dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

(b)(6)
DATE: 
INRE: 
PETITION: 
JUN 1 7 2015 
PETITION RECEIPT #: 
Petitioner: 
Benefici ary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massac husetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washingt on, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
Enclosed is the non-preced ent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. 
If you believe we incorrectly decided your case, you may file a motion requesting us to reconsider our 
decision and/or reopen the proceeding. The requirements for motions are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. 
Motions must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this 
decision. The Form I-290B web page (www.uscis.gov/i-290b) contains the latest information on fee, filing 
location, and other requirements. Please do not mail any motions directly to the AAO. 
on Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
REV 3/2015 www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The matter is now 
before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
The petitioner submitted a Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129) to the Vermont 
Service Center. In the Form I-129 visa petition, the petitioner describes itself as an information 
technology business that was established in In order to employ the beneficiary in what it 
designates as a business analyst position, the petitioner seeks to classify him as a nonimmigrant 
worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
The Director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner did not establish (1) that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation in accordance with the applicable statutory and 
regulatory provisions; and (2) that the beneficiary is qualified to perform services in a specialty 
occupation. 
The record of proceeding contains: (1) the petitioner's Form I-129 and supporting documentation; 
(2) the Director's request for evidence (RFE); (3) the petitioner's response to the RFE; (4) the 
Director's decision; and (5) the Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) and supporting 
documentation. We reviewed the record in its entirety before issuing our decision. 1 
For the reasons that will be discussed below, we agree with the Director that the petitioner has not 
established eligibility for the benefit sought. Accordingly, the Director's decision will not be 
disturbed. 
II. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
We will first discuss whether the petitioner has provided sufficient evidence to establish that it will 
employ the beneficiary in a specialty occupation position. 
A. Legal Framework 
For an H -1B petition to be granted, the petitioner must provide sufficient evidence to establish that 
it will employ the beneficiary in a specialty occupation position. To meet its burden of proof, the 
petitioner must establish that the employment it is offering meets the applicable statutory and 
regulatory requirements. 
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 
1 We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). 
(b)(6)
Page3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
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: 
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.P.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.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must logically be read together 
with section 214(i)(1) of the Act and 8 C.P.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 
of language which takes into account the design of the statute as a whole is preferred); see also 
COlT Independence Joint Venture v. Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989); 
Matter of W-F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). As such, the criteria stated in 8 C.P.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.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory or regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
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)(l) 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 
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, USCIS regularly approves H-lB petitions for qualified aliens 
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 alien, 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 nor 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. 
In ascertaining the intent of a petitioner, USCIS looks to the Form 1-129 and the documents filed in 
support of the petition. It is only in this manner that the agency can determine the exact position 
offered, the location of employment, the proffered wage, et cetera. Pursuant to 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(9)(i), the Director has the responsibility to consider all of the evidence submitted by a 
petitioner and such other evidence that he or she may independently require to assist his or her 
adjudication . Further , the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iv) provides that "[a]n H-lB petition 
involving a specialty occupation shall be accompanied by [ d]ocumentation ... or any other required 
evidence sufficient to establish ... that the services the beneficiary is to perform are in a specialty 
occupation." 
B. Proffered Position 
In the support letter, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary will perform the following job duties : 
Specifically, as a Business Analyst, the beneficiary will perform research and gather 
data to help the company market its services. The beneficiary will gather data on 
(b)(6)
PageS 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
consumer demographics, preferences, needs, and buying habits. The beneficiary will 
collect data and information using a variety of methods, such as through interviews 
and questionnaires. As a Business Analyst, the beneficiary will help determine the 
company's position in the marketplace by researching their competitors and 
analyzing their prices, sales, and marketing methods. Using this information, the 
beneficiary will determine potential markets, demands and pricing. The beneficiary 
will evaluate data using statistical techniques and software. As a Business Analyst, 
the beneficiary will prepare reports of the findings. The beneficiary will also be 
responsible for attending staff conferences to provide management with information 
and proposals concerning the promotion, distribution, design, and pricing of 
company products and services. 
