dismissed H-1B Case: Hospitality Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6782439 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-IB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 20, 2020 
The Petitioner, an information technology, hospitality management and consulting business, seeks to 
temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "hospitality manager" under the H-IB 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-IB 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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish: ( 1) that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation; and (2) that the 
Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of the proffered position . 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence, and asserts that the Director erred 
in denying the petition. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 1 
I. 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. 
1 We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 
(AAO 2010). 
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: 
(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. 
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"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. THE PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will be employed as a hospitality manager and described the 
proffered position as follows: 
Duty Percentage of Time 
Management of Spontaneous dating website, as well as the control panel for 25% 
the same. 
Train and manage international participants who are currently enrolled in 25% 
the company's program; Develop training competencies, training plans for 
H-3, Q-1 and J-1 programs. These training plans are very detailed and 
complex. 
If acting as third-party host for J-1 trainees, summer work travelers and or 20% 
interns, it is also Beneficiary's job as Hospitality Manager to ensure our 
obligations to J-1 sponsors are met. 
Schedule employees, observe performance and conduct reviews and 10% 
evaluation with assistance from International Recruitment Manager. 
Act as a liaison between fresh graduates and their universities; evaluating 10% 
the applicant profiles, and determining whether the applicant will qualify for 
2 
any of the Petitioner's training, employment and/or cultural exchange 
programs. 
Plan, organize and manage mega cultural exchange events along with the 10% 
cultural exchange participants, coordinate the event management with hotel 
staff and our Q-1 participants. 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would work as a hospitality manager and be responsible for 
the development and customization of training plans and competencies for various training programs 
offered by the Petitioner, such as H3, J1 and Ql programs that present training opportunities in 
hospitality, management and information technology. The Petitioner further stated that "It is evident 
by the above that Beneficiary is not simply making training plans, but that his responsibilities will 
include knowledge and expertise in recruitment, financial management, immigration and training and 
development. An individual to possess such knowledge, would need to have a minimum of a 
baccalaureate degree in a specific field of study, which Beneficiary possesses." 
III. ANALYSIS 
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. 3 
A. Lack of a Requirement for a Bachelor's Degree in a Specific Specialty, or the Equivalent 
As noted, in order to qualify as a specialty occupation a proffered position must require a bachelor's 
degree in specific specialty, or the equivalent, to perform its duties. The record of proceedings as it 
currently stands does not satisfy that requirement. 
The Petitioner has never made the actual minimum educational requirements for the proffered position 
clear. It did not address the matter at all in its support letter, and in its response to the Director's 
request for additional evidence (RFE) it stated that the Beneficiary's undergraduate degree qualifies 
him for the position. The Petitioner also looked to general requirements for similar positions set out 
in the Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) and Occupational 
Information Network (O*NET). However, none of that information provides an answer to the 
question at hand. 
The fact that a beneficiary may be qual[fied to perform the duties of a given position does not 
necessarily mean that his or her credentials are the sole mean for entry. For example, the Beneficiary 
appears to have earned a bachelor's degree in economics from a university in Pakistan, and the 
Petitioner contends that this degree qualifies him to perform the duties of the proffered position. That 
does not, however, necessarily mean that multiple other, unrelated, educational paths would not also 
qual[fj: an individual to perform its duties. The issue before us is not whether a given credential 
2 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
3 The Petitioner submitted documentation in support of the H-IB 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 
qualifies an individual to perform the duties of the proffered position, but whether a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, is required to perform its duties. Section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 
In order to merit H-lB approval, a petitioner must demonstrate that a proffered position requires a 
precise and specific course of study that relates directly and closely to the position. 
Nor are the Petitioner's references to the Handbook and O*NET sufficient. As will be developed 
further when we discuss the first specialty-occupation criterion at 8 C .F.R. § 2 l 4.2(h )( 4 )(ii)(]), neither 
of these resources indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, is normally 
required for "hospitality manager" positions. But regardless of what these resources say ( or do not 
say), the fact remains that they discuss general requirements for positions located within the 
occupational category designated by the Petitioner, and the Petitioner has never specified the 
requirements for this particular position. 
