dismissed H-1B Case: Communications

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7605178 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 20, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification 
for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. Upon 
de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 1 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
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) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a 
non-exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered 
position must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
1 We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 
(AAO 2010). 
(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). We have consistently interpreted the term "degree" 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 
The Petitioner, a non-profit organization, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a communications 
specialist. 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 at a Level I 
wage. 2 In the letter submitted in support of the petition, the Petitioner listed the duties of the proffered 
position, and provided a more detailed supplemental description of those duties in response to the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE). 3 According to the Petitioner, the proffered position requires at 
least a bachelor's degree in communications, international development, or a closely related field. 
II. 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. 4 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its 
equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 5 
The Director concluded the evidence was insufficient to establish that the position qualified as a 
specialty occupation under any of the criteria in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). On appeal the 
2 A petitioner submits the LCA to the Department of Labor (DOL) to demonstrate that it will pay an H-IB worker the 
higher of either the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the area of employment or the actual wage paid 
by the employer to other employees with similar duties, experience, and qualifications. Section 2 l 2(n)(l) of the Act; 20 
C.F.R. § 655.73 l(a). 
3 The record contains multiple descriptions of the duties of the position. For the sake of brevity, we will not quote the job 
description; however, we have closely reviewed and considered it. 
4 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
5 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H- IB petition, including evidence regarding the proffered position 
and its business operations. Although we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered 
each one. 
2 
Petitioner does not challenge the Director's findings under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
A. First Criterion 
We turn 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. 6 As noted above, the 
Petitioner designated the proffered position under the SOC code and title 27-3031, "Public Relations 
Specialists." 
The subchapter of the Handbook entitled "How to Become a Public Relations Specialist" states, in 
relevant part, that employers prefer that Public Relations Specialists have degrees in public relations, 
journalism, communications, English, or business. 7 Thus, the Handbook states that there is a wide 
range of degrees that are acceptable for positions located within this occupational category, including 
degrees in English and general-purpose degrees in business. As noted, we interpret the term "degree" 
to mean a degree in a spec[fic specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal 
Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. Since there must be a close correlation between the required specialized 
studies and the position, a requirement of general degrees in business or English strongly suggests that 
a public relations specialist position does not qualify as a specialty occupation. See id. A 
general-purpose business administration degree will not justify a conclusion that a particular position 
qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N 
Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988) ("The mere requirement of a college degree for the sake of general 
education, or to obtain what an employer perceives to be a higher caliber employee, also does not 
establish eligibility."). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director narrowly interpreted the Handbook to mean the 
specialized study must be in a single academic discipline, and cites to Tapis Int'l v. INS, 94 F.Supp.2d 
172, 175-76 (D. Mass. 2000) and Residential Finance Corp. v. USCIS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 
2012) in support of this assertion. The Tapis and Residential Finance decisions indicate that the first 
regulatory criterion does not limit qualifying occupations to those for which there exists a single, 
specifically tailored degree program, and that the title of the degree ( e.g., "business") does not 
necessarily control. However, we maintain that the Handbook permits a wide variety of specialties to 
qualify to perform the duties for this occupation. 
6 We do not 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 we regularly review the Handbook on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of 
occupations that it addresses. Nevertheless, to satisfy the first criterion, the burden of proofremains 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. 
7 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Public Relations Specialists, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/media-and-communication/public-relations-specialists.htm (last visited Feb. 19. 2020). 
3 
In citing to Tapis, the Petitioner states that "it defies logic to read the bachelor's requirement of 
'specialty occupation' to include only those positions where a specific bachelor's degree is offered." 8 
The Petitioner also cites Residential Finance to argue that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the 
degree is what is important." Section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act. The Residential Finance court observed 
that "knowledge [ in a specific specialty ( or its equivalent)] and not the title of the degree" is the essence 
of the requirement at section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act. See Residential Finance, 839 F. Supp. 2d at 997. 
The Residential Finance court opined that "there is no apparent requirement that the specialized study 
need[ s to] be in a single academic discipline as opposed to a specialized course of study in related 
business specialties" for the purpose of classifying a proffered position as a specialty occupation. Id. 
at 996-97. While we agree with the proposition that the knowledge, and not the title, of the degree is 
what is important, there must be a close correlation between the required "body of highly specialized 
knowledge" and the position; therefore, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in disparate fields 
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. The Petitioner has not done so here. 
