three different agencies in Korea with 31 total employees, 
in Hawaii and Korea with eight total employees, and a company in Hawaii which 
is expected to start in "late 2015/early 2016." 
With respect to the proffered position, the Petitioner stated that it is seeking to employ an 
"Operations & General Manager" "to direct and coordinate activities of [its] numerous operation 
activities, diverse departments within [the Petitioner] as well as affiliate companies ... and to assist 
the President and Vice-President in formulating and administering comprehensive organization 
policies that are consistent across [its] multiple entities. "2 The Petitioner also stated that "[a] 
thorough understanding of the Korean culture and language, and what appeals to Korean 
1 The Petitioner later asserted that these contractors are being converted to employees. 
2 The Petitioner has provided various titles for the proffered position , such as "Operations Manager" (on the Form 1-129), 
"Operations & General Manager " (in its March 30, 2015, letter), and "Operations and General Director (in its July 28, 
2015, response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE)) . 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter ofT-H- Inc. 
customers[,] is critical for the position at hand," as over 90% of its gross sales is generated by 
Korean visitors. 
The Petitioner listed its requirements for the proffered position as including a "Bachelor's degree or 
its equivalent in business administration , hospitality management or a related field" and "[g]ood 
knowledge and experience in and industry." 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner asserted that "[t]he position is a specialty 
occupation due to the global nature of the Petitioner's business and the complexity of the proposed 
duties." The Petitioner elaborated that the proffered position is "distinguishable by its uniqueness 
and greater complexity" from a typical operations manager position, and that the Beneficiary will be 
performing duties which encompass duties of the following other positions: Project Development 
Coordinator, Operations Research 
Analyst, Computer and Information Systems Manager, Financial 
Manager, or Contract Administrator. 
In addition, the Petitioner provided another description of the proffered position with percentages of 
time spent on each duty, as summarized below: 
• Develop and direct the Petitioner's expansion plans in the U.S. and overseas 
(25%) 
• Direct and coordinate business activities of organization to ensure efficient and 
profitable operations (20%) 
• Plan and direct the organization 's financial activities related to daily business 
operations and budget planning (20%) 
• Manage and conduct contract negotiation with major vendors, wholesalers and 
business partners in the U.S. and overseas to advance the Petitioner's purpose and 
profitability (15%) 
• Liaison for the Petitioner's diverse divisions in the U.S. and overseas (2.5%) 
• Manage and oversee Events & Program Development Department (4%) 
• Manage and oversee Sales & Marketing Department to meet the Petitioner's 
projected sales and profit goals (2.5%) 
• Manage and oversee Human Resources & Administrative Department (2.5%) 
• Direct development and modification of organization 's complex computer and 
information system (2.5%) 
• Prepare and lead weekly management meetings (6%) 
• Promote the Petitioner and its subsidiaries/affiliates in industry and trade 
associations (as needed) 
The Petitioner stated that the proffered position's duties "require knowledge usually associated with 
the attainment of a bachelor's degree in business administration with a concentration in 
management." Later on in this letter, the Petitioner stated that "a bachelor's degree in business 
administration, travel management or a closely related field is required for the position offered." 
4 
Matter ofT-H- Inc. 
On appeal, the Petitioner first asserts that the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree in 
business administration. The Petitioner then states in the appeal brief that the minimum entry 
requirements for the proffered position may be satisfied by a "bachelor's degree in business 
administration, economics, finance, and travel industry management." Later in the brief, the 
Petitioner states that "[i]t is the complex nature of the Petitioner's business that necessitates hiring of 
a candidate with a minimum of a bachelor's degree in business management," and then, a "minimum 
of a bachelor's degree in the field of business is a business necessity for the [Petitioner]." Finally, 
the Petitioner states in the brief that the "proffered position is a specialty occupation requiring a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty (business administration, economics, finance) .... " 
C. Analysis 
As a preliminary matter, we find that the Petitioner has not consistently articulated the minimum 
educational requirement for the proffered position. For instance, the Petitioner initially stated that it 
requires a bachelor's degree in business administration, hospitality management or a related field. In 
response to the RFE, the Petitioner variously stated that the proffered position requires a bachelor's 
degree in business administration with a concentration in management, or a bachelor's degree in 
business administration, travel management, or a closely related field. On appeal, the Petitioner 
states that the minimum entry requirements for the proffered position may be satisfied by a degree in 
business administration, economics, finance, travel industry management, business management, or 
business. 
