dismissed H-1B Case: Aviation

(b)(6)
DATE: 
MAY 13 2015 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
OFFICE: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish 
agency policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or 
policy to your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider 
or a motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion 
(Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.P.R. § 103.5. Do not tile a motion directly with the AAO. 
www. uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director (hereinafter "director") denied the nonimmigrant visa 
petition, and the matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
will be dismissed. The petition will be denied. 
On the Form I-129 visa petition, the petitioner describes itself as a 4000-employee aviation-training 
business established in In order to employ the beneficiary in what it identifies as a position 
in the Airline Pilots, Copilots and Flight Engineers occupational category, with "Ground/Simulator 
Instructor " as its job title, 1 the petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant worker 
in a specialty occupation pursuant to section 10l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the evidence of record does not demonstrate that 
the proffered position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. 
The record of proceeding before this office contains the following: (1) the Form I-129 and 
supporting documentation; (2) the director's request for additional evidence (RFE); (3) the 
petitioner's response to the RFE; (4) the director's letter denying the petition; and (5) the 
Form I-290B, a brief, and supporting documentation. 
As will be discussed below, we find that, upon review of the entire record of proceeding, the evidence 
of record does not overcome the director's grounds for denying this petition. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed, and the petition will be denied. 
I. EVIDENTIARY STANDARD ON APPEAL 
As a preliminary matter, we affirm that, in the exercise of our appellate review in this matter, as in 
all matters that come within its purview, we follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as 
specified in the controlling precedent decision, Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-376 
(AAO 2010). In pertinent part, that decision states the following: 
Except where a different standard is specified by law, a petitioner or applicant in 
administrative immigration proceedings must prove by a preponderance of evidence 
that he or she is eligible for the benefit sought. 
* * * 
The "preponderance of the evidence" of "truth" is made based on the factual 
circumstances of each individual case. 
* * * 
1 The Labor Condition Application (LCA) submitted by the petitioner in support of the petition was certified 
for the SOC (O*NET/OES) Code 53-2011, the associated Occupational Classification of "Airline Pilots, 
Copilots and Flight Engineers," and a Level I prevailing wage rate. 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
I d. 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Thus, in adjudicating the application pursuant to the preponderance of the evidence 
standard, the director must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative 
value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the 
evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true. 
Even if the director has some doubt as to the truth, if the petitioner submits relevant, 
probative, and credible evidence that leads the director to believe that the claim is 
"more likely than not" or "probably" true, the applicant or petitioner has satisfied the 
standard of proof. See INS v. Cardoza-Foncesca, 480 U.S. 421, 431 (1987) 
(discussing "more likely than noft as a greater than 50% chance of an occurrence 
taking place). If the director can articulate a material doubt, it is appropriate for the 
director to either request additional evidence or, if that doubt leads the director to 
believe that the claim is probably not true, deny the application o� petition. 
We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004). In doing so, we apply the preponderance of the evidence standard as outlined in Matter of 
Chawathe. Upon our review of the present matter pursuant to that standard, however, we find that 
the evidence in the record of proceeding does not support counsel's contentions that the evidence of 
record requires that the petition at issue be approved. 
Applying the preponderance of the evidence standard as stated in Matter of Chawathe, upon review 
of the entire record of proceeding, and with close attention and due regard to all of the evidence 
submitted in support of this petition, we find that the record does not contain sufficient relevant, 
probative, and credible evidence to lead us to believe that it is "more likely than nottt or ttprobablytt 
true that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
In the Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker, the petitioner asserted that it is seeking the 
beneficiary's services as a Ground/Simulator Instructor on a full-time basis at a rate of pay of 
$49,800 per year. In her March 26, 2014 letter, the petitionerts center manager described the 
petitioner as follows: 
[The petitioner], a U.S. company established in and wholly-owned by 
, is the world's larger provider of aviation services, providing more than 
a million hours of training each year to 75,000 pilots, technicians, and other aviation 
professionals in general, commercial, and military aviation under rigorous supervision 
and certification by the Federal Aviation Administration. 
* * * 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
[The petitioner's] training incorporates computer-driven state-of-the-art simulators that 
replicate the experience of flying an airplane with certified accuracy. [The petitioner's] 
fleet of over 300 advanced flight simulators and training devices, a division of 
courseware developers, and its staff of 1,800 professional instructors not only train 
pilots, but transmit their experience and knowledge to technicians, flight attendants, 
corporate schedulers/dispatchers, and other aviation professionals through its network 
of 40 Learning Centers in the U.S., Canada, France, the United Kingdom, Japan and 
South Africa. 
The petitioner's' Center Manager described the proposed duties as follows: 
We wish to employ [the beneficiary] in the position of Ground/Simulator 
Instructor in Kansas. He will also have additional responsibilities as a 
Subject Matter Expert developing training materials. The Ground/Simulator 
Instructor is responsible for ground-based Simulator training of Customer Pilots 
for Recurrent, Initial or generic training courses and for measuring the training 
progress of customers, objectively and subjectively, within the established training 
curriculum. This position reports to the Program Manager. Essential duties and 
responsibilities for the instructor role include the following: 
Training Standards-Program Activities: (Includes Compliance with 
regulations and guidelines, and Quality Management System (QMS) 
policies and procedures; plus Lesson Planning, Current Material and 
Set-up) 
• Maintain Instructor qualification in accordance with [the 
petitioner's] policies and procedures and [the petitioner's] 
Quality Maintenance Systems (OMS) processes and 
procedures. 
