dismissed H-1B Case: Intellectual Property Law

MATTER OF IPCI-P-C-. INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 10,2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an intellectual property law office, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
'·patent specialise under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification tor specialty occupations. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act)§ 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). The 
H-1 B 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 had not demonstrated that the proffered position qualities tor treatment as a specialty 
occupation position. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal. the Petitioner asserts that the Director etTed in 
finding that the Petitioner had not sustained its burden of proof. 
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.F.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 !PC!- P-C-, Inc. 
(I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
(.:/) The nature of the specific duties [isJ so specialized and complex that 
knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has consistently 
interpreted the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any 
baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed 
position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertr?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 "patent specialist." In a 
letter dated March 20, 2015. the Petitioner provided the following list of the duties of the proffered 
position: 
• Interview inventors and conduct research or prior art search to understand 
invention and evaluate patentability; 
• Review and prepare patent application on the basis of the newest IP regulations; 
coordinate and prepare all formal required tiling documentation to tile US patent; 
• Provide technical review of data and reports that will be incorporated into patent 
submissions to assure accuracy; 
• Advise on tiling strategy to aid inventors and invention owners in obtaining a 
patent for their invention; 
• Draft and prepare persuasive response to U.S. Patent and Trademark Oflice 
('"USPTO") actions; 
• Manage patent prosecution applications as necessary through USPTO: 
• Research the USPTO website, and conduct patent searches to obtain information 
as needed; 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of !PC I-P-C- . Inc. 
• Interpret related regulatory rules or rule changes and ensure 
that they are communicated through filing procedures; 
• Determine the types of regulatory submissions or internal documentations that are 
required in situations such as proposed form changes: and 
• Keep abreast of USPTO existing and emerging regulations. standard, or guidance 
documents. 
As to the educational requirements of the proffered position, the Petitioner stated: ''The minimum 
requirement for this position is a Bachelor's degree in a related field such as Engineering, 
Biotechnology, or 
a related field." 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided the same duty 
description that states, in addition, the percentage of time the Beneficiary would spend on those 
various duties. The response also indicated that the position requires a U.S. degree in any of the 
following subjects, or its equivalent: Biology, Biochemistry. Botany, Computer Science, Electronics 
Technology, Food Technology, General Chemistry, Marine Technology, Microbiology, Molecular 
Biology. Electrical Engineering, Pharmacology, Physics, Textile Technology, Aeronautical 
Engineering, Agricultural Engineering, Biomedical Engineering, Ceramic Engineering, Civil 
Engineering, Computer Engineering, Electrochemical Engineering, Engineering Physics, General 
Engineering, Geological Engineering, Industrial Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, 
Metallurgical Engineering, Mining Engineering, Nuclear Engineering. or Organic Chemistry. 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below. we detennine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation.' 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or 
its equivalent, commensurate 
with a specialty occupation. 2 
Initially, we observe that the Petitioner's own submissions make plain that the proffered position 
does not qualify as a specialty occupation position, because it does not require a minimum of a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. That is, the Petitioner has asserted that a 
bachelor's degree in any of thirty different fields as diverse as botany, phannacology. textile 
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 proffer ed 
position and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have review ed and 
considered each one. 
3 
Matter of !PC I-P-C-, Inc. 
technology, and mining engineering, would be a sufficient educational qualification for the profTered 
position. 
In general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry and biochemistry, a minimum 
of a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty is recognized as satisfying the .. degree in 
the specific specialty (or its equivalent)"' requirement of section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act. In such a 
case, the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" would essentially be the same. Since 
there must be a close correlation between the required .. body of highly specialized knowledge" and 
the position, however, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in 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 of these difTerent specialties. Section 
214(i)(l)(B) ofthe 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 specialty 
occupations if they permit, as a minimum entry requirement, degrees in more than one closely 
related specialty. See section 214(i)(l)(B) ofthe 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. 
Again. the Petitioner claims that the duties of the proffered positiOn can be performed by an 
individual with a bachelor's degree in, for instance, botany, textile technology, or mining 
engineering. The issue here is that it is not readily apparent that these fields of study are closely 
related or that they all are directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position 
proffered in this matter. 
