dismissed H-1B Case: Marketing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6110184 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 27, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-IB nonimmigrant 
classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to 
temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a position that requires both: (a) the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge; and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's 
or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into 
the position. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the proffered 
position does not qualify as a specialty occupation. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 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 We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard. Matter ofCha wathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010) . 
(]) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that 
knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We 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"). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner, a privately operated national television network, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a 
marketing specialist. The Petitioner initially provided the position's description, and expanded on 
those duties in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE). For the sake of brevity, we will 
not quote the descriptions; however, we note that we have closely reviewed and considered the duties. 
According to the Petitioner, the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree in marketing, 
business/business administration, or a related field. 
III. ANALYSIS 
For the reasons set out below, we have determined that the proffered position does not qualify as a 
specialty occupation. 2 Specifically, we find that two separate factors independently bar approval of 
this petition: (1) the Petitioner's lack of a requirement for a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, 
or the equivalent; and (2) the Petitioner's failure to satisfy at least one of the four regulatory 
specialty-occupation criteria enumerated at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(])-(4). In particular, the 
record does not: (1) describe the proffered position in sufficient detail; and (2) establish that the job 
duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation in support of the H-IB 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. 
2 
A. Lack of a Requirement for a Bachelor's Degree in a Specific Specialty, or the Equivalent 
First, the petition is not approvable because the Petitioner's claimed entry requirement of at least a 
bachelor's degree, or equivalent, in marketing, business/business administration, or a related field, 
without more, is inadequate to establish that the proposed 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. There must be a close correlation between the 
required specialized studies and the position; thus, the mere requirement of a general degree, such as 
business, without further specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. 3 Royal 
Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147 (a general-purpose bachelor's degree in business may be a legitimate 
prerequisite for a particular position, but such a degree, without more, will not justify a finding that a 
particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation). Cf Matter of Michael Hertz 
Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988) ("The mere requirement of a college degree for the sake 
of general education, or to obtain what an employer perceives to be a higher caliber employee, also does 
not establish eligibility."). 
Without more, it cannot be found that the proffered position requires anything more than a general 
bachelor's degree and accordingly it does not qualify under the definition of a specialty occupation. 
B. First Criterion 
We tum first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which requires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. We recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational 
Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements 
of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 4 
On the labor condition application (LCA) 5 submitted in support of the H-1B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Market Research Analysts and 
Marketing Specialists" corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 
3 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 with a concentration in a 
specific field, or a bachelor's or higher degree in business 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. 
4 We do not 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 we regularly review 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 ofproofremains 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. 
5 A petitioner submits the LCA to DOL to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B worker the higher of either the prevailing 
wage for the occupational classification in the area of employment or the actual wage paid by the employer to other 
employees with similar duties, experience, and qualifications. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.73l(a). 
3 
13-1161. Thus, we reviewed the Handbook's subchapter entitled "How to Become a Market Research 
Analyst," which states, in pertinent part, that market research analysts typically need a bachelor's 
degree in market research or a related field. 6 According to the Handbook, some individuals have 
degrees in fields such as statistics, math, computer science, business administration, the social 
sciences, or communications. It continues by stating that some jobs require a master's degree and that 
many analysts complete degrees in fields such as statistics and marketing or earn a master's degree in 
business administration (MBA). 7 
The Handbook reports that market research analysts have degrees and backgrounds in a wide variety 
of disparate fields. The Handbook farther identifies various courses as essential to this occupation, 
including statistics, research methods, and marketing and farther elucidates that courses in 
communications and social sciences (such as economics, psychology, and sociology) are also 
important. Therefore, although the Handbook indicates that market research analysts may need an 
advanced degree, particularly for "leadership positions or positions that perform more technical 
research," it also indicates that degrees and backgrounds in various fields are acceptable for jobs in 
this occupation - including computer science and the social sciences, as well as statistics and 
communications. 8 
In addition to recognizing degrees in disparate fields, i.e., social science and computer science, as 
acceptable for entry into this field, the Handbook also states that "[ o ]thers have backgrounds 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. Royal Siam Corp., 484 F .3d at 14 7. Therefore, the Handbook's recognition that 
a general, non-specialty "background" in business administration, or one of a number of other fields, 
is sufficient for entry into the occupation strongly suggests that a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty is not a standard, minimum entry requirement for this occupation. The Handbook, therefore, 
6 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Market Research Analysts 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/market-research-analysts.htm#tab-4 (last visited Feb. 26, 2020). 
