dismissed H-1B Case: Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 06444532 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 13, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "program manager" under the H-lB 
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 California Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish 
that the proffered position is 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: 
(I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
1We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in Matter of Chawathe, 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 construe 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 seeks to employ the Beneficiary in the position of "program manager." In this role, she 
will support the Petitioner's mission through the development of educational exchange programs. We 
will not describe each duty here, but we have carefully considered each one. The Petitioner states that a 
minimum of a bachelor's degree in education, HR/training and development, or a related field, plus two 
years of relevant experience is required in order to perform the duties of the position. 
III. ANALYSIS 
For the reasons discussed below, we have determined that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. Specifically, we conclude that the record does 
not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the job duties require an educational background, 
or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 2 
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 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the petition, including evidence regarding the position and its business 
operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 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. To satisty the first criterion, however, the burden ofproofremains on the Petitioner to submit 
2 
On the LCA the Petitioner classified the proffered position under the 'Training and Development 
Specialists" occupational category, corresponding to SOC code 13-1151, at a Level II wage rate. 4 In 
pertinent part, the Handbook states that positions located within this occupational category "need a 
bachelor's degree" and that they "may have a variety of education backgrounds." The Handbook then 
lists that "most have a bachelor's degree in training and development, human resources, education, or 
instructional design. Others may have a degree in business administration or a social science, such as 
educational or organizational psychology." The Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally required for entry into this occupation, nor does it 
indicate that the named fields comprise an exhaustive list. Based on the various degrees which many 
training and development specialists can possess, the Handbook does not support the position's 
eligibility under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). Moreover, although a general­
purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business administration, 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. 5 
In the absence of support from the Handbook, the Petitioner submits alternative evidence for our 
consideration under this criterion, including information from DO L's Occupational Information Network 
(O*NET) and citation to case law. For the reasons discussed below, we find neither persuasive. 
Though relevant, the O*NET' s summary report for positions located within the occupational category 
"Training and Development Specialists" corresponding to the Standard Occupation Classification 
(SOC) code 13-1151, does not establish the Petitioner's eligibility under the first criterion, as it does not 
establish that a bachelor's degree in a spec[fic specialty, or the equivalent, is normally required. 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 
Specific Vocational Preparation (SVP) rating, which is defined as "the amount oflapsed time required by 
a typical worker to learn the techniques, acquire the information, and develop the facility needed for 
average performance in a specific job-worker situation," cited within O*NET's Job Zone designates this 
position as having an SVP 7 < 8. This indicates that the occupation requires "over 2 years up to and 
including 4 years" of training. 6 While the SVP rating provides 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. 7 
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 should be aware that the prevailing wage it lists on its LCA is incorrect for SOC code 13-1151 at a Level 
II wage rate in the relevant geographical county. This calls into question the validity of the LCA and would appear to 
constitute an additional basis upon which to deny this petition. As the proffered position is not a specialty occupation we 
will not address this deficiency in greater detail, but the Petitioner should be prepared to address it in any future H-1 B 
filings. 
5 Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. 
6 This training may be acquired in a school, work, military, institutional, or vocational environment. Specific vocational 
training includes: vocational education, apprenticeship training, in-plant training, on-the-job training, and essential 
experience in other jobs. 
7 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/help/ 
online/svp. 
3 
Nor does the O*NET summary report for this occupational category specify that a degree is required. 
Instead, it states that "most of these occupations require a four-year bachelor's degree, but some do not." 
Similar to the SVP rating, the Job Zone Four designation referenced by the Petitioner does not indicate 
that any academic credentials for Job Zone Four occupations must be directly related to the duties 
performed. Furthermore, although the summary reports provide the educational requirements of 
"respondents," it does not account for 100% of the "respondents." There is no indication that 
respondents who possess a bachelor's degree or higher possess a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or the equivalent, nor can we tell whether the possession of a specific degree was a condition 
of their hiring. For all of these reasons, O*NET does not support the assertion that at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for these positions. 
