dismissed H-1B Case: International Trade

MATTER OF D-T-C-C-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 16, 2015 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an international trade company of food, beverages, spices, and condiments, seeks to 
employ the Beneficiary as a market research analyst and to classify him as a nonimmigrant worker in a 
specialty occupation. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act)§ 10l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 110l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition. Subsequently, 
the Petitioner filed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider. The Director granted the motion, 
but affirmed its decision to deny the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. The appeal 
will be dismissed. 
The Director denied the petition, finding that the evidence of record did not establish that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the 
Director's basis for denial was erroneous and contends that it satisfied all evidentiary requirements. 
We reviewed the record in its entirety before issuing our decision. We conduct appellate review on a 
de novo basis. Matter of Simeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542 (AAO 2015); see 5 U.S.C. 
§ 557(b) ("On appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it 
would have in making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see 
also Dar v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n.9 (2d Cir. 1989). We follow the preponderance of the 
evidence standard as specified in the Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-376 (AAO 2010). 
I. SPECIALITY OCCUPATION 
The primary issue under consideration is whether the Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence to 
establish that it will employ the Beneficiary in a specialty occupation. 
A. Legal Framework 
For an H -1 B petition to be granted, the Petitioner must provide sufficient evidence to establish that it 
will employ the Beneficiary in a specialty occupation position. To meet its burden of proof in this 
regard, the Petitioner must establish that the employment it is offering to the Beneficiary meets the 
applicable statutory and regulatory requirements of a specialty occupation. 
Matter of D-T-C-C-, Inc. 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii) states, in pertinent part, the following: 
Specialty occupation means ari occupation which [ (1)] requires theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in fields of human 
endeavor including, but not limited to, architecture, engineering, mathematics, 
physical sciences, social sciences, medicine and health, education, business 
specialties, accounting, law, theology, and the arts, and which [(2)] requires the 
attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as 
a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
Pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualifY as a specialty occupation, a proposed position must 
meet one of the following criteria: 
(1) A .baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
(4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
As a threshold issue, it is noted that 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must logically be read together 
with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). In other words, this regulatory 
language must be construed in harmony with the thrust of the related provisions and with the statute 
as a whole. SeeK Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) (holding that construction 
oflanguage 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 qf W­
F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). As such, the criteria stated in 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) 
2 
Matter of D-T-C-C-, Inc. 
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 supplemental criteria that 
must be met in accordance with, and not as alternatives to, the statutory and regulatory definitions of 
specialty occupation. 
As such and consonant with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) consistently interprets the 
term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered position. See 
Royal Siam Corp. v: Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in 
a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular 
position"). Applying this standard, USCIS regularly approves H-1B petitions for qualified 
beneficiaries who are to be employed as engineers, computer scientists, certified public accountants, 
. college professors, and other such occupations. These professions, for which petitioners have 
regularly been able to establish a minimum entry requirement in the United States of a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, directly related to the duties and 
responsibilities of the particular position, fairly represent the types of specialty occupations that 
Congress contemplated when it created the H -1 B visa category. 
To determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCIS does not simply 
rely on a position's title. The specific duties of the proffered position, combined with the nature of 
the petitioning entity's business operations, are factors to be considered. users must examine the 
ultimate employment of the Beneficiary, and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. The critical element is not the title 
of the position nor an employer's self-imposed standards, but whether the position actually requires 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty as the minimum for entry into 
the occupation, as required by the Act. 
B. The Proffered Position 
The Petitioner described the position in its support letter dated March 15,2014, as follows: 
He will provide research and market analysis in support of the [Petitioner's] 
wholesale and merchandising activities of the company's food and other related 
products. He will determine rigorous bounds and measures of our responsiveness to 
the needs of the market and will develop efficient benchmarks for the monitoring of 
our marketing progress. His specific duties will include: 
3 
Matter of D- T-C-C-, Inc. 
• Benchmarking Against Industry Data: [The Beneficiary] will perform 
extensive background surveys and statistical analyses comparing the products 
and services of the [Petitioner] to industry standards - external benchmarks. 
He will provide the benchmark data reports and trend assessments on a regular 
basis to senior management in order to measure our operational performance 
relative to external peer groups and to identify performance gaps and evaluate 
improvement opportunities. 