• Keep current all certificates, ratings and designation s required 
to perform duties as a Simulator Instructor. 
• Deliver training to [the petitioner's] international clients in 
accordance with [the petitioner's] Instructor Performance 
Standards. 
Training Standards-Instructor Activities: (Includes Compliance 
with regulations and guidelines and OMS policies and procedures) 
• Maintain all training material (various media forms) in a 
current state at all times. 
• Provide pre-briefings and post-briefings before and after each 
Simulator lesson in accordance with [the petitioner's] 
Instructor Performance Standards. 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
NON- PRECEDENT DECISION 
• Prepare the Flight Simulator and/or briefing room no later than 
15 minutes prior to the scheduled start of the Simulator lesson 
and/or pre-briefing session. 
• Integrate Crew Resource Management (CRM)/Human Factors 
with technical (procedural) training. 
• Utilize Customer's Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), 
Checklists, and Minimum Equipment List (MEL) during 
training, when requested or required. 
• Assist in keeping all publications used in Simulator training 
current. 
• Ensure classrooms, flight training devices (FTDs) and 
scheduled simulators are ready for client training events. 
• Attend scheduled Instructor Meetings. 
• NOTE: Act as Second-in-Commend for clients training in 
multi-crew aircraft who have come to training without a flying 
partner. In that capacity, will serve as competent Second-in­
Command and will not be performing instructional duties. 
Documentary /Reports Activities: 
• Interact with Simulator Mx technicians concerning all 
Simulator functions and malfunctions as well as ensure all 
malfunctions are documented properly using appropriate 
forms. 
• Perform administrative duties relative to training such as 
preparing for the delivery of training, record keeping, 
monitoring Customer progress, training development and 
maintenance of training programs. 
• Report to the Director of Training (DOT) any Customer 
training programs or conflicts (poor performance, 
Customer/Instructor conflicts, excessive tardiness, etc.) 
Daily Responsibilities 
• Maintain [the petitioner's] commitment to Customer 
satisfaction while performing job duties. 
• Interact within a cooperative environment through beneficial 
behavior, commitment to common goals, contribution to 
problem solving, communication of ideas and suggestions, and 
encouragement to other employees and departments. 
• Accountable for the security of [the petitioner's] materials, 
projects and business information regarding the methods and 
techniques used in the production and usage of [the 
petitioner's] products. 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
• Accountable for the accuracy and completeness of assigned 
tasks. 
• Adhere to a required work schedule including prompt and 
regular attendance. 
• Report, on a timely basis, any safety hazards observed in work 
area, equipment, and/or building to appropriate person(s) for 
correction. 
• Participate in the Quality Management System (OMS) 
activities at assigned site and adhere to the processes related to 
accomplishing the site's OMS goals. 
The beneficiary will have extra responsibilities, compared to most instructors, as 
he teaches two different types of aircraft. Typically our instructors are hired to 
train in one aircraft program, specializing in a specific type of aircraft. While 
many will transition in their careers over time to a different aircraft, it is rare for an 
instructor to work in two programs concurrently and go back and forth between 
models as he will do. [The beneficiary] will teach pilots in our 
aircraft program, and we anticipate moving him into other programs during the H-
1B petition period. He currently works in the program flying 
as a co-pilot. 
Subject Matter Expert. Moreover, we will rely on [the beneficiary] to assist in 
developing the lessons and visual aids used by other [petitioner's] instructors in 
classroom presentations and working on checklist improvements for aircraft 
operations. In this role he has to be able to comprehend complex aircraft 
information, including keeping up with the latest developments in aircraft avionks 
and systems upgrades, and then be able to communicate that information in a way 
that other pilots can learn from. This is a highly specialized function, and we are 
very selective in whom we ask to perform this function. We refer to these 
instructors as Subject Matter Experts, as they are ultimately training our transfers 
on the material that will be passed on to our clients/students. 
The director found the evidence insufficient to establish eligibility for the benefit sought, and issued 
an RFE on May 8, 2014. The petitioner was asked to submit probative evidence to establish that a 
specialty occupation position exists for the beneficiary. 
On July 29, 2014, counsel for the petitioner responded to the RFE. Counsel submitted job listings, 
an expert opinion letter, resumes for 7 flight instructors with Subject Matter Expert (SME) duties 
for the petitioner, and web print-outs pertaining to the petitioning company. Finally, counsel 
submitted a letter from the petitioner's assistant center manager further detailing the proffered 
position. As stated by the petitioner, 
Subject Matter Experts are pilot instructors who create and develop course materials 
and teach our other instructors, in addition to teaching courses for our customer 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
pilots. Only a small percentage of our pilot instructors serve as Subject Matter 
Experts. We are providing more details about the Subject Matter Expert (SME) 
component of the position, supplementing the standard pilot instructor job 
description and summary of the SME function that we submitted previously, as 
follows. 
