dismissed H-1B Case: Communications

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-F-A-
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 24,2016 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a private school, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an "admissions office 
communication specialist" under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
The H-1B program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a 
position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not sufficiently establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner then filed a motion to reopen and reconsider the Director's decision. The Director 
granted the motion, but again found that the proffered position does not ·qualify as a specialty 
occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred 
and abused her discretion in finding that the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
-Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
Matter of A-F-A-
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 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 c_omplex 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 the H -1 B petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as an "admissions office 
communication specialist." In the letter of support, the Petitioner provided the following job duties 
for the position (verbatim): 
• Responsible for adhering to all school policies and procedures 
• Directly responsible for applicant screening by phone and through the internet 
• Respond to requests , for information from the public and potential international 
students. 
• Manage visits/tours (on campus, Skype, phone or approved alternative), candidate 
interviews, processing or applications and communications with families. 
• Write press releases or other media communications to promote diverse Academy 
admissions. 
• Maintain cooperative relationships with representatives of academic community, 
and public interest groups. 
2 
Matter of A-F-A-
• Participate and advise with the Admissions committee to make final decisions. 
Maintain and increase relationship with educational consultants, agents and feeder 
schools. 
• Maintain and increase relationship with alumni, current families and students 
• Initiate the development of new markets 
• Responsible for developing and editing materials relating to Admissions, 
including fact sheets, websites, directories, surveys and general school 
information presented to the public. 
• Study the objectives, policies or needs of the Academy to develop public relations 
strategies that will influence public opinion and promote admissions of foreign 
national students. 
• Update and maintain University's admissions office content posted on the Web. 
• Assist the Academy Advancement office with development opportunities 
• Assist with strategic planning for the Admissions Office 
• Assist with I-20's or other letters needed to expedite visa process for international 
students 
• Oversee with the business office staff to ensure student funding is legitimate 
through certified bank statement, wire transfer, full payment, or agreed upon 
alternative with Business Manager 
• Work with the business office regarding Financial Aid procedures and status 
• Confer with admissions advisors and counselors to identify trends or concerns to 
provide advice on admissions decisions. 
• Prepare admission publications, such as brochures, travel pieces, and admission , 
p1eces. 
• Travel nationally and internationally, as required, on behalf of the school (within 
budget) 
• Attend off-campus conferences, seminars and recruiting events. 
• Assist with the development of a recruiting and marketing plan to promote the 
school and reach admission goals. 
The Petitioner also stated that it "requires the candidate for this position to hold a minimum of a 
bachelor's degree, or its equivalent, in Communications, or a related field." 
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. 
1 
Specifically, the record (1) does not describe the position's duties with sufficient detail; and (2) does 
1 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
3 
Matter of A-F-A-
not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate 
with a specialty occupation? 
A. First Criterion 
We tum first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which requires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. To inform this inquiry, we recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's 
(DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses.3 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Public Relations Specialist" 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 27-3031.4 
The subchapter of the Handbook entitled "How to Become a Public Relations Specialist" states, in 
part, the following about this occupation: 
Education 
Public relations specialists typically need a bachelor's degree in public relations, 
journalism, communications, English, or business. Through such programs, students 
produce a portfolio of work that demonstrates their ability to prospective employers. 
2 
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. 
3 
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 USCIS 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. 
4 The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level I wage (the lowest of four assignable wage levels). We will 
consider this selection in our analysis of the position. The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" issued by 
the DOL provides a description of the wage levels. A Level I wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which 
the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the occupation. This wage rate indicates: (I) that 
the Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that she 
will be closely supervised and her work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that she will receive 
specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing 
Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _II_ 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 ofthe Petitioner's job opportunity. Id 
4 
Matter of A-F-A-
Training 
Entry-level workers typically begin by maintammg files of material about an 
organization's activities, skimming and retaining relevant media articles, and 
assembling information for speeches and pamphlets. After gaining experience, public 
relations specialists begin to write news releases, speeches, articles for publication, or 
carry out public relations programs. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., 
Public Relations Specialists, available on the Internet at http://www.bls.gov/ooh/media-and­
communication/public-relations-specialists.htm#tab-4 (last visited June 23, 2016). 
