dismissed H-1B Case: Journalism

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF E-TVB- LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 26,2017 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a media production company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a ""video 
journalist" under the H-lB 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 Form I-129. Petition for a Nonimmigrant 
Worker, concluding that the record did not establish that the proffered position qualified as a 
specialty occupation. 
On appeaL the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
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. 
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 ofTered 
position must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
Matter of E- TVB- LLC 
( 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 
(.1) 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. 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''); Def'ensor v. Meissner. 201 F.3d 384. 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
In the petitiOn. the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a ·'video journalist"" and 
submitted a letter that provided the following job duties: 1 
• Research topics, stories and events that an editor has assigned: 
• Interview people who have information. analysis. or opinions about a story or 
article: 
• Record and create video programs and clips, and write miicles for newspaper, 
journals and magazines, websites and blogs. and write scripts to be read on 
television or radio; 
• Review articles for accuracy and proper style and grammar; 
• Develop relationships with experts and contacts who provide tips and leads on 
stories and events: 
• Analyze and interpret information to increase our audiences' understanding of the 
news and events: [and] 
• Update events and stories as new information becomes available. 
1 
The Petitioner mistakenly and repeatedly referenced the Beneficiary in the masculine pronoun case in its letter of 
support. The record provides no explanation for this inconsistency. Thus, we must question the accuracy of the letter 
and whether the information provided is correctly attributed to this particular Beneficiary and position. 
2 
Marter olE- TVB- LLC 
Within a response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE). the Petitioner stated: 
The [Beneficiary] will allocate and devote all her times [sic] to perform the duties 
listed above. Specifically. she will devote approximately fitly (50) percent of her 
time to interview people, record and create video programs and write articles for 
newspapers and journals. thirty (30%) percent time to research. analyze and update 
events, and twenty (30) [sic] percent time to develop relationships with experts and 
contacts for news leads and tips. 2 
Initially, the Petitioner did not provide any particular requirements for the proffered position. On 
appeal, the Petitioner states that the position requires a bachelor's degree in journalism. 
communications. or a closely related field and a professional level of Mandarin Chinese language 
skills. 3 
III. ANALYSIS 
For the reasons discussed below. we determine that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
profiered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 4 Specifically. we find that the record does not 
establish that the job duties require an educational background. or its equivalent, commensurate with 
a specialty occupation. 5 
A. Degree Requirements 
In the initial filing and in response to the Director's RFE. the Petitioner did not state any specific degree 
requirements for the proffered position. 1 On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the position requires a 
bachelor's degree in journalism. communications. or a closely related field and a professional level 
of Mandarin Chinese language skills. 6 However. a petitioner may not make material changes to a 
petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) requirements. See Matter o( lzummi. 22 I&N Dec. 169. 176 (Assoc. Comm 'r 
1998). USCIS regulations aflirmatively require a petitioner to establish eligibility for the benefit it is 
seeking at the time the petition is filed. 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.2(b)(l ). Consequently. we agree with the 
2 
Notably, the percentages add up to II 0%. 
3 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides additional details about the duties of the position. Notably, the percentages of time 
provided on appeal are different from the percentages of time provided in response to the Director's RFE. The Petitioner 
did not provide an explanation for this discrepancy. 
~Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
' The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the petition, including evidence regarding the position and its 
business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted. we have reviewed and considered each one. 
1
' A language requirement other than English in a job otTer generally is considered a special skill for all occupations (with 
the exception of Foreign Language Teachers and Instructors, Interpreters, and Caption Writers). DOL. Emp 't & 
Training Admin .. Prevailing Wage Determination Po/i(y Guidance. Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), 
available at http:l/www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov 1pdf!NPWHC _Guidance _Revised _II _2009.pdf If the protlered 
position requires Mandarin Chinese language skills, then the Petitioner has not established that its foreign language 
requirement is reflected in the wage-level for the protlered position. 
Aialler olE-TVB- LLC' 
Director that the Petitioner did not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. 