• Analyzing Our Performance: Following the procedures for data collection 
and analysis, [the Beneficiary] will manage and analyze the daily stream of 
reported information on the flow of goods. Working with senior management, 
he will carefully define each of data collection points to ensure both a 
consistency of practices and meaningful measures. 
• Identifying elements for Improvement: The reports of the Market Research 
Analyst are utilized to manage and control the sales and merchandising 
process of the company wholesale products. [The Beneficiary] will conduct 
intensive research on our current and proposed operations, will identify, and 
analyze relevant market factors and trends, will develop sophisticated 
operations models in order to forecast future trends in the industry, and will 
predict the resulting opportunities and challenges for our business. The 
research methodologies are both qualitative and quantitative. The Market 
Research Analyst will also analyze trade figures and statistics by industry, will 
conduct in-depth interviews with corporate managers, will develop 
competitive benchmarking, and will assess reliability requirements. 
The Petitioner further indicated that it "normally requires an individual in the position of Market 
Research Analyst" to possess a bachelor's degree. It also stated that the Beneficiary has a 
Bachelor's degree in Business Administration with a concentration in management and that this 
credential is a related field to market research. 
The Petitioner submitted a Labor Condition Application (LCA) in support of the instant H-lB. The 
Petitioner indicated that the proffered position corresponds to the occupational category "Market 
Research Analyst" with SOC (ONET/OES) code 13-1161, at a Level I (entry level) wage. 
In response to the Director's Request for Evidence, the Petitioner provided a more detailed job 
description for the proffered position with a breakdown of duties by percentages, which we 
summarize as follows: 
• Perform market research by studying and gathering market condition information and data 
(25%); 
4 
Matter of D- T-C-C-, Inc. 
• Conduct intensive qualitative and quantitative research, analyze relevant market factors and 
trends, develop sophisticated operations models; and determine the Petitioner's position in 
the marketplace (25% ); 
• Study market trends and procurement practices within current and potential client business in 
the U.S. and Japan and analyze daily stream of reported information as well as carefully 
define each of data collection points (20%); 
• Execute a direct mailing campaign (1 0% ); 
• Constantly measure the effectiveness of marketing programs and strategies (1 0%); 
• Devise and evaluate methods for collecting and analyzing data using statistical software and 
convert the complex data and findings into understandable tables, graphs, and reports (5%); 
and 
• Collaborate with senior management, prepare reports, and present findings (5%). 
C. Analysis 
A baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is 
normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position 
We will first discuss the proffered position in relation to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which requires that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position. 
USCIS recognizes the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL)'s Occupational Outlook Handbook 
(Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements ofthe wide variety 
of occupations that it addresses. 1 We reviewed the section of the Handbook covering "Market 
Research Analysts," including the section entitled "How to Become a Market Research Analyst," 
which states the following: 
Most market research analysts need at least a bachelor's degree. Top 
research positions often require a master's degree. Strong math and analytical 
skills are essential. 
Education 
Market research analysts typically need a bachelor's degree in market 
research or a related field. Many have degrees in fields such as statistics, math, 
and computer science. Others have backgrounds in business administration, the 
social sciences, or communications. 
1 All references are to the 2014-2015 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the lntemet site http://www.bls.gov/OCO/. The 
excerpts of the Handbook regarding the duties and requirements of the referenced occupational category are hereby incorporated into the 
record of proceeding. 
5 
Matter~~ D-T-C-C-, Inc. 
Courses in statistics, research methods, and marketing are essential for 
these workers. Courses in communications and social sciences, such as 
economics, psychology, and sociology, are also important. 
Some market research analyst jobs require a master's degree. Several 
schools offer graduate programs in marketing research, but many analysts 
complete degrees in other fields, such as statistics and marketing, and/or earn a 
Master of Business Administration (MBA). A master's degree is often required 
for leadership positions or positions that perform more technical research. 
Other Experience 
Most market research analysts can benefit from internships or work 
experience in business, marketing, or sales. Work experience in other positions 
that require analyzing data, writing reports, or surveying or collecting data can 
also be helpful in finding a market research position. 
Licenses, Certifications, and Registrations 
Certification is voluntary, but analysts may pursue certification to 
demonstrate a level of professional competency. The Marketing Research 
Association offers the Professional Researcher Certification (PRC) for market 
research analysts. Candidates qualify based on experience and knowledge; they 
must pass an exam, be a member of a professional organization, and have at least 
3 years working in opinion and marketing research. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., 
Market Research Analysts, available on the Internet at http://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and­
financial/market-research-analysts.htm (last visited Oct. 13, 20 15). 
