dismissed H-1B Case: Business Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF W-S- INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 18, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an importer and distributor of novelty gift products, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "business development specialist" under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification. 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-lB 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 position 
offered to the Beneficiary does not qualify as a specialty occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the Director erred in finding that the position of "business development specialist" is not a 
specialty occupation under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. THELAW 
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.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) states, in pertinent part, the following: 
Specialty occupation means an occupation which [(1 )] requires theoretical and practical 
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in fields of human endeavor 
Matter of W-S- Inc. 
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. 
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: 
(I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimwn 
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. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree 
requirement in a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a 
particular position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
In its initial letter of support, the Petitioner provided a list of the job duties for the proffered position, 
and expanded this list in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE). Specifically, the 
Petitioner described the Beneficiary's duties in the position of business development specialist as 
follows (verbatim): 
• 30% of his time will be devoted to identifying and maintaining business relations 
with customers for lighters, special accessories and other novelty gift products 
through identifying and estimating customer needs, concerns, maintaining 
knowledge of products and sales related issues facing the customers and following 
up on customers interactions; 
2 
Matter of W-S- Inc. 
• 25% of his time will be devoted to managing accounts and following up on customer 
interactions, and initiating daily contact with production resources, including Far 
East sourcing partners, manufacturers, third party vendors, and other functions. He 
is expected to apply knowledge of products/services and customer needs to 
capitalize on opportunities and take full advantage of his Chinese background to 
streamline coordination between production in China and marketing of products in 
the United States; 
• 25% of his time will be devoted to providing customers with product and sales 
related information, including product specifications, pricing, contract terms and 
availability, as well as recommending appropriate products to customers according 
to their requirements and needs based on market research findings; 
• 10% of his time will be devoted to negotiating sales terms and participating in trade 
shows and other marketing activities to promote the company's products and 
services to customers; 
• 10% of his time will be devoted to coordinating with logistics related companies and 
foreign freight forwarders to meet shipping deadlines, as well as developing new 
customers and accounts. 
According to the Petitioner's initial letter of support, the position requires at least a bachelor's degree in 
business administration or a related field. In response to the RFE, the Petitioner claimed that a 
bachelor's degree in business, marketing, or a related field of academic studies is an acceptable 
prerequisite for entry into the position. 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its 
equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 1 
Here, the Petitioner asserts that the minimum educational requirement for entry into the proffered 
position includes a bachelor's degree in business administration or business. However, although a 
general-purpose bachelor's degree in business administration or 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. 
Chertoff, 484 F.3d at 147.2 
1 
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. 
2 Specifically, the judge explained in Royal Siam, 484 F.3 at 14 7, that: 
The courts and the agency consistently have stated that, although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, 
such as a business administration degree, may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, 
3 
Matter of W-S- Inc. 
As previously stated, USCIS interprets the degree requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to 
require a degree in a specific specialty (or its equivalent) that is directly related to the proposed position. 
Since there must be a close correlation between the required specialized studies and the position, the 
requirement of a degree with a generalized title, such as business administration or business, without 
further specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of Michael 
Hertz Associates, 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). Based on the Petitioner's own requirement of 
a general-purpose bachelor's degree, we cannot find that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation which, by definition, requires at least a minimum of a bachelor's degree in "the" or "a" 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. Section 214(i)(l) ofthe Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
Moreover, we cannot find that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation under any of the 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 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's) 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-1B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Market Research Analysts and 
Marketing Specialists" corresponding to Standard Occupational Classification code 13-1161 at a Level I 
wage.5 
requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify the granting of a petition for an H-1 B specialty 
occupation visa. See, e.g., Tapis lnt'l v. INS, 94 F.Supp.2d 172, 175-76 (D. Mass. 2000); Shanti, 36 F. 
Supp.2d at 1164-66; cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I & N Dec. 558, 560 ([Comm'r] 1988) 
(providing frequently cited analysis in connection with a conceptually similar provision). This is as it 
should be: elsewise, an employer could ensure the granting of a specialty occupation visa petition by 
the simple expedient of creating a generic (and essentially artificial) degree requirement. 
3 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
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 We will consider the Petitioner's classification of the proffered position at a Levell wage (the lowest of four assignable 
wage levels) 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 the 
Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding ofthe occupation. This wage rate indicates: (1) that the 
Beneficiary will be expected to perform 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 
4 
Matter of W-S- Inc. 
The Handbook subchapter entitled "How to Become a Market Research Analyst" states in pertinent 
part: "Market research analysts typically need a bachelor's degree in market research or a related field. 
Many have degrees in fields such as statistics, math, and computer science. Others have backgrounds in 
business administration, the social sciences, or communications. "6 The Handbook further states that 
"[ c ]ourses in statistics, research methods, and marketing are essential for these workers. Courses in 
communications and social sciences, such as economics or consumer behavior, are also important."7 
The Handbook reports that market research analysts have degrees and backgrounds in a wide variety of 
disparate fields. That is, while the Handbook states that employees typically need a bachelor's degree 
in market research or a related field, it continues by specifying that many market research analysts have 
degrees in fields such as statistics, math, or computer science. According to the Handbook, other 
market research analysts have backgrounds in fields such as business administration, the social sciences, 
or communications. This passage of the Handbook identifies various courses as essential to this 
occupation, including statistics, research methods, and marketing. It further elucidates that courses in 
communications and social sciences (such as economics or consumer behavior) are also important. 