The Petitioner argues that USCIS interprets the H-1B statute and regulations too narrowly and cites to 
Tapis Int'l v. INS to support its argument that a bachelor's degree need not be in a "single specific 
specialty." 8 We agree with the district court judge in Tapis, that in satisfying the specialty occupation 
requirements, both the Act and the regulations require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent, and that this language indicates that the degree does not have to be a degree in a single 
specific specialty. 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. Because 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 
would not meet the statutory requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty ( or its 
equivalent)," 9 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. The Petitioner has not done so here. 
In any event, the Petitioner has famished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition 
are analogous to those in Tapis. 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. 10 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. 11 
We conclude that 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. Moreover, 
the Petitioner has not provided documentation from a probative source to substantiate its assertion 
regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. The Petitioner therefore 
has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
B. Second Criterion 
8 Tapis Int'/ v. INS, 94 F. Supp. 2d 172 (D. Mass. 2000). 
9 Section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). 
10 See Matter of K-S-, 20 l&N Dec. 715, 719-20 (BIA 1993). 
11 Id. 
4 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs: 'The degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show 
that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with 
a degree[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong contemplates 
common industry practice with regard to positions that are "parallel" to the one under consideration, 
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." 12 
As noted above, the Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is a 
common requirement within the industry for parallel positions among similar organizations. Also, the 
Petitioner did not submit evidence from an industry professional association. In support of this 
criterion, the Petitioner submitted six letters from various individuals it contends are qualified to 
provide opinions on this matter. The authors of the letters evaluate the proffered position and conclude 
that it is a specialty occupation and, where applicable, also indicate that their organizations routinely 
employ and recruit only degreed individuals. 
It is important to note that it appears as though these authors used a template with conclusory findings 
and little or no analysis to support the Petitioner's particular position as a specialty occupation. All of 
the letters use similar organizational structure and language, offering similar conclusory statements 
with little variation in content or order. Each letter starts with the author's qualifications to opine on 
the matter, followed by an overview of the Petitioner's organization, and then provides conclusion as 
to the educational requirements of the position, as well as some version of how a bachelor's degree in 
a particular area would prepare a candidate for the position. Most of the letters then list the verbatim 
duties of the proffered position, reiterate the conclusion concerning the minimum education 
requirement for the position, and compare the proffered position's duties to the duties listed in the 
Handbook and in O*NET for "Training and Development Specialists." 13 After this, most of the letters 
contain some details about a telephone conversation with the Petitioner concerning the duties, a 
discussion of why the Petitioner's business requires candidates with a particular education, and finish 
12 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)). 
13 Following their comparisons to the duties listed in the Handbook and O*NET, the authors agree that the proffered 
position is accurately categorized as falling within the "Training and Development Specialists" occupational category. 
However, as noted above, the Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is a requirement 
within this industry. Therefore, establishing that the proffered position falls within this particular occupational category 
does not lend support to the Petitioner's conclusion that it is a specialty occupation. 
5 
with information about the Beneficiary's qualifications. The letters appear to have been produced in 
a rote manner and when combined with the lack of cogent analysis in each, it strongly suggests that 
these authors were asked to confirm a preconceived notion as to the required degree, not objectively 
assess the proffered position and opine on the minimum bachelor's degree required, if any. 
Several of the authors agree that because some of the duties involve teaching to a broad audience 
comprised of I I professionals, students, and professors, or that they involve cross-cultural 
communication, that this makes the work specialized. Absent from their letters is an explanation of 
why the performance of this type of work requires a bachelor's degree in education to perform and 
why such experience could not be gained elsewhere. 
