dismissed H-1B Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9922268 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-1B) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 20, 2020 
The Petitioner, a hedge fund management corporation, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as 
a "communications associate" under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
The H-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 of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The matter is now before us 
on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate el igibi I ity by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the 
questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of Christa's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(I) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(I), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, 
and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition but adds a 
non-exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered 
position must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(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"). 
11. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner provided the following job duties for the position: 
I Work within our Communications Team to develop our company's 
relationship with the media, general public, and numerous outside 
stakeholders. Specifically, he will draft communications for the media, web, and 
print-based external communications. He will also draft talking points and 
briefings for Board of Director nominees and support nominees campaign efforts. 
o The Beneficiary will spend approximately 15% of his time on these duties. 
I Develop relationships with think-tanks and policy experts before connecting 
them with relevant portfolio managers . Specifically, he will conduct and 
commission research in policy areas relevant to pertinent firm investments. He will 
work closely with the firms' Research Team and third-party stakeholders to deliver 
the necessary academic output. 
o The Beneficiary will spend approximately 15% of his time on these duties. 
I Handle highly-sensitive and specialized research projects related to activist 
investments and various [Petitioner] positions . Specifically, he will work 
closely with [Petitioner's] Research Team to conduct and commission explorative 
research into the relevant company, the macro-economic and political climate 
around. He will be responsible for promoting [Petitioner's] position and stance. 
o The Beneficiary will spend approximately 15% of his time on these duties. 
2 
I Enhance the Research Team's capacity on geopolitical trends and risks by 
applying advanced historical. political. and sociological knowledge to develop 
analytical methodologies that can be utilized by portfolio managers. Utilizing 
an understanding of international electoral and political trends, he will work closely 
with [Petitioner's] Public Affairs and Research Teams to provide detailed and 
regular assessments of the markets and countries in which [Petitioner] holds 
significant investments. 
o The Beneficiary will spend approximately 15% of his time on these duties. 
I Handle requests for interviews and offer commentary on behalf of our senior 
staff with regard to the effect of public policy on investments. Working 
alongside other members of the communications team, he will file media requests 
via [Petitioner's] website. During activist campaigns, where a specific web 
presence has been developed, he will help field press enquiries to the relevant senior 
staff involved in that investment. 
o The Beneficiary will spend approximately 15% of his time on these duties. 
I Assist with the writing and editing of [Petitioner's] Quarterly and Annual 
reports. The Beneficiary will work closely with [Petitioner's] Communications 
Team in the drafting and editing of quarterly reports to be released to investors. 
o The Beneficiary will spend approximately 10% of his time on these duties. 
I Assist senior management, portfolio managers, and analysts with letter 
writing, speechwritinq, op-ed writing, and talking points for media 
appearances. When [Petitioner's] Management discloses a substantial investment, 
the company releases a letter to the public describing the nature of [Petitioner's] 
investment, as well as the firms [sic] objectives. The Beneficiary will work closely 
with portfolio managers to draft and edit this correspondence. He will also work 
closely with the relevant Investment Teams to draft and edit decks [sic] that will be 
shown to the company and released to the public. Additionally, he will draft other 
public facing documents to support these activist campaigns, such as speeches, op­
eds and talking points. 
o The Beneficiary will spend approximately 15% of his time on these duties. 
According to the Petitioner, the position requires "at minimum, a Bachelor's degree in 
Communications, Journalism, Public Relations, Political Sciences, or a closely related field." 
Ill. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Specifically, the record (1) does not describe the position's duties with sufficient detail; and (2) does 
not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate 
with a specialty occupation. 
