dismissed H-1B Case: Insurance

(b)(6)
DATE: MAY 1 5 2015 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
OFFICE: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Sccuril� 
U.S. Citi:.>:enship and lmmigralion Scf\ 1cc' 
Administrative Appeals ( )ffice (A;\( l) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W .. MS 20<JU 
Washington, DC 20S2'l-20'J0 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section lOl(a)( 15)(H)(i)(h) ()I the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INST RUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or ;1 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-2908 inst ructio ns at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and othe1· •·equirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRE CEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director (hereinafter "director") denied the nonimm igrant visa 
petition, and the matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will 
be dismissed. The petition will be denied. 
I. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGRO UND 
On the Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form 1-129), the petitioner describes itself as a 
nine-employee "Insurance Management General Agency" firm established in . In order to 
employ the beneficia ry in what it designates as a part-time "Underwriter" positio n, the petitioner 
seeks to classify him as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to sect ion 
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) . iS U.S.C. 
§ 1101( a)(15)(H)(i)(b ). 
The director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to establish that it would employ 
the beneficiary in a specialty occupation position. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director's 
basis for denial was erroneous and contends that it has satisfied all evidentiary requir ements. 
As will be discussed below, we have determined that the director did not err in her decision to deny 
the petition on the specialty occupation issue. Accordingly, the director's decision will not be 
disturbed. The appeal will be dismissed, and the petition will be denied. 
We base our decision upon our review of the entire record of proceeding, which includes: 
(1) the petitioner's Form 1-129 and the supporting documentation filed with it; (2) the se rvice center's 
request for additional evidence (RFE); (3) the petitioner's response to the RFE; ( 4) the di rector's 
denial letter; and (5) the Form I-290B and the petitioner's submissions on appeal. 
On the Labor Condition Application (LCA) submitted with the petition, the petitioner des igna ted its 
business operations under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 
524210. 1 This NAICS code is designated for "Insurance Agencies and Broker ages. " The U.S. 
Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau website describes this NAICS code by stating the 
following: "This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in a cti ng as agents (i .e., 
brokers) in selling annuities and insurance policies." U.S. Dep't of Commer ce, U.S. Census Bureau, 
2012 NAICS Definition, 524210- Insurance Agencies and Brokerages, http://www.census.gov/cgi­
bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch (last visited May 13, 2015). 
The LCA states that the proffered position is an underwriter position, and that it correspo nds to 
Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code and title 13-2053, Underwriters, from the 
Occupational Information Network (O*NET). The LCA further states that the proffered position is 
a wage Level I, entry-level, position. 
1 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) is used 
to classify business establishments according to type of economic activity and each establishment is classi t"icd 
to an industry according to the primary business activity taking place there. See 
http://www .census.gov /eos/www /naics/. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDF:NT Dt-:CtS/( JN 
Page 3 
With the visa petition, the petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary recei ved a bachelor's 
degree in from the : at 
and a master's degree in from 
The petitioner also submitted a letter, dated March 20, 2014 from 
petitioner's CEO. As to the duties of the proffered position, Mr. , stated: 
,, sig ni n g as the 
[The beneficiary] will examine documents to determine degree of risk from such 
factors as applicant financial standing and value and condition of property. He will 
write to field representatives, medical personnel, and others to obtain further 
information, quote rates, or explain company underwriting policies . [The 
beneficiary] will review company records to determine amount of insu rance in force 
on single risk or group of closely related risks. He will evaluate the possibility of 
losses due to catastrophe or excessive insurance. [The beneficiary] will author ize 
reinsurance of policy when risk is high. He will decline excessive risks. [The 
beneficiary] will determine policy contract provisions for varies [sic 1 types of 
insurance that [the petitioner] offers. He will provide expertise to help [the petitioner] 
. k 2 manage ns s. 
As to the requisite education for the proff ered position, Mr. stated, "Given the above compl ex 
duties, the minimum education, training and experience necessary to perform such a job would be a 
Bachelor's degree. " He also cited the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook 
(Handbook) as evidence that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation position. 
On May 6, 2014, the service center issued an RFE in this matter. The service cent er re qu este d, inter 
alia, evidence that the petitioner would employ the beneficiary in a specialt y occu pation. The 
service center provided a non-exhaustive list of items that might be used to satisfy the specialty 
occupation requireme nts. 
