dismissed H-1B Case: Media Editor

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 5132445 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 20, 2020 
The Petitioner, an education support services company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 
as a "media editor" under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-1B program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified 
foreign worker in a position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body 
of highly specialized knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific 
specialty ( or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record 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. 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 as specified in Matter ofChawathe, 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. THE PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a media editor. In its letter of support, the Petitioner 
provided a list ofjob duties for the proffered position, indicating that the Beneficiary would devote 70% 
of her time to reviewing, editing, and creating marketing, advertising, and public relations content; 20% 
of her time to analyzing and evaluating market position; and 10% of her time to other duties, such as 
detecting and correcting spelling and punctuation errors in company related content, monitoring 
multimedia content publication and distribution, attending weekly meetings, and supporting 
management with ad hoc duties as requested. The Petitioner included a list of tasks the Beneficiary 
would perform in carrying out the listed duties. In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), 
the Petitioner elaborated on the Beneficiary's duties in the proffered position and provided additional 
tasks she would perform in carrying out each duty. 
The Petitioner indicated that the minimum entry requirement for the proffered position is a bachelor's 
degree, or equivalent, in journalism, communication, advertising, public relations, or other closely 
related fields. 
III. ANALYSIS 
For the reasons set out below, we have determined that the proffered position does not qualify as a 
specialty occupation. Specifically, 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 
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. 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. 3 
On the labor condition application (LCA) 4 submitted in support of the H-1B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Editors" corresponding to the 
Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 27-3041. Thus, we reviewed the Handbook's 
subchapter entitled "How to Become an Editor," which states, in pertinent part, that a bachelor's 
degree in communications, journalism, or English, combined with previous writing and proofreading 
experience, is typically required to be an editor but that candidates with other backgrounds who can 
show strong writing skills may also find jobs as editors. 5 The Handbook also states that "employers 
generally prefer candidates who have a bachelor's degree in communications,joumalism, or English" 6 
( emphasis added). However, a preference is not an indication of a requirement. To prove that a job 
requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge as required 
by section 214(i)(l) of the Act, a petitioner must establish that the position requires the attainment of 
a bachelor's or higher degree in a specialized field of study or its equivalent. The Handbook's report 
does not establish this standard. 
For example, the Handbook indicates that baccalaureate degrees in various fields (communications, 
journalism, English, or "other backgrounds") may be adequate for entry into this occupation. In 
general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry and biochemistry, a minimum of 
a bachelor's of higher degree in more than one specialty is recognized as satisfying the "degree in the 
specific specialty ( or its equivalent)" requirement of section 2 l 4(i)(l )(B) of the Act. 7 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, 
3 We do not maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source ofrelevant 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. 
4 A petitioner submits the LCA to DOL to demonstrate that it will pay an H-lB worker the higher of either the prevailing 
wage for the occupational classification in the area of employment or the actual wage paid by the employer to other 
employees with similar duties, experience, and qualifications. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.73l(a). 
5 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Editors, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/media-and-communication/editors.htm (last visited Feb. 19, 2020). 
6 Id. 
7 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 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. The Petitioner has not provided this evidence here. 
3 
however, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in disparate fields, such as unknown "other 
backgrounds," 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 ). 
The Handbook, therefore, does not support a conclusion that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular 
position. 
The Petitioner also references DOL's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) summary report 
for "Editors," listed as SOC code 27-3041.00 for our consideration under this criterion. 
Though relevant, the information the Petitioner submits from O*NET does not establish the 
Petitioner's eligibility under the first criterion, as it does not establish that a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or the equivalent, is normally required. The summary report provides general 
information regarding the occupation; however, it does not support the Petitioner's assertion regarding 
the educational requirements for these positions. For example, the Specific Vocational Preparation 
(SVP) rating, which is defined as "the amount oflapsed time required by a typical worker to learn the 
techniques, acquire the information, and develop the facility needed for average performance in a 
specific job-worker situation," cited within O*NET's Job Zone designates this position as having an 
SVP 7 < 8. This indicates that the occupation requires "over 2 years up to and including 4 years" of 
training. 8 While the SVP rating provides the total number of years of vocational preparation required 
for a particular position, it is important to note that it does not describe how those years are to be 
divided among training, formal education, and experience - and it does not specify the particular type 
of degree, if any, that a position would require. 9 The O*NET summary report for this occupation also 
does not specify that a degree is required, but instead states, "most of these occupations require a four­
year bachelor's degree, but some do not." Similar to the SVP rating, the Job Zone Four designation 
does not indicate that any academic credentials for Job Zone Four occupations must be directly related 
to the duties performed. 
