dismissed H-1B Case: Convention And Trade Show Organization

MATTER OFT-, LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office . 
DATE: AUG. 24,2017 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a convention and trade show organizer, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 
as a "budget analyst" under the H-IB 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-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 attainm·ent 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 of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish, as required, that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and contends that the petition should be approved. 
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. 
1 
We follow the preponderance ofthe evidence standard as specified in Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 
(AAO 2010). 
Matter ofT-, LLC 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that 
knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 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. Chertofj; 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 stated in the H-1B petition that the Beneficiary will serve as a "budget analyst." In its 
support letter, the Petitioner presented the duties of the proffered position in a table as follows (note: 
errors in the original text have not been changed)? . 
Job Duties Percentage of Time 
1. Conducting the preparation and monitor of the budget of annual 25% 
events; . 
2. Analyzing costs and expenditures to provide status and progress 25% 
reports, and ensuring proper classification of costs which would 
comply with the general accounting principle and relevant tax and 
other regulations; 
3. Overseeing and helping to approve or disapprove expenditures, 15% 
and analyzing budgets projections comparing to expenses actually 
incurred; 
2 In response to the Director's requests for evidence and on appeal, the Petitioner provided additional details about the 
d,uties of the position. We reviewed the record in its entirety. 
2 
Matter ofT-, LLC 
4. Assisting the compliance team m the development and 15% 
maint~nance of standard company policy and procedures 
documentation for budgeting and forecasting; 
5. Supporting the management in devising financial statement and 10% 
budget plans; 
6. Reporting to management of any issue identified regarding fund 10% 
issues and providing proposal to resolve such issues; 
Total 100% 
According to the Petitioner, the pos1t1on requires a bachelor's or higher degree in business 
administration, accounting, finance, or a related field. The Petitioner also stated that it prefers an 
individual with work experience related to 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.3 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or 
its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation.4 
Before addressing the specialty-occupation criteria contained at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4), 
we will briefly discuss an issue which precludes a finding that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation. 
As noted, the Petitioner indicates that a bachelor's degree in business administration would 
adequately prepare an individual to perform the duties of the proffered position. However, that 
claim is inadequate to establish that the proposed position qualifies as a specialty occupation. A 
petitioner must demonstrate that the proffered position requires a precise and specific course of study 
that relates directly to the position in question. 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, without further specification, does not establish the position as a 
specialty occupation. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). 
To prove 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 specialized field of study or its 
( 
equivalent. As discussed supra, we interpret 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. Although a 
3 
Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
4 
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 
Matter ofT-, LLC 
general-purpose business administration bachelor's degree may be a legitimate prerequisite for a 
particular position, the Petitioner's requirement of such a degree, without more, will not justify a 
finding that a particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam 
Corp., 484 F.3d at 147.5 This requirement alone indicates that the proffered position is not in fact a 
specialty occupation. The Director's decision must therefore be affirmed and the appeal dismissed 
on this basis alone. Though this issue precludes approval of this H-1 B petit"ion, we will nonetheless 
review the evidence of record in light of the four specialty-occupation criteria contained at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(l)-( 4) for the purpose of performing a more comprehensive analysis. 
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 
On the labor condition application (LCA)7 submitted in support of the H-IB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Budget Analysts" corresponding 
to the Standard Occupational Classification code 13-2031.8 The Handbook's chapter entitled "How 
5 Specifically, the judge explained in Royal Siam Corp, 484 F.3d at 147, 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, 
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 Int 'I 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., 191 & &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. 
6 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 we regularly review 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. 
7 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B 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 experience and qualifications who are performing the same services. 
See Matter o.fSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 545-546 (AAO 20 15). 
8 
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 
4 
Matter ofT-, LLC 
to Become a Budget Analyst" states in pertinent part: "A bachelor's degree is typically required to 
become a budget analyst, although some employers prefer candidates with a master's degree .... 
Sometimes, budget-related or finance-related work experience can be substituted for formal 
education." Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 
Budget Analysts (2016-17 ed.). 
The Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, is 
normally required for these positions. First, the Handbook specifically states that work experience 
can sometimes be substituted for formal education. Second, the Handbook does not state that, when 
a bachelor's degree is required, employers require the degree to be in any specific specialty. The 
Handbook, therefore, does not support the proffered position as a specialty occupation. 
1n addition, when comparing the duties of the proffered position to those of other positions located 
within this occupational category, we note that the Petitioner stated on the LCA that it will pay the 
Beneficiary a Level I wage, which indicates that this is an entry-level position. Given the 
.Handbook's implication that a bachelor's degree in a. specific specialty, or the equivalent, is not 
normally required for these positions, it seems unlikely that an entry-level position possessing these 
characteristics would carry such a requirement. 
The information the Petitioner submits from O*NET Online (O*NET) for our consideration under 
this criterion has been reviewed. However, it does not establish the Petitioner's eligibility under the 
first criterion. The summary report provides general information regarding the occupation; however, 
it does not support the Petitioner's assertion regarding the educational requirements for these 
positions. For example, the Specialized Vocational Preparation (SVP) rating cited within O*NET's 
Job Zone designates this occupation as 7 < 8. An SVP rating of 7 to less than("<") 8 indicates that 
the occupation requires "over 2 years up to and including 4 years" of training. While the SVP rating 
indicates the tptal 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.9 
The Petitioner cites Residential Finance Corp. v. USCIS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012) as 
relevant here. We do not dispute that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is what is 
important." However, as discussed, the Petitioner has not established that the particular position 
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. DOL, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage 
Determination Policy Guidance; Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _II_ 2009.pdf A 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. · 
9 
For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/help/ 
online/svp. 
5 
.
Matter ofT-. LLC 
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 the tasks it proposes for the Beneficiary.
10 
Though we acknowledge the conclusions of and 
their letters do not satisfy the Petitioner's burden, either. First, we observe that both individuals find 
that a bachelor's degree in business administration would adequately prepare an individual to 
perform the duties of the proffered positon. Again, a bachelor's degree in business administration 
with no further specialization is not a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent. 
Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. For this reason alone, these letters are insufficient to establish 
the proffered position as a specialty occupation. 
Setting this foundational deficiency aside, we observe that neither individual discusses the duties of the 
proffered position in meaningful detail. Nor does either individual reference the Petitioner's Level I 
wage-level designation or indicate they were aware that the proffered position contains the Level I 
characteristics discussed earlier, which we consider a significant omission. We find the lack of 
detailed discussion regarding the position's duties and the omission of any reference to the Level I 
wage designation indicative of an incomplete review of the positon by both individuals. 
We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of' 
Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). 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. !d. We find that these evaluations do not satisfy 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l) and, for the sake of efficiency, hereby incorporate this finding into our 
analysis of the remaining three specialty-occupation criteria.'' 
The Petitioner also submits copies of unpublished AAO decisions in which we determined that the 
positions proffered in those matters qualified as a specialty occupation. These decisions were not 
published as a precedent and therefore do not bind officers in future adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. § 
103.3(c). Non-precedent decisions apply existing law and policy to the specific facts of the individual 
case, and may be distinguishable based on the evidence in the record of proceedings, the issues 
considered, and applicable law and policy. Furthermore, any suggestion that we must review 
unpublished decisions and possibly request and review each case tile relevant to those decisions, 
10 
In addition, we observe that the H-1 B petition in Residential Finance was never appealed to our office through the 
available administrative process. Nevertheless, we note that the district judge's decision in Residential Finance appears 
to have been based largely on the many factual errors made by the service center in its decision denying the petition. 
Had we been afforded the opportunity to do so, based on that court's findings, 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 our de novo review of the matter. It is important to note that in a subsequent 
case that was reviewed in the same jurisdiction, the court agreed with our analysis of Residential Finance. See Health 
Carousel, LLCv. USCIS, No. 1:13-CV-23, 2014 WL 29591 (S.D. Ohio 2014). 