When reviewing the Handbook, we must note that the Petitioner designated the proffered position 
under this occupational category at a Level I on the Labor Condition Application (LCA).2 This 
2 The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" issued by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) provides a 
description of the 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 require limited, if any, 
exercise of judgment. The tasks provide experience and familiarization with the employer's methods, 
practices, and programs. The employees may perform higher level work for training and developmental 
purposes. These employees work under close supervision and receive specific instructions on required tasks 
and results expected. Their work is closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy. Statements that the job 
offer is for a research fellow, a worker in training, or an internship are indicators that a Level I wage should 
be considered. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Tmining Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Progmms 
(rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised_11_2009.pdf. 
Matter of D-T-C-C-, Inc. 
designation is indicative of a comparatively 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 will 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 instructions on required tasks and expected results. DOL guidance indicates that a 
Level I designation is appropriate for a research fellow, a worker in training, or an internship. Thus, 
based upon the Petitioner's designation of the proffered position as a Level I position (relative to 
others with the occupation) it does not appear that the Beneficiary will serve in a senior or leadership 
role or in a position that performs more technical research. 
The Handbook reports that market research analysts have degrees and backgrounds in a wide-variety 
of disparate fields. That is, while the Handbook states that employees typically need a bachelor's 
degree in market research or a related field, it continues by specifying that many market research 
analysts have degrees in fields such as statistics, math, or computer science. According to the 
Handbook, other market research analysts have backgrounds in fields such as business 
administration, the social sciences, or communications. This passage of the Handbook identifies 
various courses as essential to this occupation, including statistics, research methods, and marketing. 
It further elucidates that courses in communications and social sciences (such as economics, 
psychology, and sociology) are also important. Therefore, although the Handbook indicates that 
market research analysts typically need an advanced degree, it also indicates that degrees and 
backgrounds in various fields are acceptable for jobs in this occupation- including computer science 
and the social sciences, as well as statistics and communications. 
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 posi~ion, however, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in seemingly disparate fields, such 
as market research and computer science, would not meet the statutory requirement that the degree 
be "in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)," unless the Petitioner establishes how each field is 
directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position such that the required body 
of highly specialized knowledge is essentially an amalgamation of these different specialties? 
Section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). The Petitioner has not done so here. 
In addition to recognizing degrees in disparate fields, the Handbook also states that "others have a 
background in business administration." Although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a 
3 Whether read with the statutory "the" or the regulatory "a," both readings denote a singular "specialty." Section 214(i)(I)(B) of the Act; 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). Still, 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. This also includes even 
seemingly disparate specialties provided the evidence of record establishes how each acceptable, specific field of study is directly related 
to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position. 
Matter of D-T-C-C-, Inc. 
degree in business administration, may be a legitimate prereqms1te for a particular pos1t10n, 
requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify a finding that a particular position qualifies 
for classification as a specialty occupation. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d at 147.4 
Therefore, the Handbook's recognition that a general, non-specialty "background" in business 
administration is sufficient for entry into the occupation strongly suggests that a bachelor's degree in 
a spec?fic specialty is not a standard, minimum entry requirement for this occupation. Accordingly, 
as the Handbook indicates that working as a market research analyst does not normally require at 
least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for entry into the occupation, it does 
not support the particular position proffered here as being a specialty occupation. 
The narrative of the Handbook further reports that some employees obtain professional certification 
to demonstrate a level of professional competency. It continues by outlining the requirements for 
market research analysts to achieve the Professional Researcher Certification (PRC), and states that 
candidates qualify based upon their experience and knowledge. According to the Handbook, the 
credential is granted by the Marketing Research Association to those who pass an exam and have at 
least three years of experience working in opinion and market research. 5 
We reviewed the Marketing Research Association's website, which confirms the Handbook's 
statement regarding the requirements for professional certification (i.e., passage of an exam and 
three years of relevant industry experience), and further specifies that the "Education" necessary to 
apply for professional certification is "12 industry-related education hours within the two preceding 
years." The Market Research Association website provides the following information about the 
Professional Researcher Certification program: 
The Professional Researcher Certification program (PRC) is designed to recognize 
the qualifications and expertise of marketing and opinion research professionals. The 
goal of PRC is to encourage high standards within the survey profession to raise 
competency, establish an objective measure of an individual's knowledge and 
proficiency and to encourage professional development. Achieving and maintaining 
4 Specifically, the United States Cowt of Appeals for the First Circuit explained in Royal Siam that 
ld 
The courts and the agency consistently have stated that, although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a 
business administration degree, may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, 
without more, will not justifY the granting of a petition for an H-1 B specialty occupation visa. See, e.g, Tapis lnt 'l v. 
