dismissed H-1B Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF K -C- LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 29,2016 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FORA NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a coffee manufacturing business with eight employees, seeks to employ the Beneficiary 
as a "Budget Analyst" under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) § 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The Director, 
Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. The appeal 
will be dismissed. 
I. ISSUE 
The issue before us is whether the proffered pos1t10n qualifies as a specialty occupation m 
accordance with the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. 1 
II. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
A. Legal Framework 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) states, in pertinent part, the following: 
1 We reviewed the record in its entirety before issuing our decision. We conduct appellate review on a de novo 
basis. Matter ofSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542 (AAO 2015); see also 5 U.S.C. § 557(b) ("On appeal from or 
review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have in making the initial decision except as 
it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); Dar v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n.9 (2d Cir. 1989). We follow the 
preponderance ofthe evidence standard as specified in Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). 
Matter of K-C- LLC 
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 
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: 
(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. 
As a threshold issue, it is noted that 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A) must logically be read together 
with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). In other words; this regulatory 
language must be construed in harmony with the thrust of the related provisions and with the statute 
as a whole. SeeK Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) (holding that construction 
oflanguage which takes into account the design of the statute as a whole is preferred); see also COlT 
Independence Joint Venture v. Fed Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989); Matter ofW-F-, 
21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). As such, the criteria stated in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) should 
logically be read as being necessary but not necessarily sufficient to meet the statutory and 
regulatory definition of specialty occupation. To otherwise interpret this section as stating the 
necessary and sufficient conditions for meeting the definition of specialty occupation would result in 
particular positions meeting a condition under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory or 
regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). To avoid this 
result, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must therefore be read as providing supplemental criteria that 
must be met in accordance with, and not as alternatives to, the statutory and regulatory definitions of 
specialty occupation. 
As such and consonant with section 214(i)(1) 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 
2 
Matter of K-C- LLC 
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"). Applying this standard, USC IS regularly approves H -1 B petitions for qualified 
individuals who are to be employed as engineers, computer scientists, certified public accountants, 
college professors, and other such occupations. These professions, for which petitioners have 
regularly been able to establish a minimum entry requirement in the United States of a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent directly related to the duties and 
responsibilities of the particular position, fairly represent the types of specialty occupations that 
Congress contemplated when it created the H-lB 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. USCIS must examine the 
ultimate employment of the individual, and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. The critical element is not the title 
of the position or an employer's self-imposed standards, but whether the position actually requires 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty as the minimum for entry into 
the occupation, as required by the Act. 
B. The Proffered Position 
The Petitioner claims in the labor condition application (LCA) submitted to support the visa petition 
that the proffered position corresponds to Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code and title 
13-2031, Budget Analysts, from the Occupational Information Network (O*NET). The LCA further 
states that the proffered position is a wage Level I, entry-level, position. 
In a letter dated March 25, 2014, the Petitioner stated the following as the duties of the proffered 
position (verbatim): 
Prepare and Analyze standard and special budgeting reports; 
Examine budget estimates for accuracy and conformance with company regulations 
and procedures; 
Perform Cos-Benefits analyses to compare financial statistics, methods and make 
recommendations to management; 
Develop lean financial plans and forecasts to be strictly adhered to; 
Interpret budget objectives and establish practices for carrying out those objectives. 
As to the educational requirement of the proffered position, the Petitioner stated: "Education: A 
minimum of a Bachelor's degree in finance or related business field." 
3 
Matter of K-C- LLC 
C. 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 discuss the record of proceedings in relation to the criterion at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which requires that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position. 
We recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook), cited 
by the Petitioner, as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of the wide 
variety of occupations that it addresses. 2 The Handbook states the following about the educational 
requirements of budget analyst positions: 
Employers generally require budget analysts to have at least a bachelor's degree. 
However, some employers may require candidates to have a master's degree. Because 
developing a budget requires strong numerical and analytical skills, courses in 
statistics or accounting are helpful. Federal, state, and local governments have 
varying requirements, but usually require a bachelor's degree in one of many areas, 
such as accounting, finance, business, public administration, economics, statistics, 
political science, or sociology. 
Sometimes, budget-related or finance-related work experience can be substituted for 
formal education. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., 
"Budget Analysts," http://www. bls.gov /oohlbusiness-and- financial/budget -analysts.htm#tab-4 (last 
visited Jan. 26, 2016). 
