dismissed H-1B Case: Journalism

MATTER OF P-C-E-, INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 14,2017 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a Chinese-language newspaper, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"reporter" under the H-1 B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(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 of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the evidence of 
record does not demonstrate that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Director erred in the 
decision. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 1 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
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. 
1 
We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 
(AAO 2010). 
Matter of P-C-E-, Inc. 
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: . 
(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). We have consistently interpreted the term "degree" 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. Cherto.ff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing 
"a degree requirement in a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and 
responsibilities of a particular position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner stated in the H-IB petition that the Beneficiary will serve as a "reporter." In response 
to the Director's request for additional evidence, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would 
perform the following duties: 
20% Search for local stories on websites, wue services, newspapers and other 
sources. 
15% Research foreign new resources, newswire reports and other new sources, 
especially concerning events in China and East Asia region. 
10% Collect newsworthy information from Chinese-American social media 
platforms. 
30% Select news topics most pertinent to Chinese-speaking readers and write 
featured news and columns. 
10% Conduct interviews with noteworthy public personalities. 
5% Edit news articles from journalists and write headlines, subhead as well as 
lead. 
5% Select news articles and re-write into Chinese language pieces. 
2 
Matter of P-C-E-, Inc. 
5% Design newspaper layout using Adobe InDesign.2 
The Petitioner stated that the position requires a bachelor's degree, and preferably a master's degree, 
in communications, journalism, mass media, language/literature, teaching or another area related to 
written communications. 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the entire record,3 for the reasons set out below, we have determined that the 
Petitioner has not I) submitted a certified labor condition application (LCA) that corresponds to the 
petition, and 2) demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
A. LCA 
As a preliminary matter, we must address the LCA4 submitted in support of the H-lB petition. The 
Petitioner designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Reporters and 
Correspondents" corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 27-3022 at a Level 
I wage. The provided duties indicate that the Beneficiary must be able to write and edit articles in 
Chinese. On appeal, the Petitioner repeatedly asserts that the job duties of the proffered position 
"are more specialized and complex and require more professional judgment and discretion" than the 
ones listed in the Occupational Outlook Handbook (the Handbook). 5 
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) guidance states that a Level I (entry-level) 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: (1) that the Beneficiary will be expected 
to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that she will be closely 
supervised and her work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that she will receive 
specific instructions on required tasks and expected results.6 According to DOL, a Level I wage 
should be considered for research fellows, workers in training, or internships. 
The guidance further indicates that a petitioner must distinguish its proffered position from others 
within the occupation through the proper wage level designation to indicate factors such as 
complexity of the job duties, the level of judgment, the amount and level of supervision, and the 
2 The Petitioner provides additional details about the duties of the p'osition on appeal. 
3 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to us to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B worker the higher of 
either the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the "area of employment'' or the actual wage paid by the 
employer to other employees with similar experience and qualifications who are performing the same services. See 
Matter ofSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 l&N Dec. 542, 545-546 (AAO 20 15). 
5 For additional information regarding the occupational category, see Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, 
Occupational Outlook Handbook, Reporters, Correspondents, and Broadcast News Analysts (20 16-17 ed.). 
6 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. 
3 
Matter of p:c-E-, Inc. 
level of understanding required to perform the job duties. Through the wage level, the Petitioner 
reflects the job requirements, experience, education, special skills/other requirements and 
supervisory duties. A language requirement other than English in a job offer generally is considered 
a special skill for all occupations (with the exception of Foreign Language Teachers and Instructors, 
Interpreters, and Caption Writers). 
The Petitioner's repeated assertions that the proffered position requires more "professional judgment 
and discretion" than a typical reporter, is "much more complex and specialized than ... typical 
reporter duties as described in" the Handbook, and must "independently develop news content[] with 
limited guidance from the newspaper's editors," combined with the need to "write and edit the 
articles in Chinese," are not reflected in the wage level chosen on the LCA. 
While DOL is the agency that certifies LCA applications before they are submitted to U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), DOL regulations note that the Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS) (i.e., its immigration benefits branch, USCIS) is the department 
responsible for determining whether the content of an LCA filed for a particular Form I -129, Petition 
for a Nonimmigrant Worker, actually supports that petition. See 20 C.P.R. § 655.705(b), which 
states, in pertinent part (emphasis added): 
For H-IB visas ... DHS accepts the employer's petition (DHS Form I-129) with the 
DOL-certified LCA attached. In doing so, the DHS determines whether the petition 
is supported by an LCA which corresponds with the petition, whether the occupation 
named in the [LCA] is a specialty occupation or whether the individual is a fashion 
model of distinguished merit and ability, and whether the qualifications of the 
nonimmigrant meet the statutory requirements for H -1 B visa classification. 