Based on these various stated requirements which changed over time, it is not clear what the 
Petitioner's actual minimum entry requirement for the proffered position is. "[I]t is incumbent upon 
the petitioner to resolve the inconsistencies by independent objective evidence." Matter of Ho, 19 
I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not 
suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
Id. at 591-92. "Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a 
reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the 
visa petition." Id. at 591. 
The Petitioner cites to Residential Finance Corp. v. USCJS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012) 
and Tapis Int'l v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 94 F. Supp. 2d 172 (D. Mass. 2000) for 
the proposition that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is what is important. Diplomas 
rarely come bearing occupation-specific majors. What is required is an occupation that requires 
highly specialized knowledge and a prospective employee who has attained the credentialing 
indicating possession of that knowledge." The Petitioner asserts that because "there is no 
'Operations Manager bachelor's degree' program in accredited universities," its acceptance of "a 
degree from more than one field of study meets the minimum educational requirement threshold." 
While we agree with the general propositions cited above, we do not agree that these propositions 
apply to the situation at hand. The issue here is not that "there is no 'Operations Manager bachelor's 
degree' program in accredited universities." The Petitioner has inconsistently claimed that certain 
5 
Matter ofT-H- Inc. 
bachelor's degrees (e.g., degrees in business administration, hospitality management, travel 
management, travel industry management, economics, or finance) are sufficient to provide the 
requisite knowledge to perform the proffered position. 
In any event, the Petitioner has furnished insufficient evidence to establish that the facts of the 
instant petition are analogous to those in Residential Finance Corp. and Tapis. We also note that, 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 I&N Dec. 715, 719-20 (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. !d. 
Moreover, if the Petitioner's minimum entry requirement can be satisfied by a bachelor's degree in 
business or business administration without further specialization, this alone indicates that the 
proposed position does not qualify as a specialty occupation. 3 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. Since there must be a close correlation between the required specialized 
studies and the position, the requirement of a degree with a generalized title, such as business or 
business administration, without further specification, does not establish the position as a specialty 
occupation. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). The 
general and broad nature of a business administration degree, for example, is illustrated by the 
Petitioner's own statement that "[c]andidates in baccalaureate's degree in business administration 
are provided with practical and theoretical knowledge in various areas of business administration 
including statistics, economics, marketing, microeconomics, finance and financial management, 
accounting, business environment and management, information systems, production and operations 
management, and others." 
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. As discussed supra, USCIS interprets the degree requirement at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) to require a degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed 
position. Although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business or business 
administration, may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, 
3 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 administration with a 
concentration in a specific field, or a bachelor's or higher degree in business administration combined with relevant 
education, training, and/or experience may, in certain instances, qualify 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. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertojf, 484 F.3d 
at 147. 
Matter ofT-H- Inc. 
without more, will not justify a finding that a particular position qualifies for classification as a 
specialty occupation. Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007).4 
Based on the inconsistent statements with respect to the Petitioner's requirements for the proffered 
position and the Petitioner's assertion that it accepts a bachelor's degree in business or business 
administration without further specialization, it cannot be found that the Petitioner requires a degree 
in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered position. The Director's decision must 
therefore be affirmed and the appeal dismissed on this basis alone. 
Notwithstanding the above, it also cannot be found that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation because the Petitioner has not satisfied any of the supplemental, additional criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). To reach this conclusion, we first tum to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)(l), which can be satisfied by showing that a baccalaureate or higher degree or 
its equivalent is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position. 
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 the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL's) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) 
as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of 
occupations that it addresses. 5 
The Petitioner indicated on the LCA that the proffered position corresponds to SOC code and title 
11-1021, "General and Operations Managers." This occupational classification is addressed in the 
Handbook chapter on "Top Executives," which states the following about the educational 
requirements of such positions, in pertinent part: 
4 Specifically, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit explained in Royal Siam that: 
!d. 
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-1 B 
specialty occupation visa. See, e.g., Tapis lnt'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 1&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. 
5 The Handbook, which is available in printed form, may also be accessed at: http://www.bls.gov/oco/. Our references to 
the Handbook are to the 2016- 17 edition available online. 
Matter ofT-H- Inc. 
How to Become a Top Executive 
Although education and training requirements vary widely by position and 
industry, many top executives have at least a bachelor's degree and a considerable 
amount of work experience. 
Education 
Many top executives have a bachelor's or master's degree in business 
administration or in an area related to their field of work. Top executives in the 
public sector often have a degree in business administration, public administration, 
law, or the liberal arts. Top executives of large corporations often have a master's 
degree in business administration (MBA). 
