dismissed H-1B Case: Insurance

MATTER OF P.E.T-I-A- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 10,2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an insurance agency, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a ··technical 
translator'' under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) § 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-IB 
program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a position that 
requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge 
and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as 
a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation in 
accordance with the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the Director erred by finding that the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 
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 occupation 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: 
Matter of P.E. T-1-A- Inc. 
(J) 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.P.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.P.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 Cmp. v. Cherto_ff; 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing ··a degree 
requirement in a specific specialty" as '·one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a 
particular position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
In the H -1 B petition. the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a .. technical translator. .. 
In the letter of support, the Petitioner provided the Beneficiary's job duties in the proffered position. 
According to the Petitioner, the position requires a bachelor's degree in languages, finance. or a 
closely related field, and fluency of written and spoken Mandarin Chinese. In addition. the 
Petitioner stated that the position requires an insurance producer license from the Indiana 
Department of Insurance. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided additional 
information regarding the protiered position, including the approximate percentage of time the 
Beneficiary will spend on each duty, as follows: 
1) Assisting the [Petitioner's] Sales Force in communicating with customers. 
educating customers about the insurance requirements in the State of Indiana and 
the full range of products and services, and the difference between policies. 
offered by [the Petitioner] all in the Chinese language. (50%) 
2) Assisting with claims process for Chinese speaking customers, including dealing 
with service professionals, resolving customer service issues and/or complications 
arising under the terms and conditions of policies. again all in the Chinese 
language. For example, [the Beneficiary] has met with investigators, contractors. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of P.E. T-1-A- Inc. 
mechanics, and even health care providers as a liaison between [the Petitioner] 
and the customer to answer questions about policy terms and conditions, and 
benefits and coverage, and to communicate with the customer in the Chinese 
language to ensure they understand the claims process. (30%) 
3) Provide assistance to Marketing Manager by assisting in developing, designing, 
and translating marketing materials targeted to Chinese speaking market in 
Indiana and specifically the faculty, staff and student 
body~ serving as Community Outreach representative for [the Petitioner] with 
Chinese speaking faculty and student groups at (i.e. speaking 
engagements and presentations to the the 
(10%) 
4) Translating all correspondence, finance agreements, insurance policies, 
statements/invoices, and marketing materials from English to Chinese. In 
addition to translating the aforementioned written materials, [the Beneficiary] also 
meets with Chinese speaking customers to review the materials in detail, ensuring 
that they understand the technical provisions of the documents and the legal 
implications ofthe same .... (5%) 
5) Problem Resolution - [The Beneficiary] provides essential problem resolution 
assistance to [the Petitioner]. ... Therefore, we rely heavily on [the Beneficiary] 
to communicate with Chinese speaking customers and to handle resolution of 
problems regarding the claims process or customer satisfaction. (5%) 
In addition, the Petitioner provided a list of functions that the Beneficiary must be able to perform in 
Chinese and English. 
III. ANALYSIS 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in its decision concluding that that the 
Petitioner had not established eligibility for the H-IB petition to be approved. 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 qualifies as a specialty occupation. 1 Specifically, the record 
(I) contains inconsistent information regarding the proffered position; and (2) does not establish that 
the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty . ') 
occupatiOn.~ 
1 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of P.E. T-1-A- Inc. 
A. Educational Requirements 
We tum first to the educational requirements for the proffered position. Within the record, the 
Petitioner has provided inconsistent information regarding the educational requirement for the 
proffered position. For instance, in the letter of support, the Petitioner stated that the proffered 
position required a ''Bachelor of Science degree in Languages, Finance, or a closely related field." 
However, in response to the RFE, the Petitioner stated that the duties of the proffered position can 
only be performed "by an individual who has completed at least a bachelor's level education in 
Finance, Insurance Services or Financial Counseling, or a closely related field:' In addition, in the 
same letter, the Petitioner stated that the position requires "valid insurance licenses, a Bachelor or 
higher degree in Business, Insurance, or Financial Counseling or a closely related field .... " 
Further. in the same letter, the Petitioner stated that a ''bachelor's degree in insurance or financial 
planning is a normal prerequisite for entry'' into the proffered position. Moreover, the Petitioner 
provided a letter from of which states that the proffered position 
requires "a Bachelor's degree in Insurance, Financial Counseling and Planning or a closely related 
field." 
The Petitioner has represented that the position requires a bachelor's degree in languages, finance. 
insurance services, financial counseling, business, insurance, financial planning. and/or financial 
counseling and planning. 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)( I )(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 disparate fields 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)(l)(B) ofthe Act (emphasis added). 
While the statutory "the'' and the regulatory ··a" both denote a singular '"specialty.'' 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. 
See section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). This also includes even seemingly 
disparate specialties providing, again, the evidence of record establishes how each acceptable. 
specific field of study is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position. 
