dismissed H-1B Case: Human Resources

(b)(6)
MATTER OF 
APPEAL OF VERMONTSERVICECENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 30, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a software application development and statistical analysis consulting company, 
seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "human resources analyst" under the H-lB 
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-lB 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, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish that the proffered position was a specialty occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the Director erred in denying the petition. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
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 occupatio!'! in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.P.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: 
(b)(6)
Matter of 
(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). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has consistently 
interpreted 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 proposed 
position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (lstCir. 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. PROFFERED POSITION 
On the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, the Petitioner described itself as a software 
application development and statistical analysis consulting company with sixteen employees. In its 
support letter, the Petitioner listed the duties of the proffered position as follows: 
• Evaluates internal control systems and recommends improvements; 
• Works with the Human Resources Director to plan the project, draft project 
reports and conduct the fieldwork, which includes interviews, process flow 
determination, critical analysis of activities as value added non-value added, 
financial analysis, system data analysis and transaction testing; 
• Conducts surveys and collects information on operational and administrative 
problems; 
• . Develops recommendations for problem resolution; coordinates and 
participates in special projects; compiles and prepares reports, memoranda, 
policies, manuals and newsletters; 
• Prepares tables, charts and graphs to illustrate distribution and trends of 
statistical and financial data; 
• Develops and utilize third-party sources and industry contacts to broaden and 
diversify the job seeking applicants pool for all openings; 
• Participates in the development and installation of new .or revised programs, 
systems, procedures and methods of operation; 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of 
• Responds to inquiries and complaints on human resources issues; tracks 
regulations and provides regulatory analysis; provides .project management of 
contractual services; 
• Confers with other departments on a variety of administrative matters. 
The Petitioner stated that "at least a bachelor's degree in Human Resources, in addition to direct 
experience analyzing complex business problems and developing functional specifications for 
software solutions is required." 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position satisfies any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) and, therefore, qualifies as a specialty occupation. Specifically, the record does 
not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate 
with a specialty occupation. 1 
A. 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? To inform this inquiry, we recognize the U.S. Department of 
Labor's (DOL's) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties 
and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses.3 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the· Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Human Resources Specialists"4 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 13-1071 at a Level I wage.5 
1 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 B petition, including eviden'ce regarding the proffered 
position. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually . 
. 
3 
All of our references are to the 2016-17 edition of the Handbook, available at http://www.bls.gov /ooh/. We do not, 
however, maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information . That is, the occupational category 
designated by the Petitioner. is considered as an aspect in establishing the general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered 
position, and USC IS regularly reviews 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 of proof remains 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. 
4 We note that in the letter of support, the Petitioner claims that the position of human resources analyst "is considered as 
the equivalence of a Management. Analyst based on the Occupational Outlook Handbook ." However, we do not agree 
with the 
Petitioner. We reviewed the Handbook and find no basis for such conclusion. 
5 We will consider the Petitioner's classification of the proffered position at a Levell wage (the lowest offour assigpable 
wage levels) in our analysis of the position. The " Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" issued by the DOL 
provides a description of the wage levels. A Level I wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which the 
Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the occupation. This wage rate indicates : (I) that the 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of 
The Handbook subchapter entitled "How to Become a Human Resources Specialist" states in 
pertinent part: "Applicants seeking positions as a human resources specialist must usually have a 
bachelor's degree in human resources, business, or a related field."6 · 
The Handbook does not support the Petitioner's assertion that a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty is required for entry into this occupation. The Handbook states that many human resources 
specialists usually have degrees from disparate fields such as human resources, business (with no 
further specialization), or a related field (also with no further specialization). 
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 seemingly disparate fields, such 
as business (with no specialization) and human resources, 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.7 Section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). The Petitioner has not done so here. 