BASIC FUNCTION: Support technical development through the design and review 
of aircraft training programs at an expert level. Superior level of experience, 
knowledge and education required to create and improve training programs and train 
existing instructor group (in collaboration with the Senior Mentor instructor). 
Teach, coach, and mentor current and qualified instructors/evaluators/examiners to 
continuously improve their skills, knowledge, abilities, and training techniques in the 
delivery of ground, simulator and flight training courses for complex, typically 
larger that (sic) 12,500lb aircraft powered by piston, turbo prop or turbojet power 
plants. Responsibilities may include some or all of the responsibilities as described 
below depending on the needs of the Learning Center: 
• Create training methodologies for aircraft programs based on 
technical expertise, adult learning principles and 
classroom/simulator training experience. 
• Provide technical guidance based on OEM publications, 
engineering documents and other technical publications and 
translate information into learning principles for instructors, 
clients and the general pilot population, 
• Provide feedback and direction on a future training material. 
Create coarseware maps to determine the instructional strategy 
for each aircraft program. 
• Transfer knowledge and second-hand expenence to less 
experienced teammates. 
• Ensure that the interaction, including business 
recommendations, between Lead Instructor/SME, Senior 
Mentor Instructor and instructors/teammates includes the 
feedback given by management, instructors, teammates, 
customers and clients. 
• Provide fair, positive praise/encouragement as well as 
constructive criticism as required. 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
• Establish a developmental partnership by sharing knowledge, 
skills, information, and perspective to foster professional 
growth among teammates and the aviation industry. 
• Create benchmarks for evaluating the progress of coarseware 
development. 
The director reviewed the information provided by the petitioner and counsel to determine whether 
the petitioner had established eligibility for the benefit sought. On August 8, 2014, the director 
denied the petition. On appeal, counsel submits a brief and supporting documentation. 
III. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION ISSUE 
We will now address the director's determination that the proffered position is not a specialty 
occupation. Based upon a complete review of the record of proceeding, we find that the evidence of 
record does not establish that the position as described constitutes a specialty occupation. 
A. Law 
To meet the petitioner's burden of proof with regard to the proffered position's classification as an 
H-1B specialty occupation, the petitioner must establish that the employment it is offering to the 
beneficiary meets the following statutory and regulatory requirements. 
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. 
The regulation at 8 C.P.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.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, a proposed position 
must also meet one of the following criteria: 
(b)(6)
Page 9 
NON -PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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. 
As a threshold issue, it is noted that 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must logically be read together 
with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.P.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 Independenc e Joint Venture v. Federal 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.P.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.P .R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory or regulatory definition. See Def ensor v. Meissner, 201 
P.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). To avoid this result, 8 C.P.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. 
As such and consonant with section 214(i)(l) 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 
"d egree" 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 P.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-tB petitions for qualified aliens 
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-lB visa category. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
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. USCIS must examine the 
ultimate employment of the alien, and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. See generally Def ensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. The critical element is not the title 
of the position nor 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. Preliminary Findings 
1. Regarding the Proffered Position's Duties and the Relative Complexity of the 
Position 
As a preliminary matter, we do not find that the record establishes relative complexity, specialization 
and/or uniqueness as distinguishing aspects of either the proposed duties or the position that they are 
said to comprise. While the petitioner may claim that the nature of the proposed duties and the position 
that they are said to comprise elevate them above the range of usual Airline Pilots, Copilots and Flight 
Engineers positions and duties by virtue of their level of specialization, complexity, and/or uniqueness, 
the evidence of record does not support these claims. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure 
Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
As evident in the job description quoted above, the record of proceeding presents the duties comprising 
the proffered position in terms of relatively abstract and generalized functions. More specifically, they 
lack sufficient detail and concrete explanation to establish the substantive nature of the work and 
associated applications of specialized knowledge that their actual performance would require within 
the context of the petitioner's particular business operations. Take for example the following duty 
descri ption: 
Developing the lessons and visual aids used by other [petitioning company's] 
instructors in classroom presentations and wor king on checklist improvements. 
The evidence of record contains neither substantive explanation nor documentation showing the range 
and volume of the lessons and visual aids that the beneficiary must develop. Nor does the record 
contain substantive explanation or documentation showing the volume and range of checklist 
improvements the beneficiary would have to work on. Thus, we conclude that, as generally 
described as all of the elements of the constituent duties are, they do not - even in the aggregate -
establish the nature of the position or the nature of the position's duties as more ·complex, 
specialized, and/or unique than those of Airline Pilots, Copilots and Flight Engineers positions that 
do not require the services of a person with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the 
equivalent. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
11. Regarding the Evaluations of the Position's Educational Requirements 
In support of the assertion that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, the 
petitioner submitted two letters for consideration as expert opinions. 
