dismissed H-1B Case: Marketing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF P-S-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 27, 2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a developer and manufacturer of memory storage devices, seeks to temporarily 
employ the Beneficiary as a "global marketing operations manager" un9er the H -1 B nonimmigrant 
classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-1B program allows a U.S. employer to 
temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a position that requires both (a) the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and (b) the attainment of a 
bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for 
entry into the position. 
The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish that: (1) the proffered position was a specialty occupation; or (2) the 
Beneficiary was qualified to perform the services of a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Director erred in denying 
the petition. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
The first issue before us is whether the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
A. Legal Framework 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
Matter of P-S-, Inc. 
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 profiered 
position must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
(I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that 
knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A). We have consistently interpreted the term "degree" in the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a 
specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Cherto.ff; 
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"); Delensor v. A1eissner, 
201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
B. Proffered Position 
On the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant, the Petitioner described itself as a memory storage 
company. In its support letter, the Petitioner listed the duties of the proffered position as follows: 
• Collaborating with senior management personnel of [the Petitioner's] 
Channel, Campaigns, Communications, Digital, Events, Field, and Creative 
teams to implement the necessary changes and manage the consolidation of 
the company's channel marketing practices; 
• Building and managing campaigns ( emails, webinars, events, nurture 
programs) in Marketo and Salesforce.com; 
• Overseeing the performance of campaigns and exercising managerial 
authority to make adjustments as necessary; 
• Leading and driving the adoption of global marketing processes, systems and 
tools; 
• Managing key initiatives such as: launches, web platform upgrades, events, 
branding updates, campaigns, geo expansion, budget changes, etc.; 
2 
Matter of P-S-, Inc: 
• Leading a forum for the exchange of best practices across [the Petitioner's] 
Marketing; 
• Apply managerial discretion to determine specific marketing methods and 
best practices to increase the number of leads produced by Marketing and 
improving the rate at which those leads are converted into opportunities for 
Sales; and 
• [I]nterfacing with peer managerial personnel, inside and outside the company, 
across functions and time zones, to implement and control channel marketing 
initiatives. 
The Petitioner stated that the duties of the position are "so complex and specialized that the 
knowledge required to perform them is usually associated with the attainment of a Bachelor's degree 
in Marketing, Communications, or a related field, or the equivalent in experience and training." 
C. 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 satisfies any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) and, therefore, qualifies as a specialty occupation. Specifically, the record does 
not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate 
with a specialty occupation. 1 
1. First.Criterion 
We tum first to the criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J), which requires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position? To inform this inquiry, we recognize the U.S. Department of 
Labor's (DOL's) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties 
and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses.3 
1 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
3 All of our references are to the 2016-17 edition of the Handbook, available at 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 protTered 
position, and USC IS 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. 
3 
Matter of P-S-, Inc. 
On the labor condition application (LCA)4 submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Marketing Managers" 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 11-2021 at a Level I wage. 5 
The subchapter of the Handbook entitled "How to Become an Advertising; Promotions or Marketing 
Manager" states, in relevant part, the following: 
Education 
A bachelor's degree is required for most advertising, promotions, and marketing 
management positions .... 
Most marketing managers need a bachelor's degree. Courses in business law, 
management, economics, finance, computer science, mathematics, and statistics are 
advantageous. For example, courses in computer science are helpful in develop~ng an 
approach to maximize online traffic, by utilizing online search results, because 
maximizing such traffic is critical for digital advertisements and promotions. In 
addition, completing an internship while in school can be useful. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook. 2016-17 ed., 
"Advertising, Promotions, and Marketing Managers,"http://www.b1s.gov/ooh/management/advertis­
ing-promotions-and-marketing-managers.htm#tab-4 (last visited Feb. 22, 2017). 
The Handbook does not report that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, is 
required to perform the duties of positions located within this occupational category. Rather, the 
Handbook notes that a variety of courses may be advantageous but does not specify that such 
positions require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. Further, given the Handbook's 
indication that typical positions located within this occupational category do not require a bachelor's 
4 
The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to USCIS 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" OIZ the actual wage 
paid by the employer to other employees with similar experience and qualifications who are performing the same 
services. See Matter ofSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 545-546 (AAO 20 15). 
