remanded H-1B Case: Transportation

(b)(6)
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF W-W-E-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 8, 2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 
I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a "Transportation" company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"Transportation Operations Manager" under the H -1 B nonimmigrant classification. See 
Immigration and Nationalit y Act (the Act) § 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) , 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
The Director, California Service Center, revoked the approval of the petition. The matter is now 
before us on appeal. The Director 's decision will be withdrawn, and the petition will be remanded 
for entry of a new decision . 
The Director revoked the approval of the petition on the basis that the Beneficiary is not qualified to 
perform the duties of the proffered position. However, upon review of the entire record of proceeding, 
we find that the Director's decision to revoke the approval of the petition did not adequately address 
another, more fundamental issue: whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation.1 
users is required to follow long-standing legal standards and determine first, whether the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation , and second, whether the Beneficiary is qualified for the 
position at the time the nonimmigrant visa petition was filed. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 
19 I&N Dec. at 560 ("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]."). In the instant case, the record of proceedings does not establish that the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. We are therefore remanding this matter to the Director 
to analyze first whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
On the Form I-129, the Petitioner indicated that it is a 170-employee transportation company 
established in The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a "Transportation Operations 
Manager" for 20 hours per week at a rate of pay of $23.23 per hour. 2 
1 
We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. Matter ofSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 l&N Dec. 542 (AAO 2015) ; see 
also 5 U.S.C. § 557(b) ("On appeal from or review of the initial decision , the agency has all the powers which it would 
have in making the initial decision except as it may limit the issue s on notice or by rule ."); Dar v . INS, 891 F.2d 997, 
I 002 n.9 
(2d Cir . 1989) . 
2 The Petitioner asserted on the Form l-129 that the proffered position is not a full-time position and that the Beneficiary 
would work 20 hours per week . 
Matter ofW-W-E-, Inc. 
The labor condition application (LCA) submitted to support the visa petition states that the proffered 
position is a "Transportation Operations Manager" and that it corresponds to Standard Occupational 
Classification (SOC) code and title 11-3071, "Transportation, Storage, and Distribution Managers," 
from the Occupational Information Network (O*NET). The LCA further states that the proffered 
position is a Level I, entry-level, position. 
In a letter dated April 3, 2013, the Petitioner explained that it is a trucking company. The Petitioner 
stated that it is "in need of a transportation operations manager who will be responsible for planning, 
directing, or coordinating [the] company's operations including distribution, customer service, or 
planning services as well as manage logistics personnel and logistics systems and direct daily 
operations." The Petitioner listed the duties of the proffered position as including the following 
(verbatim): 
• Resolve problems concemmg transportation, logistics systems, or customer 
Issues. 
• Collaborate with other departments to integrate logistics with business systems or 
processes, such as customer sales, order management, accounting, or shipping. 
• Maintain metrics, reports, process determination, customer service logs, or 
training or safety records. 
• Supervise the work of logistics specialists, planners, or schedulers. 
• Direct inbound or outbound logistics operations, such as transportation or 
warehouse activities, safety performance, or logistics quality management. 
• Negotiate with suppliers or customers to improve supply chain efficiency or 
sustainabili ty. 
• Direct distribution center operation to ensure achievement of cost, productivity, 
accuracy, or timeliness objectives. 
• Negotiate transportation rates or services. 
• Analyze the financial impact of proposed logistics changes, such as routing, 
shipping modes, product volumes or mixes, or carriers. 
• Analyze expenditures and other financial information to develop plans, policies, 
or budgets for increasing profits or improving services. 
• Plan, organize, or manage the work of subordinate staff to ensure that the work is 
accomplished in a manner consistent with organizational requirements. 
• Negotiate and authorize contracts with equipment and materials suppliers, and 
monitor contract fulfillment. 
• Collaborate with other managers or staff members to formulate and implement 
policies, procedures, goals, or objectives. 
