dismissed H-1B Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8910364 
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: AUG . 13, 2020 
The Petitioner, a financial news publisher, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "technical 
sales specialisd I under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-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 evidence of record 
does 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. THE PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner states that it is a financial news publisher and seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a 
"technical sales specialist:! ~· The Petitioner describes as one of its divisions in 
which the Beneficiary works. and ?tates that " 
I j The Peti .... ti-o-ne-r-ch_a_ra_c-te_r_i z-e-s -t-he----.-~ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_:d-iv-i-si_o_n_a_s-"a-n~ 
independent organization" thatl "generatrs unbiased and value-added intelligence for [its] clients." 
According to the Petitioner, the team is "located across eight financial centers and draws on 
their extensive language skills and sector knowledge." 
In a letter submitted in support of the petition, the Petitioner described the duties and responsibilities 
of the proffered position as follows: 
I Work with clients to determine which products best fit their needs, and to negotiate 
sales terms and service agreements as necessary. 
I Negotiate and draft new business and renewal contracts with the general counsel 
and compliance professionals at hedge funds and banks. 
I Conduct online demos and in-person sales meetings in order to assess the needs of 
subscribers and potential subscribers. 
I Create and manage large distribution lists of institutional investor-subscribers to 
ensure intelligence is beinIT disseminated to targeted audience of investors. 
I Providel .intelligence, research, and data to financial institutions 
(mainly investment banks and hedge fund portfolio managers and analysts) and 
articulate I I investment ideas to these institutions in relation to their 
investment strategy and thesis. 
I Sell directly to asset managers, brokers dealers, and hedge funds, quoting prices 
and explaining! !products when necessary. 
2 
I Make outbound calls to targeted customers to articulate I I 
investment ideas and respond to inbound inquiries from potential and existing 
customers,.:.....-----~ 
I Articulate! I investment ideas to portfolio managers and analysts in 
relation to their investment strategy and thesis. 
I Determine and convey prices and estimated savings for products and services 
provided to clients byl I 
The Petitioner stated that the duties of the proffered position "can be performed only by an individual 
with the minimum of a US Bachelor's Degree in Business Administration or a closely related field, or 
its foreign equivalent." 
In its response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner expanded on these duties 
and indicated the percentages of time the Beneficiary would devote to each duty. For the sake of 
brevity, we will not quote the expanded version of the duties provided in the RFE response; however, 
we have closely reviewed and considered them. 
Ill. ANALYSIS 
We first note that in its RFE response, the Petitioner modified its degree requirement for the position 
from a bachelor's degree in business administration to "a bachelor's degree in Business Administration 
with a concentration in Economics." The Petitioner provided no explanation for the change in its 
degree requirement for the position.1 
We now turn to whether the Petitioner has established that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation. Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons discussed below, we have 
determined that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. 2 Specifically, we conclude that the record 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)(1), which requires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. To inform this inquiry, we 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. 3 
1 The Petitioner must resolve this incongruity with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter 
of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered position 
and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each 
one. 
3 All of our references to the Handbook may be accessed at the Internet site http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We consider the 
information in the Handbook regarding the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it 
addresses. 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 
3 
In the labor condition application (LCA), the Petitioner classified the proffered position under the 
occupational title "Sales Representatives, Wholesale and Manufacturing, Technical and Scientific 
Products," corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 41-4011.4 
With regards to "Wholesale and Manufacturing Sales Representatives," the Handbook specifically 
states that "[a] high school diploma is typically sufficient for many positions, primarily those selling 
nontechnical or scientific products."5 Thus, the Handbook does not support the claim that the 
"Wholesale and Manufacturing Sales Representatives" occupational category is one for which 
normally the minimum requirement for entry is a baccalaureate degree (or higher) in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. Moreover, the Handbook reports that for positions which do require a 
bachelor's degree, "[a] degree in a field related to the product sold, such as chemistry, biology, or 
engineering, is sometimes required."6 In its RFE response, the Petitioner acknowledged that the 
Handbook "does not specify that a specialized bachelor's degree is always required for a position of 
this kind," and stated that therefore, the position "meets criteria 2.2 and 4 only." However, on appeal, 
the Petitioner asserts that I I "constitutes the kind of scientific or technical product described 
by the [Handbook]," but it does not sufficiently explain what makes its product "scientific and 
technical." Furthermore, although the Petitioner modified its degree requirement in its RFE response 
to a bachelor's degree in business administration with a concentration in economics, it does not 
sufficiently articulate what makes a degree in "business administration with a concentration in 
economics" a technical or scientific degree. 