Included among the documents submitted on appeal is a September 3, 2014 document entitled 
"Specialty Occupation Evaluation" which was authored by Ph.D., Associate 
Professor, Aviation Department, Assistant Dean, College of Graduate and Professional Studies, 
Dr. outlined duties of the proffered position, as previously provided 
by the petitioner to USCIS, described the position as that of a Ground/Simulator Instructor, and 
made the following assertions: ng: 
A company, such as [the petitioning company], that is seeking to employ a 
Ground/Simulator Instructor requires prospective candidates to have a strong 
foundation in the field of Aviation or a closely related field which can only be 
obtained through a Bachelor's degree in the field of Aviation or a closely related 
field. The skills, knowledge, and analytic thinking acquired through the acquisition 
of a Bachelor's degree or its equivalent are considered necessary by people in the 
industry seeking to hire a Ground/Simulator Instructor, and thus the degree is 
considered an industry standard requirement for the position. 
We note that Professor cites no objective evidence to support his finding that acquisition of a 
bachelor's degree in Aviation or a closely related field is considered an "industry standard 
requirement for the position." Likewise, Professor does not elucidate whatever substantive 
aspects of the proposed duties led him to pronounce that the proffered position requires attainment 
of at least a bachelor's degree in Aviation or a related field. Also, Professor provides no 
empirical support for his conclusion that "completion of a Bachelor's degree in Aviation or a 
closely related field is the only relevant training for the specific position of Ground/Simulator 
Instructor." 
Further, we observe that Dr. 1 0-page resume indicates that he holds a Bachelor of Science 
in Aviation Administration, a Master's of Aeronautical Science in Aviation Safety ; and a Doctor of 
Philosophy in Curriculum and Instruction. Upon reading Dr. submission and the 
accompanying resume, it is not evident that Dr. education and experience have equipped 
him with such elevated and particularized knowledge of educational requirements for positions such 
as the one proffered here that we should accord any probative weight to the opinion that he offered 
here. 
In a July 23, 2014 letter from Dr. , Dr. outlined 
the duties of the proffered position which are identical to the duties of the proff ered position as 
previously provided by the petitioner to the users, and he made the following assertions: 
Overall, this [petitioning company's] job description including the additional SME 
duties for a specific aircraft program require the individual to maintain an industry 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
expert level of proficiency on the aircraft that exceed normal instructional 
knowledge levels. More importantly, training content transferred to customer pilots 
must be technically accurate, meet all regulatory requirements and contain well­
written easy to understand text. Therefore, based upon the complexity of the job 
position, it is my professional opinion that a minimum of a Bachelor of Science 
degree in an Aviation related discipline is necessary to perform all of the required 
duties/responsibilities associated with this job position. 
We reviewed the letters in their entirety. However, as discussed below, the letters from Dr. 
and Dr. are not persuasive in establishing that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation position. 
Upon review of the opinion letters, we find that the opinions provided by Dr. and Dr. 
regarding the proffered position are written in the abstract and thus carry little probative value. 
There is no indication that either professor possesses any particular knowledge of the petitioner's 
proffered position and its business operations. Neither professor demonstrates or asserts in-depth 
knowledge of the petitioner's business or how the duties of the position would actually be performed 
in the context of the petitioner's business enterprise. There is no evidence that Dr. and Dr. 
have 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. Neither 
has provided sufficient facts that would support the contention that the proffered position requires at 
least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Further, the professors reference 
no studies, research, surveys, or authoritative sources to support their findings. 
We, in our discretion, may use as 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 
International, 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). 
The material deficiencies in the evidentiary record are decisive in this matter and they conclusively 
require that the appeal be dismissed. However, we will continue our analysis to determine whether 
the proffered position as described would qualify as a specialty occupation. To that end and to 
make our determination as to whether the employment described above qualifies as a specialty 
occupation, we turn to the criteria at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
C. Application of the Criteria at 8 C.F.R . § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) 
We will first discuss the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which is satisfied by 
establishing that a baccalaureate or higher degree, or its equivalent, in a specific specialty is 
normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position that is the subject of the 
petition. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
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 it addresses? As noted above, the LCA that the petitioner submitted in support of this 
petition was certified for a job offer falling within the "Airline Pilots, Copilots and Flight 
Engineers" occupational category. 
Based on a thorough review of the proffered duties of the position, as outlined in detail above, we 
find that the Handbook's entries for the "Career and Technical Education Teachers" and "Airline 
Pilots, Copilots and Flight Engineers" occupational classifications both contain aspects of the 
proposed duties. It is thus necessary to evaluate both occupational classifications to determine 
whether the proffered position is one that normally requires the level of knowledge of a body of 
highly specialized knowledge in aviation that is signified by attainment of at least a ba chelor's 
degree, or its equivalent, in aviation or a closely-related specialty. 
As discussed in the Handbook, career and technical educational teachers do not comprise an 
occupational category that normally requires at least a bachelor's degree, or the equivalent, in a 
specific specialty. In pertinent part, the Handbook states the following with regard to this 
occupational classification: 
Career and technical education teachers instruct students in various technical and 
vocational subjects, such as auto repair, healthcare, and culinary arts. They teach 
academic and technical content to provide students with the skills and knowledge 
necessary to enter an occupation. 