The focus is neither the title of the position, the knowledge of the beneficiary, nor 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 a specific specialty as the 
minimum for entry into the occupation as required by the Act. In general, provided the specialties are 
closely related, e.g., chemistry and biochemistry, a minimum of a bachelor's or higher degree in more 
than one specialty is recognized as satisfying the "degree in the specific specialty ( or its equivalent)" 
requirement of section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act. In such a case, the required "body of highly specialized 
knowledge" would essentially be the same. Since there must be a close correlation between the 
required "body of highly specialized knowledge" and the position, however, a minimum entry 
requirement of a degree in disparate fields, such as engineering, science, and business, would not meet 
the statutory requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty ( or its equivalent)," unless the 
Petitioner establishes how each field is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
particular position such that the required body of highly specialized knowledge is essentially an 
amalgamation of these different specialties. Section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). 9 For 
the aforementioned reasons, however, the Petitioner has not met its burden to establish that the 
particular position offered in this matter requires a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, directly related to its duties in order to perform those tasks. 
8 Specifically, in Tapis, the U.S. district court found that while the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) 
was reasonable in requiring a bachelor's degree in a specific field, it abused its discretion by ignoring the portion of the 
regulations that allows for the equivalent of a specialized baccalaureate degree. According to the U.S. district court, INS' s 
interpretation was not reasonable because then H-lB visas would only be available in fields where a specific degree was 
offered, ignoring the statutory definition allowing for ·'various combinations of academic and experience based 
training." Tapis Int'! v. INS, 94 F. Supp. 2d at 176. The court elaborated that ·'[i]n fields where no specifically tailored 
baccalaureate program exists, the only possible way to achieve something equivalent is by studying a related field ( or 
fields) and then obtaining specialized experience." 
9 The court in Residential Finance did not eliminate the statutory "bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty" 
language imposed by Congress. Rather, it found that the petitioner in that case had satisfied the requirement. 
4 
In any event, the Petitioner has famished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition 
are analogous to those in Residential Finance or Tapis. 10 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 K-S-, 20 
I&N Dec. at 719-20. 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. Id. It is also important to note that in a subsequent case reviewed in the same jurisdiction, the 
court agreed with our analysis of Residential Finance. See Health Carousel, LLC v. USC IS, No. 1: 13-
CV-23, 2014 WL 29591 (S.D. Ohio 2014). 
The Petitioner also referenced the O*NET OnLine Summary Report for "Public Relations Specialists." 
The summary report provides general information regarding the occupation; however, it does not 
support the Petitioner's assertion regarding the educational requirements for the occupation. For 
example, the Specialized Vocational Preparation (SVP) rating cited within O*NET's Job Zone 
designates this occupation as 7 < 8. That SVP rating indicates the occupation requires "over 2 years 
up to and including 4 years" of training. Further, while the SVP rating indicates the total number of 
years of vocational preparation required for a particular position, it is important to note that it does not 
describe how those years are to be divided among training, formal education, and experience - and it 
does not specify the particular type of degree, if any, that a position would require. 11 
Further, the 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 "education level" for the respondents must be in a specific 
specialty. 
The Petitioner has not established that the proffered position is located within an occupational category 
for which a relevant, authoritative source indicates that the normal minimum entry requirement is at 
least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent. The Petitioner therefore 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 looks to the common 
industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific position. 
10 The district judge's decision appears to have been based largely on the many factual errors made by the Director in the 
decision denying the petition. We further note that the Director's decision was not appealed to us. Based on the district 
court's findings and description of the record, if that matter had first been appealed through the available administrative 
process, we may very well have remanded the matter to the service center for a new decision for many of the same reasons 
articulated by the district court if these errors could not have been remedied by us in our de nova review of the matter. 
11 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at 
http: //v..v.w. onetonline. org/help/ online/ svp. 
5 
The Petitioner does not assert on appeal that the position qualifies under either prong of the second 
criterion. Therefore, it has not satisfied the criterion at 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. 
The record must establish that a petitioner's stated degree requirement is not a matter of preference 
for high-caliber candidates but is necessitated instead by performance requirements of the position. 
See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. Were we limited solely to reviewing a petitioner's claimed 
self-imposed requirements, an organization could bring any individual with a bachelor's degree to the 
United States to perform any occupation as long as the petitioning entity created a token degree 
requirement. Id. Evidence provided in support of this criterion may include, but is not limited to, 
documentation regarding the Petitioner's past recruitment and hiring practices, as well as information 
regarding employees who previously held the position. 
