dismissed H-1B Case: Wholesale Trade

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF V-U-T-, LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 10, 2015 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a wholesaler of used tires, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a credit analyst and to 
continue to classify him as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation. 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, 
Vermont Service Center, initially approved the nonimmigrant visa petition. Thereafter, a site visit 
was conducted. Upon subsequent review of the record, the Director issued a notice of intent to 
revoke (NOIR), and ultimately did revoke approval of the petition. The matter is now before us on 
appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The Director revoked the petition, finding the evidence insufficient to establish that the Petitioner (1) 
was paying the proffered wage; and (2) employing the Beneficiary in a specialty occupation. On 
appeal, the Petitioner states that the Director's basis for denial was erroneous and contends that it 
satisfied all evidentiary requirements. We reviewed the record in its entirety before issuing our 
decision. 1 
I. THE REVOCATION 
With regard to the revocation of the approval of a petition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(11) 
states the following: 
Revocation of approval of petition--(i) General. (A) The petitioner shall immediately 
notify the Service of any changes in the terms and conditions of employment of a 
beneficiary which may affect eligibility . . . . An amended petition on Form I-129 
should be filed when the petitioner continues to employ the beneficiary. If the 
petitioner no longer employs the beneficiary, the petitioner shall send a letter 
explaining the change(s) to the director who approved the petition .... 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may revoke the approval of an H-1B petition 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(11)(iii), which states the following: 
1 
We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). 
Matter of V- U-T-, LLC 
(A) Grounds for revocation. The director shall send to the petitioner a notice of intent 
to revoke the petition in relevant part if he or she finds that: 
(1) The beneficiary is no longer employed by the petitioner in the capacity 
specified in the petition, or if the beneficiary is no longer receiving training 
as specified in the petition; or 
(2) The statement of facts contained in the petition was not true and correct, 
inaccurate, fraudulent, or misrepresented a material fact; or 
(3) The petitioner violated terms and conditions of the approved petition; or 
(4) The petitioner violated requirements of section 101(a)(15)(H) of the Act or 
paragraph (h) of this section; or 
(5) The approval of the petition violated paragraph (h) of this section or 
involved gross error. 
(B) Notice and decision. The notice of intent to revoke shall contain a detailed 
statement of the grounds for the revocation and the time period allowed for the 
petitioner's rebuttal. The petitioner may submit evidence in rebuttal within 30 
days of receipt of the notice. The director shall consider all relevant evidence 
presented in deciding whether to revoke the petition in whole or in part. If the 
petition is revoked in part, the remainder of the petition shall remain approved 
and a revised approval notice shall be sent to the petitioner with the revocation 
notice. 
We find that the bases specified for the revocation action are proper grounds for such action. The 
Director's statements in the notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) were adequate to notify the Petitioner 
ofthe intent to revoke approval of the petition in accordance with the statutory provisions at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(ll)(iii)(A)(1),(2),(3), and (4). 
Upon review of the record of proceeding, we find that the record of proceeding indicates that the 
Petitioner has been paying the proffered wage. However, the record of proceeding does not establish 
that the Beneficiary is employed in a specialty occupation. Therefore, the appeal will be dismissed, 
and approval of the petition will remain revoked. 
II. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
A. Legal Framework 
For an H-lB petition to be granted, the Petitioner must provide sufficient evidence to establish that it 
will employ the Beneficiary in a specialty occupation position. To meet its burden of proof in this 
2 
Matter of V- U-T-, LLC 
regard, the Petitioner must establish that the employment it is offering to the Beneficiary meets the 
applicable statutory and regulatory requirements of a specialty occupation. 