In response, the petitioner submitted, inter alia: (1) numerous vacancy announcem ents ; (2) agency 
agreements, brokerage agreements, real estate inspection reports, and real property appraisals; and 
(3) a letter, dated July 16, 2014, from 
The agency agreements show that the petitioner has agreed to sell insurance policies issued by 
and : Those agreements indicate 
2 Some question exists pertinent to whether these would be the duties of an insurance underwriter in an 
insurance agency or brokerage. For instance, "managing risks" may be a function more appmprialc Ill 1 he 
insurance company, rather than to a brokerage. However, we will proceed with our analysis based on the 
assumption that the duties of the proffered position have been accurately described. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECED ENT DECISION 
Page 4 
that the petitioner will sell insurance policies of types approved by those msurancc compan1es, 
collect premiums, and receive commissions for such sales. 
In his July 16, 2014 letter reiterated that the proffered position requires a bachelor's 
degree.3 He cited the Handbook and information from the O*NET Intern et site for the proposit[on 
that underwriter positions require a bachelor's degree. He also provided the following expanded 
description of the duties of the proffered position: 
• Examine documents to determine degree of risk from such factor s as applicant 
financial standing and value and condition of property. (30% of the time) 
o Study and analyze various policies proposals, ensure that coverage and 
premium are competitive in the market 
o Use statistical results and detailed risk information to decide whether a 
new or renewal business to be accepted or decline for a variety of I ines 
o According to each carrier's underwriting guideline, set up factor 
coefficients based on property condition, applicant credit history, and 
liability requirement 
o Calculate policy premium with actuarial formulas and compose 
proposal to explain coverage and charges 
o Keep detailed and accurate records of policies underwritten and 
decisions made, and share the access to other underwriters in database. 
o Create submission log with automatic alert VBA macros in Excel to 
examine if risks violate the underwriting guideline. Once the risk info 
was entered in spreadsheet, alert will activate if the physical condition 
or applicant's financial standing failed to meet the gu ideline of certai n 
insurance carriers, for instance, alert may pop up when the location is 
within 0.2 mile to coastal line in NYC five boroughs. 
• Write to field representatives; medical personnel, and others to obtain further 
information, quote rates, or explain company underwriting policies. (20% of the 
time) 
3 Mr. 
o Administrate quarterly auditing for different lines, overhauled and 
implement statistics on thousands of financial reports and policy 
documents 
o Prepare common distributions in R, by using the following commands: 
> library (MASS) 
> fitdistr (x, 't')$loglik 
> fitdistr (x, 1normal ')$loglik 
did not then state that the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree 111 any �pccil"ic 
specialty, nor even in any range of specialties. 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
> fitdistr(x, 1ogistic')$loglik 
> fitdistr(x, 'wei bull ')$loglik 
> fitdistr(x, 'gamma')$loglik 
> fitdistr(x, 1ognormal ')$loglik 
> fitdistr(x, 'exponential ')$loglik 
and fit distributions for certain data set by 
> fitdistr(x, 'beta', list(shapel = nl, shape2= n2) 
NON-PR ECEDENT DECISION 
o Apply different discounts to submissions in order to make premium 
more competitive, such as new building discount, no loss discount, 
local security device discount, multi-line discount, non-smoker 
discount 
o Answer questions about policy coverage for brokers, insured, 
mortgagee lien holders, insurance regulation board, and government 
personnel; list what kind of loss may be covered and what may not be. 
o Explain the reasons that a submission is rejected. Recommend what 
actions have to be taken in order to get each risk approved, such as 
hire licensed and qualified contractors to update knob and tube 
electricity device to circuit breakers 
• Review company records to determine amount of insurance in force on single risk or 
group of closely related risks. (15% of the time) 
o Took 8 years policy and submission data as the sample, assume the population under 
bootstrap, use [formula omitted] to determine the bootstrap confidence interval. 
o Calculate the minimum required sample to study the standard deviation of loss ratio by using 
[formula omitted], where MOE (Margin of Error) is 2.5% or 5% 
o Research seasonality of loss with ARIMA (1, 0, 0) x (1, 0, 0)12 model, figure out high loss 
risk type, frequent fire loss month and seasonal high loss territories. 
• Evaluate possibility of losses due to catastrophe or excessive insurance. (10% of the 
time) 
o Calculate the first loss term expectation with ARIMA (1, 0, 0) x (1, 0, 0)1� model. and usc 
the result as guide in new business acceptance and renewal decision making. 
o Examine distribution in graphical theory, eliminate outliers within rejection region [formula 
omitted] when the distribution of graphics appears to be heavy-tailed, such as the graph 
below: 
[Graph omitted.] 