Work Experience in a Related Occupation 
Many top executives advance within their own firm, moving up from lower 
level managerial or supervisory positions. However, other companies may prefer to 
hire qualified candidates from outside their organization. Top executives who are 
promoted from lower level positions may be able to substitute experience for 
education to move up in the company. For example, in industries such as retail trade 
or transportation, workers without a college degree may work their way up to higher 
levels within the company to become executives or general managers. 
Chief executives typically need extensive managerial experience. Executives 
are also expected to have experience in the organization's area of specialty. Most 
general and operations managers hired from outside an organization need lower level 
supervisory or management experience in a related field. 
Some general managers advance to higher level managerial or executive 
positions. Company training programs, executive development programs, and 
certification can often benefit managers or executives hoping to advance. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., "Top 
Executives," http://www.bls.gov/ooh!Management/Top-executives.htm#tab-4 (last visited Feb. 29, 
2016). 
The Handbook does not support the conclusion that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation. To 
the contrary, the Handbook states that "education and training requirements vary widely by position 
and industry." Id. The Handbook also observes that in some industries, "workers without a college 
degree may work their way up to higher levels within the company to become executives or general 
Matter of T-H-Ine. 
managers." ld. While the Handbook states that "many top executives have at least a bachelor's 
degree ... [or] a bachelor's or master's degree in business administration," as we previously 
indicated, a requirement of a general bachelor's degree or a general-purpose business administration 
degree is insufficient to establish a position as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam Corp., 484 F .3d at 
14 7; cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. at 560. Thus, we find that the Handbook 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 entry into this occupational category. 
The Petitioner contends on appeal that the Handbook "should not be used as a device to disqualify 
the Beneficiary for the proffered position," and highlights the Handbook's statement that "the 
information in the Handbook should not be used to determine if an applicant is qualified to enter a 
specific job in an occupation." The issue here, however, is not whether the Beneficiary is qualified 
to enter a specific job, but whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 6 
When the Handbook does not support the proposition that a proffered position is one that meets the 
statutory and regulatory provisions of a specialty occupation, it is incumbent upon the Petitioner to 
provide persuasive evidence that the proffered position more likely than not satisfies this or one of 
the other three criteria, notwithstanding the absence of the Handbook's support on the issue. In such 
case, it is the Petitioner's responsibility to provide probative evidence (e.g., documentation from 
other objective, authoritative sources) that supports a finding that the particular position in question 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. Whenever more than one authoritative source exists, an 
adjudicator will consider and weigh all of the evidence presented to determine whether the particular 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
In this case, the Petitioner has not established that the proffered position falls under an occupational 
category for which the Handbook, or other authoritative source, indicates that normally the minimum 
requirement for entry is at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, 
the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
The requirement of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel 
positions among similar organizations 
Next, we will review the record regarding the first of the two alternative prongs of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)(2). This prong alternatively calls for a petitioner to establish that a requirement 
of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common for positions 
that are identifiable as being: (1) in the petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered position, 
and also (3) located in organizations that are similar to the petitioner. 
6 A beneficiary's credentials to perform a particular job are relevant only when the job is found to be a specialty 
occupation. 
9 
Matter ofT-H- Inc. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by 
USCIS include: 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)). 
As discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which the 
Handbook (or other independent, authoritative source) 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. 
There are no submissions from the industry's professional association indicating that it has made a 
degree a minimum entry requirement. The Petitioner also 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." Furthermore, with regard to this prong, the Petitioner 
stated in response to the Director's RFE that it is "unable, but not unwilling, to provide [relevant 
evidence] at this time because of its unique profile in the U.S. market." 
Based upon a complete review of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that 
a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to 
the Petitioner's industry in positions that are (1) in the Petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the 
proffered position, and also (3) located in organizations that are similar to the Petitioner. For the 
reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by 
an individual with a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent 
The record also dpes not satisfy the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), 
which provides that "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." 
Here, the record does not credibly demonstrate exactly what the Beneficiary will do on a day-to-day 
basis such that complexity or uniqueness can be determined. We agree with the Director that the 
Petitioner's descriptions of the proffered duties, while lengthy, are generically described. For example, 
the Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary will spend 25% of his time on the duty of"[ d]evelop and 
direct Petitioner's expansion plans in the U.S. and overseas," which includes the additional duties of 
"[ e ]valuate and assess feasibility of expansion plans and projects to determine viability" and 
"[r]ecommend proposal for continual organizational growth by directing and analyzing revenue and 
expense projections, analyzing market trends and preparing competitive analysis." These duties are 
overly broad and do not adequately describe the specific tasks to be performed. 
