dismissed H-1B Case: Marketing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF RSOC-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 1, 2015 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a marketing firm, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a market research analyst and to 
classify her as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation. See section 1 01 (a )(15 )(H)(i)(b) of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The Director, 
California Service Center, denied the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. The appeal 
will be dismissed. 
The Director denied the petition, finding that the evidence of record did not establish that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The record of proceeding before us contains the following: (1) the Form I -129 and supporting 
documentation; (2) the Director's request for additional evidence (RFE); (3) the Petitioner's 
response to the RFE; (4) the Director's letter denying the petition; and (5) the Form I-290B, Notice 
of Appeal or Motion, and supporting documentation. 
Upon review of the entire record of proceeding, we find that the evidence of record does not overcome 
the Director's basis for denying this petition. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed, and the 
petition will be denied. 
I. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
The issue is whether the evidence of record has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence 
that the Petitioner will employ the Beneficiary in a specialty occupation position.' 
1 
The "preponderance of the evidence" standard requires that the evidence demonstrate that the applicant's claim is 
"probably true," where the determination of "truth" is made based on the factual circumstances of each individual 
case. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 20 I 0) (citing Matter of E-M-, 20 l&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 
1989)). 
Matter of RSOC-, Inc. 
A. Legal Framework 
For an H-lB petition to be granted, the Petitioner must provide sufficient evidence to establish that it 
will employ the Beneficiary in a specialty occupation position. To meet its burden of proof in this 
regard, the Petitioner must establish that the employment it is offering to the Beneficiary meets the 
applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. 
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) states, in pertinent part, the following: 
Specialty occupation means an occupation which [ (1)] requires theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in fields of human 
endeavor including, but not limited to, architecture, engineering, mathematics, 
physical sciences, social sciences, medicine and health, education, business 
specialties, accounting, law, theology, and the arts, and which [(2)] requires the 
attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as 
a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, a proposed position 
must meet one of the following criteria: 
(I) 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 a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
2 
Matter of RSOC-, Inc. 
As a threshold issue, it is noted that 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A) must logically be read together 
with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). In other words, this regulatory 
language must be construed in harmony with the thrust of the related provisions and with the statute 
as a whole. See K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) (holding that construction 
oflanguage which takes into account the design of the statute as a whole is preferred); see also COlT 
Independence Joint Venture v. Federal Sav. And Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989); Matter ofW­
F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). As such, the criteria stated in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) 
should logically be read as being necessary but not necessarily sufficient to meet the statutory and 
regulatory definition of specialty occupation. To otherwise interpret this section as stating the 
necessary and sufficient conditions for meeting the definition of specialty occupation would result in 
particular positions meeting a condition under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory or 
regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 387. To avoid this result, 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must therefore be read as providing supplemental criteria that must be met in 
accordance with, and not as alternatives to, the statutory and regulatory definitions of specialty 
occupation. 
As such and consonant with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) consistently interprets the 
term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered position. See 
Royal Siam Corp. v. Cherto_ff, 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"). Applying this standard, USCIS regularly approves H -1 B petitions for qualified foreign 
nationals who are to be employed as engineers, computer scientists, certified public accountants, 
college professors, and other such occupations. These professions, for which Petitioners have 
regularly been able to establish a minimum entry requirement in the United States of a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent directly related to the duties and 
responsibilities of the particular position, fairly represent the types of specialty occupations that 
Congress contemplated when it created the H-1B visa c!ltegory. 
To determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCIS does not simply 
rely on a position's title. The specific duties of the proffered position, combined with the nature of 
the petitioning entity's business operations, are factors to be considered. users must examine the 
ultimate employment of the foreign national, and determine whether the position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. The critical element is not 
the title of the position nor an employer's self-imposed standards, but whether 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 the specific specialty as the minimum for entry into 
the occupation, as required by the Act. 
3 
Matter of RSOC-, Inc. 
B. The Proffered Position 
In its support letter, the Petitioner provided the following information regarding the duties of the 
proffered position: 
• 30% of [the Beneficiary's] time will be devoted to customer acquisition. This is 
not a position that requires her to consult with clients on projects but rather to 
inform the clients of the types of services available, keyword campaigns and SEO 
strategies and investments. 
• 20% of [the Beneficiary's] time will be devoted to conversion and retention 
strategies, the purpose of which is to drive improvement on behalf of customer's 
websites and to increase and optimize all elements of customer acquisitions. 
Along with this she will develop a metric tracking and strategic evaluation of 
marketing initiatives. 
• 50% of her time will be new online/viral marketing efforts geared towards 
maximizing traffic and sales. 
