dismissed H-1B Case: Finance

MATTER OF 1-P-, LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 17,2015 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a financial holding company, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a financial planning 
analyst and to classify her as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) § 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The Director, 
Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. The appeal 
will be dismissed. 
I. PROCEDURALBACKGROUND 
The Director denied the petition determining that the record of evidence did not establish that the 
proffered position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. On appeal, the Petitioner 
asserts that the Director's basis for denial of the petition was erroneous and contends that it has 
satisfied all evidentiary requirements. 
The record of proceeding includes: (1) the Petitioner's Form I -129 and supporting documentation; 
(2) the service center's RFE; (3) the Petitioner's response to the RFE; ( 4) the notice of decision; and 
(5) the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, a brief, and additional documentation. We 
reviewed the record in its entirety before issuing our decision. 1 
Upon review of the entire record of proceeding, we find that the evidence of record does not overcome 
the Director's grounds for denying this petition. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed, and the 
petition will be denied. 
II. THE PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner identified the proffered position as a "Financial Planning Analyst" on the Form 1-129, 
and attested on the required Labor Condition Application (LCA) that the occupational classification 
for the position is "Financial Analysts," SOC (ONET/OES) Code 13-2051, at a Level I wage. 
1 We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). 
(b)(6)
Matter of 1-P-, LLC 
In an undated letter submitted in support of the petition, the Petitioner stated that it "is a Financial 
services company franchise from and that it has "offices in downtown 
and satellite offices in AR and TX with three fully licensed people (2 
advisors, 1 consultant) and four un-licensed staff working for [its] clients." The Petitioner stated: 
The Financial Planning Analyst position offered to [the Beneficiary] requires to [sic] prepare 
preliminary financial planning recommendations and initial product solutions for advisor 
review and use in client meetings, interpret data on price, yield, stability, future 
investment-risk trends, economic influences, and other factors affecting investment 
programs, prepare plans of action for investment, draw charts and graphs, using computer 
spreadsheets , to illustrate technical reports; inform investment decisions by analyzing 
financial information to forecast business, industry, or economic conditions using 
professional tools like Thomson ONE, NaviPlan , MorningStar to generate financial proposal, 
develop portfolio/robust product solution recommendations that will fit the client's risk 
tolerance and time frame as well as develop appropriate product deliverables , maintain client 
contact during the financial planning process, answer questions and provide readily available 
information to clients, if requested and as allowable , as it relates to servicing their accounts, 
review and update client information as needed for client review meetings, attend and 
participate in client meetings if necessary, manage and resolve client service problems, 
perform other allowable duties as assigned by the financial advisor(s). 
III. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
A. Legal Framework 
To meet its burden of proof, the Petitioner must establish that the employment it is offering to the 
Beneficiary meets the following statutory and regulatory requirements. 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge , and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor 's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) states, in pertinent part, the following: 
Specialty occupation means an occupation which [(1)] requires theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in fields of human 
endeavor including, but not limited to, architecture , engineering, mathematics , 
physical sciences, social sciences, medicine and health, education, business 
2 
Matter of 1-P-, LLC 
specialties, accounting, law, theology, and the arts, and which [(2)] requires the 
attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as 
a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)( A), to qualifY as a specialty occupation, a proposed position must 
meet one of the following criteria: 
(I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
(4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
As a threshold issue, it is noted that 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must logically be read together 
with section 214(i)(1) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). In other words, this regulatory 
language must be construed in harmony with the thrust of the related provisions and with the statute 
as a whole. SeeK Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) (holding that construction 
of language which takes into account the design of the statute as a whole is preferred); see also COlT 
Independence Joint Venture v. Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989); Matter of 
W-F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). As such, the criteria stated in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) 
should logically be read as being necessary but not necessarily sufficient to meet the statutory and 
regulatory definition of specialty occupation. To otherwise interpret this section as stating the 
necessary and sufficient conditions for meeting the definition of specialty occupation would result in 
particular positions meeting a condition under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory or 
regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). To avoid this 
result, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must therefore be read as providing supplemental criteria that 
must be met in accordance with, and not as alternatives to, the statutory and regulatory definitions of 
specialty occupation. 
As such and consonant with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) consistently interprets the 
term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered position. See 
Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in 
a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular 
3 
Matter of 1-P-, LLC 
position"). Applying this standard, USCIS regularly approves H -1 B petitions for qualified aliens 
who are to be employed as engineers, computer scientists, certified public accountants, college 
professors, and other such occupations. These professions, for which Petitioners have regularly been 
able to establish a minimum entry requirement in the United States of a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
particular position, fairly represent the types of specialty occupations that Congress contemplated 
when it created the H-1B visa category. 
To determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCIS does not simply 
rely on a position's title. The specific duties of the proffered position, combined with the nature of 
the petitioning entity's business operations, are factors to be considered. users must examine the 
ultimate employment of the alien, and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. The critical element is not the title 
of the position nor an employer's self-imposed standards, but whether the position actually requires 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty as the minimum for entry into 
the occupation, as required by the Act. 
B. Analysis 
A baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is 
normally the minimum requirement.for entry into the particular position 
We will first address the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). This criterion 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. We recognize the Department of Labor's 
Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and educational 
requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses.2 The Petitioner asserts on the Form 
I -129 that the proffered position is a financial planning analyst and attests on the LCA that the 
proffered position corresponds to SOC code and title 13-2051, Financial Analysts. 
We reviewed the section of the Handbook regarding the occupational categqry "Financial Analysts," 
including the section entitled "How to Become a Financial Analyst," which describes the following 
preparation for the occupation, in pertinent part: 
Financial analysts typically must have a bachelor's degree, but a master's degree is often 
required for advanced positions. 
2 All of the references are to the 2014-2015 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
http://www.b1s.gov/OCO/. The excerpts of the Handbook regarding the duties and requirements of the referenced 
occupational category are hereby incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
4 
Matter of 1-P-, LLC 
Education 
Most positions require a bachelor's degree. A number of fields of study provide appropriate 
preparation, including accounting, economics, finance, statistics, mathematics, and 
engineering. For· advanced positions, employers often require a master's in business 
administration (MBA) or a master's degree in finance. Knowledge of options pricing, bond 
valuation, and risk management are important. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., 
"Financial Analysts," http://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financiallfinancial-analysts.htm#tab-4 
(last visited Sept. 16, 2015). 
When reviewing the Handbook, we must note that the Petitioner designated the wage level of the 
proffered position as a Level I position on the LCA. 3 This designation is indicative of a 
comparatively low, entry-level position relative to others within the occupation and signifies that the 
Beneficiary is only expected to possess a basic understanding of the occupation and carries 
expectations that the Beneficiary perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of 
judgment; that she \vould be closely supervised; that her work would be closely monitored and 
reviewed for accuracy; and that she would receive specific instructions on required tasks and 
expected results.4 See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage 
Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http:/ /www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _11_2009.pdf. 
Furthermore, DOL guidance indicates that a Level I designation is appropriate for a position as a 
research fellow, a worker in training, or an intern. 
The Handbook reports that a number of fields of study provide appropriate preparation for a 
financial analyst position. Since there must be a close correlation between the required "body of 
3 Wage levels should be determined only after selecting the most relevant O*NET code classification. Then, a prevailing 
wage determination is made by selecting one of four wage levels for an occupation based on a comparison of the 
employer's job requirements to the occupational requirements, including tasks, knowledge, skills, and specific vocational 
preparation (education, training and experience) generally required for acceptable performance in that occupation. 
Prevailing wage determinations start with a Level I (entry) and progress to a wage that is commensurate with that of a 
Level II (qualified), Level III (experienced), or Level IV (fully competent) after considering the job requirements, 
experience, education, special skills/other requirements and supervisory duties. Factors to be considered when 
determining the prevailing wage level for a position include the complexity of the job duties, the level of judgment, the 
amount and level of supervision, and the level of understanding required to perform the job duties. DOL emphasizes that 
these guidelines should not be implemented in a mechanical fashion and that the wage level should be commensurate 
with the complexity of the tasks, independent judgment required, and amount of close supervision received. 
4 
The Petitioner confirmed in response to the RFE, that "[m]any of the tasks [the Beneficiary] is currently completing are 
at the introductory level and all her work is still carefully monitored and reviewed." Although the Petitioner also noted 
that "it expects the complexity of [the Beneficiary's] assignments to increase and the need for constant scrutiny to 
decrease" over the next few months, the Petitioner did not submit an LCA congruent with these expectations. 
5 
Matter of 1-P-, LLC 
highly specialized knowledge" and the pos1t10n, a mm1mum entry requirement of a degree in 
disparate fields, such as accounting and engineering, would not meet the statutory requirement that 
the degree be "in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)," unless the Petitioner establishes how each 
field is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position such that the 
required "body of highly specialized knowledge" is essentially an amalgamation of these different 
specialties. Section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act (emphasis added). Here, the Handbook's recognition of 
a variety of fields of study as an appropriate background for a financial analyst position suggests that 
a bachelor's degree in a spec[fic specialty is not a standard, minimum entry requirement for this 
occupation. 
