The H-1B Visa Interview Trap: What to Know Before Answering “Why Can’t a U.S. Worker Do This Job?”

“Why can’t an American do this job?”

According to recent reporting by Newsweek, this is a question H-1B applicants have been encountering at their visa interviews at U.S. embassies and consulates — sometimes phrased as “what makes you so specialized that a U.S. worker cannot do your job?” If you have an H-1B interview coming up, it is worth thinking about this question before you are standing at the window.

Here is why: the question, taken at face value, is a trap. It invites you to argue that Americans cannot do your job — but that is not what the H-1B category asks anyone to prove. What the law actually asks is whether the position is a genuine “specialty occupation” and whether you are qualified to fill it. An applicant who understands that distinction can answer the question calmly, accurately, and without getting pulled into a comparison that the law never required.

In this article, we walk through what a specialty occupation actually is, what the law does and does not require, how to approach this question if it comes up, and what related questions tend to follow. As always, this is general information, not legal advice — every case turns on its own facts.

What an H-1B “Specialty Occupation” Actually Is

The H-1B category exists to let U.S. employers fill positions that require specialized knowledge — not to fill positions that Americans have declined or failed to fill. Because the interview question trades on a misunderstanding of this framework, it is worth walking through what the framework actually says, and what it means in practice.

• The rule: Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA § 214(i)(1)) and its implementing regulation (8 CFR § 214.2(h)(4)(ii)), a specialty occupation is a position that requires (1) the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and (2) at least a bachelor’s degree (or its equivalent) in a specific specialty as a minimum for entry into the occupation.

• What this means in practice: The analysis starts with the position, not the person. Before anyone asks whether you are qualified, the question is whether the job itself — by the nature of its duties — demands specialized knowledge of the kind acquired through focused study. A job that anyone with general aptitude could learn to do does not become a specialty occupation because the person hired happens to hold a degree; conversely, a genuinely specialized position does not stop being one because a particular officer thinks someone else might have filled it.

The regulation then sets out four alternative criteria, at least one of which the position must satisfy (8 CFR § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)):

• A bachelor’s or higher degree, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for the position;

• The degree requirement is common for parallel positions in the industry, or the position is so complex or unique that only someone with a degree can perform it;

• The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or

• The specific duties are so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is usually associated with a bachelor’s or higher degree.

The position needs to meet one of the four, not all of them. In practice, adjudicators test these criteria against reference materials such as the Department of Labor’s Occupational Outlook Handbook and O*NET, the employer’s own hiring history, and the actual duties described in the petition.

• The rule: “Normally” means what is usual, typical, common, or routine for the position — and “normally does not mean always.”

• What this means in practice: A position can qualify even if some people in the occupation entered it without a degree, so long as a degree in a specific specialty is the typical entry route.

• The rule: The required degree field must be “directly related” to the duties, which USCIS defines as a “logical connection” between the degree (or its equivalent) and the duties of the position. A position may allow a range of qualifying degree fields, provided each field is directly related to the duties, but requiring a general degree without further specialization is not sufficient.

• What this means in practice: Two things follow. First, the fit does not need to be a title-for-title match: a data science role might logically accept degrees in computer science, statistics, or applied mathematics, and the position still qualifies as long as each accepted field genuinely connects to the duties. Second, what matters is the substance of the education, not the name on the diploma. In the final rule, USCIS deliberately shifted the focus toward the beneficiary’s actual course of study, so an applicant whose degree carries a broad title but whose coursework was concentrated in the relevant specialty can still present a strong case, while a purely generic degree with no specialization cannot carry a specialty occupation on its own.

Now step back and notice what is missing from all of this: there is no comparison to U.S. workers anywhere in the framework. Every element, the definition, the four criteria, “normally,” “directly related”, is about the position and the person: what the job demands, and whether your education and experience logically connect to it. That is also, not coincidentally, exactly the shape of a good interview answer.

What the Law Does Not Require: A Labor Market Test

Before filing an H-1B petition, the sponsoring employer must obtain a certified Labor Condition Application (LCA) from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). In the LCA, the employer attests that it will pay at least the required wage, that employing the H-1B worker will not adversely affect the working conditions of similarly employed workers, that there is no strike or lockout at the worksite, and that notice of the filing has been given (20 CFR Part 655, Subpart H).