The narrative of the Handbook further reports that many employees obtain professional certification 
to demonstrate a level of professional competency. It continues by outlining the requirements for 
wholesale and manufacturing sales representatives to achieve Certified Professional Manufacturers' 
Representative (CPMR) and Certified Sales Professional (CSP) certifications. According to the 
Handbook, these credentials are granted by the Manufacturers' Representatives Educational Research 
Foundation (MRERF) for those who take the technical training and who also pass an exam and that 
continuing education is also required. Additionally, many companies have formal training programs 
of their own. The Petitioner did not indicate that such certification or training is required for this 
position. 
The Petitioner also referenced DOL's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) summary report 
for "Sales Representatives, Wholesale and Manufacturing, Technical and Scientific Products" listed 
as SOC code 41-4011.00. Though relevant, the information from O*NET does not establish the 
Petitioner's eligibility under the first criterion, as it does not establish that a bachelor's degree in a 
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. However, the burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to submit 
sufficient evidence to establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
4 A petitioner submits the LCA to the Department of Labor (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)(1) of the Act; 
20 C.F.R. § 655.731(a). 
5 See Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 
Wholesale and Manufacturing Sales Representatives, http://www.bls.gov/ooh/sales/wholesale-and-manufacturing-sales­
representatives.htm#tab-4 (last visited Aug. 12, 2020). 
6 Id. 
4 
specific specialty, or the equivalent, is normally required. The O*NET Summary Report provides 
general information regarding the occupation, but it does not support a conclusion that the proffered 
position requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent. Instead, O*NET assigns 
these positions a "Job Zone Four" rating, which states "most of these occupations require a four-year 
bachelor's degree, but some do not." Moreover, the Job Zone Four designation does not indicate that 
any academic credentials for Job Zone Four occupations must be directly related to the duties 
performed. In addition, the specialized vocational preparation (SVP) rating designates this occupation 
as 7 < 8. An SVP rating of 7 to less than {"<") 8 indicates that the occupation requires "over 2 years 
up to and including 4 years" of training. While the SVP rating indicates the total number of years of 
vocational preparation required for a particular position, it is important to note that it does not describe 
how those years are to be divided among training, experience, and formal education. The SVP rating 
also does not specify the particular type of degree, if any, that a position would require. 7 
The Petitioner cited RELX, Inc. v. Baran, 397 F.Supp.3d 41 (D.D.C. Aug. 5, 2019) in which the court 
stated that "[t]here is no requirement in the statute that only one type of degree be accepted for a 
position to be specialized" and that "if the position requires the beneficiary to apply practical and 
theoretical specialized knowledge and a higher education degree it meets the requirements." While 
we agree that the bachelor's degree does not have to be a degree in a single specific specialty, we do 
not agree with the analytical framework set forth by the RELX court. That is, the RELX court does not 
undertake the proper inquiry regarding the position's specific educational requirements and instead 
concludes that a requirement for a general bachelor's degree is sufficient to discharge the petitioner's 
burden. The court overlooks the statutory and regulatory provisions as they pertain to the requirement 
that the bachelor's degree, or its equivalent, be in a specific specialty. 8 Although we agree with the 
RELX court that the bachelor's degree does not have to be a degree in a single specific specialty, this 
agreement is predicated upon the fields of study including a "body of specialized knowledge" and the 
attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the 
position. 9 When as here, support from the Handbook or other sources is absent, we must analyze 
whether a petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated that its particular position is one for which a 
bachelor's degree in a specific discipline, or its equivalent, is commonly required in the industry for 
parallel positions among similar organizations and whether the stated field(s) of study directly relate 
to the performance of the duties.10 
7 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/ 
help/online/svp. 
8 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, even in matters arising 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 properly before us, the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of law. Id. Consistent with 
the Board's holding in K-S-, we decline to follow the RELX court's reasoning. 
9 The RELX court does not address how a general bachelor's or higher degree is the equivalent of a bachelor's or higher 
degree in a specific specialty. 
10 Although the RELX court briefly discusses the duties of the position, it did not engage in analysis of whether the duties 
actually required 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. Rather, the 
court accepted the petitioner's stated standards concerning its position. However, the record must establish that a 
petitioner's stated degree requirement is not a matter of preference for high-caliber candidates but is necessitated instead 
by performance requirements of the position. See generally Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. Were we limited solely to 
reviewing a petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, an organization could bring any individual with a bachelor's 
degree to the United States to perform any occupation as long as the petitioning entity created a token degree 
requirement. Id. 