7 Id. 
8 In general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry and biochemistry, a minimum of a bachelor's or 
higher degree in more than one specialty is recognized as satisfying the "degree in the specific specialty ( or its equivalent)" 
requirement of section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act. In such a case, the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" would 
essentially be the same. Since there must be a close correlation between the required "body of highly specialized 
knowledge" and the position, however, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in two disparate fields, such as 
philosophy and engineering, would not meet the statutory requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent)," unless the Petitioner establishes how each field is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
particular position such that the required body of highly specialized knowledge is essentially an amalgamation of these 
different specialties. Section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act ( emphasis added). 
Whether read with the statutory "the" or the regulatory "a," both readings denote a singular "specialty." Section 
214(i)(l)(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). Still, we do not so narrowly interpret these provisions to exclude 
positions from qualifying as specialty occupations if they permit, as a minimum entry requirement, degrees in more than 
one closely related specialty. This also includes even seemingly disparate specialties provided the evidence of record 
establishes how each acceptable, specific field of study is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular 
position. 
4 
does not support the assertion that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, 
is normally the minimum requirement for these positions. 
The narrative of the Handbook further reports that some employees obtain professional certification 
to demonstrate a level of professional competency. It continues by outlining the requirements for 
market research analysts to achieve the Professional Researcher Certification (PRC), and states that 
candidates qualify based upon their experience and knowledge. According to the Handbook, the PRC 
is granted by the Marketing Research Association, now known as the Insights Association, 9 to those 
who pass an exam, have at least three years of experience working in opinion and market research, 
and complete 12 hours of industry-related education courses. 10 
We reviewed the Insights Association's website, which confirms the Handbook's statement regarding 
the requirements for the PRC (i.e., passage of an exam, three years of relevant industry experience, 
and 12 hours of industry-related education), and further specifies that the "education" necessary to 
apply for PRC is "12 industry-related education hours within the two preceding years." The website 
includes information regarding "How to Enter the Industry" which lists a variety of possible degrees, 
such as business administration, liberal arts, statistics/math, qualitative analysts, computer science, 
social science, and communications, and a variety of "helpful skills," including "attention to detail," 
"presentation skills," and "basic computer skills." It does not indicate that a market research analyst 
position has any specific minimum academic requirement for entry, nor does it state that it requires 
any particular level of education to be identified as qualified and possessing a level of expertise or 
competence. Instead, the Insights Association's website highlights the importance of professional 
experience and industry-related professional courses (through conferences, seminars, and webinars). 
Consequently, neither the Handbook nor the Insights Association website support the assertion that at 
least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement 
for these positions. 
With its initial supporting documentation, the Petitioner submitted a copy of the DOL's Occupational 
Information Network (O*NET) summary report for "Market Research Analysts and Marketing 
Specialists" in further support of the proposition that such a position requires a bachelor's degree. 
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 
9 The Marketing Research Association merged with the Council of American Survey Research Organizations in 2017 to 
become the Insights Association. See http://www.insightsassociation.org/about (last visited Feb. 26, 2020). The Insights 
Association is therefore the successor to the Marketing Research Association. 
10 The Insights Association website states that it "strives to effectively represent, advance, and grow the research profession 
and industry." For additional information, see http://www.insightsassociation.org/about (last visited Feb. 26, 2020). 
5 
divided among training, formal education, and experience - and it does not specify the particular type 
of degree, if any, that a position would require. 11 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. However, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in disparate fields, 
such as computer science and one of the many degrees in the social sciences, 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. Section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). The Petitioner has not done so 
here. 
The Petitioner also cites to Raj and Co. v. USCIS, 85 F. Supp. 3d 1241 (W.D. Wash. 2015). We 
reviewed the decision; however, the Petitioner has not established that the duties and responsibilities, 
level of judgment, complexity, supervisory duties, independent judgment, or amount of supervision in 
that case are analogous to the position proffered here. 12 There is little indication that the positions are 
similar. 13 Additionally as will be discussed below, we note that the Petitioner's designation of its 
position as requiring only a Level I wage conflicts with its claim that said position requires more than 
a general degree. 14 
11 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at 
http://www.onetonline.org/help/online/svp. 
12 We note that the Director's decision was not appealed to our office. 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 in our de novo review of the matter. 
13 In Raj, the court noted that "[t]he patently specialized nature of the position sets it apaii from those that merely require 
a generic degree." As discussed above, the Petitioner accepts a general business administration degree as sufficient to 
perform the duties of its particular position demonstrating that the duties of the position are not patently specialized. We 
also observe that the comi did not address the section of the Handbook indicating that there are no specific degree 
requirements to obtain the Professional Researcher Certification credential - and therefore to work as a market research 
analyst. 