Here and as indicated above, the Petitioner, who bears the burden of proof in this proceeding. has not 
established either ( 1) that botany, textile technology. and mining engineering. for instance. are 
closely related fields or (2) that they are all directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
proffered position. Absent this evidence, it cannot be found that the particular position proffered in 
this matter has a normal minimum entry requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. under the Petitioner's own standards. 
Therefore, absent evidence of a direct relationship between the claimed degrees required and the 
duties and responsibilities of the position. it cannot be found that the proffered position requires 
anything more than a general bachelor's degree in some field related to science or engineering. As 
explained above, USCIS interprets the degree requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to 
require a degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. USCIS has 
4 
Matter (?f !PC I-P-C-, Inc. 
consistently stated that. although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business 
administration, may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position. requiring such a degree, 
without more. will not justify a finding that a particular position qualifies tor classification as a 
specialty occupation. Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertof}:484 F.3d at 139. 
The evidence of record does not establish how these dissimilar fields of study form either a body of 
highly specialized knowledge or a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner asserts that the 
job duties of this particular position can be performed by an individual with a bachelor's degree in 
any of a very wide array of fields. Without more, the Petitioner's statement alone indicates that the 
proffered position is not in fact a specialty occupation. The Director's decision must therefore be 
affirmed and the appeal dismissed on this basis alone. 
Moreover, the proffered position cannot qualify as a specialty occupation tor the additional reason 
that the Petitioner has not satisfied any of the supplemental, additional criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A). 
A. First Criterion 
We tum first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which requires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. To inform this inquiry, we recognize the U.S. Department of Labor"s 
(DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses.3 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational categof_{ ··( 'mnplialli:C < )fllc~..-r:," 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 13-1041. 
' All of our references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handhook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not, however, maintain that the Handhook is the exclusive source of relevant 
information. That is. the occupational category designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the 
general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered position, and USC IS regularly reviews the Handbook on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. To satisfy the first criterion, however. the 
burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position 
would normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
~The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level I wage (the lowest of four assignable wage levels). We will 
consider this selection in our analysis of the position. The ··Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" issued by 
the DOL provides a description of the wage levels. A Level I wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which 
the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the occupation. This wage rate indicates: (I) that 
the 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 
5 
Matter of !PC I-P-C-. Inc. 
We reviewed the information in the Handbook regarding the occupational category ··compliance 
Officers" and note that this occupation is one for which the Handbook does not provide detailed 
data. 5 The Handbook states the following about these occupations: 
Data for Occupations Not Covered in Detail 
Although employment for hundreds of occupations is covered in detail in 
the Occupational Outlook Handbook, this page presents summary data on additional 
occupations for which employment projections are prepared but detailed occupational 
information is not developed. For each occupation, the Occupational Information 
Network (O*NET) code, the occupational definition, 2014 employment, the May 
2014 median annual wage, the projected employment change and growth rate from 
2014 to 2024. and education and training categories are presented. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook. 2016-17 ed., 
"Data for Occupations Not Covered in Detail,'' http://www.bls.gov/ooh/about/data-for-occupations­
not-covered-in-detail.htm (last visited May 6, 2016). 
Thus, the narrative of the Handbook reports that there are some occupations for which only summary 
data is prepared but detailed occupational profiles are not developed. It appears that for at least some of 
the occupations, little meaningful infonnation could be developed. 
Accordingly, in certain instances, the Handbook is not determinative. 6 When the Handbook does not 
support the proposition that a proffered position is one that meets the statutory and regulatory 
specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp"t & Training Admin., Prevailing 
Wage Determination PoliL)• Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://tlcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance _Revised_ll_ 2009.pdf A prevailing wage detennination 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. 
5 The Director detennined that the proffered position should have been classified within the "'Paralegals and Legal 
Assistants" occupational category, and we agree with the Director that some of the duties of the position overlap the 
duties of positions located within that occupational category. However. we also agree with the Petitioner that most of the 
position's duties tall within the "'Compliance Officers" occupational category. DOL's "'Prevailing Wage Determination 
Policy Guidance" states that if a position is described as a combination of occupations, then the Petitioner should select 
the relevant occupational category for the highest paying occupation. Here the Petitioner did so: as mentioned, the 
Petitioner selected the ··compliance Officers'' occupational category on the LCA, which is a higher-paying occupational 
category than the "'Paralegals and Legal Assistants" occupational category. 