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 
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: 
(I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the mm1mum 
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)(l) 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. See K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) (holding that construction 
3 
Matter of V- U-T-, LLC 
of language which takes into account the design of the statute as a whole is preferred); see also COlT 
Independence Joint Venture v. Federal 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.P.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.P.R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A) but not the statutory or 
regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 P.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). To avoid this 
result, 8 C.P.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)(1) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) consistently interprets the 
term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.P.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 P.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-1B petitions for qualified aliens 
who are to be employed as engineers, computer scientists, certified public accountants, 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-1B 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 alien, 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 nor 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 Petitioner and the Proffered Position 
In its letter of support, dated June 18, 2013, the Petitioner described the duties of the proffered 
position as follows: 
In this position, [the Beneficiary's] specific duties will include: (i) analyzing current 
credit data and financial statements of commercial clients to determine the degree of 
4 
Matter of V- U-T-, LLC 
risk involved in extending credit or lending money; (ii) preparing reports with this 
credit information for use in decision-making; (iii) comparing key ratios of liquidity, 
profitability, credit history, and cash flow; (iv) analyzing income growth, market 
share, industry risk, and collateral appraisal; and (v) summarizing credit analysis and 
credit approval. 
The Petitioner also submitted a Labor Condition Application (LCA) in support of the instant H -1 B 
petition. The LCA designation for the proffered position corresponds to the occupational 
classification of "Credit Analyst" - SOC (ONET/OES Code) 13-2041, at a Level I (entry level) 
wage. 
Further, the Petitioner stated: 
[ d]ue to the complex and demanding requirements of the position of a Credit Analyst, 
only a person of exceptional ability and skills in business administration is capable of 
qualifying as a Credit Analyst for [the Petitioner]. These minimum prerequisites for 
the offered position require a skilled professional with a Bachelor's degree in 
Business Administration, Accounting, Finance, or a related field? 
In response to the Director's NOIR, the Petitioner provided a more detailed job description for the 
proffered position with percentage breakdowns as follows: 
• Analyze current credit data and financial statements of commercial clients to determine the 
degree of risk involved in extending credit ( 40% ); 
• Prepare reports with this credit information for use in decision-making (10%); 
• Compare key ratios ofliquidity, profitability, credit history, and cash flow (25%); and 
• Analyze income growth, market share, industry risk, and collateral appraisal, and summarize 
credit analysis and credit approval (25%). 
2 The Petitioner claims that a bachelor's degree in "business administration" is a sufficient minimum requirement for 
entry into the proffered position. Briefly, we note that 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 administration, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of 
Michael Hertz Associates, 19 I&N Dec. 558 (Comm 'r 1988). 
To demonstrate that a job requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge as 
required by section 214(i)( I) 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. users 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 administration, may be a legitimate 
prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify a finding that a particular 
position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st 
Cir. 2007). 
5 
Matter of V- U-T-, LLC 
Regarding the Beneficiary's analysis of credit data and financial statements as well as comparing 
key ratios, which together add up to 65% of the proffered duties, the Petitioner stated: 
[The Beneficiary] will spend most of his time conducting a risk analysis of the 
customer by analyzing current credit data and financial statements of commercial 
clients to determine the degree of risk involved in extending credit to the Company's 
over 3,000 commercial clients. To accomplish this task, [the Beneficiary] will 
identify data sources and data retrieval necessary to conduct credit analyses of our 
customers. [The Beneficiary] will also develop processes and procedures and safe 
guards necessary to conduct analyses and make recommendations based on findings. 
He will investigate all available sources of credit and financial information available 
and participate in design, development, and implementation of computer systems 
used for credit analysis & reporting. He must follow all federal and state regulations 
when pulling credit scores. 
Additionally, as a Credit Analyst he will be analyzing paying habits of customers who 
are delinquent in payment of bills and make recommends [sic] for action. He will 
review files to select delinquent accounts to forward to Collection Company for 
collection efforts. He will perform financial statement analysis on information 
provided by new accounts and existing customers to aid in decision. He will be 
required to analyze credit information which includes complete financial analysis. He 
may be required to analyze credit information which includes complete financial 
analysis. He may be required to contact the customer directly for financial 
information, and bank references for information supporting credit line decisions. 