The Handbook does not support the assertion that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a ::,pecific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation. 
Here, although the Handbook indicates that a bachelor's or higher degree is required, it also indicates 
that bachelor's degrees in various fields such as public relations, journalism, communications, 
English or business, are acceptable for entry into the occupation. 
To demonstrate that a job requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly 
specialized knowledge as required by section 214(i)(l) of the Act, a petitioner must establish that the 
position requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. USCIS interprets the degree requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to require a 
degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. In addition to 
recognizing degrees in disparate fields, i.e., English and business, the Handbook also states that a 
general business degree is acceptable. Although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a 
degree in business, may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, 
without more, will not justify a finding that a particular position qualifies for classification as a 
specialty occupation. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertojf, 484 F.3d at 147. Therefore, the Handbook's 
recognition that a general, non-specialty business degree is sufficient for entry into the occupation 
strongly suggests that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is not normally the minimum 
requirement for entry for this occupation. 
When, as here, the Handbook does not support the proposition that the proffered position satisfies 
this first criterion of 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A), it is incumbent upon the Petitioner to provide 
persuasive evidence that the proffered position otherwise satisfies the criterion, notwithstanding the 
absence of the Handbook's support on the issue. In such cases, it is the Petitioner's responsibility to 
provide probative evidence (e.g., documentation from other authoritative sources) that supports a 
favorable finding with regard to this criterion. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iv) provides 
that "[a]n H-1B petition involving a specialty occupation shall be accompanied by [d]ocumentation 
... or any other required evidence sufficient to establish ... that the services the beneficiary is to 
perform are in a specialty occupation." However, as will be discussed below, the Petitioner did not 
establish that the proffered position satisfies this criterion. 
First, in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner stated that, according to 
O*NET OnLine, "one-hundred percent ( 100%) of persons employed in this field hold a Bachelor's 
5 
Matter of A-F-A-
degree or higher .... " However, O*NET OnLine is insufficient to establish that the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. In fact, it assigns this occupation a Job Zone "Four" 
rating, which groups it among occupations for .which "most ... require a four-year bachelor's 
degree, but some do not."5 Further, O*NET OnLine does not indicate that four-year bachelor's 
degrees required by Job Zone Four occupations must be in a specific specialty directly related to the 
occupation. Therefore, O*NET OnLine information is not probative evidence to establish that the 
proffered position is a specialty occupation. · 
Next, in the appeal, the Petitioner cites to a recent district court case, Raj and Co. v. US. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services, 85 F. Supp. 3d 1241(W.D. Wash. 2015) and claims that it is relevant 
here.6 Specifically, the Petitioner claims that "since [the Handbook] requires a bachelor's level 
degree in a limited number of related fields such,as communications, public relations, journalism, 
business or English, the position must be classified as a specialty occupation." 
In Raj, the court stated that a specialty occupation requires the attainment of a bachelor's degree or 
higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The court confirmed that this issue is well-settled in 
case law and with US CIS's reasonable interpretation of the regulatory framework. In the decision, 
the court noted that "permitting an occupation to qualify simply by requiring a generalized bachelor 
degree would run contrary to congressional intent to provide a visa program for specialized, as 
opposed to merely educated, workers." The court stated that the regulatory provisions do not restrict 
qualifying occupations to those for which there exists a single, specifically tailored and titled degree 
program; but rather, the statute and regulations contain an equivalency provision. 
We agree with the court that a specialty occupation is one that requires the attainment of a bachelor's 
or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. The occupational category designated by a 
petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the general tasks and responsibilities of a 
proffered position, and USCIS regularly reviews the Handbook on the duties and educational 
requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 
However, to satisfy the first criterion, 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. That is, to determine whether a particular 
job qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCIS does not simply rely on a position's title or designated 
occupational category. 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 
5 For more information see O*NET OnLine Summary Report for "27-3031.00 - Public Relations Specialists," 
http://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/27-3031.00; O*NET OnLine Help Job Zones, 
http://www.onetonline.org/help/online/zones (last visited June 23, 2016). 