6 While the Handbook is not determinative in this matter, we nevertheless note that the Handbook does not indicate that 
compliance officers comprise an occupational group for which nonnally the minimum requirement for entry is at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. or its equivalent. The full text of the Handbook regarding this occupational 
category is as follows: 
6 
Matter (?f IPCI-P-C-. Inc. 
provisiOns of a specialty occupation. It Is incumbent upon the Petitioner to provide persuasive 
evidence that the proffered position more likely than not satisfies this or one of the other three 
criteria, notwithstanding the absence of the Handbook's support on the issue. 7 In such case, it is the 
Petitioner's responsibility to provide probative evidence (e.g., documentation from other objective, 
authoritative sources) that supports a finding that the particular position in question qualities as a 
specialty occupation. Whenever more than one authoritative source exists, an adjudicator will 
consider and weigh all of the evidence presented to determine whether the particular position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The materials from DOL's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) do not establish that the 
proffered position satisfies the first criterion described at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), either. 
O*NET is not particularly useful in determining whether a baccalaureate degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. is a requirement for a given position, as O*NET's Job Zone designations 
Compliance officers 
Examine. evaluate, and investigate eligibility for or conformity with laws and regulations governing contract 
compliance of licenses and permits, and perfonn other compliance and enforcement inspection and analysis 
activities not classified elsewhere .... 
• 2014 employment: 260.300 
• May 2015 median annual wage: $65,640 
• Projected employment change. 2014-24: 
Number of new jobs: 8,700 
Growth rate: 3 percent (Slower than average) 
• Education and training: 
Typical entry-level education: Bachelor's degree 
Work experience in a related occupation: None 
Typical on-the-job training: Moderate-term on-the-job training 
!d. (last visited May 6, 2016). 
As evident in the above excerpt on this occupation, the Handhook reports only that a bachelor's degree is typical - but 
not required - for entry into compliance officer positions. More importantly. the Handhook does not report that 
bachelor's degrees held by those entering the occupation are limited to and must be in any specific specialty directly 
related to the occupation. Accordingly, the Handhook does not support the assertion that at least a bachelor's degree in a 
spec{fic specialty is normally the minimum requirement for entry into this occupational category. 
7 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 Handhook 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 
Matter of !PC!- P-C-, Inc. 
make no mention of the specific field of study from which a degree must come. Again, we interpret 
the term ''degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any baccalaureate 
or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. The 
Specialized Vocational Preparation (SVP) rating is meant to indicate only the total number of years 
of vocational preparation required for a particular position. 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. For all of these reasons, the O*NET excerpt 
submitted by the Petitioner does not establish the proffered position as a specialty occupation. 
Further, in designating the proffered position at a Level I wage. the Petitioner has indicated that the 
proffered position is a comparatively low, entry-level position relative to others within the 
occupation. That is. in accordance with the relevant DOL explanatory information on wage levels, 
this wage rate indicates that the Beneficiary 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. As noted above, according to DOL guidance. a statement that the job 
offer is for a research fellow, worker in training or an internship is indicative that a Level I \vage 
should be considered. Given that typical positions located within the occupational category 
designated by the Petitioner do not normally require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
the equivalent, a Level I, an entry-level position would be even less likely to have such a 
requirement. 
Further, we find that. to the extent that they are described in the record of proceedings. the numerous 
duties that the Petitioner ascribes to the proffered position indicate a need for a range of knowledge 
of patent searches and patent applications. but do not establish any particular level of formaL 
postsecondary education leading to a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty as minimally 
necessary to attain such knowledge. 
The Handbook does not support the claim that the occupational category of compliance oHicer is 
one for which normally the minimum requirement for entry is a baccalaureate degree (or higher) in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. Even if it did, the record lacks sufficient evidence to support a 
finding that the particular position proffered here would normally have such a minimum, specialty 
degree requirement or its equivalent. The duties and requirements of the position as described in the 
record of proceedings do not indicate that this particular position proffered by the Petitioner is one 
tor which a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty. or its equivalent, is normally the 
minimum requirement for entry. Thus. the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J). 
