dismissed H-1B Case: Market Research

MATTER OF A-D-, LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 21,2017 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FO}t A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a wholesale distributor, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "market 
research analyst" under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
The H-1B program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a 
position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish, as required, that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and contends that the petition should be 
approved. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
Matter of A-D-, LLC 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 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.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We have consistently interpreted the term "degree" to mean not just 
any baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the 
proposed position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing 
"a degree requirement in a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and 
responsibilities of a particular position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner stated in the H-1B petition that the Beneficiary will serve as a "market research 
analyst." In its support letter, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would perform the following 
duties: 
• Conduct market research related to consumer requirements, habits and trends to 
create marketing campaigns. 
• Collect data on consumers, competitors and market place, and consolidate 
information into actionable items, reports and presentations. 
• Provide competitive analysis on various companies' market offerings, identify market 
trends, pricing/business models, sales and methods of operation. 
• Understand business objectives and create targeted marketing strategies to reach 
prospective customers. 
• Perform valid and reliable statistical and SWOT analysis and define marketing 
strategies to support the company's overall objectives and business activities. 
• Participate in the forecasting and budgeting process by providing market analysis of 
current and future trends in defined areas and implement best practices. 
The Petitioner provided additional insight into these duties in its response to the Director's notice of 
intent to deny the petition, and then again on appeal. 
2 
Matter of A-D-, LLC 
According to the Petitioner, "[t]his type of knowledge is almost exclusively obtained through 
academic study in a specialized program of study in Business Administration." 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 1 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or 
its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty. occupation.2 
A. First Criterion 
We tum first 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. To inform this inquiry, we recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's 
(DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses.3 
On the labor condition application (LCA)4 submitted in support of the H-1B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Market Research Analysts and 
Marketing Specialists" corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 13-1161.5 
1 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
3 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. 
4 
The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B worker the higher of either 
the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the "area of employment" or the actual wage paid by the 
employer to other employees with similar experience and qualifications who are performing the same services. See 
Matter ofSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 545-546 (AAO 2015). 
5 The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level I wage (the lowest of four assignable wage levels). We will 
consider this selection in our analysis of the position. The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" issued by 
the DOL provides a description of the wage levels. A Level I wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which 
the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the occupation. This wage rate indicates: (1) that 
the Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that he 
will be closely supervised and his work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that he will receive 
specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing 
Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _II_ 2009.pdf A prevailing wage determination starts 
with an entry level wage and progresses to a higher wage level after considering the experience, education, and skill 
3 
Matter of A-D-, LLC 
The Handbook states the following with regard to the educational requirements of positions located 
within this occupational category: 
Most market research analysts need at least a bachelor's degree.' Top research 
positions may reqmre a master's degree. Strong math and analytical skills are 
essential. 
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. 
Education 
Courses in statistics, research methods, and marketing are essential for these workers. 
Courses in communications and social sciences, such as economics or consumer 
behavior, are also important. 
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's degree in 
business administration (MBA). A master's degree is often required fof leadership 
positions or positions that perform more technical research.' 
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. Individuals must complete 20 hours of industry-related 
continuing education courses every 2 years to renew their certification. 
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Market Research 
Analysts (2016-17 ed.). 
The Handbook reports that individuals working in positions located within this occupational 
category have degrees and backgrounds in a wide variety of disparate fields. That is, while the 
Handbook states that employees typically need a bachelor's degree in market research or a related 
field, it continues by specifying that many market research analysts have degrees in fields such as 
statistics, math, or computer science. According to the Handbook, others have backgrounds in fields 
such as business administration, the social sciences, or communications. This passage of the 
requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. ld 
4 
.
Matter of A-D-, LLC 
Handbook identifies various courses as essential to this occupation, including statistics, research 
methods, and marketing. It further elucidates that courses in communications and social sciences 
(such as economics, psychology, and sociology) are also important. Therefore, although the 
Handbook indicates that market research analysts typically need a degree, it also indicates that 
degrees and backgrounds in various fields are acceptable for jobs located within this occupational 
category - including computer sciende and the social sciences, as well as statistics and 
communications. 