Here, the Petitioner states that a bachelor's degree in languages, finance, insurance services, 
financial counseling, business, insurance, financial planning, and/or financial counseling and 
planning is acceptable. However. these fields cover numerous and various specialties. It is not 
readily apparent that these fields are closely related or that they are directly related to the duties and 
responsibilities of the particular position proffered in this matter. Accordingly. as the evidence of 
4 
Matter of P.E. T-1-A- Inc. 
record does not establish a standard. minimum requirement of at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty. or its equivalent for entry into the particular position, it does not support the 
proffered position as being a specialty occupation. 
B. Labor Condition Application 
Next, we tum to the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-1 B petition, in 
which the Petitioner designated the proffered position under the occupational category .. Interpreters 
and Translators'' corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 27-3091 at a Level 
I wage.3 In the appeal brief, however. the Petitioner states that the duties and skills ofthe proffered 
position '·go well beyond'' and .. exceed those normally associated with a translator/interpreter 
position." The Petitioner reports that in addition to the academic requirements (discussed above), 
the position requires an insurance producer license from the Indiana Department of Insurance 
because of the complex and specialized nature of the position. 
The Petitioner's assertion that the proffered position requires a significant level of responsibility and 
expertise, as well as an insurance producer license, does not appear to be reflected in the wage level 
chosen by it on the LCA.4 The statements regarding the claimed level of complexity. independent 
judgment and understanding required for the proffered position, as well as the requirements. appear 
to be materially inconsistent with the certification of the LCA for a Level I position. This conflict 
challenges the overall credibility of the petition in establishing the nature of the proffered position 
and in what capacity the Beneficiary will be employed. Therefore, we are precluded from finding 
that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. Nevertheless. assuming, arguendo. that the 
Petitioner adequately addressed the discrepancies discussed above, we will now analyze the 
evidence of record. 
C. First Criterion 
3 We will consider the Petitioner's classification of the proffered position at a Level I wage (the lowest of four assignable 
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 tor positions for which the 
Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the occupation. This wage rate indicates: (I) that the 
Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited. if any, exercise of judgment: (2) that he will be 
closely supervised and his work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that he will receive specific 
instructions on required tasks and expected results. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Premilin;.; Wage 
Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009). available at 
http://flcdatacenter.com/download!NPWHC _ GuidanceRevised_ll_ 2009.pdf. A prevailing wage determination starts 
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 tor research fellows. workers 
in training, or internships. !d. 
4 A petitioner must distinguish its proffered position from others within the occupation through the proper wage level 
designation to indicate factors such as complexity of the job duties. the level of judgment, the amount and level of 
supervision, and the level of understanding required to perform the job duties. Through the wage level. a petitioner 
reflects the job requirements, experience, education, special skills/other requirements and supervisory duties. 
5 
Matter of P.E. T-1-A- Inc. 
We now look 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) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the 
duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 5 
The Petitioner designated the position under the occupation "Interpreters and Translators" on the 
LCA, therefore, we reviewed the subchapter of the Handbook entitled "How to Become an 
Interpreter or Translator." The Handbook states. in pertinent part: "Although interpreters and 
translators typically need at least a bachelor's degree. the most important requirement is that they be 
fluent in at least two languages (English and at least one other language). Many complete job­
specific training programs." 6 The Handbook also states: ''The educational backgrounds of 
interpreters and translators vary widely, but it is essential that they be fluent in English and at least 
one other language.'' 
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. Importantly, the Handbook emphasizes the 
importance of language skills and reports that the educational backgrounds of interpreters and 
translators vary widely. Moreover, contrary to the Petitioner's assertion, while the Handbook reports 
that an educational background in a particular field of study can provide subject-matter expertise. it 
does not state that this is required. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner also referenced the Occupational Information Network 
(O*NET) OnLine Summary Report for "Interpreters and Translators." The summary report provides 
general information regarding the occupation; however, it does not support the Petitioner's assertion 
regarding the educational requirements for the occupation. For example, the Specialized Vocational 
Preparation (SVP) rating cited within O*NET's Job Zone designates this occupation as 7 < 8. An 
SVP rating of 7 to less than ("<'') 8 indicates that the occupation requires "over 2 years up to and 
including 4 years" of training. While the SVP rating indicates the total number of years of 
vocational preparation required for a particular position, it is important to note that it does not 
describe how those years are to be divided among training, formal education, and experience- and it 
does not specify the particular type of degree, if any, that a position would require. 7 
5 All of our references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
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 USCIS 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. 
6 For additional information regarding the occupational category "Interpreters and Translators:· see U.S. Dep't of Labor. 
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., Interpreters and Translators. available at 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/media-and-communication/print/interpreters-and-translators.htm (last visited June 9. 2016 ). 
7 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/ 
help/online/svp. 