• Monitor spending to ensure that expenses are consistent with approved budgets. 
• Supervise workers preparing billing. 
• Promote safe work activities by conducting safety audits, attending company 
safety meetings, or meeting with individual staff members. 
• Direct investigations to verify and resolve customer or shipper complaints. 
2 
Matter ofW-W-E-, Inc. 
In the same letter, the Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary "is the appropriate person for the above 
position because of his education - Bachelor of Economics with a major in Entrepreneurship 
Economics he received from [a national university in Ukraine]." 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted a letter, dated 
November 7, 2013, attesting that a bachelor's degree in business management, business 
administration, or a related field, is required for the proffered position. The Petitioner also asserted 
that the knowledge required to perform the proffered duties comes from "various business fields," 
including "human resources, operational management, marketing, finances, financial plamting, [and] 
logistics." The Petitioner pointed out that its previous Business Manager, who had "essentially same 
job duties" and whose position the Beneficiary will replace, held a master's degree in human 
resources.3 More specifically, the Petitioner stated: 
As indicated before, the profession of a Transportation Operations Manager requires 
knowledge cross-reaching at least three different areas/occupations: Marketing 
Manager, Human Resources Manager, Financial Planner/ Accountant. All of these 
fields relate to Business Management. Those job duties are so complex that it is 
absolutely necessary to possess a bachelor's degree or higher in Business 
Administration or closely related field. The beneficiary in this case has extensive 
knowledge in the area of Business Administration .... 
The Petitioner also stated in this letter that the Beneficiary will perform the following additional 
duties:4 
• Communicate in the Ukrainian language via e-mail and telephone with 
administrative staff, agents and customers who cannot communicate in English. 
• Prepare sales materials, products data sheets and offers in the Polish language. 
• Monitor sales agents' activities and sales progress- all in the Polish language. 
• All other managerial activities as required in the normal course of business. 
The Petitioner supplemented its RFE response with another description of the proffered position, 
indicating that the Beneficiary will perform job duties related to human resources, employee 
supervision, marketing, logistics, records keeping, quality management, services management, 
contracts negotiation, budget and finances, policy formulation, safety control, and customer service. 
This supplemental description indicates that the proffered position requires at least a bachelor's-level 
of knowledge of Business Administration, Marketing, Human Resources, and Accounting. The 
3 The Petitioner submitted evidence that the previous Business Manager's foreign degrees are equivalent to a U.S. 
bachelor of science degree in Management and Marketing, minor in Human Resources Management, and a U.S. master 
of arts degree in Management, minor in Human Resources Management. 
4 The Petitioner explained that it has a subsidiary company in Poland, and that the company seeks to expand its 
transportation services from Poland to Ukraine as well. The Beneficiary is a citizen and resident of Ukraine. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter ofW-W-E- , Inc. 
Petitioner also claimed that the Beneficiary would "work 20-40 hours per week depending on 
demand." 
Based upon the evidence of record, the Director approved the petition. Subsequently, however, the 
Director issued the Petitioner a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) the approval of the petition 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(ll)(iii)(2), concluding that the statement of facts contained in the 
petition was not true and conect. More specifically, the Director concluded that the Beneficiary is 
not qualified to perform services in a specialty occupation based upon his education, as his foreign 
bachelor's degree in Economics "does not appear to be directly related to the position being 
offered." The Director determined that the proffered position more closely resembles a position 
under the "Logisticians" occupational classification as opposed to one under the "Transportation 
Managers" classification . The NOIR referenced a memorandum from the United States Consulate 
General in Ukraine, which noted that the Beneficiary did not have prior experience in 
logistics. 
In response to the NOIR, the Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary is qualified for the proffered 
position by virtue of his bachelor's degree in Business Economics. The Petitioner disputed the 
Director's determination that the proffered position more closely resembles a position under the 
"Logisticians" occupational classification. In addition, the Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary's 
degree is "clearly related to the position being offered," which the Petitioner stated is "similar to that 
of a general business manager." 
