dismissed H-1B Case: Market Research

-------------------------~------------
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF L-0-0-K-V.W-, E- P.C. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 16,2017 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a law firm, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "market research 
analyst/marketing specialist" 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-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, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Director erred in her 
findings. Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
A. 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: 
(I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(b)(6)
Matter of L-0-0-K- V W-, E- P. C. 
(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" in the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a 
specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chert(df, 
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). 
B. Proffered Position 
In the H-lB petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a "market research 
analyst/marketing specialist." In its letter of support, the Petitioner provided a general description of 
the job duties for the proffered position and stated that the position requires a master's degree in 
marketing, management, or a related field. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner expanded upon the duties of 
the proffered position as follows: 
• Research market conditions in China, especially I st tier cities, including 
Gather information to 
determine potential sales of a product or service, or create a marketing campaign. 
Gather information on competitors, prices, sales, and methods of marketing and 
distribution (20%); 
• Conduct research about the advertising and marketing campaign, including the 
selection of advertising media platform (such as radio, television, print, online, 
and billboards) (15%); 
• Monitor and forecast marketing, advertising, promotion and sales trend (1 0% ); 
• Measure the effectiveness of advertising campaigns and marketing strategies 
(10%); 
• Analyze data using statistical software (5%); 
• Convert data and findings into clear tables, graphs, presentations and written 
reports (10%); 
• Prepare reports and present results to clients or management (5%); 
2 
Matter of L-0-0-K- V W-, E- P. C. 
( 
• Address client's physical and psychological needs for blending in the U.S. and 
western culture (10%); [and] 
• Provide consultation services for clients, regarding their worries and real 
difficulties in physical and psychological adjustment for a new life in the United 
States (15%). 
In addition, the Petitioner stated that the proffered position reqmres a bachelor's degree m 
management, marketing, or a related field. 
C. Analysis 
For the reasons set out below, we have determined that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 1 Specifically, the record ( 1) does not describe 
the position's duties with sufficient detail; and (2) does not establish that the job duties require an 
educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation? 
As a preliminary matter, the Petitioner has provided inconsistent information regarding the 
educational requirements for the proffered position. For instance, in the support letter, the Petitioner 
stated that the minimum job requirement for the proffered position is a "Master's degree in 
marketing, management or a related field." However, in response to the RFE, the Petitioner stated 
that the proffered position requires "an individual who holds a Bachelor's degree in management, 
marketing or a related field." No explanation for this inconsistency was provided. 
Furthermore, we find that the Petitioner's job description is recited virtually verbatim from the U.S. 
Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) and the Occupational 
Information Network (O*NET) OnLine Summary Report's list of duties associated with a market 
research analyst and marketing specialist. 3 Providing job duties for a proffered position from the 
Handbook or O*NET is generally not sufficient for establishing H-1 B eligibility. While this type of 
description may be appropriate when defining the range of duties that may be performed within an 
occupational category, it cannot be relied upon by a petitioner when discussing the duties attached to 
specific employment for H-lB approval as this type of generic description fails to adequately convey 
the substantive work that the beneficiary will perform on a day-to-day basis. In establishing a 
position as qualifying as a specialty occupation, a petitioner must describe the specific duties and 
responsibilities to be performed by a beneficiary in the context of the petitioner's business 
1 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation in support of 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 For additional information, see U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Outlook 
Handbook, 2016-17 ed., http://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/print/market-research-analysts.htm (last visited 
Feb. 14, 2017) and O*NET OnLine, available at http://www.onetonline.org/link!summary/13-1161.00 (last visited Feb. 
14,2017). 
3 
Matter of L-0-0-K- V. W-, E- P. C. 
operations, demonstrate that a legitimate need for an employee exists, and substantiate that it has H­
lB caliber work for the beneficiary for the period of employment requested in the petition. 