In general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry and biochemistry, a minimum 
of a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty is recognized as satisfying the "degree in 
the specific specialty (or its equivalent)" requirement of section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act. In such a 
case, the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" would essentially be the same. Since 
there must be a close correlation between the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" and 
the position, however, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in disparate fields, such as 
philosophy and engineering, would not meet the statutory requirement that the degree be "in the 
specific specialty (or its equivalent)," unless the petitioner establishes how each field is directly 
related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position such that the required body of 
highly specialized knowledge is essentially an amalgamation of these different specialties. 6 Section 
214(i)(l)(B) ofthe Act (emphasis added). 
The Handbook also states that "others have a background in business administration." 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., 
484 F.3d at 147. Therefore, the Handbook's recognition that a general, non-specialty "background" 
in business administration is sufficient for positions located within this occupational category 
strongly suggests that a bachelor's degree in a spec~fic specialty is not normally the minimum entry 
requirement for this occupation. 
The narrative of the Handbook further reports that some employees obtain professional certification 
to demonstrate a level of professional competency. It continues by outlining the requirements for 
market research analysts to achieve the PRC, and states that candidates qualify based upon their 
experience and knowledge. According to the Handbook, the credential is granted by the 
- now known as the 7 - to those who pass an exam and 
have at least three years of experience working in market research. 8 
6 Whether read with the statutory "the" or the regulatory "a," both readings denote a singular "specialty." Section 
214(i)( I )(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. 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. 
7 The 
become the 
merged with the 
See http:t 
5 
in 2017 to -
(last visited June 19, 20 17). The 
.
Matter of A-D-, LLC 
We reviewed the website, which confirms the Handbook's statement 
regarding the requirements for professional certification (i.e., passage of an exam and three years of 
relevant industry experience), and further specifies that the education necessary to apply for 
professional certification is "12 industry-related education hours within the two preceding years." It 
also emphasizes that · the credentialing program differentiates the individual who takes it and 
provides a '"badge' of competence in the given areas and an assurance that the individual is current 
in knowledge and experience." The narrative continues by stating that the credential "provides a 
vehicle for developing a pool of well-trained, competent marketing researchers, thereby improving 
both perceived and substantive standards." The website includes information regarding "How to 
Enter the Industry" which lists a variety of possible degrees, such as business administration, liberal 
arts, computer science and communications, and a variety of "helpful skills," including "attention to 
detail," and "basic computer skills." It does not indicate that a market research analyst position has 
any specific minimum academic requirement for entry, nor does it state that it requires any particular 
level of education to be identified as qualified and possessing a level of expertise/competence. 
Instead, highlights the importance of professional experience and industry-related professional 
courses (through conferences, seminars, and webinars). 
Thus, the Handbook and the website therefore do not support the claim that the 
occupational category "Market Research Analysts" is one for which normally the minimum 
requirement for entry is a baccalaureate degree (or higher) in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
The Petitioner also submits information from DOL's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) 
and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) for our consideration under the first criterion. 
Upon review, we find neither resource persuasive. 
O*NET assigns these positions a "Job Zone Four" rating, which groups it among occupations for 
which "most ... require a four-year bachelor's degree, but some do not." It is therefore not clear 
that a bachelor's degree is even required, which is consistent with the Handbook. Further, as 
indicated above a requirement for a bachelor's degree alone is not sufficient. Instead, we have 
consistently interpreted the term "degree" to mean not just any baccalaureate or higher degree, but 
one in a ,specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal Siam Corp., 
484 F.3d at 147; Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387. O*NET does not indicate that when a four-year 
bachelor's degree is required, that it must be in a specific specialty directly related to the occupation, 
or the equivalent. For both reasons, this information does not establish the proffered position as a 
specialty occupation. 
The DOT is similarly unpersuasive. Its rating system - the Specific Vocational Preparation (SVP) 
rating - is not probative of the proffered position being a specialty occupation, as these ratings are 
is therefore the successor to the 
~ The Insights Association website states that it "strives to effectivel y ~epresent , advance , and grow the research 
profession and industry ." For additional 
information , see http://wwv. about (last visited June 19, 
2017) . 
6 
.
Matter of A-D- , LLC 
meant to indicate only the total number of years of training required for a particular position and do 
not describe how those years are to be divided among training, formal education, and experience, 
and do not specify the particular type of degree, if any, that a position would require.9 
Nor does the position evaluation the Petitioner submits meet its burden. According to Professor 
a bachelor's degree in business administration would adequately prepare an individual 
to perform the duties of the proffered position. That conclusion is consistent with the Handbook. 
