dismissed H-1B Case: Legal Compliance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF K-T-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 27,2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a software development and consulting company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "legal compliance and document analyst" under the H-1 B nonimmigrant 
classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-1B 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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence, asserts that the pro±Iered positon is a specialty 
occupation, and contends that the petition should be approved. 
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 proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
Matter of K- T-, Inc. 
(I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into th~ 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. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing 
"a degree requirement in a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and 
responsibilities of a particular position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner stated in the H-lB petition that the Beneficiary will serve as a "legal compliance and 
document analyst." The Petitioner explained that although the Beneficiary would work onsite, she 
would actually perform her duties for an end-client pursuant to an executed "Strategic Software 
Product/Framework/Platform Development and Implementation Services Agreement." 
In a letter submitted in response to the Director's request for additional evidence, the end-client 
stated that the Beneficiary would perform the following duties as part of its project: 1 
• Review compliance with HITRUST, HIPAA and PCI; 
• Compile and maintain regulatory documentation databases; 
• Monitoring for threats in the environment and recommend/implement remediation; 
• Researches regulations by reviewing regulatory bulletins and other sources of 
information; 
• Maintains quality service by establishing and enforcing organization standards; 
• Maintains professiol)al and technical knowledge by attending educational workshops; 
reviewing professional publications; establishing personal networks; participating in 
professional societies; 
• Contributes to team effort by accomplishing related results as needed[.] 
1 We have also reviewed the Petitioner's letter setting forth another listing of job duties. 
2 
Matter of K- T-, Inc. 
According to the end-client, the Beneficiary will be performing these duties through September 
2019, which corresponds to the end-date requested in the H-1 B petition. The end-client stated that 
"[t]his position at minimum requires a relevant Bachelor['s] degree." 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation.2 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or 
its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation.3 
Before addressing the specialty-occupation criteria contained at 8 C.F.R. § 2)4.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4), 
we will briefly discuss a foundational problem that independently precludes a finding that the 
proffered position is a specialty occupation. As recognized by the court in Defensor, where the work 
is to be performed for entities other than the petitioner, evidence of the client companies' job 
requirements is critical. See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. The court held that the former 
Immigration and Naturalization Service had reasonably interpreted the statute and regulations as 
requiring the petitioner to produce evidence that a proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation on the basis ofthe requirements imposed by the entities using the beneficiary's services. 
Id Such evidence must be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate the type and educational level of 
highly specialized knowledge in a specific discipline that is necessary to perform that particular 
work. 
While the end-client states that a bachelor's degree is required to perform the duties of the proffered 
position, it does not specify that the degree much be in any specific specialty. Though we 
acknowledge the end-client's statement that the bachelor's degree must be "relevant," it does not 
identify any specific specialty that would satisfy this relevancy standard. 
A petitioner must demonstrate that the proffered position requires a precise and specific course of 
study that relates directly to the position in question. Since there must be a close correlation between 
the required specialized studies and the position, the requirement of a degree with a generalized title, 
without further specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. C.f Matter of 
Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988) ("The mere requirement of a college 
degree f~r the sake of general education, or to obtain what an employer perceives to be a higher 
caliber employee, also does not establish eligibility."). Thus, while a general-purpose bachelor's 
degree may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position,. requiring such a degree, without 
more, will not justify a finding that a particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty 
occupation. Royal Siam, 484 F .3d at 14 7. 
2 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
3 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
3 
Matter of K- T-, Inc. 
For this reason alone, we cannot find that the proffered position is a specialty occupation.4 That 
said, we will now review the evidence of record in light of the four specialty-occupation criteria 
contained at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4). 
A. First Criterion 
We turn first to the criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J), which requires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. To inform this inquiry, we recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's 
(DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 5 
On the labor condition application (LCA)6 submitted in support of the H-IB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Compliance Officers" 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 13-1041.7 We reviewed the 
information in the Handbook regarding this occupational category and note that it is one for which 
the Handbook does not provide detailed data. The Handbook is a career resource offering 
information on hundreds of occupations. However, there are occupational categories which are not 
covered in detail by the Handbook (instead it onlyincludes summary data8), as well as occupations 
4 For the sake of brevity, we hereby incorporate by reference this discussi9n into our analysis of each specialty­
occupation criterion below. 
5 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, mainthin 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 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to USC IS 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 I&N Dec. 542, 545-546 (AAO 20 15). 
