dismissed H-1B Case: Market Research

(b)(6)
MATTER OF S-B-C-, LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 7, 2015 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a beverage distributor, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a market research analyst and 
classify her as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation. See section 101 (a)( 15)(H)(i)(b) of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The Director, 
Vermont Service Center, denied 
the petition . The matter is now before us on appeal. The appeal 
will be dismissed . 
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
In the Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form 1-129), the Petitioner describes itself as a 
distributor of fine wines, spirits, beers, bottled water and other beverages , with 234 employees , 
established in The Petitioner states that it wishes to employ the Beneficiary in what it 
designates as a market research analyst position . 
The Director denied the petition, finding that the evidence of record did not establish that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the 
Director's basis for denial was erroneous and contends that it satisfied all evidentiary requirements . 
The record of proceeding contains: (1) the Form I-129 and supporting documentation; (2) the 
Director 's request for additional evidence (RFE); (3) the Petitioner's response to the RFE; (4) the 
Director 's letter denying the petition ; and (5) the Notice of Appeal or Motion (Fonn I-290B) and 
supporting documentation. We reviewed the record in its entirety before issuing our decision. 1 
For reasons that will be discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not 
established eligibility for the benefit sought. Accordingly, the Director 's decision will not be 
disturbed. The appeal will be dismissed. 
1 We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis . See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) . 
Matter of S-B-C-, LLC 
II. SPECIALITY OCCUPATION 
The primary issue is whether the Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence to establish that it will 
employ the Beneficiary in a specialty occupation. 
A. Legal Framework 
For an H-lB petition to be granted, the petitioner must provide sufficient evidence to establish that it 
will employ the beneficiary in a specialty occupation position. To meet its burden of proof in this 
regard, the petitioner must establish that the employment it is offering to the beneficiary meets the 
applicable statutory and regulatory requirements of a specialty occupation. 
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) states, in pertinent part, the following: 
Specialty occupation means an occupation which [(1)] requires theoretical and practical application 
of a body of highly specialized knowledge in fields of human endeavor including, but not limited to, 
architecture, engineering, mathematics, physical sciences, social sciences, medicine and health, 
education, business specialties, accounting, law, theology, and the arts, and which [(2)] requires the 
attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as a minimum 
for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, a proposed position 
must meet one of the following criteria: 
(I) 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 
2 
Matter ofS-B-C-, LLC 
( 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. 
As a threshold issue, it is noted that 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must logically be read together 
with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). In other words, this regulatory 
language must be construed in harmony with the thrust of the related provisions and with the statute 
as a whole. SeeK Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) (holding that construction 
oflanguage which takes into account the design of the statute as a whole is preferred); see also COlT 
Independence Joint Venture v. Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989); Matter of W­
F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). As such, the criteria stated in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) 
should logically be read as being necessary but not necessarily sufficient to meet the statutory and 
regulatory definition of specialty occupation. To otherwise interpret this section as stating the 
necessary and sufficient conditions for meeting the definition of specialty occupation would result in 
particular positions meeting a condition under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory or 
regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). To avoid this 
result, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must therefore be read as providing supplemental criteria that 
must be met in accordance with, and not as alternatives to, the statutory and regulatory definitions of 
specialty occupation. 
As such and consonant with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) consistently interprets 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 proffered position. See 
Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertojf, 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"). Applying this standard, USCIS regularly approves H -1 B petitions for qualified aliens 
who are to be employed as engineers, computer scientists, certified public accountants, college 
professors, and other such occupations. These professions, for which petitioners have regularly been 
able to establish a minimum entry requirement in the United States of a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, directly related to the duties and responsibilities of 
the particular position; fairly represent the types of specialty occupations that Congress contemplated 
when it created the H-1B visa category. 
To determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCIS does not simply 
rely on a position's title. The specific duties of the proffered position, combined with the nature of 
the petitioning entity's business operations, are factors to be considered. USCIS must examine the 
ultimate employment of the alien, and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. The critical element is not the title 
of the position nor an employer's self-imposed standards, but whether the position actually requires 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter ofS-B-C- , LLC 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty as the minimum for entry into 
the occupation , as required by the Act. 