The Petitioner stated that a "Bachelor's in Business Administration and experience in online media 
communications" is required to qualify for the proffered position. 
In its RFE response letter, the Petitioner revised the duties of the proffered position as follow: 
• 3% Identify market segments, measure demand, analyze consumer markets, detect 
perceived psychological processes using primary and secondary market research 
for our product[.] 
• 2% Track and measure studies using linear regression, factor analysis, 
multivariate analysis and structural equation modeling, crosstabs and t-tests[.] 
• 5% Collaborate closely with analytics to identify site improvements which 
optimize conversion and enhance the customer's experience[.] 
• 5% Provide statistical analysis research support for each individual project[.] 
• 3% Direct and coordinate activities concerned with gathering, recording and 
analyzing data about current and potential customers, competitors and the market 
for purposes of creating product feasibility for the customer and demand 
measurements. 
• 4% Interpret statistical output and present it to customers in a way that they can 
understand. 
• 5% Analyze, create, administer and interpret surveys through focus groups, phone 
calls and e-mail. 
• 5% Conduct in-depth research and make recommendations to management based 
on research and findings. 
4 
Matter of RSOC-, Inc. 
• 8% Conduct regular performance reporting, competitive analysis and market 
research. 
• 2% Customer acquisition. 
• 12% Create conversion and retention strategies. The purpose of which is to drive 
improvement on behalf of customer's websites and to increase and optimize all 
elements of customer acquisitions. Along with this [the Beneficiary] will develop 
a metric tracking and strategic evaluation of market initiatives[.] 
• 5% Online/viral marketing efforts geared towards maximizing traffic and sales. 
• 8% Managing search engine marketing campaigns with responsibility of 
maximizing return on investment by managing media cost and bidding on 
keywords[.] 
• 5% Integrate new data solutions that will improve the quality and depth of our 
company's research and analysis. 
• 10% Analyze collected data regarding marketing trends[.] 
• 8% Present marketing trends and online marketing results to stakeholders[.] 
• 5% Monitor industry statistics[.] 
• 5% Illustrate data graphically and translate complex findings into text[.] 
The Petitioner also changed the educational requirements of the proffered position to "at least, a 
bachelor's degree and experience in online media communications." 
C. Analysis 
As a preliminary matter, it is noted that the Petitioner has provided inconsistent information regarding 
the duties of the proffered position. For example, while the Petitioner stated in its support letter that the 
Beneficiary would devote 50 percent of her time to "online/viral marketing efforts geared towards 
maximizing traffic and sales," in its RFE response letter, the Petitioner significantly lowered the time 
the Beneficiary would spend on this task to five percent. Furthermore, the Petitioner added duties 
associated with a more senior role, such as directing and coordinating data gathering activities, as well 
as managing marketing campaigns. The Petitioner provided no explanation for these inconsistencies. It 
is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent 
objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless 
the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 
19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). USCIS regulations affirmatively require a petitioner to 
establish eligibility for the benefit it is seeking at the time the petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103 .2(b )(1 ). A visa petition may not be approved based on speculation of future eligibility or after 
the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 
17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg'l Comm'r 1978). A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in 
an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter of lzummi, 22 I&N 
Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). 
5 
Matter of RSOC-, Inc. 
Furthermore, the evidence of record does not establish the depth, complexity, or level of specialization, 
or substantive aspects of the matters upon which the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary will engage. 
Rather, the duties of the proffered position, and the position itself, are described in relatively 
generalized and abstract terms that do not relate substantial details about either the position or its 
constituent duties. The abstract level of information provided about the proffered position and its 
constituent duties is exemplified by the Petitioner's assertion that the Beneficiary will be involved in 
"customer acquisition." However, the Petitioner provides no insight into the Beneficiary's actual tasks 
associated with customer acquisition. The abstract nature of the proposed duties is further illustrated by 
the Petitioner's statement that the Beneficiary will "[ c ]ollaborate closely with analytics." The Petitioner 
does not explain the Beneficiary's specific tasks associated with "collaborat[ing] closely" nor does it 
identify the individuals or the entities with whom the Beneficiary would interact. Again, the 
generalized nature of the duties is exemplified by the Petitioner's statement, "[ o ]nline/viral 
marketing efforts geared towards maximizing traffic and sales," which provides no details as to how 
the Beneficiary would perform such duties. Notably, the Petitioner does not explain how the 
performance of the proffered duties, as described in the record, would require the attainment of a 
bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. This type of generalized 
description may be appropriate when defining the range of duties that may be performed within an 
occupational category, but it does not adequately convey the substantive work that the Beneficiary 
will perform within the Petitioner's business operations and, thus, cannot be relied upon by the 
Petitioner when discussing the duties attached to specific employment. 