To demonstrate eligibility under this criterion, the Petitioner submitted the self-reported educational 
backgrounds of four employees it claims hold or previously held similar positions to that of the 
proffered position. The Petitioner also submitted copies of their W-2 forms, pay stubs, resumes, and 
Linkedln profiles. 
Although the Petitioner provided a description of duties for these four employees, we note that three 
of the four individuals identify their role with the Petitioner as that of "Director of Communications" 
on their resumes and Linkedln profiles. On appeal, the Petitioner described the duties of these four 
individuals as identical to the duties of the proffered position. The Petitioner does not address the 
variances in job title which appear to show that there are different levels of communications specialist 
positions within the Petitioner's organization. Therefore, it is unclear whether the duties and 
responsibilities of these individuals are the same or similar to the proffered position. The Petitioner 
did not submit any information regarding the complexity of the job duties of these positions, 
supervisory duties (if any), independent judgment required or the amount of supervision received. 
Given that three of the four individuals hold different titles than that of the proffered position, it is 
unclear whether the duties and responsibilities of the position held by these individuals were the same 
or similar to the proffered position. 
Moreover, while the Petitioner claims that each individual holds at least a bachelor's degree in 
international development, international studies, journalism, or a combination thereof: the record does 
not contain copies of these individuals' diplomas or transcripts to corroborate this statement. Absent 
such documentation, we cannot conclude that the individuals identified actually possess the academic 
credentials claimed by the Petitioner. 
The Petitioner has not persuasively established that it normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the 
third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
6 
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. 
The Petitioner contends on appeal that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation on the 
basis of the complexity and specialization of the tasks. However, the duties as described lack sufficient 
specificity to distinguish the proffered position from other public relations specialist positions for 
which a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is not required to perform 
their duties. For example, the Petitioner notes that the Beneficiary will, inter alia, research, prepare 
and manage grant proposals, manage relationships and communications, write quarterly reports and 
press releases, maintain the Petitioner's image and identity, coordinate and organize events, draft 
speeches and arrange interviews for the Petitioner's directors, and respond to requests for information. 
It does not, however, offer a cogent analysis of how or why these tasks require a particular level of 
education, or its equivalency, in a body of highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. While 
these tasks may require skill and creativity, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the duties of the 
proffered position as generally described require the theoretical and practical application of a body of 
highly specialized knowledge such that a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, is required to perform them. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a copy of CareerOneStop's occupation profile for Public Relations 
Specialists, and asserts that the duties as outlined therein farther support its assertion that the duties of 
the proffered position are so specialized and complex that knowledge required to perform the duties 
is usually associated with the attainment of a bachelor or higher degree. Upon review, this document, 
on its face, provides little insight into the nature of the duties of the proffered position or the occupation 
in general, aside from the basic conclusion that a "bachelor's degree," without farther specification, is 
usually the minimum academic requirement for entry into the occupation. 
Although the Petitioner has more narrow requirements of only degrees in communications, 
international development, or a closely related field, and indicates that this is due to the complexity of 
the proffered position, the supporting evidence does not sufficiently establish how the proffered 
position, in particular, is more complex than typical entry-level positions in the "Public Relations 
Specialist" occupation in such a manner as to require a narrower range of degrees than is typical of 
the occupation. The Petitioner does not sufficiently develop relative complexity, specialization, or 
uniqueness as an aspect of the proffered position. Although it asserts that the Beneficiary must use 
several third-party tools in performing her duties, and that familiarity with such tools was gained 
through her coursework, it is not apparent that the Petitioner's communications specialist position is 
specialized or complex in such a manner as to require a degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, 
as distinguished from the occupation of "Public Relations Specialists" as a whole. 12 
12 Some of the third-party tools identified by the Petitioner include Twitter, Google Drive, Microsoft Office, Adobe 
Photoshop, and Apple iPhoto. It is unclear how familiarity with these third-party tools would elevate the duties of the 
position to the level of complexity that would satisfy the requirements of this criterion. 
7 
Upon review of the totality of the record, the Petitioner has not established that its particular position 
is so complex or unique or that the nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the 
knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. For the reasons discussed above, the evidence 
ofrecord does not satisfy the fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and 
alternative basis for the decision. 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. The Petitioner 
has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8