Career and technical education teachers typically do the following: 
• Develop and plan lessons and assignments 
• Instruct and demonstrate how to apply knowledge and to develop skills 
• Demonstrate and supervise the safe and proper use of tools and equipment 
• Monitor students' progress, assign tasks, and grade assignments 
• Discuss students' progress with parents, students, and c ounselors 
• Develop and enforce classroom rules and safety procedures 
Career and technical education teachers help students explore and prepare to enter a 
specific occupation, such as ones in healthcare and information technology. They 
2 The Handbook, which is available in printed form, may also be accessed online at 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh. Our references to the Handbook are from the 2014-15 edition available online. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
use a variety of teaching techniques to help students learn and develop skills related 
to a specific career or area of study. They demonstrate tasks, techniques, and tools 
used in an occupation. They may assign hands-on tasks, such as replacing brakes on 
cars, taking blood pressure, and recording vital signs to help students learn a specific 
skill. Teachers typically oversee these tasks in workshops and laboratories in the 
school. 
Some teachers establish relationships with local businesses and nonprofit 
organizations to provide practical work experience for students. 
The specific duties of career and technical education teachers vary by the grade and 
subject they teach. In middle schools and high schools, they teach in a classroom and 
through practical exercises in workshops and laboratories. 
In postsecondary schools, they teach specific career skills that help students earn a 
certificate, diploma, or an associate degree, and prepare them for a specific job. For 
example, welding instructors teach students various welding techniques and essential 
safety practices. They also monitor the use of tools and equipment, and have 
students practice procedures until they meet the specific standards required by the 
trade. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., 
"Career and Technical Education Teachers," http://www.b ls.gov/ooh/education-training-and­
library/career-and-technical-education-teachers.htm#tab-2 (accessed May 4, 2015). 
The Handbook states the following with regard to the educational requirements necessary for 
entrance into the field: 
Career and technical education teachers in public schools generally need a bachelor's 
degree in the field they teach, such as agriculture, engineering, or computer science. 
Depending on the subject they teach, some e nter the occu pation with a high school 
diploma or an associate's degree after some years of related work experience. For 
example, teachers who instruct automotive mechanics need years of experience 
working as a mechanic. Some career and technical education teachers who have a 
high school diploma may be required to complete a degree while teaching to meet 
the full certification requirements. 
!d. at http://www .bls.gov/ooh/education-training-and-library/career-and-technical-education-
teachers.htm#tab-4 (accessed May 5, 2015). 
These statements do not support a conclusion that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, is normally required for employment as a career and technical education teacher. The 
Handbook clearly indicates that some enter the occupation with a high school diploma or an 
associate's degree. Thus, it appears that for the duties the beneficiary would be pe rforming for the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
petitioner that wou ld be normally performed by career and technical education teachers, the 
Handbook indicates entry does not normally require at least a bachelor's degree, or the equivalent, 
in a specific specialty. 
Numerous other duties proposed for the beneficiary are generally similar to those described in the 
Handbook as normally performed by airline pilots, copilots and flight engineers. 
In pertinent part, the Handbook states the following with regard to this occupational classification: 
Airline and commercial ·pilots fly and navigate airplanes, helicopters, and other 
aircraft. Airline pilots tly for airlines that transport people and cargo on a f ixed 
schedule. Commercial pilots fly aircraft for other reasons, such as charter flights, 
rescue operations, firefighting, aerial photography.. and aerial application of 
agricultural materials. 
Pilots typically do the following: 
• Check the overall condition of the aircraft before and after every flight 
• Ensure that the aircraft is balanced and below its weight limit 
• Ensure fuel supply is adequate, weather conditions are acceptable, and 
submit flight plans to air traffic control 
• Communicate with air traffic control over the aircraft's radio system 
• Operate and control aircraft along planned routes, and during takeo ffs, and 
laiJdings 
• Monitor engines, fuel consumption, and other aircraft systems during flight 
and respond to any changes in weather or other events, such as engine failure 
• Navigate the aircraft by using cockpit instruments and visual references 
Many air craft used for hire use two pilots. The most experienced pilot, the captain 
or pilot in command, supervises all other crew members and has primary 
responsibility for the flight. The copilot, often called the first officer or second in 
command, shares flight duties with the captain. Some older planes require a third 
pilot known as a flight engi:neer, who monitors instruments and operates controls. 
New technology has automated many of these tasks, and new aircraft do not require 
flight engineers. 
(b)(6)
'{ 
' 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 16 
Pilots must have good teamwork skills because they must work closely with other 
pilots on the flight deck, as well as with air traffic controllers and flight dispatchers. 
They need to be able to coordinate actions and provide clear and honest feedback. 
Pilots plan their flights carefully by making sure the aircraft is operable and safe, that 
the cargo has been loaded correctly, and that the weather conditions are acceptable. 
They file flight plans with air traffic control that they may modify in flight because 
of weather conditions or other factors. 
Takeoffs and landings can be the most difficult parts of the flight and require close 
coordination between the pilot, copilot, and flight engineer, if present. Once in the 
air, the captain and first officer usually alternate flying activities so each can rest. 