A. First Criterion 
We turn first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which requires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
3 
entry into the particular position. To inform this inquiry, we will consider the information contained 
in the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) regarding the 
duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations it addresses.1 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-1B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Public Relations Specialists" 
corresponding to the standard occupational classification (SOC) code 27-3031. 2 The 
Handbook subchapter entitled "How to Become a Public Relations Specialist," reports that a variety 
of degrees may prepare an individual to perform the duties of the occupation. 3 The Handbook states, 
in pertinent part, that "[p]ublic relations specialists typically need a bachelor's degree. Employers 
prefer candidates who have studied public relations, journalism, communications, English, or 
business" and "[t]hrough such programs, students produce a portfolio of work that demonstrates their 
ability to prospective employers." First, the Handbook provides conflicting information regarding 
what is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation. As noted, the Handbook 
lists disciplines that employers "prefer" but does not indicate any of the fields are requirements. On 
the other hand, the Handbook also states "public relation specialists typically need a bachelor's degree 
in public relations, journalism, communications, English, or business." Because the Handbook 
provides ambiguous information, the Handbook does establish the entry requirement for this 
occupation.4 Second, even if such degrees are required, that a bachelor's degree in business, with no 
further specialization, may qualify an individual to perform the occupation demonstrates that a 
bachelor's degree of general applicability is sufficient to perform the duties of "Public Relations 
Specialists" occupation. Such an occupation is not a specialty occupation because it does not require 
a "body of highly specialized knowledge" and the attainment of a bachelor's degree in a "specific 
specialty." 
As noted in Royal Siam, 484 F. 3d. at 147, "the courts and the agency consistently have stated that, 
although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a business or business administration degree, 
may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will 
not justify the granting of a petition for an H-1B specialty occupation visa. See also Shanti, Inc. v. 
Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1166 (D. Minn. 1999) (the proffered position's requirement of a business 
administration degree is a general degree requirement, and therefore, INS did not abuse its discretion 
in denying the H-1B petition); All Aboard Worldwide Couriers, Inc. v. Attorney General, 8 F. Supp. 
2d 379, 381 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (INS did not abuse its discretion in determining that the proffered 
1 We do not maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. That is, the occupational category 
designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered 
position, and we regularly review the Handbook on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of 
occupations that it addresses. Nevertheless, to satisfy the first criterion, the burden of 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. 
2 A petitioner submits the LCA to DOL to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1B worker the higher of either the prevailing 
wage for the occupational classification in the area of employment or the actual wage paid by the employer to other 
employees with similar duties, experience, and qualifications. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 
20 C.F.R. § 655.731(a). 
3 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Public Relations Specialists, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/media-and-communication/public-relations-specialists.htm (last visited Nov. 19, 2020). 
4 While the Handbook may establish the first regulatory criterion for certain professions, many occupations are not 
described in such a categorical manner. See lnnova Sols., Inc. v. Baran, 2019 WL 3753334, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2019. 
4 
position did not qualify as a specialty occupation based on "an absence of evidence that [the petitioner] 
require[s] job candidates to have a B.A. in a specific, specialized area."). For this reason alone, the 
Handbook does not support the conclusion that the occupation is a specialty occupation. Although a 
bachelor's degree may be required for positions within this occupation, a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty (or its equivalent) is not. Again, the requirement of a bachelor's degree without 
further specification does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf. Matter of Michael 
Hertz Assocs., 19 l&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). 
We note too that the Petitioner cites to Tap is I nt'I v. I NS, 94 F. Supp. 2d 172 (D. Mass. 2000) and, 
among other cases, Residential Finance Corp. v. USCIS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012) to 
support its claim that the first regulatory criterion does not preclude the finding of a specialty 
occupation position when multiple disciplines may be permitted. We agree that "[t]he knowledge and 
not the title of the degree is what is important. "5 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. 6 Section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). In this matter, as just 
discussed, the Handbook does not indicate a requirement for a "bachelor's or higher degree in a 
particular specialty." Thus, the Petitioner's reliance on the Handbook to establish that this occupation 
requires a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is not well-founded. 
In any event, the Petitioner has not furnished evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition 
are analogous to those in Residential Finance and Tapis. We also note that, in contrast to the broad 
precedential authority of the case law of a U.S. circuit court, we are not bound to follow the published 
decision of a U.S. district court in matters arising even within the same district. See Matter of K-S-, 
20 l&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. Id. 