The Director revoked the approval of the petition. The Petitioner now appeals this decision. On 
appeal, the Petitioner again asserts that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform services in a specialty 
occupation, as his "education is in the field of general business" and the proffered position is 
"similar to that of a general business manager." The Petitioner emphasizes that the job duties "cross 
over into various business fields" and are related to several other positions such as "Human 
Resources Manager, Marketing Manager, Financial Manager, [and] Sales Manager." The Petitioner 
states that "[t]he fields of study required for all above mentioned positions are: finance, accounting, 
economics, business administration, mathematics, [and] marketing - all of which the Beneficiary 
had completed." 
II. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
A. Legal Framework 
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 
4 
Matter ojW-W-E-, Inc. 
(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: 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the m1mmum 
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. SeeK Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) (holding that construction 
of language which takes into account the design of the statute as a whole is preferred); see also COlT 
Independence Joint Venture v. Fed. 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.F.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.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory or 
regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). To avoid this 
result, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must therefore be read as providing supplemental criteria that 
5 
Matter ofW-W-E-, Inc. 
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 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"). Applying this standard, USCIS regularly approves H-lB petitions for qualified 
individuals 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. users must examine the 
ultimate employment of the individual, 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 or 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. Analysis 
Upon review of the entire record of proceeding, we find that the evidence of record was insufficient to 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The record of proceeding was insufficient to establish the substantive nature of the proffered position. 
For instance, the Petitioner's initial description of the proffered position appears to have been taken 
directly from the Occupational Information Network (O*NET). More specifically, the first nine job 
duties listed in the Petitioner's April 3, 2013, letter appear to have been copied verbatim from the 
O*NET Details Report for SOC code and title 11-3071.03, "Logistics Managers." 5 See O*NET 
Online Details Report for "Logistics Managers," http://www.onetonline.org/link/details/11-3071.03 
5 
These duties are the same as the duties listed in the most recent version (updated 2015) ofthe O*NET Online Details 
Report for "Logistics Managers." See O*NET Online Details Report for "Logistics Managers," 
http://www.onetonline.org/link/details/11-3071.03 (last visited Jan. 29, 2016). We cannot determine which version (i.e., 
the version updated in 2011 or a later version) the Petitioner relied upon since the Petitioner did not submit a copy of the 
O*NET report for "Logistics Managers" in support of the Petition. 
6 
Matter ~fW-W-E-, Inc. 
(last visited Jan. 29, 2016). The remaining eight job duties listed in the April 3, 2013, letter, were 
taken virtually verbatim from an earlier version (updated in 2011) ofthe O*NET Summary Report 
for SOC code and title 11-3071.01, "Transportation Managers," copies of which were submitted for 
the record by the Petitioner. 
Simply copying a job description from O*NET (or other sources) is not sufficient for establishing 
H-1B eligibility. That is, while this type of generalized description may be appropriate when 
defining the range of duties that may be performed within an occupational category, it generally 
cannot be relied upon by a petitioner when discussing the duties attached to specific employment for 
H-1B approval. This type of generalized description is inadequate convey the substantive work that 
the Beneficiary will perform within the context of the Petitioner's business operations and, thus, 
generally cannot be relied upon by the Petitioner when discussing the duties attached to specific 
employment. To establish a position as a specialty occupation, the Petitioner must describe the 
specific duties and responsibilities to be performed by Beneficiary in the context of the Petitioner's 
particular business operations, and substantiate that it has bona fide H-1B caliber work for the 
Beneficiary. 