o Review different types of inspections for both new business and renewal policies. Compose 
recommendation letters for necessary repair work. Determine high-risk prope rties based on 
(b)(6)
Page6 
NON-PRECEDENT DFC/Sf( JN 
inspection report and same type property condition distribution for direct cancella tion or non­
renew 
• Authorize reinsurance of policy when risk is high. Decline excessive risks. (10% of the 
time) 
o Determine if the loss ratio could be summarized as a single statistics [formula omitted! and if 
a prior parameter is a scale parameter [formula omitted] 
o Estimate expectation of the ceiling on the amount of the underwriting risk 
o Explicitly recognize of the time value through the use of experience accounts fund ed by 
larger reinsurer premiums, which accumulate investment profit over time and the fund loss 
payment 
o Include a commutation clause that allow for profit sharing between the cedent and reinsurer 
contract 
o Compose multi-year contracts that allow the cedent to mitigate volatility by recognizing a 
loss gradually 
• Determine policy contract provasaons for varies [sic] types of insurance that I the 
petitioner] offers. (10% of the time) 
o Utilize the detailed line-by-line interpretations of commercial general and umbrella/excess 
liability policy language, including all countrywide ISO endorsements, to help answc1· 
coverage questions, modify policies, and negotiate premiums. 
o Identify and eliminate gaps in coverage between primary Commercial G en er a l Liability and 
existing umbrella/excess liability policies 
o Keep up with emerging loss exposures and how they might affect underwri ting decisions; 
follow trends and developments in coverage approaches for all lines of insurance. 
o Use as third-party support to company efforts at negotiating claims on behalf of insured's or 
communicating the rationale of denials to insured's. 
• Provide expertise to help [the petitioner] manage risks. (5% of the time) 
o Maintain database, clean system trash created in daily use, correct mistyped information, 
validate data structure, run data back up and update insurance agency management software 
Prime 
o Create pivot table on Excel to conclude and illustrate the market volume and loss ratio of 
risks with certain categorical or terrestrial constraints 
o Monitor competitors' pricing, lines of business, and underwriting guideline via A.M. Best 
official websites to keep carrier finance and marketing information updated 
Mr. stated that he is the petitioner's CEO and senior underwriter, and also identified 
as people whom the petitioner employs, or has em ployed, as 
underwriters. Mr. stated that he and 1 have master's degrees in business 
(b)(6)
NON-P RECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
administration and juris doctorates, and • 
Science. 
and have master's degrees in Actuarial 
The director denied the petition on August 11, 2014, finding, as was noted above, that the petitioner 
had not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifi es for classification as a special ty occupation 
by virtue of requiring a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specia lty or its equivalent. 
More specifically, the director found that the petitioner had satisfied none of the supplemental 
criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
On appeal, the petitioner submitted, inter alia: (1) a vacancy announcement placed by the petiti oner 
for a "P&C Underwriter" position; (2) vacancy announcements placed by other companies; 
(3) an evaluation of the proffered position, dated September 5, 2014; (4) a letter from 
the petitioner's CEO, dated September 8, 2014; and (5) a brief. 
The petitioner's vacancy announcement states that its P&C Underwriter posi[ion requires a 
bachelor's degree in finance, statistics, or mathematics and "1-2 years of P&C underwriting 
experience." 
The September 5, 2014 position evaluation wa s prepared by _ . who o;;tatPrl Jh�1t hP i.;; :t 
professor in the department of applied mathematics and statistics at 
Professor reiterated portions of the duty description contained in _ s July 16, 2014 
letter, and stated that, based on those duties, the proffered position req uires a minimum of a 
bachelor's degree in finance, statistics, or mathematics. As to various duties described, Professor 
stated: 
To perform the above duties, the candidate needs to u tilize the knowledge of 
Deterministic Models in Operation Research. 
* * * 
To perform the above duties, the candidate needs to utilize the knowledge of 
Multi variable Models in Advanced Data Analysis. 
* * * 
To perform the above duties, the candidate needs to utilize the knowledge of Linear 
Regression and Time Series Analysis. 
* * * 
To perform the above duties, the candidate needs to utilize the knowledge of [nterest 
Models and Interest Theory in Financial Mathematics. 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
* * * 
NON- PRECEDENT DECISION 
To perform the above duties, the candidate needs to utilize the knowledge of 
simulation method in the Stochastic Process. 
In his September 8, 2014 letter, reiterated the original duty description he provided in 
his March 20, 2014 letter and stated that the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree in 
finance, statistics, or mathematics. 
In its brief, the petitioner also reiterated the March 20, 2014 duty description and stated that the 
proffered position requires a bachelor's degree in finance, statistics, or mathematics. 
II. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
The issue is whether the petitioner has provided sufficient evidence to establish that it will employ 
the beneficiary in a specialty occupation position. 
A. The Law 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as <tn 
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.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.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, a proposed position must 
also meet one of the following criteria: 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the mtmmum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(b)(6)
Page 9 
NON- PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must logically be read together 
with section 214(i)(1) of the Act and 8 C.F.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.F.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.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory or 
regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 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 supplement al criteria that 
must be met in accordance with, and not as alternatives to, the statutory and regula to ry definitions of 
specialty occupation. 