8 
Matter of !PC I-P-C-. Inc. 
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 affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms "routinely employ 
and recruit only degreed individuals.'' See .%anti. 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)). 
Here and as already discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for 
which the Handbook (or other independent. authoritative source) reports an industry-wide 
requirement for at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. Thus. we 
incorporate by reference the previous discussion on the matter. 
Also, there are no submissions from the industry's professional association indicating that it has 
made a degree a minimum entry requirement. 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.'' 
One of the articles submitted is taken from the Occupational Outlook Quarterly. which is published 
by DOL. It states that ''Patent practitioners need a bachelor's degree in science or engineering,'· and 
that '·Patent technology specialists need at least a bachelor's degree in a technical or scientific 
discipline." Again, '·a technical or scientific discipline'' encompasses too wide an array of subjects 
to delineate a specific specialty. 
The other articles submitted pertain to the practice of patent law. They assert that the practice is 
complicated, and that patent attorneys are highly trained. Those assertions are insufficient to 
demonstrate that the proffered position in the instant case, which the Petitioner asserted corresponds 
9 
Matter of !PC!- P-C-, Inc. 
to a compliance officer position, is itself complex. especially in view of its Level I wage-level 
classification. 
As was noted above. the Petitioner did provide vacancy announcements placed by other companies 
to satisfy this criterion. They do not however. establish that the degree requirement is common to 
the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. First, we note that the Petitioner did 
not provide any independent evidence of how representative these job advertisements are of the 
particular advertising employers' recruiting history for the type ofjobs advertised. Further. as they 
are only solicitations for hire, they are not evidence of the employers' actual hiring practices. 
Second, upon review of the announcements, we find that they do not provide sutlicient information 
about the advertising organizations to establish that they are similar to the Petitioner. Without such 
evidence, these advertisements are generally outside the scope of consideration for this criterion, 
which encompasses only organizations that are similar to the Petitioner. Moreover, the descriptions 
of responsibilities in the advertisements are generally perfunctory and do not provide sufficient 
information to determine the role the successful applicant will play in the advertising organization or 
the level of responsibility that will be required of the successful applicant. As such. it is not clear 
whether the duties of these positions parallel those of the profTered position. 
Further, some of the announcements state only that a specific degree is preferred. rather than 
required, for the positions they announce. As such, those announcements do not state a requirement 
of for a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent. 
Finally, even if all of the vacancy announcements were for parallel positions with organizations 
similar to the Petitioner and in the Petitioner's industry and required a minimum of a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent, the Petitioner has not demonstrated what statistically 
valid inferences. if any. can be drawn from the few announcements provided with regard to the 
common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. X 
Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first altemative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)(2). 
8 USC IS ""must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility. both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true." A/alter of 
Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). As just discussed, the Petitioner has not established the relevance of the 
job advertisements submitted to the position proffered in this case. Even if their relevance had been established. the 
Petitioner still would not have demonstrated what inferences, if any, can be drawn from these few job postings with 
regard to detennining the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations in 
the same industry. See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice ofS'ocial Research 186-228 ( 1995). 
10 
Matter l?( !PC!- P-C-, Inc. 
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. 
A review of the record of proceedings finds that the Petitioner has not credibly demonstrated that the 
duties the Beneficiary will be responsible for or perform on a day-to-day basis constitute a position 
so complex or unique that it can only be performed by a person with at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. Even when considering the Petitioner's general descriptions of 
the proffered position's duties. the evidence of record does not establish why a few related courses 
or industry experience alone is insufficient preparation for the proffered position. While a few 
related courses may be beneficial, or even required, in performing certain duties of the position. the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated how an established curriculum of such courses leading to a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the 
duties ofthe profTered position. The description of the duties does not specifically identify any tasks 
that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. The 
record lacks sutliciently detailed information to distinguish the prom~red position as more complex 
or unique from other positions that can be performed by persons without at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
Therefore, the evidence of record does not establish that this position is significantly different from 
other positions in the occupation such that it refutes the information from the Handbook. and that 
provided by the Petitioner itself. to the etTect that there is a spectrum of degrees acceptable for such 
positions, including degrees not in a specific specialty. In other words. the record lacks sufficiently 
detailed infonnation to distinguish the proffered position as unique from or more complex than 
positions that can be performed by persons without at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. 