Will be reviewing new accounts applications and determine/recommend credit lines, 
review sales requirements for new/existing accounts. He must possess keen 
awareness of the credit eligibility of the business and must understand and read 
financial statements and credit reports for the company. He must monitor existing 
accounts based on credit rank and expiration date of credit line and keep abreast of 
industry trends as to how they relate to the account base. 
The Petitioner further provided the following: 
Prepare reports with this credit information for use in decision-making (10%) 
[The Beneficiary] will prepare specialized reports on credit quality for senior 
management. To meet these objectives, [the Beneficiary] must possess a strong basic 
skill set, including excellent communication and people skills, strong analytical and 
problem-solving skills, and the ability to work effectively in a team or independently. 
He may request, secure, maintain Tax Exempt Certificates and related databases/files. 
[The Beneficiary] will reduce the amount of duplicated account numbers wherever 
possible. He will review linking issues and terms inconsistency. He will prepare 
monthly/weekly/daily reports relating Customer Credit Lines, Over Credit Line, AIR 
6 
Matter of V- U-T-, LLC 
Reporting, and other. Based on the information collected [the Beneficiary] will make 
recommendations on whether an account be closed, credit limit reduced or extended, 
or collection attempted. Confer with representatives of credit associations and other 
businesses to exchange information concerning credit ratings and forward addresses. 
Analyze income growth, market share, industry risk, and collateral appraisal; 
and Summarize credit analysis and credit approval (25%) 
He will be monitoring and managing company's credit risk and preparing reports with 
key ratios to ensure that customers are not too risky for the company. He may 
recommend blocking the customer from future orders. He will be responsible for 
ensuring strict adherence to corporate policies and credit approval matrix. He will 
ensure protection of company assets in all areas through front line knowledge and 
experience. He will use logic and analysis to identify the strengths and weaknesses of 
different approaches based on key ratios of the customer and company. He will put 
forth suggestions and recommendations pertaining to process improvements towards 
credit policies and procedures to the management. 
The Petitioner also stated that: 
[t]he above-mentioned duties require candidates to possess skills in the area of 
Business Administration, which requires attainment of at least a Bachelor's degree. 
A bachelor's degree or equivalent experience provides the necessary skills and 
abilities such as decision-making, problem solving and analytical-thinking. These 
skills can only be learned through vigorous college courses. 
Regarding its business, the Petitioner stated that: 
[The Petitioner] generates over $6 million in annual sales and because of its pass­
through entity status. This multi-million dollar company is more than marginal and 
requires individuals in the specialty occupation of Credit Analyst to perform job 
duties which are so complex that they requires [sic] the theoretical and practical 
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge. The position itself is so 
complex that only a person with a bachelor's or higher degree can adequately perform 
these job duties with little or no supervision. 
It is industry practice for wholesalers to extend credit to its commercial clientele. 
Because many of [the Petitioner's] commercial clients are small businesses and each 
order can be for thousands of dollars, it must be careful when supplying goods to 
these businesses that the money is received in a timely manner. Also due to the large 
number of commercial clientele that [the Petitioner] services, it is imperative that it 
employ a professional Credit Analyst, to ensure that it is properly managed so to 
avoid substantial risks and ensure organizational integrity. The Petitioner's corporate 
objective is to become one of the leading wholesalers of new and used tires, wheels, 
Matter ofV-U-T-, LLC 
hubcaps, and car accessories. To accomplish the goal of becoming a major 
participant in wholes [sic] business, it is imperative that [the Petitioner] hire qualified 
employees in the specialty occupation of a Credit Analyst. 
C. Analysis 
When determining whether a position is a specialty occupation, we must look at the nature of the 
business offering the employment and the description of the specific duties of the position as it 
relates to the particular employer. To ascertain the intent of a petitioner, USCIS looks to the Form 1-
129 and the documents filed in support of the petition. It is only in this manner that the agency can 
determine the exact position offered, the location of employment, the proffered wage, et cetera. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(9)(i), the Director has the responsibility to consider all of the 
evidence submitted by a petitioner and such other evidence that he or she may independently require 
to assist his or her adjudication. Further, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iv) provides that 
"[a]n H-1B petition involving a specialty occupation shall be accompanied by [d]ocumentation ... 
or any other required evidence sufficient to establish . . . that the services the beneficiary is to 
perform are in a specialty occupation." 