The evidence of record does not establish that the proffered position falls under an occupational 
category for which the Handbook (or other objective, authoritative source) indicates that at least a 
bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the occupation. Furthermore, the duties and requirements of the position 
as described in the record of proceeding do not indicate that this particular position proffered by the 
Petitioner is one for which a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, 
is normally the minimum requirement for entry. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 
8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)( 1). 
The requirement of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel 
positions among similar organizations 
Next, we will review the record of proceeding regarding the first of the two alternative prongs of 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). This prong alternatively calls for a Petitioner to establish that a 
requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common for 
positions that are identifiable as being (1) in the Petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered 
position, and also (3) located in organizations that are similar to the Petitioner. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by 
USCIS include: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the 
industry's professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether 
letters or affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms "routinely employ 
and recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d at 1165 
(D.Minn. 1999) (quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
Here and as already discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for 
which the Handbook, or other authoritative source, reports a standard, industry-wide requirement of 
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 in a specific specialty a minimum entry 
requirement. 
Matter of 1-P-, LLC 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted several advertisements to demonstrate "the expected 
minimum criteria of a bachelor degree in a financial services field" for closely related positions. As 
a preliminary matter, we note that the Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how 
representative these job advertisements are of the particular advertising employers' recruiting history 
for the type of jobs advertised. Further, as they are only solicitations for hire, they are not evidence 
of the employers' actual hiring practices. 
Additionally, we note that for the Petitioner to establish that an organization is similar, it must 
demonstrate that the Petitioner and the organization share the same general characteristics (for 
example, the nature or type of organization, the particular scope of operations, and the level of 
revenue and staffing). Without such information, evidence submitted by a Petitioner is generally 
outside the scope of consideration for this criterion, which encompasses only organizations that are 
similar to the Petitioner. 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. Here, the record 
does not include evidence of what characteristics the Petitioner believes it shares with the advertising 
0 0 5 
orgamzatwns. 
Further, three of the four submitted advertisements do not specifY that the required degree be in a 
specific specialty. As set out above, USCIS consistently interprets the term "degree" in the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a 
specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 
484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in a specific specialty" as "one 
that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular position"). These three 
advertisements confirm that a general bachelor's degree is acceptable for entry into the occupation. 
Finally, the Petitioner has not demonstrated what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn 
from these advertisements with regard to determining the common educational requirements for 
5 The Petitioner designated its business operations under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 
code 523930. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, NAICS is used to classify business establishments according to 
type of economic activity and each establishment is classified to an industry according to the primary business activity 
taking place there. See http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/ (last visited Sept. 16, 20 15). The NAICS code specified 
by the Petitioner is designated for "Investment Advice," and is defined by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Census 
Bureau as follows: 
This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing customized 
investment advice to clients on a fee basis, but do not have the authority to execute trades. Primary 
activities performed by establishments in this industry are providing financial planning advice and 
investment counseling to meet the goals and needs of specific clients. 
U.S. Dep't of Commerce, U.S Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definition, 523930 - Investment Advice, 
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch (last visited Sept. 16, 20 15). 
The job postings submitted do not include sufficient information relating to the advertisers business or industry to 
conclude that they are similar to the Petitioner or in the same industry. 
Matter of 1-P-, LLC 
entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. 6 
Upon review, the record of proceeding does not establish that a requirement for at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is (1) common to the Petitioner's industry (2) in 
parallel positions (3) among organizations similar to the Petitioner. Thus, for the reasons discussed 
above, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)(2). 
The particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by 
an individual with a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
spec(fic specialty, or its equivalent 
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 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 Petitioner asserts on appeal that a "[f]inancial planning analyst requires in-depth 
knowledge and skills of accounting, business finance, investment, portfolio theory, risk analysis, 
financial analysis and reporting" and that "[ s ]uch knowledge and skills are typically only available 
with at least a Bachelor's Degree in Finance, Accounting, Business or equivalent degree or 
experiences." The Petitioner submits a draft financial plan and a portfolio illustration prepared by its 
president, and a general recommendation list and analysis of timely risk assessment categories 
prepared by unnamed individuals in support of the assertion that complexity is an essential part of 
the proffered position. The Petitioner also submits excerpts of its franchisor's website. 
We recognize that the individual in the proffered position must be able to understand the documents 
submitted as well as other financial documents to assist the financial advisor( s) in performing their 
duties. However, the evidence of record does not demonstrate that the duties the Beneficiary will be 
responsible for or perform on a day-to-day basis constitute a position so complex or unique that it 
can only be performed by a person with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
While a few related courses may be beneficial, or even required, in performing certain duties of the 
proffered position, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how an established curriculum of such 
courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is 
required to perform the duties of the particular position here. 