5 
We will consider the Petitioner's classification of the proffered position at a Levell wage (the lowest of four assignable 
wage levels) in our analysis of the position. The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" issued by the DOL 
provides a description of the wage levels. A Level I wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which the 
Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the occupation. This wage rate indicates: (I) that the 
Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that 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://tlcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _I I_ 2009.pdf. A prevailing wage determination starts 
with an entry level wage and progresses to a higher wage level after considering the experience, education, and skill 
requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. !d. A Level I wage should be considered for research fellows, workers 
in training, or internships. !d. 
4 
Matter of P-S-, Inc. 
degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, it is unclear how an entry-level position with the 
Level I characteristics discussed would require such a degree, or the equivalent. 
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. There must be a close correlation 
between the required specialized studies and the position; thus, the mere requirement of a degree, 
without further specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter (~l 
Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988) ("The mere requirement of a college 
degree for the sake of general education, or to obtain what an employer perceives to be a higher 
caliber employee, also does not establish eligibility."). Thus, while a general-purpose bachelor's 
degree may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without 
more, will not justify a finding that a particular position qualities for classification as a specialty 
occupation. Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147. 
The Handbook does not support the assertion that a baccalaureate degree in a specific discipline is 
normally the minimum requirement for entry into positions located within this occupational 
category. Further, the Petitioner has not submitted other authoritative sources in suppmi of this 
criterion. Although the Petitioner's submission of various articles addressing the nature of 
"Marketing Operations" is noted, these articles simply provide an overview of the field and its role 
within organizations and their marketing cycles. The articles do not demonstrate that the proffered · 
position in this matter requires a baccalaureate or higher 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). 
2. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs: "The degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may 
show that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree[.]" 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong 
concentrates upon the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
a. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
When 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 
5 
Matter of P-S-, Inc. 
letters or affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms "routinely employ 
and recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanli, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 
1999)(quotingHird/BlakerCorp. v. Sava, 712F. Supp. 1095, ll02(S.D.N.Y.1989)). 
Here and as already discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one. for 
which the Handbook (or other independent, authoritative sources) reports an 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. Also, there are no submissions from 
the industry's professional association indicating that it has made a degree a minimum entry 
requirement. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not submit any letters or affidavits from similar firms 
or individuals in the Petitioner's industry attesting that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only 
degreed individuals." Nor is there any other evidence for our consideration under this prong. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
b. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
To begin with, the record does not credibly demonstrate exactly what the Beneficiary will do on a 
day-to-day basis such that complexity or uniqueness can even be determined. That is, the Petitioner 
does not demonstrate how the Beneficiary's 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. 
The evidence of record does not establish that this position is significantly different from other 
positions within the occupational category such that it refutes the Handbook's information to the 
effect that a few courses are advantageous to obtaining such a position, but not specifying that the 
degree must be in a specific specialty. In other words, the record lacks sutliciently detailed 
information to distinguish the proffered position as unique from or more complex than marketing 
managers, or other closely related positions, that can be performed by persons without at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Although the Petitioner claims that the 
Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position, and references his qualifications; 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. 
Moreover, the Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position located 
within the "marketing manager" occupatiopal category fmiher undermines its claim that the position 
6 
Matter of P-S-, Inc. 
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 21 4(i)(l) of the Act.6 
Here the Petitioner does not demonstrate how the proffered position of marketing manager is so 
complex or unique relative to other positions within the designated occupational category 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. Accordingly, it cannot be concluded that the Petitioner has satisfied 
the second alternative prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
3. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it 
normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. 
To merit approval of the petition under this criterion, the record must establish that a petitioner's 
imposition of a degree requirement is not 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 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, whereby all individuals employed in a particular position possessed a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty, or its equivalent. See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 
388. Evidepce provided in support of this criterion may include, but is not limited to, documentation 
regarding the Petitioner's past recruiting and hiring practices, as well as information regarding 
employees who previously held the position. 
6 
The Petitioner's contention on appeal that its Level I designation "has no bearing on the specialized or complex nature" 
of the position is not persuasive. Again, in designating the position at a Level I wage the petitioner attests to DOL that 
the Beneficiary will (I) that the Beneficiary will perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; 
that he will be closely supervised and his work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and that he will receive 
specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. In addition, the DOL guidance referenced above further 
indicates that Level I positions should be considered for research fellows, workers in training, or internships. 
7 
Matter of P-S-, Inc. 