B. The Proffered Position 
As noted above, the Petitioner describes itself as a distributor of fine wines, spirits, beers, bottled 
water and other beverages, employing 234 individuals. In the Form I -129, the Petitioner indicated 
that it wishes to employ the Beneficiary as a market research analyst on a part-time basis of 30 hours 
per week. With respect to the proffered position , the Petitioner states that the market research 
analyst "will be responsible for planning, managing and implementing marketing and brand 
development activities for beverage portfolio. Her specific duties will include:" 2 
• Formulate and develop marketing and brand development policies , 
strategies and operations in order to generate public interest in the company and its products. 
• Develop and manage programs to educate U.S. consumers on products 
and attributes; develop media and special events promotions , including tastings and seminars; 
represent at promotional events. 
• Manage social media activities and operations; utilize social media internet marketing , e-mail 
marketing and event planning to increase product and brand recognition and consumer base. 
• Direct communications of marketing and brand development plans to sales teams; ensure that 
brand advertising materials are strategically distributed in account territories. 
• Build and manage business relationships with key accounts in the U.S.; identify new target 
accounts and industry opportunities; establish and maintain client relationships with 
management and executives in the beverage industry. 
• Analyze and 
evaluate regional brand information and category performance data, consumer 
dynamics , trade channel structure , consumption trends , economic influences , regional 
distribution networks , brand portfolio and brand positioning; draft brand strategies and 
market analysis reports. 
The Petitioner also states that "[t]he qualifications for this position consist of a bachelor's degree in 
marketing, marketing management , business administration , or a related field ." 
The Petitioner submitted a Labor Condition Application (LCA) in support of the instant H-1B 
petition. The Petitioner states that the proffered position corresponds to the occupational category 
"Market Research Analysts and Marketing Specialists "-SOC (ONET /OES) Code 13-1161, at a Level 
I (entry level) 
wage. 3 
2 It appears that the Petitioner , is an affili ate of a larger conglomerate, known as 
In the support letter , the Petitioner states that " and its affiliated companies 
(collectively , " ) operates in 14 states and the and employs 
approximately 7,000 individuals nationwide. " 
3 We note that the duties presented by the petitioner encompass duties described in several occupational categories in the 
Handbook, including "Advertising and Promotions Manager"-SOC (ONET/OES) Code 11-2011. See 
http://www.bls.gov /ooh/management /advertising-promotions-and-marketing-managers.htm#tab-1 (last visited Sept. 25 , 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter ofS-B-C-, LLC 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner provided a more detailed job description of the 
proffered position, including the percentage of time devoted to each duty: 
% of time 
spent 
• Fotmulating and developing [the Petitioner ' s] marketing 30% 
and brand development policies, strategies and operations 
in order to generate public interest in the company and its 
products. 
• Developing and managmg programs to educate U.S. 
consumers on [the Petitioner's] products and attributes. 
• Developing media and special events promotions, 10% 
including tastings and seminars. 
• Representing [the Petitioner] at promotional events . 
• Managing social media activities and operations . 
• Utilizing social media internet marketing, e-mail marketing 
and event planning to mcrease product and brand 
recognition and consumer base. 
• Directing communications of marketing and brand 10% 
development plans to sales teams. 
• Ensuring that brand advertising materials are strategically 
distributed in account territories. 
• Building and managing business relationships with key 10% 
accounts in the U.S. 
• Identifying new target accounts and industry opportunities . 
• Establishing and maintainin g client relationships with 
management and executives in the beverage industry. 
• Analyzing and evaluating regional brand information and 30% 
category performance data, consumer dynamics , trade 
channel structure, consumption trends, economic 
influences, regional distribution networks, brand portfolio 
20 15). Notably, the prevailing wage for advertising and promotions mana gers at Level I in 
$67,828.80 per year, which is higher than the salary for the proffered position at $44,824 
http://www. tlcdatacent er.com/OesQuic kResults.aspx ?code= 11-20 I I & ~year=14&source= l 
Sept. 25, 20 15). 
, New York is 
per year. See 
(last visited 
According to the Department of Labor's "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance ," when a proffered position is 
a combination of occupations, the petitioner should select the relevant occupational code for the highest paying 
occupational category . See U.S. Dep't of Labor , Emp't & Training Admin. , Prevailing Wage Determination Policy 
Guidance, Nonagric. Immigrat ion Programs (rev. Nov . 2009) , available at 
http://www. foreignlaborcert .doleta.gov /pdf/NPWHC _Guidance _Revised _11_ 2009.pdf. 
5 
Matter of S-B-C-, LLC 
and brand positioning. 