The Handbook does not indicate that budget analyst positions require a minimum of a bachelor's 
degree or the equivalent in a specific specialty. Rather, it indicates that a degree in any one of a 
number of very diverse fields may suffice for government positions, and does not list a specific 
specialty, or even any range of subjects, in which other budget analyst positions require a bachelor's 
degree. It states that courses in statistics or accounting are helpful, but suggests that they are taken 
for the purpose of becoming comfortable with numbers and analysis, rather than for the substance of 
such subjects. The Handbook does not support the assertion that budget analyst positions are 
specialty occupation positions. 
Further, when reviewing the Handbook, it also must be noted that the Petitioner designated the 
proffered position as a Level I (entry level) position on the LCA. The wage levels are defined in 
2 The Handbook, which is available in printed form, may also be accessed on the Internet, at http://www.bls.gov/oco/. 
Our references to the Handbook are to the 2016-2017 edition available online. 
4 
Matter of K-C- LLC 
DOL's "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance." A Level I wage rate is described as 
follows: 
Level I (entry) wage rates are assigned to job offers for beginning level employees 
who have only a basic understanding of the occupation. These employees perform 
routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment. The tasks provide 
experience and familiarization with the employer's methods, practices, and programs. 
The employees may perform higher level work for training and developmental 
purposes. These employees work under close supervision and receive specific 
instructions on required tasks and results expected. Their work is closely monitored 
and reviewed for accuracy. Statements that the job offer is for a research fellow, a 
worker in training, or an internship are indicators that a Level I wage should be 
considered. 
See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy 
Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http:/ /www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _11_ 2009 .pdf. 
Thus, in designating the proffered position at a Level I wage, the Petitioner has indicated that the 
proffered position is a comparatively low, entry-level position relative to others within the 
occupation. That is, in accordance with the relevant DOL explanatory information on wage levels, 
this wage rate indicates that the Beneficiary is only required to have a basic understanding of the 
occupation and carries expectations that the Beneficiary perform routine tasks that require limited, if 
any, exercise of judgment; that she would 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. As noted above, according to DOL guidance, a statement that the job 
offer is for a research fellow, worker in training or an internship is indicative that a Level I wage 
should be considered. 
When the Handbook does not support the proposition that a proffered position is one that meets the 
statutory and regulatory provisions of a specialty occupation, it is incumbent upon the Petitioner to 
provide persuasive evidence that the proffered position more likely than not satisfies this or one of 
the other three criteria, notwithstanding the absence of the Handbook's support on the issue. In such 
cases, it is the Petitioner's responsibility to provide probative evidence (e.g., documentation from 
other objective, authoritative sources) that supports a finding that the particular position in question 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. Whenever more than one authoritative source exists, an 
adjudicator will consider and weigh all of the evidence presented to determine whether the particular 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
To satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner also cited the O*NET discussion of budget analyst positions. 
O*NET, however, does not state a requirement of a bachelor's degree for budget analyst positions. 
Rather, it assigns budget analysts a Job Zone "Four" rating, which groups them among occupations 
of which "most," but not all, "require a four-year bachelor's degree." Further, the O*NET does not 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of K-C- LLC 
indicate that four-year bachelor's degrees required by most Job Zone Four occupations must be in a 
specific specialty closely related to the requirements of that occupation. Therefore, the O*NET 
information, like the information from the Handbook, is not probative of the proffered position's 
being a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner submitted two evaluations of the proffered position. One of those evaluations was 
prepared by Professor the Director of the Graduate Program in the MS Design 
Management Online, School of Design Strategies at and an 
adjunct assistant professor at the . The 
evaluation states that the proffered position requires "advanced trammg through a Bachelor's 
program in Business Administration, Finance, or a closely related field." A degree with a 
generalized title, such as business administration, without further specification, is not a degree in a 
specific specialty. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558 (Comm'r 1988) supra. As 
such, an educational requirement that may be satisfied by an otherwise undifferentiated bachelor's 
degree in business administration is not a requirement of a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty or its equivalent.3 Professor evaluation indicates that the proffered position 
does not require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent and does 
not, therefore, qualify for treatment as a specialty occupation. 
The other evaluation, prepared by an associate professor of finance at 
states that the duties of the proffered position require "at least a Bachelor's Degree in 
Business Administration with a Finance concentration." The Petitioner provided Professor 
resume which lists his educational credentials, professional experience, and publications. Based 
upon a complete examination, we find that the Petitioner has not provided sufficient information 
regarding the basis of Professor expertise on this particular issue. While the documentation 
contains information about his credentials, the Petitioner has not established his expertise pertinent 
to the hiring practices of organizations seeking to fill positions similar to the proffered position in the 
instant case. Without further clarification, it is unclear how Professor education, training, 
skills or experience would translate to any particular knowledge of the current recruiting and hiring 
practices of Grocery and Related Product Merchant Wholesalers (as designated by the Petitioner 
with the NAICS code 424490) or similar organizations for budget analyst positions. 