For H -1 B approval, the Petitioner must demonstrate a legitimate need for a specialty occupation 
position to exist and to substantiate that it has H -1 B caliber work for the Beneficiary for the period 
of employment requested in the petition. It is incumbent upon the Petitioner to demonstrate it has 
sufficient work to require the services of a person with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, to perform duties at a level that requires the theoretical and practical 
application of at least a bachelor's degree level of a body of highly specialized knowledge in a 
specific specialty for the period specified in the petition. 
As noted, this petition was filed to extend the Beneficiary's employment as a credit analyst; the 
Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary has been employed in H-1B status since January 2011. 
However, we find that the Petitioner did not submit sufficient documentation regarding its business 
activities and the actual work that the Beneficiary has performed or will perform. For example, in 
response to the NOIR, the Petitioner submitted a list of commercial clients, its aging report on 
accounts receivables, and invoices/statements. The Petitioner asserts that the sampling of 
invoices/statements "show amount of credit extended, terms of credit and past due amounts based on 
aging debt" and this is a sampling of the Beneficiary's work since he "works on extending credit to 
various customers for various amounts based on several factors." However, neither the documents 
nor the Petitioner's explanation substantiates the work the Beneficiary has performed in past 3 years 
prior to filing this petition nor does it demonstrate the Beneficiary's proposed duties that he 
"develops processes and procedures and safe guards necessary to conduct analysis and make 
recommendations" The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary "will prepare specialized reports on 
credit quality for senior management" and will be "monitoring and managing company's credit risk 
and preparing reports with key ratios to ensure that customers are not too risky," and "prepare 
monthly/weekly/daily reports relating Customer Credit Lines, Over Credit Line, AIR Reporting, and 
Other," but did not submit any reports to support its claim. Moreover, the Petitioner states that the 
Matter ofV-U-T-, LLC 
"Beneficiary will investigate all available sources of credit and financial information available and 
participate in design, development, and implementation of computer systems used for credit analysis. 
& reporting," which appears to be inconsistent with his position as a credit analyst. 
We further note that some of the Beneficiary's duties are described in terms of generalized and 
generic functions that do not convey sufficient substantive information to establish the relative 
complexity, uniqueness and/or specialized of the proffered position or its duties. For example, the 
Beneficiary's duties include "review files to select delinquent accounts to forward to [ c ]ollection 
[ c ]ompany," "may request, secure, and maintain Tax Exempt Certificates and related database/files" 
and "reduce the amount of duplicated account numbers whenever possible." The Petitioner does not 
convey either the substantive nature of the work that the Beneficiary would actually perform, any 
particular body of highly specialized knowledge that would be theoretically and practically applied 
to perform it, or the educational level of any knowledge that may be necessary. To the extent 
described by the Petitioner, the duties do not provide a sufficient factual basis to persuasively 
support the claim that the position's actual work would require the theoretical and practical 
application of highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty directly related to the demands of 
the proffered position. 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient consistent details regarding the nature and scope of the 
Beneficiary's employment or substantive evidence regarding the specialty occupation work that the 
Beneficiary would perform. Without a meaningful job description, the record lacks evidence 
sufficiently concrete and informative to demonstrate that the proffered position requires the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and the attainment of 
a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty, or its equivalent, as a minimum for entry into 
the occupation. The tasks as described do not consistently communicate (1) the substantive nature 
and scope of the Beneficiary's employment within the petitioner's business operations; (2) the actual 
work that the Beneficiary would perform; (3) the complexity, uniqueness and/or specialization of the 
tasks; and/or ( 4) the correlation between that work and a need for a particular educational level of 
highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. 