• Drafting brand strategies and market analysis reports. 10% 
The Petitioner reiterates that in order to perform the duties listed, "the incumbent must possess 
theoretical understanding of, and practical skills in, complex business concepts and techniques that 
can only be gained through the completion of at least a Bachelor's degree in Marketing, Marketing 
Management, Business Administration, or a related field." 
C. Analysis 
As a preliminary matter, we find that the Petitioner's claim that a bachelor's degree in "business 
administration" is a sufficient minimum requirement for entry into the proffered position is 
inadequate 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 administration, without further specification, does not establish the 
position as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Associates, 19 I&N Dec. 558 
(Comm'r 1988). 
To establish that a job requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly 
specialized knowledge as required by section 214(i)( 1) 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, USCIS interprets 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. 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. 
See Royal Siam Corp. v. Cherto.ff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007).4 
4 Specifically, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit explained in Royal Siam that: 
[t]he courts and the agency consistently have stated that, although a general-purpose bachelor's 
degree, such as a business administration 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
I 8 specialty occupation visa. See, e.g., Tapis lnt'l 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. !d. 
Matter ofS-B-C-, LLC 
Again, the Petitioner in this matter claims that the duties of the proffered position can be performed 
by an individual with only a general-purpose bachelor's degree, i.e., a bachelor's degree in business 
administration. Without more, this assertion alone indicates that the proffered position is not in fact 
a specialty occupation. The director's decision must therefore be affirmed and the appeal dismissed 
on this basis alone. 
Moreover, it also cannot be found that the proffered position is a specialty occupation because the 
Petitioner has not satisfied any of the supplemental, additional criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). These criteria are discussed in detail below. 
A baccalaureate or higher degree in a spec[fic specialty, or its equivalent, is 
normally the minimum requirement.for entry into the particular position 
We will now discuss the proffered position in relation to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which requires that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position. 
USCIS recognizes the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as 
an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations 
that it addresses. 5 The Petitioner asserts in the LCA that the proffered position falls under the 
occupational category "Market Research Analysts." 
We reviewed the section of the Handbook covering "Market Research Analysts," including the 
section entitled "How to Become a Market Research Analyst," which states the following: 
Most market research analysts need at least a bachelor's degree. Top research 
positions often require a master's degree. Strong math and analytical skills are 
essential. 
Education 
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. 
Courses in statistics, research methods, and marketing are essential for these 
workers. Courses in communications and social sciences, such as economics, 
psychology, and sociology, are also important. 
5 All references are to the 2014-2015 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
http://www.bls.gov/OCO/. The excerpts of the Handbook regarding the duties and requirements of the referenced 
occupational category are hereby incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
Matter ofS-B-C-, LLC 
Some market research analyst jobs require a master's degree. Several schools 
offer graduate programs in marketing research, but many analysts complete 
degrees in other fields, such as statistics and marketing, and/or earn a Master of 
Business Administration (MBA). A master's degree is often required for 
leadership positions or positions that perform more technical research. 
Other Experience 
Most market research analysts can benefit from internships or work experience in 
business, marketing, or sales. Work experience in other positions that require 
analyzing data, writing reports, or surveying or collecting data can also be helpful 
in finding a market research position. 
Licenses, Certifications, and Registrations 
Certification is voluntary, but analysts may pursue certification to demonstrate a 
level of professional competency. The Marketing Research Association offers the 
Professional Researcher Certification (PRC) for market research analysts. 
Candidates qualify based on experience and knowledge; they must pass an exam, 
be a member of a professional organization, and have at least 3 years working in 
opinion and marketing research. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., 
Market Research Analysts, available at http://www. bls.gov/ooh/business-and- financial/market­
research-analysts.htm (last visited Sept. 25, 20 15). 
Here, although the Handbook indicates that a bachelor's or higher degree is required, it also 
indicates that baccalaureate degrees in various fields are acceptable for entry into the occupation. To 
demonstrate 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 specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. USCIS interprets 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. In addition to 
recognizing degrees in disparate fields, i.e., social science and computer science as acceptable for 
entry into this field, the Handbook also states that "others have a background in business 
administration." As noted above, 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. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d at 147. Therefore, the 
Handbook's recognition that a general, non-specialty "background" in business administration 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. Accordingly, as the 
Handbook indicates that working as a market research 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. 
