dismissed H-1B Case: Automotive Sales

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C- INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 15, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an online automobile shopping service, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as 
a sales engineer under the H -1 B 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-1B 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, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish that the job offered qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. 1 In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
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 
(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. 
1 We initially rejected the appeal as untimely, but later reopened the matter sua sponte. 
Matter of C- Inc. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
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. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has consistently 
interpreted 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 proposed 
position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Cherto,[f, 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"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
In the H-1B petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a sales engineer. In 
response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided the following job 
duties for the position: 
1. Evaluate the subject automobiles from both technical and sales aspects, and create 
auto sales reports based on the inspections; apply professional knowledge to assist 
the company in pricing by analyzing the subject automobiles from technical 
aspects- 20% 
2. Explain the features of selected automobiles to customers, help customers with 
best solutions and promote sales by applying the principles of customer services -
20% 
3. Compare and contrast features of the automobiles being traded and create 
products rating reports for the company in order for the company to better oversee 
the market and target potential customers- 15% 
4. Conduct products improvement recommendation, and communicate with outside 
parties, such as garages, about vehicle service, repair, and promotion- 15% 
2 
Matter of C- Inc. 
5. Conduct research about up-to-date industry trends and help the company to better 
understand the market from the technical aspect by providing internal training 
about automobile technology- 15% 
6. Prepare inspection principles and manuals, and participate in products inspections 
with the company's inspector's from time to time, and supervise their work; give 
suggestions to the company about the procedures of inspection- 15% 
According to the Petitioner, the position requires "at least a Bachelor's degree in vehicle 
engineering." The Petitioner also states that "previous experience in the vehicle field and sales are 
preferred." 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out belmv, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation.2 
Specifically, the record (1) does not describe the position's duties with sufficient detail; and (2) does 
not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate 
with a specialty occupation. 3 
A. First Criterion 
We tum first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which requires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. To inform this inquiry, we recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's 
(DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses.4 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Sales Engineers" corresponding 
to the Standard Occupational Classification code 41-9031.5 
2 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
3 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
4 All of our references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not, however, maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant 
information. That is, the occupational category designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the 
general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered position, and USC IS regularly reviews the Handbook on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. To satisfy the first criterion, however, the 
burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position 
would normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
5 The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level I wage (the lowest of four assignable wage levels). We will 
consider this selection in our analysis of the position. The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" issued by 
the DOL provides a description of the wage levels. A Level I ·wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which 
Matter of C- Inc. 
We reviewed the information in the Handbook regarding the occupational category "Sales 
Engineers," including the sections regarding the typical duties and requirements for this occupational 
category. Although the Petitioner titled the position sales engineer, upon review of the job 
descriptions provided by the Petitioner, we are not persuaded that the proffered position falls under 
the occupational category of "Sales Engineers." 
The subchapter of the Handbook entitled "What Sales Engineers Do" states the following about this 
occupational category: 
• Prepare and deliver technical presentations explaining products or services to existing 
and prospective customers 
• Confer with customers and engineers to assess equipment needs and to determine 
system requirements 
• Collaborate with sales teams to understand customer requirements and provide sales 
support 
• Secure and renew orders and arrange delivery 
• Plan and modify products to meet customer needs 
• Help clients solve problems with installed equipment 
• Recommend improved materials or machinery to customers, showing how changes 
will lower costs or increase production 
• Help in researching and developing new products 
Sales engineers specialize in technologically and scientifically advanced products. 
They use their technical skills to explain the benefits of their products or services to 
potential customers and to show how their products or services are better than their 
competitors'. Some sales engineers work for the companies that design and build 
technical products. Others work for independent sales firms. 
Upon review of the submitted job duties, it appears that the duties of the proffered position do not 
sufficiently align with the duties of sales engineers. Specifically, the Handbook indicates that sales 
engineers "plan and modify products to meet customer needs," "confer with customers and engineers 
to assess equipment needs and to determine system requirements," "help clients solve problems with 
installed equipment," and "recommend improved materials or machinery to customers, showing how 
changes will lower costs or increase production." Further, they "specialize in technologically and 
scientifically advanced products." 
the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the occupation. This wage rate indicates: ( 1) that 
the Beneficiary will be expected to perfonn routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that he 
will be closely supervised and his work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that he will receive 
specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing 
Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://tlcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _11_ 2009.pdf A prevailing wage determination starts 
with an entry level wage and progresses to a higher wage level after considering the experience, education, and skill 
requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. !d. 