Further, we note that the summary report provides the educational requirements of "respondents," but 
does not account for 100% of the "respondents." The respondents' positions within the occupation 
are not distinguished by career level ( e.g., entry-level, mid-level, senior-level). Additionally, the graph 
in the summary report does not indicate that the "education level" for the respondents must be in a 
specific specialty. 10 A requirement for a bachelor's degree alone is not sufficient. Instead, 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., 484 F.3d at 147 (describing "a 
degree requirement in a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities 
of a particular position"). 
8 This training may be acquired in a school, work, military, institutional, or vocational environment. Specific vocational 
training includes: vocational education, apprenticeship training, in-plant training, on-the-job training, and essential 
experience in other jobs. 
9 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/help/ 
online/svp. 
10 Nor is it apparent whether these credentials were prerequisites to these individuals' hiring. 
4 
O*NET, therefore, also 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. 
Nor is the case law the Petitioner cites sufficient to satisfy the first criterion. The Petitioner contends 
that in concluding a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, is not normally the 
minimum requirement for the proffered position, the Director mischaracterized the Handbook and 
cites to Next Generation Tech., Inc. v. Johnson, 328 F. Supp. 3d 252 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). 
First, we are not bound to follow the published decision of a United States district court. See Matter 
of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715, 719-20 (BIA 1993). However, even if we were to consider the logic 
underlying Next Generation Tech., Inc., we would still conclude that the Petitioner had not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
As recognized by another court, while the Handbook may satisfy the first regulatory criterion for some 
professions, it does not other occupations in such a categorical manner. 11 See Innova Sols., Inc. v. 
Baran, 2019 WL 3753334, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2019) (declining to follow Next Generation Tech., 
Inc.). For example, "[the Handbook's] description for the Computer Programmer occupation does not 
describe the normal minimum educational requirements of the occupation in a categorical 
fashion." Id.; see also Xiaotong Liu v. Baran, 2018 WL 7348851 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 
2018). "Accordingly, [the Petitioner] could not simply rely on [the Handbook's] profile, and instead 
had the burden to show that the particular position offered to [ the Beneficiary] was among the 
Computer Programmer positions for which a bachelor's degree was normally required." See Innova 
Sols., Inc. 2019 WL 3753334, at *8. 
Moreover, the court in Next Generation Tech., Inc. relied in part on a USCIS policy memorandum 
regarding "Computer Programmers" indicating generally preferential treatment toward positions 
located within that occupational category, and "especially" toward companies in that particular 
petitioner's industry. However, USCIS rescinded the policy memorandum cited in Next Generation 
Tech., Inc. 12 
The Handbook does not describe the normal minimum educational requirement for positions located 
within the "Editors" occupational category in a categorical manner since it states that employers 
generally prefer candidates who have a bachelor's degree in communications, journalism, or English, 
but candidates with other backgrounds who can show strong writing skills may also find jobs as 
editors. Further, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position. 
The Petitioner also cites Residential Finance Corp. v. USCIS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012). 
We agree that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is what is important." However, 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 
11 Such categorically-described professions would include, for example, surgeons or attorneys, which indisputably require 
at least a bachelor's degree for entry into the occupation. 
12 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0142, Rescission of the December 22, 2000 "Guidance memo on HlB 
computer related positions" (Mar. 31, 2017), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/nativedocuments/PM-6002-
0142-H- l BComputerRelatedPositionsRecission.pdf. 
5 
specific specialty ( or its equivalent)" requirement of section 2 l 4(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 English and 
business, 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). 13 For the 
aforementioned reasons, however, the Petitioner has not met its burden to establish that the particular 
position offered in this matter requires a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, directly related to its duties in order to perform those tasks. 
In any event, the Petitioner has famished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition 
are analogous to those in Residential Finance. 14 Again, we are not bound to follow the published 
decision of a United States district court in matters arising even within the same district. See K-S-, 20 
I&N Dec. at 719-20. It is also important to note that in a subsequent case reviewed in the same 
jurisdiction, the court agreed with our analysis of Residential Finance. See Health Carousel, LLC v. 