Therefore, we are precluded from finding that the proffered position is a specialty occupation under 
any criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), because it is the substantive nature of that work that 
determines (1) the normal minimum educational requirement for entry into the particular position, 
which is the focus of criterion 1; (2) industry positions which are parallel to the proffered position and 
thus appropriate for review for a common degree requirement, under the first alternate prong of 
criterion 2; (3) the level of complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position, which is the focus of the 
second alternate prong of criterion 2; (4) the factual justification for a petitioner normally requiring a 
degree or its equivalent, when that is an issue under criterion 3; and (5) the degree of specialization and 
complexity of the specific duties, which is the focus of criterion 4. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied 
any of the criteria under the applicable provisions at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
Nevertheless, we will analyze the duties as described and the evidence of record to determine 
whether the proffered position as described would qualify as a specialty occupation. To that end and 
9 
Matter ofV-U-T-, LLC 
to make our determination as to whether the employment described above qualifies as a specialty 
occupation, we tum first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
A baccalaureate or higher degree in a spec?fic specialty, or its equivalent, is 
normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position 
USCIS recognizes the U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) 
as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of 
occupations that it addresses. 3 We reviewed the chapter of the Handbook entitled "Credit 
Analysts," and note that this occupation is one for which the Handbook does not provide detailed 
data. The Handbook states the following about these occupations: 
Data for Occupations Not Covered in Detail 
Although employment for hundreds of occupations are covered in detail in the 
Occupational Outlook Handbook, this page presents summary data on additional 
occupations for which employment projections are prepared but detailed occupational 
information is not developed. For each occupation, the Occupational Information 
Network (O*NET) code, the occupational definition, 2012 employment, the May 
2012 median annual wage, the projected employment change and growth rate from 
2012 to 2022, and education and training categories are presented. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., 
"Data for Occupations Not Covered in Detail," http://www.bls.gov/ooh/About/Data-for­
Occupations-Not-Covered-in-Detail.htm (last visited Oct. 20, 2015). 
Thus, the narrative of the Handbook indicates that there are occupations for which only brief 
summaries are presented. That is, detailed occupational profiles for these occupations are not 
developed.4 The Handbook suggests that for at least some of the occupations, little meaningful 
information could be developed. 
We observe that the Handbook does not support the petitioner's assertion that credit analyst positions 
comprise an occupational group for which normally the minimum requirement for entry is at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The full-text of the Handbook regarding 
this occupational category is as follows: 
3 All references are to the 2014-2015 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
http://www.bls.gov/OCO/. The excerpts of the Handbook regarding the duties and requirements of the referenced 
occupational category are hereby incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
4 
We note that occupational categories for which the Handbook only includes summary data includes a range of 
occupations, including for example, postmasters and mail superintendents; agents and business managers of artists, 
perfonners, and athletes; farm labor contractors; audio-visual and multimedia collections specialists; clergy; merchandise 
displayers and window trimmers; radio operators; first-line supervisors of police and detectives; crossing guards; travel 
guides; agricultural inspectors, as well as others. 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter of V- U-T-, LLC 
Credit Analysts 
(O*NET 13-2041.00) 
Analyze credit data and financial statements of individuals or firms to determine the 
degree of risk involved in extending credit or lending money. Prepare reports with 
credit information for use in decision making. 
• 2012 employment: 61,800 
• May 2012 median annual wage: $61,080 
• Projected employment change. 2012-22: 
Number of new jobs: 6,400 
Growth rate: 10 percent (about as fast as average) 
• Education and training: 
Typical entry-level education: Bachelor's degree 
Work experience in a related occupation: None 
Typical on-the-job-training: None 
!d. (last visited Oct. 20, 20 15). 
We note that, the Handbook reports only that a bachelor's degree is typical- but not required- for 
entry into credit analyst positions, and more importantly, the Handbook does not report that 
bachelor's degrees held by those entering the occupation are limited to and must be in any specific 
specialty directly related to the occupation. Thus, the Handbook does not support the claim that the 
occupational category of credit analysts is one for which normally the minimum requirement for 
entry is a baccalaureate degree (or higher) in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Even if it did 
(which it does not), the record lacks sufficient evidence to support a finding that the particular 
position proffered here (an entry-level credit analyst position relative to others within the occupation 
-as indicated on the LCA), would normally have such a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or 
its equivalent. 