4 
- --- ---------------------
Matter of C- Inc. 
On the other hand, the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary's duties include "assist[ing] the 
company in pricing by analyzing the subject automobiles," "creat[ing] product ratings reports ... to 
better oversea the market and target potential customers," "promot[ing] sales by applying the 
principles of customer services," and "conduct[ing] research about up-to-date industry trends." 
While the Petitioner also stated that the Beneficiary will utilize technical knowledge of the 
complexities of automobiles to complete a points inspection checklist, it appears that most of the 
steps require a basic check of the car to make sure it is functioning normally. For example, the 
checklist includes checking the headlights, checking the windshield wipers, checking for dents, and 
checking interior. The checklist does not appear to require an individual that "specialize[ s] in 
technologically and scientifically advanced products." 
The duties of the proffered position vary greatly from the duties listed in the Handbook for sales 
engineers. Further, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence that the Beneficiary will 
specialize in technologically and scientifically advanced products. Given that the proffered position 
does not appear to fall within this occupational category, the Petitioner did not establish the 
substantive nature of the work to be performed by the Beneficiary, which precludes a finding that the 
proffered position is in a specialty occupation. "[G]oing on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings." Matter 
o.fSo.ffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter o.fTreasure Craft ofCal., 14 I&N 
Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
However, even if the Petitioner can establish that the Beneficiary's duties are closely aligned with 
the duties of sales engineers, the Handbook does not support a conclusion that this occupation 
normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for entry into 
the occupation. 
More specifically, the subchapter of the Handbook entitled "How to Become a Sales Engineer" states 
the following about this occupational category: 
Sales engineers typically need a bachelor's degree in engineering or a related field. 
However, a worker without a degree, but with previous sales experience as well as 
technical experience or training, sometimes holds the title of sales engineer. Workers 
who have a degree in a science, such as chemistry, or in business with little or no 
previous sales experience, also may be called sales engineers. 
The Handbook states that a worker without a degree but with previous sales and technical experience 
or training may qualify for the position of sales engineer. Thus, the Handbook does not support the 
assertion that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the 
minimum requirement for entry into the sales engineer occupational group. 
In addition, the Handbook indicates that baccalaureate degrees in various fields (engineering, science 
or business) may be adequate for entry into this occupation. We note that, in general, provided the 
specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry and biochemistry, a minimum of a bachelor's of higher 
degree in more than one specialty is recognized as satisfying the "degree in the specific specialty (or 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of C-Ine. 
its equivalent)" requirement of section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act. In such a case, the required "body of 
highly specialized knowledge" would essentially be the same. Since there must be a close 
correlation between the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" and the position, however, 
a minimum entry requirement of a degree in disparate fields, such as engineering, science, and 
business, would not meet the statutory requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent)," unless the Petitioner establishes how each field is directly related to the duties and 
responsibilities of the particular position such that the required body of highly specialized 
knowledge is essentially an amalgamation of these different specialties. Section 214(i)(l )(b). 
Notably, the Handbook also indicates that a general-purpose degree is acceptable for entry into the 
occupation. Although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business, 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. See 
Royal Siam Corp. v. Cherto_ff, 484 F.3d 147. Therefore, the Handbook's recognition that a general, 
non-specialty degree (i.e., a degree in science or business) is sufficient for entry into the occupation 
suggests that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is not a normal, minimum entry requirement 
for this occupation. Accordingly, as the Handbook indicates that working as a sales engineer does 
not normally require at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for entry into 
the occupation, it does not support the proffered position as being a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner also stated that according to O*NET, most of the sales engineers occupations require 
a four-year bachelor's degree, and this occupation falls in the Job Zone Four which requires 
considerable preparation needed. However, O*NET OnLine is insufficient to establish that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. In fact, O*NET does not state a requirement 
for a bachelor's degree. Specifically, it assigns this occupation a Job Zone "Four" rating, which 
groups it among occupations of which "most," but not all, "require a four-year bachelor's degree." 
