dismissed H-1B Case: Equipment Manufacturing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-A-P-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 28, 2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a manufacturer of coal augering equipment, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a 
"Market Research Analyst" under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) § 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The Director, 
California Service Center, denied the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. The appeal 
will be dismissed. 
I. ISSUE 
The issue before us is whether the proffered pos1t10n qualifies as a specialty occupation m 
accordance with the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. 1 
II. THE PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner, a 10-employee firm, proposes to employ the Beneficiary as a full-time market 
research analyst and pay him a salary of $36,000 per year. The Petitioner further states in the labor 
condition application (LCA) submitted to support the visa petition that the proffered position 
corresponds to Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code and title 13-1161, Market Research 
Analysts and Marketing Specialists, from the Occupational Information Network (O*NET). 
In a support letter dated March 26, 2015, the Petitioner described the duties ofthe proffered position 
as follows (verbatim): 
The Market Research Analyst will spend 20% studying the market, seeking and 
determining the information required for the market research according to the 
company goals and projects. In addition, he will research study, evaluate and 
determine the methods and procedures for collecting and evaluating the data. 
1 We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. Matter of Simeio Solutions, LLC, 26 l&N Dec. 542 (AAO 20 15); see 
also 5 U.S.C. § 557(b) ("On appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would 
have in making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 
1002 n.9 (2d Cir. 1989). 
Matter of C-A-P-, Inc. 
25% of the working time, the Market Research Analyst will be dedicated to collecting 
and analyzing data. He will direct and/or gather information, on markets and 
competitors and analyze their prices, sales, and method of marketing. He will also 
correct and analyze data on customer preferences and needs to identify potential 
markets and factors affecting demand. He will also collect and analyze data from 
suppliers, current and potential, to help the management choose best providers. He 
will apply statistical methods to interpret data and obtain results. 
The Market Research Analyst will devote 15% of his time to monitor the industry and 
statistics, and to follow trends in trade literature. He will forecast and track marketing 
and trends, and analyzing collected data. 
20% of the marketing Research Analyst time will be dedicated to implementing a 
client management system for the company. He will work with the IT team in 
designing and maintaining a proprietary database to track businesses, clients, and 
providers. 
The Market Research Analysts will be also responsible for measuring the 
effectiveness of the company marketing, advertising, and communications programs 
and strategies, and assess the customer satisfaction. He will spend 10% of his time in 
these activities. 
Finally, the Market research Analyst will dedicate 10% of his time to make 
recommendations to the company. He will analyze the data and prepare results and 
presentations for the management and/or customers. 
As to the educational qualifications of the proffered position, the Petitioner stated: "[T]he minimum 
educational requirement for this position is a Master's degree in Business Administration or a 
closely related field." 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided the following job 
description (verbatim): 
Study the Market and Planning Research (dedication 20%) 
Responsibilities and Duties: 
Review and study the company's goals and projects 
Study target markets, locations, clients 
Determine marketing methodology according to market and goals 
Formulate analysis plan 
Plan qualitative and quantitative research 
Determine the information required 
2 
Matter of C-A-P-, Inc. 
Research, study, evaluate and determine the methods and procedures for 
collecting and evaluating the data. 
Required Knowledge, Skills and Abilities: 
Marketing, business, decision-making, research, analysis, and communications skills. 
Collecting and Analyzing Data (dedication 25%) 
Responsibilities and Duties: 
Design and develop questionnaires and guides to ensure the necessary data is 
captured 
Gather and analyze information on markets and competitors 
Gather data on customer needs and preferences 
Analyze market/competitors prices, sales, and method of marketing 
Identify potential markets and factors affecting product demand 
Apply statistical methods to interpret data and obtain results 
Required Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities: 
Marketing, business, statistics, decision-making, research, analysis, and 
communication skills. 
Monitor the Industry (dedication 15%) 
Responsibilities and Duties: 
Research and study the industry 
Review literature and reports on the industry 
Identify trends and factors that may affect the industry 
Evaluate the impact of trends and industry changes in the company business 
Study current marketing techniques and new developments 
Forecast marketing, and sales 
Identify and define marketing opportunities 
Required Knowledge, Skills and Abilities: 
Marketing, business, statistics, decision-making, research, and communications skills. 
