remanded H-1B Case: Market Research

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9508657 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 13, 2020 
The Petitioner, a legal services company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "market 
research analyst" under the H-lB 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-lB 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 record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform services in the proffered position. On appeal, the 
Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in denying the petition. 
Upon de nova review, we note that a beneficiary's credentials for a particular position are relevant 
only when the job is first found to qualify as a specialty occupation.1 Accordingly, the Director should 
first determine whether the record establishes that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. 
When determining whether a position is a specialty occupation, we 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 
performance of those duties within the context of that particular employer's business operations. The 
evidence does not demonstrate that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation because 
the record does not contain a sufficiently detailed description of the Beneficiary's duties to establish 
that the position 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, or its 
equivalent. 
1 We follow long-standing legal standards and determine first, whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation, and second, whether the beneficiary was qualified for the position at the time the nonimmigrant visa petition 
was filed. Cf. Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 l&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm 'r 1988) ("The facts of a beneficiary's 
background only come at issue after it is found that the position in which the petitioner intends to employ him falls within 
[a specialty occupation]."). 
Moreover, the 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. 
The Director should review the record to determine whether the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. Then, the Director should examine whether the Beneficiary is qualified to perform 
services in the specialty occupation. 
Therefore, we remand the petition for the Director to further review the record and request any 
additional evidence deemed necessary and allow the Petitioner to submit such evidence within a 
reasonable period of time. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
2