The Petitioner stated in response to the request for evidence (RFE) that it "has not employed anyone 
else in this, position," and therefore could not demonstrate "a history of qualifications required for 
the role." Based on this statement, it appears that the Beneficiary is the first individual to be 
employed in the proffered position. 
Although the Petitioner submits evidence in the form of resumes and Linkedln profiles pertaining to 
three other individuals it claims held marketing roles within its company, the Petitioner nevertheless 
confirms that no one has previously held the proffered position, which is the subject of this petition. 
Therefore, while the submission of the other employees' credentials is noted, this evidence is not 
sufficient to establish that it normally requires a specialty degree for the proffered position. 
By its own acknowledgement, the Petitioner has not previously hired degreed individuals to fill the 
proffered position in the past. Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the third criterion of 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
4. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature 
of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. 
The Petitioner repeatedly refers to the Beneficiary's experience, as well as ·two evaluation letters 
submitted, which claim that the Beneficiary's professional experience is equivalent to a bachelor's 
degree in marketing. However, the Beneficiary's qualifications do not establish a position as a 
specialty occupation. We again reference the Petitioner's designation of the position in the LCA as a 
Level I position (the lowest of four assignable wage-levels) relative to others within the same 
occupational category. Thus, while the Petitioner is claiming that the proffered position requires the 
performance of specialized and complex duties, it has identified the wage requirement for the 
position to be the lowest wage level available for positions located within the occupational category. 
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. 
Upon review of the totality of the record, we find that relative specialization and complexity have 
not been sufficiently developed by the Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. In other 
words, the proposed duties have not been described with sufficient specificity and consistency within 
the record to show that they are more specialized and complex than a marketing manager position 
that is not usually associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. The Petitioner stresses that the Ben~ficiary, in performing the duties of the proffered 
position, will "improve marketing practices," "strengthen business relationships with our 
customers," "increase customer retention," and "drive growth." It is unclear, however, how these 
standard marketing-related duties would elevate the proffered position to one that is more 
8 
Matter of P-S-, Inc. 
specialized or complex than other similar positions within the occupational category. We find, 
therefore, that 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 ofthe 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. 
II. BENEFICIARY'S QUALIFICATIONS 
The Director also found that the Beneficiary would not be qualified to perform the duties of the 
proffered position if the job had been determined to be a specialty occupation. However, a 
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 proffered position does not require a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Nevertheless, for purposes 
of providing a thorough review of the record we will review the evidence of record under this 
additional basis. 
A. Legal Framework 
Section 214(i)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(2), states that an individual applying for 
classification as an H -1 B nonimmigrant worker must possess: , 
(A) full state licensure to practice in the occupation, if such licensure is required to 
practice in the occupation, 
(B) completion of the degree described in paragraph (1 )(B) for the occupation, or 
(C) (i) experience in the specialty equivalent to the completion of such degree, and 
(ii) recognition of expertise in the specialty through progressively respm;}sible 
positions relating to the specialty. 
In implementing section 214(i)(2) of the Act, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C) states 
that a beneficiary must also meet one of the following criteria in order to qualify to perform services 
in a specialty occupation: 
(I) Hold a United States baccalaureate or higher degree required by the specialty 
occupation from an accredited college or university; 
(2) Hold a foreign degree determined to be equivalent to a United States 
baccalaureate or higher degree required by the specialty occupation from an 
accredited college or university; 
9 
Matter of P-S-. Inc. 
(3) Hold an unrestricted State license, registration or certification which authorizes 
him or her to fully practice the specialty occupation and be immediately engaged 
in that specialty in the state of intended employment; or 
( 4) Have education, specialized training, and/or progressively responsible 
experience that is equivalent to completion of a United States baccalaureate or 
higher degree in the specialty occupation, and have recognition of expertise in 
the specialty through progressively responsible positions directly related to the 
specialty. 
In addition, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(v)(A) states: 
General. If an occupation requires a state or local license for an individual to fully 
perform the duties of the occupation, an alien (except an H -1 C nurse) seeking H 
classification in that occupation must have that license prior to approval of the 
petition to be found qualified to enter the United States and immediately engage in 
employment in the occupation. 
B. Analysis 
The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the services of a 
specialty occupation. 
The Beneficiary does not hold a U.S. degree or its foreign-degree equivalent in the specialty, and the 
record does not demonstrate that a license is required. The Petitioner, therefore, must demonstrate 
that the Beneficiary possesses the equivalent of the required U.S. degree by virtue of both 
(1) education, specialized training, and/or progressively responsible experience in the pertinent 
specialty that is equivalent to completion of such d~gree, and (2) recognition of expertise in the 
specialty through progressively responsible positions relating to the specialty. 
