dismissed H-1B Case: Marketing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9895146 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-1B) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 14, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "senior retail shopper marketing 
manager" 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 Vermont Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish 
that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
The petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate el igibi I ity by a preponderance of the evidence.1 
The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) reviews the questions in this matter de nova. 2 Upon de 
nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Act defines an H-1B nonimmigrant as a foreign national "who is 
coming temporarily to the United States to perform services . .. in a specialty occupation described in 
section 214(i)(1) ... " (emphasis added). Section 214(i)(I) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(I), defines 
the term "specialty occupation" as an occupation that requires "theoretical and practical application of 
a body of highly specialized knowledge, and 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 section 214(i)(I) of the Act but adds a 
non-exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) provides that the 
1 Section 291 of the Act ; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
2 See Matter of Christa's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
proffered position must also meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation 
position: 
(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.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). As this regulation must be read with the statutory and regulatory 
definitions of a specialty occupation under section 214(i)(1) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii), 
we construe 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. 3 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, 387-88 (5th Cir. 2000). 
By regulation, the Director is charged with determining whether the petition involves a specialty 
occupation as defined in section 214(i)(1) of the Act. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(2). The Director 
may request additional evidence in the course of making this determination. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8). 
In addition, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the petition and must continue to 
be eligible through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). 
II. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position 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. 
3 The Petitioner must satisfy one of the four criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) as well as the statutory/regulatory 
definition of specialty occupation. We emphasize that the terms "degree" and "baccalaureate or higher degree" cannot be 
read without the context of the statutory and regulatory definitions; thus, the required degree or baccalaureate or higher 
degree referred to in the regulatory criteria must be construed to be a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty 
that is directly related to the proposed position. To reiterate further, even if the Petitioner satisfies one or all four of the 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i i i)(A), which it has not in this matter, the position is not a specialty occupation 
until it also satisfies the statutory/regulatory definition of specialty occupation at section 214(i)(I) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1184(i)(I); 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
2 
A. Minimum Requirements 
The Petitioner provides a broad description of the proposed duties of the position and submits a labor 
condition application (LCA) 4 certified for a position located within the "Marketing Managers," 
standard occupational classification, 11-2021 at a level I wage. The duties of the proffered position 
align generally with the duties of positions located within this occupational category. The Petitioner 
states that "the proffered position requires at least a Bachelor's degree in Business Administration, or 
a closely related field, as a minimum requirement for entry." 
As a result of the Petitioner's own stated requirements, the proffered position does not meet the 
statutory or regulatory definition of the term "specialty occupation." As noted, both definitions require 
the Petitioner to demonstrate that the proffered position requires: (1) the theoretical and practical 
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge; and (2) the attainment of a bachelor's degree 
in the specific specialty. The record of proceeding satisfies neither. 
That the Petitioner would find acceptable a bachelor's degree in business administration, with no 
further specialization, alone precludes a determination that the position involves a "body of highly 
specialized knowledge" or that it requires the attainment of a bachelor's degree in a "specific 
specialty." The First Circuit Court of Appeals explained in Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147, that 
The courts and the agency consistently have stated that, although a general-purpose 
bachelor's degree, such as a business administration degree, may be a legitimate 
prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not 
justify the granting of a petition for an H-lB specialty occupation visa. See, e.g., Tapis 
lnt'I v. INS, 94 F.Supp.2d 172, 175-76 (D. Mass. 2000); Shanti, 36 F. Supp. 2d at 1164-
66; cf. Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I & &N Dec. 558, 560 ([Comm'r] 1988) 
(providing frequently cited analysis in connection with a conceptually similar 
provision). This is as it should be: elsewise, an employer could ensure the granting of 
a specialty occupation visa petition by the simple expedient of creating a generic (and 
essentially artificial) degree requirement. 5 
4 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1B 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. Section 212{n){1) 
of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(a). 
5 Id. But see India House, Inc. v. McAleenan, --- F. Supp.----, 2020 WL 1479519 (D.R.I. 2020). In India House the court 
distinguished Royal Siam on factual grounds but did not dispute its central reasoning: that a position whose duties can be 
fulfilled by an individual with a general-purpose bachelor's degree in business administration is not a specialty occupation. 
Instead, it distinguished Royal Siam on factual grounds. Here, the Petitioner specifically recognizes an unspecialized 
bachelor's degree in business administration as being one of the many degrees it considers as providing an adequate 
preparation to perform the duties of the proffered position. 
