dismissed H-1B Case: Marketing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 8190679 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR . 25, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-lB 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 Vermont Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the proffered position was 
not a specialty occupation , and we summarily dismissed the Petitioner's appeal after determining that 
the Petitioner did not submit a brief or statement of the basis for the appeal. We have since received 
a copy of the Petitioner's timely-filed brief and reopened the matter in order to consider the merits of 
the appeal. Accordingly, we will reinstate the appeal in order to consider the Petitioner 's brief and 
evidence. 
However , upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 1 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § 1184(i)(l) , defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires : 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a 
non-exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered 
position must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position ; 
1 We follow the preponderanc e of the evidence standard as specified in Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 
(AAO 2010) . 
(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 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. 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. 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. 
The Petitioner, a consulting services company, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a marketing 
associate. The Petitioner provided a description of the proffered position in its initial letter of support 
and expanded on those duties in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE). The second 
description provided a percentage breakdown of the time the Beneficiary would devote to each task, 
along with comments regarding coursework that corresponded to the stated duties. For the sake of 
brevity, we will not quote the duty descriptions; however, we have closely reviewed and considered 
the duties. The Petitioner stated that the position requires at least a bachelor's degree or equivalent in 
marketing or another business-related field. 
Preliminarily, we conclude that the Petitioner's acceptance of a degree in a "business-related" field, 
without farther specialization, is inadequate to establish the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. A petitioner must demonstrate that the proffered position requires a precise and specific 
course of study that relates directly and closely to the position in question. Since there must be a close 
correlation between the required specialized studies and the position, the requirement of a degree with 
a generalized title, such as business, without farther specification, does not establish the position as a 
specialty occupation. 2 Cf Matter o_f Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). 
2 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 Co,p., 484 F.3d at 147. 
2 
To prove that a job requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge as required by section 214(i)(l) of the Act, a petitioner must establish that the position 
requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specialized field of study or its equivalent. 
As discussed supra, we interpret the degree requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to require a 
degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. Although a 
general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business administration, may be a legitimate 
prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify a 
conclusion that a particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam 
Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. 
The Petitioner's acceptance of a degree in a business-related field as sufficient to perform the duties it 
describes for the proffered position leads us to conclude that the proffered position is not a specialty 
occupation. Nevertheless, for the Petitioner's information, we will address the assertions on appeal 
regarding the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
A. First Criterion 
The criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I), 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 Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational 
Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements 
of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 3 
The Petitioner designated the position on the labor condition application (LCA) 4 as a Standard 
Occupation Classification (SOC) code 13-1161, "Market Research Analysts and Marketing 
Specialists" occupation. The Handbook's subchapter entitled "How to Become a Market Research 
Analyst" 5 does not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, is 
normally required for entry into market research analysts' positions. In the initial summary of this 
subchapter the Handbook recognizes that "[ m Jost market research analysts need at least a bachelor's 
degree" while also reporting that "[sJome research positions may require a master's degree" and that 
"[sJtrong math and analytical skills are essential." 6 Thus, generally these positions may require a 
bachelor's degree and some skills, but not a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
Although the Handbook also reports that "[ m Jarket research analysts typically need a bachelor's 
degree in market research or a related field," it then adds that "[ m Jany have degrees in fields such as 
3 The Handbook may be accessed at https://www.bls.gov/ooh. We do not maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive 
source of relevant information. 
4 A petitioner is required to submit an LCA to the Department of Labor (DOL) to demonstrate that it will pay an H- lB 
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 duties, experience, and qualifications. Section 212(n)(l) of 
the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.73l(a). 
5 The Handbook does not identify this occupational category as "Market Research Analysts and Marketing Specialists," 
as labeled in the O*NET Online Summary Reports. 
6 Bureau of Labor Statistics. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Market Research 
Analysts, at https://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/market-research-analysts.htm (last visited Mar.24.2020). 
