dismissed H-1B Case: Fashion

MATTER OF Y-T-S-USAC-., LTD 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 27, 2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a fashion/apparel bpsiness, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an 
"international client relations associate" under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). The H-1B program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a . 
qualified foreign worker in a position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application 
of a body of highly specialized knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in 
the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish that the proffered position was a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Director erred in denying 
the petition. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
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: 
Matter ofY-T-S-USAC-., Ltd 
(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" in the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a 
specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Cherto.ft; 
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 
On the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, the Petitioner described itself as a 
fashion/apparel business with four employees. In its support letter, the Petitioner listed the duties of 
the proffered position as follows: 
• Plan, coordinate, facilitate, and oversee international and domestic meetings, 
conferences, fashion trade shows and related fashion events. (20%) 
• Meet with clients, overseas factory, suppliers, and designers; establish 
relationships with and provide assistance to clients, strategic partners, and 
affiliates. (20%) 
• Collaborate with senior executives, colleagues, and clients regarding monthly 
events, trade shows, and other projects in order to ensure that they meet the 
clients' requirements. ( 1 5%) 
• Collaborate with senior executives to develop international relationships. 
(10%) 
• Coordinate client and company projects, including document preparation, 
fabric and fashion ordering and shipping, communication, transportation, and 
other necessary elements to the event/project organization. (10%) 
• Monitor factory production and supplier timelines to ensure the timeliness of 
manufacturing for various projects and events. (10%) 
2 
Matter ofY-T-S-[lSAC-., Ltd 
• Plan and develop marketing and services according to client and event 
requirements. (10%) 
• Maintain records, including marketing and financial details, of all projects. 
(5%) 
The Petitioner stated that "at least a bachelor's degree in Hospitality and Tourism Management, or 
related, and relevant experience is the minimum requirement for 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 satisfies any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) and, therefore, qualifies as a specialty occupation. Specifically, the record does 
not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate 
with a specialty occupation. 1 
A. First Criterion 
We turn first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J), 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. 2 To inform this inquiry, we recognize the U.S. Department of 
Labor's (DOL's) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties 
and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses? 
On the labor condition application (LCA)4 submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Meeting, Convention, and Event 
Planners" corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification(SOC) code 13-1121 at a Level 
I wage.5 
1 
The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 8 petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
3 All of our references are to the 2016-17 edition of the Handbook, available at 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 USC IS regularly reviews the Handbook on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of 
occupations that it addresses. To satisfy the first criterion, however, the burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to 
submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position would normally have a minimum, specialty 
degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
4 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to USCIS to demonstrate that it will pay an H-18 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 ofSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 545-546 (AAO 2015). 
5 We will consider the Petitioner's classification of the proffered position at a Level 1 wage (the lowest of four assignable 
wage levels) in our analysis of the position. The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance'' issued by the DOL 
3 
Matter ofY-T-S-USAC-., Ltd 
The Handbook subchapter entitled "How to Become a Meeting, Convention, and Event Planner" 
states in pertinent part: "Applicants usually need a bachelor's degree and some experience related to 
event planning." 6 The Handbook, therefore, does not support the Petitioner's assertion that a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is required for entry into this occupation. Although the 
Handbook states that many employers prefer applicants who have a bachelor's degree and some 
work experience in hotels or planning, it does not state that a bachelor's degree in a spec(fic 
specialty is required. Moreover, the "preferences" of an employer do not necessarily equate to a 
minimum recruiting and hiring requirement. 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. There must be a close correlation between the required specialized studies and 
the position; thus, the mere requirement of a degree, without further specification, does not establish 
the position as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter ol Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 
(Comm'r 1988) ("The mere requirement of a college degree for the sake of general education, or to 
obtain what an employer perceives to be a higher caliber employee, also does not establish 
eligibility."). Thus, while a general-purpose bachelor's degree 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. Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted a copy of the 
Occupational Information Network (O*NET) Summary Report for the "Meeting, Convention, and 
Event Planners" occupational category. This documentation, however, is insufficient to establish 
that the proffered position qualities as a specialty occupation normally requiring at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Contrary to the assertions of the Petitioner, O*NET 
does not state a requirement for a bachelor's degree for this occupation. Rather, it assigns this 
occupation a Job Zone "Four" rating, which groups it among occupations for which "most ... 
require a four-year bachelor's degree, but some do not."7 Further, O*NET does not indicate that 
four-year bachelor's degrees required by Job Zone Four occupations must be in a specific specialty 
provides a description of the wage levels. A Level I wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which the 
Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the occupation. This wage rate indicates: (I) that the 
Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that she will 
be closely supervised and her work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that she will receive specific 
instructions on required tasks and expected results. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage 
Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://tlcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC_Guidance_Revised_ll_2009.pdf. A prevailing wage determination staJ1s 
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. A Level I wage should be considered for research fellows, workers 
in training, or internships. !d. 