We recognize that the Petitioner asserts the degrees identified by the Handbook are all related to the 
duties of positions within the occupation in that they provide "extensive communications and 
writing/editing oriented courses, focused on the development of substantial communication ... critical 
reading[,] analytical thinking, and persuasive/creative writing skills," such as those which are required 
for the proffered position. We observe two problems with this assertion. First, the shared knowledge 
and skills identified are themselves too broad and general and would arguably include an even larger 
5 Residential Finance, 839 F. Supp. 2d at 997 (citing Tapis, 94 F. Supp. 2d at 175-76). 
6 While the statutory "the" and the regulatory "a" both denote a singular "specialty," we do not so narrowly interpret these 
provisions to exclude positions from qualifying as specialty occupations if they permit, as a minimum entry requirement, 
degrees in more than one closely related specialty. See section 214(i)(1)(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). This 
also includes even seemingly disparate specialties if the Petitioner establishes how each acceptable, specific field of study 
is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position. 
5 
range of degrees including, for example, law, psychology, and education. Second, the Petitioner does 
not provide sufficient evidence, such as examples of standard coursework common to degree programs 
in these areas, to support its conclusion that the degrees provide substantially related knowledge and 
training. 
As an alternate source to establish this criterion, the Petitioner refers to the Occupational Information 
Network (O*NET) for the proffered position's educational requirements. More particularly, the 
Petitioner states that O*NET's "Education" chart for "Public Relations Specialists," shows that 100 
percent of employers require at least a bachelor's degree for this occupation.7 While O*NET provides 
general information regarding the occupation, the percentage of respondents for education level 
required is not distinguished by career level (e.g., entry-level, mid-level, senior-level); therefore, 
O*NET does not demonstrate that a bachelor's degree is normally the minimum requirement for entry 
into the occupation. More importantly, O*NET does not indicate that the "education level" for the 
respondents must be in a specific specialty. 8 
Regarding the opinion letter submitted by the Petitioner along with its response to the Director's 
request for evidence (RFE), that letter's author also did not provide sufficient evidence to support his 
conclusions concerning normal entry requirements for the position. The only materials he references 
to support his conclusions are the RFE, the Handbook, O*NET, the Petitioner's support letter, and the 
Beneficiary's academic credentials. Although he references the Handbook, he asserts that the 
Handbook "is intended primarily to educate the public about occupational characteristics and labor 
trends" and "is not intended to establish minimum educational entry requirements." However, he does 
not provide another authoritative source nor otherwise demonstrate that he had sufficient facts and 
data to determine the minimum requirements for entry into the particular position. For example, he 
does not explain what principles and methods he applied to back up his opinion, other than his claimed 
expertise, such as citation to research (surveys, studies, etc.) relevant to the issue. We may, in our 
discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron lnt'I, Inc., 
19 l&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, where an opinion is not in accord with other 
information or is in any way questionable, we are not required to accept or may give less weight to 
that evidence. 9 Id. 
Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(1). 
B. First Prong of 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 
7 Summary Report for: 27-3031.00 - Public Relations Specialists, O*NET Online Archives, 
https://www.onetonline.org/Archive_ONET-SOC_2010_ Taxonomy_09_2020/link/summary/27-3031.00 (last visited 
Nov. 19, 2020). 
8 Id. 
9 We hereby incorporate our discussion of this opinion letter into our discussion of the other 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) 
criteria. 
6 
common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific 
position.10 
Although the Petitioner submitted no new evidence or arguments relevant to this prong on appeal, we 
will briefly discuss this criterion. 
To satisfy the first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. We generally 
consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there is such a common degree requirement: 
whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the industry's professional 
association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether letters or affidavits from 
firms or individuals in the industry establish that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed 
individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d at 1165 (quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 
F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (considering these "factors" to inform the commonality of a 
degree requirement)). 
As noted, 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 sufficiently probative evidence from an industry professional association or from firms 
or individuals in the industry indicating such a degree is a minimum requirement for entry into the 
position. 