Once again, however, the issue here is that a requirement for a bachelor's degree in business 
administration is inadequate to establish that the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. For this 
reason alone, Professor evaluation does not satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). · 
However, even if we set that foundational deficiency aside we would still find that Professor . 
evaluation did not satisfy the first criterion. Professor does not discuss the duties of the 
proffered position or the Petitioner's business operation in meaningful detail beyond a two-sentence 
summarization. Nor does he describe the duties of the proffered position in any meaningful detail 
beyond a bullet-pointed narrative provided by the Petitioner, and he does not describe 
them within 
the context in which they actually be performed within the Petitioner's specific business operation. 
Moreover, he does not reference the Petitioner's Level I wage-level designation, arid we question 
whether he was aware that the proffered position is an entry-level position. Considered collectively, 
we find that these shortcomings indicate an incomplete review of the proffered position. 
We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of 
Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'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. !d. Consistent with Caron Int 'l, we find that this evaluation does 
not satisfy 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)( J) and, for the sake of efficiency, hereby incorporate this 
finding into our analysis of the remaining specialty-occupation criteria. 
Nor are we persuaded by the case law the Petitioner cites. The Petitioner cites Raj and Co. v. 
USCIS, 85 F. Supp. 3d 1241, 1246 (W.D. Wash. 2015), and indicates that it is relevant here.10 The 
employer in that case had designated the position as a "Marketing Analyst & Specialist" position. 11 
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 duties, supervisory duties, independet:!t 
judgment required 
or the amount of supervision received are analogous to the proffered position 
9 For more information about SVP ratings, see O*NET Online Help Specific Vocational Preparation (SVP), 
https://www.onetonline.org/help/online/svp (last visited June 19, 20 17). ' 
10 
In contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case law of a United States circuit court, we are not bound to 
follow the published decision of a United States district court in matters arising even within the same district. See Matter 
of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715 (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 719. 
11 
It is important to note and distinguish within tlie court's decision that "Marketing Analyst & Specialist" refers to the 
employer's particular position, whereas "Market Research Analysts" refers to a general occupational category. 
7 
Matter of A-D-, LLC 
here.12 Accordingly, aside from the apparent shared occupational category, there is no indication 
that the positions are similar. 
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 our 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. 13 
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.14 The occupational category designated by a petitioner is considered as an aspect 
in establishing the general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered position, and we regularly review 
the Handbook on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it 
addresses. 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, we do 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. We must examine the ultimate 
12 
We note that the service center director's decision was not appealed to our office. Based on the district court's 
findings and description of the record, ifthat 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. 
13 
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)(l )(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). 
14 
In Raj, the court quoted a brief excerpt from the Handbook; however, the quotation is from the 2012-2013 edition 
rather than the current 2016-2017 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. 
8 
Matter of A-D-, LLC 
-
employment of the beneficiary, and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. See generally Defensor, 201 F.3d at 384. 
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 nonnally the minimum requirement for entry. Thus, the petitioner has not 
satisfied the first criterion. 
The Petitioner also cites to Residential Finance Corp. v. USCIS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 
2012) as relevant here. We agree with the proposition that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the 
degree is what is important." For the aforementioned reasons, however, the Petitioner has not met 
its burden to establish that the particular position offered in this matter requires a bachelor's or 
higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, directly related to its duties in order to 
perform those tasks. 
As in Raj, the H-IB petition in Residential Finance was (never appealed to our office through the 
available administrative process. Nevertheless we note that the district judge's decision in 
Residential Finance appears to have been based largely on the many factual errors made by the 
servi~e 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 
Finance. See Health Carousel, LLC v. USCIS, No. 1:13-CV-23, 2014 WL 29591 (S.D. Ohio 
2014).15 
15 
The remaining case Jaw cited by the Petitioner is acknowledged. However, the facts in most of those decisions are not 
analogous to the instant petition, as they involved immigrant visa petitions and whether the beneficiaries of those 
petitions were members of the professions as defined in section IOI(a)(32) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § IIOI(a)(32), and as 
that term was previously interpreted. The issue before us is whether the Petitioner's proffered position qualifies as a 
nonimmigrant H-1 8 specialty occupation- not whether it is a profession. 
