dismissed H-1B Case: Wholesale Goods

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7210796 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-1B) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG . 24, 2020 
The Petitioner, a wholesales goods company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "chief 
executive officer" under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-1B program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified 
foreign worker in a position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body 
of highly specialized knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific 
specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the evidence of 
record does not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. Subsequently, 
the Petitioner filed a motion to reopen and reconsider. The Director reopened the matter and ultimately 
came to the same conclusion. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the 
questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of Christa's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(I) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(I), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, 
and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
(1) 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"). 
11. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a "chief executive officer" (CEO). In a letter 
submitted in support of the petition, the Petitioner described the duties and responsibilities of the 
proffered position as follows: 
As the CEO, [the Beneficiary] will establish and oversee policies and provide overall 
direction and strategic guidance for the company's growth and business development 
based on the guidelines set by the Board of Directors. He will plan, direct and manage 
operational activities and protocols at the highest level within the company with the 
assistance of subordinate staff members. He will supervise the hiring of employees, 
and oversee the coordination and planning of employee trainings and scheduling. He 
will assign tasks to employees regarding necessary research for amended or revised 
trade law that is applicable to online sales and makes decisions regarding changes to 
company business policies or activities. He will supervise overseas sales and 
development strategies by coordinating research and reviewing research reports about 
international customs or import duty and by setting pricing for company products. He 
will also oversee and manage communication with customs and port of entry personnel 
in Korea and the United States regarding online sales products. 
Moreover, [the Beneficiary] will manage international online shopping mall orders and 
shipping matters. He will manage online sales related procedures, including 
2 
compliance with U.S. and foreign customs laws and regulations. He will also 
coordinate the selection of trading products and prices for online sales. 
The Petitioner stated that the position requires at least a "Bachelor's Degree in Business 
Administration or a closely related field." 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides an expanded version of the duties and indicates the percentages of 
time the Beneficiary would spend on each duty. For the sake of brevity, we will not quote the expanded 
version of the duties provided on appeal; however, we have closely reviewed and considered them.1 
Ill. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its 
equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 2 
A. First Criterion 
We turn first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(1), which requires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. To inform this inquiry, we will consider the information contained 
in the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) regarding the 
duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations it addresses. 3 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Chief Executives" corresponding 
to the Standard Occupational Classification code 11-1011.4 Under this criterion, the Petitioner 
addresses the Handbook entry for this occupation. The statements from the Handbook do not indicate 
that a bachelor's degree or the equivalent, in a specific specialty, is normally required for entry into 
1 The Petitioner provided the same expanded duties in support of its motions. 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered position 
and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each 
one. However, we note that the Petitioner submitted untranslated documents in a foreign language. Any document in a 
foreign language must be accompanied by a full English language translation. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The translator must 
certify that the English language translation is complete and accurate, and that the translator is competent to translate from 
the foreign language into English. Id. Because the Petitioner did not submit a properly certified English language 
translation of the documents, we cannot meaningfully determine the relevance and the probative value of these documents. 
3 We do not maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. That is, the occupational category 
designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered 
position, and we regularly review the Handbook on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of 
occupations that it addresses. Nevertheless, to satisfy the first criterion, the burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to 
submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position would normally have a minimum, specialty 
degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
4 A petitioner submits the LCA to DOL to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1B 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. § 655.731(a). 
3 
the "Top Executives" occupational category. Instead, the Handbook suggests that these positions 
generally impose no specific degree requirement on individuals seeking employment.5 While the 
Handbook indicates that top management positions may be filled by individuals with a broad range of 
degrees, in its discussion under the subheading "Work Experience in a Related Occupation," it also 
states, "[m]any top executives advance within their own organizations, moving from lower level 
management occupations or supervisory positions" and "substitute experience for education to move 
up in the organization."6 However, the Handbook does not state that such experience must be 
equivalent to a bachelor degree or higher in a specific specialty. 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. 
Though relevant, the information the Petitioner submits from O*NET does not establish the 
Petitioner's eligibility under the first criterion, as it does not establish that a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or the equivalent, is normally required. According to O*NET, chief executive 
positions are categorized in Job Zone 5, which indicates that most such positions require graduate 
school. However, it does not indicate that the requisite degree, graduate or otherwise, must be in any 
specific specialty. Furthermore, the Specialized Vocational Preparation (SVP) rating cited in 
O*NET's Job Zone designates this occupation as "8.0 and above." An SVP rating of "8.0 and above" 
indicates that chief executive positions generally require "over 4 years up to and including 10 years" 
of total training. While the SVP rating indicates the total number of years of vocational preparation 
required for a particular position, it does not describe how those years are to be divided among training, 
formal education, and experience - and it does not specify the particular type of degree, if any, that a 
position would require. 7 On appeal, the Petitioner states that it "did not intend for O*NET, standing 
alone, to be dispositive evidence, but rather relevant in showing that chief executive roles normally 
require a bachelor's degree based on a preponderance of the evidence." Even when considered in the 
aggregate, evidence submitted does not support the assertion that the positions within the chief 
executives occupational category are specialty occupations requiring a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation. For all of these reasons, O*NET 
does not establish that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally 
the minimum requirement for these positions. 