The agency has longstanding concerns regarding general-purpose bachelor's degrees in business administration with no 
additional specialization. For example, in Matter of Ling, 13 I. & N. Dec. 35 (Reg'I Comm'r 1968), the agency stated that 
attainment of a bachelor's degree in business administration alone was insufficient to qualify a foreign national as a 
member of the professions pursuant to section 101{a)(32) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101{a)(32). Twenty years later, the 
agency looked to the nature of the position itself and clarified that a requirement for a degree with a generalized title, such 
as business administration, without further specification, was insufficient to qualify the position as one that is professional 
3 
For this reason alone, the record satisfies neither the statutory nor the regulatory definitions of the term 
"specialty occupation," and we could end our analysis here and dismiss the appeal on that basis. 
However, for thoroughness we will briefly address the Petitioner's assertions on appeal. 
B. Assertions on Appeal 
The Petitioner recognizes that the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook 
Handbook's (Handbook) subchapter on "How to Become an Advertising, Promotions, or Marketing 
Manager" reports that "[m]ost marketing managers need a bachelor's degree,"6 and does not specify 
that the degree must be in a specific specialty. We observe that the Handbook lists a variety of courses 
that may be advantageous for this occupation, but it does not specify that such positions require a 
bachelor's degree in any specific specialty, or its equivalent. 7 The Petitioner asserts that while a 
bachelor's degree in one of several different disciplines is adequate for entry into the occupation, 8 it 
does not automatically mean that the particular position does not require a minimum of a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. We agree. However, in this matter, the Petitioner does 
not establish that its particular position, requires a precise and specific course of study that relates 
directly and closely to the proffered position, rather than a general bachelor's degree.9 
pursuant to section 101(a)(32) of the Act. Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 l&N Dec. at 560. See also Matter of Caron lnt'I , 
Inc., 19 l&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988) (vice president for manufacturing in a textile company was not a professional 
position because individual holding general degree in business, engineering or science could perform its duties). 
Congress created the modern H-18 program as part of the Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649, 104 Stat. 4978. 
In doing so, it pivoted away from the prior H-1 standard of whether a position was "professional." Instead, petitioners 
were now required to demonstrate that a proffered position qualified as a "specialty occupation." Section 
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Act. In the final rule setting forth the requirements for the revamped H-1B program, the agency, 
responding to commenters suggesting that the proposed regulatory "specific specialty" requirement "was too severe and 
would exclude certain occupations from classifications as specialty occupations," stated that "[t]he definition of specialty 
occupation contained in the statute contains this requirement." Temporary Alien Workers Seeking Classification Under 
the Immigration and Nationality Act, 56 Fed. Reg. 61111, 61112 (Dec. 2, 1991). 
The agency's concerns regarding a general-purpose, non-specific degree in business, or business administration, continued 
under the revamped H-lB program. See, e.g., Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151 (D. Minn. 1999); Royal Siam, 484 
F.3d at 147; 2233 Paradise Road, LLC v. Cissna, No. 17-cv-01018-APG-VCF, 2018 WL 3312967 (D. Nev., July 3, 
2018); XiaoTong Liu v. Baran, No. 18-00376-JVS, 2018 WL 7348851 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 21, 2018); Parzenn Partners v. 
Baran, No. 19-cv-11515-ADB, 2019 WL 6130678 (D. Mass., Nov. 19, 2019). 
To the extent the Petitioner is arguing that a bachelor's degree in business administration, with no further specialization 
(or the equivalent), is a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, then consistent with agency history and federal case law, 
we must disagree. 
6 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Advertising, Promotions, and 
Marketing Managers, https://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/advertising-promotions-and-marketing-managers.htm (last 
visited Sep. 11, 2020). 
7 Id. 
8 The Petitioner misreads the Handbook which does not identify any specific bachelor's degree as required to enter the 
occupation, but rather recognizes different courses that are advantageous for the occupation without reporting that the 
courses when viewed cumulatively result in a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 
9 Again, a degree of general applicability, such as a business administration degree, without specialization, is not a degree 
in a specific specialty. 