For this reason alone, the petition cannot be approved. 
B. The Specialty-Occupation Criteria Enumerated at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii)(l)-(4) 
Even if we set that issue aside we would still conclude that the proffered position is not a specialty 
occupation because the evidence of record does not satisfy at least one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(h)( 4)(ii)(I)-( 4). 
1. First Criterion 
We tum first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which requires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. We recognize the Handbook as an authoritative source on the duties 
and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 4 
On the labor condition application (LCA) 5 submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Training and Development 
Specialists" corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 13-1151. Thus, 
we reviewed the Handbook's subchapter entitled "How to Become a Training and Development 
Specialist," which states, in pertinent part, that "Specialists may have a variety of education 
backgrounds, but most have a bachelor's degree in training and development, human resources, 
education, or instructional design. Others may have a degree in business administration or a social 
science, such as educational or organizational psychology." 6 
4 We do not maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source ofrelevant information. That is, the occupational category 
designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered 
position, and we regularly review the Handbook on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of 
occupations that it addresses. To satisfy the first criterion, however, the burden ofproofremains on the Petitioner to submit 
sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position would normally have a minimum, specialty degree 
requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
5 A petitioner submits the LCA to DOL to demonstrate that it will pay an H-lB 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 2 l 2(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.731 (a). 
6 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Training and Development Specialists, 
4 
It is clear that the Handbook reports that training and development specialists have degrees and 
backgrounds in a wide-variety of disparate fields. In addition to recognizing degrees in disparate 
fields, i.e., education and human resources as acceptable for entry into this field, the Handbook also 
states that "[ o ]thers may have a degree in business administration or a social science[.]" Although a 
general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business administration, may be a legitimate 
prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify a finding 
that a particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam Corp., 484 
F.3d at 147. Therefore, the Handbook's recognition that a general, non-specialty "degree" in business 
administration, or one of a number of other fields, is sufficient for entry into the occupation strongly 
suggests that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is not a standard, minimum entry requirement 
for this occupation. The Handbook, therefore, does not support the assertion that at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for these 
positions. 
The Petitioner also references DOL's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) summary report 
for "Training and Development Specialists" listed as SOC code 13-1151.00 for our consideration 
under this criterion. 
Though relevant, the information the Petitioner submits 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 
specific specialty, or the equivalent, is normally required. The summary report provides general 
information regarding the occupation; however, it does not support the Petitioner's assertion regarding 
the educational requirements for these positions. For example, the Specific Vocational Preparation 
(SVP) rating, which is defined as "the amount oflapsed time required by a typical worker to learn the 
techniques, acquire the information, and develop the facility needed for average performance in a 
specific job-worker situation," cited within O*NET's Job Zone designates this position as having an 
SVP 7 < 8. This indicates that the occupation usually requires "several years of work-related 
experience, on-the-job training, and/or vocational training." 7 While the SVP rating provides 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, formal education, and 
experience - and it does not specify the particular type of degree, if any, that a position would require. 8 
The O*NET summary report for this occupation also does not specify that a degree is required, but 
instead states, "most of these occupations require a four-year bachelor's degree, but some do not." 
Similar to the SVP rating, 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. 
Further, we note that the summary report provides the educational requirements of 86% of 
"respondents," but does not account for 100% of the "respondents." The respondents' positions within 
on the Internet at https://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/training-and-development-specialists.htm (last visited 
Feb. 12, 2020). 
7 This training may be acquired in a school, work, military, institutional, or vocational environment. Specific vocational 
training includes: vocational education, apprenticeship training, in-plant training, on-the-job training, and essential 
experience in other jobs. 
8 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/help/ 
online/svp. 
5 
the occupation also are not distinguished by career level (e.g., entry-level, mid-level, senior-level). 
Additionally, the graph in the summary report does not indicate that the "education level" for the 
respondents must be in a specific specialty. 
O*NET, therefore, also does not support the assertion that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for these positions. 
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)(]). 