Implement Client Management System (dedication 20%) 
Responsibilities and Duties 
Work with IT team in designing and maintaining a proprietary database to track 
businesses, clients, and providers 
Confer with management and IT specialist to identify needs and requirements 
Assist IT in modeling database to ensure it meets the business needs 
Work with IT to define specifications 
3 
Matter of C-A-P-, Inc. 
Support IT team in testing the system and fixing problems 
Document bugs when found and report to IT Team 
Required Knowledge, Skills and Abilities 
Marketing, business, statistics, finances, decision-making, research, analysis, and 
communications skills. 
Measure effectiveness of Company Marketing (dedication 10%) 
Responsibilities and Duties 
Monitor company marketing activities to ensure effectiveness 
Measure sales obtained through advertisement campaigns to adjust strategy 
Identify best ads media to use for the company to reach the target markets 
Research, assess and analysis customer satisfaction 
Recommend new and/or changes in company marketing strategies 
Required Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities: 
Marketing, business, statistics, decision-making, research, analysis, and 
communications skills. 
On appeal, the Petitioner provided, inter alia, a letter with further clarification of the proffered 
position's duties dated August 25, 2015. 
III. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
The issue is whether the evidence of record establishes that the Petitioner will employ the 
Beneficiary in a specialty occupation position. 
A. 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) states, in pertinent part, the following: 
Specialty occupation means an occupation which [ ( 1)] requires theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in fields of human 
4 
Matter of C-A-P-, Inc. 
endeavor including, but not limited to, architecture, engineering, mathematics, 
physical sciences, social sciences, medicine and health, education, business 
specialties, accounting, law, theology, and the arts, and which [(2)] requires the 
attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as 
a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, a proposed position 
must meet one of the following criteria: 
(I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
(4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that 
knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. 
As a threshold issue, it is noted that 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A) must logically be read together 
with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). In other words, this regulatory 
language must be construed in harmony with the thrust of the related provisions and with the statute 
as a whole. SeeK Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) (holding that construction 
of language which takes into account the design of the statute as a whole is preferred); see also COlT 
Independence Joint Venture v. Fed. Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989); Matter ofW-F-, 
21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). As such, the criteria stated in 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A) should 
logically be read as being necessary but not necessarily sufficient to meet the statutory and 
regulatory definition of specialty occupation. To otherwise interpret this section as stating the 
necessary and sufficient conditions for meeting the definition of specialty occupation would result in 
particular positions meeting a condition under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory or 
regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). To avoid this 
result, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must therefore be read as providing supplemental criteria that 
must be met in accordance with, and not as alternatives to, the statutory and regulatory definitions of 
specialty occupation. 
As such and consonant with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) consistently interprets the 
term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered position. See 
Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in 
Matter of C-A-P-, Inc. 
a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular 
position"). Applying this standard, USCIS regularly approves H-lB petitions for qualified 
individuals who are to be employed as engineers, computer scientists, certified public accountants, 
college professors, and other such occupations. These professions, for which petitioners have 
regularly been able to establish a minimum entry requirement in the United States of a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, directly related to the duties and 
responsibilities of the particular position, fairly represent the types of specialty occupations that 
Congress contemplated when it created the H-1B visa category. 
To determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCIS does not simply 
rely on a position's title. The specific duties of the proffered position, combined with the nature of 
the petitioning entity's business operations, are factors to be considered. users must examine the 
ultimate employment of the individual, and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. The critical element is not the title 
of the position or an employer's self-imposed standards, but whether 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 the specific specialty as the minimum for entry into 
the occupation, as required by the Act. 
B. Analysis 
Initially, we find that the Petitioner has provided inconsistent educational requirements for the 
proffered position. Specially, the Petitioner stated in its support letter that it requires a master's 
degree in business administration. In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner stated that "the 
position requires knowledge in marketing, business, and economics which is associated with a 
bachelor's or higher degree in Business, Market or a closely related field." On appeal, the Petitioner 
asserts that the knowledge required by the proffered position "is normally associated with at least a 
bachelor's degree in Marketing, Business or a very closely related field." 
These discrepancies aside, the claims by the Petitioner of its requirement of a general bachelor's 
degree in business or business administration is inadequate to establish that a 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 and closely 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 
Associates, 19 I&N Dec. 558 (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, USCIS interprets the 
degree requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to require a degree in a specific specialty that is 
directly related to the proposed position. 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 
Matter of C-A-P-, Inc. 
for classification as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st 
Cir. 2007).2 
The Petitioner's stated educational requirements alone indicate 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. Nevertheless, we will continue our analysis of whether the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation for the purpose of performing a comprehensive analysis. 