In addition to the generalized nature of the initial job description, the Petitioner's job description 
appears to have materially changed in response to the RFE and thereafter. As stated above, the 
Petitioner's initial job description recited verbatim the job duties for the "Transportation Managers" 
and "Logistics Managers" occupational classifications as described in O*NET. The Petitioner's 
initial job description did not indicate that the Beneficiary would perform duties outside of these 
occupational classifications. However, in response to the RFE and thereafter, the Petitioner listed 
new, additional duties involving, inter alia, marketing, sales, human resources, and 
budgeting/finance/accounting. The Petitioner specifically identified other occupational 
classifications, such as Marketing Managers, Market Research Analysts, Human Resources 
Managers, Financial Managers, and Sales Managers, as relevant to the proffered position. The 
Petitioner did not explain how the new job duties in other occupational classifications are 
nonetheless consistent with the initial job description and the "Transportation, Storage, and 
Distribution Managers" occupational classification selected on the LCA.6 We further note that the 
Petitioner claimed in the Form I-129 that the Beneficiary would work part-time at 20 hours per 
week. In response to the RFE, the Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary would work 20-40 hours 
per week and, thus, possibly full time. 
In response to an RFE or on appeal, a petitioner cannot offer a new position to a beneficiary, or 
materially change a position's associated job responsibilities, level of authority within the 
organizational hierarchy, or other requirements of the position. A petitioner may not make material 
6 One of the initial job duties is to "[ c ]o\laborate with other departments to integrate logistics with business systems or 
processes, such as customer sales, order management, accounting, or shipping." While this job duty mentions sales and 
accounting, it does so in the context of collaborating with "other departments to integrate logistics." It is not readily 
apparent that this initial job duty includes duties such as "[p ]repare sales materials, "[m]onitor sales agents' activities and 
sales progress," "[ c ]reate advertisements describing services and products offered," and "[i]nitiate market research to 
advance sales of services and products," as subsequently stated by the Petitioner. 
7 
(b)(6)
Matter ofW-W-E- , Inc. 
changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. See 
In re Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). A petitioner must establish eligibility 
at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248, 
249 (Reg'l Comm'r 1978). 
As previously noted, the Petitioner submitted a LCA for a position falling under the SOC code and title 
11-3071, "Transportation, Storage, and Distribution Managers."7 With respect to the LCA, DOL 
provides clear guidance for selecting the most relevant O*NET occupational code classification. 
The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" states the following: 
In determining the nature of the job offer, the first order is to review the 
requirements of the employer's job offer and determine the appropriate occupational 
classification. The O*NET description that corresponds to the employer's job offer 
shall be used to identify the appropriate occupational classification . . . . If the 
employer's job opportunity has worker requirements described in a combination of 
O*NET occupations , the NPWHC should default directly to the relevant O*NET­
SOC occupational code for the highest paying occupation. For example, if the 
employer's job offer is for an engineer-pilot, the NPWHC shall use the education, 
skill 
and experience levels for the higher paying occupation when making the wage 
level determination. 
The Petitioner indicated that the proffered position also corresponds to other occupations including 
Human Resources 
Managers , Marketing Managers, Financial Managers , and Sales Managers. All of 
these occupations have higher prevailing wages than for a "Transportation, Storage, and Distribution 
Managers" position. 8 Thus, according to DOL guidance, if the Petitioner believed its position was 
appropriately described in one of these or a combination of these other occupations, it should have 
chosen the relevant occupational code for the highest paying occupation. However, the Petitioner 
chose the occupational category for the lower paying occupation of "Transportation, Storage, and 
Distribution Managers" for the proffered position on the LCA. The Petitioner's choice of this lower 
paying occupation, without further explanation , raises additional questions regarding the substantive 
nature of the proffered position as well as the Petitioner's credibility .9 
7 The 11-3071 code encompasses three specific sub-codes: (I) 11-3071.01 (Transportation Managers) ; (2) 11-3071.02 
(Storage and Distribution Managers); and (3) 11-3071.03 (Logistics Managers). 