Also, it appears that Professor based his opinion on a list of duties he attributes to budget 
analysts in general. That list is almost identical to the list provided by the Petitioner. There is no 
indication that Professor possesses any knowledge of the Petitioner's proffered position beyond 
this brief description. He does not discuss the duties of the proffered position in any substantive 
3 A general degree requirement does not necessarily preclude a proffered position from qualifying as a specialty 
occupation. For example, an entry requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in business administration with a 
concentration in a specific field, or a bachelor's or higher degree in business administration combined with relevant 
education, training, and/or experience may, in certain instances, qualify the proffered position as a specialty occupation. 
In either case, it must be demonstrated that the entry requirement is equivalent to a bachelor's or higher degree in a 
specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertojf, 484 F.3d at 147. 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of K-C- LLC 
detail. Further, he did not provide a detailed description of the Petitioner's business or otherwise 
demonstrate or assert in-depth knowledge of the specific business operations or how the duties of the 
position would actually be performed in the context of the Petitioner's business enterprise. For 
instance, there is no evidence that Professor visited the Petitioner's business, observed the 
Petitioner's employees, interviewed them about the nature of their work, or documented the 
knowledge that they apply on the job. 
Professor asserts a general educational standard for budget analyst pos1t1ons without 
referencing any supporting authority or any empirical basis for the pronouncement. Likewise, he 
does not provide a substantive, analytical basis for his opinion and ultimate conclusion. He does not 
relate his conclusion to specific, concrete aspects of the Petitioner's business operations to 
demonstrate a sound factual basis for the conclusion about the educational requirements for the 
particular position here at issue. Accordingly, the very fact that he attributes a degree requirement to 
such a generalized treatment of the proffered position undermines the credibility of his opinion. 
Furthermore, there is no indication that the Petitioner advised Professor that the Petitioner 
characterized the proffered position as an entry-level budget analyst position, for an employee who 
has only a basic understanding of the occupation (as indicated by the wage-level on the LCA) 
relative to other positions within the occupational category. It appears that Professor would 
have 
found this information relevant for his opinion letter. Moreover, without this information, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that Professor possessed the requisite information necessary to 
adequately· assess the nature of the Petitioner's position and appropriately determine parallel 
positions based upon job duties and responsibilities. 
In summary, and for all of the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the opinion letter rendered 
by Professor does not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The conclusions reached by Professor lack the requisite specificity and detail and are not 
supported by independent, objective evidence demonstrating the manner in which he reached such 
conclusions. There is an inadequate factual foundation established to support the opinion and we 
find that the opinion is not in accord with other information in the record. We may, in our 
discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory, Matter of Caron Int'l, 
Inc., 19 I&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. !d. As a reasonable exercise of our discretion we discount Professor advisory 
opinion as not probative of any criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). For efficiency's sake, we 
hereby incorporate the above discussion and analysis regarding the opinion letter into each of the 
bases in this decision for dismissing the appeal. 
Further, the record of proceedings does not contain sufficient persuasive documentary evidence from 
any other relevant authoritative source establishing that the proffered position's inclusion within the 
budget analyst occupational category establishes the proffered position as, in the words of this 
criterion, a "particular position" for which "[a] baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is 
normally the minimum requirement for entry." 
7 
- -- -----~----------
Matter of K-C- LLC 
The evidence submitted does not support the claim that the occupational category of budget analysts 
is one for which normally the minimum requirement for entry is a baccalaureate degree (or higher) 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The duties and requirements of the position as described in 
the record of proceedings do not indicate that this particular position proffered by the Petitioner is 
one for which a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally 
the minimum requirement for entry. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
The requirement of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel 
positions among similar organizations 
Next, we will review the record regarding the first of the two alternative prongs of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). This prong alternatively calls for a petitioner to establish that a requirement 
of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common for positions 
that are: (1) in the petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered position, and also (3) located in 
organizations that are similar to the petitioner. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by 
USCIS include: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the 
industry's professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether 
letters or affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms "routinely employ 
and recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 
1999) (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 independent, authoritative source) reports an industry-wide 
requirement for at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. Thus, we 
incorporate by reference the previous discussion on the matter. Also, there are no submissions from 
the industry's professional association indicating that it has made a degree a minimum entry 
requirement. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not submit any letters or affidavits from similar firms 
or individuals in the Petitioner's industry attesting that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only 
de greed individuals." 