6 In contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case law of a United States circuit court, we are not bound to 
follow the published decision of a United States district court in matters arising even within the same district. See Matter 
of K-S-, 20 l&N Dec. 715 (BIA 1993). Although the reasoning underlying a district judge's decision will be given due 
consideration when it is properly before us, the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of law. /d. at 719. 
6 
Matter of A-F-A-
ultimate employment of the beneficiary, and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384. 
Here, the duties and requirements of the position as described in the record of proceedings do not 
indicate that this particular position proffered by the Petitioner is one for which a baccalaureate or 
higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry. For example, the Beneficiary's duties include "applicant screening by phone, respond[ing] to 
requests for information," and "manage visits/tours." The Petitioner did not sufficiently define how 
these tasks entail the need for a particular level of education, or educational equivalency, in a body 
of highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. 7 
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 
casts its gaze upon the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
We reviewed the job advertisements submitted by the Petitioner. Notably, the Petitioner did not provide 
any independent evidence of how representative these job advertisements are of the particular 
advertising employer's recruiting history for the type of job advertised. Further, as they are only 
solicitations for hire, they are not evidence of what qualifications were ultimately required for the 
positions. Moreover, upon review of the documents, we find that they do not establish that a 
requirement for a bachelor's degree, in a specific specialty, is common to the Petitioner's industry in 
similar organizations for parallel positions to the proffered position. 
7 Upon review of the above job duties, the Petitioner did not provide sufficient information with regard to the order of 
importance and/or frequency of occurrence with which the Beneficiary will perform the functions and tasks. Thus, the 
Petitioner did not specify which tasks were major functions of the proffered position and it did not establish the 
frequency with which each of the duties would be performed (e.g., regularly, periodically or at irregular intervals). As a 
result, the Petitioner did not establish the primary and essential functions of the proffered position. 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-F-A-
For example, the advertisements include positions with the (a 
board with the goal to help the entire educational system in the state of 
(higher education), and the (higher education), which are all 
universities and therefore not similar to the Petitioner. Although one job advertisement is for 
the Petitioner did not submit documentation that this school is 
sufficiently similar to the Petitioner. Further, while these employers are in the education field, the 
Petitioner has not provided information regarding which aspects or traits it shares with the 
adv~rtising organizations. Consequently, the record lacks sufficient information regarding the 
advertising employers to conduct a legitimate comparison of these organizations to the Petitioner. 
The Petitioner refers to Young China Daily v. Chappell, 742 F. Supp. 552 (N.D. Cal. 1989) to state 
that "[a]buse of discretion may be found if there is no evidence to support the decision of it's the 
decision is based on an improper understanding of the law." The Petitioner asserts that the Director 
erroneously focused on 
irrelevant factors such as the size of the Petitioner in reviewing the petition 
and reaching her decision. However, in this matter, we find that it is proper to consider the size of 
an employer's business to determine if the degree requirement in a specific specialty is common to 
the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
As the documentation does not establish that the Petitioner has met this prong of the regulations, 
further analysis regarding the specific information contained in each of the job postings is not 
necessary. That is, as the evidence does not establish that similar organizations in the same industry 
routinely require at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for parallel 
positions, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed . 8 
Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.P.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. 
8 It must be noted that even if all of the job postings indicated that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty , or its 
equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations (which they do not), the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated what inferences, if any, can be drawn ftom these advertisements with regard to 
determining the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. See 
generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 (1995). 
As such, even if the job announcements supported the finding that the position required a bachelor's or higher degree in 
a specific specialty , or its equivalent (for organizations in the same industry that are similar to the petitioner), it cannot be 
found that such a limited number of postings that appear to have been consciously selected outweigh the findings of the 
Handbook published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics that such a position does not normally require at least a 
baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent , for entry irito the occupation in the United States. 
8 
Matter of A-F-A-
Here, the record lacks sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Petitioner's organization actually 
has the need for a degreed individual to perform the proposed duties. As discussed, some duties do 
not appear to be of complexity that requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its 
equivalent. 