Further, O*NET does not indicate that four-year bachelor's degrees required by Job Zone Four 
occupations must be in a specific specialty directly related to the occupation. Therefore, O*NET 
information is not probative evidence to establish that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation. 
In support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner also submitted a letter from Ph.D., a 
professor in the Department of Technology of the 
at stated "it is my professional and experienced 
opinion that the described job duties are of a professional nature and require preparation at the 
Bachelor's Degree level in Engineering Technology or a related area at a minimum." However, we 
find that opinion letter has limited probative value in demonstrating that the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
For example, provided a list of the job duties, which is virtually verbatim from the 
Petitioner's job duties. Upon review of the opinion letter, there is no indication that 
possesses any knowledge of the Petitioner's proffered position and its business operations beyond the 
information provided by the Petitioner. does not demonstrate or assert in-depth 
knowledge of the Petitioner's specific business operations or how the duties of the position would 
(b)(6)
Matter of C- Inc.' 
actually be performed in the context of the Petitioner's business enterprise . There is no evidence that 
has visited the Petitioner's business, observed the Petitioner's employees, interviewed them 
about the nature of their work, or documented the knowledge that they apply on the job. 
Further, asserts a general industry educational standard for sales engineer positions 
without referencing any supporting authority or any empirical basis for the pronouncement. His 
opinion does not relate his conclusion to specific, concrete aspects of the Petitioner's business 
operations to demonstrate a sound factual basis for the conclusion about the educational 
requirements for the particular position here at issue. Moreover, does not cite specific 
instances in which his past opinions have been accepted or recognized as authoritative on this 
particular issue. There is no indication that he has published any work or conducted any research or 
studies pertinent to the educational requirements for such positions (or parallel positions) in the 
Petitioner's industry for similar organizations , and no indication of recognition by professional 
organizations that he is an authority on those specific requirements. 
In addition, there is no indication that the Petitioner advi~ed that the proffered position is 
characterized as a low, entry-level sales engineer, who has only a b asic understanding of the 
occupation (as indicated by the wage-level on the LCA). The wage-rate indicates that the 
Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited exercise of judgment. It 
appears that may have found this information relevant for his opinion letter. 
In summary, and for each and all of the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the opinion letter 
rendered by has limited probative value to establish the proffered position as a specialty 
occupation. The conclusion reached by lacks the requisite specificity and detail and is not 
supported by independent , objective evidence demonstrating the manner in which he reached such 
conclusion. There is an inadequate factual foundation established to support the opinion and the 
opinion is not in accord with other information in the record. Therefore, the letter from 
does not establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
We may, in our discretion , use advisory opinion statements submitted as expert testimony. 
However, where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable , we 
are not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence . Matter of Caron Internation al, 
19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988). As a reasonable exercise of our discretion we discount the 
advisory opinion letter as not probative of any criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). For 
efficiency's sake, we hereby incorporate the above discussion and analysis regarding the opinion 
letter into each of the bases in this decision for dismissing the appeal. 
We note that the Petitioner cites to Residential Finance Corp. v. USCIS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. 
Ohio 2012), for the proposition that "Diplomas rarely come bearing occupation-specific 
majors . What is required is an occupation that requires highly specialized knowledge and a 
prospective employee who has attained the credentialing indicating possession of that knowledge." 
We agree with the aforementioned proposition that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is 
what is important." As discussed, in general , provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., 
Matter of C- Inc. 
chemistry and biochemistry, a minimum of a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty 
is recognized as satisfying the "degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)" requirement of 
section 214(i)( 1 )(B) of the Act. For the aforementioned reasons, however, the Petitioner has not met 
its burden to establish that the particular position offered in this matter requires a bachelor's or 
higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, directly related to its duties in order to 
perform those tasks. 