This is further evidenced by the LCA submitted by the Petitioner in support of the instant petition. 
As noted above, the Petitioner attested on the submitted LCA that the wage level for the proffered 
position is a Level I (entry-level) wage. Such a wage level is for a position which only requires a 
basic understanding of the occupation; the performance of routine tasks that require limited, if any. 
exercise of judgment; close supervision and work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy: and 
the receipt of specific instructions on required tasks and expected results, is contrary to a position 
II 
(b)(6)
Matter of !PC!- P-C-. Inc. 
that requires the performance of complex duties.9 It is, instead, a position for an employee who has 
only a basic understanding of the occupation. 
The Petitioner claims 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. As discussed, 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. 
In a letter dated August 24, 2015, the Petitioner stated that it has hired an individual named 
in the same position. Organizational charts in the 
record do not show that the Petitioner 
currently employs this individual, or that it employs anyone as a patent specialist. The number of 
people the Petitioner has employed in the proffered position has not been revealed. As such. that 
one person it employed in the proffered position had a degree in a subject closely and directly related 
to the proffered position would not show that the Petitioner normally requires such a specialized 
degree or its equivalent. 
Further, although the Petitioner stated that this individual has a master's degree, it did not identify 
the field of study from which the degree was earned. The Petitioner stated that she has been 
accepted into the . but did not state that she earned a degree from that 
institution. In short, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that has a minimum of a 
9 The issue here is that the Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position undermines its claim 
that the position is particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same 
occupation. Nevertheless, it is important to note that a Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position 
from classification as a specialty occupation. In certain occupations (doctors or lawyers. for example), an entry-level 
position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for 
entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designation would not reflect that an occupation qualifies as a specialty 
occupation if that higher-level position does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent. That is, a position's wage level designation may be a consideration but is not a substitute for 
a determination of whether a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)( I) of the Act. 
12 
Matter of !PC!- P-C-. Inc. 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty that is closely and directly related to the proffered position 
or its equivalent. 10 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii){A)(3). 
D. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature 
of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. 
Upon review of the totality of the record, we find that the Petitioner has not established that the 
nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform 
the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, and has not satisfied the fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
We again refer to our earlier comments and findings with regard to the implication of the Petitioner's 
designation of the proffered position in the LCA as a Level I (the lowest of four assignable levels) 
wage. That is, the Level I wage designation is indicative of a low, entry-level position relative to 
others within the occupational category, and hence one not likely distinguishable by relatively 
specialized and complex duties. Given that typical positions located within the occupational 
category selected by the Petitioner on the LCA do not normally require a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, it is unlikely that an entry-level position relative to other positions located within 
the occupational category would possess such a requirement. Upon review of the totality of the 
record. the Petitioner has not established that the nature of the specific duties is so specialized and 
complex that the knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment 
of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
10 While a petitioner may believe or otherwise assert that a proffered position requires a degree in a specific specialty, 
that opinion alone without corroborating evidence cannot establish the position as a specialty occupation. Were USCIS 
limited solely to reviewing a petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, then any individual with a bachelor's 
degree could be brought to the United States to perform any occupation as long as the employer artificially created a 
token degree requirement, whereby all individuals employed in a particular position possessed a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in the specific specialty or its equivalent. See Defensor v. Afeissner. 20 I F. 3d at 387. In other words. if a 
petitioner"s degree requirement is only symbolic and the proffered position does not in fact require such a specialty 
degree or its equivalent to perform its duties, the occupation would not meet the statutory or regulatory definition of a 
specialty occupation. See section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4 )(ii) (defining the term "specialty 
occupation"). 
13 
Matter of IPCI-P-C-, Inc. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated in the record that its proffered position is one with duties 
sufficiently specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(./). 
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 qualities as a specialty occupation. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The burden is on the Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter (~f'Otiende. 26 I&N Dec. 127. 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden 
has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter qf1PCI-P-C-, Inc., 10# 16416 (AAO May 10. 2016) 
14