As such and consonant with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and the regu lation at K C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii), U.S. Citizenshi p and Immi gration 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 respon sibil iti es of a particular 
position"). Applying this standard, USCIS regularly approves H-lB peti tions for qualified aliens 
who are to be employed as engineers, computer scientists, certified public accounta nts, 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 highe r 
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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
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 s pecialty 
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. 
B. Analysis 
To determine whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation position, we turn 
first to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(l) and (2): a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty or its equivalent is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular 
position; and a degree requirement in a specific specialty is common to the industry in parallel 
positions among similar organizations or a particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with a degree in a specific specialty. Factors we consider when 
determining these criteria include: whether the Handbook, on which we routinely rely for the 
educational requirements of particular occupations, reports the industry requires a degree in a 
specific specialty; whether the industry's professional association has made a degree in a speci fie 
specialty a minimum entry requirement; and whether letters or affidavits from firms or individuals in 
the industry attest that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." See 
Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 1999) (quoting Hird!Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 
712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
We will first address the requirement under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l): A baccalaureate or 
higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular 
position. We recognize the Handbook, cited by the petitioner, as an authoritative source on the 
duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses.'"' The 
petitioner claims in the LCA that the proffered position corresponds to SOC code and title 13-2053. 
Insurance Underwriters, from O*NET. The Handbook states the following about the educational 
requirements of insurance underwriter positions: 
How to Become an Insurance Underwriter 
Employers prefer to hire candidates who have a bachelor's degree. However. 
insurance-related work experience and strong computer skills may be enough. 
Certification is necessary for advancement to senior underwriter and underwriter 
manager positions. 
4 The Handbook, which is available in p rinted form, may also be accessed on the Internet, at 
http://www.bls.gov/oco/. Our references to the Handbook are to the 2014-2015 edition available online. 
(b)(6)
· Page 11 
NON-PRECED ENT DECIS!OJ 
Education 
Most firms prefer to hire applicants who have a bachelor's degree. Courses tn 
business, finance, economics, and mathematics are particularly helpful. 
Training 
Beginning underwriters usually work as trainees under the superviSIOn of senior 
underwriters. Trainees work on basic applications and learn the most common risk 
factors. As they gain experience, they become responsible for more complex 
applications and work independently. 
Licenses, Certifications, and Registrations 
Employers often expect underwriters to get certification through coursework. These 
courses are important for keeping current with new insurance policies and adjusting 
to new technology and changes in state and federal regulations. Certification is often 
necessary for advancement to senior underwriter and underwriter management 
positions. Many certification options are available. 
For underwriters with at least 3 years of insurance experience, The Institutes of fers 
the Chartered Property and Casualty Underwriter (CPCU) designation. 
For beginning underwriters, The Institutes offers a training program. The Institutes 
also offers two special designations, an Associate in Commercial Underwriting (AU) 
and an Associate in Personal Insurance (API). To earn either the AU or API 
designation, underwriters complete a series of courses and exams that generally take 
1 to 2 years. 
The American College of Financial Services also offers an introductor y course in 
. basic insurance concepts: The Life Underwriter Training Council Fellow (LUTCF). 
They also offer a Chartered Life Underwriter (CLU) and Registered Hea lth 
Underwriter (RHU) designation. 
Important Qualities 
Analytical skills. Underwriters must be able to evaluate information fro m a variety of 
sources and solve complex problems. 
Decision-making skills. Underwriters must consider the costs and benefits of various 
decisions and choose the appropriate one. 
(b)(6)
Page 12 
NON-PRECEDENT DLCIS/( W 
Detail oriented. Underwriters must pay attention to detail, because each individual 
item on an insurance application can affect the coverage decision. 
Interpersonal skills. Underwriters need good communication and interpersonal skil ls 
because much of their work involves dealing with other people, such as insurance 
agents. 
Math skills. Determining the probability of losses on an insurance policy an d 
calculating appropriate premiums require mathematical ability. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 eel., 
11 Insurance Underwriters, 11 http://www .bls.gov /ooh/business-ancl-financial/insu ranee-u nderw ri tcrs. 
htm#tab-4 (last visited May 13, 2015 ). 
When reviewing the Handbook, we must note that the petitioner designated the proff e red pos1t1nn 
under this occupational category at a Level I on the LCA.5 This designation is in dic ative of a 
com paratively low, entry-level position relative to others within the occupation and signifies that the 
beneficiary is only expected to possess a basic understanding of the occupation and wi ll perform 
routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment. In accordance with the relevant DOL 
explanatory information on wage levels, the beneficiary will be closely supervised and his work 
closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy. Furthermore, he will receive specific instruc tions 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. 
