remanded
H-1B
remanded H-1B Case: Custodial Services
Decision Summary
The director denied the petition because the beneficiary's degree was unrelated to the position. The AAO found that while the beneficiary was qualified, the director failed to address the more critical issue of whether the proffered position of 'custodial services manager' qualifies as a specialty occupation. The case was remanded for the director to make a new decision on that basis.
Criteria Discussed
Beneficiary'S Qualifications Specialty Occupation Requirements
Sign up free to download the original PDF
Downloaded the case? Use it in your next draft →View Full Decision Text
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Rm. A3042 Washington, DC 20529 U. S. Citizenship and Immigration FILE: SRC 04 062 52830 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 1 4 2m5 IN RE: PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: INSTRUCTIONS : This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All 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 SRC 04 062 52830 Page 2 DISCUSSION: The service center director denied the nonirnmigrant visa petition and the matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The director's decision will be withdrawn and the matter remanded for entry of a new decision. The petitioner is an assisted living facility that seeks to employ the beneficiary as a custodial services manager. The petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a nonimrnigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to section lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. ยง llOl(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). The director denied the petition because the beneficiary was not qualified to perform the duties of the proffered position. On appeal, counsel submits a brief. Section 214(i)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. Q 1184(i)(2), states that an alien applying for classification as an H-1B nonirnmigrant worker must possess full state licensure to practice in the occupation, if such licensure is required to practice in the occupation, and completion of the degree in the specialty that the occupation requires. If the alien does not possess the required degree, the petitioner must demonstrate that the alien has experience in the specialty equivalent to the completion of such degree, and recognition of expertise in the specialty through progressively responsible positions relating to the specialty. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. Q 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C), to qualify to perform services in a specialty occupation, an alien must meet one of the following criteria: (I) Hold a United States baccalaureate or higher degree required by the specialty occupation from an accredited college or university; (2) Hold a foreign degree determined to be equivalent to a United States baccalaureate or higher degree required by the specialty occupation from an accredited college or university; (3) Hold an unrestricted state license, registration or certification which authorizes him or her to fully practice the specialty occupation and be immediately engaged in that specialty in the state of intended employment; or (4) Have education, specialized training, andlor progressively responsible experience that is equivalent to completion of a United States baccalaureate or higher degree in the specialty occupation, and have recognition of expertise in the specialty through progressively responsible positions directly related to the specialty. The record of proceeding before the AAO contains, in part: (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. SRC 04 062 52830 Page 3 The petitioner is seeking the beneficiary's services as a custodial services manager. The petitioner indicated in its November 26, 2003 letter of support that it wished to hire the beneficiary because she possessed a bachelor's degree and several years of supervisory work experience. The petitioner stated that it requires a baccalaureate degree or its equivalent in communication arts, sociology or any related course with broad liberal background for the proffered position. The director found that the beneficiary was not qualified for the proffered position because the beneficiary's education is unrelated to the occupation. On appeal, counsel states that the proffered position does not require a specific field of study. Counsel also states that even if the beneficiary's degree were unrelated to the proffered position, legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) decisions have recognized that professionals with degrees in unrelated fields combined with work experience may establish that a beneficiary has the equivalent of a degree in a specific specialty. Upon review of the record, the petitioner has established that the beneficiary is qualified to perform an occupation that does not require a baccalaureate degree in any specific field. The petitioner submitted an evaluation from International Credentials Evaluation and Translation Services, which states that the beneficiary's foreign degree is equivalent to a bachelor's degree from a U.S. college or university in English. The petition still may not be approved, however. The director did not address the issue of whether the proffered position is a specialty occupation. The petition will thus be remanded to the director to make that determination. The AAO notes that the petitioner states that a degree in a specific specialty is not required for the position. The AAO also notes that counsel equates the position to a property, real estate and community association manager, which the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) indicates does not require a degree in a specific specialty. The AAO does not concur with counsel that this position description is accurate for the proffered position, which is more like a cleaning supervisor, as described in the building cleaning workers section of the Handbook, and which does not require a bachelor's degree of any type. The AAO also fmds counsel's argument regarding previous INS decisions unpersuasive. Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. ยง 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. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify 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; SRC 04 062 52830 Page 4 (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. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) interprets the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered position. The director may afford the petitioner reasonable time to provide evidence pertinent to the issue of whether the proffered position is a specialty occupation. The director shall then render a new decision based on the evidence of record as it relates to the regulatory requirements for eligibility. As always, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1361. ORDER: The director's April 21,2004 decision is withdrawn. The petition is remanded to the director for entry of a new decision, which if adverse to the petitioner, is to be certified to the AAO for review.
Draft your H-1B petition with AAO precedents
MeritDraft uses real AAO decisions to generate compliant petition arguments tailored to your evidence.
Sign Up Free →No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.