dismissed H-1B Case: Manufacturing / Marketing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7261436 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 29, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-IB nonimmigrant 
classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the evidence of 
record did not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. On appeal, the 
Petitioner provides a brief, and asserts that the Director erred in denying the petition. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 1 
I. LAW 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, 
and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a 
non-exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered 
position must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
1 We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard. Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010) . 
(]) 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 construe 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, a firm engaged in the global manufacturing and marketing of golf products, stated that 
the Beneficiary will serve as a "global purchasing analyst" at its office in California. 2 The Petitioner 
provided information about the duties of the proffered position, including a listing of the position's 
job functions, with the relative time devoted to each function, as follows: 3 
• Provide assurance of fair inventory distribution of product lines globally; (15%) 
• Analyze the sales demand of various global regions for the distribution; (15%) 
• Interpret demand, audits, existing process and products, deliver and solve problems 
for the global distribution of products; ( 10%) 
• Prepare reports to communicate key changes in [] logistics plans and for 
management; (5%) 
• Apply analytic decisions to suggest and implement action on global distributions 
allocations; (15%) 
2 The Petitioner most recently employed the Beneficiary through work authorization granted pursuant to 8 C.F.R § 
274a.12( C )(26). 
3 We acknowledge that the Petitioner submitted additional information for the job duties, which, for the sake of brevity, 
have not been included herein. However, this material has been closely reviewed and considered, as with all evidence in 
the record. For instance, the Petitioner discussed the Beneficiary's credentials for the purpose of correlating the need for 
the Beneficiary's education with the associated job duties of the position. However, we are required to follow long­
standing legal standards and detennine first, whether the proffered position qualifies for classification as a specialty 
occupation, and second, whether the Beneficiary was qualified for the position at the time the nonimmigrant visa petition 
was filed. C( Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 l&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988) ("The facts of a beneficiary's 
background only come at issue after it is found that the position in which the petitioner intends to employ him falls within 
[ a specialty occupation]."). 
2 
• Review continual process procedures such improvement act1v1t1es; Evaluate 
business processes, anticipate requirements, uncover areas for improvement, and 
develop and implement solutions; (5%) 
• Initiate and implement suggestions designed to optimize process efficiency, reduce 
cost and lead-times for distributions and inventory; (10%) 
• Interface with management on worldwide distribution tasks such as inventory, 
budgets, and changes to distribution plans, and; (15%) 
• Provide training, coaching, and guidance for system solutions. (10%) 
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. 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its 
equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 4 
Before addressing the specialty-occupation criteria contained at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4), 
we will discuss an issue which precludes a finding that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner's has consistently maintained that the requirement of a bachelor's degree in business 
management would suffice for entry into the proffered position throughout this proceeding, from the 
time of initial filing to the appeal. That claim is inadequate to establish that the proposed position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. The Petitioner contends on appeal that the position "requires 
specialized knowledge in a specific field [business management or related]," and further emphasizes 
that "the level of understanding requires [ for the proffered position] is gained through a bachelor's 
degree only." However, the claimed requirement of a degree in such majors as "business 
management" for the proffered position, without further specialization, is insufficient to establish that 
the proposed position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
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. Since there must be a close 
correlation between the required specialized studies and the position, the requirement of a degree with 
a generalized title, such as business management, without further specification, does not establish the 
position as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 
(Comm'r 1988). 
To prove that a job requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge as required by section 214(i)(l) of the Act, a petitioner must establish that the position 
requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specialized field of study or its equivalent. 
As discussed supra, we interpret the degree requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to require a 
degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. We have consistently 
4 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 
stated that, although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business management, 
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 Corp., 484 F .3d at 14 7. 5 Again, the Petitioner asserts that the duties of the 
proffered position can be performed with only a general-purpose bachelor's degree, i.e., a bachelor's 
degree in business management, without further specification. That statement alone indicates that the 
proffered position is not in fact a specialty occupation. 
