dismissed H-1B Case: Marketing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF N-L-, INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 3, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a used car dealer, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "marketing 
specialist" 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 
knowledgeand (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation in 
accordance with the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the Director erred by finding that the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a 
non-exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered 
position must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
Matter ofN-L-, Inc. 
(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 hy 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). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has 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. 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 
In support of the petition, the Petitioner submitted a copy of its offer of employment letter to the 
Beneficiary, which indicated the following job duties for the proffered position: 
• Assisting sales and marketing management with advertising materials 
• Delivering compelling promotional marketing programs that build the brand and 
drive sales 
• Forecasting and tracking marketing and sales trends; analyzing collected data 
• Measuring the effectiveness of marketing, advertising, and communications 
programs and strategies 
• Providing and recommending new marketing tactics 
• Researching potential marketing contacts 
• Seeking and analyzing competitor marketing and sales materials both on and 
offline 
In response to the Direct~r's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner summarized the duties of the 
proffered position as follows: 
[The Beneficiary] will be responsible for developing and executing marketing 
programs and strategies for expansion, creating and enhancing customer 
relationships, leveraging customer-insight data, refining brand management, and 
2 
Matter ofN-L-, Inc. 
driving profitable sales, brand growth and loyalty for a number of business areas. 
[The Beneficiary] will also be performing analysis of marketing and sales data, and 
seeking and analyzing competitors marketing and sales materials. 
Regarding the minimum educational requirements for the proffered position, the Petitioner initially 
indicated that the position requires a master's degree in business administration with a specialization 
in marketing. In response to the RFE, however, the Petitioner stated that the position requires a 
bachelor's degree or higher in marketing or business administration marketing. 
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 (1) does not describe the position's duties with sufficient detail; and (2) does 
not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate 
with a specialty occupation. 2 
A. First Criterion 
We turn 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's) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses? 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted to support the H-1B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Marketing Research Analysts and 
Marketing Specialists" corresponding to Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 13-1161, 
at a Level I wage. 4 
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 8 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, available at http:liwww.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 We will consider the Petitioner's classification of the proffered position at a Level I 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 
3 
Matter of N-L-, Inc. 
The subchapter of the Handbook entitled "How to Become a Market Research Analyst" states in 
pertinent part: "Market research analysts typically need a bachelor's degree in market research or a 
related field. Many have degrees in fields such as statistics, math, and computer science. Others 
have backgrounds in business administration, the social sciences, or communications." 5 It further 
states, "[ c ]ourses 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. "6 
The Handbook does not support the assertion that at least a bachelor's degree in a spec(fic specialty, 
or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into a market research analyst 
position. Rather, the Handbook reports that marketing specialists 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 "[m]any" 
market research analysts have degrees in fields such as statistics, math, or computer science. 
According to the Handbook, other market research analysts have backgrounds in fields such as 
business administration, the social sciences, or communications. This passage of the 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 or consumer behavior) are also important. 
In general, provided the specialties· are closely related, e.g., statistics and math, a minimum of a 
bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty is recognized as satisfying the "degree in the 
specific specialty (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 market 
research and computer science, 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.7 Section 
214(i)(l)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). The Petitioner has not done so here. 
Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, e~ercise of judgment; (2) that she will 
be closely supervised and her work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that she 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 _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 
requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. !d. A Level I wage should be considered for research fellows, workers 
in training, or internships. !d. 
5 U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., "Market Research 
Analysts," http://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial!print/market-research-analysts.htm (last visited Aug. 2, 20 16). 
6 !d. 
' 7 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 
4 
Matter ofN-L-, Inc. 
The Handbook also states that some employees 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. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139 at 147. 
USCIS interprets the degree requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to require a degree in a 
specific specialty (or its equivalent) that is directly related to the proposed position. 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). 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 specific specialty (or its equivalent) is not normally 
'the minimum entry requirement for this occupation.8 
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 and marketing specialists to achieve the Professional Researcher 
Certification (PRC), and states that candidates qualify based upon their experience and knowledge. 
