dismissed H-1B Case: Fundraising

pul3uc COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: WAC 04 259 5 18 17 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN 0 5 2006 
IN RE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section lOl(a)(l S)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 04 259 51817 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and the matter is now before 
the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. The petition will be denied. 
The petitioner is a missionary organization that seeks to employ the beneficiary as a part-time development 
director. The petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation 
pursuant to 5 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 1 (a)( 1 5)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition because the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. On appeal, 
counsel submits a brief. 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 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. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, the 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. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) interprets the term "degree" in the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(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. 
The record of proceeding before the AAO contains: (1) Form 1-129 and supporting documentation; (2) the 
director's request for additional evidence; (3) the petitioner's response to the director's request; (4) the 
director's denial letter; and (5) Form I-290B and supporting documentation. The AAO reviewed the record in 
its entirety before issuing its decision. 
The petitioner is seeking the beneficiary's services as a part-time development director. Evidence of the 
beneficiary's duties includes: the 1-129 petition; the petitioner's September 23, 2004 letter in support of the 
WAC 04 259 51817 
Page 3 
petition; and the petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence. According to this evidence, the 
beneficiary would perform duties that entail: planning, coordinating, and supervising the petitioner's 
operation and fundraising program; organizing, planning, and implementing all fundraising programs and 
efforts; developing revenue-generating strategy; establishing a long-range strategic plan to support multiple 
programs and projects; directing fund-raising staff and operations; developing training curricula, materials, 
and resources for fundraising initiatives; and developing and directing the petitioner's medical support 
program. The petitioner indicated that a qualified candidate for the job would possess a bachelor's degree in 
business administration or a related field. 
The director found that the proffered position, which combines the duties of a general manager or executive 
with a marketing manager, was not a specialty occupation. Citing to the Department of Labor's Occupational 
Outlook Handbook (Handbook), 2004-2005 edition, the director noted that the minimum requirement for 
entry into the position was not a baccalaureate degree or its equivalent in a specific specialty. The director 
found further that the petitioner failed to establish any of the criteria found at 8 C.F.R. § 2 14.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
On appeal, counsel states, in part, that the proposed duties are professional in nature and, therefore, the 
proffered position requires a bachelor's degree. Counsel cites to unpublished decisions as supporting 
documentation. 
Upon review of the record, the petitioner has established none of the four criteria outlined in 
8 C.F.R. tj 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Therefore, the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 
The AAO turns first to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I) and (2): a baccalaureate or higher 
degree or its equivalent is the normal minimum requirement for entry into the particular position; a degree 
requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations; or a particular 
position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree. 
Factors often considered by CIS when determining these criteria 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 1 15 1, 1 165 (D. 
Minn. 1999)(quoting HiraBlaker Corp. v. Suva, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
The AAO routinely consults the Handbook for its information about the duties and educational requirements of 
particular occupations. The AAO does not concur with counsel that the proffered position, which is primarily that 
of a public relations specialist with fundraising duties, is a specialty occupation. A review of the Public Relations 
Specialists training requirements in the Handbook, 2006-2007 edition, finds that there are no defined standards 
for entry into a public relations career, that a college degree combined with related experience is considered 
excellent preparation for public relations work. In sum, no evidence in the Handbook indicates that a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty is required for a public relations specialist job. 
The unpublished decisions cited by counsel are noted. Counsel, however, provides no discussion that 
persuasively demonstrates that any of the cited decisions are analogous to the instant petition. Further, while 
8 C.F.R. 3 103.3(c) provides that Immigration and Naturalization Service precedent decisions are binding on 
all CIS employees in the administration of the Act, unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. 
WAC 04 259 51817 
Page 4 
Regarding parallel positions in the petitioner's industry, the petitioner submitted Internet job postings for 
philanthropy careers. There is no evidence, however, to show that the proposed duties of the proffered 
position are as complex as the duties described in the advertised positions, such as developing and managing 
budgets for large departments or entities, and developing and implementing development strategies for the 
following university programs: College of Education & Professional Studies, Graduate School, Continuing 
Education, Booth Library, and Minority Affairs. Thus, the advertisements are not probative. 
The record also does not include any evidence from firms, individuals, or professional associations regarding 
an industry standard, or documentation to support the complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position. 
The petitioner, therefore, has not established the criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I) or (2). 
The AAO now turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3) - the employer normally requires a 
degree or its equivalent for the position. As counsel does not address this issue on appeal, it will not be discussed 
further. The evidence of record does not establish this criterion. 
Finally, the AAO turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(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. 
To the extent that they are depicted in the record, the duties do not appear so specialized and complex as to 
require the highly specialized knowledge associated with a baccalaureate or higher degree, or its equivalent, 
in a specific specialty. Therefore, the evidence does not establish that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation under 8 C.F.R. 5 2 14.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
As related in the discussion above, the petitioner has failed to establish that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation. Accordingly, the AAO shall not disturb the director's denial of the petition. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.