We will next discuss the record of proceedings in relation to the four criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). 
A baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is 
normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position 
We will first discuss the record of proceedings in relation 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. 
As noted above, the Petitioner claims in the LCA that the proffered position corresponds to SOC 
code and title 13-1161, Market Research Analysts and Marketing Specialists. The LCA further 
states that the proffered position is a wage Level I, entry-level, position. 
We recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an 
authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations 
that it addresses.3 In the chapter entitled "Market Research Analysts," including the sections 
regarding the typical duties and requirements for this occupational category. The Handbook states 
the following with regard to the educational requirements of market research analyst positions: 
Most market research analysts need at least a bachelor's degree. Top research 
positions may reqmre a master's degree. Strong math and analytical skills are 
essential. 
2 A general degree requirement does not necessarily preclude a proffered position from qualifying as a specialty 
occupation. For example, an entry requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in business administration with a 
concentration in a specific field, or a bachelor's or higher degree in business administration combined with relevant 
education, training, and/or experience may, in certain instances, qualify the proffered position as a specialty 
occupation. In either case, it must be demonstrated that the entry requirement is equivalent to a bachelor's or higher 
degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 
at 147. 
3 The Handbook, which is available in printed form, may also be accessed on the Internet, at http://www.bls.gov/oco/. 
Our references to the Handbook are to the 2016-2017 edition available online. 
Matter of C-A-P-, Inc. 
Education 
Market research analysts typically need a bachelor's degree in market research or a 
related field. Many have degrees in fields such as statistics, math, and computer 
science. Others have backgrounds in business administration, the social sciences, or 
communications. 
Courses in statistics, research methods, and marketing are essential for these workers. 
Courses in communications and social sciences, such as economics or consumer 
behavior, are also important. 
Some market research analyst jobs require a master's degree. Several schools offer 
graduate programs in marketing research, but many analysts complete degrees in 
other fields, such as statistics and marketing, and/or earn a master's degree in 
business administration (MBA). A master's degree is often required for leadership 
positions or positions that perform more technical research. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., 
"Market Research Analysts," http://www. bls. gov I oohlbusiness-and-financial/market-research­
analysts.htm#tab-4 (last visited Jan. 15, 2016). 
The Handbook indicates that most market research analyst positions require at least a bachelor's 
degree. However, it indicates that, in addition to a degree in market research, a degree in statistics, 
mathematics, computer science, business administration, any of the social sciences, or 
communications may suffice. 
In this case, the Handbook indicates that, in addition to an otherwise undifferentiated bachelor's 
degree in business administration, a degree in market research, statistics, math, or computer science 
may be a sufficient educational qualification for a market research analyst position. As explained 
above, an educational requirement that may be satisfied by an otherwise undifferentiated bachelor's 
degree in business administration is not a requirement of a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty or its equivalent. Further, a requirement that may be satisfied by a degree in a 
wide array of subjects, such as market research, business administration, statistics, math, and 
computer science is not a requirement of a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or 
its equivalent. 
When reviewing the Handbook, it also must be noted that the Petitioner designated the proffered 
position as a Level I (entry level) position on the LCA. The wage levels are defined in DOL's 
"Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance." A Level I wage rate is described as follows: 
Level I (entry) wage rates are assigned to job offers for beginning level employees 
who have only a basic understanding of the occupation. These employees perform 
routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment. The tasks provide 
Matter of C-A-P-, Inc. 
experience and familiarization with the employer's methods, practices, and programs. 
The employees may perform higher level work for training and developmental 
purposes. These employees work under close supervision and receive specific 
instructions on required tasks and results expected. Their work is closely monitored 
and reviewed for accuracy. Statements that the job offer is for a research fellow, a 
worker in training, or an internship are indicators that a Level I wage should be 
considered. 
See U.S. Dep't of Labor, 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 _11_ 2009.pdf. 