The Petitioner has not met this evidentiary requirement. As discussed in the Director's decision, in 
order to equate a beneficiary's credentials to a U.S. baccalaureate or higher degree, the provisions at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D) require one or more ofthe following: 
( 1) An evaluation from an official who has authority to grant college-level credit for 
training and/or experience in the specialty at an accredited college or university 
which has a program for granting such credit based on an individual's training 
and/or work experience; 
(2) The results of recognized college-level equivalency examinations or special 
credit programs, such as the College Level Examination Program (CLEP), or 
Program on Noncollegiate Sponsored Instruction (PONSI); 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter of P-S-. Inc. 
(3) An evaluation of education by a reliable credentials evaluation service which 
specializes in evaluating foreign educational credentials; 7 
( 4) Evidence of certification or registration from a nationally-recognized 
professional association or society for the specialty that is known to grant 
certification or registration to persons in the occupational specialty who have 
achieved a certain level of competence in the specialty; 
(5) A determination by the Service that the equivalent of the degree required by the 
specialty occupation has been acquired through a combination of education, 
specialized training, and/or work experience in areas related to the specialty and 
that the alien has achieved recognition of expertise in the specialty occupation as 
a result of such training and experience .... 
The criteria at 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(2) and (4) are not factors in this proceeding, as the 
record contains no evidence related to them. 
The criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(3) is inapposite here, as the evaluations provided are 
of the Beneficiary's education considered together with her employment experience, whereas 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(3) pertains to evaluations of education only. 
The criterion at 8 C .. F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(J) pertains to evaluations of education together w·ith 
work experience. This record contains two such evaluations. 
We concur with the Director's finding that the evaluation submitted by Associate 
Professor of Marketing at does not establish eligibility in this matter. 
evaluation does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of a 
specialty occupation under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(l), as the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
that possessed the authority to grant college-level credit for training and/or experience 
at an accredited college or university which had a program for granting such credit based on an 
individual's training and/or work experience at the time that she rendered her assessment. The 
Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter l~( 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a new evaluation from Professor at the Department 
of ~ 
This evaluation also falls short of meeting the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(l). 
Although evaluation is accompanied by a letter from Dean of the 
at 
this letter merely states that has the authority "to make determinations with respect to 
7 
The Petitioner should note that, in accordance with this provision, we will accept a credential evaluation service's 
evaluation of education only, not training and/or work experience. 
II 
(b)(6)
Matter of P-S-, Inc. 
the award of credit for training and experience." According to the letter, it is unclear if 
has the inherent authority to grant credit, or whether he merely makes determinations to be examined 
by other members of the faculty. Moreover, the letter indicates that he is authorized to make 
determinations in the field of finance, business administration, and related fields, but not marketing, 
which is the field to which he equates the Beneficiary's experience. It is unclear, therefore, hO\v 
is qualified to detem1ine that the Beneficiary's possesses the U.S. equivalent to a 
Bachelor's degree in marketing when such a field is not one in which he teaches or is otherwise 
. authorized to make assessments. 
We may, in our discretion, use advisory opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as expert 
testimony. }dafter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (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. I d. 
The remaining criterion for review is 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5). It allows recognition of a 
beneficiary's qualification by USCIS determination that his or her training or work experience is 
equivalent to U.S. baccalaureate coursework in a specific specialty. It is always worth noting that, 
by its very terms, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5) is a matter strictly for USCIS application and 
determination, and that, also by the clear terms of the rule, experience will merit a positive 
determination only to the extent that the record of proceedings satisfies all of the qualifying elements 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5), including the requirement for a type of recognition of expertise 
in the specialty occupation.) 
This criterion provides: 
[I]t must be clearly demonstrated [1] that the alien's training and/or work experience 
included the theoretical and practical application of specialized know·ledge required 
by the specialty occupation; [2] that the alien's experience was gained while working 
with peers, supervisors, or subordinates who have a degree or its equivalent in the 
specialty occupation; and [3] that the alien has recognition of expertise in the 
specialty evidenced by at least one type of documentation such as: 
(i) Recognition of expertise in the specialty occupation by at least 
two recognized authorities in the same specialty occupation8; 
(ii) Membership in a recognized foreign or United States 
association 
or society in the specialty occupation; 
8 Recognized authority means a person or organization with expertise in a particular field, special skills or knowledge in 
that field, and the experti se to render the type of opinion requested . A recognized authority 's opinion must state : (I) the 
writer 's qualifications as an expert ; (2) the writer ' s experience giying such opinions , citing specific instances where past 
opinions have been accepted as authoritative and by whom ; (3) how the conclu sions were reached ; and (4) the basis for 
the conclusions supported by copies or citations of any research material used. 8 C.F .R. § 214 .2(h)(4Xii) . 