(b)(6)
Matter ofS-B-C-, LLC 
In response to the Director 's RFE, the Petitioner submits a letter from Ph.D., 
Associate Dean-Academic Affairs, School of Business, to refute the 
information found in the Handbook. Dean states, among other things, that "[ e ]mployers 
with openings for Market Research Analysts and similar professional positions have recruited at our 
campus, always seeking graduates with the minimum of a Bachelor's Degree." This statement does 
not support the proposition that the position of market research analyst would be considered to be a 
specialty occupation; rather it indicates that the general position of market research analyst requires a 
minimum of a bachelor's degree, without identifying the need for any specific field of study. 
Regarding the specific position here proffered, Dean addresses the requirements of a 
market research analyst within the Petitioner's particular industry, stating: 
It is standard for a company such as [the Petitioner] to hire a Market Research 
Analyst and require that individual to have attained at least a Bachelor's Degree 
in Marketing, Business Administration, or a related area. It is typical for a 
national distributor of alcoholic and nonalcoholic beverages that seeks to maintain 
its leading role in the competitive market to hire a Market Research Analyst or 
someone in a similar professional position, and require the minimum attainment 
of a Bachelor's Degree in Marketing, Business Administration, or a related area 
for the position. 
We find no indication in the record of proceeding that Dean possesses knowledge of the 
proffered position beyond the generalized job description the Petitioner has presented to USCIS. For 
example, he did not discuss the duties of the proffered position in any meaningful detail; to the 
contrary, he listed the duties in the same bullet-pointed fashion as provided in the Petitioner's 
letter. Thus, the extent to which he analyzed these duties prior to fommlating this letter is not 
apparent. Further, Dean does not reference or discuss any studies, surveys, industry 
publications, authoritative publications , or other sources of empirical information which he may 
have consulted in the course of whatever evaluative process he may have followed. Dean 
provides a brief, general description of the Petitioner's business activities ; however, he does not 
demonstrate or assert in-depth knowledge of the Petitioner's specific business operations or how the 
duties of the position would actually be performed in the context of the Petitioner's business 
enterprise. For instance, there no evidence that he has any in-depth knowledge of the Petitioner's 
business operations gained through such means as visiting the Petitioner's premises, observing the 
Petitioner's employees , interviewing them about the nature of their work, or documenting the 
knowledge that they apply on the job. His opinion does not relate his conclusion to specific, 
concrete aspects of this Petitioner's business operations so as to demonstrate a sound factual basis for 
the conclusion about the educational requirements for the particular position here at 
issue. Moreover , he did not support his conclusions by providing copies or citations of any research 
material used. He has not provided sufficient facts that would support the assertion that the 
proffered position requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter ofS-B-C- , LLC 
Furthermore, there is no indication that Dean considered, or was even aware of, the fact 
that the Petitioner characterized the proffered position as a low, entry-level position relative to others 
within the "Market Research Analysts and Marketing Specialists" occupational category .. As will be 
discussed below, DOL guidance indicates that a Level I position should be considered for positions 
in which the employee will serve as a research fellow, a worker in training, or an intern. Given Dean 
' comments regarding the position 's "complex responsibilities" and the "highly 
specialized knowledge" involved, it seems likely he would have found this information useful. We 
consider this a significant omission, at it indicates an incomplete review of the proffered position. 
Moreover, as noted previously, the assertion that the proffered position can be filled by an individual 
with a bachelor's degree in "Business Administration" is inadequate 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 
administration, without further specification, does not establish the position as a specialty 
occupation. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Associates, 19 I&N Dec. 558 (Comrn'r 1988). Dean 
therefore arrives at a conclusion similar to the one made by DOL in the Handbook, that a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is not required to perform the duties of the 
proffered position. His letter therefore affirms our finding that the proffered position is not a 
specialty occupation . 6 
We may, in our discretion, use advisory opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as expert 
testimony. Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comrn'r 1988). However, where an 
opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable , we are not required to 
accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Id. 
On appeal, the Petitioner cites to a recent district court case, Raj and Company v. U.S Citizenship 
and Immigration Services, 85 F. Supp. 3d 124l(W.D. Wash. 2015), and claims that it is relevant 
here. 7 In the district court case, the employer designated the position as a "Marketing Analyst & 
Specialist" position. 8 We reviewed the decision; however, there is no indication that aspects of the 
work such as the duties and · responsibilities , level of judgment, complexity of the job duti~s , 
supervisory duties, independent judgment required or the amount of supervision received are 
analogous to the proffered position here.9 Accordingly, aside from the claimed job title, there is no 
indication that the positions are similar. 