Thus, in designating the proffered position at a Level I wage, the Petitioner has indicated that the 
proffered position is a comparatively low, entry-level position relative to others within the 
occupation. That is, in accordance with the relevant DOL explanatory information on wage levels, 
this wage rate indicates that the Beneficiary is only required to have a basic understanding of the 
occupation and carries expectations that the Beneficiary perform routine tasks that require limited, if 
any, exercise of judgment; that he would be closely supervised; that his work would be closely 
monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and that he would receive specific instructions on required 
tasks and expected results. As noted above, according to DOL guidance, a statement that the job 
offer is for a research fellow, worker in training or an internship is indicative that a Level I wage 
should be considered. 
In certain instances, the Handbook is not determinative. Where, as here, the Handbook does not 
support the proposition that the proffered position satisfies this first criterion of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it is incumbent upon the Petitioner to provide persuasive evidence that the 
proffered position otherwise satisfies this criterion by a preponderance of the evidence standard, 
notwithstanding the absence of the Handbook's support on the issue. In such a case, it is the 
Petitioner's responsibility to provide probative evidence (e.g., documentation from other 
authoritative sources) that supports a favorable finding with regard to this criterion. The regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iv) provides that "[a]n H-1B petition involving a specialty occupation shall 
be accompanied by [ d]ocumentation ... or any other required evidence sufficient to establish ... 
that the services the beneficiary is to perform are in a specialty occupation." 
However, the record of proceedings does not contain sufficient persuasive documentary evidence 
from any other relevant authoritative source establishing that the proffered position's inclusion 
within the occupational category of market research analysts establishes the proffered position as, in 
the words of this criterion, a "particular position" for which "[a] baccalaureate or higher degree or its 
equivalent is normally the minimum requirement for entry." 
Further, we find that, to the extent that they are described in the record of proceedings, the numerous 
duties that the Petitioner ascribes to the proffered position indicate a need for a range of knowledge 
of market research, but do not establish any particular level of formal, postsecondary education 
9 
Matter of C-A-P-, Inc. 
leading to a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty as minimally necessary to attain such 
knowledge. 
The Petitioner previously cited Residential Finance Corp. v. USCIS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 
2012) for the proposition that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is what is important. 
Diplomas rarely come bearing occupation-specific majors. What is required is an occupation that 
requires highly specialized knowledge and a prospective employee who has attained the 
credentialing indicating possession of that knowledge." 
We agree with the aforementioned proposition that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is 
what is important." 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 two disparate fields, such as philosophy and engineering, 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 2L4(i)(1)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). 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. 
In any event, the Petitioner has furnished insufficient evidence to establish that the facts of the 
instant petition are analogous to those in Residential Finance. 4 We also note that, in contrast to the 
broad precedential authority of the case law of a United States circuit court, we are not bound to 
follow the published decision of a United States district court in matters arising even within the same 
district. See Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715, 719-20 (BIA 1993). Although the reasoning 
underlying a district judge's decision will be given due consideration when it is properly before us, 
the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of law. I d. 
The duties and requirements of the position as described in the record of proceedings do not indicate 
that this particular position proffered by the Petitioner is one for which a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J). 
4 It is noted that the district judge's decision in that case 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 
novo review of the matter. 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter of C-A-P-, Inc. 
The requirement of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel 
positions among similar organizations 
Next, we will review the record regarding the first of the two alternative prongs of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). This prong alternatively calls for a petitioner to establish that a requirement 
of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common for positions 
that are: (1) in the petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered position, and also (3) located in 
organizations that are similar to the petitioner. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by 
USCIS include: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the 
industry's professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether 
letters or affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms "routinely employ 
and recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 
1999)(quotingHird/BlakerCorp. v. Sava, 712F. Supp.1095, 1102(S.D.N.Y.1989)). 
Here and as already discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for 
which the Handbook (or other independent, authoritative source) reports an industry-wide 
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. 
The Petitioner submitted an Internet printout from the website of which according to the 
printout, "represents more than 300 companies and market research operations in the United States 
and abroad." That printout states: "Typically a bachelor's degree is the starting point for most 
market and survey research jobs." The printout does not state a universal requirement for 
entry into market and survey research jobs. It also does not state a requirement of a bachelor's 
degree in any specific specialty. 
The June 12, 2015, letter from the CEO of a "similar" company states his company manufactures 
and rebuilds steel structures, including mining equipment. It further states that the company has 
used the services of a market research analyst, and that the company "found essential for the 
individual in this position to have obtained a minimum or a bachelor's degree in Marketing or 
Business." 