The regulation at 20 C.P.R. § 655.705(b) requires that we ensure that an LCA actually supports the 
H-lB petition filed on behalf of the Beneficiary. Here, the Petitioner has not submitted a certified 
LCA that accurately reflects the Petitioner's statements that the position is more specialized and 
complex and requires a higher level of professional judgment and discretion than a typical reporter 
as described in the Handbook, along with the need for proficiency in the Chinese language. As a 
result, even if it were determined that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, the 
petition could not be approved because the record lacks an LCA ·which corresponds to the proper 
wage level. 7 
7 
To penn it otherwise would result in a petitioner paying a wage lower than that required by section 2 I 2(n)( I )(A) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § I 182(n)(I)(A), by allowing that petitioner to submit an LCA for a lower prevailing wage than the one 
being petitioned for. The LCA serves as the critical mechanism for enforcing section 212(n)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1182(n)(l ). See Labor Condition Applications and Requirements for Employers Using Nonimmigrants on H-1 B Visas 
in Specialty Occupations and as Fashion Models; Labor Certification Process for Permanent Employment of Aliens in 
the United States, 65 Fed. Reg. 80, II 0, 80, I 10-11 (proposed Dec. 20, 2000) (to be codified at 20 C.F.R. pts. 655-56) 
(indicating that the wage protections in the Act seek "to protect U.S. workers' wages and eliminate any economic 
incentive or advantage in hiring temporary foreign workers" and that this "process of protecting U.S. workers begins 
with [the filing of an LCA] with [DOL]."). 
4 
Matter of P-C-E-, Inc. 
B. Specialty Occupation 
In addition, for the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not established that the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner initially indicated that the minimum education requirement is a bachelor's degree, 
with a preference for a master's degree, or the equivalent, in one of the following fields: 
"Communication, Journalism, Mass Media, Language/Literature or other related areas dealing with 
written communication." In response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner indicated 
that, in addition, it "also accept[ s] candidates with degrees in . . . teaching and other disciplines 
emphasizing analytic writing." 
The Petitioner's entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree, or its equivalent, in one of a 
variety of majors does not denote a requirement in a specific specialty. A petitioner must 
demonstrate that the proffered position requires a precise and specific course of study that relates 
directly and closely to the position in question. 
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 different specialties. Section 
214(i)(l )(B) of the Act (emphasis added). 
In other words, while the statutory "the" and the regulatory "a" both denote a singular "specialty," 
we do not so narrowly interpret these provisions to exclude positions from qualifying as 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. 
Not only it is not readily apparent that all of the listed fields of study are closely related, but the 
Petitioner has not sufficiently established that, for example, a degree in literature or any unspecified 
language is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position proffered in 
this matter or how dissimilar fields, such as mass media and language or teaching, form a body of 
highly specialized knowledge or a specific specialty. Under the Petitioner's own standards, the 
5 
Matter of P-C-E-, Inc. 
proffered position does not meet the definition of specialty occupation under section 214(i)(l) of the 
Act. 
Further, as previously discussed, the Petitioner has repeatedly argued that the position is "more 
specialized and complex and require[ s] more professional judgment and discretion" than a typical 
reporter, while simultaneously indicating on the LCA that the position is entry-level, closely 
supervised, and requires limited, if any, exercise of judgment. Not only does this conflict challenge 
the overall credibility of the petition, but without independent, objective evidence pointing to where 
the truth lies,8 the true nature of the proffered position and in what capacity the Beneficiary will 
actually be employed remains in question. In addition, as discussed below, even if we were to 
disregard these contradictions, the Petitioner has not established that it has met any of the four 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). For purposes of our analysis, we will rely on the Petitioner's 
designation on the LCA of the position as entry-level. 
1. 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 Handbook as an 
authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it 
addresses. 9 
On the LCA, the Petitioner designated the proffered positiOn under the occupational category 
"Reporters and Correspondents" corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 27-
3022. The Handbook's chapter entitled "How to Become a Reporter, Correspondent, or Broadcast 
News Analyst" states in pertinent part: "Most employers prefer workers who have a bachelor's 
degree in journalism or communications. However, some employers may hire applicants who have a 
degree in a related subject, such as English or political science, and relevant work experience." 
The Handbook does not indicate that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into this occupational category. 
According to the Handbook, most employers prefer workers who have a bachelor's degree in 
journalism or communications. However, a preference for such a degree does not establish that it is 
normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position. Further, the Handbook 
states that some employers may hire applicants who have a degree in a related subject and relevant 
8 Matter of Ho, 19 1&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (B1A 1998). 
9 
All of our references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not, however, maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant 
information. That is, the occupational category designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the 
general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered position, and USCIS regularly reviews the Handbook on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. To satisfy the first criterion, however, the 
burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position 
would normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
6 
.