4 
Among other arguments advanced in support of its claim, the Petitioner contends that courts "have 
routinely rejected the position that in order to qualify as a specialty occupation for H-1B visa purposes, 
the degree must be in only one specific academic major or have a specific title, and it cites Residential 
Finance Corp. v. USCIS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012) in support of that proposition.10 The 
court stated in Residential Finance that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is what is 
important. Diplomas rarely come bearing occupation-specific majors." Id. at 997. 
We agree with both the Petitioner and with this principle stated by the judge in Residential Finance. 
However, the Petitioner misreads the Director's decision denying the H-1B petition. The Director did 
not determine that the proffered position, which is located within the "Advertising, Promotions, 
Marketing Managers" occupational category, could only qualify as a specialty-occupation position if 
the Petitioner mandated a degree in "management" for example.11 Instead, the Director found the 
Petitioner's stated acceptable degree of business administration as too general to support a finding that 
the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent.12 
Although the Petitioner adds that its particular position must have a business-degree that focuses on 
strategic marketing, quantitative analyses, economics, business management, and communications 
based-ski I Is, this broad statement appears to simply require knowledge of basic concepts taught in any 
number of degrees at the bachelor's level.13 The Petitioner does not establish how such basic concepts 
form either a body of highly specialized knowledge or a specific specialty. As noted above, the 
acceptance of a broad and general base of knowledge to perform the duties of the proffered position, 
conflicts with the statutory definition of specialty occupation, which requires a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty.14 We cannot conclude that the proffered position requires anything more than a 
general bachelor's degree.15 
The Petitioner contends that the Director did not consider the opinion authored bYI._ _____ ____, 
10 The district judge's decision in Residential Finance appears to have been based largely on the many factual errors made 
by the Director in the decision denying the petition, and we note that the Director's decision was not appealed to the 
AAO. Based on the district court's conclusions 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 we could not have remedied those errors in our de novo 
review of the matter. 
11 See, e.g., Irish Help at Home LLC v. Melville, No. 13-cv-00943-MEJ, 2015 WL 848977 at *7 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 24, 2015), 
aff'd 679 Fed. App'x 634 (9th Cir. 2017) ("Likewise, this case is different from [Tapis lnt'I v. Immigration and 
Naturalization Service, 94 F. Supp. 2d 172 (D. Mass. 2000)] because the AAO's decision is not akin to a finding that [the 
Beneficiary] would need a degree in 'deputy controllership,' rather, the issue is that there is no credible evidence supporting 
that Irish Help's deputy controller position is specialized in the sense that [it] could only be performed by one with 
specialized knowledge in a specialized course of study, as opposed to one with a more generic degree.") 
12 The Director also determined that neither the Handbook nor the Occupational Information Network reported that a 
"Marketing Managers" occupation required a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
13 We question how the position involves a "highly specialized body of knowledge" or requires a bachelor's degree, or the 
equivalent, in a "specific specialty" when the concepts referred to by the Petitioner appear to be taught in basic foundational 
courses to provide a broad base of knowledge and are not specific to a particular degree in a specific specialty. 
14 We have reviewed the Petitioner's citation to an unpublished non-precedent decision. However, as this decision was 
not published as a precedent, it does not bind U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' 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 proceeding, the issues considered, and applicable law 
and policy. Moreover, the Petitioner does not develop how that particular case is analogous and thus relevant to the matter 
at hand, or how our analysis in that matter deviates from our analysis of this matter. 
15 "A position that requires applicants to have any bachelor's degree, or a bachelor's degree in a large subset of fields, can 
hardly be considered specialized." Caremax, Inc. v. Holder, 40 F.Supp.3d 1182, 1187-88 (N.D. Cal. 2014). 
5 
~~I I I College New York, as evidence, in addition to the Handbook, to establish that a 
bachelor's degree in business administration or a closely related field represents the standard minimum 
requirement for entry into the position. We emphasize once again that the Handbook does not identify 
a bachelor's degree in business administration, or a bachelor's degree in any specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, as a standard minimum requirement to enter the occupation. Notably, I I 
appears to ignore the Handbook's lack of support for his interpretation of the academic requirements 
of this occupation and makes no attempt to support his opinion with other sources. We have reviewed 
.___ ____ _.s opinion in full as it relates to the Petitioner's particular position and his conclusions 
regarding an industry standard. First.I I when discussing an industry standard comingles 
two separate and distinct occupations, which include different duties.16 Thus, his opinion regarding 
industry standards appears generic and not specifically applicable to the occupation designated on the 
certified LCA. Additionally, although he refers to educators and industry experts as recognizing that 
a position such as the proffered position requires at least a bachelor's-level degree in business 
administration, or a related field, he does not identify the educators or industry experts. Nor does he 
reference, cite, or discuss any studies, surveys, industry publications, authoritative publications, or 
other sources of empirical information which he may have consulted and upon which he based his 
opinion regarding industry standards. 