Thus, the evidence of record does not establish that a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to parallel positions with organizations that are in 
the Petitioner's industry and otherwise similar to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has not, therefore, 
satisfied the criterion ofthe first alternative prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
Matter of K-C- LLC 
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 
The evidence of record also does not satisfy the second alternative prong of 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which provides that "an employer may show that its particular position is so 
complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree." A review of the 
record of proceedings indicates that the Petitioner has not credibly demonstrated that the duties the 
Beneficiary will be responsible for or perform on a day-to-day basis constitute a position so complex 
or unique that it can only be performed by a person with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. Even when considering the Petitioner's general descriptions of the 
proffered position's duties, the evidence of record does not establish why a few related courses or 
industry experience alone is insufficient preparation for the proffered position. While a few related 
courses may be beneficial, or even required, in performing certain duties of the position, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated how an established curriculum of such courses leading to a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the 
duties of the proffered position. The description of the duties does not specifically identify any tasks 
that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. The 
record lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish the proffered position as more complex 
or unique from other positions that can be performed by persons without at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
This is further evidenced by the LCA submitted by the Petitioner in support of the instant 
petition. As noted above, the Petitioner attested on the submitted LCA that the wage level for the 
proffered position is a Level I (entry-level) wage. Such a wage level is for a position which only 
requires a basic understanding of the occupation; the performance of routine tasks that require 
limited, if any, exercise of judgment; close supervision and work closely monitored and reviewed for 
accuracy; and the receipt of specific instructions on required tasks and expected results, is contrary 
to a position that requires the performance of complex duties.4 It is, instead, a position for an 
employee who has only basic understanding of the occupation. In order to attempt to show that 
parallel positions require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent, 
the Petitioner would be obliged to demonstrate that other wage Level I budget analyst positions, 
entry-level positions requiring only a basic understanding of budget analysis, require a minimum of 
4 The issue here is that the Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position undermines its 
claim that the position is particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same 
occupation. Nevertheless, it is important to note that a Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position 
frorri 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) ofthe Act. · 
9 
Matter of K-C- LLC 
a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent, the proposition of which is not supported 
by the Handbook. 
The evidence of record does not demonstrate that the duties that collectively constitute the proffered 
position require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge 
such that a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to 
perform them. For instance, the Petitioner did not submit information relevant to a detailed course 
of study leading to a specialty degree and did not establish how such a curriculum is necessary to 
perform the duties of the proffered position. While a few related courses may be beneficial, or even 
required, in performing certain duties of the proffered position, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
how an established curriculum of such courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the duties of the particular position here. 
Therefore, the evidence of record does not establish that this position is significantly different from 
other positions in the occupation such that it refutes the Handbook's information to the effect that 
there is a spectrum of degrees acceptable for such positions, including degrees not in a specific 
specialty. In other words, the record lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish the 
proffered position as unique from or more complex than positions that can be performed by persons 
without at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. As the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate how the proffered position is so complex or unique relative to other positions within the 
same occupational category that do not require at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty 
or its equivalent for entry into the occupation in the United States, it cannot be concluded that the 
Petitioner has satisfied the second alternative prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The employer normally requires a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position 
The third criterion of 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)( A) entails an employer demonstrating that it 
normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. To 
this end, we usually review a petitioner's past recruiting and hiring practices, as well as information 
regarding employees who previously held the position. 
The Petitioner has not expressly asserted eligibility nor submitted evidence under this criterion. 