B. Nature of Position Duties 
Moreover, a crucial aspect of this matter is whether the Petitioner has sufficiently described the 
duties of the profiered position such that we may discern the nature of the position. The Petitioner 
has not done so here. For example, the job duties the Petitioner provided were copied verbatim from 
the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Hamihook 's (Handhook) list of duties 
for ""Reporters, Correspondents, and Broadcast Ne\vs Analysts." 7 This description may be 
appropriate when defining the range of duties that are performed within an occupation: hovvever. it 
generally is not sufficient to copy tasks from the Handhook to establish a position as a specialty 
occupation because such a generic description does not convey how the tasks would be pertormed 
within the Petitioner's business operations. That is, the job description does not sufficiently 
communicate: (1) the actual work that the Beneficiary would perform: (2) the complexity. 
uniqueness and/or specialization of the tasks: and/or (3) the correlation between that work and a 
need for a particular level of knowledge in a specific specialty. While the Petitioner added details to 
the duties within its appeal statement, it must establish eligibility for the benefit it is seeking at the 
time the petition is filed. 8 C.F.R. §103.2(b)(l). Furthermore, even though the Petitioner added 
details under each of the bulleted duties listed under section II of this decision, it remains that the 
duties are copied verbatim from the Handhook. 8 
Nevertheless. assuming. for the sake of argument, that the protiered duties as described prior to the 
appeal would in fact be the duties the Beneficiary vvill perform. \Ve \viii analyze them and the 
evidence of record to determine whether the proffered position as described qualities as a specialty 
occupation pursuant to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
7 
All of our references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Haf1(/hook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. For additional information regarding the occupational category .. Reporters and 
Correspondents ... see the Ham/hook, Reporters and Correspondents (20 16-17 ed. ). 
8 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that we should not simply dismiss these duties as insufficiently descriptive to define the 
actual job duties. The Petitioner cross-references the proffered position duties with duties it hand-picked from the job 
vacancy announcements for other employers, in order to highlight similarities. Regarding the similarities, the Petitioner 
states that '"a comparison between the standard [Handhonk] duties and the sampling of open job advertisements clearly 
demonstrates that common to the industry. employers do not feel the need to advertise with particularized specificity for 
reporter and journalist positions." First, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how it ascertained what actions other 
organizations in the industry utilize when advertising for open positions. Therefore, its assertion that it is standard 
industry practice for employers to utilize generalized duties is insufficient to satisfy its burden of proof. Furthermore. 
while the selective job announcements the Petitioner utilizes as examples contain language similar to the duties found in 
the Handhook. it does not lessen the fact that the Petitioner did not provide duties that were drafted to represent: ( 1) the 
actual work that the Benetlciary would perform; (2) the complexity, uniqueness and/or specialization of the tasks; andior 
(3) the correlation between that \Nork and a need for a particular level of knowledge in a specific specialty. 
4 
Matter of E-TVB- LLC 
C. First Criterion 
We now turn to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(/). 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 labor condition application (LCA)
10 
the Petitioner presented in support of 
this petition. it classified the proflered position under the occupational title ''Reporters and 
Correspondents:· corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 27-3022. 
According to the Handbook, the chapter on "Reporters. Correspondents, and Broadcast News 
Analysts'' states in relevant 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. '"
11 
The 
Handbook further emphasizes the importance of work experience, stating that employers generally 
require workers to have experience gained through internships or by working on school newspapers. 
The Handbook reports that 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 
work experience. The Handbook does not specify the level of such a degree. and it appears that an 
associate ·s degree may be acceptable. 
Further, the Petitioner's appeal references the DOL's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) 
summary report for "Reporters and Correspondents'" listed as SOC code 27-3022.00. The summary 
report provides general information regarding the occupation; however. it does not support the 
Petitioner's assertion regarding the educational requirements for these positions. For example. the 
appeal brief discusses how 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 
h . . ld . 12 any, t at a positiOn wou reqmre. 
9 
We do not, however. maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. 
10 
The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to demonstrate that it will pav an H-1 B worker the hioher of either • b 
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). 