Though this issue precludes approval of this H-lB petition, we will nonetheless review the evidence 
of record in light of the specialty-occupation criteria contained at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) for the 
purpose of performing a more comprehensive analysis. 6 
A. First Criterion 
We tum now to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I), 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. 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. 7 
On the labor condition application (LCA), 8 the Petitioner designated the proffered position under the 
occupational category "Logisticians" corresponding to the SOC code 13-1081, and identified the 
"Logistics Analysts" sub-category SOC code 13-1081.02, as the occupation that most closely corresponds 
to the proffered position.9 The Petitioner asserts on appeal that the Handbook states that a bachelor's 
5 Specifically, the judge explained in Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147, that: 
The courts and the agency consistently have stated that, although a general-purpose bachelor's degree. 
such as a business management degree, may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, 
requiring such a degree. without more, will not justify the granting of a petition for an H-lB specialty 
occupation visa. See, e.g., Tapis Int'! v. INS, 94 F.Supp.2d 172, 175-76 (D. Mass. 2000); Shanti. 36 F. 
Supp. 2d at 1164-66; cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I & &N Dec. 558,560 ([Comm'r] 1988) 
(providing frequently cited analysis in connection with a conceptually similar provision). This is as it 
should be: elsewise, an employer could ensure the granting of a specialty occupation visa petition by the 
simple expedient of creating a generic (and essentially artificial) degree requirement. 
6 We incorporate our discussion regarding the Petitioner's specification of a general purpose business degree as being 
sufficient for entry in to the position into our discussion of the 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) criteria. 
7 All of our references to the Handbook may be accessed at the Internet site http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not 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 we 
regularly review 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 supp01i a finding that its pm1icular position would normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement. 
or its equivalent, for entry. 
8 A petitioner submits the LCA to DOL to demonstrate that it will pay an H-lB 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 duties, experience, and qualifications. Section 2 l 2(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.731 (a). 
9 The Petitioner designated the proffered position as a wage Level I on the certified LCA. A prevailing wage determination 
4 
degree is "typically required" for this occupation and that many logisticians have a bachelor's degree," 
emphasizing that "we maintain that [the business management bachelor degree] requirement is 
consistent with the [Handbook]." We reviewed the Handbook's subchapter entitled "How to Become 
a Logistician," which states, in pertinent part, that a bachelor's degree is typically required for most 
positions, although an associate's degree may be sufficient for some logistician jobs and, in some 
cases, related work experience may substitute for education. According to the Handbook, while many 
logisticians have a bachelor's degree in business, systems engineering, or supply chain management, 
logisticians may qualify for some positions with an associate's degree. 
The Handbook therefore does not support the assertion that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for these positions. It specifically 
states that an associate's degree is acceptable for some positions, that work experience can sometimes 
substitute for education, and that, when a bachelor's degree is preferred or required, a degree in 
business, systems engineering, or supply chain management would suffice. Again, although a general­
purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business management, 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. 10 Therefore, the Handbook's 
indication that a general, non-specialty degree in business is sufficient for entry into the occupation 
strongly suggests that a bachelor's degree in a spec[fic specialty is not a standard, minimum entry 
requirement for this occupation. 11 Accordingly, as the Handbook indicates that working as a global 
purchasing analyst does not normally require at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its 
equivalent for entry into the occupation, it does not support the particular position proffered here as 
being a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner also references DOL's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) summary report 
for "Logistics Analysts," listed as SOC code 13-1081.02 for our consideration under this 
criterion. Though relevant, the information the Petitioner submits from O*NET does not establish the 
Petitioner's eligibility under the first criterion, as it does not establish that a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or the equivalent, is normally required. 
The O*NET summary report provides general information regarding the occupation; however, it does 
not support the Petitioner's assertions regarding the educational requirements for these positions. For 
example, the Specific Vocational Preparation (SVP) rating, which is defined as "the amount of lapsed 
time required by a typical worker to learn the techniques, acquire the information, and develop the 
facility needed for average performance in a specific job-worker situation," cited within O*NET's Job 
Zone designates this position as having an SVP 7 < 8. This indicates that the occupation requires 
starts with a Level I, entry level wage and progresses to a higher wage level, up to Level IV, after considering the 
experience, education, and skill requirements ofthe Petitioner's job opportunity. 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 
10 See Royal Siam COip., 484 F.3d at 147. See also Irish Help at Home LLC v. Melville, No. 13-cv-00943-MEJ, 2015 WL 
848977 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2015), aff'd, 679 F. App'x 634 (9th Cir. 2017). 