As with any Business Analyst position, the usual mtmmum requirement for 
performance of the job duties is a bachelor's degree, or equivalent, in business, 
marketing, or a related field. 
C. Material Findings- Beyond the Director's Decision 
The issue before us is whether the petitioner has provided sufficient evidence to establish that it 
would employ the beneficiary in a specialty occupation position. We will first make preliminary 
findings material to the application of the H-lB statutory and regulatory framework to the proffered 
position. 
1. Labor Condition Application 
In support of the petition, the petitioner submitted a Labor Condition Application (LCA) stating that 
the proffered position falls under the occupational category "Market Research Analysts and 
Marketing Specialists" - SOC (ONET/OES) code 
13-1161. The petitioner also stated in the LCA 
that the wage level for the proffered position was a Level I (entry level) 2 and claimed that the 
prevailing wage in Texas) for the proffered position was $17.34 per hour. 
2 The wage levels are defined in the U.S. Department of Labor's (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. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
In response to the Director's RFE, the petitioner states that "~t]he Job duties of Business Analyst are 
also grouped in Management Specialist with SOC-13-111" and "[t]he Business Analyst position 
may be part of Market Research Analyst group or Management Specialist group. "4 While the 
occupational categories "Management Analysts" and "Marketing Research Analysts and Marketing 
Specialists" may have some general duties in common, they are distinct and separate occupational 
categories. When the duties of the proffered position involve more than one occupational category, 
DOL provides guidance for selecting the most relevant Occupational Information Network 
(O*NET) code classification. 
The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" by DOL states the following: 
In determining the nature of the job offer, the first order is to review the 
requirements of the employer's job offer and determine the appropriate occupational 
classification. The O*NET description that corresponds to the employer's job offer 
shall be used to identify the appropriate occupational classification . . . . If the 
employer's job opportunity has worker requirements described in a combination of 
O*NET occupations, the [determiner] should default directly to the relevant O*NET­
SOC occupational code for the highest paying occupation. For example, if the 
employer's job offer is for an engineer-pilot, the [determiner] shall use the education, 
skill and experience levels for the higher paying occupation when making the wage 
level determination. 
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, if the petitioner believed its position falls under more 
than one occupational category, it 
should have chosen the relevant occupational code for the highest paying occupation. The 
occupational category "Management Analysts" has a significantly higher prevailing wage than the 
occupational category "Marketing Research Analysts and Marketing Specialists." 
Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/ 
pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _11_ 2009. pdf. 
3 We observe that the SOC (ONET/OES) code 13"1111 is for the occupational category "Management 
Analysts" and not "Management Specialists" as indicated by the petitioner. 
4 
It must be noted that when responding to a request for evidence, a petitioner cannot offer a new position to 
the beneficiary, materially change a position's associated job responsibilities, or alter the claimed 
occupational category of a position. The petitioner must establish that the position offered to the beneficiary 
when the petition was filed merits classification for the benefit sought. Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 
l&N Dec. 248, 249 (Reg. Comm'r 1978). If significant changes are made to the initial request for approval, 
the petitioner must file a new petition rather than seek approval of a petition that is not supported by the facts 
in the record. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
Under the H-1B program, a petitioner must offer a beneficiary wages that are at least the actual 
wage level paid by the petitioner to all other individuals with similar experience and qualifications 
for the specific employment in question, or the prevailing wage level for the occupational 
classification in the area of employment, whichever is greater, based on the best information 
available as of the time of filing the application. See section 212(n)(l)(A) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1182(n)(l)(A). 
As such, the petitioner has not established (1) that it submitted a certified LCA that properly 
corresponds to the claimed occupation and duties of the proffered position and (2) that it would pay 
the beneficiary an adequate salary for his work, as required under the Act, if the petition were 
granted. Thus, for this reason also, the H-lB cannot be approved. 