According to the Handbook, the credential is granted by the Marketing Research Association to 
those who pass .an exam and have at least three years of experience working in opinion and market 
research.9 
We reviewed the Marketing Research Association's 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). Specifically, the Market Research Association 
emphasizes that the credentialing program recognizes the qualifications and expertise of marketing 
and opinion research professionals, encourages high standards within the profe~sion, and establishes 
an objective measure of an individual's knowledge and proficiency. According to the association's 
website, the credential indicates to the public an individual's ability to conduct market research. The 
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. 
8 A general degree requirement does not necessarily preclude a proffered position from qualifYing as a specialty 
occupation: For example, an entry requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in business administration with a 
concentration in a specific field, or a bachelor's or 'higher degree in business administration combined with relevant 
education, training, and/or experience may, in certain instances, qualifY the proffered position as a specialty occupation. 
In either case, it must be demonstrated that the entry requirement is equivalent to a bachelor's or higher degree in a 
specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d at 147. 
9 The Marketing Research Association website states that the association was founded in 1957 and is the leading and 
largest association of opinion and marketing research professions. For additional information, see http://www. 
marketingresearch.org/information (last visited Aug. 2, 20 16). 
5 
Matter of N-L-, Inc. 
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 does not indicate that market research analyst positions have any particular 
academic requirements for entry, nor does it indicate that these positions require any particular level 
of education to be identified as qualified and possessing a level of expertise/competence. Instead, 
the Market Research Association highlights the importance of professional experience and industry­
related professional courses (through conferences, seminars, and webinars). 
Thus, the Handbook and the Market Research Association website 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. Even if they did (which they do not), to satisfy the first criterion, the Petitioner must 
provide evidence to support a finding that the particular position proffered would normally have 
such a minimum, specialty degree requirement or its equivalent. 
The Petitioner also referenced the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) OnLine Summary 
Report for "Market Research Analysts and Marketing Specialists." The summary report provides 
general information regarding the 6ccupation; however, it does not support the Petitioner's assertion 
regarding the educational requirements for the occupation. For example, the Specialized Vocational 
Preparation (SVP) rating cited within O*NET's Job Zone designates this occupation as 7 < 8. An 
SVP rating of 7 to less than ("<") 8 indicates that the occupation requires "over 2 years up to and 
including 4 years" of training. Further, while the SVP rating indicates the total number of years of 
vocational preparation required for a particular position, it is important to note that it does not 
describe how those years are to be divided among training, formal education, and experience- and it 
does not specify the particular type of degree, if any, that a position would require.10 
Further, the summary report provides the educational requirements of "respondents," but does not 
account for 100% of the "respondents." The respondents' positions within the occupation are not 
distinguished by career level (e.g., entry-level, mid-level, senior-level). Additionally, the graph in 
the summary report does not indicate that the "education level" for the respondents must be in a 
specific specialty. 
In the appeal, the Petitioner cites to Residential Financial Corp. v. USCJS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. 
Ohio 2012), in which the court stated that "[t]he knowledge and not the title ofthe degree is what is 
important. Diplomas rarely come bearing occupation-specific majors. What is required is an 
occupation that requires highly specialized knowledge and a prospective employee who has attained 
the credentialing indicating possession of that knowledge." 
We agree with the aforementioned proposition that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is 
what is important." As we discussed above, there must be a close correlation between the required 
1° For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at 
http://www.onetonline.org/help/online/svp. 
6 
Matter of N-L-, Inc. 
"body of highly specialized knowledge" and the position, however, a minimum entry requirement of 
a degree in two disparate fields, such as market research and computer science, 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. Section 214(i)(1)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). As 
stated above, 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. We also note that the test to establish a 
position as a specialty occupation is not the skill set or education of a proposed beneficiary, but 
whether the position itselfqualifies as a specialty occupation. 
In any event, the Petitioner has furnished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition 
are analogous to those in Residential Finance. 11 We note that, 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, 719-20 (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. 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient_ documentation from a probative source to substantiate its 
assertion regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. Thus, the 
Petitioner 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 
contemplates the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
11 It is noted that the district judge's decision in that case appears to have been based largely on the many factual errors 
made by the Director in the decision denying the petition. We further note that the Director's decision was not appealed 
to us. Based on the district court's findings 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 
for many of the same reasons articulated by the district court if these errors could not have been remedied by us in our de 
novo review of the matter. 
7 
Matter ofN-L-, Inc. 
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. 