Accordingly, in certain instances, the Handbook is not determinative. 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a specialty occupation evaluation prepared by 
Associate Dean of Academic Affairs at the 
CT. states that the proffered position requires at least a 
bachelor's degree or its equivalent in business administration, accounting, finance, or a related area. 
However does not reference or discuss any studies, surveys, industry publications, 
11 
(b)(6)
Matter ojV-U-T- , LLC 
authoritative publications, or other sources of empirical information which he may have consulted . 
provides a brief, general description of the Petitioner's business activities; however, 
he does not demonstrate or assert in-depth knowledge of the Petitioner's specific business operations 
or how the duties of the position would actually be performed in the context of the Petitioner's 
business enterprise. For instance, there no evidence that he has knowledge of the Petitioner's 
business operations gained through such means as visiting the Petitioner's premises, observing the 
Petitioner's employees, interviewing them about the nature of their work, or documenting the 
knowledge that they apply on the job . does not discuss the duties of the proffered 
position in any substantive detail. To the contrary, he simply listed the tasks in bullet-point fashion 
with little discussion. 
Importantly, there is also no indication that the Petitioner advised that it characterized 
the proffered position as an entry-level credit analyst position, for a beginning employee who has 
only a basic understandin g of the occupation (as indicated by the wage-level on the LCA). 
asserts that "[t]he duties described above are not those of a lower level employee ... but 
rather those of a professional employee . . . with a great level of responsibility within the company ." 
further asserts that the success of the Petitioner is "largely dependent on the ability 
and expertise of a Credit Analyst ... as the specialized duties of this individual directly and indirectly 
affect the company 's operations, revenues and profits, and ultimately the overall success of the 
company." However, the wage level designated by the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary will 
be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; that he will be 
closely supervised and his work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and that he will 
receive specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. It appears that 
would have found this information relevant for his opinion letter. Moreover, without this 
information , the Petitioner has not demonstrated that possessed the requisite 
information necessary to adequately assess the nature of the Petitioner' s position. 
does not relate his conclusion to specific, concrete aspects of this Petitioner's business 
operations to demonstrate a sound factual basis for the conclusion about the educational 
requirements for the particular position here at issue. The conclusions reached by lack 
the requisite specificity and detail and are not supported by independent, objective evidence 
demonstrating the manner in which he reached such conclusions. We may, in our discretion, use 
advisory opinion statements submitted by the petitioner as expert testimony. · Matter of Caron 
International , 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm 'r 1988). 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. I d. As such, Dr. McAdams' opinion letter is not probative evidence towards 
satisfying any criterion ofthe regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) . 
The fact that a person may be employed in a position designated by a petitioner as that of a credit 
analyst and may apply some business, financial, or accounting principles in the course of his or her 
job is not in itself sufficient to establish the position as one that 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 
12 
(b)(6)
Matter ofV-U-T-, LLC 
mm1mum 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 CTR § 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.P.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. 
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 previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook (or other independent, authoritative source) reports a standard 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 
and no submission of letters or affidavits from firms or individuals that attest that such firms 
routinely employ only individuals with a degree in a specific specialty. 
We note that states in his letter that "this type of position is a typical job placement 
for students completing a Bachelor's Degree at our school. Employers with openings for Credit 
Analysts and similar professional positions have recruited at our campus, always seeking graduates 
with the minimum of a Bachelor's degree." However, specific information regarding these 
employers and the job descriptions for the positions they were hiring for were not provided. 
Therefore, we are unable to determine if their businesses were sufficiently similar to the Petitioner's 
and in the same industry, and if the positions were parallel to the one proffered in this petition. 
