dismissed H-1B Case: International Adoptions

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF H-I-H-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
D
1
ATE: SEPT. 21,2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an international adoptions agency, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"director of development (Brazil)" under the H -1 B nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a 
qualified foreign worker in a position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application 
of a body of highly specialized knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in 
the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish that the proffered position was a specialty occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the Director erred in denying the petition. 
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 H-1-H-
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that 
knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. 
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. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree 
requirement in a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a 
particular position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
In the H-B petition, the Petitioner provided the job duties of the proffered position. In response to 
the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner changed the job titled to "program 
development and coordinator, Brazil program" and submitted a revised job description for the 
proffered position, along with the approximate percentage of time the Beneficiary will spend on each 
duty, as follows: 
• Attend meetings with the program's key individuals, including travel abroad 
when needed to structure or to monitor the program. When in Brazil, responsible 
for organizing and structuring all aspects of the program including: hiring and 
training contractors to assist the families, interface with the government 
authorities, courts, and public agencies that deal with international adoption, 
managing the dossiers of the families, and communicating with the families and 
[the Petitioner's] staff about updates (3 0%) 
• Monitor a broad range of laws and regulations in Brazil affecting the area of 
international adoption, deliver the annual reports with information requested by 
Brazil government necessary for the agency to be accredited, and work with 
_ adoption in Brazil (1 0%) 
• Provide cultural training to the prospective adoptive families, c-oordinate group 
sessions, family files, travel meetings and cultural days (1 0%) 
2 
Matter of H-1-H-
• Provide direct consultation to prospective adoptive families in states other than 
where [the Petitioner] maintains a licensed office inquiring about the program, 
explaining all the aspects and proceedings of adoption in Brazil, updating them on 
their case, and updating documents as needed to keep the program current. (10%) 
• Work with the Out-of-State families to gather documents required for the dossier, 
according to the court and Brazil law requirements, and review completed 
dossiers for compliance prior to submission ( 10%) 
• Hold and assist with regular staff meetings as needed to discuss adoption 
procedures in [] Brazil, policies when working with the foreign staff, and assisting 
other staff in the U.S. to become familiar with all aspects of the program (1 0%) 
• Direct fund raising efforts and prepare grants to fund the programs (5%) 
• Oversee the income and budget of the program, managing the financials and 
reporting to the Program Director ( 1 0%) 
• Account to the Chief Officer of the Hague Compliance regarding U.S. 
regulations, and report to the Program Director placements and 
disruptions/dissolutions biannually (5%) 
On appeal, the Petitioner expands on the duties of the proffered pos1t10n 
approximate percentages of time the Beneficiary will spend on each duty. 
·Petitioner provides the following: 
and changes the 
Specifically, the 
• Assume responsibility for processing the international adoptions through legal 
system in Brazil, traveling to the Country when necessary, performing the 
following tasks (30%): 
1. Attend formal meetings, and coordinate relationship with the Brazilian 
Central Authority, Judicial Committees for International Adoption, 
Higher Courts, Infant Courts, and Child and Youth Public Defenders in 
order to get the American family matched with a Brazilian minor that is 
legally adoptable 
2. Secure and analyze the necessary legal documents to assure the child 
is legally adoptable according to the Law in Brazil - Example of 
necessary legal documents to prove adoptability of a minor: 
irrevocable legal consents of the guardian, termination of parental 
rights, Child and Youth Public Defenders motions 
3. Attend and prepare before hand the two (2) Court Hearings necessary 
to process international adoption in Brazil - The first Court hearing is 
when the family gets guardianship of the minor for 30 days, and the 
last Court hearing after 30 days is to finalize the adoption, and 
issuance of the adoption decree 
4. Draft and/or review motions, legal briefings, contracts, and legal 
documents necessary to complete the adoption 
5. File in the Court, and meet deadlines of the motions, legal briefings, 
contracts, and legal documents necessary to complete the adoption 
3 
Matter of H-1-H-
6. Provide training, and coordinate paralegals to work under your 
supervision to assist in the above mentioned tasks 
• Explain the Law and give legal advices to the American families regarding 
adoption Law in Brazil, performing the following tasks (25%): 
1. Provide consultation and prepare the prospective adoptive families for 
the proceedings 
2. Assist the families gathering the necessary documents to send to Brazil 
3. Reply to the adoptive families inquiries and recruit families to adopt 
from Brazil 
• Monitor a broad range of Brazilian laws and regulations in the foreign country 
affecting area .of international adoptions in order to maintain [the Petitioner's] 
authorization to work with adoption in this specific country current and valid, 
performing the following tasks (20%): 
1. Deliver monthly, and annual reports with information requested by 
Brazilian courts and agencies 
2. Advice the staff, and adoptive families about updates, new Laws and 
regulations in Brazil 
• Hold and assist with regular staff meetings as needed to discuss adoption 
procedures in the foreign country, policies when working with the foreign staff, 
and assisting other staff in the U.S. to become familiar with all aspects of the 
program (10%) 
• Direct fund raising efforts and prepare grants to fund the programs (5%) 
• Oversee the income and budget of the program, managing the financials and 
reporting to the Program Director (5%) 
• Account to the Chief Officer of the Hague 
regulations, and report to the Program 
disruptions/dissolutions biannually (5%) 
Compliance regarding U.S. 