Further, the Petitioner has furnished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition are 
analogous to those in Residential Finance. 6 We also note that, in contrast to the broad precedential 
authority of the case law of a United States circuit court, we are not bound to follow the published 
decision of a United States district court in matters arising even within the same district. See Matter 
ofK-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715,719-20 (BIA 1993). Although the reasoning underlying a districtjudge's 
decision will be given due consideration when it is properly before us, the analysis does not have to 
be followed as a matter of law. !d. 
On appeal, the Petitioner also refers to several unpublished decisions and asserts "neither the statute 
nor any relevant regulation requires baccalaureate level of education in 'one specific academic 
discipline."' Specifically, the Petitioner notes that USCIS found that software engineers are 
specialty occupations even though the position may be filled by professional holding degrees in 
numerous academic fields. 
However, we note that 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must logically be read together with section 
214(i)(l) ofthe 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. See K 
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 of W-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 must be 
met in accordance with, and not as alternatives to, the statutory and regulatory definitions of 
specialty occupation. 
6 It is noted that the district judge's decision in that case appears to have been based largely on the many factual errors 
made by the Director in the decision denying the petition. We further note that the Director's decision was not appealed 
to us. Based on the district court's findings and description of the record, if that matter had first been appealed through 
the available administrative process, we may very well have remanded the matter to the service center for a new decision 
for many of the same reasons articulated by the district court ifthese errors could not have been remedied by us in our de 
novo review of the matter. 
8 
Matter ofC- Inc. 
As such and consonant with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4 )(ii), USCIS consistently 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. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Cherto,ff, 484 
F.3d at 147 (describing "a degree requirement in a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to 
the duties and responsibilities of a particular position"). 
Moreover, the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that the facts of the instant 
petition are analogous to those in the unpublished decisions. While 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c) provides that 
our precedent decisions are binding on all USCIS employees in the administration of the Act, 
unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. 
For all the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
B. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs: "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[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong 
casts its gaze upon the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by 
USCIS include: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the 
industry's professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether 
letters or affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms "routinely employ 
and recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 
1999) (quotingHird/BlakerCorp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095,1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
Here and as already discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for 
which the Handbook (or other independent, authoritative source) reports an industry-wide 
requirement for at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. Thus, we 
incorporate by reference the previous discussion on the matter. Also, there are no submissions from 
the industry's professional association indicating that it has made a degree a minimum entry 
requirement. 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter of C- Inc. 
The Petitioner submitted several job advertisements but they do not satisfy this alternative prong of 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), either. That is, neither the job-vacancy announcements 
themselves, nor any other evidence within the record of proceedings, establish that those 
advertisements pertain to positions that meet all of the criterion's elements ofbeing in the Petitioner's 
industry, in organizations similar to the Petitioner, and also parallel to the proffered position. In this 
regard, we make several specific findings. 
When determining whether the Petitioner and the organization share the same general 
characteristics, such factors may include information regarding the nature or type of organization, 
and, when pertinent, the particular scope of operations, as well as the level of revenue and staffing 
(to list just a few elements that may be considered). It is not sufficient for the Petitionerto claim that 
the organizations are similar and in the same industry without providing a legitimate basis for such 
an assertion. 
For example, the advertisements include positions with the following employers: 
• "leading worldwide supplier of automation technology"; 
• "leading manufacturer of specialized motion control motors used for 
• 
• 
• 
• 
engineering applications"; 
client is a global leading manufacturer and supplier of high­
performance customized components for the automotive, agriculture, aerospace, 
construction, energy, fluid power, oil and gas, energy, on-highway and off-highway 
markets; 
"global leader in providing highly-engineered 
industrial manufacturing equipment"; 
sales; and 
product development. 
Without further information, the advertisements appear to be for organizations that are not similar to the 
Petitioner (and in the same industry), and the Petitioner has not provided probative evidence to suggest 
otherwise. That is, the Petitioner did not provide sufficient information to establish that the advertising 
companies and the Petitioner share the same general characteristics, as well as information regarding 
which aspects or traits (if any) it shares with the advertising organizations. 