6 
Matter of P.E. T-1-A- Inc. 
Further, the summary report provides the educational requirements of ''respondents,'' but does not 
account for 100% of the "respondents." The respondents' positions within the occupation are not 
distinguished by career level (e.g., entry-level, mid-level, senior-level). Additionally, the graph in 
the summary report does not indicate that the ''education level" for the respondents must be in a 
specific specialty. 
Thus, the Petitioner has not provided documentation from a probative source to substantiate its 
assertion regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. 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 
casts its gaze upon 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 atlidavits 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." 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner submitted copies of job announcements placed by other 
employers. However, upon review ofthe documents, we find that the Petitioner's reliance on the job 
announcements is misplaced. First, we note that some of the job postings do not appear to involve 
(b)(6)
Matter of P.E. T-1-A- Inc. 
organizations similar to the Petitioner. For example, the Petitioner IS a five-person msurance 
agency, whereas the advertising organizations include: 
• -an on-line publisher; 
• 
• - pioneer in the creation of interactive entertainment; and 
• 
Furthermore, one of the postings appears to be for staffing agency with little information regarding 
the hiring employer. The Petitioner did not supplement the record of proceeding to establish that the 
advertising organizations are similar to it. 
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 statling 
(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. 
Moreover, many of the advertisements do not appear to be for parallel positions. For example. some 
of the positions appear to be for more senior positions than the proffered position. Moreover. some 
of the postings do not include the duties and responsibilities for the advertised positions. Thus. it is 
not possible to determine important aspects of the jobs, such as the day-to-day responsibilities. 
complexity of the job duties, supervisory duties (if any), independent judgment required or the 
amount of supervision received. Therefore, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the 
primary duties and responsibilities of the advertised positions are parallel to the proffered position. 
In addition, some of the postings do not indicate that at least a bachelor's degree in a directly related 
specific specialty (or its equivalent) is required. 8 The job postings suggest. at best that although a 
bachelor's degree is sometimes required for interpreter and translator positions. a bachelor's degree 
in a ~pec(jic .\pecialty (or its equivalent) is not. 9 
8 As discussed , the degree requirement set by the statutory and regulatory framework of the H-1 8 program is not just a 
bachelor's or higher degree, but a bachelor 's degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the duties of the 
position. See section 214(i)(l)(b) ofthe Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). Further. a preference for a degree in a tleld 
is not necessarily an indication of a minimum requirement. 
9 It must be noted that even if all of the job postings indicated that a requirement of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations (which they do not). the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from the advertisements with regard to 
determining the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. See 
generally Earl Babbie, The Practice (?lSocial Research 186-228 (1995). Moreover, given that there is no indication that 
the advertisements were randomly selected, the validity of any such inferences could not be accurately determined even 
if the sampling unit were sufficiently large. See id. at 195-196 (explaining that ··[r]andom selection is the key to [the] 
process [of probability sampling]" and that "random selection offers access to the body of probability theory . which 
provides the basis for estimates of population parameters and estimates of error''). 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter of P.E. T-1-A- Inc. 
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 a letter authored by who identifies himself as a 
certified financial planner, a chartered retirement plans specialist, and a continuing lecturer at 
based his opinion on his education, his three decades of experience in the 
financial industry, and his current positions. noted that he had reviewed the petition and 
supporting documents, and the Petitioner's response to the Director's RFE. also referenced 
his familiarity "with the employment opportunities that exist in the industry" and his acquaintance 
"with the qualifications that employers require to consider employment of candidates for these 
positions." recited the list of duties provided by the Petitioner in response to the Director's 
RFE and asserted that the proffered position is ''highly specialized and complex and involved a wide 
variety of duties that require a comprehensive understanding of insurance concepts, products and 
services, and the legal and regulatory obligations and consequences of the services and products 
being offered by [the Petitioner]." concluded that the position is a specialty occupation and 
requires a Bachelor's degree in Financial Counseling and Planning, Insurance, or a closely related 
field. 
Upon review, we do not find a sufficient basis to accord deference to his opinion with regard to the 
minimum education requirements for the performance of the proffered position. Even considered in 
the aggregate, professional, academic, and educational experiences, do not show that he 
has published, conducted research, run surveys, or engaged in any enterprise, pursuit, or employment 
- academic or otherwise - that would provide him with specialized knowledge of the industry 
standards on the academic requirements for interpreters or translators at an insurance agency. While 
may have anecdotal information regarding "the employment opportunities that exist in the 
industry" and ·'the qualifications that employers require to consider employment of candidates for 
these positions" he has not supplied any relevant research, studies, surveys, or other authoritative 
publications as part of his review and/or as a foundation for his opinion. ''[G]oing on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in 
these proceedings." Matter<~( So_ffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter<~( 
Treasure Cra.fi ofCal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
Significantly, does not mention that the Petitioner initially found that a general language 
degree would be sufficient to perform the duties of the position, or the Petitioner's acceptance of a 
general business degree as adequate to perform the duties of the proffered position. Moreover, 
does not discuss the fact that the Petitioner submitted an LCA certified for a wage-level that is 
appropriate for a comparatively low, entry-level interpreter/translator, relative to others within the 
same occupation, and which signifies that the Beneficiary is only expected to possess a basic 
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. 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter of P.E. T-1-A- Inc. 
understanding of the occupation of an interpreter/ translator in order to perform the duties of the 
position. The omission of such important information diminishes the evidentiary value of his 
opmwn. 