The Handbook makes clear that insurance underwriter positions do not require a m1111mum ol' a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. The Handbook states, "Most fi rms pref er 
5 The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" issued by DOL provid es a description or tht.: wage 
levels. A Level I wage rate is described by DOL 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 rt:4uirt.: 
limited, if any, exercise of judgment. The tasks provide experience and familiarization with the 
employer's methods, practices, and programs. The employees may per form higher kvl:l wmk lor 
training and developmental purposes. These employees work under close supervision and rt.:ccivc 
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. 
See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, 
Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available 111 
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC_Gui dance_Revised_ll_2 009.pdf. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRE CEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
to hire applicants who have a bachelor's degree [for insurance underwriter positio ns] ." That 
indicates that a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equival ent is not a 
requi rement for two reasons. First, a preference is not a minimum req uirement. As such, it docs not 
indicate that a bachelor's degree is required for underwriter positions. Second, even as to those 
underwriter positions that may require a degree, it does not indicate that the degree must be in a 
specific specialty. It states, "Courses in business, finance, economics,· and mathematics urc 
particularly helpful," but does not state that a degree in one of that list of subjects is required. 
Finally, even if insurance underwriter positions required that a candidate have a degree in a subject 
in that wide array, that would not be a requirement of a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a speci fie 
specialty or its equivalent.6 
Where, as here, the Handbook does not support the proposition that the proffered position satisfies 
this first criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 21 4.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it is incumbent upon the petiti oner to provide 
persuasive evidence that the proffered position otherwise satisfies this criterion by a preponde rance 
of the evidence standard, notwithstanding the absence of the Handbook's support on the issue . 'In 
such a case, it is the petitioner's responsibility to provide probative evidence (e.g., documentation 
from other authoritative sources) that supports a favorabl e finding with regard to this criterio n. 
The petitioner also cited O*NET to satisfy this criterion. However, O*NET does n ot state a 
requirement for a bachelor's degree. Rather, it assigns insurance underwriters a Job Zone "Four" 
rating, which groups them among occupations of which "most," but not all, "require a four-year 
bachelor's degree." Further, the O*NET does not indicate, even as to those Job Zone Four positions 
that may require a bachelor's degree, that the requisite bachelor's degrees must be in a spec ific 
specialty closely related to the requirements of that occupation. Therefo re, the O*NET information 
is not probative of the proffered position's being a specialty occupation. 
6 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 spcci fie 
specialty (or its equivalent)" requirement of section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act. In such a case, the rc4ui red 
"body of highly specialized knowledge" would essentially be the same. Since there must he a close 
correlation between the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" and the position, however, a 
minimum entry requirement of a degree in two disparate fields, such as philosophy and engineering, 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 ol 
these different specialties. Section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). 
In other words, 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 specially occupations if they 
permit, as a minimum entry requirement, degrees in more than one closely related specialty. See sect ion 
214(i)(l)(B) of the Act; 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). This also includes even seemingly disparate specialties 
providing, again, the evidence of record establishes how each acceptable, spec ific field of study is directly 
related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
We will now address the position evaluation from Professor . of . In th e 
letter, Professor states that a bachelor's degrt:e in finance, statistics, o r mathematic s is the 
minimum educational requirement for the proffered position. We reviewed the opini on letter in its 
entirety. However, as discussed below, the letter from Profe ssor does not persua de us that the 
proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
Based upon a complete review of Professor . 's letter, we find that he has fa il ed to provide 
sufficient information regarding the basis of his expertise on this particular issue. While Professor 
states in his letter that he is a professor in the Department of Applied Mathematic s and 
Statistics at and has 21 years of professional experience in the fie ld or 
statistics, he has not established his expertise pertinent to the hiring practices of organ izat ions 
seeking to fill positions similar to the proffered position in the instant case. Wi thout fu rther 
clarification, it is unclear how his education, training, skills or experience would translate to any 
particular knowledge of the current recruiting and hiring practices of insurance age ncie s and 
brokerages (as designated by the petitioner with the NAICS code) or simila r organiz at ions for 
underwriter positions. 
Further, there is no indication that Professor possesses any knowledge of the petitione r 's 
proffered position beyond the descriptions provided. He does not discuss the duties of the proffe red 
position in any substantive detail. He does not demonstrate or assert in-depth know ledge of the 
specific business operations or how the duties of the position would actually be pe rformed in the 
context of the petitioner's business enterprise. For instance, there is no evidence that Prof essor 
has visited the petitioner's business, observed the petitioner's employees, interviewed them abou t the 
nature of their work, or documented the knowledge that they apply on the job. 