Therefore, 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 of8 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 
13 
Matter of V- U-T-, LLC 
an individual with a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent 
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 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
In support of its claim that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, the Petitioner 
submitted various documents such as invoices, photographs, and financial documents. We reviewed 
the record in its entirety and find that while the documents provide some insight into the Petitioner's 
business operations, the Petitioner has not explained how the documents establish that its particular 
position is so complex or unique that it can only be performed by an individual with a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
This is further evidenced by the LCA submitted by the Petitioner in support of the instant petition. 
The LCA indicates a wage level at a Level I (entry) wage, which is the lowest of four assignable 
wage levels. 5 Without further evidence, the record of proceeding does not indicate that the proffered 
position is complex or unique as such a position falling under this occupational category would 
likely be classified at a higher-level, such as a Level III (experienced) or Level IV (fully competent) 
position, requiring a significantly higher prevailing wage.6 For example, a Level IV (fully 
competent) position is designated by DOL for employees who "use advanced skills and diversified 
The wage levels are defined in DOL's "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance." A Level I wage rate is 
described as follows: 
Level I (entry) wage rates are assigned to job offers for beginning level employees who have only a 
basic understanding of the occupation. These employees perform routine tasks that require limited, if 
any, exercise of judgment. The tasks provide experience and familiarization with the employer's 
methods, practices, and programs. The employees may perform higher level work for training and 
developmental purposes. These employees work under close supervision and receive specific 
instructions on required tasks and results expected. Their work is closely monitored and reviewed for 
accuracy. Statements that the job offer is for a research fellow, a worker in training, or an internship 
are indicators that a Level I wage should be considered. 
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 _II_ 2009.pdf 
6 The issue here is that 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, it is important to note that a Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position 
from classification as a specialty occupation. In certain occupations (doctors or lawyers, for example), an 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 consideration but is not a substitute for a 
determination of whether a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 
14 
Matter of V- U-T-, LLC 
knowledge to solve unusual and complex problems." The evidence of record does not establish that 
this position is different from other positions in the occupational category such that it refutes the 
Handbook's information that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent is not 
required for the proffered position. 
Upon review, we find that the Petitioner has not sufficiently developed relative complexity or 
uniqueness as an aspect of the proffered position. For instance, the Petitioner did not submit 
information relevant to a detailed course of study leading to a specialty degree and did not establish 
how such a curriculum is necessary to perform the duties it may believe are so complex and 
unique. While a few related courses may be beneficial, or even required, 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 description of the duties does not 
specifically identify any tasks that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed 
individual could perform them. The record lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish the 
proffered position as more complex or unique from other credit analyst positions that can be 
performed by persons without at least a bachelor's degree in a spec?fic specialty, or its equivalent. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The employer normally requires a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
spec?fic specialty, or its equivalent, for the position 
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. To 
this end, we 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. 
To merit approval of the petition under this criterion, the record must establish that a petitioner's 
imposition of a degree requirement is not merely a matter of preference for high-caliber candidates 
but is necessitated by performance requirements of the position. While a petitioner may assert that a 
proffered position requires a specific degree, that statement alone without corroborating evidence 
cannot establish the position as a specialty occupation. Were USCIS limited solely to reviewing a 
petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, then any individual with a bachelor's degree could be 
brought to the United States to perform any occupation as long as the petitioner artificially created a 
token degree requirement, whereby all individuals employed in a particular position possessed a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty, or its equivalent. See Defensor v. Meissner, 
201 F.3d at 388. In other words, if a petitioner's stated degree requirement is only designed to 
artificially meet the standards for an H-lB visa and/or to underemploy an individual in a position for 
which he or she is overqualified and if the proffered position does not in fact require such a specialty 
degree or its equivalent, to perform its duties, the occupation would not meet the statutory or 
15 
(b)(6)
Matter ofV-U-T- , LLC 
regulatory definition of a specialty occupation. See§ 214(i)(l) ofthe Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) 
(defining the term "specialty occupation"). 
To satisfy this criterion , the evidence of record must show that the specific performance 
requirements of the position generated the recruiting and hiring history . USCIS must examine the 
·actual employment requirements , and , on the basis of that examination , determine whether the 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. In 
this pursuit, the critical element is not the title of the position, or the fact that an employer has 
routinely insisted on ce1iain educational standards , but whether performance of 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. 