2. Requirement for the Proffered Position 
Further, we note that the petitioner has provided inconsistent information regarding the academic 
requirements of the proffered position. For example, in the letter of support, the petitioner states 
that the minimum requirement for the proffered position is a "bachelor's degree, or equivalent, in 
business, marketing, or a related field." In response to the Director's RFE, the petitioner claims that 
the job duties of the proffered position "can only be performed by someone with a Bachelors [sic] 
degree in Business, Finance or Management." Further, the petitioner submitted a letter from 
on appeal, which indicates that the proffered position "requires the services of 
someone with at least a Bachelor's Degree in Management, Marketing, or a related business field." 
No explanation for the variances was provided. 
In addition, the petitioner's claim that a bachelor's degree in business is a sufficient minimum 
requirement for entry into the proffered position is inadequate to establish that the proposed 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 and closely 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 
Associates, 19 I&N Dec. 558 (Comm'r 1988). 
To demonstrate that a job requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly 
specialized knowledge as required by section 214(i)(1) 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 discussed 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. Although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business, 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. See 
Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertojj; 484 F.3d at 147.5 
5 Specifically, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit explained in Royal Siam that: 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
Again, the petitioner in this matter claims that the duties of the proffered position can be performed 
by an individual with only a general-purpose bachelor's degree, i.e., a bachelor's degree in business. 
Without more, this assertion alone indicates that the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 
The director's decision must therefore be affirmed and the appeal dismissed on this basis alone. 
3. Job Duties of the Proffered Position 
In addition, we observe that the duties of the proffered position, as described by the petitioner, have 
been stated in generic terms that do not convey the actual tasks the beneficiary will perform on a 
day-to-day basis. That is, we note that the wording of the above duties provided by the petitioner 
for the proffered position are taken almost verbatim from the O*NET OnLine's list of duties 
associated with a marketing research analyst position. This type of description may be appropriate 
when defining the range of duties that may be performed within an occupational category, but it 
does not adequately convey the substantive work that the beneficiary will perform within the 
petitioner's business operations and, thus, generally cannot be relied upon by a petitioner when 
discussing the duties attached to specific employment. In establishing a position as a specialty 
occupation, a petitioner must describe the specific duties and responsibilities to be performed by a 
beneficiary in the context of the petitioner's business operations, demonstrate a legitimate need for 
an employee exists, and substantiate that it has H-1B caliber work for the beneficiary for the period 
of employment requested in the petition. 
The job description for the proffered position does not convey either the substantive nature of the 
work that the beneficiary would actually perform, or any particular body of highly specialized 
knowledge that would have to be theoretically and practically applied to perform the proffered 
position. The petitioner's assertion with regard to the educational requirement is therefore 
conclusory and unpersuasive, as it is not supported by the job description or other substantive 
evidence. 
D. Analysis 
As discussed, the petitioner has not established the nature of the proffered position and in what 
capacity the beneficiary will actually be employed within the petitioner's business operations. The 
!d. 
[t]he courts and the agency consistently have stated that, although a general-purpose 
bachelor's degree, such as a business administration degree, may be a legitimate prerequisite 
for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify the granting 
of a petition for an H-1B specialty occupation visa. See, e.g., Tapis Int'l v. INS, 94 
F.Supp.2d 172, 175-76 (D.Mass.2000); Shanti, 36 F. Supp.2d at 1164-66; cf Matter of 
Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I & N Dec. 558, 560 ([Comm'r] 1988) (providing frequently cited 
analysis in connection with a conceptually similar provision). This is as it should be: 
elsewise, an employer could ensure the granting of a specialty occupation visa petition by 
the simple expedient of creating a generic (and essentially artificial) degree requirement. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
petitioner's failure to establish the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the beneficiary 
precludes a finding that the proffered position satisfies any criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), because it is the substantive nature of that work that determines (1) the normal 
minimum educational requirement for the particular position, which is the focus of criterion 1; 
(2) industry positions which are parallel to the proffered position and thus appropriate for review for 
a common degree requirement, under the first alternate prong of criterion 2; (3) the level of 
complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position, which is the focus of the second alternate prong 
of criterion 2; (4) the factual justification for a petitioner normally requiring a degree or its 
equivalent, when that is an issue under criterion 3; and (5) the degree of specialization and 
complexity of the specific duties, which is the focus of criterion 4. Thus, the petitioner has not 
established that the proffered position satisfies any of the applicable provisions. 