Professor appears to assert a general industry educational standard for underwri ter positi ons 
without refere ncing any supporting authority or any empirical basis fo r the pronou nceme nt. 
Likewise, he does not provide a substantive, analytical basis for his opinion and ultima te conclusi on. 
He does not relate his conclusion to specific, concrete aspects of the petitioner's busi ness operat ions 
to demonstrate a sound factual basis for the conclusion about the educ ational req uir ements for the 
particular position here at issue. Accordingly, the very fact that he attributes a degree requiremen t to 
such a generalized treatment of the proffered position undermines the credibility of his opinion. 
Furthermore, there is no indication that the petitioner advised Profes sor that the peti tioner 
characterized the proffered position as a low, entry-level underwriter position fo r a begi nn i ng 
employee who has only a basic understanding of the occupation (as indicated by the wag e-le vel on 
the LCA) relative to other positions within the occupational category. It appears that Profe ssor 
would have found this information relevant for his opinion letter. Moreover, wi thout thi s 
information, the petitioner has not demonstrated that Professor possessed the requisit e 
information necessary to adequately assess the nature of the petitioner's position and appropriate ly 
determine parallel positions based upon job duties and responsibilities. 
(b)(6)
NON-P RECEDENT DFCISION 
Page 15 
In summary, and for each and all of the reasons discussed above, we conclude that t he opinio n letter 
rendered by Professor is not probative evidence to establish the proffered posit ion yua lif ies as a 
specialty occupation. The conclusions reached by Professor lack the req ui sit e specifi ci ty and 
detail and are not supported by independent, objective evidence demonstrating the ma n ner in wh ich 
he reached such conclusions. There is an inadequate factual foundation esta bl is hed to support the 
opinion and we find that the opinion is not in accord with other information in the record. As such. 
neither Professor , 's findings nor his ultimate conclusions are worthy of any deference, and his 
opinion letter is not probative evidence towards satisfying any criterion of the regulation at 8 C. F. R. 
§ 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
We may, in our discretion, use as advisory optmon statements submitted as expert testim ony. 
However, where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in an y way que sti onab le, 
we are not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Matter of Caron 
International, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988). As a reasonable exercise of ou r discr etion we 
discount the advisory opinion letter as not probative of any crit erio n of 8 C. F. R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). For efficiency's sake, we hereby incorporate the above dis cussi on and ana lys is 
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 or 
proceeding do not indicate that this particular position proffered by the petitioner is one for whic h a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equi valent, is normally th e min imum 
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 find that the petitioner has not satisfied the first of the two alternative prongs of 8 C.F .R. 
§ 21 4.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). This prong alternatively calls for a petitioner to establish that a requir ement 
of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equiv alent, is common for pos it io ns 
that are identifiable as being (1) in the petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered posi ti on, and 
also (3) located in organizations that are similar to the petitioner. 
In determining whether there is a common degree requirement, factors often consi dered by USCIS 
include: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the ind ustry' 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 emp l oy and 
recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d at 11 ()5 (q uot in g 
Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. at 11 02. 
In the instant case, the petitioner has not established that the proffered postliOn fal ls under an 
occupational category for which the Handbook, or other reliable and authoritative source , in di cates 
that there is a standard, minimum entry requi rement of at least a bachelor's de gree in a speci fie 
specialty or its equivalent. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 16 
Also, there are no submissions from professional associations or similar firms in the petit ioner's 
industry attesting that individuals employed in positions parallel to the proffered posit ion arc 
routinely required to have a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent 
for entry into those positions. 
The vacancy announcements provided are for positions entitled Underwriter, P&C Un derwriter , 
Commercial Property Underwriter, Commercial Property/Casualty Underwriter/Broker, Commercial 
Insurance Underwriter, Commercial Lines Underwriter, and similar job titles. The peti tione r's 
reliance upon those job vacancy advertisements is misplaced. 
Many of the vacancy announcements provided state that the positiOns they annou nce requi re a 
bachelor's degree, but not that the degree must be in any specific specialty. As such, they are not 
persuasive evidence that positions parallel to the proffered position require a m inim u m of a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
Most of the vacancy announcements state an experience requir ement. Some req u ire a c onsiderable 
amount of very specific experience. However, as was stated above, the petitioner desig na ted the 
proffered position a wage Level I position, that is, an entry-level position for an employee who has 
only basic understanding of the occupation. 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. dole ta.gov /pd fiN PW H C _ 
Guidance_Revised_l 1_2009 .pdf. As such, those vacancy ann.ouncements requ iring prior exp erie nce 
as an underwriter do not appear to be for positions parallel to the proffered posit ion, and arc no t 
persuasive evidence in satisfaction of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2) . 