5 
The Petitioner submitted an opinion letter authored by I I a professor of marketing at 
~~-1 College. In his letter, the professor (1) describes the credentials that he asserts qualify him to 
opine upon the nature of the proffered position; (2) describes aspects of the job duties proposed for 
the Beneficiary; and (3) states that these duties require at least a bachelor's-level educational 
background in business administration with a concentration in economics, or a related field.11 We 
carefully evaluated the professor's assertions in support of the instant petition but find them 
insufficient. 
The professor states that his assessment is based upon his "review of extensive documentation 
pertaining to the position" but he specifies only "the employer's petition support letter" as the 
document he reviewed. The professor lists the duties and states that "the complex multi-level 
functions" are entrusted to the candidate. He also contends that "the incumbent holds a highly 
advanced and critical advisory and analytical responsibilities .... " In contrast, the Petitioner has only 
assigned the position a Level I wage on the LCA indicating that the proffered position is an entry-level 
position. The professor's description of the position as involving a highly advanced and critical 
advisory and analytical responsibilities does not appear consistent with the proffered position's 
generally described duties and level of responsibility. Given his lack of understanding of the level of 
responsibilities of the proffered position, it is not clear if he had sufficient information to determine 
the requirements of the position. He does not demonstrate in-depth knowledge of the Petitioner's 
operations or how the duties of the position would actually be performed in the context of its business 
enterprise. While we appreciate the professor's discussion of duties provided by the Petitioner, his 
analysis falls short of providing a meaningful discussion of what the Beneficiary will actually do in 
the proffered position and how those duties require the theoretical and practical application of a body 
of highly specialized knowledge. As a result, we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
that the professor possessed the requisite information to adequately assess the nature of the position 
and appropriately determine the educational requirements of the position, based upon the job duties 
and level of responsibilities. The omission of a discussion or acknowledgement of this aspect of the 
duties diminishes the evidentiary value of this opinion as it does not appear to be based on a complete 
understanding of the proffered position. 
Further, the professor's opinion letter does not substantiate his conclusions, such that we can determine 
that the Petitioner has met its burden of proof. For instance, he opines: 
Based on my review of the aforesaid job duties, I believe that the position should clearly 
be considered a professional-level business development, management consulting, and 
technical sales advisory position .... 
I believe that it is a general, industry-standard practice for companies of the profile and 
stature of [the Petitioner] to hire a Technical Sales Specialist:! I who possesses 
at least a Bachelor's-level background in business administration with a concentration 
in economics, or a related field. 
11 The Beneficiary holds a bachelor's degree in business administration with a concentration in economics. 
6 
While the professor states that his "opinion letter also is based on research regarding issues discussed 
herein," he does not reference, cite, or discuss studies, surveys, industry publications, authoritative 
publications, or other sources of empirical information, which he may have consulted to complete the 
evaluation. He also asserts that "[a]mong educators and industry experts, it is widely recognized that 
individuals holding positions such as that of the Technical Sales Specialist: I I herein must have 
a Bachelor's-level degree or higher in Business Administration, with a concentration in Economics, 
or a related field" without naming any educators or industry experts with whom he may have 
consulted. Nor does he identify any publications or works of any educators or industry experts that 
he may have reviewed to arrive at his conclusions. The professor also states that "[h]iring data from 
publicly available resources such as Monster.com and Indeed.com serve to support this overall trend 
and industry-standard approach to hiring for such positions" without discussing any specific advertised 
position with sufficient detail to support his assertion. 
In summary, we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated through the professor's analysis 
how an established curriculum of courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is required to successfully serve in the proffered position. For the reasons 
discussed, we find that the professor's opinion letter lends little probative value to the matter here. 
Matter of Caron lnt'I, 19 l&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (The service is not required to accept or 
may give less weight to an advisory opinion when it is "not in accord with other information or is in 
any way questionable."). For the sake of brevity, we will not address other deficiencies within his 
analysis of the proffered position. 
The record lacks sufficient evidence to support a finding that the proffered position is one for which a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry. For the aforementioned reasons, 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. Thus, 
the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(1). 
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 
common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific 
position. The Petitioner does not assert, nor does the record demonstrate, eligibility under the first 
prong of this criterion.12 Accordingly, we will not address this prong. 
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. 
12 The record contains job announcements placed by other employers. We reviewed them and find them insufficient to 
demonstrate that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. Because the Petitioner does not assert eligibility under 
this prong on appeal, we will not further address the deficiencies of these job announcements. 