Thus, these are issues that preclude the approval of the petition. Nevertheless, for the purpose of 
performing a comprehensive analysis of whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation, we now turn to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
1. First Criterion 
We turn first to the criterion at 8 C.F.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 Handbook as an 
authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations 
that it addresses. 4 
On the labor condition application (LCA) 5 submitted in support of the H-1 B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Market Research Analysts and 
Marketing Specialists" corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 13-1161. 6 
The Handbook subchapter entitled "How to Become a Market Research Analyst" states, in pertinent 
part: "Market research analysts typically need a bachelor's degree in market research or a related 
field. Many have degrees in fields such as statistics, math, and computer science. Others have 
backgrounds in business administration, the social sciences, or communications." U.S. Dep't of 
Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., "Market Research 
Analysts," https ://www. b Is. gov I ooh/business-and- financial/market -research-anal ysts.htm#tab-4 (last 
visited Feb. 14, 2017). 
4 
All of our references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not, however, maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant 
information. That is, the occupational category designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the 
general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered position, and USCIS regularly reviews the Handbook on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. To satisfy the first criterion, however, the 
burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position 
would normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
5 
The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to USCIS to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 8 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 o.fSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 545-546 (AAO 20 15). 
6 
The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level II wage. 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 II wage rate is for a petitioner who expects its employee to perform moderately complex tasks that 
require limited judgment. 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 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. 
4 
Matter of L-0-0-K- V. W-, E- P. C. 
The Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is 
normally required for entry into this occupation. Although the Handbook states that market research 
analysts typically need a bachelor's degree in or related to market research, it also states that 
"[ m ]any" market research analysts have degrees in various other fields such as statistics, math, and 
computer science. Based on the various degrees which many research analysts can possess, the 
Handbook does not support the position's eligibility under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J). 
In general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., statistics and math, a minimum of a 
bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty/is recognized as satisfying the "degree in the 
specific specialty" requirement of section 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 ofhighly specialized knowledge" and the position, however, 
a minimum entry requirement of degrees in disparate fields, such as market research and computer 
science, would not meet the statutory requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty," 
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 ofthese different specialties. Section 214(i)(l)(b) ofthe Act (emphasis added). 7 The 
Petitioner has not done so here. 
Moreover, the Handbook indicates that general-purpose bachelor's degrees in business 
administration and the social sciences are acceptable for entry into the market research analyst 
occupation. A general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a business administration degree, without 
more, will not justify a finding that a particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty 
occupation. See Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147; cf ~A1atter of Michael Hertz Assoc.~., 19 I&N Dec. 
558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). 
The Petitioner also referenced the O*NET OnLine Summary Report for "Market Research Analysts 
and Marketing Specialists." The summary report provides general information regarding the 
occupation; however, it does not support the Petitioner's assertion regarding the educational 
requirements for the occupation. For example, the Specialized Vocational Preparation (SVP) rating 
cited within O*NET's Job Zone designates this occupation as 7 < 8. That SVP rating indicates the 
occupation requires "over 2 years up to and including 4 years" of training. Further, while the SVP 
rating indicates the total number of yearscof 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, 
7 Whether read with the statutory "the" or the regulatory "a," both readings denote a singular "specialty." Section 
214(i)(l)(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). Still, we do not so narrowly interpret these provisions to exclude 
positions from qualifYing as specialty occupations if they permit, as a minimum entry requirement, degrees in more than 
one closely related specialty. As just stated, this also includes even seemingly disparate specialties provided the 
evidence of record establishes how each acceptable, specific field of study is directly related to the duties and 
responsibilities of the particular position. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of L-0-0-K- V. W-, E- P. C. 
formal education, and experience- and it does not specify the particular type of degree, if any, that a 
position would require. 8 
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. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted letters from a consultant to cultural and 
educational organizations, and a professor of marketing at 
We reviewed the letters in their entirety. However, contrary to the purpose for which the letters 
were submitted, they are not persuasive in establishing the proffered position as a specialty 
occupation position under the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Specifically, 
states that "the duties of a Market Research Analyst/Marketing Specialist at [the Petitioner] require, 
at a minimum, a Bachelor Degree in a major related to marketing ." In addition, 
concludes that the position "requires the type of specialized knowledge that is usually associated 
with acquiring a baccalaureate degree." Thus, the letters taken together do not state that a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required for a market research analyst/marketing 
specialist position.9 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
2. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs: "The degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may 
show that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong 
casts its gaze upon the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
For additional information , see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at 
http ://www.onetonline.org /help/online/svp. 