The record lacks sufficient 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)(1). 
5 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Top Executives, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/managemenUtop-executives.htm#tab-4 (last visited Aug. 24, 2020). 
6 Id. 
7 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/help/ 
online/svp. 
4 
B. 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 contemplates 
common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific 
position. 
1. 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 establish 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)). 
As noted, the Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is a common 
requirement within the industry for arallel ositions amon similar or anizations. On a peal, the 
Petitioner states that the letter from~-----------------~ Korean 
Chamber of Commerce and Industry (KOCHAM) is "probative evidence supporting that the minimum 
degree requirement for the Chief Executive Officer role at [the Petitioner] was based on a common 
industry standard." We carefully evaluated! Is assertions in support of the instant petition 
but find them insufficient. 
According tol IKOCHAM is a non-profit organization representing Korean business entities 
doing business in the United States and its purpose is to "promote the development of commerce and 
economic cooperation between the United States and Korea ... while strengthening friendly relations 
between the two countries." I I states tha~ I the 
Korean Chamber of Commerce and Industry, [he has] direct exposure to a wide range of Korean 
businesses in the United States" and therefore he can "attest" that the role of Chief Executive Officer 
at the Petitioner "involves very sophisticated job duties" requiring a "Bachelor's degree in Business 
Administration or closely related field." He further states: 
My opinion that [the Beneficiary's] role as Chief Executive Officer qualifies as a 
specialty occupation is based on my professional experience in the field, expert 
knowledge of business similar in size, nature and scope of business to [the Petitioner], 
as well as on my personal review of [the Petitioner's] business operations and practices. 
5 
However, there is no indication thatl I has conducted any research or studies pertinent to the 
educational requirements for such positions (or parallel positions) and no indication of recognition by 
professional organizations that he is an authority on those specific requirements. Furthermore, his 
conclusion about "industry standard" is not sufficiently corroborated in the record. I I does 
not substantiate his conclusion with references, citations, or discussions of relevant studies, surveys, 
industry publications, authoritative publications, or other sources of empirical information. He does 
not specify the source of his information about typical hiring practices for parallel positions among 
similar organizations in the industry. 
Moreover.I Ides not discuss the duties of the proffered position in substantial detail. Rather, 
he restates the same duties described in the Petitioner's support letter. There is no indication that he 
possesses any knowledge of the Petitioner's proffered position beyond this limited job description. 
His level of familiarity with the actual job duties as they would be performed in the context of the 
Petitioner's business has therefore not been substantiated. We find thatl Is letter lends I ittle 
probative value to the matter here. 
The Petitioner also submitted a letter authored b~ I a professor atl I college. With 
regards to the industry standards, the professor asserts "[a]mong educators and industry experts, it is 
widely recognized that individuals holding positions such as the Chief Executive Officer herein must 
have at least a bachelor's degree in Business Administration or a related technical field" without 
naming any educators or industry experts with whom he may have consulted. Nor does he identify 
any publications or works of any educators or industry experts that he may have reviewed to arrive at 
his conclusions. The professor further states that "based on [his] expertise and background 
academically, as a professor ... it is a common industry practice for companies to hire for such Chief 
Executive Officer positions from bachelor's-level programs in Business Administration or related 
quantitative fields." He goes on to say "[i]ndeed, hiring data from publicly available resources serve 
to support this overall trend and the industry-standard approach to hiring for such positions." 
However, the professor does not identify the "publicly available resources" from which he may have 
obtained hiring data, nor does he reference, cite, or discuss studies, surveys, industry publications, 
authoritative publications, or other sources of empirical information, which he may have consulted to 
arrive at his conclusions. 
In summary, we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated through the letters from I 
andl I 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. For the reasons discussed, we find that these letters lend little probative value to the 
matter here. Matter of Caron lnt'I, 19 l&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (The service is not required 
to accept or may give less weight to an advisory opinion when it is "not in accord with other 
information or is in any way questionable."). 
Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
6 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
In support of its assertion that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, the Petitioner 
described the proffered position and its business operations. However, the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently developed relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the proffered position. In 
other words, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the duties of the proffered position 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that "[f]ully understanding the complexity of the job duties of the CEO 
at [the Petitioner] first requires understanding important organizational background information." 
