dismissed H-1B Case: Travel And Tourism

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
Ua S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: EAC 03 049 54748 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER ~~t~: > T r (7'-x 
J -- _ < ,GL$ 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Petition for a Wonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section B 0 l (a)(i 5)(H)(i)(b) of the 
lmrnigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITPONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. A11 documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 03 049 54748 
Page 2 
DI$CU$SIBN: The service center director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and the matter is now before 
the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. The petition will be denied. 
The petitioner as a travel agency and tour operator that seeks to employ the beneficiary as an operations 
manager. The petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation 
pursuant to $ 401(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
5 1 10 l (a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition because the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. On appeal, 
counsel submits a brief. 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an occupation 
that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivaient) 
as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to quali@ as a specialty occupation, the position must meet one of 
the following criteria: 
(I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum requirement 
for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its particular position is 
so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree; 
(3 The empaoyer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
(4) The nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that knowledge required to 
perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher 
degree. 
Citizenship and immigration Services (CIS) interprets the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
$ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to nmean not just any baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is 
directly related to the proffered position. 
The record of proceeding before the AAO contains: (1) Form 1-129 and supporting documentation; (2) the 
director's request for additional evidence; (3) the petitioner's response to the director's request; (4) the 
director's denial letter; and (5) Form I-290B and supporting documentation. The AAO reviewed the record in 
its entirety before issuing its decision. 
The petitioner is seeking the beneficiary's services as an operations manager. Evidence of the beneficiary's 
duties includes: the 1-129 petition; the petitioner's November 22, 2002 letter in support of the petition; and the 
EAC 03 049 54748 
Page 3 
petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence. According to this evidence, the beneficiary would 
perform duties that entail: participating in the development and supervising the implementation of marketing 
strategies and programs to increase sales and profits in the European market; supervising the development and 
implementation of domestic marketing plans; completing the reprogramming of the petitioner's computerized 
reservation and tour management system; assessing and evaluating tour leaders and managers employed in 
Europe and the support personnel employed in the headquarters office; implementing economic review 
programs; making improvements to the petitioner's business plan; supervising the development and 
production of advertising and promotional materials; rationalizing the budget projection process; evaluating 
marketing strategies and advertising expenditures; organizing, implementing, and monitoring a training 
program for tour guides in Europe; reviewing and evaluating competitive tours, tour operators, and marketing 
strategies and providing recommer.idations to the petitioner; developing and recommending new tour 
programs; and attending trade shows. The petitioner indicated that a qualified candidate for the job would 
possess a bachelor's degree in business administration and/or financial management. 
The director found that the proffered position was not a specialty occupation because the proposed duties are 
not so complex as to require a bachelor's degree. The director found further that the petitioner failed to 
establish any of the criteria found at at 8.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
On appeal, counsel states, in part, that the petitioner has satisfied three criteria of 8 C.F.R. 
$ 214,2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Counsel states that a baccalaureate degree is normally a minimum requirement for the 
proffered position, that the proffered position is so complex that only a person with a degree can perform the 
job duties, and that the proposed duties are so specialized as to require a bachelor's degree. Accordingly, the 
AAO will address these three criteria only. 
Upon review of the record, the petitioner has established none of the criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. 
5 2 14.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Therefore, the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 
The AAO turns first to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(%1)(4)(iii)(A)(P) and (2): a baccalaureate or higher 
degree or its equivalent is the normal minimum requirement for entry into the particular position; a degree 
requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations; or a particular 
position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree. 
Factors often considered by CIS when determining these criteria include: whether the Department of Labor's 
Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the industry's 
professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether letters or affidavits from 
Gnns or individuals in the industry attest that such finns "routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." 
See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (ID. Minn. 1999)(quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sma, 712 F. 
Supp. 1095, 1 102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
The AAO routinely consults the Handbook for its information about the duties and educational requirements 
of particular occupations. The MO does not concur with counsel that the proffered position, which is that of 
an operations manager of a travel agencyltour operator, is a specialty occupation. A review of the Travel 
Agents training requirements in the Handbook, 2004-2005 edition, finds that the minimum requirement for 
those interested in becoming a travel agent is a high school diploma or equivalent, and that in agencies with 
manly offices, travel agents may advance to office manager or to other managerial positions. No evidence in 
the Piandbook indicates that a baccalaureate or higher degree, or its equivalent, is required for a travel agent 
EAC 03 049 54748 
Page 4 
or travel agent managerial job. Furthermore, in the petitioner's November 22, 2002 letter, the petitioner's 
president states that the petitioner's gross revenues for 2001 exceeded $13.5 million and that the petitioner 
currently has 12 full-time employees. The petitioner's financial statement, however, reflects the petitioner's 
total revenues for 2001 as $10,307,981. The record, however, contains no explanation for this inconsistency. 
It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective 
evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not sulffice unless the petitioner 
submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591- 
92 (BIA 1988). Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, Bead to a reevaluation of the 
reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Matter of No, 19 
%&W Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). Furthennore, the record contains no evidence of the petitioner's 12 claimed 
full-time employees, such as quarterly wage reports. Going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 
22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 1 90 (Reg. 
Comm. 1972)). 
Counsel states that the A40 has determined that similar cases warranted approval. The record of proceeding, 
however, does not contain copies of the visa petitions that counsel claims were previously approved. Ht must 
be emphasized that each petition filing is a separate proceeding with a separate record. See 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.8(d). In making a determination of statutory eligibility, CIS is limited to the information contained in 
that iadividuai record of proceeding. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(16)(ii). 
Regarding parallel positions in the petitioner's industry, the record contains an academic opinion and letters 
from individuals employed in the travel industry, who assert, in part, that positions such as the proffered 
position require a business-related bachelor's degree. The writers, however, do not provide any evidence in 
support of their assertions. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 
(Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
The record also does not include ally evidence from professional associations regarding an industry standard, 
or documentation to support the complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position. The petitioner, therefore, 
has not established the criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I) or (2). 
The AAO now turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4) -the nature of the specific duties is so 
specialized and complex that knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment 
of a baccalaureate or higher degree. 
To the extent that they are depicted in the record, the duties do not appear so specialized and complex as to 
require the highly specialized knowledge associated with a baccalaureate or higher degree, or its equivalent, 
in a specific specialty. Therefore, the evidence does not establish that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation under 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
As related in the discussion above, the petitioner has failed to establish that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation. Accordingly, the AAO shall not disturb the director's denial of the petition. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary is qualified for a 
specialty occupation because the record does not contain an evaluation of the beneficiary's credentials from a 
EAC 03 049 54748 
Page 5 
service which specializes in evaluating foreign educational credentials as required by 8 C.F.R. 
tj 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(3). Furthermore, because the petitioner failed to submit a certified translation of the 
beneficiary's degree, the AAO cannot determine whether the evidence supports the petitioner's claims. See 8 
C.F.W. 5 103.2(b)(3). Accordingly, the evidence is not probative and will not be accorded any weight in this 
proceeding. It is also noted that the record does not contain a copy of the beneficiary's transcripts. For these 
additional reasons, the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
OmER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.