What the LCA does not require, for the standard H-1B employer, is any test of the U.S. labor market. DOL says this directly in its own guidance: an H-1B employer is not required to recruit U.S. workers before seeking an H-1B worker, unless the employer is “H-1B-dependent” (broadly, an employer whose workforce contains a high proportion of H-1B workers) or has previously been found a willful violator of H-1B program requirements (DOL Fact Sheet #62O). Only those two narrower categories of employer must take good-faith steps to recruit U.S. workers and offer the position to an equally or better qualified U.S. applicant.

In other words: for the large majority of H-1B cases, no one, not the employer, and certainly not the applicant at a visa window, is required to prove that no qualified American exists. That requirement belongs to a different corner of immigration law (for example, the PERM labor certification process for certain employment-based green cards), not to the standard H-1B.

So How Should You Answer the Question?

Immigration attorneys quoted in the Newsweek reporting converge on the same advice we would give: do not answer the question on its own terms. Do not compare yourself to U.S. workers — favorably or unfavorably — and do not say anything like “Americans aren’t qualified for this.” Instead, redirect the answer to what the law actually cares about: why YOU were selected for this specific position. In practice, a strong answer touches on:

• The specific connection between your degree or technical training and the day-to-day duties of the position;

• Concrete specialized skills, certifications, or hands-on experience that match the role;

• Where applicable, your prior work with this employer or close familiarity with its systems, projects, or clients;

• Why the position itself calls for specialized knowledge, know very well about position you are offered.

Keep it brief, specific, and confident. The goal is a straightforward account of why you fit the role, not a defense against an implied accusation. And whatever you say should be consistent with what is already in your petition: the officer has your file, and your spoken answer should sound like the same case your employer filed.

Hence, it is important to understand the followings consistent with the Form I-129 petition, the certified LCA, and your DS-160:

• Your specific coursework or technical background;

• The day-to-day duties of the position you are offered;

• What specific skills and knowledge are required in the position (high-level skills such as SQL, Python, not Microsoft);

• How your coursework or background equip or support you in performing the skills or duties;

• Your sponsoring employer business scope, or even development history;

• How you found the position;

• If you will work at a third-party client site: where you will actually work, and who (name and title) supervises your work day to day;

• Your offered salary;

• Whether your account of your own work history lines up with your prior visa filings and travel.

Conclusion

The “why can’t an American do this job” question sounds intimidating precisely because it implies a legal standard that does not exist for the standard H-1B case. Applicants who know what the specialty occupation framework actually requires — specialized knowledge, a directly related degree, and a genuine match between the person and the position — do not need to argue about American workers at all. They just need to explain, clearly and consistently, why they can do this job.

That is a question every well-prepared H-1B applicant should be able to answer. A modest amount of preparation, focused on fit rather than comparison and on consistency rather than improvisation, goes a long way.

ILS can assist H-1B applicants and their sponsoring employers with consular interview preparation, consistency review across the Form I-129 petition, LCA, and DS-160, and addressing potential concerns before the interview date. For more information, please contact the ILS legal team at immigrationlaw@consultils.com.

Disclaimer：This article is based on the latest policy information as of July 20, 2026. Given the rapid changes in immigration policies, it is advisable for enterprises to pay close attention to official updates and consult professional immigration lawyers for the latest guidance. Our firm will continue to track policy developments and provide clients with timely and accurate professional services.

---

As Partner and Head of Immigration at ILS, Anna advises global employers on all aspects of U.S. business immigration. She helps companies recruit and retain executives and highly skilled professionals essential to their U.S. operations, with experience spanning industries from autonomous driving and biotech, to entertainment, logistics, and manufacturing.

Previously, Anna practiced at leading global law firms and served as in-house counsel and compliance manager in the telecommunications, finance, and gaming industries. This diverse background equips her with practical, cross-industry insights that inform strategic, business-focused immigration solutions.

Email: contact@consultils.com | Phone: 626-344-8949

Muriel focuses on business immigration, with experience in L-1 and Blanket L, EB-1C, PERM, H-1B, EB-1A, NIW, E-2, family-based matters, and complex RFEs.

Before joining ILS, she practiced at leading U.S. law firms, including an Am Law 200 firm, representing major U.S. and Chinese companies in high-stakes immigration matters. She previously practiced corporate law at a leading Chinese firm, advising on cross-border M&A, foreign investment, and compliance. Her corporate background allows her to align immigration strategy with clients’ broader business goals. Muriel also serves as Vice President of Membership for the Greater Cleveland Chinese Chamber of Commerce.

Email: contact@consultils.com | Phone: 626-344-8949