According to the Petitioner, the proffered position is "unique and unlike many other CEO roles of 
other e-commerce business entities because the proffered role functions as the highest level manager 
for the company's broader North American presence" and that the CEO "is required to oversee 
multiple, cross-functional and cross-organization business activities of multiple related organizations 
that ultimately translate into a singular North American e-commerce operation."8 
The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary will spend 10 percent of his time in "overseeing the closely 
choreographed business activities of three separate but related business entities." The Petitioner 
further states, "the beneficiary must review, analyze and assess key business data such as sales and 
revenue reports, expenditure reports, financial profit and loss statement, etc. not only for one 
organization but for three different organizations that are working together" and that "this task requires 
the CEO to work with and consult legal professional teams on Labor Law updates, to engage in 
optimization management techniques and to study and assess the efficacy of efficiency management 
strategies." The organizational chart the Petitioner submitted does not indicate that there is a legal 
department in the Petitioner's organization. Therefore, it is not clear to which legal teams the 
Petitioner is referring. Moreover, while the Petitioner submitted a chart of the corporate structure to 
demonstrate its relation to other companies within the parent company's corporate umbrella, it did not 
submit an organizational chart of the affiliated companies which the Petitioner asserts that the 
Beneficiary will be overseeing. Therefore, the extent of the Beneficiary's managerial duties cannot 
be determined. 
The Petitioner also states that the Beneficiary will be spending another 10 percent of his time in 
supervising the hiring of employees, and overseeing the coordination and planning of employee 
trainings and scheduling. According to the Petitioner, "the CEO must himself have knowledge of and 
experience with the business tasks assigned to the role he is filling." The Petitioner provides the 
following example: "if the CEO is hiring for an accountant position, he must know business accounting 
techniques in order to properly convey the nature of the role to the candidate and then assess and/or 
test the candidate's proficiencies for the role." First, it is not clear whether the Beneficiary would be 
responsible for hiring of the Petitioner's staff only or whether he also would have hiring 
responsibilities for the affiliated companies. Moreover, the Petitioner does not sufficiently explain 
what role, if any, the individuals leading the various departments within the Petitioner's organization 
8 The Petitioner identifies .... ! ____ _.I and~I ---~I as the affiliated businesses. 
7 
would have in the hiring process. 9 Furthermore, the Petitioner does not sufficiently explain that the 
knowledge of certain techniques must be obtained through a bachelor's level degree in a specific 
specialty. We also question the proposed tasks to "oversee the coordination and planning of employee 
trainings and scheduling." The Petitioner did not establish how these duties require an individual with 
a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. While a few related courses and 
skills may be beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated how an established curriculum of such courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the duties of the proffered 
position. 
The Petitioner identifies the duty of "oversee[ing] and manag[ing] communication with customs and 
port of entry personnel in Korea and the United States regarding online sales products" as "a high 
priority and important component of the job duties performed by the CEO." According to the 
Petitioner, "the CEO must be familiar with the specific details of the United States- Korea Free Trade 
Agreement as well as all relevant TSA laws and rules for the import/export of goods." However, the 
Petitioner does not sufficiently explain why being "familiar with the specific details" of a free trade 
agreement and other rules necessarily require the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the 
specific specialty. While the Petitioner attempts to elaborate on the duties it previously provided in 
support of the petition, the expanded version of the duties provided on appeal does not illuminate the 
substantive application of knowledge involved or any particular educational requirement associated 
with such duties. 
Moreover, the Petitioner's requirement of a bachelor's degree in business administration is inadequate 
to establish that a 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 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 administration, without 
further specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf. Matter of Michael 
Hertz Assocs., 19 l&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). To prove that a job requires the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge as required by section 214(i)(1) 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 explained above, we interpret 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. We have consistently stated that, although a general-purpose 
bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business administration, may be a legitimate prerequisite for a 
particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify a conclusion that a particular 
position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. 
The Petitioner also relies onl Is opinion letter to demonstrate the position is complex 
and unique. In his letter, the professor (1) describes the credentials that he asserts qualify him to opine 
upon the nature of the proffered position; (2) describes aspects of the job duties proposed for the 
Beneficiary; and (3) states that these duties require "at least a bachelor's degree in Business 
Administration or a related specialized field." We carefully evaluated the professor's assertions in 
support of the instant petition but find them insufficient. 
9 See the Petitioner's organizational chart. 
8 
Notably, the professor's opinion letter does not substantiate his conclusions, such that we can 
determine that the Petitioner has met its burden of proof. For instance, he opines: 
... I believe that the senior-level position of Chief Executive Officer is a complex role 
entailing advanced responsibilities in the foregoing quantitative and technical areas. I 
further believe that the position is "specialized" in nature, requiring bachelor's-level 
education training in Business Administration and the application of specialized 
knowledge in this field. 