Nevertheless, we will continue our evaluation and analysis of the evidence provided by the 
petitioner. To that end, we will first discuss the record of proceeding in relation 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. 
USCIS recognizes 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. As 
previously discussed, the petitioner attested in the LCA that the proffered position falls under the 
occupational category "Marketing Research Analysts and Marketing Specialists." 
We reviewed the chapter of the Handbook entitled "Market Research Analysts," including the 
sections regarding the typical duties and requirements for this occupational category. 6 However, the 
Handbook does not indicate that "Market Research Analysts" comprise an occupational group for 
which at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry. 
The subchapter of the Handbook entitled "How to Become a Market Research Analyst" states the 
following about this occupational category: 
Most market research analysts need at least a bachelor's degree. Top research 
positions often require a master's degree. Strong math and analytical skills are 
essential. 
Education 
6 The Handbook, which is available in printed form, may also be accessed on the Internet, at http:// 
www.stats.bls.gov/oco/. Our references to the Handbook are to the 2014 - 2015 edition available online. 
We hereby incorporate into the record of proceeding the chapter of the Handbook regarding "Market 
Research Analysts." 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
Market research analysts typically need a bachelor's degree in market research or a 
related field. Many have degrees 
in fields such as statistics, math, and computer 
science. Others have backgrounds in business administration, the social sciences, or 
communications. 
Courses in statistics, research methods, and marketing are essential for these 
workers. Courses in communications and social sciences, such as economics, 
psychology, and sociology, are also important. 
Some market research analyst jobs require a master's degree. Several schools offer 
graduate programs in marketing research, but many analysts complete degrees in 
other fields, such as statistics and marketing, and/or earn a Master of Business 
Administration (MBA). A master's degree is often required for leadership positions 
or positions that perform more technical research. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., 
Market Research Analysts, available at http://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/market­
research-analysts.htm#tab-4 (last visited June 10, 2015). 
The Handbook does not state that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation. This passage of the 
Handbook 
reports that market research analysts have degrees and backgrounds in a wide-variety of 
disparate fields. While the Handbook states that employees typically need a bachelor's degree in 
market research or a related field, it continues by indicating that many market research analysts 
have degrees in various fields such as statistics, math, or computer science. According to the 
Handbook, other market research analysts have a background in fields such as business 
administration, one of the social sciences, or communications. The Handbook notes that various 
courses are essential to this occupation, including statistics, research methods, and marketing and 
reports that courses in communications and social sciences (such as economics, psychology, and 
sociology) are also important. Again, however, since there must be a close correlation between the 
required "body of highly specialized knowledge" and the position, a minimum entry requirement of 
a degree in disparate fields, such as math and communications, 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). 
Here, although the Handbook indicates that a degree is typically needed for these positions, it also 
indicates that baccalaureate degrees in various fields are acceptable for entry into the occupation. In 
addition to recognizing degrees in disparate fields and backgrounds (i.e., social science and 
computer science) as acceptable for entry into this occupation, the Handbook also states that "others 
have a background in business administration." As previously discussed, 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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
finding that a particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. See Royal 
Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d at 147. Therefore, the Handbook's recognition that a general, 
non-specialty "background" in business administration is sufficient for entry into the occupation 
strongly suggests that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is not normally the minimum entry 
requirement for this occupation. The Handbook does not support the claim that the occupational 
category of market research analyst is one for which normally the minimum requirement for entry is 
a baccalaureate degree (or higher) in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Even if it did, the record 
lacks sufficient evidence to support a finding that the particular position proffered here, an entry­
level market research analyst position, would normally have such a minimum, specialty degree 
requirement, or its equivalent. 