Moreover, the opinion letter submitted does not discuss the principles and methods its author used to 
reach his conclusion nor does it indicate how he applied such principles and methods to reach his 
conclusion. For example, the author states he is familiar with the "typical industry hiring practices" 
and qualified due to his years of "experience as a consultant and professor" which has made him "very 
familiar with the nature and depth of knowledge required for [c]ommunications, [j]ournalism, [p]ublic 
[r]elations, [p]olitical [s]cience, or related fields positions at companies like [the Petitioner's]." 
However, he does not indicate he published, conducted research, or ran surveys, regarding the minimum 
education requirements for positions such as the position proffered here. He also does not discuss any 
relevant research, studies, or authoritative publications he utilized as part of his review and foundation for 
his opinion that "written and oral communication skills, as well as the ability to communicate highly 
technical concepts to business partners" are H-lB caliber skills required by companies such as the 
Petitioner. He also refers to the type of skills that the Beneficiary possesses and claims that these are 
reflective of the qualifications that similar companies require within the industry. But again, he does not 
support that conclusion with probative evidence or demonstrate sufficient familiarity with the Petitioner's 
organization for us to determine what he would consider a similar company. Additionally, we observe 
that the letter's author describes the relevant industry in an ambiguous manner that doesn't specify 
which industry he is referring to. Although he describes the Petitioner as a business providing hedge 
fund management services, he does not adequately discuss that industry or reference other hedge fund 
management companies, professional associations, or related research. Without such reference points, 
his analysis does not adequately address why the educational requirements for a communications 
associate in the hedge fund management industry would differ from those for "Public Relations 
10 The second prong of the second criterion will be discussed below. 
7 
Specialists" in other industries or at other companies that accept candidates with general bachelor's 
degrees like business. As such, the expert letter does not sufficiently support its conclusions about 
relevant industry standards to meet the Petitioner's burden. 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner also submitted Linkedln profiles for various individuals 
employed at eight different companies.11 The record does not establish that the positions these 
individuals are employed in are parallel positions in similar organizations in the same industry as its 
proffered position. The current positions of these individuals are all in various communication-related 
positions with titles including "associate, corporate communications," "director, corporate 
communications," "communications specialist," "communications associate," "head of executive 
communications," "head of communications," "vice president, head of communications," and "global 
public affairs." Other than the fact that most include "communications" in their title, there is 
insufficient evidence to conclude that the positions are parallel to the proffered position. For example, 
the titles given appear to represent various levels of seniority within their respective organizations. 
Further, the majority of the positions listed within the profiles do not include job duty descriptions. 
Rather, most of the profiles include only a summary of the experience and skills of the individuals 
themselves along with a listing of their current and past job titles and companies. Those jobs which 
include duty descriptions are described with insufficient detail to determine if they are parallel to the 
proffered position. Moreover, given the extensive and varied work experience of the individuals, we 
are unable to determine the impact their professional experience had compared to their educational 
credentials on being found qualified for their current positions. Without more information about the 
nature of the employing companies and the scope of their operations, we cannot adequately determine 
that they are within the same industry as the Petitioner. 
Finally, we note that the individuals employed in these positions have degrees in a variety of fields, 
many of them possessing degrees in multiple specialties, including: "political science and peace, war, 
and defense," "political science, Italian," "communication, general," "political science, economics," 
"public policy analysis," "public administration, finance," "business administration, management 
information systems," "legislative affairs and political communications," "political science and 
psychology," and "theology, political science." Given the range of academic degrees and educational 
experience represented, these profiles are insufficient to establish a common industry hiring practice 
even if the positions were otherwise found to be parallel to the proffered position. 
Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first 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. To demonstrate 
its hiring practices, the Petitioner submitted a list of four of its employees and the credentials of those 
employees, which include degrees in English, communications, history, public affairs, journalism, and 
political science. The Petitioner's acceptance of yet more fields of study (including English and 
11 We note that the Petitioner described these Linked In profiles as a "sampling of job postings." Even if we were to find 
that the organizations were in the same industry as the Petitioner, we note that social media profiles, such as those 
submitted, do not carry the same evidentiary weight as actual job postings, publications, or letters from similar 
organizations in the same industry. 