6 For reasons of efficiency , we incorporate these findings into our analysis of each criterion below. 
7 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 l&N Dec. 7 I 5 (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. !d. at 7 I 9. 
8 It is important to note and distinguish within the court's decision that "Marketing Analyst & Specialist" refers to the 
employer's particular position, whereas "Market Research Analysts" refers to a general occupational category. 
9 We note that the service center director's decision was not appealed to our office. Based on the district court's findings 
10 
Matter ofS-B-C-, LLC 
Further, in Raj, the court stated that a specialty occupation requires the attainment of a bachelor's 
degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The court confirmed that this issue is well­
settled in case law and with USCIS's reasonable interpretation of the regulatory framework. In the 
decision, the court noted that "permitting an occupation to qualify simply by requiring a generalized 
bachelor degree would run contrary to congressional intent to provide a visa program for specialized, 
as opposed to merely educated, workers." The court stated that the regulatory provisions do not 
restrict qualifying occupations to those for which there exists a single, specifically tailored and titled 
degree program; but rather, the statute and regulations contain an equivalency provision. 10 
In Raj, the court concluded that the employer met the first criterion. We must note, however, that 
the court stated that "[t]he first regulatory criterion requires the agency to examine the generic 
position requirements of a market research analyst in order to determine whether a specific 
bachelor's degree or its equivalent is a minimum requirement for entry into the profession." Thus, 
the decision misstates the regulatory requirement. That is, the first criterion requires the Petitioner to 
establish that a baccalaureate or higher degree (in a specific specialty) or its equivalent is normally 
the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position. 
Consequently, if the court meant to suggest that any position classified under the occupational 
category "Market Research Analysts" would, as it stated, "come within the first qualifying criteria"­
we must disagree. 11 The occupational category designated by a 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. However, to satisfY the first criterion, 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. That is, to determine whether a 
particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCIS does not simply rely on a position's title or 
designated occupational category. The specific duties of the proffered position, combined with the 
nature of the petitioning entity's business operations, are factors to be considered. USCIS must 
examine the ultimate employment of the beneficiary, and determine whether the position qualifies as 
a specialty occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384 (5th Cir. 2000). 
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 in our de novo review of the matter. 
10 We agree with the court that a specialty occupation is one that requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree 
in a specific specialty or its equivalent. We further note that a petitioner must also demonstrate that the position requires 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in accordance with section 
214(i)(I)(B) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii), and satisfY one of the four criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). 
11 
In Raj, the court quoted a brief excerpt from the Handbook; however, the quotation is from the 2012-2013 edition 
rather than the current 2014-2015 edition (which contains several revisions). Further, we observe that the court did not 
address the section of the Handbook indicating that there are no specific degree requirements to obtain the Professional 
Researcher Certification credential -and therefore to work as a market research analyst. 
1 1 
Matter of S-B-C-, LLC 
Nevertheless, it is important to note that the court in Raj determined that the evidence in the record 
demonstrated that the particular position proffered required a bachelor's degree in market research or 
its equivalent as a minimum for entry. Further, the court noted that "[t]he patently specialized nature 
of the position sets it apart from those that merely require a generic degree." The position in Raj 
can, therefore, be distinguished from the instant position. Here, the duties and requirements of the 
position as described in the record of proceeding do not indicate that this particular position 
proffered by the petitioner is one for which a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry. Thus, the petitioner has not 
satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
On appeal, the Petitioner also cites to Residential Fin. Corp. v. U.S Citizenship & Immigration 
Services, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012) as relevant here. As in Raj, the H-1B petition in 
Residential Fin. Corp. was never appealed to our office through the available administrative process. 
Nevertheless we note that the district judge's decision in Residential Fin. Corp. appears to have been 
based largely on the many factual errors made by the service center in its decision denying the 
petition. Had we been afforded the opportunity to do so, based on that court's findings, 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 our de novo review 
of the matter. It is important to note that in a subsequent case that was reviewed in the same 
jurisdiction, the court agreed with our analysis of Residential Fin. Corp. See Health Carousel, LLC 
v. U.S Citizenship & Immigration Services, No. 1:13-CV-23, 2014 WL 29591 (S.D. Ohio 2014). 