In addition, the petitioner references the O*NET OnLine Summary Report for the occupational 
category "Market Research Analysts and Marketing Specialists" to support the assertion that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. We reviewed the Summary Report in its 
entirety. However, upon review of the Summary Report, we find that it is insufficient to establish 
that the position qualifies as a specialty occupation normally requiring at least a bachelor's degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Summary Report for market research analysts and 
marketing specialists has a designation of Job Zone 4. This indicates that a position requires 
considerable preparation. It does not, however, demonstrate that a bachelor's degree in any specific 
specialty is required, and does not, therefore, demonstrate that a position so designated is in a 
specialty occupation as defined in section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). The 
O*NET OnLine Help Center provides a discussion of the Job Zone 4 designation and explains that 
this zone signifies only that most, but not all of the occupations within it, require a bachelor's 
degree. See O*NET OnLine Help Center at http://www.onetonline.orglhelp/online/zones. Further, 
the Help Center discussion confirms that a designation of Job Zone 4 does not indicate any 
requirements for particular majors or academic concentrations. Therefore, despite the petitioner's 
assertion to the contrary, the O*NET Summary Report is not probative evidence that the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the petitioner submitted an opinion letter from of 
The letter is dated November 19, 2014. Upon review, we find that Mr. has 
not adequately established his expertise to render the opinion made in this matter. Mr. 
provided a summary of his education and experience and attached a copy of his curriculum vitae. 
Based upon a complete review of Mr. letter and curriculum vitae, we note that, while 
Mr. may, in fact, be a recognized authority on various topics, he does not provide 
sufficient information regarding the basis of his claimed expertise on this particular issue. Mr. 
claims that he is qualified to comment on the position of business analyst because of the 
position he holds at However, without further clarification, it is unclear how 
his position teaching courses such as management, marketing, and business ethics at 
would translate to expertise or specialized knowledge on the issue here. 
Mr. opinion letter and curriculum vitae do not cite specific instances in which his past 
opinions have been accepted or recognized as authoritative on this particular issue. There is no 
indication that he has published any work or conducted any research or studies pertinent to the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
educational requirements for business analysts (or parallel positions) in the petitioner's industry for 
similar organizations, and no indication of recognition by professional organizations that he is an 
authority on those specific requirements. The opinion letter contains no evidence that it was based 
on scholarly research conducted by Mr. in the specific area upon which he is opining. 
For instance, in reaching his determination , Mr.. provides no documentary support for 
his ultimate conclusion regarding the education required for the position (e.g., statistical surveys, 
authoritative industry or government publications, or professional studies). Mr. asserts a 
general industry educational standard for organizations similar to the petitioner, without referencing 
any supporting authority or any empirical basis for the pronouncement. 
Upon review of the opinion letter, we find no indication that Mr. possesses any 
knowledge of the petitioner's proffered position beyond the job description. The fact that he 
attributes a degree requirement to such a generalized treatment of the proffered position undermines 
the credibility of his opinion. Mr. does not demonstrate or assert in-depth knowledge of 
the petitioner's specific business operations or how the duties of the position would actually be 
performed in the context of the petitioner's business enterprise. His opinion does not relate his 
conclusion to specific , concrete aspects of this petitioner's business operations to demonstrate a 
sound factual basis for the conclusion about the educational requirements for the particular position 
here at issue. For example, there is no evidence that Mr. has 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. Mr. provides general conclusory 
statements regarding the proffered position, but he does not provide a substantive, analytical basis 
for his opinion and ultimate conclusions. 
Further, there is no indication that the petitioner advised Mr. that it characterized the 
proffered position as a low, entry-level position under the occupational category "Market Research 
Analysts and Marketing Specialists" (as indicated by the wage-level on the LCA). We consider this 
a significant omission, as it appears that Mr. would have found this information relevant 
for his opinion letter. Moreover, without this information, the petitioner has not demonstrated that 
Mr. possessed the requisite information necessary to adequately assess the nature of the 
petitioner's position and appropriately determine similar positions based upon job duties and 
responsibilities. 