After landing, pilots must fill out records that document their flight and the status of 
the aircraft. 
Many pilots will have some contact with passengers and customers. Charter and 
corporate pilots will often need to greet their passengers before embarking. Some 
airJine pilots may have to help handle customer complaints. 
Commercial pilots employed by charter companies usually have many more 
nonflight duties than airline pilots have. Commercial pilots may have to schedule 
flights, arrange for maintenance of the plane, and load luggage themselves. 
With proper training, airline pilots may also be deputized as federal law enforcement 
officers and be issued firearms to protect the cockpit. 
Pilots who routinely fly at low le vels must constantly look for trees, bridges, power 
lines, transmission towers, and other dangerous obstacles. This is a common danger 
to agricultural pilots and air ambulance helicopter pilots, who frequently land on or 
near highways and accident sites that do not have improved landing sites. 
The following are examples of types of pilots: 
Airline pilots are commercial pilots who primarily work for airlines that transport 
passengers and cargo on a fixed schedule. 
Commercial pilots are involved in unscheduled flight activities, such as aerial 
application, charter flights, aerial photography, and aerial tours. 
Flight instructors are commercial pilots who use simulators and dual-controlled 
aircraft to teach students how to fly. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed. 
"Airline Pilots, Copilots and Flight Engineers," http://www. bls.gov/ooh/transportation-and· 
material-moving/airline-and-commercial-pilots.htm#tab-2 (last visited May 4, 2015). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 17 
The Handbook states the following with regard to the educational requirements necessary for 
entrance into the field: 
Airline pilot s typically need a bachelor 's degree in any subject, along with a 
commercial pilot 's license and an Airline Transpm1 Pilot (ATP) certificate from the 
FAA. Airl ine pilots typically start their careers in flying as commercial pilots. Pilots 
usually accrue thousands of hours of flight expe rience to get a job with regional or 
major airlines. 
The military has traditionally been an important sou rce of experienced pil ots because 
of the extensive training p rovided. However, increased duty requirements have 
reduced the incentives for these pilots to transfer out of military aviation and into 
civilian aviation. Most m ilit ary pilots who transfer to civilian aviation are able to 
transfer directly into the airlines rather than working in commercial av iation. 
Comm erc ial pilots must have a commercial pilot' s license and typically need a high 
school diploma or the equivalent. Some employe rs will have additional 
requirements. For example, agricultural pilots will need to have an understanding of 
common agricultural practices, fertilizers, fungicides, herbicides, and pesticides. 
Flight instructors will have to have specia l F AA-i ssucd ratings, such as the Certified 
Flight Instructor (CFI), CFI -Inst rument (CFII), Multi-Engine Instructor (MEI), MEl­
Instrument (MEII), and possibly others. Many other requirements exist fo r other 
specialties. They range from glider and banner towing to helicopter and airship 
qualifications. 
Commercial piJots typically begin their flight trammg with independent FAA­
certified f light instr uctors or at schools that offer fl ight training. The FAA certifies 
hundreds of civilian f light schools, which range from small FBOs to large state 
universities. Some colleges and universities offer pilot training as part of a 2- or 4-
year a viation degree. Regardless of whether pilots a ttend fligh t schools or learn 
from independent instructors, all pilo ts need the FAA's comm ercial pilot license 
before they can be pa id to fly. Addition ally, most commercial pilots need an 
instrument rating. Instrument ra tings are typically needed to fly through clouds or 
other conditions that limit visibility. An instrument rating is required to carry pa ying 
passengers over 50 miles from the point of origin or at night. 
Interviews for positions wi th major and regional airlines often reflect the FAA 
exams for pilot licenses, certificates, and instrument ratings, and can be intense. 
Airlines will often conduct their own psychological and aptitude tests in order to 
make sure that their pilots are of good moral character and can make good decisions 
under pressure. 
Airline and commercial pilots who are newly hired by airlines or on-demand air 
services companies must undergo moderate-term on-the-job training in accordance 
with the Federal Aviation Regulations (F ARs). This training usually includes 6-8 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 18 
weeks of ground school and 25 hours of flight time. Additionally, commercial pilots 
may need specific training based on the type of flying they are doing. For example, 
those who work in aerial application need training in agricultural practices and 
fertilizers, pesticides, and other substances that can be applied to crops by air to 
increase yiel d or production efficiency. Additionally, various type ratings for 
specific ai rcraft, such as the Boeing 737 or Cessna Citat ion, are typically acquired 
through employer-based training and are generally earned by pilots who have at least 
the commercial license. 
In addition to initial training and licensing requirements, all pilots must maintain 
recency of experience in perfonning certain maneuvers. This means that pilots must 
perform specific maneuvers and procedures a given number of times within a 
specified amount of time. In addition, pilots must undergo periodic training and 
medical examinations, generally every year or every other year. 
Id. at http://www.bls .gov/ooh/transportation-and-m aterial-moving/airline-and-commercial� 
pilots. htm#tab-4 (last visited May 4, 2015). 