In the instant case, the Petitioner has not established that the proffered position falls under an 
occupational category for which the Handbook, or other authoritative source, indicates that normally 
the minimum requirement for entry is at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
The requirement of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent. is common to the industry in parallel 
positions among similar organizations 
Next, we will review the record regarding the first of the two alternative prongs of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). This prong alternatively calls for a petitioner to establish that a requirement 
of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common for positions 
that are identifiable as being (1) in the petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered position, and 
also (3) located in organizations that are similar to the petitioner. 
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 degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 
1999)(quotingHird/BlakerCorp. v. Sava, 712F. Supp.1095, 1102(S.D.N.Y.1989)). 
12 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-B-C-, LLC 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook (or other independent, authoritative source) reports a standard industry-wide 
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. 
There are no submissions from the industry's professional association indicating that it has made a 
degree a minimum entry requirement. We note that the Petitioner does submit letters from three 
beverage distribution companies which purport to be in the Petitioner's industry. The letters are 
from and 
The letters from and state that each - - •.. 
company requires individuals employed in market research analyst positions, or related positions, to 
possess at a minimum a Bachelor's degree in Marketing, Marketing Management, Business 
Administration, or a related field. The letter from _ _ states that it 
requires individuals employed in market research analyst or comparable 
positions to have completed 
a "four-year university program at the Bachelor's degree level in a business discipline, such as 
Marketing or Finance." Each company also provided educational information for an individual who 
is currently employed in a market research analyst or comparable 
position with their company. 
We find that these letters are not dispositive that the requirement of a baccalaureate or higher degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations. Specifically, these three companies, according to their letterhead and 
publically available information, are all affiliates of the , the conglomerate 
that owns the Petitioner. As these companies are owned by the same parent as the Petitioner, analysis 
of their hiring requirements is not appropriate under this criteria and their letters will be properly 
addressed under the third criterion of 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not established that a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the Petitioner's industry in positions that are (1) in 
the Petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered position, and also (3) located in organizations 
that are similar to the Petitioner. For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not satisfied the 
first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by 
an individual with a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent 
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 
perfonned only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
To support its assertion that the proffered position is so unique and complex that it can only be 
performed by an individual with a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
13 
(b)(6)
Matter ofS-B-C-, LLC 
equivalent, the Petitioner once again relies on the letter from Dean · We reviewed the 
record in its entirety and find that the Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation to support 
a claim that it satisfies the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)(2). 
Specifically, even though the Petitioner claims that the proffered position's duties are so complex 
and unique that a bachelor's degree is required, the Petitioner does not demonstrate how the market 
research analyst duties described require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly 
specialized knowledge such that a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent 
is required to perform them. For instance, the Petitioner did not submit information relevant to a 
detailed course of study leading to a specialty degree and did not establish how such a curriculum is 
necessary to perform the duties it claims are so complex and unique. 
While a few courses in marketing may be beneficial in performing certain duties of a market 
research analyst, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how an established curriculum of such courses 
leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a spec?fic specialty or its equivalent is required to 
perform the duties of the particular position here proffered. 
Therefore, the evidence of record does not establish that this position is significantly different from 
other market research analyst positions such that it refutes the Handbook 's information to the effect 
that there is a spectrum of preferred degrees acceptable for market research analyst positions, 
including degrees not in a specific specialty. In other words, the record lacks sufficiently detailed 
information to distinguish the proffered position as unique from or more complex than similar 
positions within the same occupational category that can be performed by persons without at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. Consequently, as the Petitioner does not 
demonstrate how the proffered position of market research analyst is so complex or unique relative 
to other market research analyst positions that do not require at least a baccalaureate degree in a 
specific specialty or its equivalent for entry into the occupation in the United States, it cannot be 
concluded that the Petitioner has satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
This is further evidenced by the LCA submitted by the Petitioner in support of the instant petition. 