6 
For additional information regarding the occupational category "Meeting, Convention, and Event Planners," see U.S. 
Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., Meeting, Convention, and 
Event Planners, available at https:/ /www. bl s.gov /ooh/busi ness-and- tinanc ial!meeti ng -convention-and-event­
planners.htm#tab-4 (last visited Feb. 22, 20 17). 
7 O*NET OnLine Summary Report for "13-1121.00 - Meeting, Convention, and event Planners,'' 
http://www.onetonline.org/linklsummary/15-1121.00 (last visited Feb. 22, 20 17; O*NET OnLine Help - Job Zones, 
http://www.onetonline.org/help/online/zones (last visited Feb. 22, 20 17). 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of Y-T-S-USAC- ., Ltd 
directly related to the occupation. Therefore, O*NET information does not establish the proffered 
position as a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submitted an opinion letter from the Associate Dean of Academic Affairs 
at the We have reviewed the opinion letter in its 
entirety. However, we find that the letter is not persuasive in establishing the proffered position as a 
specialty occupation position. 
repeats the Petitioner's overview of the duties of the proffered position and opines 
that after examining the stated duties, "it becomes apparent that a minimum of a Bachelor's Degree 
in Marketing, Management, Hospitality Management, or a related area or the equivalent provides the 
student with the core competencies and skills needed for an International Event Coordinator 
position." concludes that "these duties are specialized and complex and require the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of specialized knowledge." 
Upon review, we find that characterization ofthe duties of the proffered position as 
"complex" and "not those of a lower level employee" appears inconsistent with the Petitioner ' s 
designation of the position as a Level I (entry) wage position. As noted above, a Level I position 
requires only a basic understanding of the occupation and does not include advanced knowledge or 
experience within the occupation. It is unclear if was informed of the Petitioner's 
attestation on the LCA that the proffered position was a Level I (entry) wage position. In any event, 
the omission of any discussion of the entry wage designation diminishes the evidentiary value of this 
opinion as the opinion does not appear to be based on a complete understanding of the proffered 
position. 
Furthermore, does not sufficiently explain the factual bases for his conclusions. For 
instance, states that he has had the "opportunity over the years to become familiar 
with the qualifications required to attain the position of International Event Coordinator and similar 
professional positions." He also states that it is "typical for a manufacturer of specialized apparel to 
hire an International Event Coordinator or someone in a similar professional position." However, he 
does not explain the source of his opportunities and familiarity with companies like the Petitioner 
that are in the business of manufacturing specialized apparel. Instead, he vaguely references his 
position as an associate dean of academic affairs at the School of Business at the 
as the source of his familiarity with the subject matter. There is also no indication that 
possesses any knowledge of the Petitioner's proffered position and operations beyond 
the limited information provided by the Petitioner in support of the instant petition. 
opinion does not relate his conclusion to specific, concrete aspects of this Petitioner's business 
operations to demonstrate a sound factual basis for the conclusion about the educational 
requirements for the particular position here at issue. 
Accordingly, we find that the opinion letter rendered by does 110t establish the 
proffered position as a specialty occupation under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), 
or any other criterion. For efficiency's sake, we incorporate our analysis regarding 
5 
Matter ojY-T-S-USAC-., Ltd 
letter into our discussion of the other criteria. We may, in our discretion, use advisory opinion 
statements submitted as expert testimony. 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. Matter o.fCaron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988). 
The Petitioner, therefore, has not established that the proffered position falls under an occupational 
category for which the Handbook, or other authoritative source, indicates that normally the 
minimum requirement for entry is at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
B. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs: "The degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or. in the alternative, an employer may 
show that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong 
contemplates 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. 
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)). 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its protTered position is one for which 
the Handbook, or other 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." 
In support of its assertion that the degree requirement is common to the Petitioner's industry in parallel 
positions among similar organizations, the Petitioner submitted copies of six advertisements as evidence 
that its degree requirement is standard amongst its peer organizations for parallel positions in the 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter ofY-T-S-USAC-., Ltd 
fashion/apparel industry. However, the job postings do not appear to involve organizations similar to 
the Petitioner and in the Petitioner's industry. The postings include the following: (1) a company 
engaged in vehicle remarketing services and digital marketing and software solutions for automotive 
dealers and consumers; (2) a brew pub; (3) a convention center; ( 4) the city of Texas; (5) the 
and ( 6) another convention center. It does not appear that the 
advertisements are from companies similar in scope to the Petitioner and engaged primarily in 
fashion apparel manufacturing. It is not sufficient for the Petitioner to claim that an organization is 
similar and in the same industry without providing a legitimate basis for such an assertion. 8 The 
Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
Further, at least two of the advertisements indicate that a degree in business is an acceptable 
prerequisite for entry into the position. 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 
que~tion. 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. C.f Michael 
Hertz, 19 I&N Dec. at 560. Here, the fact that these employers deem an individual with a general 
business degree qualified to perform the duties of the advertised positions further undermines the 
Petitioner's claims that a specialty-degree requirement is common to in parallel positions among 
similar organizations. 9 
For the reasons outlined above, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
I 
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 unjque that it can be 
8 For the Petitioner to establish that an organization in its industry is also similar under this criterion of the regulations, it 
must demonstrate that the Petitioner and the organization share the same general characteristics. When determining 
whether the Petitioner and the organization shar8 the same general characteristics, such factors may include information 
regarding the nature or type of organization, and, when pertinent, the particular scope of operations, as well as the level 
of revenue and staffing (to list just a few elements that may be considered). Without such information, evidence 
submitted by the Petitioner is generally outside the scope of consideration for this criterion, which encompasses only 
organizations that are similar to the Petitioner. 