That letter suggests that an otherwise undifferentiated degree in business is a sufficient educational 
qualification for a market research analyst position in the Petitioner's industry. Again, a requirement 
that may be satisfied by an otherwise undifferentiated bachelor's degree in business or business 
administration does not mark a position as a specialty occupation position. 
The Petitioner also provided vacancy announcements placed by other companies to satisfy this 
criterion. Many of those companies are in the Petitioner's industry in the very broad sense that they 
11 
(b)(6)
Matter of C-A-P-, Inc. 
are manufacturers. The industries of some of the companies that placed those vacancy 
announcements are not clear. Some of the vacancy announcements are from companies that are 
clearly not in the Petitioner's industry. For instance, one of the organizations that placed those 
vacancy announcements is an information technology firm and another is a utility company. We 
observe that the criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) pertains only to positions in the 
Petitioner's industry with organizations that are otherwise similar to the Petitioner. 
Many of those vacancy announcements state a requirement of a bachelor's degree in business or 
business administration without requiring that the degree be in any specific specialty within that 
broad field. As was explained above, a requirement that can be satisfied by an otherwise 
undifferentiated bachelor's degree in business or business administration is not a requirement of a 
degree in a specific specialty. 
One vacancy announcement states a requirement of a bachelor's degree, but not that the degree must 
be in any specific specialty. That vacancy announcement does not, therefore, state a requirement of 
a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. Some of those vacancy 
announcements state a requirement of a degree in any of a wide array of subjects, such as "Business, 
Economics, Computer Science, Mechanical Engineering, Environmental Engineering, or related 
engineering field." Such vacancy announcements do not state a requirement of a degree in a specific 
specialty. 
One of the vacancy announcements indicates that the positiOn it announces is in 
"India. The definition of "specialty occupation" at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) 
indicates that it is a position that requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or 
its equivalent for entry "in the United States." The educational requirement of a position in India is, 
therefore, outside the scope of the inquiry into whether the position proffered in this case qualifies as 
a specialty occupation position. 
Many of the vacancy announcements provided are for experienced candidates whereas the proffered 
position is an entry level position for an employee who has only basic understanding of the 
occupation, as indicated on the LCA where the Petitioner designated the proffered position as a wage 
Level I position. As such, many of the vacancy announcements provided do not appear to be for 
positions parallel to the proffered position. 
Finally, even if all of the vacancy announcements were for parallel positions with organizations 
similar to the Petitioner and in the Petitioner's industry and required a minimum of a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent, the Petitioner has not demonstrated what statistically 
valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from the few announcements provided with regard to the 
common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. 5 
5 users "must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true." Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). As just discussed, the Petitioner has not established the relevance of the 
12 
Matter of C-A-P-, Inc. 
Thus, the evidence of record does not establish that a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to parallel positions with organizations that are in 
the Petitioner's industry and otherwise similar to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has not, therefore, 
satisfied the criterion ofthe first alternative prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by 
an individual with a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent 
The evidence of record also does not satisfy the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which provides that "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." A review of the 
record of proceedings indicates that the Petitioner has not credibly demonstrated that the duties the 
Beneficiary will be responsible for or perform on a day-to-day basis constitute a position so complex 
or unique that it can only be performed by a person with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. Even when considering the Petitioner's general descriptions of the 
proffered position's duties, the evidence of record does not establish why a few related courses or 
industry experience alone is insufficient preparation for the proffered position. While a few related 
courses may be beneficial, or even required, in performing certain duties of the position, 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. The description of the duties does not specifically identify any tasks 
that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. The 
record lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish the proffered position as more complex 
or unique from other positions that can be performed by persons without at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
This is further evidenced by the LCA submitted by the Petitioner in support of the instant 
petition. As noted above, the Petitioner attested on the submitted LCA that the wage level for the 
proffered position is a Level I (entry-level) wage. Such a wage level is for a position which only 
requires a basic understanding of the occupation; the performance of routine tasks that require 
limited, if any, exercise of judgment; close supervision and work closely monitored and reviewed for 
accuracy; and the receipt of specific instructions on required tasks and expected results, is contrary 
to a position that requires the performance of complex duties. 6 It is, instead, a position for an 
job advertisements submitted to the position proffered in this case. Even if their relevance had been established, the 
Petitioner still would not have demonstrated what inferences, if any, can be drawn from these few job postings with 
regard to determining the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations in 
the same industry. See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 (1995). 