Whether the Petitioner has ever hired anyone in this position is unclear. While a first-time hiring for 
a position is certainly not a basis for precluding a position from recognition as a specialty 
occupation, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3) requires a demonstration that a petitioner normally 
requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for.the position. How an 
employer would be able to satisfy the criterion at without providing evidence pertinent to people it 
has previously hired to fill the position is unclear. We cannot conclude that the Petitioner has 
satisfied the third criterion of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 5 
5 While a petitioner may believe or otherwise assert that a proffered position requires a degree in a specific specialty, 
that opinion alone without corroborating evidence cannot establish the position as a specialty occupation. Were USCIS 
10 
Matter of K-C- LLC 
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 
We now address the alternative criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4), which is satisfied ifthe 
evidence of record establishes that the nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that 
knowledge required to perform them is usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or 
higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. In the instant case, relative specialization and 
complexity have not been sufficiently developed by the Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered 
position. We again refer to our earlier comments and findings with regard to the implication of the 
Petitioner's designation of the proffered position in the LCA as a Level I (the lowest of four 
assignable levels) wage. That is, the Level I wage designation is indicative of a low, entry-level 
position relative to others within the occupational category, and hence one not likely distinguishable 
by relatively specialized and complex duties. Upon review of the totality of the record, the 
Petitioner has not established that the nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that 
the knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. For the reasons discussed 
above, the evidence of record does not satisfy the fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
As a final matter, we note that the Petitioner cites to several district court cases such as Residential 
Finance Corp. v. USCIS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012) and Raj and Company v. USCIS, 85 
F. Supp. 3d 1241 (W.D. Wash. 2015). In Raj, the court stated that a specialty occupation requires 
the attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The court 
confirmed that this issue is well-settled in case law and with USCIS's reasonable interpretation of 
the regulatory framework. In the decision, the court noted that "permitting an occupation to qualify 
simply by requiring a generalized bachelor degree would run contrary to congressional intent to 
provide a visa program for specialized, as opposed to merely educated, workers." The court stated 
that the regulatory provisions do not restrict qualifying occupations to those for which there exists a 
single, specifically tailored and titled degree program; but rather, the statute and regulations contain 
an equivalency provision. We agree with the court that a specialty occupation is one that requires 
the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. We further 
note that a petitioner must also demonstrate that the position requires the theoretical and practical 
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in accordance with section 214(i)(1 )(B) of the 
limited solely to reviewing a petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, then any individual with a bachelor's 
degree could be brought to the United States to perform any occupation as long as the employer artificially created a 
token degree requirement, whereby all individuals employed in a particular position possessed a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in the specific specialty or its equivalent. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d at 387. In other words, if a 
petitioner's degree requirement is only symbolic and the proffered position does not in fact require such a specialty 
degree or its equivalent to perform its duties, the occupation would not meet the statutory or regulatory definition of a 
specialty occupation. See section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty 
occupation"). 
II 
Matter of K-C- LLC 
Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii), and satisfy one of the four criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A). 
The Petitioner also cites to Residential Finance Corp. v. USCIS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 
2012), for the proposition that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is what is 
important. Diplomas rarely come bearing occupation-specific majors. What is required is an 
occupation that requires highly specialized knowledge and a prospective employee who has attained 
the credentialing indicating possession of that knowledge." 
We agree with the aforementioned proposition that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is 
what is important." In general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry and 
biochemistry, a minimum of a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty is recognized 
as satisfying the "degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)" requirement of section 
214(i)(l )(B) of the Act. In such a case, the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" would 
essentially be the same. Since there must be a close correlation between the required "body of 
highly specialized knowledge" and the position, however, a minimum entry requirement of a degree 
in two disparate fields, such as philosophy and engineering, would not meet the statutory 
requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)," unless the Petitioner 
establishes how each field is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular 
position such that the required body of highly specialized knowledge is essentially an amalgamation 
of these different specialties. Section 214(i)(1 )(B) of the Act (emphasis added). For the 
aforementioned reasons, however, the Petitioner has not met its burden to establish that the particular 
position offered in this matter requires a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, directly related to its duties in order to perform those tasks. 
In any event, the Petitioner has furnished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition 
are analogous to those in Raj or Residential Finance. 6 We also note that, in contrast to the broad 
precedential authority of the case law of a United States circuit court, we are not bound to follow the 
published decision of a United States district court in matters arising even within the same 
district. See Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715, 719-20 (BIA 1993). Although the reasoning 
underlying a district judge's decision will be given due consideration when it is properly before us, 
the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of law. !d. 
The Petitioner has not satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) and, therefore, it 
cannot be found that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The appeal will be 
dismissed and the petition denied for this reason. 
6 It is noted that the district judge's decision in Residential Finance appears to have been based largely on the many 
factual errors made by the Director in the decision denying the petition. We further note that the Director's decision was 
not appealed to us. Based on the district court's findings and description of the record, if that matter had first been 
appealed through the available administrative process, we may very well have remanded the matter to the service center 
for a new decision for many of the same reasons articulated by the district court if these errors could not have been 
remedied by us in our de novo review of the matter. 
12 
Matter of K-C- LLC 
III. CONCLUSION 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013) (citing Matter of Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493, 495 (BIA 1966)). Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofK-C- LLC, ID# 15573 (AAO Jan. 29, 2016) 
13