10 
Matter ofT-H- Inc. 
The Petitioner's descriptions are duplicative as well. For example, the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
distinguished the above duties from the Beneficiary's other stated duties, which will take up additional 
percentages of his time, including "[ d]irect and coordinate business activities of organization" and 
"[d]evelop strategies to enhance Petitioner's business by providing analysis, project planning and 
organization ... of new business opportunities." Without a more detailed, meaningful job description, 
the record as presently constituted does not sufficiently develop relative complexity or uniqueness as 
an aspect of the proffered position. 7 
The Petitioner claims that the duties of the proffered position are more unique and complex than the 
"typical Operations Manager position generically addressed in the [Handbook]," as the Beneficiary 
"will be performing complex duties which encompass duties of [other] professional positions" 
including a project development coordinator, operations research analyst, computer and information 
systems manager, financial manager, or contractor administrator. The Petitioner further asserts that 
the above-listed professional positions "have been found by [the AAO] to be [a] specialty occupation" 
and that the Director erred by "refusing to follow precedent AAO decisions." 
We find the Petitioner's assertions unpersuasive. First, we note that the Petitioner cited only to non­
precedent AAO decisions. While 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c) provides that our precedent decisions are 
binding on all USCIS employees in the administration of the Act, non-precedent decisions are not 
similarly binding. Moreover, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how the aspects of the 
proffered position which encompass other professional positions demonstrate that the particular 
position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a baccalaureate or 
higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
In essence, the Petitioner is asserting that the Beneficiary will be performing duties in a wide variety of 
occupations, such as a computer and information systems manager and a financial manager.8 Critically, 
7 Moreover, the Petitioner has designated the proffered position as a Level I position on the submitted LCA, indicating 
that it is an entry-level position for an employee who has only basic understanding of the occupation. See U.S. Dep't of 
Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs 
(rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC_Guidance_Revised_ll_2009.pdf. 
The Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position undermines its claim that the position is 
particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation. Nevertheless, a 
Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty occupation, just as a 
Level IV wage-designation does not definitively establish such a classification. In certain occupations (e.g., doctors or 
lawyers), a Level I, entry-level position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent, for entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designation would not reflect that an occupation qualifies 
as a specialty occupation if that higher-level position does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. That is, a position's wage level designation may be a relevant factor but is not 
itself conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)(l) of the Act 
8 It is noted that, where a petitioner seeks to employ a beneficiary in two or more distinct occupations, the petitioner 
should file separate petitions, requesting concurrent, part-time employment for each occupation. If a petitioner does not 
file separate petitions and if only one aspect of a combined position qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCIS would be 
required to deny the entire petition as the pertinent regulations do not permit the partial approval of only a portion of a 
proffered position and/or the limiting of the approval of a petition to perform only certain duties. See generally 8 C.F.R. 
11 
(b)(6)
Matter of T-H-Ine . 
however, the Petitioner has not adequately established how all of these duties spanning various 
occupations nevertheless require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly 
specialized knowledge, such that a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, is required to perform them.9 In other words, the Petitioner has not established what 
degree(s) is common to all of the above positions, such that the common degree(s) would be 
recognized as satisfying the "degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)" requirement of 
section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). Again, to be consistent with section 214(i)(l) of 
the Act as well as the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii), USCIS consistently interprets the term 
"degree" in the criteria at 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. While a few 
courses may be common among these different occupations, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how 
an established curriculum of such courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the duties of the proffered position. 
The Petitioner also asserts that the duties are unique and complex by virtue of the "global, diverse 
nature of the Petitioner's business." The Petitioner emphasizes that it "is not merely a agency 
but a provider who engages in a number of diverse operations, globally ... in the field of 
summits planning, photography, shuttle and transportation, publishing, retail market/online 
shopping, and others." In this vein, the Petitioner repeatedly asserts that it has several "wholly owned 
subsidiaries in Hawaii" and "affiliates in Korea," all of which are currently "[u]nder the same 
management and ownership" and will become directly under the Beneficiary's chain of command.10 
§ 214.2(h). Furthermore, the petitioner would need to ensure that it separately meets all requirements relevant to each 
occupation and the payment of wages commensurate with the higher paying occupation . See generally 8 C.F.R. § 
2l4 .2(h); U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp 't & Training Admin ., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. 