9 To prove that a job requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge as 
required by section 214(i)( I) 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 for classification as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147 . 
.., 
Matter ofY-T-S-USAC-., Ltd 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree m a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
For example, we reviewed the Petitioner's statements regarding the proffered position; however, the 
Petitioner has not sufficiently developed relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the 
proffered position. 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 ~pecialty, or its 
equivalent, is required to perform them. For instance, while the Petitioner repeatedly claims that a 
bachelor's degree in hospitality and tourism management is required, the Petitioner did not establish 
how such a curriculum is necessary to perform the duties it may believe are so complex and unique. 
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, along with the expanded 
description of the Beneficiary's duties submitted in response to the RFE, do not specifically identify 
any tasks that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform 
them. 
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, which denotes a position for an employee who has only 
basic understanding of the occupation. 10 The Petitioner's designation of the position as an entry­
level position is at odds with the Petitioner's claimed requirements of a bachelor's degree and its 
claim that the Beneficiary "will have a high-level of responsibility, as well as management 
responsibility," and will require "extensive independent analysis [and] judgment." The evidence of 
record, therefore, does not establish that this position is significantly difierent ·from other event 
planners such that it refutes the Handbook's information that a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is not required for the proffered position. Without more, the record lacks 
sufficiently detailed information to distinguish the level of judgment and understanding necessary to 
perform the duties as complex or unique. Rather, the knowledge to perform the tasks can be 
obtained by an individual without at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
10 
The Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position undermines its claim that the position is 
particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation. Nevertheless, a 
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, entry-level position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent, for entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designatio!) 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. 
8 
Matter ofY-T-S-USAC-., Ltd 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well qualified for the position, and references her 
educational background and qualifications. However, the test to establish a positon as a specialty 
occupation is not the education or experience of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position 
itself requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner has 
not satisfied the second alternative prong of8 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. 
To merit approval of the petition under this criterion, the recoid must establish that a petitioner's 
imposition of a degree requirement is not a matter of preference for high-caliber candidates but is 
necessitated by performance requirements of the position. While a petitioner may assert that a 
proffered position requires a specific degree, that statement alone without corroborating evidence 
cannot establish the position as a specialty occupation. Were USCIS limited solely to reviewing the 
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 Petitioner 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, 201 F.3d at 
388. Evidence provided in support of this criterion may include, but is not limited to, documentation 
regarding the Petitioner's past recruiting and hiring practices, as well as information regarding 
employees who previously held the position. 
The Petitioner states that it was established in 2015. In a letter submitted in response to the RFE, the 
Petitioner's general manager indicates that "ever since the beginning, we hired [the Beneficiary] as 
the international event planner." On appeal, the Petitioner concedes that it had not previously hired 
anyone for the proffered position because it has only been doing business since 2014. Based on 
these statements, the Beneficiary is the first individual to be employed in the proffered position. 
This evidence, therefore, is not sufficient to establish that the Petitioner previously hired degreed 
individuals to fill the proffered position in the past and, therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the 
third criterion of8 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. 
The Petitioner provided information regarding the proffered position and its business operations, 
incluQing the documentation previously outlined. While the evidence provides some insights into 
9 
Matter ofY-T-S-USAC-., Ltd 
the Petitioner's business activities, the documents do not establish that the nature of the specific 
duties of the proffered position 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 hereby incorporate our earlier discussion and analysis regarding the duties of the proffered 
position, and the designation of the proffered position in the LCA as a Level I position (out of four 
assignable wage levels) relative to others within the occupational category, and hence one not likely 
distinguishable by relatively specialized and complex duties. Without further evidence, it is not 
credible that the Petitioner's proffered position is one with specialized and complex duties as such a 
position would likely be classified at a higher level, such as a Level IV (fully competent) position, 
requiring a substantially higher prevailing wage. A Level IV (fully competent) position is 
designated by DOL for employees who "use advanced skills and diversified knowledge to solve 
unusual and complex problems" and requires a significantly higher wage. The Petitioner has 
submitted inadequate probative evidence to satisfy the criterion of the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The burden is on the 
Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofY-T-S-USAC-. Ltd, ID# 200393 (AAO Feb. 27, 2017) 
10