The LCA indicates a wage level at a Level I (entry) wage, which is the lowest of four assignable 
wage levels. 12 Without further evidence, the record of proceeding does not indicate that the 
The wage levels are defined in DOL's "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance." A Level I wage rate is 
described as follows: 
Level I (entry) wage rates are assigned to job offers for beginning level employees who have only a 
basic understanding of the occupation . These employees perform routine tasks that require limited, if 
any, exercise of judgment. The tasks provide experience and familiarization with the employer's 
methods , practices , and programs. The employees may perform higher level work for training and 
developmental purposes. These employees work under close supervision and receive specific 
instructions on required tasks and results expected . Their work is closely monitored and reviewed for 
accuracy. Statements that the job offer is for a research fellow, a worker in training , or an internship 
14 
Matter of S-B-C-, LLC 
proffered position is complex or unique as such a position falling under this occupational category 
would likely be classified at a higher-level, such as a Level III (experienced) or Level IV (fully 
competent) position, requiring a significantly higher prevailing wage. 13 For example, a Level IV 
(fully competent) position is designated by DOL for employees who "use advanced skills and 
diversified knowledge to solve unusual and complex problems." 14 Again, the evidence of record 
does not establish that this position is significantly different from other positions in the occupational 
category such that it refutes the Handbook's information that a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent is not required for the proffered position. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well qualified for the position. 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 establish that its particular position is so complex 
or unique that it can only be performed by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative 
prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The employer normally requires a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position 
are indicators that a Level I wage should be considered. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. 
Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf!NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _II_ 2009.pdf. 
Thus, in accordance with the relevant DOL explanatory information on wage levels, this wage rate indicates that the 
beneficiary is only required to have a basic understanding of the occupation and carries expectations that the beneficiary 
perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; that she would be closely supervised; that her 
work would be closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and that she would receive specific instructions on required 
tasks and expected results. DOL guidance indicates that a Level I designation should be considered for positions in 
which the employee will serve as a research fellow, worker in training, or an intern. 
13 The issue here is 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. Nevertheless, it is important to note that a Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position 
from classification as a specialty occupation. In certain occupations (doctors or lawyers, for example), an 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 consideration but is not a substitute for a 
determination of whether a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)( I) of the Act. 
14 For additional information regarding wage levels as defined by DOL, see U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training 
Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available 
at http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf!NPWHC_ Guidance_Revised_ll_ 2009.pdf 
15 
Matter ofS-B-C-, LLC 
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. To 
this end, we review the Petitioner's past recruiting and hiring practices, as well as information 
regarding employees who previously held the position, and any other documentation submitted by a 
petitioner in support of this criterion of the regulations. 
To merit approval of the petition under this criterion, the record must establish that a petitioner's 
imposition of a degree requirement is not merely a matter of preference for high-caliber candidates 
but is necessitated by performance requirements of the position. While a petitioner may assert that a 
proffered position requires a specific degree, that statement alone without corroborating evidence 
cannot establish the position as a specialty occupation. Were USCIS limited solely to reviewing a 
petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, then any individual with a bachelor's degree could 
be brought to the United States to perform any occupation as long as the petitioner artificially 
created a token degree requirement, whereby all individuals employed in a particular position 
possessed a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty, or its equivalent. See Defensor 
v. Meissner, 201 F.3d at 388. In other words, if a petitioner's stated degree requirement is only 
designed to artificially meet the standards for an H-1B visa and/or to underemploy an individual in a 
position for which he or she is overqualified and if the proffered position does not in fact require 
such a specialty degree or its equivalent, to perform its duties, the occupation would not meet the 
statutory or regulatory definition of a specialty occupation. See section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty occupation"). 
To satisfy this criterion, the evidence of record must show that the specific performance 
requirements of the position generated the recruiting and hiring history. USCIS must examine the 
actual employment requirements, and, on the basis of that examination, determine whether the 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. In 
this pursuit, the critical element is not the title of the position, or the fact that an employer has 
routinely insisted on certain educational standards, but whether performance of the position actually 
requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty as the minimum for entry into 
the occupation as required by the Act. 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner states that it has a history of hiring only degreed 
individuals for the proffered position. The Petitioner asserts that its position of Sales and Marketing 
Coordinator is "substantially similar" to the proffered position of market research analyst, and that 
the hiring history for the Sales and Marketing Coordinator can thereby be used as evidence that the 
Petitioner has a history of recruiting and hiring only persons with at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the proffered position. In support ofthis claim the Petitioner 
submits a description of the Sales and Marketing Coordinator position and the educational 
credentials and employment information for two individuals who have held the Sales and Marketing 
Coordinator position at the Petitioner. However, the regulation requires that the Petitioner establish 
that it normally requires a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for 
the position, not for positions the Petitioner may deem to be similar. Additionally, we note that the 
16 
Matter of S-B-C-, LLC 
two individuals who have held the Sales and Marketing Coordinator position are paid significantly 
more than the wages offered to the Beneficiary in the proffered position. 15 The difference in the 
wages indicates that the position of Sales and Marketing Coordinator and Market Research Analyst 
are not in fact similar positions with substantially similar duties. Furthermore, as noted by the 
Director, one of the individuals has a bachelor's degree in finance and the Petitioner has not shown 
how such a degree would fit within the purported requirements for the proffered position, and one 
individual has a Bachelor of Business Administration, which is further evidence that a degree in a 
specific specialty is not required. 