Immigration Programs (rev. Nov . 2009), available at 
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC_ Guidance_Revised_l1_2009.pdf Thus, filing separate petitions 
would help ensure that a petitioner submits the requisite evidence pertinent to each occupation and would help eliminate 
confusion with regard to the proper classification of the position being offered. 
According to DOL guidance, if the Petitioner believed its position was appropriately described in a combination of 
occupations including computer and information systems managers and financial managers, it should have chosen the 
relevant occupational code for the highest paying occupation . However, the Petitioner chose the occupational category 
for the lower paying occupation "General and Operations Managers" for the proffered position on the LCA. 
9 For instance, the Handbook states that "[c]omputer and information systems managers normally must have a bachelor 's 
degree in a computer- or information science-related field ." U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., "Computer and Information Systems Managers ," 
http://www.bls.gov /ooh/management/computer-and-information-systems-managers.htm #tab-4 (last visited Feb. 29, 
2016). The Handbook states that "[a] bachelor's degree in finance, accounting, economics, or business administration is 
often the minimum education needed for financial managers ." U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., "Financial Managers," http://www .bls.gov/ooh/management/financial­
managers.htm#tab-4 (last visited Feb. 29, 20 16). The Handbook does not indicate that a degree in travel or hospitality 
management , one of the various degrees the Petitioner accepts, would be sufficient for entry into either of these 
occupations. While a business administration degree may possibly be common among these occupations , a general­
purpose business administration degree is not a degree in a specific specialty. 
10 Both organizational charts show that these subsidiar y or affiliated companies will report directly to the Beneficiary . 
12 
(b)(6)
Matter ofT-H- Inc. 
However, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained and documented the scope of its claimed 
operations and the Beneficiary's responsibilities over them. For instance, the Petitioner stated that its 
President and his wife "together own [the Petitioner] and in Hawaii." The 
Petitioner has also characterized the in Hawaii as a "wholly owned subsidiary[y ]" of 
the Petitioner. However, the Articles of Incorporation for the in Hawaii indicates 
that, while the company's officers are the Petitioner's President and his wife, the is 
only owned in minority part (30%) by the President's wife.11 Therefore, it appears that this company is 
neither a "wholly owned subsidiary" (i.e., owned 100% by the Petitioner) nor under the same ownership 
as the Petitioner (i.e., owned by both the President and his wife). "[I]t is incumbent upon the petitioner 
to resolve the inconsistencies by independent objective evidence." Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 
591. "Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the 
reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition." Jd. 
Regarding its overseas operations, the Petitioner provided partially translated corporate documentation 
(Business Registrations and Certificates of Service Mark Registration) for three of its four "affiliated" 
companies in Korea. The Petitioner did not provide fully translated documents for all of its claimed 
affiliated businesses, and thus, we cannot determine whether the evidence supports the Petitioner 's 
claims. 12 See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Moreover, the Petitioner did not sufficiently explain the 
significance of the submitted corporate documentation. For instance, the Business Registrations do 
not identify the owner(s) of the companies. In addition, there are two Certificates of Service Mark 
Registration for the same company in Korea, but one of these certificates bears the Petitioner's 
logo on the left-hand side while the other certificate does not. The Petitioner also submitted several 
untranslated website print-outs, which are not probative evidence of company ownership. In short, the 
Petitioner has not submitted sufficient probative evidence to corroborate the full scope of its claimed 
operations in Hawaii and Korea. 
Even if these companies were shown to be "affiliates" or "subsidiaries " of the Petitioner through the 
same management and ownership, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established how these aspects of its 
operations distinguish and elevate the proffered position from other top executive positions, such that it 
refutes the Handbook 's information that such positions do not normally require at least a 
baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for entry into the occupation. In 
particular, the Handbook states that top executives "work in nearly every industry ... [and] work for 
both large and small businesses, ranging from companies in which they are the sole employee to 
firms with thousands of employees." U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational 
Outlook Handbook , 2016-17 ed., "Top Executives," http://www.bls.gov/oohlmanagement/top­
executives.htm#tab-3 (last visited Feb. 29, 2016). Thus, it does not appear that the Beneficiary 's 
duties in the context of the Petitioner's entire operations are so comf:lex or unique that they can be 
performed only by an individual with a degree in a specific specialty. 3 
11 There are two other individuals who own the company in 30% and 40% shares. 
12 More specifically, the Petitioner did not provide corporate documentation for its "discounted" 
13 We note the Petitioner 's claims that it has recently established new subsidiaries to "achieve its 2-year business plan of 
expanding its operations to Mexico , California , New York and China ." We also note the Petitioner 's claims 
regarding its company in Hawaii , which the Petitioner stated was only recently established and has an expected 
13 
Matter of T-H-Ine. 