In general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., statistics and math, 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)(l)(B) ofthe 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 market research and 
computer science, 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. 8 Section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act (emphasis 
added). The Petitioner has not done so here. 
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:l/flcdatacenter.comldownload/NPWHC_Guidance_Revised_ll_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. A Levell wage should be considered for research fellows, workers 
in training, or internships. !d. 
6 For additional information regarding the occupational category "Market Research Analysts," see U.S. Dep't of Labor, 
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., "Market Research Analysts," 
http :I lwww. b Is. go vI oo hi business-and- fi nanc ia I/ market- research-analysts. htm managem entl pri ntlproperty- real-estate-and­
community-association-managers.htm (last visited Aug. 16, 20 16). 
7 !d. 
8 Whether read with the statutory "the" or the regulatory "a," both readings denote a singular "specialty." Section 
214(i)(l)(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). Still, we do not so narrowly interpret these provisions to exclude 
positions from qualifying as specialty occupations if they permit, as a minimum entry requirement, degrees in more than 
one closely related specialty. This also includes even seemingly disparate specialties provided the evidence of record 
establishes how each acceptable, specific field of study is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
particular position. 
5 
Matter of W-S- Inc. 
The Handbook also states that "others have a background in business administration." The Handbook 
is consistent with the Petitioner's own requirement of a degree in business administration or business. 
As previously discussed, however, the requirement of a general-purpose bachelor's degree in business 
administration or business, 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 at 147; c.f Matter 
of Michael Hertz Associates, 19 I&N Dec. at 560. The Handbook's recognition that a general degree 
requirement is sufficient for entry into the occupation further supports the conclusion that a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty is not normally the minimum entry requirement for this occupation. 
The Petitioner also submitted a printout of the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) report for 
"Market Research Analysts and Marketing Specialists." The Petitioner asserts that since the occupation 
is assigned a Job Zone Rating of Four, the occupation, and the proffered position by extension, requires 
at least a bachelor's degree for entry into the occupational category. We note the Petitioner's assertions, 
but point out that O*NET does not state a requirement for a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty. More specifically, O*NET Job Zone designations make no mention of the specific field of 
study from which a degree must come.9 
Further, the O*NET summary report provides the educational requirements of "respondents," but does 
not account for 100% of the "respondents." The respondents' positions within the occupation are not 
distinguished by career level (e.g., entry-level, mid-level, senior-level). Additionally, the graph in the 
summary report does not indicate that the "educational level" for the respondents must be in a specific 
specialty. Therefore, the O*NET information is not probative of the proffered position's being a 
specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner has not provided documentation from a probative source to substantiate its assertion 
regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. Thus, 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 contemplates common 
industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific position. 
9 For more information about O*NET Job Zone ratings, see O*NET OnLine Help - Job Zones, 
http://www.onetonline.org/help/online/zones (last visited Aug. 16, 20 16). 
6 
Matter of W-S- Inc. 
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) 
(quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. 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 another authoritative source) reports an industry-wide requirement for at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 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. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not 
submit any letters or affidavits from similar firms or individuals in the Petitioner's industry attesting that 
such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." See id. 
We have reviewed the printouts of the online job announcements submitted by the Petitioner in 
response to the RFE. This documentation, however, does not establish that the advertising 
organizations are similar to and in the same industry as the Petitioner, and are for parallel positions. 
Although all positions advertised are for a business development manager with some similar duties, it is 
not possible to ascertain that the advertised positions are parallel to the proffered position. For example, 
all three advertisements require at least 5 to 7 years of experience in addition to a bachelor's degree. As 
previously noted, the Petitioner designated the proffered position at a Level I, entry-level wage rate, 
which is appropriate for a worker-in-training or an individual performing an internship, not for a 
position that requires significant experience in addition to a degree.10 Without detailed information 
regarding the proffered position and additional evidence regarding the duties and responsibilities of the 
advertised positions, it is not possible to conclude that the advertised positions are parallel to the 
proffered position, either in terms of duties or qualifications. 
Nor has the Petitioner submitted sufficient information about the general characteristics of the 
advertising organizations to demonstrate that they are similar to the Petitioner and in the same industry. 
The advertising organizations include a solar powered ventilations products manufacturer, a freight 
forwarding company, and an unidentified organization. No additional relevant information about these 
1° For additional information regarding wage levels, see DOL, Employment and Training Administration's Prevailing 
Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagricultural Immigration Programs (Rev. Nov. 2009), available on the 
Internet at http://www. foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/Policy_ Nonag_Progs.pdf. 