· Matter of P-C-E-, Inc. 
work experience but does not specify the level of such a degree, or that the degree and relevant work 
experience must be equivalent to a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 10 Therefore, the 
Handbook does not support the Petitioner's assertion regarding the educational requirements 
required for entry into this occupation. 
The Petitioner also references the DOL's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) summary 
report. The summary report provides general info~mation regarding the occupation; however, it does 
not support the Petitioner's assertion regarding the educational requirements for these positions. For 
example, the Specialized Vocational Preparation (SVP) rating cited within O*NET's Job Zone 
designates this occupation as 7 < 8. An SVP rating of 7 to less than ("<") 8 indicates that the 
occupation requires "over 2 years up to and including 4 years" of training. While the SVP rating 
indicates the total number of years of vocational preparation required for a particular position, it is 
important to note that it does not describe how those years are to be divided among training, formal 
education, and experience - and it does not specify the particular type of degree, if any, that a 
. . ld . II position wou reqmre. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits two position evaluations from at the 
at and chairman of the U.S.-based Chinese television 
network concludes that the position requires an individual with a bachelor's 
degree in journalism, or a related area. 12 concludes that the Petitioner's stated education 
requirement "is reasonable and commensurate with the duties required for the position." 
The letters, however, do not adequately demonstrate their knowledge of the proffered position and 
the Petitioner's operations. For example, both authors only generally discuss the Petitioner's 
business operations, but do not provide any meaningful detail, and both rely on the same bullet-pointed 
duties contained in the Petitioner's support letter. The record does not indicate that they visited the 
Petitioner's premises or spoke to anyone affiliated with the Petitioner to ascertain the substantive 
nature and educational requirements of the proposed duties as they would be actually performed. 
In addition, we observe that neither individual references that, as indicated by the Level I wage on the 
LCA, the Petitioner considered the proffered position to be an entry-level reporter position for a 
beginning employee who has only a basic understanding of the occupation. In other words, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that they possessed the requisite information to adequately assess the 
nature of the position. We also note that neither letter disputes or even addresses the Handbook's 
findings regarding the educational requirements of the occupation. 
10 Supra note 5. 
11 
For additional information, see the O*NET Help webpage at http://www.onetonline.org/help/online/svp. 
12 
We note that although discusses the relationship between journalism courses and the proffered position, 
she does not, for example, explain how the Petitioner's other claimed acceptable majors, such as literature or teaching, 
would be applicable to the position. 
7 
.
· Matter of P-C-E-, Inc. 
Without more, we cannot find that either of these letters establishes that a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into 
the particular position. We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the 
Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron Int '!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm 'r 1988). 
However, where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we 
are not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. !d. We find that these 
evaluations do not satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l) and, for the sake of efficiency, hereby 
incorporate this finding into our analysis of the remaining specialty-occupation criteria. 
For all of these reasons, we find that the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
2. 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. 
a. 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. 
We generally consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there is such a common 
degree requirement: 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 establish 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) 
(considering these "factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook, or another authoritative source, reports a requirement for at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Though and both indicate that the 
Petitioner's claimed degree requirement is consistent with common hiring practices and standards in 
the Petitioner's industry, absent evidence in support of the claim, they have not met this criterion 
with testimonial evidence alone. We also incorporate by reference our previous discussion on their 
letters. Also, there are no submissions from the industry's professional association indicating that it 
has made a degree a minimum entry requirement. 
8 
Matter of P-C-E-, Inc. 
In addition, the record contains several individuals' profiles that the Petitioner printed from 
Linkedin. However, this information does not satisfy the first prong, either. First, we observe that 
these profiles constitute claims made by these individuals regarding their educational credentials, 
rather than evidence to support the claims. A petitioner's unsupported statements are of very limited 
weight and normally will be insufficient to carry its burden of proof. The Petitioner must support its 
assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. In 
addition, the record does not establish that any of these individuals occupy the type of Level I, entry­
level position proffered here. Further, the record does not establish that attainment of a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, was a precondition to any of these individuals' 
hiring. 
The Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
b. 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. 