For all of the above reasons, the evidence of record is insufficient to establish eligibility under the 
second alternative prong at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The employer normally requires a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specffic specialty, or its equivalent, for the position 
The Petitioner also has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3), which entails an 
employer demonstrating that it normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, for the position. Under this criterion, we normally review the Petitioner's past recruiting 
and hiring practices, as well as information regarding employees who previously held the position, 
and any other documentation submitted by a Petitioner in support of this criterion of the regulations. 
The Petitioner explained that "[u]ntil several years ago, [the Petitioner's President and his wife] shared 
the duties of General and Operations Manager" and that "[ c ]orporate officers and executives for [the 
Petitioner] and its subsidiaries ... have always been headed by full-time professionals." The Petitioner 
further explained that it subsequently hired the Beneficiary's immediate predecessor, "to take on the 
responsibilities of directing all facets of the organization's activities in Hawaii and Korea." The 
Petitioner stated that "[the predecessor] had a bachelor's degree but the company has lost contact with 
[him] and is unable to secure a copy of his diploma." In another letter, the Petitioner reiterated that 
"[a]lmost, if not all, executive managerial positions in [the Petitioner's] organization has a minimum of 
a bachelor's degree." The Petitioner provided no other explanation or evidence regarding the 
educational credentials of the President, his wife, or the Beneficiary's predecessor, all of whom have 
performed the duties of the proffered position prior to the Beneficiary. 
Merely stating that these individuals are "professionals" or have otherwise unspecified bachelor's 
degrees, without more, is insufficient to establish that the Petitioner normally requires a baccalaureate or 
higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the proffered position.14 Again, to be 
consistent with the pertinent statute and regulations, the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must be interpreted as meaning not just any bachelor's or higher degree, but 
one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered position. 
start date of late 2015 to early 2016. There is insufficient evidence of the ownership of these entities and the proposed 
role that the Beneficiary will have with respect to these entities. Without more, however, we cannot consider these and 
any other claimed aspects of the Petitioner's operations that were not in existence at the time of filing. USCIS 
regulations affirmatively require a petitioner to establish eligibility for the benefit it is seeking at the time the petition is 
filed. See 8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b )(l ). A visa petition may not be approved based on speculation of future eligibility or after 
the Petitioner or Beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 
at 249. 
14 The Petitioner did not submit copies of these individuals' degrees to demonstrate that they all possess bachelor's 
degrees, as claimed. "[G]oing on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden ofproofin these proceedings." In re Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft ofCal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg' I Comm'r 1972)). 
14 
Matter of T-H-Ine. 
The evidence of record is thus insufficientto satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
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 in a specific specialty, or its equivalent 
Finally, we will address the alternative criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4), which is 
satisfied if the evidence of record establishes that the nature of the specific duties is so specialized 
and complex that knowledge required to perform them is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. In the instant case, relative 
specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by the Petitioner as an aspect of 
the proffered position. The Petitioner does not establish how the generally described duties of its 
operations manager elevate the proffered position to a specialty occupation. We also refer to our 
earlier discussion with respect to the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) as 
the Petitioner combined the elements of that prong with 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). We also 
note the implication of the Petitioner's designation of the proffered position on the LCA as 
warranting only a Level I wage. Such a designation is for a position that is not likely distinguishable 
by relatively specialized and complex duties. Upon review of the totality of the record, the 
Petitioner has not established that the nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that 
the knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 15 
For the reasons discussed above, the record does not satisfy the fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As set forth above, we find that the evidence of record does not sufficiently establish that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed and 
the petition denied. 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 20 13) (citing Matter of Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493, 495 (BIA 1966)). Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
15 As a final matter, the Petitioner repeatedly emphasizes its need to have an employee who is fluent in Korean and 
familiar with Korean culture. The Petitioner opines that it is "nearly impossible to find a qualified Operations and 
General Director in Hawaii" with those qualifications. Although Korean language and cultural knowledge may be 
legitimate prerequisites for the proffered position, the Petitioner has not adequately explained how such a requirement 
demonstrates that the proffered position is so complex or unique that the proffered position can be performed only by an 
individual with a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or so specialized and complex that knowledge required to 
perform the proffered duties is usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty. 
15 
Matter ojT-H- Inc. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofT-H- Inc., ID# 16009 (AAO Mar. 1, 2016) 
16