The Petitioner has not stated that the proffered position is a new one for the company. In fact, 
although not independently verified , the Beneficiary stated that the Petitioner ' s sister company 
employs another credit analyst in , TX . Fmiher , the Petitioner also indicated ·that "the 
position of Credit Analyst have always been filled by individuals with education and experience 
equivalent to a U.S. Bachelor's degree in Business Administration , Finance, Accounting, or a related 
degree" and its "needs were filled by outside company that provided limited underwriting services 
for conducting credit analysis of the customers only." However , the Petitioner provided no 
documentation or information regarding its current or past 
employees or the outside services it used 
in the past. As such , the Petitioner has not demonstrated that it has a history of recruiting and hirin g 
only persons with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty , or its equivalent , for the 
proffered position. Therefore , the Petitioner has not satisfied the third criterion of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). 
The nature of the spec?fic 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 
The fourth criterion at 8 C .F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires the 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. 
Upon review of the record of the proceeding , we note that the Petitioner has not provided sufficient 
evidence to satisfy this criterion of the regulations. In the instant case , relative specialization and 
complexity have not been credibly developed by the Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position . 
That is, the proposed duties have not been described with sufficient specificity to establish that they 
are more specialized and complex than positions that are not usually associated with at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty , or its equivalent. 
16 
(b)(6)
Matter of V- U-T-, LLC 
We further incorporate our earlier discussion and analysis regarding the duties of the proffered 
position, and the designation of the proffered position in the LCA as a Level I position (the lowest of 
four assignable wage-levels) relative to others within the occupational category. Without more, the 
position is one not likely distinguishable by relatively specialized and complex duties. That is, 
without further evidence, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that its proffered position is one with 
specialized and complex duties as such a position falling under this occupational category would 
likely be classified at a higher-level, such as a Level III (experienced) or Level IV (fully competent) 
position, requiring a substantially higher prevailing wage. 7 The Petitioner has submitted insufficient 
evidence to satisfy this criterion of the regulations. We,. therefore, conclude that the Petitioner did 
not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
For the reasons related in the preceding discussion, the Petitioner has not established that it has 
satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) and, therefore, it cannot be found that 
the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 
Based upon a complete review of the appeal and the record of proceeding, the Petitioner has not 
overcome the revocation ground specified in the NOIR and the subsequent revocation decision. 
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The approval of the petition remains revoked .. 8 
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 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofV-U-T-, LLC, ID# 14089 (AAO Nov. 10, 2015) 
7 As previously discussed, a Level IV (fully competent) position is designated by DOL for employees who "use 
advanced skills and diversified knowledge to solve unusual and complex problems" and requires a significantly higher 
wage. 
8 Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we need not address other grounds of 
ineligibility we observe in the record of proceeding. However, we will briefly note that the Petitioner did not adequately 
explain the discrepancies regarding the location ofthe Beneficiary's employment. While the Form I-129 and the LCA 
indicated that the Beneficiary will be employed in TX, the site visit and the phone calls indicated that the 
Beneficiary may be employed in TX. In response to the NOlO, and on appeal, the Beneficiary asserted that his 
wife is temporarily residing in and he goes there on weekends. However, the record does not contain 
independent, objective evidence such as a lease record or utility bills for a residence that is commuting distance from 
TX, to corroborate his claims. The record contains copies of W-2 forms and pay stubs for the Beneficiary, but 
the address column in these are blank. However, a pay stub dated November 24, 2014, indicated that the Beneficiary's 
address is in TX, which is approximately four hours from Texas. A change in the location of the 
Beneficiary's work to a geographical area not covered by the LCA filed with the Form 1-129 is a material change in the 
terms of conditions of employment, and may require an amended or new petition. Matter of Simeio Solutions, LLC, 26 
I&N Dec. 542, 548-49 (AAO 20 I 5) .. 
1'7