7 
Matter of W-S- Inc. 
organizations, such as their level of revenue and staffing, was provided. On appeal, the Petitioner 
acknowledges that the submitted advertisements are not for positions within organizations identical to 
the Petitioner, and states that "it is simply impossible to find job postings for Market Research Analysts 
by other businesses doing exactly the same business as the petitioner." The Petitioner asserts that the 
submitted advertisements are representative of parallel positions among similar organizations within the 
industry of manufacturing, importation, and. distribution, and emphasizes that the postings represent an 
industry-wide hiring standard. 
While the Petitioner's assertions are noted, the regulatory criterion reqmres the Petitioner to 
demonstrate that "[t]he degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The Petitioner does not 
state which aspects or traits (if any) it shares with these advertising organizations, and presents no 
evidence to establish similarities with the organizations. "[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.ffzci, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter o[Treasure Crafi 
o.fCal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). Moreover, despite the Petitioner's position that these 
advertisements are representative of positions within the industry of manufacturing, importation, and 
distribution, the Petitioner does not claim to be in the industry of manufacturing. Instead, the Petitioner 
describes itself as an importer and distributor of gift products. 
Even if we were to accept the Petitioner's assertions, the Petitioner does not demonstrate what 
statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from this limited number of advertisements with 
regard to an industry-wide standard minimum entry requirement. 11 Therefore, the Petitioner's request 
to treat these advertisements as from similar organizations within the Petitioner's industry for parallel 
• • • • 12 
positions IS not persuasive. 
Based upon a complete review of the record of proceedings, 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. 
The Petitioner has not expressly asserted eligibility under this criterion and the record contains no 
evidence for our consideration under this criterion. Although the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary 
is well qualified for the position, and references his educational background and bilingual skills, the test 
11 See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 ( 1995). 
12 As the advertisements are deficient for the above reasons, further analysis regarding the specific information contained 
in each job postings is not necessary. That is, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter of W-S- Inc. 
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 has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 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 stated that it also employs a president, a vice president, and an 
accountant, all of whom hold bachelor's degrees. While we note the Petitioner's assertion that the 
employment of degreed individuals demonstrates a "high level of professionalism" within its 
organization, the Petitioner has submitted no evidence regarding employees who currently or previously 
held the position of business development specialist. The evidence of record, therefore, does not 
establish the Petitioner ' s eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J) . 
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. 
We reviewed the Petitioner's statements regarding the proffered position and its business operations. 
However, relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by the Petitioner 
as an aspect of the proffered position. The Petitioner states that it regularly rents a booth at the 
to sell its products, claiming that this is an example of the complex 
nature of the Beneficiary's duties. While the Petitioner emphasizes that the Beneficiary will draw upon 
his skills and knowledge learned from certain bachelor-level and master-level coursework, the 
Petitioner has not offered an analysis of why the duties it generically describes require a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or how the Petitioner 's participation in a trade show renders the 
Beneficiary's duties specialized and complex. Although the Petitioner asserts that the nature of its 
operations, which involves the import and distribution of goods from China, requires the Beneficiary to 
draw upon his educational background and bilingual skills to facilitate the import and distribution of 
goods, the Petitioner has not provided probative evidence establishing that more than a general degree is 
necessary to perform the duties of the proffered position. That is, the duties of the position are not 
described in such a way that establishes that the duties require more than a general bachelor's degree. 
We recall the Petitioner 's assertions that the duties of the proffered position closely parallel those of a 
market research analyst as set forth in the Handbook and the O*NET, thus suggesting that the 
Beneficiary will perform general marketing duties 
typically performed by non-specialty degreed 
individuals within the industry. We also recall the Petitioner's own statements that the minimum 
9 
Matter of W-S- Inc. 
educational requirement for the proffered position can be satisfied by an otherwise unspecified, general­
purpose degree in business administration or business. Although the Petitioner may desire a candidate 
that has a bachelor's degree, the Petitioner does not submit sufficient probative evidence explaining in 
detail how or why the proposed duties are so complex or specialized that they require a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, to perform them. 
We additionally incorporate our earlier discussion and analysis regarding the designation of the 
proffered position in the LCA as a Level I position (of the lowest of four assignable wage-levels) 
relative to others within the occupational category.13 Without more, the position is one not likely 
distinguishable by relatively specialized and complex duties, as such a position would likely be 
classified at a higher-level, requiring a substantially higher prevailing wage.14 
Although the Petitioner asserts that the nature of the specific duties is specialized and complex, the 
record lacks sufficient evidence to support this claim. Thus, the Petitioner has submitted inadequate 
probative evidence to satisfy the criterion of the regulations at 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 of W-S- Inc., ID# 07804 (AAO Aug. 18, 20 16) 
13 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 
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)(l) of the Act. 
14 For additional inforination regarding wage levels, see DOL, Employment and Training Administration's Prevailing 
Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagricultural Immigration Programs (Rev. Nov. 2009), available on the 
Internet at http://www.foreign laborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/Policy _ Nonag_Progs.pdf. 
10