In summary, and for each and all of the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the advisory 
opinion rendered by Mr. is not probative evidence to establish the proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. The conclusions reached by Mr. 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 as advisory optmon statements submitted as expert testimony. 
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. Matter of Caron 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
International, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988). As a reasonable exercise of its discretion we 
discount the advisory opinion letter as not probative of any criterion of 8 C.P.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. 
In the instant case, the duties and requirements of the position as described in the record of 
proceeding 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). 
Next, we will review the record regarding the first of the two alternative prongs of 8 C.P.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 identifiable as being (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) (quotingHird/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 independent, authoritative source) reports a standard 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. 
In support of the assertion that the proffered position is a specialty occupation under this criterion of 
the regulations, the petitioner submitted copies of job advertisements. For the petitioner to establish 
that an organization is similar under this criterion of the regulations, it must demonstrate that the 
petitioner and the organization share the same general characteristics. Without such information, 
evidence submitted by a petitioner is generally outside the scope of consideration for this criterion, 
which encompasses only organizations that are similar to the petitioner. 
In the Form 1-129, the petitioner stated that it is an information technology firm with 70 employees. 
The petitioner also reported its gross annual income as approximately $11 million, and its net 
annual income as $387,838. The petitioner designated its business operations under the North 
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 518210.7 This NAICS code is designated 
7 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) is used 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
for "Data Processing, Hosting, and Related Services." The U.S. Department of Commerce, Census 
Bureau website describes this NAICS code by stating the following: 
This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing infrastructure 
for hosting or data processing services. These establishments may provide 
specialized hosting activities, such as web hosting, streaming services or application 
hosting; provide application service provisioning; or may provide general time-share 
mainframe facilities to clients. Data processing establishments provide complete 
processing and specialized reports from data supplied by clients or provide 
automated data processing and data entry services. 
U.S. Dep't of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definition, 624410-Child Day Care 
Services, available at http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch (last visited June 10, 
2015). 
We will briefly note that, without more, not all of the job postings appear to be from organizations 
similar to the petitioner. When determining whether the petitioner and the organization share the 
same general characteristics, such factors may include information regarding the nature or type of 
organization, and, when pertinent, the particular scope of operations, as well as the level of revenue 
and staffing (to list just a few elements that may be considered). It is not sufficient for the petitioner 
to claim that an organization is similar and in the same industry without providing a legitimate basis 
for such an assertion. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient 
for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 
158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. 
Comm'r 1972)). 
We further observe that some of the advertisements do not appear to be for parallel positions. For 
example, the posting from The Tuttle Agency states that the position is for a business analyst -
relationship manager, which requires a degree and "[a]t least 7 years' experience in information 
technology." In addition, the announcement from GlobalLogic states that the position is for an 
operations business analyst that requires a degree and a [m]inimum of 5 years of relevant working 
experience." Further, the posting from EmersonElectric indicates that the position is for a business 
analyst/program lead that requires a bachelor's degree and "+ 8 years' experience OR Master's 
degree + 7 years of related experience." As previously discussed, the petitioner designated its 
proffered position as a wage level I (entry level) on the LCA. The advertised positions appear to be 
for more senior positions than the proffered position. More importantly, the petitioner has not 
sufficiently established that the primary duties and responsibilities of the advertised positions are 
parallel to the proffered position. 
to classify business establishments according to type of economic actlvtty and, each establishment is 
classified to an industry according to the primary business activity taking place there. See 
http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/ (last visited June 10, 2015). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
Further, some postings do not indicate that at least a bachelor's degree in a directly related specific 
specialty (or its equivalent) is required.8 For instance, the following postings state that a degree is 
necessary, but they do not state that a specific specialty is required: 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The job postings suggest, at best, that a bachelor's degree is sometimes required for business 
analysts, but not at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty (or its equivalent). 9 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.10 
That is, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted copies of H-lB approval notices of individuals from other 
organizations. The petitioner does not provide any information regarding the organizations to 
conduct a meaningfully substantive comparison of the business operations to the petitioner. Thus, 
the petitioner has not established that the organizations are similar. 