3 
statistics, math, and computer science. Others have backgrounds in business administration, the social 
sciences, or communications." 7 
The Handbook's observation that disparate fields of study, including statistics, computer science, and 
the social sciences, may qualify a worker to enter positions in the "Market Research Analysts" 
occupational category indicates that a bachelor's or higher degree in a spec[fic specialty, or its 
equivalent, is not normally the minimum requirement for entry. That is, the Handbook does not 
describe the normal minimum educational requirement for the occupation in a categorical manner, 
other than recognizing that these occupations generally require a bachelor's degree. Here, the 
Handbook does not establish that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is 
normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position. 8 
The Petitioner also refers to the DOL's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) summary report 
for "Market Research Analysts and Marketing Specialists" as establishing that such a position requires 
a bachelor's degree. Contrary to the assertions of the Petitioner, O*NET does not state a requirement 
for a bachelor's degree for this occupation. Rather, it assigns this occupation a Job Zone "Four" rating, 
which groups it among occupations for which "most ... require a four-year bachelor's degree, but 
some do not." The summary report also provides general information regarding this occupation and 
does not support a claim that the bachelor's degree in a specific discipline is required for these 
positions. 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. 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. 9 The O*NET is not helpful in establishing that this occupation is a specialty occupation 
requiring a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
We have also considered the Petitioner's citation to Residential Finance Corp. v. USCIS, 839 F. Supp. 
2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012). Although we agree that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is 
what is important," there still must be a close correlation between the required "body of highly 
specialized knowledge" and the position. In general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., 
chemistry and biochemistry, a minimum of a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty 
is recognized as satisfying the "degree in the specific specialty ( or its equivalent)" requirement of 
section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act. In such a case, the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" 
would essentially be the same. 
7 Id. 
8 We observe, however, that even if authoritative independent sources do not indicate that an occupation normally requires 
a bachelor's degree in a specific discipline, or its equivalent, at a minimum, a petitioner may still establish its particular 
position satisfies one or more of the other criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). However, as discussed above. the 
Petitioner's acceptance of a degree in a business-related field without specialization is inconsistent with a claim that a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is required to perform the duties of its particular position. 
9 See the O*NET Online Help webpage, available at http://www.onetonline.org/help/online/svp, for additional 
information. 
4 
Because 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 computer science and social sciences, would not meet the statutory requirement that the degree 
be "in the specific specialty ( or its equivalent)," 10 unless the Petitioner establishes how each field is 
directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position. 11 In the instant case, the 
Petitioner has provided insufficient evidence to establish the minimum requirements for the proffered 
position and did not adequately address its requirement for a general-purpose degree in a 
business-related field. 
The Petitioner also cites to Tapis Int'! v. Immigration and Naturalization Service. 12 In Tapis, we note 
that the U.S. district court found that while the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) 
was reasonable in requiring a bachelor's degree in a specific field, it abused its discretion by ignoring 
the portion of the regulations that allows for the equivalent of a specialized baccalaureate 
degree. According to the U.S. district court, INS's interpretation was not reasonable because then 
H-1B visas would only be available in fields where a specific degree was offered, ignoring the 
statutory definition allowing for "various combinations of academic and experience based training." 13 
The court elaborated that "[i]n fields where no specifically tailored baccalaureate program exists, the 
only possible way to achieve something equivalent is by studying a related field ( or fields) and then 
obtaining specialized experience." 14 
We agree with the district court judge in Tap is, that in satisfying the specialty occupation requirements, 
both the Act and the regulations require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, 
and that this language indicates that the degree does not have to be a degree in a single specific 
specialty. We incorporate herein by reference our discussion of closely related specialties as it 
pertained to our analysis of the Residential Finance case above. Moreover, we also agree that, if the 
requirements to perform the duties and job responsibilities of a proffered position are a combination 
of a general bachelor's degree and experience such that the standards at both section 214(i)(l)(A) and 
(B) of the Act have been satisfied, then the proffered position may qualify as a specialty 
occupation. We do not conclude, however, that the U.S. district court is stating that any position can 
qualify as a specialty occupation based solely on the claimed requirements of a petitioner. 
Instead, we must examine the actual employment requirements, and, on the basis of that examination, 
determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 15 In this pursuit, the critical 
element is not the title of the position, or the fact that an employer has routinely insisted on certain 
educational standards, but whether performance of the position actually requires the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and the attainment of a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty as the minimum for entry into the occupation as required by 
the Act. 