9 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)( I )(b) oftheAct and 8 C. F. R. § 214 .2(h)( 4)(ii) . 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of L-0-0-K-V. W-, E- P.C. 
a. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor' s or higher degree in a specific specialty , or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement , factors often considered by U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (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 degreed individuals." See Shanti, 
Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 1999) (quoting Hird!Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. 
Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N. Y. 1989)). 
As previously discussed , the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook , or other 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." 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner submitted copies of job announcements placed by other 
employers. However , 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 Petitioner. For example, the Petitioner is a five-person law firm, 
whereas the advertising organizations include : 
• - a company specializing in real estate development , value investments and health 
care; 
• -
a food distributor; 
• -
a medical center; 
• -
a law firm with more than 2,400 immigration professionals 
throughout over 40 offices across 20 countries ; and 
• - a law firm with more than 400 attorneys and technology specialists 
across the United States and Europe. 
Furthermore, some of the postings appear to be for staffing agencies and/or provide little or no 
information regarding the hiring employers. The Petitioner did not supplement the record of 
proceedings to establish that these advertising organizations are similar. 
\V'hen determining whether the Petitioner and the ·organization share the same general 
characteristics, such factors may include information regarding the nature or type of organization , 
7 
Matter of L-0-0-K- V W-, E- P. C. 
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. 
Moreover, many of the advertisements do not appear to be for parallel positions. For example, some 
of the positions appear to be for more senior positions than the proffered position. Moreover, some 
of the postings do not include the duties and responsibilities for the advertised positions. Thus, it is 
not possible to determine important aspects of the jobs, such as the day-to-day responsibilities, 
complexity of the job duties, supervisory duties (if any), independent judgment required or the 
amount of supervision received. Therefore, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the 
primary duties and responsibilities of the advertised positions are parallel to the proffered position. 
In addition, 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. 10 The job postings suggest, at best, that although a 
bachelor's degree is sometimes required for market research analyst positions, a bachelor's degree in 
a specific specialty (or its equivalent) is not. 11 
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. 12 That is, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. Thus, the Petitioner 
has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) .. 
b. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
10 
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) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). Further, although a general-purpose 
bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business administration, 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 147. 
11 
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 
general£v 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 
if the sampling unit were sufficiently large. See id. at 195-196 (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 ofpopulation.parameters and estimates of error"). 
12 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. 
8 
Matter of L-0-0-K- V. W-, E- P. C. 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
In support of its assertion that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, the 
Petitioner described the proffered position and its business operations. On appeal, the Petitioner 
states that due to the complex immigration law matters handled by its law firm, the duties of the 
proffered position are so complex and unique that it can only be performed by an individual with a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. However, the Petitioner has not sufficiently developed 
relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the proffered position. Again, it appears that the 
Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to perform moderately complex tasks that require limited exercise 
of judgment (by its selection of a Level II wage on the LCA) compared to other positions within the 
same occupation. 13 The description of the duties provided by the Petitioner does not specifically 
identify any tasks that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could 
perform them and does not refute the Handbook's narrative indicating that a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, is not required. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position, and references his 
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). 
3. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it 
normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner submitted the H-1 B approval notices, H-1 B petitions, and 
academic credentials of two individuals. In addition, the Petitioner provided copies of its letters to 
USCIS, which lists the job duties of these two individuals. Notably, the job duties in the'se letters 
are not consistent with the Petitioner's job duties for the proffered position as stated in its letter of 
support and response to the RFE. 
13 
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 Level II 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 ifthat 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 L-0-0-K-V. W-. E- P.C 
Further, we observe that the H-1B petition for one individual indicates a salary of $16.71 per hour 
($34, 756.80 per year). In addition, the letter to USCIS for the other individual states that she is 
compensated $109,970 per year. The documentation indicates that one of the individuals is paid 
significantly less than the offered salary to the Beneficiary, and the other one is paid significantly 
higher than the salary offered to the Beneficiary. Thus, this strongly suggests that they are employed 
in different positions. 