14 We also are not persuaded by the Petitioner's reference on appeal to Unical Aviation Inc. v. INS, 248 F. Supp. 2d 931 
(D.C. Cal. 2002), which determined that a marketing specialist is a specialty occupation. The material facts of the present 
proceeding are also distinguishable from those in Unical. Specifically, Unical involves: a position for which there was a 
companion position held by a person with a Master's degree and in the court's words "sufficient evidence to demonstrate 
that there is a requirement of specialized study for [the beneficiary's] position." Again, the Petitioner here accepts a general 
business administration degree as sufficient to perform the position. Fmiher, in Unical, the Court partly relied upon Augat. 
Inc. v. Tabor, 719 F. Supp. 1158 (D. Mass. 1989), for the proposition that Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS, 
now USCIS) had not used an absolute degree requirement in applying the "profession" standard at 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(32) 
for determining the merits of an 8 U.S.C. § l l 53(a)(3) third-preference visa petition. That proposition is not relevant here 
because the H-1 B specialty occupation statutes and regulations, not in existence when INS denied the Augat, Inc. 
third-preference petition, mandate not just a baccalaureate or higher degree but a degree "in the specific specialty," or its 
6 
Also on appeal, the Petitioner cites to Tapis Int'! v. Immigration and Naturalization Service to assert 
that the requirement of a specialty occupation encompasses various combinations of academic and 
experience based training." 15 We acknowledge that in Tapis, 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." 16 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." 17 
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. In general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry and biochemistry, a 
minimum of a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty is recognized as satisfying the 
"degree in the specific specialty ( or its equivalent)" requirement of section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act. In 
such a case, the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" would essentially be the same. Since 
there must be a close correlation between the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" and 
the position, however, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in disparate fields, such as philosophy 
and engineering, would not meet the statutory requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty 
( or its equivalent)," unless the Petitioner establishes how each field is directly related to the duties and 
responsibilities of the particular position. 18 
Additionally, the Petitioner cites to Chung Song Ja Corp. v. USCIS, 96 F. Supp. 3d 1191 (W.D. Wash. 
2015) in asserting that qualifying occupations are not restricted to those which have a single, 
specifically tailored and titled degree program. The court in Chung Song Ja Corp states "[ w ]hile 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l) does not use the language of 'specific specialty,' USCIS does not 
abuse its discretion in reading this regulation together with 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(4)(ii), which defines 'a 
specialty occupation' as one that "requires the attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent." Id. at 1197. The holding in this case is not that any bachelor's degree 
would suffice to deem a particular position a specialty occupation, but one in a specific specialty -
and that the petitioner in that case had satisfied that requirement. As we noted earlier, the Petitioner 
will accept degrees in disparate fields for its proffered position. 
We also 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. Id. 
equivalent. Section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
15 Tapis Int 'Iv. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 94 F. Supp. 2d 172 (D. Mass. 2000) at 176. 
16 Id. 
17 Id. at 177. 
18 Section 2 l 4(i)(l )(B) of the Act ( emphasis added). 
7 
Finally, we note the Petitioner's reliance on four of our non-precedent decisions from 1995 where we 
determined that the position of marketing specialist was a specialty occupation. The Petitioner has 
furnished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition are analogous to those in the 
unpublished decision. Moreover, this decision was not published as a precedent and therefore does not 
bind users officers in future adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c). Non-precedent decisions apply 
existing law and policy to the specific facts of the individual case, and may be distinguishable based on 
the evidence in the record of proceedings, the issues considered, and applicable law and policy. While 8 
C.F.R. § 103 .3( c) provides that our precedent decisions are binding on all users employees in the 
administration of the Act, unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. 
We briefly reviewed the job postings previously submitted and reviewed by the Director. We 
acknowledge the Petitioner's request that we address the postings under this criterion, and not under 
the first prong of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), as the Petitioner asserts they are 
representative of the normal degree requirements for marketing specialists in general. Upon review, 
we note that the majority of the job postings confirm that a general business degree, not a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is sufficient to perform the duties of the advertised 
positions. Additionally, many of the advertisements require more than three years of experience to 
perform the position advertised. Here, the Petitioner did not indicate that its particular position 
requires experience. The Petitioner also designated the proffered position as requiring only a Level r 
( entry-level) wage. Accordingly, it appears that the advertised positions are not parallel to the position 
proffered here. 