7 The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level I wage (the lowest of four assignable wage levels). We will 
consider this selection in our analysis of the position. The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" issued by 
the DOL provides a description of the wage levels. A Level I wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which 
the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the occupation. This wage rate indicates: (I) that 
the Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that 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. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing 
Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://tlcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _II_ 2009.pdf A prevailing wage determination starts 
with an entry level wage and progresses to a higher wage level after considering the experience, education, and skill 
requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. !d. 
8 The occupational categories for which the Handbook only includes summary data includes a range of occupations, 
including for example, postmasters and mail superintendents; agents and business managers of artists~ performers, and 
athletes; farm and home management advisors; audio-visual and multimedia collections specialists; clergy; merchandise 
4 
Matter of K- T-, Inc. 
for which the Handbook does not provide any information. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of 
Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Data for Occupations Not Covered in Detail (2016-17 ed.). 
The Handbook provides summary data for the occupational category "Compliance Officers." The 
Handbook reports that a bachelor's degree is typical - but not required - for entry into positions located 
within this occupational category: !d. More importantly, the Handbook does not report that bachelor's 
degrees held by those entering the occupation must be in any specific specialty directly related to the 
occupation. Accordingly, the Handbook does not indicate that at least a bachelor's degree in a 5pec?fic 
specialty is normally the minimum requirement for entry into this occupational category. !d. 
In support of the petition, the Petitioner also submitted information from the DOL's Occupational 
Information Network (O*NET) regarding the "Regulatory Affairs Specialists." 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 
position would require.9 
Further, the 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. Thus, O*NET does not establish that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner cites to Residential Finance Corp. v. USCIS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. 
Ohio 2012), for the proposition that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is what is 
important. Diplomas rarely come bearing occupation-specific majors. What is required is an 
occupation that requires highly specialized knowledge and a prospective employee who has attained 
the credentialing indicating possession of that knowledge." 
We agree with the aforementioned proposition that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is 
what is important." 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 
displayers and window trimmers; radio operators; first-line supervisors of police and detectives; crossing guards; travel 
guides; agricultural inspectors, as well as others. 
9 
For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at 
http://www.onetonline.org/help/online/svp. 
5 
Matter of K-T-, Inc. 
214(i)( 1 )(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). However, as 
discussed 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, that is directly 
related to its duties in order to perform those tasks. 
In any event, the Petitioner has furnished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition 
are analogous to those in Residential Finance. 10 We also note that, 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, 719-20 (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 of law. Jd. It is important to note that in a 
subsequent case reviewed in the same jurisdiction, the court agreed with our analysis of Residential 
Finance. See Health Carousel, LLCv. USCJS, No. 1:13-CV-23, 2014 WL 29591 (S.D. Ohio 2014). 
For all of these reasons, we find that the Petitioner has not established that the proffered position is 
located within an occupational category for which the Handbook, O*NET, or any other relevant, 
authoritative source indicates that the normal minimum entry requirement is at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent. Consequently, the evidence of record does not 
support a finding that the particular position proffered here, an entry-level position located within the 
compliance officers occupational category, would normally have such a minimum specialty degree 
requirement, or the equivalent. The Petitioner therefore has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)(J). 
B. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two alternative prongs: "The degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may 
show that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
10 
It is noted that the district judge's decision in that case appears to have been based largely on the many factual errors 
made by the Director in the decision denying the petition. We further note that the Director'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. 
6 
Matter of K-T-, Inc. 
individual with a degree[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong 
casts its gaze upon the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by 
USCIS include: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the 
industry's professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether 
letters or affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms "routinely employ 
and recruit only de greed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 
1999)(quotingHird/BlakerCorp. 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, O*NET, or another authoritative source reports a requirement for at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, we incorporate by reference the previous 
discussion on the matter. Also, there are no submissions from the industry's professional association 
indicating that it has made a degree a minimum entry requirement. Furthermore, the Petitioner did 
not submit any letters or affidavits from similar firms or individuals in the Petitioner's industry 
attesting that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." 
The record contains four job vacancy announcements for our consideration under this prong. 
However, to be relevant for consideration under this prong, the positions advertised in these job 
vacancy announcements must be for "parallel positions" placed by organizations that conduct 
business in the Petitioner's "industry" and are also otherwise "similar" to the Petitioner. Upon 
review, we find that none of these job vacancy announcements meet this threshold. 
We will first consider whether any of the advertised job opportunities could be considered "parallel 
positions." As noted, the Petitioner attested to the DOL that the proffered position is a Level I, 
entry-level position. However, each of the four advertised positions requires work experience, and 
two of them contain the word "senior" in their titles. These factors indicate that the advertised 
positions are not entry-level positions, and therefore are not "parallel positions." 