We note that the professor states his opinion was based on: (1) extensive documentation pertaining to the 
proffered position and the Beneficiary's credentials; (2) his experience in the fields of management, 
marketing, macroeconomics, and microeconomics; (3) his evaluation of professional positions in that 
same field; and (4) research regarding the issues he discusses within his letter. Again the professor does 
not list or provide copies of the research resources upon which he partly based his opinion, and he offers 
no indication whether any of that research related to the knowledge necessary to perform in positions 
similar to the one presented in this petition. As a result, an undetermined portion of I Is 
opinion is based on an indistinguishable set of research and it is unclear whether that ill-defined research 
pertains to the topic to which he opines. This further diminishes the weight his opinion garners within 
this proceeding. Where an opinion letter does not cite to the source of its contents, is not corroborated by 
other probative evidence, but instead generally offers conclusory and unsubstantiated statements, U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services is justified in determining that such material is not persuasive.17 
The Petitioner also requests that we find that the submitted job advertisements from other companies 
confirm that a degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations. However, to be relevant for consideration, the job vacancy announcements must advertise 
"parallel positions," and the announcements must have been placed by organizations that (1) conduct 
business in the Petitioner's industry and (2) are also "similar" to the Petitioner. None of these job vacancy 
announcements meet this threshold. Instead our review of the job postings confirm that the advertised 
job opportunities are not for "parallel positions." For example, the Petitioner does not require any 
work experience to enter the proffered position. However, three of the four advertised positions 
require five years of work experience, indicating that the advertised positions are for positions 
significantly senior to the position proffered here. The fourth advertisement includes a very brief job 
description, such that we cannot adequately and accurately compare the duties and responsibilities of 
the advertised position to the position proffered here. For these reasons we cannot confirm that the 
11 I discusses marketing managers and market research analysts as a single occupation, making his opinion 
generic rather than focused on the occupation designated by the Petitioner on the LCA. 
17 Sagarwala v. Cissna, 387 F. Supp. 3d 56, 65-66 (D. D.C. 2019). 
6 
advertised positions are parallel to the proffered position and thus that their job requirements are 
relevant to the particular position proffered here. Even if we considered the job advertisements, the 
advertising employers all accept a general bachelor's degree in business administration as one of the 
academic requirements to perform the duties of the occupation. As discussed in detail above, a general 
business degree, without more, is insufficient to establish a position is a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner also questions the Director's conclusion that the record does not establish that the 
proffered position is unique or complex and specialized. We reviewed the duties of the proposed 
position in detai I and recognize that the position is a marketing manager position. However, the duties, 
as described, provide a broad overview of the occupation. For example, the Beneficiary will create 
marketing strategy, build marketing plans to support the Petitioner's retailers, and partner with internal 
teams to support these endeavors. These tasks are the duties of a marketing manager and do not 
include any description or evidence that the duties are "specialized and complex" or "complex or 
unique." They are the routine duties of a marketing manager which do not require a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Similarly, the Beneficiary will leverage market research to 
create strategies and lead teams and agency partners to execute the shopper campaigns and manage 
timelines and deliverables. These tasks also seem to align with the duties of a standard marketing 
manager. The duties when reviewed in their totality do not convey sufficient substantive information 
to establish how these duties are more specialized and complex or unique than other marketing 
managers.18 The Petitioner also seems to assert that the nature of its business operations establishes 
the specialized nature of the position. However, neither the importance of the work, nor the proffered 
position's role in it, can substitute for specialization. 