INS, 94 F.Supp.2d 172, 175-76 (D.Mass. 2000); Shanti, 36 F. Supp.2d at 1164-66; if Matter of Michael Hertz 
Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 ([Comm'r] 1988) (providing frequently cited analysis in connection with a 
conceptually similar provision). This is as it should be: elsewise, an employer could ensure the granting of a specialty 
occupation visa petition by the simple expedient of creating a generic (and essentially artificial) degree requirement. 
5 The Marketing Research Association website states that the association was founded in 1957 and is the leading and largest association of 
opinion and marketing research professions. For additional information, see http://www.marketingresearch.org/information (last visited 
Oct. 13, 2015). 
Matter of D-T-C-C-, Inc. 
PRC validates the knowledge of the market research industry and puts researchers in 
a select group of like-minded professionals. 
* * * 
Because PRC indicates to the public your ability to conduct marketing research, the 
PRC Board requires [a candidate] to have experience in the survey and opinion 
process. Three years of relevant experience is required. . . . A total of 12 industry­
related education hours within the two preceding years are required at time of 
application. Conferences, seminars, webinars, etc., must be added to [the candidate's] 
record. 
* * * 
The benefits of a Certification program are both industry-wide and individual. For the 
individual, it is a means of differentiating oneself, a "badge" of competence in the 
given areas and an assurance that the individual is current in knowledge and 
experience. For the profession/industry as a whole, it provides a vehicle for 
developing a pool of well-trained, competent marketing researchers, thereby 
improving both perceived and substantive standards. 
Market Res. Ass'n, http://marketingresearch.org/prc-faq (last visited Oct. 13, 2015). 
The Market Research Association emphasizes that the credentialing program recognizes the 
qualifications and expertise of marketing and opinion research professionals, encourages high 
standards within the profession, and establishes an objective measure of an individual's knowledge 
and proficiency. According to the Association's website, the credential indicates to the public an 
individual's ability to conduct market research. The narrative continues by stating that the credential 
provides a vehicle for developing a pool of well-trained, competent marketing researchers, thereby 
improving both perceived and substantive standards. The website does not indicate that the market 
research analyst positions have any particular academic requirements for entry, nor does it indicate 
that these positions require any particular level of education to be identified as qualified and 
possessing a level of expertise/competence. Instead, the Market Research Association highlights the 
importance of professional experience and industry-related professional courses (through 
conferences, seminars, and webinars). 
Thus, the Handbook and the Market Research Association website do not support the claim that the 
occupational category "Market Research Analysts" 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 (which it does not), to satisfy the first criterion, the Petitioner must provide 
evidence to support a finding that the particular position proffered would normally have such a 
minimum, specialty degree requirement or its equivalent. 
9 
Matter of D- T-C-C-, Inc. 
In the appeal, the Petitioner cites to a recent district court case, Raj and Co. v. US. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services, 85 F. Supp. 3d 124l(W.D. Wash. 2015) and claims that it is relevant here.6 In 
the district court case, the employer designated the position as a "Marketing Analyst & Specialist" 
position.
7 
We reviewed the decision; however, there is no indication that aspects of the work such as 
the duties and responsibilities, level of judgment, complexity of the job duties, supervisory duties, 
independent judgment required or the amount of supervision received are analogous to the proffered 
position here. Accordingly, aside from the claimed occupational category, there is no indication that 
the positions are similar. 
Further, in Raj, the court stated that a specialty occupation requires the attainment of a bachelor's 
degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The court confirmed that this issue is well­
settled in case law and with USCIS' s reasonable interpretation of the regulatory framework. In the 
decision, the court noted that "permitting an occupation to qualify simply by requiring a generalized 
bachelor degree would run contrary to congressional intent to provide a visa program for specialized, 
as opposed to merely educated, workers." The court stated that the regulatory provisions do not 
restrict qualifying occupations to those for which there exists a single, specifically tailored and titled 
degree program; but rather, the statute and regulations contain an equivalency provision. 8 
In Raj, the court concluded that the employer met the first criterion. We must note, however, that 
the court stated that "[t]he first regulatory criterion requires the agency to examine the generic 
position requirements of a market research analyst in order to determine whether a specific 
bachelor's degree or its equivalent is a minimum requirement for entry into the profession." Thus, 
the decision misstates the regulatory requirement. That is, the first criterion requires the Petitioner to 
establish that a baccalaureate or higher degree (in a specific specialty) or its equivalent is normally 
the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position. 