In a letter of support, the Petitioner explained that it is a boarding and day school that attracts 
students from an ·average of 28 countries and 17 states and the admissions office communications 
specialist is responsible for promoting the school nationally and internationally. The Petitioner also 
stated that the "Communications curriculum provides graduates with the skills that are needed to 
succeed in this position," such as "excellent written and oral communication skills, as well as strong 
marketing skills." However, the need for writing and oral communication skills does not indicate 
that the position is so complex and unique that it can only be performed by an individual with at 
least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 
To establish eligibility, the Petitioner must describe the specific duties and responsibilities to be 
performed by the Beneficiary in the context of its business operations, demonstrate that a legitimate 
need for an employee exists, and substantiate that it has H-1 B caliber work for the Beneficiary for 
the duration of the employment period requested in the petition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 
at 387 (A "common sense reading" of the regulations indicates an intention to fully implement the 
definition of "specialty occupation"); see generally 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(i)(A)( 1 ), (iii)(B)(2), and 
(iv)(A). Here, the job description does not communicate: (1) the tasks that the Beneficiary would 
perform on a day-to-day basis; (2) the complexity, uniqueness and/or specialization of those 
responsibilities; and (3) the correlation between that work and a need for highly specialized 
knowledge and a particular level of education in a specific specialty. See generally section 214(i)(1) 
ofthe Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) and (4). 
Moreover, the Petitioner designated the proffered position as an entry-level position within the 
occupational category (by selecting a Level I wage). This designation, when read in combination 
with the Petitioner's job description and the Handbook's account of the requirements for this 
occupation, further suggests that this particular position is not so complex or unique relative to other 
public relations specialists that the duties can only be performed by an individual with a bachelor's 
degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. While a few related courses may be 
beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how an 
established curriculum of courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, is required to perform the duties of the proffered position. 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that the Beneficiary is qualified for the position. However, the 
test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education or experience of a proposed 
Beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative complexity or 
uniqueness as, an ~spect of the duties of the position, and it did not identify any tasks that are so 
complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. Accordingly, the 
Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
9 
Matter of A-F-A-
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. 
The Petitioner stated in a letter dated July 8, 2015, that it previously hired two individuals for the 
position of admissions office communication specialist. One individual had a bachelor's degree in 
media communications and the other individual had a bachelor's degree in communications. 
However, the Petitioner did not establish that these two individuals were actually employed in the 
same position as the Beneficiary. For example, the salaries indicated on these employees' Forms W-
2 in 2014 differ significantly from the proffered salary in this petition as well as from each other. 
Specifically, the salaries for these two individuals in 2014 were' $91,833 and $15,000, respectively. 
The proffered salary in this petition is $18.08 per hour, which is $37,606.40 when annualized based 
on a 40-hour work week. The Beneficiary's salary is much higher than one salary and much lower 
than the other, but the Petitioner did not explain the discrepancy in the wages for ostensibly the same 
position and so has not demonstrated that these two prior employees were actually employed in the 
same position performing the same proffered duties as the Beneficiary. "[G]oing 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 ofCal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
Further, the Petitioner indicated that it was established in 1933, but did not provide the total number 
of people it has employed to serve in the proffered position. Consequently, it cannot be determined 
how representative the Petitioner's claim regarding two individuals over an 82 year period is of the 
Petitioner's normal recruiting and hiring practices for the proffered position. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
D. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature 
of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner provided a description of the duties of the proffered 
position and information regarding its business operations. We reviewed the documentation and 
again note that the duties have not been sufficiently developed by the Petitioner to establish that they 
are more specialized and complex than public relations specialist positions that are not usually 
associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
We also incorporate our earlier discussion and analysis regarding the duties of the proffered position, 
and the designation of the position in the LCA as a Level I position (the lowest of four assignable 
10 
Matter of A-F-A-
wage-levels) relative to others within the same occupational category. 9 The Petitioner has not 
demonstrated in the record that its proffered position is one with duties sufficiently specialized and 
complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)( 4). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The burden is on the Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden 
has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-F-A-, ID# 16790 (AAO June 24, 2016) 
9 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 
Levell 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. 
11