8 
history) for this position confirms that a general and broad base of knowledge is sufficient to perform 
the duties of the occupation, not a "body of highly specialized knowledge" attained by a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty. Further, given that no transcripts or other context was provided 
concerning the educational qualifications of these employees, we cannot adequately determine if their 
degrees provided shared specialty knowledge and skills nor how such knowledge was related to the 
proffered position. Finally, we note that the Petitioner has been in business for over 40 years and has 
over 300 employees. Given the size of its operations, a sample size of four employees is insufficient 
to establish its hiring practices by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
D. Second Prong of the Second Criterion and the Fourth Criterion 
As noted above, the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), 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. 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. 
On appeal, regarding the second prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner argues the "offered role 
further qualifies as a specialty occupation because the degree requirements are so complex that they 
can only be performed by an individual with a degree." The Petitioner then references evidence 
previously submitted as supporting its claim and provides no further analysis. 
Similarly, regarding the fourth criterion, the Petitioner lists the position duties as previously described 
in the record without providing additional context or detail and claims that the duty descriptions are 
evidence that "the duties of the proffered position are so highly sophisticated and complex in nature, 
that only an individual possessing a Bachelor's degree or higher in a specialized area would be 
properly prepared to fill the role." Although the Petitioner also references the opinion letter submitted 
with its RFE response as supporting this criterion, as discussed above, we decline to afford that opinion 
significant weight. 
Given the lack of additional evidence or explanation regarding how the duties are "complex or unique" 
or "specialized and complex," we affirm the Director's findings that the Petitioner's job duties, as 
described, do not appear to be of such specialization and complexity or uniqueness as to require the 
attainment of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent. Further, we agree that the 
Petitioner did not clearly identify any required tasks that are so "complex or unique" or "specialized 
and complex" that only an individual with a degree in a specific specialty could perform them. For 
example, the Petitioner does not explain or offer probative evidence demonstrating that a degree in 
political science or a related field is required to obtain the knowledge to "[d]evelop relationships with 
think-tanks and policy experts before connecting them with relevant portfolio managers" or that a 
degree in journalism or a similar field is needed to be able to "handle requests for interviews and offer 
commentary on behalf of [the Petitioner's] senior staff with regard to the effect of public policy on 
investments." Such tasks, although benefitting from public policy and communications experience, 
appear to incorporate support staff or secretarial duties and do not demonstrate that the position is so 
9 
complex or unique or that such tasks are so specialized and complex to require at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
Conversely, it is not clear how a general degree like English or communications would provide the 
necessary background to "enhance the [Petitioner's] Research Team's capacity on geopolitical trends 
and risks by applying advanced historical, political, and sociological knowledge to develop analytical 
methodologies ... [u]tilizing an understanding of international electoral and political trends." The 
fact that the Petitioner finds such degrees acceptable appears inconsistent with its claim that its position 
requires highly specialized knowledge and a degree in a specific specialty. The Petitioner claims that 
the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position, and references his qualifications as especially suited 
for this task. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education or 
experience of a particular beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
The Petitioner did not sufficiently develop the relative "complexity or uniqueness" or the 
"specialization and complexity" as an aspect of the duties of the position, and it did not identify any 
tasks that are so "complex or unique" or "specialized and complex" that only a specifically degreed 
individual could perform them. As such, we conclude the Petitioner has not described with sufficient 
detail how the duties of the proffered position are more "specialized and complex" or more "complex 
or unique," than those of other communications associate positions that are not usually associated with 
at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) or that its proffered position is one with duties sufficiently specialized and 
complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
Consequently, the Petitioner has not satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
Upon review of the totality of the evidence submitted, the Petitioner has not established that more 
likely than not, the proffered position is a specialty occupation under any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Moreover, the record does not establish that the Petitioner satisfied the statutory 
and regulatory definitions of 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