10 Section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). 
11 The court in Residential Finance did not eliminate the statutory "bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty" 
language imposed by Congress. Rather, it found that the petitioner in that case had satisfied the requirement. 
12 Tapis Int'! v. INS, 94 F. Supp. 2d 172 (D. Mass. 2000) 
13 Id. at 176. 
14 Id. at 177. 
15 See generally Defensor, 201 F. 3d 384. 
5 
In any event, the Petitioner has famished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition 
are analogous to those in Residential Finance 16 or Tapis or any of the other cases it cites. 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. 17 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. 18 It is also important to note that in a subsequent case reviewed in the same jurisdiction, the court 
agreed with our analysis of Residential Finance. 19 
The Petitioner has not met its burden to establish that the particular position offered in this matter 
normally requires a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, directly related 
to its duties in order to perform the tasks of the position. The Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(]). 
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 concentrates upon 
the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific 
position. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
We generally consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there is such a common degree 
requirement: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the industry's 
professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether letters or 
affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry establish that such firms "routinely employ and 
recruit only degreed individuals." 20 
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 
16 The district judge's decision 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. 
17 See Matter of K-S-, 20 T&N Dec. 715, 719-20 (BIA 1993). 
18 Id. 
19 See Health Carousel. LLC v. USC1S, No. 1:13-CV-23, 2014 WL 29591 (S.D. Ohio 2014). 
20 See Shanti. Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 1999) (quoting Hird/Blaker Co1p. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 
1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) ( considering these "factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
6 
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. 
The Petitioner also submitted job vacancy announcements for our consideration under this prong. To be 
relevant for this 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. These job vacancy announcements do not satisfy that 
threshold. Upon review of the documents, we conclude that the Petitioner's reliance on the job 
announcements is misplaced. 
As the Director's decision explained, we cannot determine whether the job announcements are for 
positions that are parallel to the proffered position. All four advertisements are for positions with varying 
titles, i.e., "advertising account coordinator," "advertising account executive," "campaign analyst," and 
"communications and marketing associate." Because the position descriptions in the vacancy 
announcements are general in nature, we are unable to ascertain if the duties of each position are in fact 
comparable to the proffered position. Moreover, most of the advertisements state that employers require 
at least 1-2 years of experience in addition to a degree, with one requiring at least 2-4 years of experience, 
whereas the Petitioner has not stated that any additional experience is required for entry into the proffered 
position. Finally, the postings contain minimal information regarding the advertising entities, such that 
we can determine whether they are similar to the Petitioner. As such, the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
established that the primary duties and responsibilities of the advertised positions parallel those of the 
proffered position. 
Moreover, the job postings do not state that a degree in a specific specialty is required for entry into 
the advertised positions. Two postings require simply a "bachelor's degree," with one of those 
postings stating a "preference" for a degree in marketing or advertising. We note that a "preference" 
for a degree is not a requirement. The other two postings accept degrees in various fields, including 
marketing, business, communications, or related fields. Therefore, the postings do not state that a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is sufficient to perform the duties of the 
advertised positions. 
For all these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that these job advertisements are relevant. 21 Even 
if this threshold were met, the postings do not establish that a specialty degree requirement is common to 
the industry. The announcements reflect that the employers accept a variety of degrees including a 
general-purpose degree in business. As noted above, a requirement of a degree with a generalized title, 
such as business, without further specification, does not establish that the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. 22 
21 The Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how representative the job postings are of the particular 
advertising employers' recruiting history for the type of job advertised. As the advertisements are only solicitations for 
hire, they are not evidence of the actual hiring practices of these employers. 
22 Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147 
7 
As the documentation does not establish that the Petitioner has met this prong of the regulations, further 
analysis regarding the specific information contained in each of the articles and job postings is not 
necessary. That is, not every deficit of every printout has been addressed. 23 The record does not establish 
that similar organizations in the Petitioner's industry have a common degree requirement of a 
bachelor's or higher degree, or its equivalent, in a specific specialty, for the proffered position. Thus, 
the Petitioner has not satisfied the first prong of the regulation 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
The second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) 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. The Petitioner does not assert eligibility 
under this criterion, nor does it specifically contest the Director's findings under this prong on appeal. 