In the instant case, the Petitioner has not described the proffered position with sufficient detail to 
determine that the minimum requirements are a bachelor's degree in a specialized field of study. It 
is incumbent on the Petitioner to provide sufficient evidence to establish that the particular position 
that it proffers would necessitate services at a level requiring both the theoretical and practical 
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and the attainment of at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. When "any person makes an application for a visa or 
any other document required for entry, or makes an application for admission, [ ... ] the burden of 
proof shall be upon such person to establish that he is eligible" for such benefit. Section 291 of the 
Act; see also Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972). 
Without a meaningful job description, the record lacks evidence sufficiently concrete and 
informative to demonstrate that the proffered position requires a specialty occupation's level of 
knowledge in a specific specialty. The tasks as described do not communicate (1) the actual work 
that the Beneficiary would perform, (2) the complexity, uniqueness and/or specialization of the 
tasks, and/or (3) the correlation between that work and a need for a particular level education of 
highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. The Petitioner's assertion with regard to the 
educational requirement for the position is conclusory and unpersuasive, as it is not supported by the 
job description or probative evidence. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is 
not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 
I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter a/Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 
(Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
Matter of RSOC-, Inc. 
Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that the size of an employer's business has or could have an 
impact on the duties of a particular position. See EG Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a/ Mexican Wholesale 
Grocery v Department of Homeland Security, 467 F. Supp. 2d 728 (E.D. Mich. 2006). Thus, the 
size of a Petitioner2 may be considered as a component of the nature of the Petitioner's business, as 
the size impacts upon the duties of a particular position. In matters where a Petitioner's business is 
relatively small, we review the record for evidence that its operations, are, nevertheless, of sufficient 
complexity to indicate that it would employ the Beneficiary in position requiring the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge that may be obtained only through a 
baccalaureate degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Additionally, when a 
petitioner employs relatively few people, it may be necessary for the Petitioner to establish how the 
Beneficiary will be relieved from performing non-qualifying duties. The record of proceeding does 
not contain credible documentation explaining how the Beneficiary will be relieved from performing 
non-qualifying duties. 
Nevertheless, we will analyze the duties as described and the evidence of record to determine 
whether the proffered position as described would qualify as a specialty occupation. To that end and 
to make our determination as to whether the employment described above qualifies as a specialty 
occupation, we turn first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J). 
A baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is 
normally the minimum requirementfor entry into the particular position 
USCIS recognizes the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook 
(Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements ofthe wide variety 
of occupations that it addresses. 3 The Petitioner asserted in the LCA that the proffered position falls 
under the occupational category "Market Research Analysts and Marketing Specialists." 
The Handbook states the following with regard to the educational requirements necessary for 
entrance into this field: 
Education 
Market research analysts typically need a bachelor's degree in market research or a 
related field. Many have degrees in fields such as statistics, math, and computer 
2 On the Form 1-129, the Petitioner stated that it has two employees. 
3 All of our references are to the 2014-2015 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
http://www.bls.gov/OCO/. The excerpts of the Handbook regarding the duties and requirements of the referenced 
occupational category are hereby incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
Matter of RSOC-, Inc. 
science. Others have backgrounds in business administration, the social sciences, or 
communications. 
Courses in statistics, research methods, and marketing are essential for these workers. 
Courses in communications and social sciences, such as economics, psychology, and 
sociology, are also important. 
Some market research analyst jobs require a master's degree. Several schools offer 
graduate programs in marketing research, but many analysts complete degrees in 
other fields, such as statistics and marketing, and/or earn a Master of Business 
Administration (MBA). A master's degree is often required for leadership positions 
or positions that perform more technical research. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., 
"Market Research Analysts," available at http://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/ market­
research-analysts.htm#tab-4 (last visited Sept. 29, 20 15). 
The Handbook reports that market research analysts have degrees and backgrounds in a wide-variety 
of disparate fields. That is, while the Handbook states that employees typically need a bachelor's 
degree in market research or a related field, it continues by specifying that many market research 
analysts have degrees in fields such as statistics, math, or computer science. According to the 
Handbook, other market research analysts have backgrounds in fields such as business 
administration, the social sciences, or communications. This passage of the Handbook identifies 
various courses as essential to this occupation, including statistics, research methods, and marketing. 
It further elucidates that courses in communications and social sciences (such as economics, 
psychology, and sociology) are also important. Therefore, although the Handbook indicates that 
market research analysts typically need an advanced degree, 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. 
