In re _______ [The Case of the Specialty Occupation and the L.A. Auto Show]

The petitioner (plaintiff) was a company that managed and produced the L.A. Auto Show. The petitioner sought to employ the beneficiary as a human-resources manager on an H-1B visa under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The director of the California Service Center denied the petition, and the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) initially denied the petitioner’s appeal. The petitioner filed a complaint with the United States District Court for the Central District of California seeking declaratory relief. Then, on its own motion, the AAO reopened the proceeding to reconsider its decision. The AAO requested additional information from the petitioner concerning the specific job duties to be performed by the beneficiary. The petitioner’s job duties included hiring staff, drafting a policy manual, training, recruiting, developing compensation plans, preparing budgets for personnel, maintaining employment records, and developing and implementing personnel policies. The beneficiary had a bachelor’s degree in psychology from a college in the Philippines. Under the Occupation Outlook Handbook (handbook), entry-level human-resources manager positions could be filled by individuals with a wide range of degrees. The petitioner submitted a letter prepared by a University of Minnesota professor proffering that the performance of the human-resources position offered by the petitioner would impose a degree requirement on the beneficiary.