The statements made by DOL in the Handbook regarding entrance into this occupational category 
do not support a finding that a bachelor's degree, or the equivalent, in a specific specialty is 
normally required. While the Handbook reports that employers typically require a bachelor's degree, 
employers' preference for degreed job candidates is not synonymous with the normally required 
language of the first criter ion. Employer preference indicates only that employers find degrees 
desirable. It is, therefore, insufficient to establish that a baccalaureate or its equivalent is normally 
the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position. Moreover, the Handbook does not 
indicate that employers seeking degreed pilots require these pilots to hold degrees in fields that are 
directly related to their employment, as required for classification as a specialty occup ation. The 
Handbook specifically states that a "bachelor's degree in any subje ct" would suffice. Finally, \Ve 
note the Handbook's statement that "commercial pilots ... typically need a high school diploma or 
the equiv alent. " The Handbook thus does not indicate that a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally required for this occupational category. Instead, 
this category accommodates a wide spectrum of educational credentials, and that spectrum includes 
credentials that fall short of a bachelor' s degree. 
Thus, it is incumbent on the petitioner to provide sufficient evidence to establish that the particular 
position being proffered would involve services at a level requiring the theoretical and practical 
application of at least a bachelor' s-degree level of a body of highly specialized knowledge in 
aviation. 
In the instant matter, we find that those job duties listed by the petitioner that do generally fall 
within those described in the Handbook are generalized descriptions of generic functions. As such, 
they do not establish that their performance requires the theoretical and practical application of at 
least a bach elor's -degree level of a body of highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 19 
Finally, we here refer the petitioner back to our earlier comments and findings with regard to Dr. 
and Dr. letters. As noted above, we find that the letters do not establish that the 
proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
As the evidence in the record of proceeding does not establish that at least a baccalaureate degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the 
particular position that is the subject of this petition, the petitioner has not satisfied the criterion 
described at 8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(i ii)(A)(1 ). 
Next, the petitioner has not satisfied the first of the two alternative prongs of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2 (h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). This prong alternatively calls for a petitioner to establish that a 
requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common for 
positions sharing all three characteristics of being (1) within the petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to 
the proffered position, and also (3) located in organizations that are similar to the petitioner. 
As stated earlier, 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 at 1165 
(quoting Hird!Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. at 11 02). 
Here and as already discussed, the petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for 
which the Handbook reports an industry-wide requirement for at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent. Also, there are no submissions from professional associations, individuals, 
or similar firms in the petitioner's industry attesting that individuals employed in positions parallel to 
the proffered position are routinely required to have a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent for entry into those positions. 
Next, we find that the . job-vacancy announcements submitted by counsel 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 proceeding establish that 
those advertisements pertain to positions that are parallel to the proffered position, as required for 
evidence to merit consideration under the first alternative prong is position. In this regard, we make 
several specific findings. 
First, we note that three of the job-vacancy announcements are for faculty positions are universities 
and one job-vacancy announcement is for an organization called ' 
Under 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(h)(4)( iii)(A)(2), the petitioner must establish that "the degree requirement is 
common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations (emphasis added)." For the 
petitioner to establish that an organization is similar, it must demonstrate that the petitioner and the 
organization share the same general characteristics. Without such evidence, documentation 
regarding other organizations is generally outside the scope of consideration for this criterion, 
which encompasses only organizations that are similar to the petitioner. When determining whether 
the petitioner and the organization share the same general characteristics, such factors may include 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 20 
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 petitioner to claim that the organizations are similar and in 
the same industry without providing a legitimate basis for such an assertion. Going on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of 
proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft 
of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190). 
In addition, the petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how representative these job 
advertisements are of the particular advertising employers' recruiting and actual hiring history for 
the type of jobs advertised, let alone how representative they are of the industry practice in those 
areas. 
Moreover, two of the submitted advertisements do not specify a requirement for a bachelor's or 
higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. The 
advertisement for "Faculty and Flight Training Instructors" only states "Bachelor's degree" without 
any specification of any particular academic major. Likewise, the 
advertisement for an "Airbus Technical Trainer" specifies a "Bachelors Degree from an accredited 
college or university" with no indication that the bachelor's degree must be in any particular area or 
equivalent to a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty. 
(As the submitted vacancy-announcements are not probative evidence towards satisfying this 
criterion, further analysis of their content is not necessary.) 
Thus, the petitioner has not satisfied the first of the two alternative prongs of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2 (h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), as the evidence of record does not establish that a requirement of a 
bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common for positions sharing 
all three characteristics of being (1) within the petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered 
position, and also (3) located in organizations that are similar to the petitioner. 
Next, we find that the evidence of record does not satisfy the second alternative prong of 
8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which provides that "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. " 
The record of proceeding does not include any discussion and documentation of the proffered 
position sufficient to show that the proposed duties, or any aspects of the particular position here 
proffered, constitute a position so complex or unique as to require the services of a person with at 
least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. The petitioner therefore has not established how 
the beneficiary's responsibilities and day-to-day duties comprise a position so complex or unique 
that the position can be performed only by an individual with a bachelor's degree, or the equivalent, 
in a specific specialty. 