Director placements and 
According to the Petitioner, a Brazilian law degree is required to perform the duties of the proffered 
position. 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position satisfies any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
4 
Matter of H-1-H-
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) and, therefore, qualifies as a specialty occupation. Specifically, the record (1) 
provides inconsistent information regarding the position 1; and (2) does not establish that the job 
duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty 
occupation. 2 
As a preliminary matter, we note that the Petitioner claims that a Brazilian law degree is required for 
the position. However, the Petitioner has not established that its stated requirement would satisfy 
those of a,specialty occupation, i.e., that it is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty. For example, the Petitioner has not established the length oftime required to complete a 
"Brazilian law degree." We reviewed the Electronic Database for Global Education (EDGE) created 
by the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, which states that a 
"titulo or grau de bacharel" varies between 3 to 5 years to complete.3 Nevertheless, we will now 
analyze the evidence of record. 
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.4 To inform this inquiry, we recognize the U.S. Department of 
Labor's (DOL's) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties 
and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 5 
1 In response to the RFE or on appeal, the Petitioner cannot offer a new position to the Beneficiary, or materially change 
a position's title, its level of authority within the organizational hierarchy, the associated job responsibilities, or the 
requirements of the position. The Petitioner must establish that the position offered to the Beneficiary when the petition 
was filed merits classification for the benefit sought. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 l&N Dec. 248, 249 (Reg'! 
Comm 'r 1978). A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition 
conform to USC IS requirements. See Matter of lzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm 'r 1998). Here, in 
response to the RFE, the Petitioner changed the Beneficiary's job title, and on appeal, the Petitioner expands the 
Beneficiary's job duties, adding that she will provide training, and coordinate paralegals to work under her supervision to 
assist in the above mentioned tasks. 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 For additional information, see http://edge.aacrao.org/info.php (last visited Sept. 20, 2016). USCIS considers EDGE to 
be a reliable, peer-reviewed source of information about foreign credentials equivalencies. 
4 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
5 All of our references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook, available at http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not, 
however, maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. That is, the occupational category 
designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered 
position, and USCIS regularly reviews the Handbook on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of 
occupations that it addresses. To satisfy the first criterion, however, the burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to 
submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position would normally have a minimum, specialty 
degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
5 
Matter of H-1-H-
The labor condition application (LCA) submitted to support the visa petition states that the proffered 
position corresponds to Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code and title 23-2099, "Legal 
Support Workers, All Other," at a Level II (qualified) wage.6 
We reviewed the Handbook regarding the occupational category "Legal Support' Workers, All 
Other." However, the Handbook does not provide a detailed narrative account nor does it provide 
summary data for this occupational category. More specifically, the Handbook does not provide the 
typical duties and responsibilities for "Legal Support Workers, All Ot~er." It also does not provide 
any information regarding the academic and/or professional requirements for these positions. Thus, 
the Handbook does not support the claim that the occupational category here is one for which 
normally the minimum requirement for entry is a baccalaureate degree (or higher) in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. 
We note tpat there are occupational categories which are not covered in detail by the Handbook, as 
well as occupations for which the Handbook does not provide any information. The Handbook 
states the following about these occupations: 
Although employment for hundreds of occupations are 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 
2015 median annual wage, the projected employment change and growth rate from 
2014 to 2024, and education and training categories are presented. 7 
Thus, the narrative of the Handbook indicates that there are many occupations for which only brief 
summaries are presented and that detailed occupational profiles for these occupations are not 
developed. 8 The Handbook suggests that for at least some of the occupations, little meaningful 
information could be developed. 