11 
Bureau of Labor Statistics. U.S. Dep 't of Labor. Occupational Outlook Handbook. Reporters. Correspondents. and 
Broadcast News Analysts (20 16-17 ed.). 
12 
For additional information. see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.orgihelp/ 
.
Maller of E- TVB- LLC 
In addition, the O*NET summary report provides the educational requirements of ·'respondents,,. but 
does not account for 100% of the "respondents." The respondents' positions within the occupation 
are not distinguished by career level (e.g .. entry-level. mid-level , senior-level). Additionally. the 
graph in the summary report does not indicate that the '·education level'' for the respondents must be 
in a specific specialty. Finally, the O*NET OnLine assigns this occupation a Job Zone "Four·· 
rating, which groups it among occupations for which "'most ... require a four-year bachelor's 
degree, but some do not.'' 13 The O*NET OnLine does not indicate that four-year bachelor's degrees 
required by Job Zone Four occupations must be in a specific specialty directly related to the 
occupation. Therefore, the O*NET OnLine information is not probative of the proffered position 
being a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a letter from a communications specialist with 
In the letter. states that "the industry standard is at least a bachelor's 
degree in journalism, communications, English, or a closely related tield " for the position. 
However, does not provide documentary evidence to corroborate her claims. Her 
testimony does not sufficiently substantiate her conclusions. such that we can conclude that the 
Petitioner has shouldered its burden of proof For example , she does not reference , cite, or discuss 
probative studies, surveys, industry publications . authoritative publications . or other sources of 
empirical information which she may have consulted to complete the evaluation . Thus. we find that 
the opinion letter lends little probative value to the matter here. lvlatter of Caron !nt '!, 19 I&N Dec. 
791, 795 (Comm 'r 1988) (The service is not required to accept or may give less weight to an 
advisory opinion when it is "not in accord with other 
information or is in any way questionable.''). 
In the instant matter, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation from a probative 
source to substantiate its asse11ion regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular 
position. Thus , the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
D. 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 emplo yer 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 tirst prong 
concentrates on the common industry practice. while the alternative prong narrows its focu s to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
on I ine/svp. 
D For additional information, see the O*NET OnLine Summary Report for '"27-3022.00 - Reporters and 
Correspondents," https:/ /www .oneton I i ne .org/1 ink/summary /2 7-3 022.00. 
Matter of E-TVB- LLC' 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the ""degree 
requirement" (i.e .. a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty. or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
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. r. Reno. 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 
(D. Minn. 1999) (quoting Hird/Blaker Coi]J. v. Sava. 712 F. Supp. 1095. 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) 
(considering these ""factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits several job postings from other employers and states that while 
there will always be exceptions in a field in which individuals are permitted to enter the field despite 
not possessing the minimum education required, that these exceptions are not indicative of the actual 
education or experience commonly required to enter a profession. Additionally, the Petitioner states 
'·[w]hen reviewing an industry standard, it is very important to compare position of similar duties in 
similarly sized organizations. Maller of Michael Hertz Assoc.\· .. 19 I&N Dec. 558 (Comm. 1988) ... 
We note that the Michael Hertz Assoc.\·. decision does not express the findings as presented by the 
Petitioner and its relevance to the present matter is unclear. 14 
Upon review of the documents, we find that the Petitioner's reliance on the job announcements is 
misplaced. First, we note that some of the job postings do not appear to involve organizations 
similar to the petitioning organization. For example. the Petitioner is a television and media 
broadcasting company with three employees on its payroll (as stated on appeal), whereas one of the 
advertising organizations has 14 broadcast stations, 60 radio stations. and 6 daily newspapers. 
Further, most of the postings did not provide detailed information of the posting company. When 
determining whether the Petitioner and the organization share the same general characteristics. such 
factors may include information regarding the nature or type of organization. and. when pertinent. 
the particular scope of operations, as well as the level of revenue and staffing (to list just a few 
elements that may be considered). It is not sufficient for the Petitioner to claim that an organization 
is similar and in the same industry without providing a legitimate basis for such an assertion. 