We have also reviewed the articles submitted by the Petitioner from several online resources, including 
websites such as www.graphicdesigndegreehub.com, www.ziprecruiter.com, www.snagajob.com, 
and www.marketing-schools.org. The Petitioner asserts that these articles establish that the occupation 
of marketing specialist requires at least a bachelor's degree. However, similar to the job postings 
discussed above, we find these articles unpersuasive. For example, one article indicates that that 
marketing specialists are expected to have degrees in fields such as business, marketing, and statistics, 
whereas another article indicates that degrees in market research, math, statistics, or computer science 
are acceptable prerequisites. Again, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in disparate fields does 
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. As discussed in detail in this section, the Petitioner has not done so here. 
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)(I). 
C. 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 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong addresses the common industry 
practice, while the second prong addresses the Petitioner's specific employment practices. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy the first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" ( e.g., a requirement of a bachelor's degree or higher 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." 19 
As previously discussed, the Handbook does not establish that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty 
is a common requirement within the industry for parallel positions among similar organizations. 
Additionally, the petition does not include any submissions from the industry's professional association 
indicating that it has made a degree in a specific specialty a minimum entry requirement. 
The Petitioner submitted letters from companies within the Petitioner's industry in support of the 
proposition that similar firms routinely employ specialty degreed individuals for the proffered position. 20 
A letter from N ewlink Communications Group states that its marketing specialists must possess, at a 
minimum, a bachelor's degree in business, marketing, or communications. A similar letter from 
American Executive International states the same minimum requirements. Finally, a letter from Viacom 
International Studios states that a bachelor's degree in business administration, marketing, or a related 
field is required for its marketing specialists. 
None of these letters, however, establish an industry standard for specialty degreed individuals in the 
proffered position. As discussed in detail above, the 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 administration, without 
further specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of Michael 
Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). The fact that other companies within the 
Petitioner's industry accept such general degrees undermines the assertion that the proffered position 
is a specialty occupation. We therefore find the letters insufficient to establish the existence of an 
industry standard for a specialty degree for entry into the position of marketing specialist. 
We tum next to the opinion letter from a professor,'--------~ from the University of 
~---~I I I concluded the industry standard for a position such as the one in the 
petition is to be filled through recruiting a recent college graduate with the minimum of a bachelor's 
degree in marketing business administration with a concentration in marketing, or a related field. D I I supported this statement with insufficient analysis. He merely presented conclusory 
19 See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 1999) (quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 
1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (considering these "factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
20 We again note the Petitioner's submission of numerous job vacancy announcements; however, at the request of the 
Petitioner, we decline to address them under this criterion. 
9 
statements such as "it is standard for a company [to]," or "[i]t is typical for an international television 
company to," or the success of the Petitioner "is largely dependent on" individuals with the skills 
similar to those who have recently attained a bachelor's degree in marketing, business administration 
with a concentration in marketing, or a related area or the equivalent. However, there is no indication 
that he has conducted any research or studies pertinent to the educational requirements for such 
positions, and no indication of recognition by professional organizations that he is an authority on 
those specific requirements. 
Moreover, we again recall the Petitioner's designation of the proffered position as a Level I, entry-level 
position. I I however, states that the duties of the proffered position "are not those of a 
lower level employee performing tasks such as those duties performed by an Administrative Assistant 
or Office Worker, but rather those of a professional employee with a strong background in marketing 
and business administration concepts and principles and a great level of responsibility within the 
company." It is not clear ifl I was aware that the Petitioner designated the position as a 
Level I, entry-level position. 
Accordingly, the record does not demonstrate thatl I possessed the requisite information 
to adequately assess the nature of the position. Therefore, we conclude that the cited position 
description and accompanying analysis in his letter to be of little probative value. We may, in our 
discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron Int 'l, Inc., 19 
I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, where an opinion is not in accord with other information 
or is in any way questionable, we are not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Id. 
The Petitioner also submits two opinion letters froml f, a marketing professor atl I 
University. I I states that, based on his review of the O*NET and the Handbook, a minimum 
of a bachelor's degree is required for the occupation of marketing specialist. I I farther opines 
that, based on his own experience as a consult, a bachelor's degree in marketing or business 
administration is the standard minimum requirement for entry into the occupation. Again, the 
conclusion that a bachelor's degree in business administration is an acceptable prerequisite for the 
occupation of marketing specialist farther negates the assertion that a sliecialty degree requirement is 
common in the industry. We do not find the assertions o~,__ __ ___, persuasive. As noted above, 
although we may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory, where an opinion is 
not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we are not required to accept or may 
give less weight to that evidence. Matter o_fCaron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. at 795. 