6 We will consider this selection in our analysis of the position. The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" 
issued by DOL provides a description of the wage levels. A Level II wage rate is for a petitioner who expects its 
employee to perform moderately complex tasks that require limited judgment. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training 
Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available 
at http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _11_ 2009.pdf A prevailing wage determination starts 
with an entry level wage and progresses to a higher wage level after considering the experience, education, and skill 
requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. !d. 
7 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 
Sept. 20, 20 16). 
8 We note that occupational categories for which the Handbook only includes summary data includes a range of 
occupations, including for example, postmasters and mail superintendents; agents and business managers of artists, 
performers, and athletes; farm and home management advisors; audio visual and multimedia collections specialists; 
clergy; merchandise displayers and window trimmers; radio operators; first-line supervisors of police and detectives; 
crossing guards; travel guides; agricultural inspectors, as well as others. 
Matter of H-1-H-
Accordingly, in certain instances, the Handbook is not determinative. When the Handbook does not 
support the proposition that a proffered position is one that meets the statutory and regulatory 
provisions of a specialty occupation, it is incumbent upon the Petitioner to provide persuasive 
evidence that the proffered position more likely than not satisfies the statutory and regulatory 
provisions, including this or one of the other three criteria, notwithstanding the absence of the 
Handbook's support on the issue. 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 qualifies 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. Here, the 
Petitioner did not provide further evidence. 
In the instant case, the Petitioner has not established that the proffered position falls under an 
occupational category for which the Handbook, or other authoritative source, indicates that normally 
the minimum requirement for entry is at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
J 
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 
contemplates 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 Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 
1999) (quotingHird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook, or other authoritative source, reports a requirement for at least a bachelor's degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, we incorporate by reference the previous discussion on 
the matter. 
7 
(b)(6)
Matter of H-1-H-
In support of the assertion that the proffered position is a specialty occupation under this criterion of 
the regulations, the Petitioner submitted a letter from Director of 
In the letter, states that "anyone willing to work as an International Adoption 
Program Coordinator in Brazil would have to fulfill a very specific condition such as possessing a 
Brazilian Law Degree." has not demonstrated how the requirements for a program 
coordinator in Brazil is relevant for determining whether the proffered position satisfies the 
applicable statutory and regulatory provisions for a specialty occupation in the United States. 
In addition, submitted the resume of its program coordinator. asserts that the 
duties of this individual's position are similar to the proffered position and that the individual 
possesses a Brazilian law degree. did not submit the academic credentials of this 
individual, e.g., copies of diplomas, transcripts. Moreover, she did not provide documentary 
evidence to corroborate that she currently or in the past employed individuals in parallel positions to 
the proffered position, nor did she provide any documentation to substantiate the claimed academic 
requirements. Further, the did not submit any probative evidence of her recruitment 
and/or hiring practices. 
The Petitioner also submitted two letters from families engaged in the international adoption process, 
who praise the Beneficiary's work and attribute her success to her Brazilian law degree. While these 
letters convey the gratitude of satisfied families, they do not establish that only a specialty-degreed 
individual could perform the duties of the proffered position. Regardless, while it appears that 
knowledge of Brazilian law is an attribute sought by adoption agencies to facilitate the coordination 
of such international adoptions, the evidence of record in insufficient to establish that such 
organizations "routinely employ and recruit only de greed individuals." 
For the reasons outlined above, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
In support of its assertion that the proffered posttlon qualifies as a specialty occupation, the 
Petitioner submitted a letter from Associate Professor of Law at the 
In his letter, (1) describes the credentials that he asserts qualify 
him to opine upon the nature of the proffered position; (2) describes the manner in which he knows 
the Beneficiary; and (3) states that the duties of the proffered position require at least a Brazilian law 
degree. We carefully evaluated assertions in support of the instant petition but, for 
the following reasons, determined his letter does not have significant weight in this matter. 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter of H-1-H-
states that he was an instructor for the program 
while the Beneficiary was a student, and that she was enrolled in several of his courses during that 
time. notes that the Beneficiary wrote a seminar paper about legal issues related to 
international adoptions, and concludes that there is "little doubt" that her work for the Petitioner 
requires "intimate familiarity" with the Brazilian legal system. concludes that it is 
"difficult to imagine" that the Beneficiary could "interface with the government authorities, courts, 
and public agencies t~at deal with international adoption" without her Brazilian legal credentials. 
bases his assessment upon a seminar paper written by the Beneficiary, and not on any 
first-ham~ information provided by the Petitioner. does not demonstrate in-depth 
knowledge of the Petitioner's operations or how the duties of the position would actually be 
performed in the context of its business enterprise. has not provided sufficient 
information to establish his expertise on the practices of adoption organizations seeking to hire 
development directors. Without further clarification, it is unclear how his education, training, skills 
or experience would translate to expertise regarding the current recruiting and hiring practices of an 
enterprise engaged in "international adoptions" or similar organizations for development directors. 