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 such that the required body of 
Matter of RSOC-, Inc. 
highly specialized knowledge is essentially an amalgamation of these different specialties.4 Section 
214(i)(l)(B) ofthe Act (emphasis added). 
The Handbook also states that "others have a background in business administration." Although a 
general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business administration, may be a legitimate 
prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify a finding 
that a particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. See Royal Siam Corp. 
v. Cherto_ff, 484 F.3d at 147.5 
That is, USCIS interprets the degree requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to require a degree 
in a specific specialty (or its equivalent) that is directly related to the proposed position. Since there 
must be a close correlation between the required specialized studies and the position, the 
requirement of a degree with a generalized title, such as business administration, without further 
specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. C.f Matter of Michael Hertz 
Associates, 19 I&N Dec. 558 (Comm'r 1988). Therefore, the Handbook's recognition that a general, 
non-specialty "background" in business administration is sufficient for entry into the occupation 
strongly suggests that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is not normally the minimum entry 
requirement for this occupation. 6 
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 
4 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. 
5 Specifically, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit explained in Royal Siam that: 
!d. 
[t]he 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-1 B specialty 
occupation visa. See, e.g., Tapis lnt'l 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. 
6 The Petitioner's requirement of a bachelor's degree without indicating a specialty or a bachelor's degree in business 
also underscores our finding that the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter of RSOC- , Inc. 
credential is granted by the . _ to those who pass an exam and have at 
least three years of experience working in opinion and market research. 7 
We reviewed the website, which confirms the Handbook's 
statement regarding the requirements for professional certification (i.e., passage of an exam and 
three years of relevant industry experience), and further specifies that the "Education" necessary to 
apply for professional certification is "12 industry-related education hours within the two preceding 
years." website provides the following information about the 
Professional Researcher Certification program: 
The Professional Researcher Certification program (PRC) is designed to recognize 
the qualifications and expertise of marketing and opinion research professionals. The 
goal of PRC is to encourage high standards within the survey profession to raise 
competency, establish an objective measure of an individual 's knowledge and 
proficiency and to encourage professional development. Achieving and maintaining 
PRC validates the knowledge of the market research industry and puts researchers in 
a select group of like-minded professionals. 
* * * 
Because PRC indicates to the public your ability to conduct marketing research, the 
PRC Board requires [a candidate] to have experience in the survey and opinion 
process. Three years of relevant experience is required. . . . A total of 12 industry­
related education hours within the two preceding years are required at time of 
application. Conferences, seminars, webinars, etc., must be added to [the candidate's] 
record. 
* * * 
The benefits of a Certification program are both industry-wide and individual. For the 
individual , it is a means of differentiating oneself, a "badge" of competence in the 
given areas and an assurance that the individual is current in knowledge and 
experience. For the profession/industry as a whole, it provides a vehicle for 
developing a pool of well-trained, competent marketing researchers, thereby 
improving both perceived and substantive standards. 
website states that the association was founded in and is the leading and 
largest association of opinion and marketing research professions. For additional information, see 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter of RSOC- , Inc. 
emphasizes that the credentialing program recognizes the 
qualifications and expertise of marketing and opinion research professionals, encourages high 
standards within the profession, and establishes an objective measure of an individual's knowledge 
and proficiency . According to the association's website, the credential indicates to the public an 
individual's ability to conduct market research. The narrative continues by stating that the credential 
provides a vehicle for developing a pool of well-trained, competent marketing researchers, thereby 
improving both perceived and substantive standards. The website does not indicate that the market 
research analyst positions have any particular academic requirements for entry, nor does it indicate 
that these positions require any particular level of education to be identified as qualified and 
possessing a level of expertise/competence. Instead, the highlights the 
importance of professional experience and industry-related professional courses (through 
conferences, seminars, and webinars). 
Thus, the Handbook and the website do not support the claim that the 
occupational category "Market Research Analysts" is one for which normally the minimum 
requirement for entry is a baccalaureate degree (or higher) in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. Even if it did (which it does not), to satisfy the first criterion, the Petitioner must provide 
evidence to support a finding that the particular position proffered would normally have such a 
minimum, specialty degree requirement or its equivalent. 
The Petitioner also submitted an advisory opinion letter from , 
a professor of 
marketing at We reviewed the opinion letter in its entirety. However, the letter is 
not persuasive in establishing the proffered position as a specialty occupation position. 
In his letter, asserts that the proffered position requires "a bachelor's-level Degree in 
Marketing; Business Administration, with coursework in marketing ; or a related field." 
states that he reviewed the duties provided in the Petitioner 's support letter and in its RFE response 
letter. However, he does not discuss the duties of the proffered position in any substantive detail. 