Moreover, the Petitioner designated the proffered position as requiring only a wage level I on the 
certified LCA. However, a level I designation when read in combination with the evidence presented 
indicates that this particular position is not so specialized and complex or unique that the duties could 
only be performed by an individual with a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. The wage level I is indicative of a position that will be performing the basic functions of 
a marketing manager and is at odds with claims that the duties of the proffered position are "complex 
or unique" or "specialized and complex" as compared to other marketing managers.19 In general, a 
18 The Petitioner also cites to Next Generation Tech., Inc. v. Johnson, 328 F. Supp. 3d 252, 267 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) as relevant 
to the matter at hand. We question the relevance of this citation to this particular matter, however, note that as recognized 
by another court, while the Handbook may establish the first regulatory criterion for certain professions, many occupations 
are not described in such a categorical manner. See lnnova Sols., Inc. v. Baran, 2019 WL 3753334, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 
8, 2019) (declining to follow Next Generation Tech., Inc.). Here, the Handbook's description for the marketing managers 
occupation does not describe the normal minimum educational requirements of the occupation in a categorical 
fashion." See also Xiaotong Liu v. Baran, 2018 WL 7348851 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2018). Thus, the Petitioner cannot 
simply rely on the Handbook's report, but instead has the burden to show that the particular position offered is among the 
marketing managers positions for which a bachelor's degree is required. See e.g. lnnova Sols., Inc. 2019 WL 3753334, at 
*8. As discussed, the Petitioner does not elaborate on or otherwise establish how its particular marketing manager position 
is more specialized and complex, or unique, than a standard marketing manager position that does not require a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
19 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 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. DOL, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration 
7 
petitioner must distinguish its proffered position from others within the same occupation through the 
proper wage level designation to indicate factors such as the relative complexity of the job duties, the 
level of judgment, the amount and level of supervision, and the level of understanding required to 
perform the job duties. 20 In other words, if typical positions located within the occupational category do 
not require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, then it is unclear how a position 
with level I characteristics would, regardless of the Petitioner's assertions. The record lacks sufficiently 
detailed and unambiguous information to distinguish the proffered position as unique from or more 
specialized and complex than other closely related positions that can be performed by persons without 
at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
We again considered! l's opinion in an effort to understand the claims of specialization and 
complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position. I 11 ists duties in paragraph form, some 
of which do not appear in the Petitioner's lists of duties and others of which are copied verbatim from 
the Petitioner's lists. He states throughout the record that "it would be impossible to handle the 
required job duties of [the proffered position] without at least a bachelor's degree in a field related to 
Business Administration" or that the position "could not be performed by an individual who has a 
bachelor's degree in a field other than Business Administration." Following these and other 
conclusory statements is a continuation of duties, again some within the Petitioner's description and 
some without, in rote fashion. Merely listing duties and declaring them to be specialized and complex 
does not add to our understanding of the substantive nature of the position. 
Without actual analysis, it appears that many of I Is conclusions regarding the skills 
necessary for the position could reasonably be gained through any kind of education, and indeed 
through work experience or life in general. In addition, he appears to conflate the educational 
requirements in order to perform the duties of the position with the types of candidates who might be 
qualified to perform them. He does not explain the reasoning underlying his conclusions or the 
methodologies he used to reach the conclusions regarding the degree field, generic as it is, he opines 
is required to perform the position. We are not questioning the professor's expertise, but rather 
conclude that he has not presented his expert knowledge in a manner that sufficiently supports the 
Petitioner's claims within the constraints of the H-lB program. For these reasons, we find that the 
opinion letter lends little probative value to the matter here. As a matter of discretion, we may use 
opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. 21 We exercise our discretion here and 
conclude that I ~s opinion is not persuasive and is indeed questionable as it relates to the 
Petitioner's particular position. 
Upon review of the totality of the record, including the Petitioner's assertions on appeal, the Petitioner 
has not established that the proffered position, more likely than not, is a specialty occupation. 
Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC _ Guidance_Revised_11_2009.pdf. A 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. Id. Therefore, it does not appear that the position is one with specialized 
and complex, or unique duties, as such a higher-level position would be classified as a Level 111 or Level IV position, 
requiring a significantly higher prevailing wage. 
20 Id. 
21 Matter of Caron lnt'I, Inc., 19 l&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). 
8 
111. CONCLUSION 
The record of proceeding does not establish that the proffered position requires both: (1) the theoretical 
and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge; and (2) the attainment of a 
bachelor's degree in the specific specialty. The Petitioner, therefore, has satisfied neither the statutory 
definition of a "specialty occupation" at section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act nor the regulatory definition 
of a specialty occupation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). The Petitioner also has not satisfied any of the 
supplemental specialty-occupation criteria enumerated at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(1)-(4). The 
Petitioner, therefore, has not established that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
9