Additionally. the Petitioner has not established that the advertisements are for ''parallel positions.'' For 
example, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the primary duties and responsibilities of the 
14 
The Petitioner also cites to Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. Civ. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La. 
Mar. 15. 2000) in support of this criterion. However, the Petitioner does not sufficiently explain how it relates to this 
criterion as Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra case hinged on the fourth criterion relating to whether the duties of a 
pos~tion are so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is usually associated with the 
attamment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty. or its equivalent. 
Matter c~f E- TVB- LLC 
advertised positions are parallel to the proffered position. Further. on the LCA the Petitioner attested to 
DOL that the proffered position is a Level I position.
15 
However. some advertised positions require a 
degree and experience in the field. For instance, one posting requires a bachelor's degree and 5+ years 
of experience in digital or mobile media environment. and appears to be a more senior position than the 
proffered position. 
Moreover, some of the postings do not indicate that at least a bachelor's degree in a directly related 
specific specialty (or its equivalent) is required. 16 The job postings suggest. at best. that although a 
bachelor's degree is sometimes required for journalist positions. a bachelor's degree in a .\pecijic 
specialty (or its equivalent) is not. 17 
As the documentation does not establish that the Petitioner has met this prong of the regulations. further 
analysis regarding the specific information contained in each of the job postings is not 
necessary. 18 That is. not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. 
Without more. the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty. or its equivalent. is common to the industry in parallel positions 
among similar organizations. Thus. the Petitioner has not satisfied the first prong of 8 C .F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
The second alternative prong 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. Throughout the proceedings, the Petitioner has not asserted, 
15 
A wage determination starts with an entry level wage and progresses to a higher wage level after considering the 
experience. education. and skill requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. DOL. 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_ I I 2009.pdf 
16 
As discussed, the degree requirement set by the statutory and regulatory framework of the H-1 B program is not just a 
bachelor's or higher degree, but a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the duties of the 
position. See section 214(i)(l)(b) ofthe Act and 8 C.F.R. ~ 214.2(h)(4)(ii). Further. a preference for a degree in a field 
is not necessarily an indication of a minimum requirement. 
17 
It must be noted that even if all of the job postings indicated that a requirement of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations (which they do not), the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from the advertisements with regard to 
determining the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. See 
generally Earl Babbie. The Practice of Social Research 186-228 ( 1995). Moreover, given that there is no indication that 
the advertisements were randomly selected, the validity of any such inferences could not be accurately determined even 
ifthe sampling unit were sufficiently large. See id. at 195-196 (explaining that '"[rjandom selection is the key to [the] 
process [of probability sampling]" and that "'random selection offers access to the body of probability theory. which 
provides the basis for estimates of population parameters and estimates of error"). 
18 
The Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how representative the job postings are of the particular 
advertising employers' recruiting history for the type of job advertised. As the advertisements are only solicitations for 
hire, they are not evidence of the actual hiring practices of these employers. · 
Matter of E- TVB- LLC 
nor provided evidence in support of this criterion· s prong. Thus. the Petitioner has not satisfied the 
second alternative prong of8 C.F.R. ~ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
E. 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 instead by performance requirements of the position. 
See Delensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. Were we limited solely to reviewing the Petitioner's claimed 
self-imposed requirements, then any individual with a bachelor's degree could be brought to the 
United States to perform any occupation as long as the Petitioner created a token degree 
requirement. !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. 
On appeaL the Petitioner submits a list of its current and prospective employees. as well as a 
nonimmigrant placed in its office by the petitioning organization's parent company. The job titles of 
the Petitioner's current employees and the individual placed with the organization consist of the 
following: Chief Executive Officer, Executive Producer, Producer/Journalist. Radio Journalist and 
Engineer. and Chief Editor. Therefore, the Petitioner does not employ any personnel in the proffered 
position as a ·'video journalist," nor did it provide additional information or evidence regarding its 
recruiting history for the proffered position. As a result. it has not demonstrated that it normally 
requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. or its equivalent. for the position. 