There is no indication that he possesses any knowledge of the Petitioner's proffered position beyond 
this information. He does not demonstrate or assert in-depth knowledge of the Petitioner's specific 
business operations or how the duties of the position would actually be performed in the context of 
the Petitioner 's business enterprise. For instance, there is no indication that visited the 
Petitioner's business, observed the Petitioner's employees, interviewed them about the nature of 
their work, or documented the knowledge that they apply on the job. opinion does not 
relate his conclusion to specific, concrete aspects of this Petitioner's business operations so as to 
demonstrate a sound factual basis for his conclusions about the educational requirements for the 
particular position here at issue. 
Accordingly, the very fact that he attributes a degree requirement to such a generalized treatment of 
the proffered position undetmines the credibility of his opinion. Importantly, his statements are not 
supported by copies or citations of research material that may have been used. He has not provided 
sufficient facts that would support the contention that the proffered position requires at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 
11 
(b)(6)
Matter of RSOC-, Inc. 
Finally, there is no indication that was aware of the fact that the Petitioner designated the 
proffered position as an entry-level position relative to others within the occupational category. We 
consider this a significant omission, in that it indicates an incomplete review ofthe position. 
We may, in our discretion, use as advisory opinion statements submitted as expert testimony. 
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. Matter of Caron International, 
19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm 'r 1988). As a reasonable exercise of our discretion we discount the 
advisory opinion letter as not probative of any criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)( A). 
The Petitioner cites to Unical Aviation, Inc. v. INS, 248 F.Supp.2d 931 (C.D. Cal. 202) and states 
that the court concluded that job duties in that case were indistinguishable from the Market Research 
Analyst position described in the Handbook. First, counsel has furnished no evidence to establish 
that the facts of the instant petition are analogous to those in Unical Aviation, Inc. v. INS. 
Furthermore, as we discussed above, the information contained in the Handbook does not support a 
finding that the positions within the market research analysts occupational category are specialty 
occupation. Counsel further states the Beneficiary in that case, like the Beneficiary of this case, had 
a bachelor's degree in business administration with courses in marketing. 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. Therefore , we find counsel 's reliance on Unical Aviation , Inc. v. INS is 
misplaced. 
Finally, the Petitioner also cites Residential Fin. Corp. v. US Citizenship & Immigration Services, 
839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012) as relevant to this matter. The employer in that case sought to 
hire an individual for a position it designated as market research analyst. Counsel references the 
case for the proposition that the degree need not be in a "'single academic discipline."' 
As we discussed earlier, provided the specialties are closely related, 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, 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). 
12 
Matter of RSOC-, Inc. 
In any event, the Petitioner has furnished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition 
are analogous to those in Residential Fin. Corp. v. US Citizenship & Immigration Services. 8 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 (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. I d. at 719. It is 
important to note that in a subsequent case that was reviewed in the same jurisdiction, the court 
agreed with our analysis of Residential Fin. Corp. See Health Carousel, LLC v. US Citizenship & 
Immigration Services, No. 1 :13-CV-23, 2014 WL 29591 (S.D. Ohio 2014). 
It is incumbent upon the Petitioner to provide persuasive evidence that the proffered pos1t10n 
qualifies as a specialty occupation under this criterion, notwithstanding the absence of Handbook 
support on the issue. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iv) provides that "[a]n H-1B petition 
involving a specialty occupation shall be accompanied by [ d]ocumentation ... or any other required 
evidence sufficient to establish ... that the services the Beneficiary is to perform are in a specialty 
occupation." Again, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter ofSo.ffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
Upon review of the totality of the evidence in the entire record of proceeding, we conclude that the 
Petitioner has not established that the proffered position falls within an occupational category for which 
the Handbook, or other authoritative source, indicates that a requirement for at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally required for entry into the occupation. Furthermore, 
the duties and requirements of the proffered position as described in the record of proceeding do not 
indicate that the particular position that is the subject of this petition is one for which a baccalaureate or 
higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry. 
Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
The requirement ofa baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel 
positions among similar organizations 
Next, we will review the record of proceeding regarding the first of the two alternative prongs of 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). This prong alternatively calls for a petitioner to establish that a 
requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common for 
8 It is noted that the district judge's decision in that case appears to have been based largely on the many factual errors 
made by the service center in its decision denying the petition. We further note that the service center 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. 
13 
(b)(6)
Matter of RSOC-, Inc. 
positions that are identifiable as being (1) in the Petitioner 's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered 
position, and also (3) located in organizations that are similar to the Petitioner. 