11 Again, a requirement for a bachelor's degree in business is not a requirement for a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or the equivalent. 
5 
"over 2 years up to and including 4 years" of training." 12 While the SVP rating provides 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. 13 
The O*NET summary report for this occupation also does not specify that a degree is required, but 
instead states, "most of these occupations require a four-year bachelor's degree, but some do not." 
Similar to the SVP rating, the Job Zone Four designation does not indicate that any academic 
credentials for Job Zone Four occupations must be directly related to the duties performed. 
The record lacks sufficient evidence to support a finding that the proffered position is one for which a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry. For the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner has not met its burden to 
establish that the particular position offered in this matter requires a bachelor's or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, directly related to its duties in order to perform those tasks. Thus, 
the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I). 
B. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs: 'The degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show 
that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with 
a degree[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong looks to the common 
industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific position. 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not challenge the Director's determination regarding the first alternative 
prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). Therefore, we will focus our discussion under this criterion 
on whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) in the 
second alternative prong of (2). 
The second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), 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 record does not sufficiently 
demonstrate that the necessary knowledge for the proffered position is attained through an established 
curriculum of particular courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. We also observe that while a business management degree may be beneficial in 
performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how an established 
curriculum of courses leading to such a degree would prepare someone to perform substantive duties 
of the proffered position. 
12 This training may be acquired in a school, work, military, institutional, or vocational environment. Specific vocational 
training includes: vocational education, apprenticeship training, in-plant training, on-the-job training. and essential 
experience in other jobs. 
13 For additional information. see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/help/ 
online/svp. 
6 
Moreover, a crucial aspect of this matter is whether the duties of the proffered position are described 
in such a way that we may discern the actual, substantive nature of the position, and the relative 
complexity and uniqueness therein. When determining whether a position is a specialty occupation, 
we look at the nature of the business offering the employment and the description of the specific duties 
of the position as it relates to the performance of those duties within the context of that particular 
employer's business operations. 
We note again that the Beneficiary will be employed as a global purchasing analyst. The Petitioner 
initially indicated the particulars of the Beneficiary's employment within its organizational hierarchy 
in vague terms, as follows: 
[The Beneficiary] will be a regular full-time employee of [the Petitioner], holding a 
normal position within our internal organization, and will be supervised and controlled 
by a [Petitioner] manager. 
Notably, the Director requested evidence in her request for evidence (RFE) regarding the 
organizational hierarchy in which the Beneficiary will be employed, to include a line and block 
organizational chart that illustrates the staffing levels and the Beneficiary's relative location therein, 
her prospective supervisory and reporting chain, and other similar information. While the Petitioner 
provided a brief summary in response to the RFE about its business operations generally, the record 
is devoid of such information that would identify the substantive nature of the Beneficiary's position 
within any work group or other hierarchal structure. 14 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that it is "recognized as a leader in the worldwide golf projects 
manufacturing and marketing business," and describes the general attributes of some of the golfing 
equipment that it globally manufactures and markets. However, on a fundamental level we conclude 
that the Petitioner has not provided sufficient material about the relative complexity or uniqueness of 
the services that the Beneficiary will provide in her role as a global purchasing analyst within the 
context of the Petitioner's business operations. For example, the Petitioner emphasized throughout 
the proceedings that the Beneficiary will coordinate, liaise or interact with various personnel and 
stakeholder groups, including: 
• Coordinating material deliveries with plants and [ s ]uppliers to ensure sufficient 
supply are in place for scheduled production and fulfillment. 
• Track and update team on outstanding orders, order delays or situations that may 
negatively impact material supply. 
• Coordinate cross-functional research activities to reconcile significant variances 
and suggest refining the [ sales demand] forecast to reflect updated sales and 
marketing assumptions. 
• Lead[ing] ongoing reviews of business processes and developing optimization 
strategies. 
• Responsible for the preparation, ownership and participation in [ w ]eekly [ c ]ategory 
meetings with leadership and cross functional team. 
14 "Failure to submit requested evidence which precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the 
[petition]." 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14). 