The primary and fundamental difference between qualifying as a profession and qualifying as a specialty occupation is 
that specialty occupations require the U.S. bachelor's or higher degree to be in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
Thus, while an occupation may be specifically identified as qualifying as a profession as defined in section I 0 I (a)(32) of 
the Act, that occupation would not necessarily qualify as a specialty occupation unless it met the definition of that term 
at section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 
9 
Matter of A-D-, LLC 
The Petitioner also submits copies of unpublished AAO decisions in which we determined that the, 
market research analyst positions proffered in those matters qualified as a specialty occupation. 
These decisions were not published as a precedent and therefore do not bind USCIS officers in future 
adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c). Non-precedent decisions apply existing law and policy to the 
specific facts of the individual case, and may be distinguishable based on the evidence in the record of 
proceedings, the issues considered, and applicable law and policy. Furthermore, any suggestion that 
we must review unpublished decisions and possibly request and review each case file relevant to 
those decisions, while being impractical and inefficient, would also be a shift in the evidentiary 
burden in these proceedings from the Petitioner to the agency, which would be contrary to section 
291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. ' 
For all of these reasons, we find that the Petitioner has not established that the proffered position is 
located within an occupational category for which the Handbook, or any other relevant, authoritative 
source, indicates that the normal minimum entry requirement is at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or the equivalent. Consequently, the evidence of record does not support a finding 
that the particular position proffered here, an entry-level position located within the "Market 
Research Analysts and Marketing Specialists" occupational category, would normally have such a 
minimum specialty degree requirement, or the equivalent. The Petitioner therefore has not satisfied 
the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
B. Second Criterion 
"-
The second criterion presents two alternative prongs: "The degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may 
show that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong 
casts its gaze upon the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
We generally consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there is such a common 
degree requirement: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the 
industry's professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether 
letters or affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry establish that such firms "routinely 
employ and recruit only de greed 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) 
(considering these "factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
10 
Matter of A-D-, LLC 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook, or another authoritative source, reports a requirement for at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, we incorporate by reference the previous discussion 
on the matter. Also, there are no submissions from the industry's professional association indicating 
that it has made a degree a minimum entry requirement. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not submit 
any letters or affidavits from similar firms or individuals in the Petitioner's industry to establish that 
such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." 
The record contains six job vacancy announcements for our consideration under this prong. To be 
relevant for that consideration, the positions advertised in these job vacancy announcements must 
involve "parallel positions," and the announcements must have been placed by organizations that 
(1) conduct business in the Petitioner's "industry" and (2) are otherwise "similar" to the Petitioner. 
Upon review, we find that none of these job vacancy announcements meet that threshold. 
We will first consider whether any of the advertised job opportunities could be considered "parallel 
positions." As noted, the Petitioner attested to DOL that the proffered position is a Level I, entry­
level position. However, all six of the advertised positions require work experience. In addition, 
one of the positions contains the word "senior" in its job title. These factors indicate that the 
advertised positions are not entry-level positions, and that they therefore do not "parallel" the one 
proffered here. 
Nor does the record contain evidence sufficient to establish that that these positons were placed by 
companies that (1) conduct business in the Petitioner's industry and (2) are also otherwise "similar" 
to the Petitioner in any essential nature. The Petitioner describes itself as a wholesale distributor 
with five employees. The advertisers include a staffing agency, an inspection company with more 
than 85,000 employees, and a leading global provider of information technology and digital 
marketing solutions that has more than 27,000 retail locations. 
For all of these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that any of these job vacancy 
announcements are relevant. Even if that threshold had been met, we would find that they did not 
satisfy this prong of the second criterion, as they do not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a spectfic 
specialty, or the equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations.
16 
To the contrary, some advertisers indicate that a degree in any field of study would 
16 
In addition, the Petitioner does not demonstrate what statistically valid inferences, if any, could be drawn from the job 
postings with regard to the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. 
See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 (7th ed. 1995). Moreover, given that there is no 
indication that the advertisements were randomly selected, the validity of any such inferences could not be accurately 
determined even if the sampling unit were sufficiently large. See id. at 195-96 (explaining that "[r]andom selection is the 
key to [the] process [of probability sampling]" and that "random selection offers access to the body of probability theory, 
which provides the basis for estimates of population parameters and estimates of error"). 