2. 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 concentrates on 
the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific 
position. 
a. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. We generally 
consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there is such a common degree requirement: 
whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the industry's professional 
association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether letters or affidavits from 
firms or individuals in the industry establish that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed 
individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 1999) (quoting 
Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (considering these "factors" to 
inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
As previously discussed, the Handbook does not establish that a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty is a common requirement within the industry for parallel positions among similar 
organizations. In addition, 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 
degreed individuals," or other probative evidence to establish that a requirement of a bachelor's or 
higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions 
among similar organizations. 
The Petitioner also submitted several job vacancy announcements, both in response to the RFE and 
again on appeal, in support of its assertion that a common degree requirement exists within the industry 
6 
for parallel positions among similar organizations. To be relevant, the job vacancy announcements 
must advertise "parallel positions," and the announcements must have been placed by organizations 
that (1) conduct business in the Petitioner's industry and (2) are also "similar" to the Petitioner. These 
announcements do not satisfy that threshold, and upon review, we find that the Petitioner's reliance 
on the job announcements is misplaced. 
The job vacancy announcements/advertisements submitted by the Petitioner do not include sufficient 
information about the duties and responsibilities for the advertised positions. Thus, it is not possible 
to determine important aspects of the jobs, such as the day-to-day responsibilities, complexity of the 
job duties, supervisory duties (if any), and independent judgment required or the amount of 
supervision received. Therefore, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the primary duties 
and responsibilities of the advertised positions parallel those of the proffered position. Furthermore, 
many of these job vacancy announcement/advertisements appear to simply require a "bachelor's 
degree." 
Furthermore, the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to establish that these advertising 
companies (1) conduct business in the Petitioner's industry and (2) are "similar" to the Petitioner. The 
Petitioner is an information technology, hospitality management and consulting business with two 
employees. However, the Petitioner submitted job announcements placed by inter alia, a premier 
global defense and security company with 90,000 employees, a global accounting, tax and business 
advisory organization with over 7,000 employees, and an entertainment casting company. Notably, 
several advertisers do not provide sufficient information about their businesses, and we are unable to 
ascertain the nature of their businesses to conduct a legitimate comparison of the advertisers to the 
Petitioner. 
For all of these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that these job vacancy announcements are 
relevant. Even if that threshold had been met, we would still find that they did not satisfy this prong 
of the second criterion, as they do not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the 
equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 9 As we have 
noted, many of these job vacancy announcement/advertisements appear to simply require a 
"bachelor's degree." Overall, the job postings suggest, at best, that although a bachelor's degree is 
sometimes required for these positions, a bachelor's degree in a spec[fic specialty (or its equivalent) 
is not. 10 
9 As discussed, the degree requirement set by the statutory and regulatory framework of the H-1 B program is not just a 
bachelor's or higher degree, but a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the duties of the 
position. Section 214(i)(l)(b) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). See Royal Siam Cmp., 484 F.3d at 147. 
10 Even if all of the job postings indicated that a requirement of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is common to 
the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations (which they do not), the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from the advertisements with regard to determining the common 
educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. 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. Sec 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"). 
7 
As the documentation does not establish that the Petitioner has met this prong of the regulations, 
further analysis regarding the specific information contained in each of the job postings is not 
necessary. 11 That is, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. 
The Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
b. Second Prong 
We 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 submitted a photocopy of its mission statement which states that "We are committed to 
offering the best IT consultancy, graduate training programs and work placement services to clients in 
diverse sectors." As a hospitality manager, the Beneficiary will be responsible for development and 
customization of training plans and competencies for the various training programs offered by the 
Petitioner, such as H-3, J-1 and Q-1 programs that present training opportunities in hospitality, 
management and information technology. The Petitioner states that each of these nonimmigrant visa 
programs are unique from each other and preparing such programs and training materials is a complex 
and technical task, and as part of his duties the Beneficiary must design the programs to be in line with 
the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State requirements. 