Nor does the record establish that any of these positons were placed by companies that conduct 
business in the Petitioner's industry, or that they are otherwise "similar" to the Petitioner. Again, the 
Petitioner described itself in the H-1B petition as a software development and consulting company. 
However, one of the advertising companies describes itself as an insurance company, one describes 
itself as a national executive recruiting firm, another describes itself as a maker of automobile parts, 
and the fourth is a media company. 
Matter of K- T-, Inc. 
For all of these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that any of these job vacancy 
announcements are relevant. However, even if that threshold had been met we would still find that 
they did not satisfy this prong of the second criterion, as they do not all establish that a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions 
among similar organizations. 11 To the contrary, one ofthe advertisers states only a "preference" for 
a degree in any particular field. However, an employer's "preference" for a degree in a given field 
does not necessarily equate to a minimum hiring requirement. Further, the stated "preference" was 
for a bachelor's degree in "business," which is not a bachelor's degree in specific specialty, or the 
equivalent. Cf Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. at 560; see also Royal Siam, 484 F .3d at 14 7. 
Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
We discussed the Handbook and O*NET regarding the occupational category into which the 
Petitioner placed the proffered position above. As noted, neither resource indicates that a bachelor's 
degree in a spec?fic specialty, or the equivalent, is normally required. The Petitioner's generalized 
claims that the knowledge and associated entry requirements associated with the proffered position 
exceed those of other positions located within the occupational category are acknowledged. 
However; the Petitioner's Level I wage designation undercuts its claim that it satisfies this 
criterion. 12 In other words, if typical positions located within the occupational category do not 
11 
In addition, the Petitioner does not demonstrate what statistically valid inferences, if any, could be drawn from the job 
postings with regard to the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. 
See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 (7th ed. 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 if the sampling unit were sufficiently large. See id. at 195-96 (explaining that "[r]andom 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"). 
As such, even if the job vacancy announcements supported the finding that the position requires a bachelor's or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, it could be found that such a limited number of postings that appear to 
have been consciously selected could credibly refute the findings of the Handbook published by the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics that such a position does not normally require at least a baccalaureate degree in a. specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, for entry into the occupation in the United States. ' 
12 
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 
8 
Matter of K-T-, Inc. 
require a bachelor's degree in a spec(fic specialty, or the equivalent, then it is unclear how a position 
with the Level I characteristics described above would, regardless ofthe Petitioner's assertions. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position, and references her 
qualifications. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education 
or experience of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative 
complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position, and it did not identify any tasks 
that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it 
normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. 
The Petitioner submitted a posting it placed on its website advertising this position and claimed that 
it "has a hiring practice for this position." However, the record contains no evidence, such as copies 
of payroll records or other common business documents, to substantiate this claimed hiring history. 
Nor did the Petitioner submit evaluations of any of these individuals' degrees to establish that these 
claimed previous hires possessed a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or t,he equivalent. The 
Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
However, we would still find this posting unpersuasive even if the Petitioner had submitted such 
evidence. As noted, the Petitioner proposes to utilize the Beneficiary's services on a project for an 
end-client and, when the work is to be performed for entities other than the petitioner, evidence of 
the client companies' job requirements is critical. See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. Again, the 
record does not establish that the end-client requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
the equivalent, to perform the duties of the project upon which the Beneficiary is to work. 
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 of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
its equivalent, for entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designation would not reflect that an occupation qualifies 
as a specialty occupation if that higher-level position does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. That is, a position's wage-level designation may be a relevant factor but is not 
itself conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 
9 
Matter of K- T-, Inc. 
D. P ourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature 
of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. 
We acknowledge the Petitioner's assertions regarding the specialization and complexity of the 
position's duties. However, as above, those claims are undermined by the Petitioner's Level I wage 
designation. Again, in classifying the proffered position at a Level I (entry-level) wage, the 
Petitioner effectively attested to the DOL that the Beneficiary would perform routine tasks that 
require limited, if any, exercise of judgment, that she would be closely supervised and her work 
closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy, and that she would receive specific instructions on 
required tasks and expected results. 13 The DOL guidance referenced above states that an employer 
should consider a Level I wage designation when the job offer is for a research fellow, a worker in 
training, or an internship. · 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated in the record that its proffered position is one with duties 
sufficiently specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
We find that the Petitioner has not established that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 14 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of K-T-, Inc., ID# 287108 (AAO Apr. 27, 2017) 
13 
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. 
14 
Because this issue precludes approval of the petition we will not address any ofthe additional issues we have observed 
in our de novo review of this matter. 
10