Finally, even if all of the vacancy announcements were for positions para llel to the proffe red 
-position and required a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent, the 
petitioner has failed to demonstrate what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from 
those vacancy announcements with regard to the common educational requirements fo r entry in to 
parallel positions in similar organizations. 7 
Thus, the evidence of record does not establish that a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to parallel positions with organizatio ns that are in 
the petitioner's industry and otherwise similar to the petitioner. The petitioner has not, theref ore, 
satisfied the criterion of the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(h)( 4)(iii) (A)(2). 
7 USCIS "must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and cred ibili ty, both 
individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to he proven 
is probably true." Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). As just di scussed, the pe ti tioner 
has failed to establish the relevance of the job advertisements submitted to the pos iti on pro ffered in this case. 
Even if their relevance had been established, the petitioner still fails to demonstrate wha t in ferences, if any, 
can be drawn from these job postings with regard to determining the common educat ional requir ements for 
entry into parallel positions in similar organizations in the same indu stry . See genera lly Earl Uahhie, n/(: 
Practice of Social Research 186-22 8 (1995). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 17 
The evidence of record also does not satisfy the second alternative prong of � C. F. R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which provides that "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." 
While the petitioner submitted various documents such as copies of its agency agreem ents, appraisal 
reports, and a list of courses related to the proffered position, it did not adequa tely explain how the 
evidence relates to the beneficiary's day-to-day responsibilities and how those document s 
dem onstrate that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can only be performed by an 
individual with a baccalaureate (or higher degree) in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. We note, 
it is not the volume of documentation that establishes eligibility for the benefit sought, but rather the 
relevance, probative value, and credibility of the docume ntation-both individually and within the 
context of the totality of the evidence. Upon review, we find that the petitioner has not developed or 
established complexity or uniqueness as attributes of the proffered position that would require the 
services of a person with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equiv alent. 
This is further evidenced by the LCA submitted by the petitioner in support of the instant petition. 
Again, the LCA indicates a wage level based upon the occupational class if ication "I nsur anc e 
Underwriters" at a Level I (entry level) wage. This designation is indicative of a comparatively low. 
entry-level position relative to others within the occupation. That is, in accordance with the relevant 
DOL explanatory informa tion on wage levels, this wage rate indicates that the benef iciar y is only 
required to have a basic understanding of the occupation and carries expectations that the 
beneficiary perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; that he would be 
closely supervised; that his work would be closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and that he 
would receive specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. Without further 
evidence, it is not credible that the duties of the petitioner's proffered position are complex or unique 
as such a position 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. For instance, 
a Level IV position is designated by DOL for employees who "use advanced skills and di versif ied 
knowledge to solve unusual and complex probl ems. "8 
Therefore, the evidence of record does not establish that this position is significantly dif fe rent from 
other positions in the occupation such that it refutes the Handbook's information to the ef fect that 
there is a spectrum of degrees acceptable for such positions, including degrees not in a speci fic 
specialty. In other words, the record lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish the 
proffered position as unique from or more complex than positions that can be perf ormed by persons 
without at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. As the petitioner fa ils to 
demonstrate how the proffered position is so complex or unique relative to other posit ions within the 
same occupational category that do not require at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty 
8 For additional information on wage levels, see U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Adm in., Prevailing 
Wage Determina tion Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), avaiLahLe at 
http://www .foreign laborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _1 1_ 2009 .pdf. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 18 
or its equivalent for entry into the occupation in the United States, it cannot be concluded that the 
petitioner has satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 21 4.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 21 4.2(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 usually review the petitioner's past recruiting and hiring practices, as well as 
information regarding employees who currently or in the past served in the position. ln addition, the 
petitioner may submit any other documentation it considers relevant to this criterion of the 
regul ations. 
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. Upon review of the record of 
proceeding, the petitioner has not established a prior history of recruiting and hiring for the 
proffered position only persons with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
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 requirem ents, then any 
individual with a bachelor's degree could be brought to the United States to perform any occupation 
as long as the petitioner artificia lly 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 artificial ly meet the standards for an H- 11 3 
visa and/or to underemploy an individual in a position for which he or she is overquali fied and if the 
proffered position does not in fact require such a specialty degree or its equi valent, to perform its 
duties, the occupation would not meet the statutory or regulatory definition of a specialty 
occupation. See § 21 4(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 21 4.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty 
occupation"). 