7 
In support of its assertion that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, the Petitioner 
described the proffered position and its business operations. However, the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently developed relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the proffered position. In 
other words, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the duties of the proffered position require the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge such that a bachelor's 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform them. 
For example, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary works in thd !division. The Petitioner 
characterized this division as "an independent organization" with an "experienced team" that 
"generates unbiased and value-added intelligence for [its] clients." The Petitioner further stated that 
the team is "located across eight financial centers." However, the record contains insufficient 
information regarding the Petitioner's business operations that would delineate its organization, and 
the Beneficiary's position within its overall organizational hierarchy. The Petitioner did not submit 
an organizational chart of the I I division demonstrating various teams and positions within it. 
Therefore, the extent of the Beneficiary's duties cannot be determined. The evidence does not show 
the operational structure within the Petitioner's business operations in a manner that would establish 
the Beneficiary's relative role therein. The Petitioner has not adequately evidenced the scope of the 
Beneficiary's responsibilities within the context of its business operations. 
Moreover, the record does not contain a sufficiently detailed description of the Beneficiary's duties to 
establish that the position 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, 
or its equivalent. For example, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's duties include "[s]ell[inq] 
directly to asset managers, broker dealers, and hedge funds, quoting prices and explaining! I 
products when necessary." However, the general description of the duties does not illuminate the 
substantive application of knowledge involved or any particular educational requirement associated 
with selling, quoting, and explaining the product. The Petitioner further stated that the Beneficiary 
"[c]onduct[s] online demos and in-person sales meetings in order to assess the needs of subscribers 
and potential subscribers" by "analyzing! I reports," but did not explain in detail 
what "analyzing" entails, the extent of the Beneficiary's role in developing the on line demos, and why 
these duties would require a bachelor's degree, or the equivalent, in a specific specialty. While the 
Petitioner submitted information aboutl I the documents provide little insight into how the 
Beneficiary utilizes the information contained in these documents. Nor do they reveal the extent of 
the Beneficiary's duties in relation to the information contained in them. 
We also question the proposed task, as stated in the Petitioner's initial support letter, to "create and 
manage large distribution lists of institutional investor-subscribers to ensure intelligence is being 
disseminated to a targeted audience of investors." In its RFE response, the Petitioner provided further 
details by stating the Beneficiary has 23 clients and that he "monitors each company's competitors, 
buyers, and suppliers, as well as relevant economic issues facing their respective industries and notifies 
clients of relevant I I content to ensure that each client is making full use of I I 
intelligence." However, the Petitioner did not establish how these duties, such as monitoring the 
competitors and notifying the clients, require an individual with a bachelor's or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. While the position may require that the Beneficiary possess some 
skills and knowledge in order to perform these duties, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how 
8 
these tasks require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, 
and the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty. 
We also note that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient information with regard to the order of 
importance or frequency of occurrence (e.g., regularly, periodically, or at irregular intervals) with which 
the Beneficiary will perform the generally described duties. That is, the Petitioner submitted no 
information to establish the percentage of time the Beneficiary will perform any of the duties described. 
Thus, the record does not specify which tasks are major functions of the proffered position. This further 
limits an analysis of the complexity, specialization, or uniqueness of the proffered position. 
Duties as described do not illuminate the substantive application of knowledge involved or any 
particular educational requirement associated with such duties. With the broadly described duties, the 
record lacks sufficient information to understand the nature of the actual proffered position and to 
determine that the duties require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly 
specialized knowledge attained by a bachelor's degree, or higher, in a specific discipline. 
The Petitioner discussed the Beneficiary's previous coursework for the purpose of correlating the need 
for the Beneficiary's education with the associated job duties of the position. While a few related 
courses and skills may be beneficial 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 Petitioner repeatedly claims that the Beneficiary is well qualified for the position and 
references his qualifications. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not 
the education or experience of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least 
a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. We are required to follow long-standing 
legal standards and determine first, whether the proffered position qualifies for classification as a 
specialty occupation, and second, whether the Beneficiary was qualified for the position at the time 
the nonimmigrant visa petition was filed. Cf. Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 l&N Dec. at 560 
("The facts of a beneficiary's background only come at issue after it is found that the position in which 
the petitioner intends to employ him falls within [a specialty occupation]."). 
The Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the 
position. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(i i i)(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. The Petitioner 
does not assert, nor does the record demonstrate, eligibility under this criterion. 
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 
9 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
For reasons we discussed under the second prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), we conclude that 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated in the record that its proffered position is one with duties sufficiently 
specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). We incorporate our earlier 
discussion and analysis on this matter. 
Consequently, the Petitioner has not satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
10