The authors state that after reviewing the list of duties and speaking with the Petitioner about the 
position, it is their opinion that the "specific responsibilities, skills, and knowledge listed are so 
specialized and complex ... " and "[a]ll the duties listed in the job description are specialized and 
require high-level skills." 14 The authors fail to explain how they arrived at these broad conclusions 
and without sufficient analysis of why the duties are so specialized and complex, we cannot agree. In 
place of analysis, we note the frequency with which the authors label the duties and responsibilities as 
"very specialized," "advanced," "complex," or "sophisticated." We conclude that authors tend to 
classify the duties and the educational requirements with numerous adjectives to suggest the 
specialized nature of the work, rather than providing actual analysis of why the work is specialized. 
Among the authors' conclusions is a common confusion over the ability of an individual with a 
bachelor's degree in education to perform the duties of the proffered position with a degree 
requirement in order to perform the duties. While the authors may draw inferences that certain courses 
or knowledge obtained through a bachelor's degree in education may be beneficial in performing 
certain duties of the position, we disagree with the collective inference that a specific degree is required 
in order to perform the duties of the proffered position. The following list indicates this error in each 
of the authors' analysis. 
Author One 
• The completion of a Bachelor's degree program in Education or a related area provides the 
student with specialized knowledge that directly prepares them for the challenging tasks of the 
position. 
• [E]aming a degree at this level will ensure that the applicant has the necessary skills and core 
competencies to become a Program Manager with I I. 
• Having a Bachelor's degree in Education, or a related field, will provide the candidate with the 
necessary skills to take on such an important role in this organization. 
Author Two 
• The completion of a Bachelor's degree program in Education or a related area provides the 
student with specialized knowledge that directly prepares the graduate for the challenging tasks 
of the position and its responsibilities. 
14 These are sample phrases selected from two of the letters, however all of the letters contain similar content and wording 
as to their conclusions. 
6 
• [A] minimum of a Bachelor's degree in Education, or a closely related area, provides a 
candidate with the necessary core competencies and skills needed for the Program Manager 
position. 
Author Three 
• A Bachelor's degree program in Education prepares the graduate for working with people who 
are interested in pursuing advanced educational opportunities to further their careers inl I 
fields. '------------' 
Author Four 
• A college graduate obtains specific knowledge and theory that enables them to perform the 
complex responsibilities and meet the challenges of this type of position at a I I such 
as [ the Petitioner]. 
Author Five 
• [A] Bachelor's Degree in Education or related field ... provides the candidate with the skills 
and knowledge needed to succeed in the role. 
Author Six 
• Completion of a Bachelor's Degree in Education, or a related area provides the student with 
specialized knowledge that directly prepares the graduate for the challenging tasks of the 
position. 
Put simply, stating that a person with a bachelor's degree in education could perform the duties of the 
proffered position is not the same as stating that such a degree is required to perform those duties. As 
the foregoing demonstrates, each author misconstrues the statutory and regulatory requirements of a 
specialty occupation. 
In addition to this, the authors appear to agree that the importance of the Petitioner's business in the 
industry, as well as the low margin for error in the Petitioner's overall mission translates to the work 
being specialized. In some form or another, most authors state that the Petitioner "cannot afford" to 
hire a candidate with lesser credentials, that "hiring a capable" program manager has a "profound 
direct and indirect impact" on the Petitioner's operations, and that the "fundamental," "essential" and 
"vital role" of the proffered position to the overall mission necessitates such a degree for the "success 
of the programs." When the authors use such language, we might expect an analytical breakdown that 
explains how the knowledge and skill required to perform each duty can only be obtained through a 
bachelor's degree program in a specific specialty. Instead, we read a repetition of the duties, followed 
by declarations that lack analysis to support them. It is well established that a requirement merely to 
obtain what an employer perceives as a higher caliber employee does not establish eligibility. The 
record must establish that a petitioner's stated degree requirement is not a matter of preference but is 
necessitated instead by performance requirements of the position. 15 However, the authors' letters have 
15 See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88; Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 T&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 does not establish eligibility.") 
7 
not established this necessity. Neither the importance of the work, nor the proffered position's role in 
it, can substitute for specialization. 
