dismissed H-1B Case: Import/Export

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
G COPY 
FILE: EAC 03 228 54367 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER SSP 0 0 12005 - - 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Benefieiaq 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 l(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 03 228 54367 
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 an importer and exporter of electronic goods that seeks to extend its authorization to employ 
the beneficiary as an accounting executive. The petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a 
nonimrnigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to 5 10 1 (a)(l S)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition because the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. On appeal, the 
petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence including a marketing plan. 
The record contains a G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative, signed by the 
attorney Earl S. David. A review of the List of Disc@lined Practitioners of the U.S. Department of Justice's 
Executive Office for Immigration Review reflects that Earl S. David was suspended from practice for 15 
months effective July 9, 2004. 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 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(11)(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 
EAC 03 228 54367 
Page 3 
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 an accounting executive. Evidence of the beneficiary's 
duties includes: the 1-129 petition; the petitioner's August 5, 2003 letter in support of the 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 directing an advertising campaign for the petitioner's 
clients; conferring with clients to determine budgetary limitations; performing client billing; coordinating 
activities of workers engaged in market research; writing copy and laying out artwork; and preparing market 
research for clients. The petitioner indicated that a qualified candidate for the job would possess a bachelor's 
degree in commerce or an equivalent thereof. 
The director found that the proffered position was not a specialty occupation because the proposed duties are 
not so complex as to require a baccalaureate degree. The director found further that the petitioner failed to 
establish any of the criteria found at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
On appeal, the petitioner states, in part, that the proffered position, which entails preparing media 
advertisements, performing direct marketing, public relations, and merchandising duties, as well as finding 
the market trends and resources to sell its products to Third World nations, is a specialty occupation. The 
petitioner states further that the beneficiaw, who can communicate in French and other African languages and 
dialects, also performs translation duties. 
Upon review of the record, the petitioner has established none of the four criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. 
$ 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. 5 214.2(11)(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 Department of Labor's 
Occupational Outlook Handbook (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 fms "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 Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 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 the petitioner that the proffered position, which is 
primarily that of a marketing manager with some translation duties, is a specialty occupation. No evidence in 
the Handbook, 2004-2005 edition, indicates that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty is 
required for a marketing manager job. The petitioner also has not established that the beneficiary's translation 
duties are of such complexity that a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty, as distinguished from 
familiarity with the English, French, and African languages or a less extensive education, is necessary for the 
successful completion of its duties. It is further noted that prior approvals do not preclude CIS from denying 
an extension of the original visa based on reassessment of petitioner's qualifications. Texas ABM Univ. v. 
EAC 03 228 54367 
Page 4 
Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556, 2004 WL 1240482 (5th Cir. 2004). Thus, the petitioner has not shown that a 
bachelor's degree or its equivalent is required for the position being offered to the beneficiary. 
Regarding parallel positions in the petitioner's industry, the petitioner submitted Internet job postings for 
account executive positions. There is no evidence, however, to show that the employers issuing those postings 
are similar to the petitioner, or that the advertised positions are parallel to the instant position. One of the 
advertised positions is that of a major account executive for a world leader in business products and consumer 
electronic components. Other positions are an account executive for a staffing agency and an account 
executive to sell television time to advertisers. The petitioner also has not demonstrated that the proposed 
duties of the proffered position are as complex as the duties described in the advertised positions. Thus, the 
advertisements have no relevance. 
The record also does not include any evidence from 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. 3 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3) - the employer normally requires a 
degree or its equivalent for the position. As the petitioner does not address this issue on appeal, it will not be 
discussed further. 
Finally, the AAO turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(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. § 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. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the AAO does not find that the beneficiary is qualified to perform the 
duties of a specialty occupation because the record does not contain copies of the beneficiary's transcripts 
from the University of Hartford. For this additional reason, the petition may not be approved. 
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.