Per the Petitioner, the Beneficiary's role as hospitality manager requires him to be apprised of all rules, 
regulations and requirements applicable to the aforementioned nonimmigrant visa programs to ensure 
that each training program is designed to be in line with the training/employment category, which are 
all quite different. The Petitioner asserts that these training programs can be quite extensive and 
require a lot of coordination and development, and the training plans are complex in their creation as 
they include objectives, an overview, daily/weekly/monthly syllabus and material that will take time 
and resources to draft and implement in existing programs. Therefore, it is imperative that Petitioner 
employ hospitality managers such as the Beneficiary, utilizing his degree in a related field, his own 
experiences as a program participant, and his skills to develop and draft customized training plans that 
will better articulate the training plan's structure and guidance for supervisors and participants, 
furthering the objectives of Petitioner's organization while ensuring they comply with visa regulations. 
We acknowledge the Petitioner's assertions regarding the relative complexity of Immigration and 
Nationality law, and the specific complexities associated with the interpretation of the laws, policies 
and regulations applicable to the nonimmigrant J-1 student and exchange visitor, H-3 trainee and Q-1 
cultural exchange classifications. However, we note that knowledge of these visa programs can be 
gained through research and experience without the need for a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty 
to do so. Moreover, the skill necessary to develop customized training programs for these various visa 
classifications is not associated with the attainment of any particular degree in a specific specialty. 
11 The Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how representative the job postings are of the particular 
advertising employers' recruiting history for the type of job advertised. As the advertisements are only solicitations for 
hire, they are not evidence of the actual hiring practices of these employers. 
8 
In support of its assertion that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, the Petitioner 
has generally described the proffered position and the percentage of time that the Beneficiary would 
spend performing different duties as a hospitality manager. 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. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well qualified for the position, and references his 
qualifications repeatedly. 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. The Petitioner did not establish that its 
position of hospitality manager requires such a degree. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied 
the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
3. 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 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 Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387. 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. Evidence provided in support of this criterion may include, but is not limited to, 
documentation regarding the Petitioner's past recruitment and hiring practices, as well as information 
regarding employees who previously held the position. 
The Petitioner submits copies of three job advertisements for the proffered position, which describe 
the position and state varying entry requirements. One states a requirement for a bachelor's degree in 
tourism, hotel management, or a related field, 12 one states "Required BA in related fields," and another 
states no requirement other than "graduate." These advertisements are not sufficient. It is not enough 
to require "a" bachelor's degree, or a bachelor's degree from one of many unrelated fields. Again, the 
Petitioner must demonstrate that it normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the 
equivalent. Moreover, the record does not contain any evidence regarding the Petitioner's past hiring 
practices, if any, for the proffered position. In fact, the Petitioner does not even claim to have 
previously hired or employed a hospitality manager as part of its business operation. 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that it normally requires at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the proffered position. Therefore, it has 
not satisfied the third criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
12 If a bachelor's degree in tourism, hotel management, or a related field is the actual requirement, then we question how 
the Beneficiary, who possesses the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in economics, is qualified to perform the duties of 
the proffered position. The record of proceeding is not sufficient to establish that a position whose duties can be performed 
with that range of degrees could be considered "highly specialized." 
9 
4. 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 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
Here, the Petitioner claims that the position's nature and the specific duties are so specialized and 
complex that the knowledge required to perform them is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. However, the record does not 
sufficiently demonstrate that the duties of the proffered position are more specialized and complex 
than other positions in the occupational category. While we understand that the Beneficiary must have 
some skills and knowledge in order to perform the duties of the proffered position, the Petitioner has 
not sufficiently explained how these tasks require the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in 
the specific specialty or its equivalent as a minimum for entry into the occupation. 13 
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). 
IV. BENEFICIARY QUALIFICATIONS 
For the reasons stated, it is our determination that the proffered position in this matter is not a specialty 
occupation, which therefore precludes approval of the petition. Because the proffered position is not 
a specialty occupation, an analysis of whether the Beneficiary is qualified for the position is not 
necessary. 
V. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and 
alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner 
has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
13 We incorporate our previous discussion earlier in this decision noting that the Petitioner has not satisfied the second 
alternative prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
10