Rather, it simply asserts that its detailed description of duties satisfies the requirements of this criterion 
We have reviewed the Petitioner's descriptions of the proposed position and observe that this description 
presents a broad overview of a marketing position, however the Petitioner does not sufficiently describe 
what duties it believes are so complex or unique. The Petitioner describes a series of duties in either bullet 
or paragraph form and then summarily pronounces its educational requirements without supporting 
analysis. However, the Petitioner neither explains why a degree would be needed to perform these duties 
nor why such knowledge and skill cannot be obtained apart from these specified degrees. 
The Petitioner did not sufficiently develop complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the 
position, and it did not identify any tasks that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed 
individual could perform them. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the Petitioner has satisfied the 
second alternative prong of 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)(2). 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it normally 
requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. 
The record must establish that a petitioner's stated degree requirement is not a matter of preference 
for high-caliber candidates but is necessitated instead by performance requirements of the position. 
See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d at 387-88. 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. Id. Evidence provided in support of this criterion may include, but is not limited to, 
documentation regarding the Petitioner's past recruitment and hiring practices, as well as information 
regarding employees who previously held the position. 
23 Even if all of the job postings indicated that a requirement of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is common to 
the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations (which they do not), the Petitioner does not demonstrate 
what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from the job postings with regard to the common educational 
requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social 
Research 186-228 (7th ed. 1995). 
8 
We reviewed the Petitioner's statements regarding the proffered position. However, it does not assert 
eligibility under this criterion, and has not provided evidence to establish that it routinely requires 
specialty-degreed individuals for the position. According to its organizational chart, the Beneficiary 
is the only employee holding the position of marketing associate, and the Petitioner provided no 
documentation to establish that it previously employed individuals in this position. Therefore, it has 
not satisfied the third criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
D. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature of 
the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is usually 
associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
As discussed, neither the Handbook nor another authoritative source indicates that a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, is normally required for positions located within this 
occupational category, and the Petitioner's descriptions of the proffered position's duties provide 
insufficient information to determine whether the nature of the position is so specialized and complex 
that it can be performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent. 
Nevertheless, we have again reviewed the duties of the proffered position in full. The descriptions do not 
detail the specialized and complex nature of specific duties the Beneficiary will perform. Although some 
tasks may connote a requirement of familiarity with general business principles, including marketing 
knowledge, the record is insuflicient to establish that the duties require anything more than a few basic 
courses and a broad educational background. While a few such courses may be beneficial in performing 
certain duties of the position, the Petitioner, who bears the burden of proof: has not demonstrated how 
an established curriculum of such courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the duties of the proffered position. The Petitioner 
does not develop relative specialization and complexity as an aspect of the proffered position. The 
proposed duties do not include a meaningful discussion of what the Beneficiary will actually be required 
to do in the proffered position and how those duties require the theoretical and practical application of a 
body of highly specialized knowledge. The Petitioner has not established that the proffered position is 
more specialized and complex or unique than a marketing associate position that requires only a 
general bachelor's degree, such as a bachelor's degree in a business-related field. 
In the instant case, relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by the 
Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. Although we acknowledge the Petitioner's 
submission of sample work products of the Beneficiary to demonstrate the complexity of his work, it 
is unclear how the Beneficiary's maintenance of the Petitioner's website and digital media plans 
requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the 
attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum 
for entry into the occupation. While the position may require that the Beneficiary possess some skills 
and technical knowledge in order to perform these duties, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained 
how these tasks elevate the position to one so specialized and complex that a specialty degree is 
required to perform them. 
9 
Upon review of the totality of the evidence submitted, the Petitioner has not established that more 
likely than not, the proffered position is a specialty occupation under any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Moreover, the record does not establish that the Petitioner satisfied the statutory 
and regulatory definitions of specialty occupation. 
III. CONCLUSION 
In visa petition proceedings, it is a petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
10