Further, contrary to the purpose for which the advertisements were submitted, some postings do not 
establish that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent is required for the 
position. For example, the postings for and indicate that they 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter of C- Inc. 
require a 4-year degree but do not specify a specific specialty. stated that a bachelor's 
degree in mechanical engineering is preferred, but does not indicate that it is required. 
Moreover, some positions do not appear to be for parallel positions. For instance, a sales 
engineer/entry level position for requires a degree and "2 to 4 years" experience. 
Likewise, a sales engineer position at requires a bachelor's degree and "at least 3 
years" experience. In addition, the position of sales engineer for 
requires a bachelor's degree and at least 4 years of experience. As previously discussed, the 
Petitioner designated the proffered position on the LCA as a Level I (entry) position in comparison 
to others within the occupation. The advertised positions appear to be for more senior positions than 
the proffered position. 
The Petitioner stated that "even though the size and scope of the operations between the Petitioner 
and the aforementioned employers are not squarely identical, as long as the job duties of these 
positions are similar, minimum requirement of those companies should be considered as the industry 
standard." However, without knowing the business operations of the advertised companies, we are 
not able to determine the true nature of the job duties to find that the duties are similar. 
Thus, the Petitioner 
has not satisfied the first alternative prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
In support of the petition, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position, 
and references his qualifications. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation 
is not the education or experience of a proposed Beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires 
at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
The Petitioner did not develop relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the 
position, and did not provide sufficient documents to establish that the duties are so complex or 
unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. The Petitioner claims that the 
duties require candidate to "have professional knowledge of fuel economy/emissions, vehicle 
dynamics, NVH (noise, vibration, and harshness) engineering, vehicle electronics, shift quality, 
corrosion engineering, ergonomics engineering." However, as discussed, the record contains a 
checklist that appears to require only basis knowledge of automobiles. We note that the record also 
contains a car report for a with upgrades. The report discusses various features of the car 
such as Adjustable Suspension, 
and more. While compiling such report may require some technical 
knowledge, it does not appear to so complex or unique that performing such duty requires at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 
11 
Matter ofC- Inc. 
Moreover, the Petitioner designated the proffered position as an entry-level position within the 
occupational category (by selecting a Level I wage). This designation, when read in combination 
with the Petitioner's job description and the Handbook's account of the requirements for this 
occupation, further suggests that this particular position is not so complex or unique relative to other 
sales engineers that the duties can only be performed by an individual with a bachelor's degree or 
higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the 
second alternative prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it 
normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner indicated that it was founded in December 2014 and the 
"Beneficiary is the only Sales Engineer who has ever worked for the Petitioner for this proffered 
position." Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
D. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature 
of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. 
As noted, the Petitioner did not establish the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the 
Beneficiary. Without a meaningful job description, the record lacks evidence sufficiently concrete 
and informative to demonstrate that the proffered position requires a specialty occupation's level of 
knowledge in a specific specialty. The tasks as described does not sufficiently communicate (1) the 
actual work that the Beneficiary would perform on a day-to-day basis, (2) the complexity, 
uniqueness and/or specialization of the tasks, and/or (3) the correlation between that work and a need 
for a particular level education of highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. 
We also incorporate our earlier discussion and analysis regarding the duties of the proffered position, 
and the designation of the position in the LCA as a Level I position (the lowest of four assignable 
wage-levels) relative to others within the same occupational category.7 The Petitioner has not 
7 The Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position undermines its claim that the position is 
particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation. Nevertheless, a 
Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty occupation, just as a 
Level IV wage-designation does not definitively establish such a classification. In certain occupations (e.g., doctors or 
lawyers), a Level I, entry-level position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent, for entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designation would not reflect that an occupation qualifies 
as a specialty occupation if that higher-level position does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree 
12 
Matter of C- Inc. 
demonstrated in the record that its proffered position is one with duties sufficiently specialized and 
complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)( A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The burden is on the Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden 
has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofC- Inc., ID# 24179 (AAO Aug. 15, 2016) 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. That is, a position's wage-level designation may be a relevant factor but is not 
itself conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)( I) of the Act. 
13