While we will review the opinions presented, they offer little probative value as they do not include 
specific analysis of the duties of the particular position that is the subject of this petition. 16 For the 
foregoing reasons, the assertions in support of the instant petition are not persuasive. 17 The Petitioner 
argues on appeal that the Director erred in not relying on the opinions provided to establish that the 
proffered position is a specialty occupation. 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. We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as 
advisory. 18 
Without more, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations. 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 now 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. 
Upon review of the totality of the record, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained or documented 
why the proffered position is so complex or unique that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is 
required. As described, many 19 of the duties that comprise the position are vague and general, 
including: 
• Work closely withl I program partners to determine long-term priorities ... and 
jointly realize the success of all programs; 
• Review program policies and procedures, with a particular focus onl I to align 
with national and university standards; 
• Engage visitors as ambassadors, advocates, and contributors upon completion of their 
programs; 
• Support Program Director as needed in new program expansion efforts; 
• Support international partnership management as we launch new sites; and 
• Support communication and fundraising priorities. 
16 We hereby incorporate our discussion these authors' opinions into our discussion of the other 8 C.F.R. § 
2 l 4.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) criteria. 
17 For efficiency's sake, we hereby incorporate the above discussion regarding the letter into our analysis of each criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
18 Matter of Caron Int'l,Inc., 19 l&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). 
19 This is by no means an exhaustive list, but rather a sampling of the vague and general descriptions provided by the 
Petitioner. 
8 
Though the Petitioner uses numerous action words, we do not know what "work closely with," 'jointly 
realize the success," "support," or "engage" actually mean in the context of the Beneficiary's day-to­
day work. Such generic descriptions do not provide sufficient information regarding the particular 
work and any associated educational requirements, nor do they allow us to understand what the 
Beneficiary would actually do as she carries out these undefined tasks. 
In addition the above, many other duties feature responsibilities that appear to be clerical or 
administrative in nature. Without further information, the performance of these duties suggests that 
the Beneficiary will engage in non-qualifying work. Examples of these duties include: 
• Conduct virtual and in-person surveys pre and post trip to assess .... I _____ ___.I knowledge 
and understanding; 
• [S]chedule visitors' activities; 
• Provide virtual and in-person orientation ... ; and 
• [C]ollect and summarize participant evaluations. 
Likewise, many of the duties do not readily demonstrate complexity or uniqueness as a feature of the 
work. Rather, they appear straightforward and basic, requiring no specialized knowledge to perform. 
Some such duties include: 
• Develop and steward relationships with partner zoos; 
• Represent [the Petitioner] at conferences and events; 
• Manage Program Coordinator intern; and 
• Attend university study abroad and other health and safety trainings to ensure continual 
alignment of [the Petitioner's] programs and university standards. 
The evidence of record does not establish that this position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with a degree. The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well­
qualified for the position, and references the Beneficiary's qualifications as evidence that the proffered 
position is a specialty occupation. 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. 20 
Here, the Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the 
duties of the position. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the Petitioner has satisfied the second 
alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it normally 
requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. Evidence 
20 We are required to follow long-standing legal standards and determine first, whether the proffered position qualifies as 
a specialty occupation, and second, whether the beneficiary was qualified for the position at the time the nonimmigrant 
visa petition was filed. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 l&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988) ("The facts of a 
beneficiary's background only come at issue after it is found that the position in which the petitioner intends to employ 
him falls within [a specialty occupation]."). 
9 
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. The Petitioner has not submitted evidence to support eligibility under 
this criterion. Thus, 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. 
Here, the Petitioner claims that the position's nature and the specific duties are 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. However, as mentioned, the 
Petitioner provided vague and general descriptions of several job duties and listed a significant amount 
of work that lacks any apparent need for specialized knowledge. While some skills and knowledge in 
education or another related field may be beneficial in performing these duties, the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently explained how these tasks require the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the 
specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation. 
The Petitioner has not established 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. The record does not satisfy 
the fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. In 
visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
10