Finally, we note the Petitioner's submission of letters from TV Venezuela and HBO Latin America 
Group in support of an industry standard. The letter from.__ _______ _.states that "in the 
television industry a bachelor's degree in marketing or related field is the minimum educational 
requirement for the entry to the position of Marketing Specialist .... " Similarly, the letter from c=J 
I lat HBO Latin America Group claims that marketing specialist in the industry should 
have at least post-secondary studies or progressively responsible work experience in the fields of 
marketing or business administration. 
We find these letters unpersuasive. First, they provide no documentation to support their assertions. 
They have not submitted evidence of their hiring practices or hiring histories for individuals employed 
in their companies as marketing specialists, such that we can confirm that they routinely hire only 
10 
specialty degreed individuals. Moreover, they claim that an industry standard exists, yet Jrovide no 
additional evidence to corroborate these statements. Finally, the letter froml indicates, 
once again, that degrees in business administration are acceptable for entry into this occupation in the 
industry. As discussed extensively above, the requirement of a general degree in business 
administration, without more, does not establish eligibility under this criterion. 
The record does not establish that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is a common 
industry requirement by similar companies for parallel positions. The record does not satisfy the first 
prong of the second criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner did not specifically assert eligibility under this criterion, nor did it provide 
evidence to support this criterion. However, we note that it references the letters from TV Venezuela 
and HBO Latin America Group as relevant to this criterion in its appeal brief. Therefore, we will 
address them briefly below. 
Both letters indicate that the writers have reviewed the position description of marketing specialist 
offered by the Petitioner, and both letters conclude that the duties of the position require a bachelor's 
degree in marketing, business administration, or a related field. However, a thorough review of these 
letters reveal no specific assertion that the particular position offered by the Petitioner 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. While the writers render their opinions regarding the degree requirements 
for the occupation in general, they do not establish eligibility here. 
Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second prong of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
D. Third Criterion 
The third criterion at 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. 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. 
Here, while the Petitioner described the proffered position in detail in response to the RFE, and restated 
its minimum entry requirements for the position, the Petitioner did not assert eligibility under this 
criterion, nor did it provide evidence to support this criterion on appeal. Further, and as noted by the 
Director, the record indicates that the Petitioner has not previously employed or recruited a marketing 
specialist. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
11 
E. 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. 
Upon review, relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by the 
Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. The Petitioner does not establish how the generally 
described duties elevate the proffered position to a specialty occupation. While the evidence submitted 
demonstrates that 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 require 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. The record does not include sufficient probative evidence that 
the duties require more than technical proficiency in the field. 
We again tum to the opinions ofl l and I Both professors opine that degrees in 
the fields of marketing and/or business administration sufficiently prepare individuals to perform the 
specialized and complex duties of a marketing specialist. However, the opinions of these individuals 
are not supported by specific examples of what duties, if any, are sufficiently complex or specialized 
such that they cannot be performed by non-specialty degreed individuals. Moreover, reaching such a 
conclusion contradicts the Petitioner's designation of the proffered position as a Level I, entry-level 
position. As these letters are associated with several evidentiary shortcomings, we find then 
insufficient. 
The Petitioner also relies on the letters from TV Venezuela and HBO Latin America Group under this 
criterion. However, as discussed under our analysis of the second prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), these letters make no specific claim, nor do they conclude, that the specific 
duties of the Petitioner's position are 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. Again, while they state they have reviewed the duties of the proffered 
position and conclude that they require at least a bachelor's degree in marketing or business 
administration, they provide no discussion or analysis of the complexity and specialized nature of the 
duties of the position beyond their own opinions. 
Further, while the Petitioner provided a more detailed job description in response to the RFE, that 
description does not establish that the duties are so specialized and complex that they require a degree in 
a specific specialty. The Petitioner's description only reiterated the claimed degree requirement, without 
demonstrating a sufficient nexus between an established series or selection of courses students must 
complete leading to a specialty degree, and without establishing how such a curriculum is necessary to 
perform the duties it claims are so specialized and complex. The Petitioner has not shown that a prepared 
educational program leading to a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is 
required. 
12 
We reiterate that the Petitioner's bachelor's degree requirement in business administration, without a 
sufficient specialization, is particularly detrimental to its eligibility claims. Although the Petitioner 
asserts that the nature of the specific duties is specialized and complex, the record lacks sufficient 
evidence to support this claim. Therefore, the Petitioner has submitted insufficient evidence to satisfy 
the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and 
alternative basis for the decision. 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. 
13