As the evidence of record therefore does not establish how the beneficiary's responsibilities and 
day-to-day duties comprise a position so complex or unique that the position can be performed only 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 21 
by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent, the 
petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) either. 
We turn next to the criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3), which entails an employer 
demonstrating that it normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent 
for the position. 
Our review of the record of proceeding under this criterion necessarily includes whatever evidence 
the petitioner has submitted with regard to its past recruiting and hiring practices and employees 
who previously held the position in question. 
To satisfy this criterion, the record must establish that the specific performance requirements of the 
position generated the recruiting and hiring history. A petitioner's perfunctory declaration of a 
particular educational requirement will not mask the fact that the position is not a specialty 
occupation. USCIS must examine the actual employment requirements and, on the basis of that 
examination, determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. See generally 
Def ensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384. In this pursuit, the critical element is not the title of the 
position, or the fact that an employer has routinely insisted on certain educational standards, but 
whether performance of 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 or its equivalent as the minimum for entry into the occupation as required by 
section 214(i)(1) of the Act. As recognized by the Court in Def ensor, "To interpret the regulations 
any other way would lead to an absurd result." !d. at 388. If USCIS were constrained to recognize a 
specialty occupation merely because the petitioner has an established practice of demanding certain 
educational requirements for the proffered position - and without consideration of how a 
beneficiary is to be specifically employed - then any alien with a bachelor's degree in specific 
specialty could be brought into the United States to perform non-specialty occupations, so long as 
the employer required all such employees to have baccalaureate or higher degrees. See id. 
The director's May 8, 2014 RFE specifically requested the petitioner to document its past recruiting 
and hiring history with regard to the proffered position. The RFE included the following specific 
request for such documentation: 
Position Announcement: To support the petitioner's contention that the position 
is a "specialty occupation," provide copies of the petitioner's present and past job 
vacancy announcements. The petitioner may also provide classified 
advertisements soliciting for the current position, showing that the petitioner 
requires its applicant to have a minimum of a baccalaureate or higher degree or its 
equivalent in a specific specialty. 
Past Employment Practices: Provide evidence to establish that the petitioner 
has a past practice of hiring persons with a baccalaureate degree, or higher in a 
specific specialty, to perform the duties of the proffered position .... 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 22 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner explained that it does not have position announcements for 
the proffered position as it is their practice to select among current instructors for the proffered 
position. The petitioner further explains that they currently have seven instructors with Subject 
Matter Expert duties and all have bachelor's degrees or the equivalent in the aviation field. 
However, we note that the petitioner's documentation represents a claim regarding the individuals' 
educational credentials, rather than evidence to support that claim. Notably, the petitioner did not 
submit probative evidence regarding the seven instructors' academic credentials (e.g., transcripts), 
and the petitioner did not present whatever objective measures it determined that degree­
equivalency for those without at least a bachelor's degree. Moreover, the petitioner did not provide 
the job duties and day-to-day responsibilities of the positions that it claims are the same or similar 
as the proffered position. The petitioner did not provide any information regarding the relative 
complexity of the job duties, supervisory duties (if any), independent judgment required or the 
amount of supervision received. It is unclear whether the duties and responsibilities of these 
individuals are the same or related to the proffered position. We observe that the petitioner did not 
submit any documentation regarding its recruiting practices. Thus, the submission has no probative 
value. As we have already noted, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 
I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of Calif ornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190). 
As the record of proceeding does not demonstrate that the petitioner normally requires at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for the proffered position, it does not 
satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
Next, we find that the evidence of record does not satisfy the criterion at 
8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4), which requires the petitioner to establish that the nature of the 
proffered position's 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 the specific specialty or 
its equivalent. 
As reflected in this decision's earlier discussion of the duty descriptions in relation to the second 
alternate prong of 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), the petitioner has provided no objective 
standard that supports the nature of the proposed duties as being so specialized and complex that 
their performance would require knowledge that is usually associated with a particular level of 
education in a specific specialty. As generically and generally as they were described, the duties of 
the proposed position are not presented with sufficient detail and persuasive explanation to establish 
that the substantive nature of the duties as they would be performed in the specific context of the 
petitioner's particular business operations would require the services of a person with qualifications 
above those required by Federal Aviation Administration regulations to serve as an FAA-certified 
flight instructor at a pilot school - and the petitioner has provided no evidence that such regulations 
require at least a bachelor's degree in aviation ora closely related specialty. Also as a result of the 
generalized and relatively abstract level at which the duties are described, the record of proceeding 
does not establish their nature as so specialized and complex as to require knowledge usually 
associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 23 
For all of these reasons, the evidence in the record of proceeding does not establish that the 
proposed duties . meet the specialization and complexity threshold at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)( 4). 
For the reasons related in the preceding discussion, the petitioner has not established that it has 
satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) and, therefore, it cannot be found that 
the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 
For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the evidence of record does not satisfy any of the 
criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) and, therefore, it cannot be found that the proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner' s burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. The appeal will be dismissed and the petition 
denied for this reason. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.