Consequently, if the court meant to suggest that any position classified under the occupational 
category "Market Research Analysts" would, as it stated, "come within the first qualifying criteria" -
we must disagree. 9 The occupational category designated by a petitioner is considered as an aspect 
6 In contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case law of a United States circuit court, we are not bound to 
follow the published decision of a United States district court in matters arising even within the same district. See Matter 
of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715 (BIA 1993). Although the reasoning underlying a district judge's decision will be given due 
consideration when it is properly before us, the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter oflaw. !d. at 719. 
7 
It is important to note and distinguish within the court's decision that "Marketing Analyst & Specialist'' refers to the employer's 
particular position, whereas "Market Research Analysts" refers to a geneml occupational category. 
8 We agree with the court that a specialty occupation is one that requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree 
in a specific specialty or its equivalent. We further note that a petitioner must also demonstrate that the position requires 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in accordance with section 
214(i)(l)(B) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii), and satisfy one of the four criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
9 In Raj, the court quoted a brief excerpt from the Handbook; however, the quotation is from the 2012-2013 edition 
rather than the current 2014-2015 edition (which contains several revisions). Further, we observe that the court did not 
address the section of the Handbook indicating that there are no specific degree requirements to obtain the Professional 
Researcher Certification credential - and therefore to work as a market research analyst. 
10 
Matter of D-T-C-C-, Inc. 
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. However, to satisfy the first criterion, 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. That is, to determine whether a 
particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCIS does not simply rely on a position's title or 
designated occupational category. 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 beneficiary, and determine whether the position qualifies as 
a specialty occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384. 
Nevertheless, it is important to note that the court in Raj determined that the evidence in the record 
demonstrated that the particular position proffered required a bachelor's degree in market research or 
its equivalent as a minimum for entry. Further, the court noted that "[t]he patently specialized nature 
of the position sets it apart from those that merely require a generic degree." 
The position in Raj can, therefore, be distinguished from the instant position. Here, the duties and 
requirements of the position as described in the record of proceeding do not indicate that this 
particular position proffered by the Petitioner is one for which a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry. 
Specifically, the Petitioner made inconsistent statements regarding the requirements for the proffered 
position. For example, in the support letter dated March 15, 2014, the Petitioner stated that it 
normally requires a bachelor's degree for the proffered position without stating a specific specialty. 
Later in the same letter, the Petitioner asserted that it "requires a bachelor's degree in market 
research or related field-such as business administration and management." In response to the RFE, 
the Petitioner asserts that "the position normally requires the person who holds it to have completed 
a bachelor's degree." On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that it requires "a minimum of a bachelor's 
degree in Business Administration with a concentration in Management." 
We note that the Petitioner asserts throughout the record that the Beneficiary has a Bachelor's degree 
in Business Administration with a management concentration and has taken courses related to 
marketing. For example, on appeal, the Petitioner asserts that "[the Beneficiary]'s degree is not a 
generalized degree in Business Administration but one with a concentration in management and [sic] 
including completion of a plethora of marketing, economics, statistics and finance coursework." 
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. Here, the Petitioner has not explained the discrepancies 
regarding the requirement for the position, and it is not clear what specific specialty is required for 
the proffered position. Further, assuming arguendo that the Petitioner established the requirements 
for the position, the Petitioner also did not sufficiently explain how each field is directly related to 
the duties and the responsibilities of the particular position such that the required body of highly 
specialized knowledge is essentially an amalgamation of these specialties. 
11 
(b)(6)
Matter of D-T-C-C-, Inc. 
In the appeal, the Petitioner also cites to Chung Song Ja Corp. v. US Citizenship and Immigration 
Services, No. C14-0177RSM, 2015 WL 1058110 (W.D. Wash. 2015) for the proposition that "in 
determining a 'specialty occupation' when considering qualification for the first regulatory 
. criteri[ on] ... many degrees may qualify for the specific occupation." The Petitioner further cites to 
Residential Finance Corp. v. US Citizenship & Immigration Services , 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. 