In his October 14, 2014 letter, VP of Business Development at 
states that his company has 22 employees and that some of those employees are marketing 
analysts and consultants who have bachelor's or master' s degrees in marketing or business with 
specialization in marketing or a closely related field. further states that his company is in 
the business of developing music videos. We first note that the Petitioner does not provide sufficient 
evidence to demonstrate that conducts business in the san1e industry as the 
Petitioner. We further find that letter lacks specificity regarding what factors render the 
marketing specialist position he discusses a specialty occupation. For example, does not 
provide the duties of a marketing .specialist in the Petitioner's industry. Nor does he support his 
assertions with independent and objective evidence. Again, going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of So.ffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the duties 
of the positions referenced in this letter parallel those of the proffered position. 
Therefore, letter is insufficient to demonstrate that of a bachelor 's or higher degree in a 
specific specialty , or its equivalent, is common for positions that are identifiable as being (1) in the 
Petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered position, and also (3) located in organizations that 
are similar to the Petitioner. 
We will next address the job advertisements submitted by the Petitioner. Upon review of the 
documents, we find that the Petitioner's reliance on the job advertisements is misplaced. 
For the Petitioner to establish that an organization in its industry is also similar to it, it must 
demonstrate that the Petitioner and the organization share the same general characteristics. Without 
such evidence, documentation submitted by a petitioner is generally outside the scope of 
consideration for this criterion, which encompasses only organizations that are similar to the 
Petitioner. When determining whether the Petitioner and the adverti sing organization share the same 
general characteristics , such factors may include information regarding the nature or type of 
organization, and, when pertinent, the particular scope of operations , as well as the level of revenue 
and staffing (to list just a few elements that may be considered). It is not sufficient for the Petitioner 
to claim that an organization is similar and in the same industry without providing a legitim ate basis 
for such an assertion. 
Upon review , we find that these advertisements do not demonstrate that a requirement of a 
bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common for positions that are 
identifiable as being (1) in the Petitioner ' s industry , (2) parallel to the proffered position , and (3) 
located in organizations that are similar to the Petitioner. 9 
9 See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)( 2). 
14 
(b)(6)
Matter of RSOC-, Inc. 
For example, the Petitioner submitted advertisements from, among others, (a 
communications and health information technology firm), Inc. (a software 
consulting firm), (an electric supplier), (a roofing and sheet 
metal fabrication company) , (an agribusiness corporation), (a 
staffing company) , (a nutritional research company) , (a 
financial services company) , and (a global information technology company). The 
Petitioner did not state which aspects or traits (if any) it shares with the . advertising 
organizations. Without further information , the advertisements do not appear to involve 
organizations that operate in the Petitioner ' s industry that are also similar to it, and the Petitioner has 
not provided any probative evidence to suggest otherwise. The Petitioner did not supplement the 
record of proceeding to establish that the advertising organizations are similar to it. 
While some of the advertisements appear to be from marketing consulting firms, the Petitioner did 
not state what characteristics the Petitioner shares with these companies other than offering services 
in market analysis . For example , the Petitioner stated that it employs two individuals without 
providing any information regarding its gross or net income. Some of these advertisements are, 
however, from larger companies such as (global operations with offices in three 
continents); (51-200 employees with focus the on food industry); 
(51-200 employees) ; and (global operations with worldwide property 
management services) . It is unclear how similar these companies are to the Petitioner. 
Moreover, these advertisements do not appear to involve parallel positions. For example, the 
positions with require a bachelor 's degree with three to five years of experience , or an 
equivalent amount of additional education ; the position with requires one to four 
years of experience ; the position with requires two to five years of experience in a web­
focused environment and a minimum of two years of paid search experience ; the position with 
requires three to five years of experience with commodity trading, research and technical analysis; 
the position with _ requires three to five years of experience, or an 
equivalent amount of additional education; and the position with requires a mm1mum 
of a master's degree and six or more years of experience in financial services marketing. However , 
the Petitioner designated the proffered position on the LCA as a Level I position. 10 As noted, 
10 The " Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance " issued by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) provide s a 
description of the wage levels . A Level I wage rate is described by DOL as follow s: 
Level I (entry) wage rates are assigned to job offers for beginning level employ ees who have only a b asic 
understanding of the occupation. These employees perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, 
exercise of judgmen t. The tasks provide experience and familiarization with the employer's method s, 
practices , and progr ams. The employees may perform higher level work for training and development al 
purposes . These employees work under close supervision and receive specific instructions on required tasks 
and results expected. Their work is closel y monitored and reviewed for accuracy . Statements that the job 
offer is for a research fellow , a worker in trainin g, or an internship are indicators that a Level I wage should 
15 
(b)(6)
Matter qf RSOC-, Inc. 
individuals occupying positions at this wage level are expected to have only a basic understanding of 
the occupation and perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment. The 
advertised positions appear to involve more senior positions than the proffered position. More 
importantly, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the primary duties and responsibilities 
of the advertised positions are parallel to those of the proffered position . 