While the professor states that his "opinion also is based on research regarding the issues discussed 
herein," he does not reference, cite, or discuss studies, surveys, industry publications, authoritative 
publications, or other sources of empirical information, which he may have consulted to complete the 
evaluation. 
Furthermore, the professor's conclusion that the position requires a bachelor's degree in business 
administration is inadequate to establish that a position qualifies as a specialty occupation. Cf. Matter 
of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 l&N at 560. For the purpose of correlating the need for the Beneficiary's 
education with the associated job duties of the position, the professor also states, "any bachelor's-level 
or higher program in an Engineering field will involve advanced studies in mathematics, numerical 
methods, quantitative thinking, process automation, data gathering and analysis, and logic, and [sic] 
would have prepared [the Beneficiary] to analyze business environments and process, assess 
organizational resources and capabilities, and choose competitive strategies for business improvement 
and growth." His suggestion that a person with the knowledge and concepts of certain quantitative 
and technical topics can be successful in this field is not the same as stating that a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty is required to perform the duties. As such, his analysis misconstrues the statutory 
and regulatory requirements of a specialty occupation. While a few related courses and skills may be 
beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, he 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. 
In summary, we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated through the professor's analysis 
how an established curriculum of courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is required to successfully serve in the proffered position. For the reasons 
discussed, we find that the professor's opinion letter lends little probative value to the matter here. 
We also reviewed the letter from~--------~ I I described the duties as 
provided by the Petitioner and concluded, "[d]ue to the high level nature and complexity of the job 
duties involved, the position of a Chief Executive Officer with [the Petitioner] requires an individual 
with a minimum of a bachelor's degree in Business Administration or a closely related field." 
However, the conclusion reached by him lacks the requisite specificity and detail and is not supported 
by independent, objective evidence demonstrating the manner in which he reached such conclusion. 
There is an inadequate factual foundation established to support the opinion and the opinion is not in 
accord with other information in the record. I ldid not discuss the duties of the proffered 
position in detail, nor did he substantiate his opinion with relevant research, studies, surveys, or other 
authoritative publications. While we appreciate his discussion regarding the chief executive officer 
9 
position, we find his letter conclusory without sufficient discussion of the proffered position. He 
provided insufficient analysis in explaining how he arrived at his conclusions. Furthermore, the 
absence of any substantive discussion of the duties raises doubts about his level of familiarity with the 
proffered position and also undermines his conclusion regarding the degree requirement of the position. 
Moreover, his suggestion that a degree in business administration is an acceptable degree to perform 
the duties of the proffered position is insufficient to demonstrate that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation. As we discussed, the requirement of a bachelor's degree in business 
administration is inadequate to establish that a position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 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," without further specification, does not establish 
the position as a specialty occupation. Cf. Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 l&N at 560. 
In summary, we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated through the letters froml I 
,.____,, _ _.land I I how an established curriculum of courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to successfully serve in the proffered 
position. We may, in our discretion, use advisory opinion statements submitted as expert testimony. 
However, where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we 
are not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Matter of Caron International, 19 
l&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988). As a reasonable exercise of our discretion and for the reasons 
discussed, we find that the advisory opinion letters lend little probative value to the matter here.10 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position, and references his 
qualifications. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education 
or experience of a particular beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's 
degree 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)(i i i)(A)(2). 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it normally 
requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. Evidence 
provided in support of this criterion may include, but is not limited to, documentation regarding the 
Petitioner's past recruitment and hiring practices, as well as information regarding employees who 
previously held the position. 
The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary is the "first and only individual" in this position and therefore 
it cannot provide past recruitment and hiring history for the proffered position. The Petitioner asserts 
that "hiring of the incumbent, who does in fact possess a bachelor's degree or equivalent, constitutes 
directly relevant evidence that the employer has only hired individuals who possess the minimum of 
10 We hereby incorporate our discussion of the advisory letters into our discussion of the other 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) criteria. 
10 
a bachelor's degree or equivalent for this role." However, the record must establish that a petitioner's 
stated degree requirement is not a matter of preference for high-caliber candidates but is necessitated 
instead by performance requirements of the position. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 
(5th Cir. 2000). Were we limited solely to reviewing a petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, 
an organization could bring any individual with a bachelor's degree to the United States to perform 
any occupation as long as the petitioning entity created a token degree requirement. Id. Therefore, 
the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
D. 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 reasons we discussed under the second prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), we conclude that 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated in the record 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. 
Consequently, the Petitioner has not satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
11