6 See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 ( 1995). Moreover, given that there is no 
indication that the advertisements were randomly selected, the validity of any such inferences could not be accurately 
determined even if the sampling unit were sufficiently large. See id. at 195-196 (explaining that "[r]andom selection is 
the key to [the] process [of probability sampling]" and that "random selection offers access to the body of probability 
theory, which provides the basis for estimates of population parameters and estimates of error"). 
Matter of 1-P-, LLC 
Further, as was also noted above, the LCA submitted in support of the visa petition is approved for a 
wage Level I employee, an indication that the proffered position is an entry-level position for an 
employee who has only a basic understanding of the occupation. 7 This does not support the 
proposition that the proffered position is so complex or unique relative to other positions in the same 
occupation that it can only be performed by a person with a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty. 8 
The petitioner claims that the beneficiary's background will assist her in carrying out the duties of 
the proffered position. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the 
skill set or education of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge obtained by at least 
baccalaureate-level knowledge in a specialized area (or its equivalent). The petitioner does not 
sufficiently explain or clarify which of the duties, if any, of the proffered position would be so 
complex or unique as to be distinguishable from those of similar but non-degreed or non-specialty 
degreed employment. Upon review of the record of proceeding, we find that the petitioner has not 
establish the proffered position as satisfying the second prong of the criterion at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The employer normally requires a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specffic specialty, or its equivalent, for the position 
The third criterion of 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it 
normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. To 
this end, USCIS reviews the Petitioner's past recruiting and hiring practices, information regarding 
employees who previously held the position, as well as any other documentation submitted by a 
Petitioner in support of this criterion of the regulations. The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary is 
the first person it has hired for the proffered position. 
To merit approval of the petition under this criterion, the record must establish that a Petitioner's 
imposition of a degree requirement is not merely a matter of preference for high-caliber candidates 
but is necessitated by performance requirements of the position. A Petitioner's perfunctory 
7 See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. 
Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://www. foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/ 
NPWHC Guidance Revised 11 2009.pdf. 
8 Here, the Petitioner's desig~ation of this position as a Levell, (entry) position undermines any claim that the position is 
particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation. Nevertheless, it is 
important to note that a Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty 
occupation. In certain occupations (doctors or lawyers, for example), an entry-level 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-designation would not reflect that an occupation qualifies as a specialty occupation if that higher-level position 
does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. That is, a 
position's wage level designation may be a consideration but is not a substitute for a determination of whether a 
proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 
9 
Matter of 1-P-, LLC 
declaration of a particular educational requirement will not mask the fact that the position is not a 
specialty occupation. Again, USCIS must examine the actual employment requirements, and, on the 
basis of that examination, determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. See 
generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. In this pursuit, the critical element is not the title of 
the position, or the fact that an employer has routinely insisted on certain educational standards, but 
whether performance of the position actually requires the theoretical and practical application of a 
body of highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the 
specific specialty as the minimum for entry into the occupation as required by the Act. According to 
the Court in Defensor, "To interpret the regulations any other way would lead to an absurd result." 
!d. at 388. If USCIS were constrained to recognize a specialty occupation merely because the 
Petitioner has an established practice of demanding certain educational requirements for the 
proffered position - and without consideration of how a Beneficiary is to be specifically employed -
then any alien with a bachelor's degree in specific specialty could be brought into the United States 
to perform non-specialty occupations, so long as the employer required all such employees to have 
baccalaureate or higher degrees. See id. 
Here, the record does not establish that the Petitioner normally requires at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the proffered position. Therefore, the petitioner has not 
satisfied 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
The nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent 
Finally, we will address the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4), which is satisfied if the 
Petitioner establishes that the nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that 
knowledge required to perform them is usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or 
higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
In the instant case, relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by 
the Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. We again refer to our earlier comments and 
findings with regard to the implication of the Petitioner's designation of the proffered position in the 
LCA as a Level I (the lowest of four assignable levels) wage. That is, the Level I wage designation 
is indicative of a low, entry-level position relative to others within the occupational category, and 
hence one not likely distinguishable by relatively specialized and complex duties. Upon review of 
the totality of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the nature of the 
specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform the duties is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. For the reasons discussed above, the evidence of record does not satisfy the fourth 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
10 
Matter of 1-P-, LLC 
The evidence of record does not satisfy any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) and, 
therefore, it cannot be found that the proffered position qualifies for classification as a specialty 
occupation. The appeal will be dismissed and the petition denied for this reason. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofl-P-, LLC, ID# 13704 (AAO Sept. 17, 2015) 
I I