As noted previously, the Petitioner also submitted letters from three affiliate companies discussing 
their purported minimum requirements for market research analyst positions. We note that each 
letter states that the companies in question would accept an applicant with a bachelor's degree in 
business or business administration. Again, 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 administration, 
without further specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of 
Michael Hertz Associates, 19 I&N Dec. 558 (Comm'r 1988). 
Moreover, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim that these 
companies each require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, for the position. 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting 
the burden ofproofin these proceedings. Matter ofSo.ffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of Caf?fornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm'r 1972)). 
Furthermore, as noted by the director, providing the credentials for one individual for each of three 
companies does not establish a pattern of hiring within each company, nor does it serve as a 
representative sample across the Petitioner's industry as a whole, from which we can draw the 
conclusion that such a requirement is in fact common. 16 
15 The two individuals' employment records submitted by the petitioner show that they are paid $27.56 per hour and 
$37.14 per hour, while the proffered position's salary is $21.55 per hour. 
16 Although the size of the relevant study population is unknown, the petitioner does not demonstrate what statistically 
valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from the letters 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 (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 of population parameters and 
estimates of error"). 
As such, even if the letters supported the finding that the position requires a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent, it cannot be found that such a limited number of letters 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 require at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty for entry into the occupation in the United 
States. 
1'"7 
Matter of S-B-C-, LLC 
We have reviewed the record and find no evidence that the Petitioner normally requires a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the proffered position. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the third criterion of 8 C.F.R § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). 
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 in a spec(fic specialty, or its equivalent 
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. 
Upon review of the record of the proceeding, we find that the Petitioner has not provided probative 
evidence to satisfy this criterion of the regulations. In' the instant case, relative specialization and 
complexity have not been sufficiently developed by the Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered 
position. That is, the proposed duties have not been described with sufficient specificity to establish 
that they 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 further incorporate our earlier discussion and analysis regarding the duties of the proffered 
position, and the designation of the proffered position in the LCA as a Level I position (the lowest of 
four assignable wage-levels) relative to others within the occupational category. Without more, the 
position is one not likely distinguishable by relatively specialized and complex duties. That is, 
without further evidence, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that its proffered position is one with 
specialized and complex duties as such a position falling under this occupational category would 
likely be classified at a higher-level, such as a Level III (experienced) or Level IV (fully competent) 
position, requiring a substantially higher prevailing wage. 17 
The Petitioner has submitted insufficient evidence to satisfy this criterion of the regulations. We, 
therefore, conclude that the Petitioner did not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)( 4). 
The Petitioner's reference to an unpublished decision in which we determined that the position of 
market research analyst proffered in that matter qualified as a specialty occupation is noted. 
However, the Petitioner has furnished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition 
are analogous to those in the unpublished decision. While 8 C.F.R § 103.3(c) provides that our 
17 As previously discussed, a Level IV (fully competent) position is designated by DOL for employees who "use 
advanced skills and diversified knowledge to solve unusual and complex problems" and requires a significantly higher 
wage. 
18 
Matter of S-B-C-, LLC 
precedent decisions are binding on all USCIS employees m the administration of the Act, 
unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. 
For the reasons related in the preceding discussion, the Petitioner has not established that it has 
satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) and, therefore, it cannot be found that 
the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
III. BENEFICIARY QUALIFICATIONS 
We do not need to examine the issue of the Beneficiary's qualifications, because the Petitioner has 
not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation. In other words, the Beneficiary's credentials to perform a particular job are relevant 
only when the job is found to be a specialty occupation. 
As discussed in this decision, the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence regarding the 
proffered position to determine whether it will require a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent. Absent this determination that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty or its equivalent is required to perform the duties of the proffered position, it also 
cannot be determined whether the Beneficiary possesses that degree or its equivalent. 
IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 
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; Matter o[Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 18 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofS-B-C-, LLC, ID# 13672 (AAO Oct. 7, 2015) 
18 Since the identified bases for denial are dispositive of the petitioner's appeal, we will not address other grounds of 
ineligibility we observe in the record of proceeding. 
19