8 The prevailing wage, which is the same wage that the Petitioner is offering to the Beneficiary, is $23.23 per hour. In 
contrast, the Level I prevailing wage for Human Resources Managers in the IL Metropolitan 
Division (where the Beneficiary is to be employed), for the period 7/2012- 6/2013, is $30.26 per hour. The wages in the 
same region for the same time period for Marketing Managers, Financial Managers, and Sales Managers, are $28.29 per 
hour , $32.46 per hour, and $27.23 per hour, respectively. For more information regarding prevailing wages, see 
http://www.flcdatacente r.com/OESWizardStart.aspx (last visited Jan. 29, 20 16). 
9 An additional issue appears to be whether the Petitioner submitted an LCA that supports the petition. The regulation at 
20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b) requires that USCIS ensure that an LCA actually supports the H-1 B petition filed on behalf of 
the Beneficiar y. Here, it appears that the Petitioner has not submitted a valid LCA that corresponds to the claimed duties 
of the proffered position. 
8 
Matter ofW-W-E-, Inc. 
There are other instances in which the substantive nature of the proffered position is unclear. For 
example, the Petitioner broadly stated that the Beneficiary will be responsible for "[a]ll other 
managerial activities as required in the normal course of business," but did not further clarify the 
exact nature of "[a]ll other managerial activities." The Petitioner also stated that the Beneficiary's 
Ukrainian language skills would be utilized in the performance of his job duties, but then listed 
duties that required him to oversee sales activities and staff- all conducted in the Polish language. 
The Petitioner has not established the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the 
Beneficiary, which therefore precludes a finding that the proffered position satisfies any criterion at 
8 C.F.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. 
Notably, the Petitioner repeatedly stated that the proffered position is "similar" or "equivalent to a 
general business manager." The Petitioner has likewise stated that the Beneficiary is qualified for 
the position because his "education is in the field of general business." However, the position of a 
"general business manager" which encompasses duties "in various business fields" does not 
constitute an occupation in the "business specialties" pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (emphasis added). Cf Matter of Ling, 13 I&N Dec. 35, 36 (Reg'l Comm'r 1968) 
(explaining that '" [b ]usiness administration' is a broad field, a field which contains various 
occupations and/or professions, all of which are related to the world of business but each requiring a 
different academic preparation and experience peculiar to its needs"). 
Finally, the proffered position does not appear to qualify as a specialty occupation based upon its 
minimum educational requirement. 
Here, the Petitioner stated that a degree in Business Management, Business Administration, or a 
closely related field, is a sufficient entry requirement for the proffered position. However, the claim 
that a degree in Business Management or Business Administration is a sufficient minimum 
requirement for entry into the proffered position is inadequate to establish that the proposed position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. As stated above, "business administration" is a broad field that 
encompasses various occupations and/or professions, all of which are related to the world of 
business but each requiring a different academic preparation and experience peculiar to its needs. 
Matter of Ling, 13 I&N Dec. at 36. In contrast, in order to demonstrate that the proffered 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 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 general degree or a degree with a generalized title, such as business administration, 
9 
Matter ofW-W-E-, Inc. 
without further specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of 
Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&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)(l) 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 previously noted, USCIS 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. 
Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d at 147. The Petitioner's requirement of a general-purpose 
bachelor's degree therefore indicates that the proffered position is not in fact a specialty occupation. 
For these reasons, the petition as currently constituted cannot be approved and this matter must be 
remanded to the Director for issuance of a new decision. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Absent a determination that the proffered position is a specialty occupation that requires at least a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent, it cannot be determined 
whether the Beneficiary possesses that degree or its equivalent. As discussed, the evidence of record 
does not demonstrate that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. Consequently, the matter 
will be remanded to the Director for further review and issuance of a new decision in accordance 
with the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. The Director may request any additional 
evidence considered pertinent to the new determination. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director, California Service Center is withdrawn. The matter is 
remanded to the Director, California Service Center for further proceedings consistent 
with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision. 
Cite as Matter ojW-W-E-, Inc., ID# 15619 (AAO Feb. 8, 2016) 
10