6 The issue here is that the Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position undermines its claim 
that the position is particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same 
occupation. Nevertheless, it is important to note that a Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position 
from classification as a specialty occupation. In certain occupations (doctors or lawyers, for example), an entry-level 
13 
Matter of C-A-P-, Inc. 
employee who has only basic understanding of the occupation. In order to attempt to show that 
parallel positions require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent, 
the Petitioner would be obliged to demonstrate that other entry-level market research analyst 
positions requiring only a basic understanding of market research analysis, require a minimum of a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent, the proposition of which is not supported 
by the Handbook. 
The evidence of record does not demonstrate that the duties that collectively constitute the proffered 
position 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 instance, the Petitioner did not submit information relevant to a detailed course 
of study leading to a specialty degree and did not establish how such a curriculum is necessary to 
perform the duties of the proffered position. While a few related courses may be beneficial, or even 
required, in performing certain duties of the proffered position, 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 particular position here. 
Therefore, the evidence of record does not establish that this position is significantly different from 
other positions in the occupation such that it refutes the Handbook's information to the effect that 
there is a spectrum of degrees acceptable for such positions, including degrees not in a specific 
specialty. In other words, the record lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish the 
proffered position as unique from or more complex than positions that can be performed by persons 
without at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. As the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate how the proffered position is so complex or unique relative to other positions within the 
same occupational category that do not require at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty 
or its equivalent for entry into the occupation in the United States, 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). 
The employer normally requires a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent~ for the position 
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. To 
this end, we usually review a petitioner's past recruiting and hiring practices, as well as information 
regarding employees who previously held the position. 
pos1t10n would still require a m1mmum 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 consideration but is not a substitute for 
a determination of whether a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)( I) of the Act. 
14 
Matter of C-A-P-, Inc. 
However, the Petitioner stated, in its June 12, 2015, letter, that it has not previously employed a 
market research analyst. While a first-time hiring for a position is certainly not a basis for 
precluding a position from recognition as a specialty occupation, it is unclear how an employer that 
has never recruited and hired for the position would be able to satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3), which requires a demonstration that it normally requires at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for the position. We cannot conclude that 
the Petitioner has satisfied the third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). 7 
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 in a specific specialty, or its equivalent 
Finally, we will address the alternative criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4), which is 
satisfied if the evidence of record establishes that the nature of the specific duties is so specialized 
and complex that knowledge required to perform them is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. In the instant case, relative 
specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by the Petitioner as an aspect of 
the proffered position. We again refer to our earlier comments and findings with regard to the 
implication of the Petitioner's designation of the proffered position in the LCA as a Level I (the 
lowest of four assignable levels) wage. That is, the Level I wage designation is indicative of a low, 
entry-level position relative to others within the occupational category, and hence one not likely 
distinguishable by relatively specialized and complex duties. Upon review of the totality of the 
record, 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. 
For the reasons discussed above, the evidence of record does not satisfy the fourth criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
The Petitioner has not satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) and, therefore, it 
cannot be found that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The appeal will be 
dismissed and the petition denied for this reason. 
7 While a petitioner may believe or otherwise assert that a proffered position requires a degree in a specific specialty, that 
opinion alone without corroborating evidence cannot establish the position as a specialty occupation. Were USCIS 
limited solely to reviewing a petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, then any individual with a bachelor's 
degree could be brought to the United States to perform any occupation as long as the employer artificially created a 
token degree requirement, whereby all individuals employed in a particular position possessed a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in the specific specialty, or its equivalent. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d at 387. In other words, if a 
petitioner's degree requirement is only symbolic and the proffered position does not in fact require such a specialty 
degree, or its equivalent, to perform its duties, the occupation would not meet the statutory or regulatory definition of a 
specialty occupation. See section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty 
occupation"). 
15 
Matter of C-A-P-, Inc. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
As set forth above, we find that the evidence of record does not sufficiently establish that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed and 
the petition denied. 
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; Matter o.fOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013) (citing Matter of Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493, 495 (BIA 1966)). Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of C-A-P-, Inc., ID# 15476 (AAO Jan. 28, 2016) 
16