7 
• Work[ ing] with suppliers and [b ]usiness users to evaluate the current collaborative 
process and make changes to optimize it. 
• Assuming material planning responsibilities (short or long term) for global 
locations AUS, INDIA and ASIA. 
• Providing training, coaching, and guidance for system solutions, such as 
SNC/APO/ECC to new hire and to current team when changes are made in system 
process. 
• Drive monthly supply meetings and bi-weekly strategy meetings globally. 
Without more, this material does not sufficiently illuminate the proffered position's role within the 
Petitioner's organizational hierarchy. On appeal, the Petitioner states that the submitted 'job details 
demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the job duties are complex and unique enough 
to require a bachelor's degree." However, the record does not include probative evidence establishing 
the nature and level of responsibility of the proffered position. 15 Thus, the Petitioner did not 
sufficiently develop relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the position within the context 
of others employed within its global manufacturing operations. 
We have also reviewed the Beneficiary's submitted work product. However, the work product appears 
to be part of documentation prepared in the exercise of the ordinary, routine duties of a "Logistician." 
The Petitioner does not sufficiently develop the relative specialization, complexity, or uniqueness of 
the work product or of the described duties as an aspect of the proffered position. The record lacks 
sufficiently detailed information to distinguish the proffered position as so unique or complex such 
that it requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
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. 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 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 Defensor, 201 
F.3d at 387-88. Were we limited solely to reviewing a petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, 
an organization could bring any individual with a bachelor's degree to the United States to perform 
any occupation as long as the petitioning entity created a token degree requirement. Id. 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. 
15 It is the Petitioner's burden to prove by a preponderance of evidence that it is qualified for the benefit sought. Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. In evaluating the evidence, eligibility is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence 
alone but by its quality. Id. 
8 
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient documentation in support of this criterion with the initial 
petition. The Director requested documentary evidence regarding the Petitioner's historical recruiting 
practices, and the minimum requirements for the proffered position, in her RFE. In the RFE response, 
the Petitioner reiterates the position requirements, and maintains that it requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in business management, or a related field. 16 On appeal, the Petitioner asserts "[USCIS] cannot 
discount an employer's minimum requirements out of hand, based on Defensor or any other court 
decision." Nonetheless, it did not submit probative, documentary evidence of its historical recruiting 
practices for the position, or other contemporaneous evidence regarding previous or current employees 
who have served in the proffered position, to establish that it normally requires a bachelor's degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. 17 The Petitioner, therefore, has not satisfied 
the third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
D. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature 
of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
The Director determined in her denial that the Petitioner did not establish that the position qualified 
as a specialty occupation under this criterion, noting among other things, that the Petitioner's selection 
of the Level I wage on the LCA did not show that the nature of the specific duties of the position is 
specialized and complex relative to other positions in the same occupation. On appeal, the Petitioner 
contends that "not all positions that fall under "Level I" are entry level positions, and, entry level 
positions are not disqualified as specialty occupations." The Petitioner farther asserts on appeal that 
"[u]nder [USCIS'] reasoning, a lawyer earning level I wage would not qualify as a specialty 
occupation." 
To the contrary, we agree that 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 
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. 
Nonetheless, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, 
entry-level position undermines its claim that the position is particularly complex, specialized, or 
unique compared to other positions within the same occupation. In general, a petitioner must 
distinguish its proffered position from others within the same occupation through the proper wage 
level designation to indicate factors such as the relative complexity of the job duties, the level of 
16 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(6)(14). 
17 Matter ofChawathe, 25 T&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). 
9 
judgment, the amount and level of supervision, and the level of understanding required to perform the 
job duties. 18 Even so, 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. 
We also renew our concerns regard the lack of material that would set forth the relative specialization 
and complexity of the Beneficiary's entry-level role within the Petitioner's organization. Though the 
Petitioner has provided narrative about the job duties of the position, the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
established the Beneficiary's claimed specialized, complex, entry-level role within her organizational 
function. We incorporate our discussion and analysis under the second prong of 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2), and conclude that the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is 
one with duties sufficiently specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)( 4). 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has also 
not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
18 See Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, supra. 
10