Further, opinion letter does not cite specific instances in which his past opinions have 
been accepted or recognized as authoritative on this particular issue. There is no indication that he 
has conducted any research or studies pertinent to the educational requirements for such positions (or 
parallel positions) in the Petitioner's industry for similar organizations, and no indication of 
recognition by professional organizations that he is an authority on those specific requirements. 
Even assuming possessed expertise on the degree requirements for development directors, 
his opinion letter does not substantiate his conclusions, such that we can conclude that the Petitioner has 
met its burden of proof. First, does not reference, cite, or discuss any studies, surveys, 
industry publications, authoritative publications, or other sources of empirical information which he 
may have consulted to complete his evaluation. Second, the record does not indicate whether 
was aware that, as indicated by the Level II wage on the LCA, the Petitioner considered the 
proffered position to be for an employee who is expected to perform moderately complex tasks that 
require limited exercise of judgment. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that 
possessed the requisite information to adequately assess the nature of the position and appropriately 
determine parallel positions based upon the job duties and level of responsibilities. 
For the reasons discussed, we find that opinion letter lends little probative value to the 
matter he~e. Matter of Caron lnt 'I, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (The service is not 
required to accept or may give less weight to an advisory opinion when it is "not in accord with 
other information or is in any way questionable."). 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to satisfy the second alternative 
prong of8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
9 
Matter of H-1-H-
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. 
To merit approval of the petition under this criterion, the record must establish that a petitioner's 
imposition of a degree requirement is not a matter of preference for high-caliber candidates but is 
necessitated by performance requirements of the position. While a petitioner may assert that a 
proffered position requires a specific degree, that statement alone without corroborating evidence 
cannot establish the position as a specialty occupation. Were USCIS limited solely to reviewing the 
Petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, then any individual with a bachelor's degree could 
be brought to the United States to perform any occupation as long as the Petitioner 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. Evidence provided in support of this criterion may include, but is not limited to, 
documentation regarding the Petitioner's past recruiting and hiring practices, as well as information 
regarding employees who previously held the position. 
We reviewed the Petitioner's statements regarding the proffered position; however, the Petitioner 
acknowledges that the proffered position is a newly-created position, and has not provided evidence 
in support of this criterion. Therefore, it has not satisfied the third criterion of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
D. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature 
of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, O\ 
its equivalent. 
The Petitioner provided information regarding the proffered position and its business operations, 
including the documentation previously outlined. While the evidence provides some insights into 
the Petitioner's business activities, the documents do not establish that the nature of the specific 
duties of the proffered position is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform 
them is usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. 
While the Petitioner may believe that the proffered position meets this criterion of the regulations, it 
has not sufficiently demonstrated how the position as described requires the theoretical and practical 
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and the attainment of a bachelor's or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. For instance, the Petitioner did not submit 
information relevant to a detailed course of study leading to a specialty degree and did not establish 
how such a curriculum is necessary to perform the duties it may believe are so complex and unique. 
10 
Matter of H-1-H-
While a few related courses in law 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 of the proffered position. The description of the duties does not specifically 
identify any tasks that are so specialized or complex that only a specifically degreed individual could 
perform them. Again, it appears that the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to perform moderately 
complex tasks that require limited exercise of judgment (by its selection of a Level II wage on the 
LCA) compared to other positions within the same occupation.9 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well qualified for the position, and references her 
qualifications. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education 
or experience of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner 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)( 4). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The burden is on the 
Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of H-1-H-, ID# 8900 (AAO Sept. 21, 20 16) 
9 Nevertheless, a low wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty 
occupation, just as a high wage-designation does not definitively establish such a classification. In certain occupations 
(e.g., doctors or lawyers), a Level II 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 relevant factor but 
is not itself conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)( I) of the Act. 
11