12 
(b)(6)
Matter of P-S-, Inc. 
(iii) Published material by or about the alien in professional 
publications, trade journals, books, or major newspapers; 
(iv) Licensure 
or .registration to practice the specialty occupation in 
a foreign country; or 
(v) Achievements which a recognized authority has determined to 
be significant contributions to the field of the specialty 
occupation. 
The record of proceedings includes former employer letters and certificates. How·ever, the record 
does not contain sufficient information regarding the Beneficiary's work experience to meet the 
requirements under 8 C.F .E.. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii){D)(5). 
I 
The Petitioner provided numerous employment verification letters tor the Beneficiary. In support of 
the petition, the Petitioner submitted three letters. The first, from at claims 
that the Beneficiary worked as a marketing operations manager under her supervision at 
from April 2009 to May 2014. The second, from claims that the 
Beneficiary worked as a marketing data and systems executive from November 2007 to January 
2009. The third, from claims that the Beneficiary V:·orked for via 
as an internal trainer from 2002 to 2007. This letter is not on corporate letterhead 
nor does it identify the title or position of 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted four new letters. The first, from 
verifies the prior statements in the letter from confirming the Beneficiary's 
employment there from April 2009 to May 2014. The second, from states that 
the Beneficiary was employed there as a dialer analyst from January 2009 to June 2009. The third 
letter is an updated letter from confirming the statements set forth in the previous 
letter. The fourth letter is from confirming the Beneficiary's employment with 
via from October 2002 to May 2006, and also 
vta from November 2006 to November 2007. This letter is not on corporate 
letterhead and does not identify the title or position of 
The letters, at best, provide the Beneticiary's job titles and a list of duties associated ~with his 
assigned position. The letter from simply provides his job title and dates of 
employment, whereas the two letters from individuals presumed to be representatives of 
provide overviews of third-party work assignments without specific details of the work 
performed. Moreover, the nature of his actual assignments for from 2002 to 2007 is 
unclear, as the documents identify his roles as internal trainer, technical support engineer, technical 
support, and field staff- job titles which, without additional information, suggest his professional 
focus was tailored to technical support. Specifically, we note the letter from states that he 
"provided web-based technical assistance," "handled technical requests,'' and performed "testing of 
new releases." This is particularly relevant, since the letter from Premier Farnell indicates that it 
13 
(b)(6)
Matter of P-S-, Inc. 
hired the Beneficiary to serve as an "in-house expert" on marketing operations in November of 2007, 
immediately after his assignments with and its third-party clients ended. 
The record demonstrates that the Beneficiary has no educational background in 'the field of 
marketing, and no employment history prior to his assignment with 
beginning in 2002. However, according to the letter from referenced above, the 
record suggests that the Beneficiary was a marketing "expert" after his 5 years of employment with 
in various non-marketing, technical support positions. We find this implication to 
be questionable considering the Beneficiary has no documented educational background or training 
in the field of marketing, or prior experience in the field. 
Therefore, while the record contains some information regarding the Beneficiary's work history, it 
does not establish what his actual work experience entails. The letters submitted do not establish 
that this work experience included 
the theoretical and practical application of specialized knowledge 
required by the proffered position; that it was gained while working with peers, supervisors, or 
subordinates who held a bachelor's degree or its equivalent in the field; and that the beneficiary 
achieved recognition of his expertise in the field as evidenced by at least one of the five types of 
documentation delineated in 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5)(i)-(v). 
Accordingly, the Beneficiary does not qualify under any of the criteria set forth at 
8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5)(i)-(v), and therefore does not qualify to perform the duties of a 
specialty occupation under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(C)( 4). As such, the Petitioner has not 
established that the Beneficiary qualifies to perform the duties of a specialty occupation. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The burden is on the Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of P-S-, Inc., ID# 187044 (AAO Feb. 27, 2017) 
14