The Petitioner repeatedly references its standing within its industry and community and, as 
previously discussed, claims that the knowledge and associated entry requirements associated with 
the proffered position exceed those of other positions located within the occupational category. We, 
therefore, incorporate our earlier discussion regarding the Petitioner's Level I wage designation, 
which contradicts its claim that it satisfies this criterion. 13 This designation, when read in 
combination with the Petitioner's job description and the Handbook's requirements for this 
occupation, further suggests that this particular position is not so complex or unique relative to other 
reporter positions, such that the duties can only be performed by an individual with a bachelor's 
degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. While a few related courses may be 
beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how an 
established curriculum of courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, is required to perform the duties ofthe proffered position. In other words, if typical 
positions located within the occupational category do not require a bachelor's degree in a specific 
13 
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, a 
Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty occupation, just as a 
Level IV wage-designation does not definitively establish such a classification. In certain occupations (e.g., doctors or 
lawyers), a Level I, 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 qualities 
as a specialty occupation if that higher-level position does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific 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. 
9 
Matter of P-C-E-, Inc. 
specialty, or the equivalent, then it is unclear how a Level I position would, regardless of the 
Petitioner's assertions regarding the complexity of its operations or the duties of the proffered 
position. 
The Petitioner also 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 did not sufficiently dexelop relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the 
duties of the position, and it did not adequately describe 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 of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
3. 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. The 
record must establish that a petitioner's stated degree requirement is not a matter of preference for 
high-caliber candidates, but is necessitated by performance requirements of the position. See 
Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. If we were solely limited 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. 
!d. Evidence provided in support of this criterion may include, but is not limited to, documentation 
regarding the Petitioner's past recruitment and hiring practices, as well as information regarding 
employees who previously held the position. 
According to the provided organizational chart and information regarding the education of the 
members of its news department, the Petitioner's current reporters hold degrees in a variety of fields, 
including national economic management and history. Therefore,· the Petitioner has demonstrated 
that it does not, in fact, normally require at least a bachelor's degree in a spec(fic !>pecialty, or its 
equivalent, for the proffered position and, as a result, we cannot find that it has satisfied the third 
criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
4. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature 
of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. 
Although we acknowledge the Petitioner's assertions regarding the specialization and complexity of 
the position's duties, as discussed above, those claims are undermined by the Petitioner's Level I 
10 
Matter of P-C-E-, Inc. 
wage designation. 14 Without further evidence, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that its proffered 
position is one with specialized and complex duties as such a position within this occupational 
category would likely be classified at a higher-level, requiring a substantially higher prevailing 
wage.15 Thus, the Petitioner has submitted inadequate probative evidence to satisfy the criterion of 
the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied any 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. 
C. Prior Approvals 
The Petitioner submits two of our non-precedent decisions and one precedent decision, arguing that 
"past AAO decisions, both precedent and unpublished decisions, on the issues may be an important 
and reliable source of guidance." The submitted evidence, however, does not establish that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. For example, one of our prior decisions, 
which was also for a reporter and addressed the sole issue of whether the proffered position was a 
specialty occupation, was dismissed, finding that the Petitioner in that case had not satisfied any of 
the four criteria. The other was for an editor, a different position that that in the instant case. 
Regardless, these decisions were not published as precedent and therefore do not bind officers in 
future adjudications. See 8 C.F .R. § 103 .3( c). Thus, contrary to the Petitioner's assertion, these 
decisions are not subject to the legal doctrine of stare decisis. Further, non-precedent decisions 
apply existing law and policy to specific facts of individual cases, and may be distinguishable based 
on the evidence in the record of proceedings, the issues considered, and applicable law and policy. 
Any suggestion that we must review unpublished decisions and possibly request and review each 
case file relevant to those decisions, while being impractical and inefficient, would also be a shift in 
the evidentiary burden in these proceedings from the Petitioner to the agency, which would be 
contrary to section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Finally, the remaining case addresses an 
immigrant petition with different standards than the requested non-immigrant classification, and, 
therefore, cannot be relied upon to establish whether or not the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation and meets any of the four criteria, as required by regulation. 
The Petitioner also submits copies of its prior approval notices for our review. However, a prior 
approval does not compel the approval of a subsequent petition or relieve the Petitioner of its burden 
to provide sufficient documentation to establish current eligibility for the benefit sought. Temporary 
Alien Workers Seeking Class(fication Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 55 Fed. Reg. 
2,606, 2,612 (Jan. 26, 1990) (to be codified at 8 C.F.R. pt. 214). We are not required to approve 
14 
Again, 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. 
15 
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" and requires a significantly higher wage. 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.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _II_ 2009.pdf. 
11 
Matter of P-C-E-, Inc. 
applications or petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely because of prior 
approvals that may have been erroneous. See Matter a_[ Church Scientology Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 
597 (Comm'r 1988); see also Sussex Eng 'g. Ltd. v. Montgome1y, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 
1987). Furthermore, we are not be bound to follow a contradictory decision of a service center. La. 
Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not 1) submitted a certified LCA that corresponds to the petition, and 2) 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter o.f P-C-E-, Inc., ID# 445944 (AAO Aug. 14, 20 17) 
12