To satisfy this criterion, the evidence of record must show that the specific performance 
requirem ents 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 requiremen ts, 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 wer.e constrained to recognize 
a specialty occupation merely because the petitioner has an established practice of demanding 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DFCIS!ON 
Page 19 
certain educatio nal requirements for the proffered position - and wi thout consid erat ion of how a 
beneficiary is to be specifically employed - then any alien with a bache lor's degree in a spec if ic 
speci alty 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 deg rees. See id. at 3S8. 
The petitioner asserts that it employs or has employed 
:ts underwriters. The peti tioner also states that . 
degrees in business admin istration and juris doctorates, and 1 
degrees in Actuarial Science. 
and 
and 
and 
have ma ste r's 
have ma ste r's 
The petitio ner did not, however, indic ate that the four employees identi fied are the only underwriter s 
it has employed. Thus, even if those four employees each had a minimum of a bachelor's deg ree in a 
specific specialty or its equiv alent, that would not be persuas ive evi dence that the pe ti ti oner 
normally requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specia lty or it s equi valent for the 
proffered position. 
Further, neither a master's degree in business admi nistration nor a juris doctorate has been 
dem onstrated to be a degree in a specific specialty closely related to insurance underwriti ng. Thus, 
of the four empl oyees listed, two do not appear to have a minimum of a bache lor's degree t n a 
specific specialty closely related to insurance underwriting, or its equivalent. 
For these reasons, the evide nce submitted does not demonstrate that the normally requires a 
minimum of a bachel or's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for the proffe red pos ition 
and does not satis fy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(ii i)(A)(3). 
Fin ally, we will address the alternative criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(i ii )(A)(4), which is 
satisfied if the petitioner establishes that the nature of the speci fic duties is so speci alized and 
complex that knowledge required to perform them is usually associated wit h the att ai nment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equi valent. 
The duties of the proffered position contain insufficient indication of a nature so specia liz ed and 
complex they require knowledge usually associated attainment of a minimum of a bache lor's degree 
in a specific specialty or its equiv alent. As subsequently explained in response to the RF E, those 
same duties require considerable statistic al manipulation, but whether it can only be acco mp lis hed 
by a person with an in-depth knowledge of statistic s, or is accomplished by ente ring values in to a 
computer or calculator, or requires some intermediate degree of knowledg e of mat hemat ic s and 
statistics, is unclear. 
Overall, the evide nce of record is inadequate to establish that the duties of the pos ttt on ar e so 
specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform those duties is usually asso ciat ed 
with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific spec ialty, or it s equiv alen t. In 
other words, the proposed duties have not been described with sufficient speci fi city to show that they 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 20 
are more spec ializ ed and complex than the duties of underwriter positions that are not usually 
assoc iated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialt y or its equivalent. 
Further, we reiterate our earlier com ments and findings with regard to the impl ication of the 
pet iti oner's desi gnation of the proffered position in the LCA as a Level I (the lowest of four 
assig nable lev els). That is, the proffered position's Leve l I wage desig nation is indic ative of a low, 
entry-level position relative to others within the occupational category, and hence on e not li kely 
distin gui shable by relatively specializ ed and complex duties. As noted earl ier, DOL in di cates that a 
Level I des ignation is appropriate for "b eginning level emp l oyees who have only a basic 
unders tanding of the occupa tio n." Wi thout further evidence, it is not credi ble that the petitioner's 
proffered position is one with specializ ed and com plex duties as such a position would lik ely be 
classifi ed at a hig her-le vel, such as a Level III (experienced) or Level IV (f ully comp etent) position, 
requiring a si gni ficant ly higher prevai lin g wage. For in stance, as pr eviously mention ed, a Level IV 
(full y competent) position is desi gnated by DOL for empl oyees who "u se advanced skills and 
di versified knowle dge to solve unusual and comple x problem s." 
Upon review of the record of proceeding, we find that the petition er has submit ted inadequate 
probative evid ence to sa tisfy this criterion of the regula tions. Thus, the petitioner has not established 
that the duties of the position are so spec ializ ed and comple x that the knowle dge requir ed to perform 
the duties is usual ly associa ted with the attainment of a baccala ureate or higher degree in a specif ic 
spec ialty, or its equi valent. We, therefore, conclude that the petition er fail ed to sa tisf y the criterion 
at 8 C.F. R. § 21 4 .2(h )(4 )(ii i)(A)(4). 
The pet ition er has fail ed to esta blis h that it has sati sfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R . 
§ 214 .2 (h)(4 )(iii) (A) and, therefore, it cannot be found that the proffered position qualit ies as a 
spec ialty occupa tion. The appeal will be dism issed and the petition den ied for this reason. 
III. CONCLUS ION 
In vis a petition proc eedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibil ity for the immig ration 
benefit sought. Section 29 1 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 13 61; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 12 7, 128 
(BIA 20 13 ). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dism is sed. The peti tion is denied.