Therefore, the opinion letter from does not support the Petitioner's assertion that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation . We may, in our discretion, use opinion 
statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron lnt 'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 
795 (Comm'r 1988). 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. Id. For 
the reasons discussed above, the opinion letter is not sufficient probative evidence towards satisfying 
any criterion at 8 C.F.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. 
The Petitioner also submitted a resume of an individual that worked for 
for five months. In response to the RFE. the Petitioner asserted that the duties of this 
individual's position as an insurance account representative were similar to the proffered position 
and that the individual possess a master's degree. The Petitioner did not submit the academic 
credentials of this individual, e.g .. copies of diplomas, transcripts. In addition, the Petitioner did not 
provide 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 the insurance account 
representative position to determine whether it is the same or parallel to the proffered position. 
Moreover. we observe that the Petitioner did not provide any documentary evidence to corroborate 
that currently or in the past employed individuals in parallel 
positions to the proffered position. 
Without more, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions 
among similar organizations. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 
8 C.P.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 
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 submitted descriptions of the proffered position and information regarding its business 
operations, including copies of its promotional materials and its profit and loss statement for 2014. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the duties of the proffered position are so complex and unique 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter of P.E. T-1-A- Inc. 
that they can only be performed by an individual with a bachelor's degree in specific specialty. 
However, the Petitioner has not sutliciently developed relative complexity or uniqueness as an 
aspect of the proffered position. As previously discussed, the Petitioner designated the protTered 
position as an entry-level position within the occupational category (by selecting a Level I wage). 11 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted printouts of the undergraduate insurance program at 
and the undergraduate financial counseling and planning program at 
The Petitioner highlighted several courses, including accounting, communication , 
consumer behavior, economics, etc. However, the Petitioner docs not specifically identitY and 
explain why these courses would be required to perform the duties of the protTered position. 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. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position, 
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 bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner did not 
sufficiently develop relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position, and 
it did not identify any tasks that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual 
could perform them. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 
8 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner acknowledges that it has not previously hired a technical translator. The 
Petitioner asserts, however, that ''it has consistently maintained interns to perform many of the duties 
of the Technical Translator, and those interns were all recruited from The 
11 The Petitioner's designation ofthis position as a Levell, entry-level position undermines its claim that the position is 
particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation. Neverthel ess. 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 
lawy ers). a Level I. entry-level position would still require a minimum of a bachelor 's degree in a specilic specialty, or 
its equivalent for entry. Similarl y, however. a Level IV wage-designation would not reflect that an occupati on qualities 
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 specialt y. 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)( I) of the Act. 
II 
Matter of P.E.T-1-A- Inc. 
Petitioner emphasizes that "no individuals have been recruited to fill positions with Petitioner that 
did not have a degree, and all other employees are degreed in the relevant field.'' However, as the 
record does not include evidence establishing that the Petitioner previously employed individuals in 
the proffered position, discussion of the Petitioner's preferences and hiring policy for other position 
is outside the scope of this criterion. Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J). 
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. 
While the Petitioner provided a more detailed job description in response to the RFE, the description 
does not establish that the duties 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 also 
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 (of the lowest of four 
assignable wage-levels) relative to others within the occupational category. Without further 
evidence, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that its proffered position is one with specialized and 
complex duties as such a position within this occupational category would likely be classified at a 
higher-level, requiring a substantially higher prevailing wage. 
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 ofthe regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(..f). 
On appeal, the Petitioner references several of our non-precedent decisions in support of its claim 
that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. First, the record of proceeding does not contain 
sufficient information regarding the underlying facts of the non-precedent decisions and, therefore, 
no substantive determination could be made to determine what facts, if any, are analogous to those in 
this proceeding. Second, 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 arc not similarly 
binding. Finally, as previously discussed, the evidence of record does not establish that the subject 
matter the Beneficiary will be required to interpret or translate is associated with duties so 
specialized and complex that they encompass the duties of a specialty occupation. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The burden is on the 
12 
Matter of P.E. T-1-A- Inc. 
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. 
Cite as Matter ofP.E. T-1-A-lnc., ID# 17112 (AAO June 10, 2016) 
13