dismissed H-1B Case: Marketing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 4962458 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 6, 2020 
The Petitioner, a marketing and branding solutions company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "market research analyst" 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. 
§ 1101(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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation . 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Director erred in denying 
the petition. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 1 
I. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the entire record, for the reasons set out below, we have determined that the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. In her decision, the Director thoroughly discussed the Petitioner's failure to 
meet any of the four regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4) . Upon consideration 
of the entire record, including the evidence submitted and arguments made on appeal, we adopt and 
affirm the Director's decision with the comments below. See Matter of P. Singh, Attorney, 
26 I&N Dec. 623 (BIA 2015) (citing Matter of Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994)); see also 
Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 7-8 (1st Cir. 1996) ("[I]f a reviewing tribunal decides that the facts and 
evaluative judgments prescinding from them have been adequately confronted and correctly resolved 
by a trial judge or hearing officer, then the tribunal is free simply to adopt those findings" provided 
the tribunal's order reflects individualized attention to the case). 
1 We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 
(AAO 2010). 
On a eal, the Petitioner submits the followin additional evidence: (1 a new ex ert o inion letter 
from Professor at the Colle e of 
Management and Technology; (2) a letter from .__ _______ ____.President o_,__ _____ _. 
D and (3) several of the Petitioner's contracts for hire with third-parties. Upon review, we've 
determined that the Petitioner's reliance on the newly submitted documents is misplaced. 
In his letter,I I (1) describes the credentials that he asserts qualify him to opine upon the 
nature of the proffered position; (2) states that he reviewed the job duties of the proffered position 
provided by the Petitioner; and (3) states that the position would require a bachelor's degree, or its 
equivalent, in marketing, economics, or another closely related field. We carefully evaluated □ 
I I's assertions in support of the instant petition but find them insufficient. 
In this instance, I I's letter does not substantiate his conclusions, such that we can conclude 
that the Petitioner has met its burden of proof. First, while I I briefly refers to O*NET and 
lists three websites he referenced in his research, he does not discuss the specific relevance of those 
references and does not further reference, cite, or discuss any studies, surveys, industry publications, 
authoritative publications, or other sources of empirical information that he may have consulted to 
complete his evaluation. 2 
Further,! I states that he reviewed the duties of the proffered position provided by the 
Petitioner and concluded that the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree, or equivalent, in 
marketing, economics, or another closely related field. However, while he listed the duties provided 
by the Petitioner in his letter,I I did not discuss the specifics of the particular tasks upon 
which the Beneficiary would work in meaningful detail. For example, while we appreciate his brief 
discussion of the generic duties provided by the Petitioner, the generic requirements for market 
research analyst positions, and the general core curricula covered in the marketing and economics 
fields,I Is letter still falls short of providing a meaningful discussion of what the 
Beneficiary would actually do in the proffered position and how those duties actually require the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge. 
Furthermore,! references the Beneficiary's qualifications for the proffered position and 
claims that she is prepared to function in the specialty occupation of market research analyst. 
However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education or experience 
of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. Simply discussing the Beneficiary's qualifications, or courses 
available in a degree program, does not sufficiently develop relative complexity or uniqueness of the 
particular position. As such, we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated thaU I 
adequately assessed the nature of the position and appropriately determined parallel positions based 
upon the job duties and level of responsibilities. 
2 While I ldoes reference O*NET, the Director's decision has already discussed why O*NET does not report 
an industry-wide requirement for at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, again, we 
incorporate by reference the previous discussion on the matter. 
2 
Additionally, I I states that "it is a common industry practice for firms in the global 
technology industry (such as [the Petitioner]) to hire [a] professional/specialty-level Market Research 
Analyst" and concludes by stating that the position requires at least a bachelor's degree, or its 
equivalent, in marketing, economics, or another closely related field. However, whilel I 
briefly refers to being in "contact with various recruiters (throughout the United States and around the 
world) regarding numerous employment opportunities for students at the university," and states that 
those recruiters consistently advise that a bachelor's degree in marketing, economics, or a closely 
related field is the requisite background for these position, he does not provide any evidence of these 
requirements and does not further reference, cite, or discuss any studies, surveys, industry 
publications, authoritative publications, or other sources of empirical information that he may have 
consulted to complete his evaluation. As such, it remains unclear howl I reached his 
conclusions as to the industry educational requirements for the proffered position. 
We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of 
Caron Int'!, 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. Consistent with Caron Int 'l, we conclude that this evaluation does not 
satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
Next, in his letter, the President of~-------~ describes the nature of his business and 
explains how it is similar to the Petitioner. The letter describes different projects both companies have 
worked on and identifies the same or similar clients they have worked with, to demonstrate that they 
are in the same industry. In his letter, the President of.___, ______ __, further states that he has 
hired a market research analyst for his own company and notes that his company (and the industry) 
requires a bachelor's degree in marketing, economics, or a related field for entry into the position. 
However, the letter is not supported by evidence or the necessary information to determine that the 
company routinely employs or recruits only specifically degreed individuals for market research 
analyst positions ( or parallel positions). As such, we conclude that the letter is not sufficient to 
establish that there is a common industry requirement for a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty 
for the proffered position. 
Finally, the Petitioner also submits several of its contracts for hire with third-parties to "confirm the 
substantial nature of [its] business operations, and [its] need for a Market Research Analyst." The 
Petitioner states that the Beneficiary "would be working in a critical area to expand [its] business of 
providing marketing and branding solutions for clients." However, while these documents show that 
the Petitioner has agreements in place with third-parties, they are not sufficient to demonstrate that the 
duties of the proffered position require knowledge usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. For example, one of the 
agreements is for the Petitioner to manage the client's social media, create online restaurant reviews, 
and provide professional photography; another agreement is for the Petitioner to create product videos 
and online reviews for the client's product(s); and a third agreement is for the Petitioner to perform a 
photoshoot of specific locations within a city. Accordingly, these agreements are not evidence of work 
that would require knowledge usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, and, as such, are not sufficient to establish that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
3 
II. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
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 here, and the petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4