Ohio 2012) for the similar propositions that a specialty occupation need not require a degree "in a 
single academic discipline as opposed to a specialized course of study in related business 
specialties," and that 
"it is the knowledge and not the title of the degree which controls." 
We generally agree with the aforementioned propositions. For the aforementioned reasons , 
however, the Petitioner has not met its burden to establish that the particular position offered in this 
matter requires a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, directly related 
to its duties in order to perform those tasks. 
In any event, the Petitioner has not furnished evidence to establish that the facts of the instant 
petition are analogous to those in Chung Song Ja Corp. and Residential Finance Corp. 10 
Further, the Petitioner submitted a professional position evaluation prepared by 
Associate Dean at the School of Business at the 
CT. stated that the proffered position requires the attainment of at least a Bachelor's 
Degree in Marketing, Business Administration, or a closely related field. 
However, does not provide a substantive , analytical basis for his opinion and ultimate 
conclusion . His opinion does not relate his conclusion to specific, concrete aspects of the 
Petitioner's business operations to demonstrate a sound factual basis for the conclusion about the 
educational requirements for the particular position here at issue. For instance, he based his analysis 
on a generic list of duties that were provided by the Petitioner, but did not indicate that he had any 
knowledge of the Petitioner's business and how the Beneficiary's duties might specifically relate to 
that business. 
Moreover, there is also no indication that the Petitioner advised that it characterized 
the proffered position as a low, entry-level market research analyst position, for a beginning 
employee who has only a basic understanding of the occupation (as indicated by the wage-level on 
the LCA). The wage-rate indicates that the Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks 
that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment ; that he will be closely supervised and his work 
closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy ; and that he will receive specific instructions on 
10 We note that Chung Song Ja Corp. does not share the same fact pattern as the present petition because the proffered position in that 
case was for a part-time Health Care Manager. We also note that in Residential Finance Cmp., the district court judge's decision in that 
case appears to have been based largely on the many factual errors made by the service center in its decision denying the petition. We 
further note that the service center's decision was not appealed to us. Based on the district court's findings and description of the record, if 
that matter had first been appealed through the available administrative process, we may very well have remanded the matter to the 
service center for a new decision for many of the same reasons articulated by the district court if these errors could not have been remedied 
by us in our de novo review of the matter. 
12 
(b)(6)
Matter of D-T-C-C- , Inc. 
required tasks and expected results. However, describes the duties of this position as 
"so advanced and specialized," and "complex." It appears that would have found the 
wage~level information relevant for his opinion letter. Moreover, without this information, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that possessed the requisite information necessary to 
adequately assess the nature of the Petitioner's position. 
Therefore, the letter from does not support the Petitioner 's assertion that the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. Further, does not reference or discuss any 
studies, surveys, industry publications, authoritative publications, or other sources of empirical 
information which he may have consulted. 
In addition, finds that the proffered position requires the attainment of a bachelor's 
degree or its equivalent in marketing, business administration or a related field. For the reasons we 
explained above, however, the requirement of a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a 
bachelor's degree in business administration, is inadequate to establish that a position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d at 147. 
We may, in our discretion, use advisory opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as expert 
testimony. Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988). However, where an 
opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we are not required to 
accept or may give less weight to that evidence. !d. For efficiency's sake, we hereby incorporate the 
above discussion regarding the letter into our analysis of each criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). 
The fact that a person may be employed in a position designated by a petitioner as that of a market research 
analyst and may apply some marketing principles in the course of his or her job is not in itself sufficient to 
establish the position as one that qualifies as a specialty occupation. In this 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). 
The requirement of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a spec{fic specialty, 
or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel 
positions among similar 
organizations 
Next, we will review the record regarding the first of the two alternative prongs of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). This prong alternatively calls for a petitioner to establish that a requirement 
of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common for positions 
that are identifiable as being (1) in the Petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered position, and 
also (3) located in organizations that are similar to the Petitioner. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement , factors often considered by 
USCIS include: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the 
13 
Matter of D-T-C-C-, Inc. 
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) (quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook (or other independent, authoritative source) reports a standard industry-wide 
requirement for at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, we 
incorporate by reference the previous discussion on the matter. 