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 of 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A). 
4. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature 
of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. 
While the Petitioner provided a more detailed job description in response to the RFE, the description 
does not establish that the duties are more specialized and complex than positions that are not 
usually associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. We also 
reiterate our earlier comments and findings with regard to the implication of the Petitioner's 
designation of the proffered position in the LCA as a Level II (the second lowest of four assignable 
levels). Without further evidence, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one 
with specialized and complex duties as such a position would likely be classified at a higher-level 
requiring a significantly higher prevailing wage. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated in the record that its proffered position is one with duties 
sufficiently specialized and complex to satisfy the fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
II. 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 ofthe H-lB petition. The 
Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, was not completely signed by the 
Petitioner. More specifically, the Petitioner did not certify that it would be liable for the reasonable 
costs of return transportation if the Beneficiary is dismissed from its employment prior to the period 
of authorized stay. 
10 
Matter of L-0-0- K- V. W-, E- P. C. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(1) states, in pertinent part, the followit:g: 
Every benefit request or other document submitted to DHS must
1 
be executed and 
filed in accordance with the form instructions, notwithstanding any provision of 
8 CFR chapter 1 to the contrary, and such instructions are incorporated into the 
regulations requiring its submission. 
The instructions for Form I-129 state that the petition must be properly signed. The instructions 
further indicate that a petition that is not properly signed will be rejected. Moreover, according to 
the instructions, a petitioner that fails to completely fill out the form will not establish eligibility for 
the benefit sought and the petition may be denied. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.2(a)(2), which concerns the requirement of a signature on 
applications and petitions, states the following: 
An applicant or petitioner must sign his or her benefit request. . . . By signing the 
benefit request, the applicant or petitioner ... certifies under penalty of perjury that 
the benefit request, and all evidence submitted with it, either at the time of filing or 
thereafter, is true and correct. Unless otherwise specified in this chapter, an 
acceptable signature on a benefit request that is being filed with the USCIS is one that 
is either handwritten or, for benefit requests filed electronically as permitted by the 
instructions to the form, in electronic format. 
The regulations provide, in pertinent part, the following: 
An applicant or petitioner must establish that he or she is eligible for the requested 
·benefit at the time of filing the benefit request and must continue to be eligible 
through adjudication. Each benefit request must be properly completed and filed with 
all initial evidence required by applicable regulations and other USCIS instructions. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
In the instant Form I-129 (page 14), a required signature from an official of the Petitioner has been 
left blank. This section of the form reads as follows: 
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. 
By failing to sign this signature block of the Form l-129, the Petitioner did not attest that it will 
comply with section 214(c)(5) of the Act, which states the following: 
II 
Matter of L-0-0-K- V. W-. E- P. C. 
In the case of an alien who is provided nonimmigrant status under section 
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) or 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) and who is dismissed from employment 
by the employer before the end of the period of authorized admission, the employer 
shall be liable for the reasonable costs of return transportation of the alien abroad. 
The regulations further state, in pertinent part, the following: 
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 admission pursuant to section 214(c)(5) of the Act 
. . . . Within the context of this paragraph, the term "abroad" refers to the alien's last 
place of foreign residence. This provision applies to any employer whose offer of 
employment became the basis for an alien obtaining or continuing H-1 B status. 
8 CFR § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(E). 
Thus, the petition has not been properly filed because the petitioning employer did not sign the 
signature block certifying that it would be liable for the reasonable costs of return transportation if 
the beneficiary is dismissed from its employment prior to the period of authorized stay. Pursuant to 
8 C.F.R. § 1 03.2(a)(7)(i), 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. We conduct 
appellate review on a de novo basis, and it was in the exercise o( this function that we identified this 
additional ground for dismissing the petition. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 145. Thus, for this 
reason as well, the petition may not be approved. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The burden is on the Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of L-0-0- K-V W-, E- P. C., ID# 21 7931 ( AAO Feb. 16, 201 7) 
12