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)(quoting Hird!Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook, or 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 attesting that 
such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." While we acknowledge the 
Petitioner's submission of letters from several of its industry partners, these letters simply verify the 
legitimacy of the Petitioner's company and do not state an industry-wide hiring standard for similar 
positions. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 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 degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
Here, the evidence of record does not credibly demonstrate relative complexity or uniqueness as aspects 
of the proffered position. Specifically, it is unclear how the proffered marketing specialist position, as 
described, necessitates the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge such that a person who has attained 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 of the proffered position. 12 While the Petitioner listed 
12 As previously noted in our decision, the Petitioner has inconsistently stated that it requires a minimum of a master's 
degree in business administration with a specialization in marketing, as well as a bachelor's degree in marketing or 
business administration marketing. The Petitioner has not reconciled its inconsistent statements. 
8 
Matter of N-L-, Inc. 
a few marketing-related courses that the Beneficiary completed, we again emphasize that 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 evidence of record does not distinguish the proffered position from similar positions within the 
occupational category which do not require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the 
equivalent. In this respect, we find that the Petitioner has not described the proffered position and 
its constituent duties in sufficient detail to convey the actual tasks the Beneficiary will perform 
within the specific context of the Petitioner's operations. Take, for instance, the proffered job duty 
of "[a]ssisting sales and marketing management with advertising materials." Considering that the 
Petitioner claims to have three total employees - and only one person operating the company - the 
record is insufficient to demonstrate what "sales and marketing management" personnel the 
Beneficiary will assist, and moreover, how the Beneficiary will be relieved from performing other 
non-qualifying duties.13 As another example, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary "will also be 
performing analysis of marketing and sales data," but has not explained which of its three employees 
perform the actual sales for its company or prepare the marketing and sales data which the 
Beneficiary will then analyze. 
The lack of relative complexity or uniqueness as aspects of the proffered position 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. Without further 
evidence, the evidence does not demonstrate that the 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.14 For example, a Level IV (fully competent) position is designated by DOL for 
13 The letter from the Petitioner's CEO states that she has "successfully operated this company alone for the past five 
years." While this letter also states that the Petitioning company has "3 employees and a small support team, such as 
[an] account manager and a secretary," there is no further explanation or evidence regarding the Petitioner's other 
employees and the "small support team." The Petitioner represented itself as a three-employee company on the Form 
l-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker. 
It is reasonable to assume that the size of an employer's business has or could have an impact on the claimed duties of a 
particular position. See EG Enters., Inc. v. Dep 't of Homeland Sec., 467 F. Supp~ 2d 728 (E. D. Mich. 2006). The size of 
a petitioner may be considered as a component of the nature of the petitioner's business, as the size impacts upon the 
actual duties of a particular position. In this matter, the job descriptions provided both initially and in response to the 
Director's RFE do not contain sufficient detail and corroborating evidence to demonstrate that the duties, as described, 
will actually be performed by the Beneficiary. 
14 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 
I 
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 
9 
Matter ofN-L-, Inc. 
employees who "use advanced skills and diversified knowledge to solve unusual and complex 
problems." 15 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. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it 
normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. 
The Petitioner stated that it has not previously hired anyone for the proffered position. Thus, the record 
does not establish a prior history of hiring for the proffered position of only persons with at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not 
satisfied the third criterion of8 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 requi~ed to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. 
We have reviewed the Petitioner's statements and documents regarding the proffered position and 
the Petitioner's business operations. However, relative specialization and complexity have not been 
sufficiently developed 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 incorporate our earlier discussion regarding the insufficiency of the 
Petitioner's job descriptions within the specific context of the Petitioner's operations. 
Further, the Petitioner designated the proffered position as an entry-level position within the 
occupational category (by selecting a Level I wage). This designation, when read in combination 
with the Petitioner's job descriptions and the evidence, further suggests that the particular position is 
not so specialized and complex that the duties can only be performed an individual with bachelor's 
degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
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)( I) of the Act. 
15 
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 _II_ 2009.pdf 
10 
Matter of N-L-, Inc. 
Although the Petitioner asserts that the nature of the specific duties is specialized and complex, it has 
not demonstrated in the record that its proffered position is one with duties sufficiently specialized 
and complex to satisfy 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The burden is on the 
Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofN-L-, Inc., ID# 17635 (AAO Aug. 3, 2016) 
1 1