There are no submissions from the industry's professional association indicating that it has made a 
degree a minimum entry requirement and no submission of letters or affidavits from firms or 
individuals that attest that such firms routinely employ only individuals with a degree in a specific 
specialty. 
The Petitioner also did not submit any job advertisements placed by other similar businesses in the 
Petitioner's industry to demonstrate that the degree requirement is common in parallel positions 
among similar organizations. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not established that a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the Petitioner's industry in positions that are (1) in 
the Petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered position, and also (3) located in organizations 
that are similar to the Petitioner. For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not satisfied the 
first alternative prong of 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by 
an individual with a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.P.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. 
The LCA submitted by the Petitioner in support of the instant petition indicates a wage level at a 
Level I (entry) wage, which is the lowest of four assignable wage levels.11 Without further evidence, 
the record of proceeding does not indicate that the proffered position is complex or unique as such a 
position falling under this occupational category would likely be classified at a higher-level, such as 
11 While the Petitioner has not indicated that foreign language is required for the proffered position, it appears that nature of its business 
may necessitate foreign language for the proffered position. In accordance with the guidance provided by DOL, a language requirement 
other than English in a petitioner's job offer generally is considered a special skill for all occupations, with the exception of "Foreign 
Language Teachers and Instructors," "Interpreters," and "Caption Writers." 
14 
Matter of D-T-C-C-, Inc. 
a Level III (experienced) or Level IV (fully competent) position, requiring a significantly higher 
prevailing wage.
12 
For example, a Level IV (fully competent) position is designated by DOL for 
employees who "use advanced skills and diversified knowledge to solve unusual and complex 
problems." 13 The evidence of record does not establish that this position is significantly different 
from other positions in the occupational category such that it refutes the Handbook's information 
that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent is not required for the proffered 
position. 
Upon review, we find that the Petitioner has not sufficiently developed relative complexity or 
uniqueness as an aspect of the proffered position. Given that we cannot accord weight to the 
position evaluation submitted for the reasons discussed above, the record lacks sufficiently detailed 
information to distinguish the proffered 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. 
The Petitioner did not establish that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can only be 
performed by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The employer normally requires a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
spec?fic specialty, or its equivalent, for the position 
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 
this end, we usually review a petitioner's past recruiting and hiring practices, as well as information 
regarding employees who previously held the position, and any other documentation submitted by a 
petitioner in support of this criterion of the regulations. 
To merit approval of the petition under this criterion, the record must also establish that a 
petitioner's imposition of a degree requirement is not merely a matter of preference for high-caliber 
12 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)(l) ofthe Act. 
13 For additional information regarding wage levels as defined by DOL, see U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training 
Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available 
at http://www.tlcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _ Guidance_Revised _11_2009.pdf 
15 
Matter of D-T-C-C-, Inc. 
candidates but is necessitated by performance requirements of the position. While a petitioner may 
assert that a proffered position requires a specific degree, that statement alone without corroborating 
evidence cannot establish the position as a specialty occupation. Were USCIS limited solely to 
reviewing a petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, then any individual with a bachelor's 
degree could be brought to the United States to perform any occupation as long as the petitioner 
artificially created a token degree requirement, whereby all individuals employed in a particular 
position possessed a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty, or its equivalent. See 
Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d at 388. In other words, if a petitioner's stated degree requirement is 
only designed to artificially meet the standards for an H-1B visa and/or to underemploy an 
individual in a position for which he or she is overqualified and if the proffered position does not in 
fact require such a specialty degree or its equivalent, to perform its duties, the occupation would not 
meet the statutory or regulatory definition of a specialty occupation. See § 214(i)(l) of the Act; 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty occupation"). 
To satisfy this criterion, the evidence of record must show that the specific performance 
requirements of the position generated the recruiting and hiring history. A petitioner's perfunctory 
declaration of a particular educational requirement will not mask the fact that the position is not a 
specialty occupation. USCIS must examine the actual employment requirements, and, on the basis 
of that examination, determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. See 
generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. In this pursuit, the critical element is not the title of 
the position, or the fact that an employer has routinely insisted on certain educational standards, but 
whether performance of the position actually requires the theoretical and practical application of a 
body of highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the 
specific specialty as the minimum for entry into the occupation as required by the Act. 