Furthermore , we note that would find acceptable a high school diploma and seven years 
of experience in lieu of a bachelor's degree, which undermines the Petitioner 's assertion that the 
proffered position is a specialty occupation requiring at least a bachelor's degree in specific 
specialty. 
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 job postings is not 
necessary. That is, as the evidence does not establish that similar organizations in the same industry 
routinely require at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for parallel 
positions, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. 11 
Thus, based upon a complete review of the record, we find that the Petitioner has not established that 
a requirement for at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common for 
positions that are identifiable as being (1) in the Petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered 
position, and also (3) located in organizations that are similar to the Petitioner. Thus, for the reasons 
discussed above, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2) . 
The particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by 
an individual with a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent 
be considered. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor , Emp 't & Training Admin. , Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. 
Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009) , available at http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov /pdf/ 
NPWHC_ Guidance _ Revised_l1_2009.pdf. 
11 It must be noted that 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 rrom the advertisements with regard to 
determining the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. See 
generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 ( 1995). Moreover, given that there is no indication that 
the advertisements were randomly selected, the validity of any such inferences could not be accurately determined even 
if the sampling unit were sufficiently large. See id. at 195-196 (explaining that "[r]andom selection is the key to [the] 
process [of probability sampling]" and that "random selection offers access to the body of probability theory , which 
provides the basis for estimates of population parameters and estimates of error "). 
16 
Matter of RSOC-, Inc. 
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. 
In the instant case, the Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative complexity or uniqueness as an 
aspect of the proffered position of marketing specialist. Specifically, the record does not 
demonstrate how the market research analyst position described requires the theoretical and practical 
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge such that a bachelor's or higher degree in a 
specific specialty or its equivalent is required to perform them. 
This is further evidenced by the LCA submitted by the petitioner in support of the instant petition. 
The LCA indicates a wage level at a Level I (entry) wage, which is the lowest of four assignable 
wage levels. 12 Without further evidence, the evidence does not demonstrate that the proffered 
position is complex or unique as such a position falling under this occupational category would 
likely be classified at a higher-level, such as a Level III (experienced) or Level IV (fully competent) 
position, requiring a significantly higher prevailing wage.13 For example, a Level IV (fully 
competent) position is designated by DOL for employees who "use advanced skills and diversified 
knowledge to solve unusual and complex problems." 14 The evidence of record does not establish 
that this position is significantly different from other positions in the occupational category such that 
it refutes the Handbook's information that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent is not required for the proffered position. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well qualified for the pos1t1on, and references her 
qualifications. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education 
12 As previously mentioned, the wage-level of the proffered position indicates that (relative to other positions falling 
under this occupational category) the Beneficiary is only required to have a basic understanding of the occupation; that 
she will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; that she will be closely 
supervised and her work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and that she will receive specific instructions on 
required tasks and expected results. 
13 
The issue here is that the Petitioner's designation of this position as a Levell, entry-level position undermines its claim 
that the position is particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same 
occupation. Nevertheless, it is important to note that a Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position 
from classification as a specialty occupation. In certain occupations (doctors or lawyers, for example), an entry-level 
position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for 
entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designation would not reflect that an occupation qualifies as a specialty 
occupation if that higher-level position does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent. That is, a position's wage level designation may be a consideration but is not a substitute for 
a determination of whether a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)( I) of the Act. 
14 
For additional information regarding wage levels as defined by DOL, see U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training 
Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available 
at http://www. foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _II_ 2009.pdf 
1'7 
Matter of RSOC-, Inc. 
or experience of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner has not satisfied the second 
alternative prong of8 e.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The employer normally requires a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
spectfic specialty, or its equivalent, for the position 
The third criterion of 8 e.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. To 
this end, we review the Petitioner's past recruiting and hiring practices, as well as information 
regarding employees who previously held the position, and any other documentation submitted by a 
petitioner in support of this criterion of the regulations. 