Moreover, the requirement of a bachelor's degree in business is inadequate to establish that a 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. ·A petitioner must demonstrate that the proffered 
position requires a precise and specific course of study that relates directly to the .position in 
question. Since there must be a close correlation between the required specialized studies and the 
position, the requirement of a degree with a generalized title, such as business, without further 
specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz 
Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that she will 
be closely supervised and her work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that she will receive specific 
instructions on required tasks and expected results . U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage 
Determination Policy Guidan ce, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://flcdatacenter.com /download/NPWHC _Guidance _ Revised_ I I_ 2009.pdf. A prevailing wage determination sta1ts 
with an entry level wage and progresses to a higher wage level after considering the experience , education, and skill 
requirements of the Petitioner 's job opportunity . !d. A Level I wage should be considered for research fellows, workers 
in training, or internships . !d. 
6 For additional information regarding the occupational category "Human Resources Specialists," see U.S. Dep't of 
Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., Human Resources Specialists , 
available at http://www.bls .gov/ooh/business-and-financial /human-resources-specialist s.htm#tab-4 (last visited Sept. 28, 
2016). . 
7 
Whether read with the statutory "the" or the regulatory "a," both readings denote a singular "specialty." Section 
214(i)(1 )(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(ii) . Still, we do not so narrowly interpret these provisions to exclude 
positions from qualifying as specialty occupations if they permit, as a minimum entry requirement, degrees in more than 
one closely related specialty. This also includes even seemingly disparate specialties provided the evidence of record 
establishes how each acceptable , specific field of study is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
particular position. · 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of 
Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). To prove that a job requires the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge as required by section 214(i)(l) of 
the Act, a petitioner must establish that the position requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher 
degree in a specialized field of study or its equivalent. As explained above, USCIS interprets the 
degree requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to require a degree in a specific specialty that is 
directly related to the proposed position. USCIS has consistently stated that, 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. v. 
Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007).8 
Therefore, the Handbook's recognition that a general business degree 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. Accordingly, as the Handbook indicates that 
working as a human resources specialist does not normally require at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, for entry into the occupation, it does not support the particular 
position proffered here as being a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner cites to Raj and Co. v. USCIS, 85 F. Supp. 3d 1241, 1246 (W.D. Wash. 
20 15) for the proposition that the Beneficiary's knowledge is what is relevant, and not the title of the 
degree. Upon review, it appears that the Petitioner misinterprets Raj and confuses the issue of a 
beneficiary's qualificatipns with the issue of a proffered position's qualifications as a specialty 
occupation.9 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 rdate'd to its duties in order to perform those tasks. 
In any event, the Petitioner has furnished no evidence to establish that the facts ofthe instant petition 
are analogous to those in Raj. 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 
8 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. Chertoff, 484 F.3d at 147. 
9 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 qualifies as a specialty occupation . Thus, whether or not the Beneficiary in this case has 
completed a specialized course of study directly related to the proffered position is irrelevant to the issue of whether the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation , i.e., whether the duties of the proffered position require the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and the attainment of a bachelor 's degree 
or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(ii). 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of 
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. 
In the instant case, the Petitioner has not established that the proffered position falls under an 
occupational 'category for which the Handbook, or other authoritative source, indicates that normally 
the minimum requirement for entry is at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
B. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs: "The degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may 
show that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong 
contemplates the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
1. 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. 
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)). 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook, or other authoritative source, reports a 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 degreed individuals." Thus, the Petitioner has not 
satisfied the first alternative prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
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 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
We reviewed the Petitioner's statements regarding the proffered position; however, the Petitioner 
has not sufficiently developed relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the proffered 
position. The Petitioner has not demonstrated how the duties of the proffered position as described 
in the record 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 it may believe are so complex and unique. 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, along with the Beneficiary's work 
samples submitted in response to the RFE, do not specifically identify any tasks that are so complex 
or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. 
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, which denotes a position for an employee who has only 
. basic understanding of the occupation. 10 The Petitioner's designation of the position as an entry­
level position is at odds with thePetitioner 's claimed requirements of a bachelor's degree and "direct 
experience analyzing complex business problems and developing functional specifications for 
software solutions." The evidence of record, therefore, does not establish that this position is 
significantly different from other human resources specialists such that it refutes the Handbook 's 
information that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is not required for the 
proffered position. Without more, the record lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish 
the level of judgment and understanding necessary to perform the duties as complex or unique . 