11 
The Petitioner cited Fred 26 Importers, Inc. v. DHS. 445 F. Supp.2d 1174 (C. D. Cal. 2006) in support of its assertion 
that the submission of these twoletters is sufficient to satisfy its burden. We disagree. The Petitioner misconstrues the 
holding in Fred 26. In Fred 26, the court held that the agency must consider letters such as these. It did not state that 
the mere submission of letters such as these is sufficient to satisfy a petitioner's burden of proof. See id at 1181. 
6 
Matter ofT-, LLC 
while being impractical and inefficient, would also be a shift in the evidentiary burden in these 
proceedings from the Petitioner to the agency, which would be contrary to section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. 
For all of these .reasons, we find that the Petitioner has not established that the proffered position is 
located within an occupational category for which the Handbook, or any other relevant, authoritative 
source, indicates that the normal minimum entry requirement is at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or the equivalent. Consequently, the evidence of record does not support a finding 
that the particular position proffered here, ·a part-time, entry-level position located within the 
"Budget Analysts" occupational category, would normally have such a minimum specialty degree 
requirement, 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 
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 generally consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there is such a common 
degree requirement: 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 establish 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 (considering these 
"factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement) (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook, or another authoritative source, reports a requirement for at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, we incorporate by reference the previous discussion 
on the matter. Also, there are no submissions from the industry's professional association indicating 
that it has made a degree a minimum entry requirement. 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." 
7 
Matter ofT-, LLC 
The record contains job vacancy announcements for our consideration under this prong. To· be 
relevant for this consideration, the job vacancy announcements must advertise "parallel positions," 
and the announcements must ha~e been placed by organizations that ( 1) conduct business in the 
Petitioner's industry and (2) are also "similar" to the Petitioner. Upon review, we find that none of 
these job vacancy announcements satisfy tliat threshold. 
The record does not contain evidence establishing that these positons were placed by companies that 
(l)'conduct business in the Petitioner's industry and (2) are also otherwise "similar" to the Petitioner 
in any essential nature. For example, one advertiser describes itself as an accounting stat1ing tlrm. 
Another appears to be a gas utility company, and a third appears to be involved in the defense 
industry. We are unable to ascertain the type of business con9ucted by several of the advertisers. 
Regardless, there is too little information regarding any of these companies to determine their 
substantive nature so as to conduct a legitimate comparison to the Petitioner, and the 
Petitioner does not explain how these two criteria are satisfied with regard to any of these 
advertisements. 12 
Further, some of the advertised job opportunities are not for what could be considered "parallel 
positions." As noted, the Petitioner attested to DOL that the proffered position is a Level I, entry­
level position. However, some of the advertised positions require substantial work experience, 
which suggests that they are not entry-level positions and therefore are not "parallel" to the one 
proffered here. 
For all of these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that these job vacancy announcements are 
relevant. Even if that threshold had been met, we would find that they did not satisfy this prong of 
the second criterion, as they do not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the 
equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 13 To the 
contrary, one company specifically stated that work experience would compensate for the lack of a 
bachelor's degree, several indicated that a bachelor's degree in any field of study would suffice, one 
indicated that a bachelor's degree in business would adequately prepare an individual to perform the 
12 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that it condu~ts business "in a rather-newly-developing industry" and that "it should 
be expected that there is no comparable business currently existing[.]" Be that as it may, it is the Petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Maller of Skirhall 
Cultural Ctr., 25 l&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). 
13 Even if all of the job postings indicated that a requirement of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is common to 
the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations (which they do not), the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from the 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). Moreover, given that there is no indication that the advertisements were 
randomly selected, the validity of any such inferences could not be accurately determined even if the sampling unit were 
sufficiently large. See id. at 195-196 (explaining that "[r]andom selection is the key to [the] process [of probability 
sampling]" and that "random selection offers access to the body of probability theory, which provides the basis for 
estimates of population parameters and estimates of error"). 
8 
.
Matter ofT-, LLC 
advertised duties, and another stated a preference - as opposed to a requirement - for a bachelor's 
degree.14 
Consequently, 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.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. 