To merit approval of the petition under this criterion, the record must establish that a Petitioner's 
imposition of a degree requirement is not merely a matter of preference for high-caliber candidates 
but is necessitated by performance requirements of the position. While a Petitioner may assert that a 
proffered position requires a specific degree, that statement alone without corroborating evidence 
cannot establish the position as a specialty occupation. Were USers limited solely to reviewing a 
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 artificially 
created a token degree requirement, whereby all individuals employed in a particular position 
possessed a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty, or its equivalent. See Defensor 
v. Meissner, 201 F.3d at 388. 
To satisfy this criterion, the evidence of record must show that the specific performance 
requirements of the position generated the recruiting and hiring history. users must examine the 
actual employment requirements, and, on the basis of that examination, determine whether the 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. 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 the specific specialty as the minimum for entry into 
the occupation as required by the Act. 
The Petitioner submitted several of its employees' and independent contractors' degrees, and the 
agreements it executed with them. We find that information contained in these documents is not 
sufficient to demonstrate the positions held by these individuals were the same as, or even similar to, 
the position proffered to the Beneficiary. We also finds that the varying salaries paid to these 
individuals and the master's degrees held by some of them raise questions as to whether the 
positions held by these individuals were in fact the same as the one proffered here. Moreover, the 
Petitioner's own assertions regarding the acceptability of a bachelor's degree in business 
18 
Matter of RSOC-, Inc. 
administration demonstrate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, is not 
required. 
The Petitioner also submitted petition approval notices for other nonimmigrant workers. However, 
the Petitioner submitted insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the positions held by these 
individuals were the same as the proffered position. Furthermore, we are not required to approve 
petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may 
have been erroneous. See, e.g., Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 
(Comm'r 1988). If any of the previous nonimmigrant petitions were approved based on the same 
unsupported assertions that are contained in the current record, they would constitute material and 
gross error on the part of the Director. It would be "absurd to suggest that [US CIS] or any agency 
must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent." Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 
1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). A prior approval does not compel the 
approval of a subsequent petition or relieve the Petitioner of its burden to provide sufficient 
documentation to establish current eligibility for the benefit sought. 55 Fed. Reg. 2606, 2612 (Jan. 
26, 1990). A prior approval also does not preclude USCIS from denying an extension of an original 
visa petition based on a reassessment of eligibility for the benefit sought. See Texas A&M Univ. v. 
Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556, 2004 WL 1240482 (5th Cir. 2004). Furthermore, our authority over the 
service centers is comparable to the relationship between a court of appeals and a district 
court. Even if a service center director had approved nonimmigrant petitions on behalf of a 
beneficiary, we would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of a service 
center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), aff'd, 248 F.3d 1139 
(5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that it normally requires at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty or its equivalent for the proffered position, it does not satisfy 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
The nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment ofa 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a spec~fic specialty, or its equivalent 
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. 
The Petitioner claims that the nature of the specific duties of the position in the context of its 
business operations 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. We reviewed the Petitioner's statements regarding the proffered position and its 
business operations. However, relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently 
19 
Matter of RSOC-, Inc. 
developed by the Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. That is, the proposed duties have 
not been described with sufficient specificity to establish that they are more specialized and complex 
than positions that are not usually associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent. 
We further incorporate our earlier discussion and analysis regarding the duties of the proffered 
position, and the designation of the proffered position in the LCA as a Level I position (of the lowest 
of four assignable wage-levels) relative to others within the occupational category. Without more, 
the position is one not likely distinguishable by relatively specialized and complex duties. That is, 
without further evidence, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that its proffered position is one with 
specialized and complex duties as such a position would likely be classified at a higher-level, such as 
a Level III (experienced) or Level IV (fully competent) position, requiring a substantially higher 
prevailing wage. 15 
Although the Petitioner asserts that the nature of the specific duties is specialized and complex, the 
record lacks sufficient evidence to support this claim. Thus, the Petitioner has submitted inadequate 
probative evidence to satisfy the criterion of the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
For the reasons related in the preceding discussion, the Petitioner has not established that it has 
satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) and, therefore, it cannot be found that 
the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The appeal will be dismissed and the 
petition denied. 
II. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons. 16 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; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). 
Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofRSOC-, Inc., ID# 13955 (AAO Oct. 1, 2015) 
15 As previously discussed, a Level IV (fully competent) position is designated by DOL for employees who "use 
advanced skills and diversified knowledge to solve unusual and complex problems" and requires a significantly higher 
wage 
16 As the grounds discussed above are dispositive of the Petitioner's eligibility for the benefit sought in this matter, we 
will not address and will instead reserve our determination on the additional issues and deficiencies that we observe in 
the record of proceeding with regard to the approval of the H-1 8 petition. 
20