As discussed previously, the Petitioner has stated that the proffered position is not a new one for the 
company, and submitted a copy of a degree for one of its employee. On motion, the Petitioner 
submitted a copy of the support letter filed for the same employee which outlines the duties and 
requirements for the position, along with current pay roll records. 
However, as stated above, the record must establish that the Petitioner's imposition of a degree 
requirement is necessitated by the performance requirements of the position. In this matter, the 
Petitioner has not explained in sufficient detail why the performance of the proffered duties actually 
requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, such 
that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty is necessary. 
Moreover, we are not required to approve petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, 
merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g., Matter of Church 
Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). If any of the previous 
nonimmigrant petitions were approved based on the same unsupported assertions that are contained 
in the current record, they would constitute material and gross error on the part of the director. It 
would be "absurd to suggest that [USCIS] or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding 
precedent." Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 
U.S. 1008 (1988). A prior approval does not compel the approval of a subsequent petition or relieve 
16 
Matter of D-T-C-C-, Inc. 
the petitioner of its burden to provide sufficient documentation to establish current eligibility for the 
benefit sought. 55 Fed. Reg. 2606, 2612 (Jan. 26, 1990). A prior approval also does not preclude 
USCIS from denying an extension of an original visa petition based on a reassessment of eligibility 
for the benefit sought. See Texas A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556, 2004 WL 1240482 (5th 
Cir. 2004). Furthermore, our authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship 
between a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director had approved 
nonimmigrant petitions on behalf of a beneficiary, we would not be bound to follow the 
contradictory decision of a service center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 
282785 (E.D. La.), affd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the third criterion of 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). 
The nature of the spec?fic 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 in a specific specialty, or its equivalent 
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 record of the proceeding, we note that the Petitioner has not provided sufficient 
evidence to satisfy this criterion of the regulations. In the instant case, relative specialization and 
complexity have not been credibly developed by the Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. 
That is, the proposed duties have not been described with sufficient specificity to establish that they 
are more specialized and complex than positions that are not usually associated with at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Therefore, the evidence of record does 
not establish that this position is significantly different from other marketing manager positions such 
that it refutes the Handbook's information to the effect that there is a spectrum of preferred degrees 
acceptable for marketing manager positions, including degrees not in a specific specialty. In other 
words, the record lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish the proffered position as 
unique from or more complex than other closely related positions that can be performed by persons 
without at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
The Petitioner claims that the proffered position "features an atypical combination of circumstances 
that distinguishes the role its Market Research Analyst will play." The Petitioner highlights its 
services in both domestic and international commerce, as well as its position as part of an expanding 
international chain operation, as distinguishing factors that render the proffered duties as more 
complex than those normally performed by other Market Research Analysts. However, the 
Petitioner's explanations are insufficient to establish eligibility under the criterion at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). Specifically, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained why the proffered 
duties are so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them are usually 
associated with 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 
1 '7 
Matter of D-T-C-C-, Inc. 
degree and did not establish how such a curriculum is necessary to perform the duties it claims are so 
specialized and complex. Merely identifying "especially relevant" courses that the Beneficiary 
completed, without more, is insufficient to establish how and why these courses provided the 
necessary knowledge to perform the proffered duties. 
We further incorporate our earlier discussion and analysis regarding the designation of the proffered 
position in the LCA as a Level I position (the lowest of four assignable wage-levels) relative to 
others within the occupational category. Without more, the position is one not likely distinguishable 
by relatively specialized and complex duties. That is, without further evidence, the Petitioner has 
not demonstrated that its proffered position is one with specialized and complex duties as such a 
position falling under this occupational category would likely be classified at a higher-level, such as 
a Level III (experienced) or Level IV (fully competent) position, requiring a substantially higher 
'1' 14 prevar mg wage. 
The Petitioner has submitted insufficient evidence to satisfy this criterion of the regulations. We, 
therefore, conclude that the Petitioner did not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)( 4). 
For the reasons related in the preceding discussion, the Petitioner has not established that it has 
satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) and, therefore, it cannot be found that 
the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 15 
II. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofD-T-C-C-, Inc., ID# 14210 (AAO Oct. 16, 2015) 
14 As previously discussed, a LevellY (fully competent) position, for example, is designated by DOL for employees who "use advanced 
skills and diversified knowledge to solve unusual and complex problems" and requires a significantly higher wage. 
15 Since the identified bases for denial are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we will not address other grounds of 
ineligibility we observe in the record of proceeding. 
18