We find that the Petitioner has not sufficiently developed relative complexity or uniqueness as an 
aspect of the proffered position. In other words, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the duties 
of the proffered position as described in the record 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. For example, the Petitioner did not submit 
information relevant to a detailed course of study leading to a specialty degree and establish how 
such a curriculum would be necessary to perform the duties it believes are so complex and unique. 
While a few related courses may be beneficial, or even required, in performing certain duties of the 
position, we find that the Petitioner has not demonstrated how an established curriculum of such 
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. 
As discussed, neither the Handbook nor O*NET indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or the equivalent, is normally required for positions located within this occupational 
category. We acknowledge the Petitioner's general indications regarding the knowledge and entry 
requirements associated with the proffered position. However, the Petitioner's wage-level 
designation undercuts the claim that it satisfies this criterion. 15 
14 
Though we indicated above that we would incorporate by reference the deficiencies contained in 
letter into our discussion of each specialty-occupation criterion, we nonetheless note here that the three job vacancy 
announcements he appears to have printed from the Internet, and relied upon in formulating his conclusions, contain 
similar deficiencies to the ones submitted by the Petitioner. 
15 The Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I 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 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)( I) of the Act. 
9 
Matter ofT-, LLC 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position, and references her 
qualifications. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education 
or experience of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. We find that Petitioner did not sufficiently develop 
relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect 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). 
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,.far the position. On 
appeal, the Petitioner concedes that this is a newly-created position. The Beneficiary is the 
company's first and only budget analyst. Consequently, the record contains no evidence of prior 
recruiting and hiring requirements for this particular position, which is the focus of this criterion 
The Petitioner submitted brief biographical information for some of its employees, such as the 
company's chief operating officer and director of website operations. None of these individuals are 
employed in the same budget analyst position being proffered here. As the regulatory language of 
this criterion is clear, the Petitioner's assertion on appeal that we should consider the educational 
credentials of employees holding other positions is not persuasive. 
We are also not persuaded by the Petitioner's comments regarding Unical Aviation, Inc. v. INS, 248 
F. Supp. 2d 931 (D.C. Cal 2002). Citing to Unical, the Petitioner asserts "the organization chart 
showing most employees hired by a petitioner company hold at least a bachelor's degree evidenced 
the petitioner normally requires a minimum of [a] baccalaureate degree." This is an overbroad 
reading of Unical. In Unical, the court considered the educational qualifications of individuals 
within the petitioner's marketing department only, not all of the petitioner's employees. 248 F. 
Supp. 2d at 935. Here, the Petitioner does not identify which department the Beneficiary is in, or the 
educational credentials of the employee(s) in her department, if any. In any event, even if we could 
consider the· educational credentials of other employees in different positions, the submitted 
biographical information either ( 1) reflects that they have unspecified bachelor of arts degrees or 
degrees in different academic fields (e.g., public health and neuroscience), or (2) does not contain 
information about their academic degrees. Therefore, the record does not support the conclusion that 
the Petitioner normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for this 
position. 
We also note that, in contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case Jaw 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 I&N Dec. at 715. 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 oflaw. !d. at 719. 
10 
Matter ofT-, Lf--C 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). 
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 acknowledge the Petitioner's assertions regarding the specialization and complexity of the 
position's duties. However, as above, those claims are undermined by the Petitioner's Level I wage 
designation. Again, in classifying the proffered position at a Level I (entry-level) wage, the 
Petitioner effectively attested to DOL that the Beneficiary would perform routine tasks that require 
limited, if any, exercise of judgment, that she would be closely supervised and her work closely 
monitored and reviewed for accuracy, and that she would receive specific instructions on required 
tasks and expected results.16 The DOL guidance referenced above states that an employer should 
consider a Level I wage designation when the job offer is for a research fellow, a worker in training, 
or an internship. 
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 
The Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A); therefore, it has 
not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 17 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofT-, LLC, ID# 466556 (AAO Aug. 24, 20 17) 
16 
Again, 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. 
17 
Because this issue precludes approval ofthe petition we will not address any of the additional issues we have observed 
in our de novo review of this matter. 
II