8 As discussed, the degre e requirement set by the statutory and regulatory framework of the H-lB program is 
not just a bachelor's or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the duties of the 
position. See 214(i)(l)(b) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
In addition, although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business, 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. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 
484 F.3d at 147. 
9 It must be noted that even if all of the job postings indicated that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty , 
or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations (which they do 
not), the petitioner does not demonstrate what inferences, if any, can be drawn from these advertisement s 
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). 
As such, even if the job announcements supported the finding that the position required a bachelor's or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent (for organizations in the same industry that are similar to the 
petitioner), it cannot be found that such a limited number of postings that appear to have been consciously 
selected outweigh the findings of the Handbook published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics that such a 
position does not normally require at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for 
entry into the occupation in the United States. 
10 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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 16 
Further, the petltwner claims that these individuals are working in market research analyst 
positions. However, the petitioner does not provide any specific information regarding the job 
duties and day-to-day responsibilities for these market research analyst positions. There is also no 
information regarding the complexity of the job duties, supervisory duties (if any), independent 
judgment required or the amount of supervision received. Accordingly, there is insufficient 
information regarding the duties and responsibilities of these positions to determine whether they 
are the same or parallel to the proffered position. Moreover, we observe that the petitioner did not 
provide any documentary evidence to corroborate that the organizations currently or in the past 
employed individuals in parallel positions to the proffered position. 
Thus, based upon a complete review of the· record, the petitioner has not established that a 
requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to 
the petitioner's industry in 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. For the 
reasons discussed above, the petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
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 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
In support of its assertion that the proffered pos1t10n qualifies as a specialty occupation, the 
petitioner described the proffered position and its business operations. In addition, the petitioner 
submitted its financial documents, client agreements, and printouts from its website. 
Upon review, we find that the petitioner has not sufficiently developed relative complexity or 
uniqueness as an aspect of the proffered position. 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 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. 
This is further evidenced by the LCA submitted by the petitioner in support of the instant petition. 
As previously mentioned, the LCA indicates a wage level at a Level I (entry) wage, which is the 
lowest of four assignable wage levels. The wage-level of the proffered position indicates that 
(relative to other positions falling under this occupational category) the beneficiary is only required 
to have a basic understanding of the occupation; that he will be expected to perform routine tasks 
that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; that he will be closely supervised and his work 
closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and that he will receive specific instructions on 
required tasks and expected results. DOL guidance indicates that a Level I designation is 
appropriate for a research fellow, a worker in training, or an internship. This designation suggests 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 17 
that the beneficiary will serve m a low-level position relative to others within the occupational 
category. 
Without further evidence, it is not credible that the petitioner's proffered position is complex or 
unique as such a position falling under this occupational category would likely be classified at a 
higher-level, such as a Level Ill (experienced) or Level IV (fully competent) position, requiring a 
significantly higher prevailing wage.n For example, 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." 12 
On appeal and in response to the Director's RFE, the petttloner refers to several unpublished 
decisions in support of its assertion that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The petitioner mistakenly refers to these unpublished decisions as precedent decisions. The 
petitioner has furnished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition are analogous 
to those in the unpublished decisions. While 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c) provides that our precedent 
decisions are binding on all USCIS employees in the administration of the Act, unpublished 
decisions are not similar! y binding. 
Therefore, the evidence of record does not establish that this position is significantly different from 
other market research analyst positions such that it refutes the Handbook's information to the effect 
that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is not required for entry into the 
occupation. In other words, the record lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish the 
proffered position as unique from or more complex than market research analyst positions that can 
be performed by persons 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 posttlon, and references his 
qualifications. 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 
11 
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 from 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)(1) of the Act. 
12 For additional information regarding wage levels as defined by DOL, 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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 18 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The petitioner has not satisfied the 
second alternative prong of 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The third criterion of 8 C.P.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 review the petitioner's past recruiting and hiring practices, as well as information 
regarding employees who previously held the position, and any other documentation submitted by a 
petitioner in support of this criterion of the regulations. 