. Rather, the knowledge to perform the tasks can be obtained by an individual without at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is .well qualified for the position, and references her 
educational background and qualifications. However, the test to establish a positon as a specialty 
10 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 s ame occupation. Nevertheless , a 
Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty occupation, just as a 
Level IV wage-designation does not definitively establish such a ,classification. In certain occupations (e.g., doctors or 
lawyers), a Level I, 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 relevant factor but is not 
itself conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)(l) ofthe Act. 
7 
(b)(6)
Matter of 
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 has 
not satisfied the second alternative prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F:.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it 
normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. 
To merit approval of the petition under this criterion, the record must establish that a petitioner's 
imposition of a degree requirement is not a matter of preference for high-caliber candidates but is 
necessitated by performance requirements of the position. While a petitioner may assert that a 
proffered position requires a specific degree, that statement alone without corroborating evidence 
cannot establish the position as a specialty occupation. Were USCIS limited solely to reviewing the 
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 .Petitioner 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 388. Evidence provided in support of this criterion may include, but is not limited to, 
documentation regarding the Petitioner's past recruiting and hiring practices, as well as information 
regarding employees who previously held the position. 
The Petitioner indicated that it previously sponsored two unpaid interns in the position of human 
resources specialist, and submits statements/resumes and copies of educational credentials for these 
individuals, both of whom hold master's degrees in human resources management from 
The Petitioner further claims that the departure of these two unpaid interns created the 
vacancy that it now seeks to fill with the Beneficiary. 
The Petitioner asserts that these individuals demonstrate a history of hiring only specialty-degreed 
individuals for the proffered position. We disagree. First, the Petitioner acknowledges that these 
individuals were not employees of the company, but rather served in short-term, unpaid internship 
positions performing recruitment and analysis duties. Based on these assertions, it is unclear if these 
positions are truly akin to the proffered position aside from the position title, as the description of the 
duties provided by the Petitioner does 11ot assign the Beneficiary any recruitment responsibilities. 
This discrepancy, coupled with the fact that these positions were not paid positions, undermines the 
Petitioner's claim that it routinely hires only specialty-degreed inqividuals. Nevertheless, the 
Petitioner's claim is further contradicted by the fact that it requires its incumbent for the proffered 
position to possess "direct experience analyzing complex business problyms and developing 
functional specifications for software solutions." Requiring such a high level of experience in 
addition to education, yet simultaneously equating the proffered position to a low-level unpaid 
internship, in effect contradicts the underlying claim that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation. The Petitioner's designation of the proffered position as a Level I, entry-level position 
further appears to coincide with the level of competency required by the unpaid internship positions, 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter of 
yet no explanation was provided for this discrepancy. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such 
inconsistencies will not suffice unless the Petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing 
to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). This evidence, 
therefore, is not sufficient to establish that the Petitioner previously hired degreed individuals to fill 
the proffered position in the past and, therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the third criterion of 
8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A). 
D. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature 
of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. 
The Petitioner provided information regarding the proffered position and its business operations, 
including the documentation previously outlined. While the evidence provides some insights into 
the Petitioner's business activities, the documents do not establish that the nature of the specific 
duties of the proffered position 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. 
We hereby incorporate our earlier discussion and analysis regarding the duties of the proffered 
position, and the designation of the proffered position in the LCA as a Level I position (out of four 
assignable wage levels) relative to others within the occupational category, an:d hence one not likely 
distinguishable by relatively specialized and complex duties. Without further evidence, it is not 
credible that the Petitioner's proffered position is one with specialized and complex duties as such a 
position would likely be classified at a higher level, such as a Level IV (fully competent) position, 
requiring a substantially higher prevailing wage. A Level IV (fully competent) position is 
designated by DOL for employees who "use advanced skills and diversified knowledge to solve 
unusual and complex problems" and requires a significantly higher wage. The Petitioner has 
submitted inadequate probative evidence to satisfy the criterion of the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one ofthe criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), ithas not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The burden is on the 
Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
9 
(b)(6)
~~-------------
Matter of 
Cite as Matter of ID# 11951 (AAO Sept. 30, 2016) 
10