As such, even if the job vacancy announcements supported the finding that the position requires a bachelor's or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, it could not be found that such a limited number ofpostings that appear to 
1 1 
Matter of A-D-, LLC 
suffice, and several state that they would find acceptable a bachelor's degree in business, with no 
further specializati~n. 
Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degr~e in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
We find that the Petitioner has not sufficiently developed relative complexity or uniqueness as an 
aspect of the proffered position. In other words, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the duties 
of the proffered position as described in the record 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 example, the Petitioner did not submit 
informatiqn relevant to a detailed course of study leading to a specialty degree and establish how 
such a curriculum would be necessary to perform the duties it believes ary so complex and unique. 
While a few related courses may be beneficial, or even required, in performing cdrtain duties of the 
position, we find that the Petitioner has not demonstrated how an established curriculum of such 
courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is 
required to perform the duties of the proffered position. 
The Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, is 
normally required for positions located within the occupational category designated by the 
Petitioner. The Petitioner's implications that the knowledge and associated entry requirements 
associated with the proffered position exceed those of other positions located within the occupational 
category are acknowledged. For example, the Petitioner emphasizes the complex nature of the 
position and its constituent duties throughout the petition. However, the Petitioner's' Level I wage 
designation undercuts any daim that it satisfies this criterion.17 In other words, if typical positions 
located within the occupational category do not require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
have been consciously selected could credibly refute the findings of the Handbook published by the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics that such a position does not normally 'require at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
17 
The Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position undermines its claim that the position is 
particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation. Nevertheless, a 
Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty occupation, just as a 
Level IV wage-designation does not definitively establish such a classification. In certain occupations (e.g., doctors or 
lawyers), a Level I, entry-level position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent, for entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designation would not reflect that an occupation qualifies 
as a specialty occupation if that higher-level position does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. That is, a position's wage-level designation may be a relevant factor but is not 
itself conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)(l) of the Act. '-
12 
Matter of A-D-, LLC 
the equivalent, then it is unclear how a position with the Level I characteristics described above 
would, regardless of these assertions. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position, and references his 
qualifications repeatedly. 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. We find that Petitioner did not 
sufficiently develop relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position, and 
that 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 of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it 
normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. The 
record must establish that a petitioner's imposition of a degree requirement is not merely a matter of 
preference for high-caliber candidates, but is necessitated instead by performance requirements of 
the position. See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. If we were solely limited to reviewing the 
Petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, then any individual with a bachelor's degree could 
be brought to the United States to perform any occupation as long as the Petitioner created a token 
degree requirement. Id. Evidence provided in support of this criterion may include, but is not 
limited to, documentation regarding the Petitioner's past recruitment and hiring practices, as well as 
information regarding employees who previously held the position. 
The Petitioner concedes that this is a newly-created position. Though the Petitioner briefly 
references the individual who performed some of these duties in the past, it submits no evidence to 
substantiate its claims regarding his educational background. Further, given that this individual is 
also the company's owner, we question whether he was subjected to the type of Level I oversight 
inherent to the proffered position and, therefore, whether he actually held the same position 
proffered here. 
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). 
D. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature 
of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. · 
13 
Matter of A-D-, LLC 
We acknowledge the Petitioner's assertions regarding the specialization and complexity of the 
position's duties. However, as above, those claims are undermined by the Petitioner's Level I wage 
designation. Again, in classifying the proffered position at a Level I (entry-level) wage, the 
Petitioner effectively attested to DOL that the Beneficiary would perform routine tasks that require 
limited, if any, exercise of judgment, that he would be closely supervised and his work closely 
monitored and reviewed for accuracy, and that he would receive specific instructions on required 
tasks and expected results. 18 The DOL guidance referenced above states that an employer should 
consider a Level I wage designation when the job offer is for a research fellow, a worker in training, 
or an internship. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated in the record that its proffered position is one with duties 
sufficiently specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4), 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 19 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-D-, LLC, ID# 407600 (AAO June 21, 2017) 
18 
Again, the Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position undermines its claim that the 
position is particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation. 
19 
Because this issue precludes approval of the petition we will not address any of the additional deficiencies we have 
observed in our de novo review of this matter. 
14