To merit approval of the petition under this criterion, the record must establish that a petitioner's 
imposition of a degree requirement is not merely 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 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 petitioner 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 388. In other words, if a petitioner's stated degree requirement is only 
designed to artificially meet the standards for an H-lB visa and/or to underemploy an individual in 
a position for which he or she is overqualified and if 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.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty occupation"). 
To satisfy this criterion, the evidence of record must show that the specific performance 
requirements of the position generated the recruiting and hiring history. A petitioner's perfunctory 
declaration of a particular educational requirement will not mask the fact that the position is not a 
specialty occupation. USCIS must examine the actual employment requirements, and, on the basis 
of that examination, determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. See 
generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. In this pursuit, the critical element is not the title of 
the position, or the fact that an employer has routinely insisted on certain educational standards, but 
whether performance of 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. To interpret 
the regulations any other way would lead to absurd results: if USCIS were constrained to recognize 
a specialty occupation merely because the petitioner has an established practice of demanding 
certain educational requirements for the proffered position - and without consideration of how a 
beneficiary is to be specifically employed - then any alien with a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty could be brought into the United States to perform non-specialty occupations, so long as 
the employer required all such employees to have baccalaureate or higher degrees. See id. at 388. 
On appeal, the petitioner states that the proffered position is a new position. Upon review of the 
record of proceeding, the petitioner has not established a prior history of recruiting and hiring for 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 19 
the proffered position only persons with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
The petitioner has not provided probative evidence to establish that it normally requires at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the proffered position. Thus, the 
petitioner has not satisfied the third criterion of 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.P.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 claims that the nature of the specific duties of the position in the context of its 
business operations 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 reviewed the petitioner's statements and documentation regarding the proffered 
position and its business operations. However, relative specialization and complexity have not been 
sufficiently developed by the petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. That is, the proposed 
duties have not been described with sufficient specificity to establish that they are more specialized 
and complex than positions that are not usually associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
We further 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. Hence, without more, 
the position is one not likely distinguishable by relatively specialized and complex duties. That is, 
without further evidence, the petitioner's has not demonstrated that its 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 III(ex~erienced) or Level IV (fully competent) position, requiring a substantially higher 
prevailing wage. 1 
Although the petitioner asserts that the nature of the specific duties is specialized and complex, the 
record lacks sufficient evidence to support this claim. Thus, the petitioner has submitted inadequate 
probative evidence to satisfy the criterion of the regulations at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)( 4). 
For the reasons related in the preceding discussion, the petitioner has not established that it has 
satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.P.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. 
13 As previously discussed, 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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 20 
III. BENEFICIARY QUALIFICATION 
The Director also found that the beneficiary would not be qualified to perform the duties of the 
proffered position if the job had been determined to be a specialty occupation. However, a 
beneficiary's credentials to perform a particular job are relevant only when the job is found to be a 
specialty occupation. As discussed in this decision, the proffered position does not require a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Therefore, we need not and 
will not address the beneficiary's qualifications further. 
IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 
An application or petition that does not comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by us even if the service center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial 
decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 
2001), aff'd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004) (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
Moreover, when we deny a petition on multiple alternative grounds, a plaintiff can succeed on a 
challenge only if it shows that we abused our discretion with respect to all of the enumerated 
grounds. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1037, aff'd. 345 F.3d 
683; see also BDPCS, Inc. v. Fed. Communications Comm'n, 351 F.3d 1177, 1183 (D.C. Cir. 2003) 
("When an agency offers multiple grounds for a decision, we will 
affirm the agency so long as any 
one of the grounds is valid, unless it is demonstrated that the agency would not have acted on that 
basis if the alternative grounds were unavailable."). 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each 
considered as 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; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden 
has not been met.14 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
14 As the identified ground for denial is dispositive of the petitioner's continued eligibility, we need not 
address any additional issues in the record of proceeding.