Without more, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that it normally 
requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. for the proffered 
position. Therefore. it has not satisfied the third criterion at 8 C.F.R. ~ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
F. 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 . . I 19 tts eqmva ent. 
19 
On appeal. the Petitioner cites to Fedin Bros. Co .. L[t]d. v. Sara, 724 F. Supp. 1103. 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd. 90S 
F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990) in support of this criterion. However. the Petitioner's pinpoint cite to page II 08 does not relate 
to the fourth criterion as it discusses whether a foreign national was performing executive and managerial duties as a 
nonimmigrant intracompany transferee. whether we committed an abuse of discretion. and whether this office based our 
decision on substantial evidence. It also states that a petitioner that merely repeats the statutory or regulatory language 
does not satisfy its burden of proof. 
9 
Matter of E-TVB- LLC 
The Petitioner claims that its position satisfies this criterion: however. relative specialization and 
complexity have not been sufficiently developed by the Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered 
position. That is. the proposed duties have not been described with suflicient specificity to establish 
that they are more specialized and complex than other positions in the occupational category that are 
not usually associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. or its equivalent. We 
also incorporate our earlier discussion and analysis regarding the duties of the proffered position. 
and its designation on the LCA as a Level I position (of the lowest of four assignable wage-levels) 
relative to others within the occupational category. and hence one not likely distinguishable by 
relatively specialized and complex duties? 0 
In addition, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well qualified for the position. and 
references the Beneficiary's qualifications. However. the test to establish a position as a specialty 
occupation is not the education or experience of a proposed beneficiary. but whether the position 
itself requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. or its equivalent. The Petitioner has 
not demonstrated in the record that its proffered position is one with duties sutliciently specialized 
and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(-/). 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A). it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
IV. INCOMPLETE PETITION 
As a final matter, even if the Petitioner was to overcome the ground for the Director's denial of the 
petition (which it has not). it could not be found eligible for the benefit sought. We have found 
another issue. not addressed by the Director. which precludes the approval of the H-1 B petition. The 
Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker. was not completely signed by the 
Petitioner. More specifically, the Petitioner left two sections on page 14 of the Form I-129 blank. 
The sections of the form read as follows: 
Statement for H-1 8 Specialty Occupations and H-1 B 1 Chile and Singapore 
By filing this petition. I agree to. and will abide by, the terms of the labor condition 
application (LCA) for the duration of the beneficiary's authorized period of stay for 
H-1 B employment. I certify that I will maintain a valid employer-employee 
relationship with the beneficiary at all times. If the beneficiary is assigned to a 
20 
Nevertheless, a low wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty 
occupation, just as a high wage-designation does not definitively establish such a classification. In certain occupations 
(e.g., doctors or lawyers). a Levell position would still require a minimum of an advanced 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 ·swage-level designation may be a relevant factor but 
is not itself conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)( 1) of the Act. 
10 
Matter of E-TVB- LLC 
position m a new location, I will obtain and post an LCA for that site prior to 
reassignment. 
l further understand that l cannot charge the beneficiary the ACWIA fee, and that any 
other required reimbursement will be considered an otlset against wages and benefits 
paid relative to the LCA. 
Statement for H-1 B Specialty Occupations and U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) 
Projects 
As an authorized official of the employer, I certify that the employer will be liable for 
the reasonable costs of return transportation of the alien abroad if the alien is 
dismissed from employment by the employer before the end of the period of 
authorized stay. 
Thus, the petition has not been properly tiled by the Petitioner. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(a)(7)(ii), an application or petition which is not properly signed shall be rejected as 
improperly filed, and no receipt date can be assigned to an improperly filed petition. While the 
Service Center did not reject the petition, we are not bound by service center decisions. La. 
Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 44 F. Supp. 2d 800, 803 (E.D. La. 1999). The integrity of the 
immigration process depends on the employer signing the official immigration forms. Thus, for this 
reason as well, the petition may not be approved. 
V. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons outlined above, the Petitioner has not established eligibility for the benefit sought. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of E- TVB- LLC. ID# 822821 (AAO Dec. 26, 20 17) 
11