USCIS, No. 1:13-CV-23, 2014 WL 29591 (S.D. Ohio 2014). 
The record lacks sufficient probative evidence to support a finding that the proffered position is one 
for which a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the 
minimum requirement for entry. For the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner has not met its burden 
to establish that the particular position offered in this matter requires a bachelor's or higher degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent, directly related to its duties in order to perform those tasks. Thus, 
the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
B. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs: 'The degree requirement is common to the industry 
in parallel positions among similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree[.]" 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong casts its gaze upon the common 
industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific position. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent) 
is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
13 The court in Residential Finance did not eliminate the statutory "bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty" 
language imposed by Congress. Rather, it found that the petitioner in that case had satisfied the requirement. 
14 The district judge's decision appears to have been based largely on the many factual errors made by the Director in the 
decision denying the petition. We further note that the Director's decision was not appealed to us. Based on the district 
court's findings and description of the record, if that matter had first been appealed through the available administrative 
process, we may very well have remanded the matter to the service center for a new decision for many of the same reasons 
articulated by the district court if these errors could not have been remedied by us in our de nova review of the matter. 
6 
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 attest that such firms "routinely employ and recruit 
only degreed individuals." 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)). 
The Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which the Handbook ( or other 
independent, authoritative sources) reports an industry-wide requirement for at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, we incorporate by reference the previous discussion on the 
matter. Also, there are no submissions from the industry's professional association indicating that it has 
made a degree a minimum entry requirement. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not submit any letters or 
affidavits from similar firms or individuals in the Petitioner's industry attesting that such firms "routinely 
employ and recruit only degreed individuals." 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted job vacancy announcements for our consideration 
under this prong. To be relevant for this consideration, the job vacancy announcements must advertise 
"parallel positions," and the announcements must have been placed by organizations that (1) conduct 
business in the Petitioner's industry and (2) are also "similar" to the Petitioner. These job vacancy 
announcements do not satisfy that threshold. Upon review of the documents, we find that the 
Petitioner's reliance on the job announcements is misplaced. 
We will first consider whether the advertised job opportunities could be considered "parallel 
positions." As noted, the Petitioner attested to DOL that the proffered position is a Level I position. 
However, two of the advertised positions require work experience beyond the requirements for a Level 
I position. For instance, one of the advertised positions requires a bachelor's degree and eight years 
ofrelevant experience, and another advertised position requires a bachelor's degree and five years of 
writing and editing experience. Further, some of the advertisements do not include sufficient 
information about the duties and responsibilities for the advertised positions. Thus, it is not possible 
to determine important aspects of the jobs, such as the day-to-day responsibilities, complexity of the 
job duties, supervisory duties (if any), and independent judgment required or the amount of 
supervision received. Therefore, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the primary duties 
and responsibilities of the advertised positions parallel those of the proffered position. 
Nor does the record contain documentary evidence sufficient to establish that these job vacancy 
announcements were placed by companies that (1) conduct business in the Petitioner's industry and 
(2) are also "similar" to the Petitioner. Here, the Petitioner is an education support services company 
with 10 employees. 15 In contrast, one of the advertised positions is for a strategic marketing and 
communications firm specializing in entertainment and popular culture; another is for a consumer 
research firm with 3,600 employees; and the remaining advertisements do not provide sufficient 
information regarding the hiring employers. While these advertised positions appear to involve 
15 Per the Petitioner's claim on the Form T-129 at the time of filing the petition. 
7 
different industries, the Petitioner did not supplement the record of proceedings to establish that these 
advertising organizations are similar to it. 16 
For all of these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that these job vacancy announcements are 
relevant. 17 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. 18 That is, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. 
The Petitioner also submitted an expert opinion letter, authored hvl , l Professor 
of Advertising in the School of Journalism and Broadcasting at [ • I University. In his 
letter,1 1(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 
journalism, communications, advertising, public relations, or other closely related fields. We carefully 
evaluated I I's assertions in support of the instant petition but find them insufficient. 
First, I Is expertise, regarding current industry degree requirements for media editor 
positions is not established in the record. His supporting documentation indicates that his experience 
over the past 30 years has been in an academic setting as a faculty member within a university. It also 
indicates that he has worked as a "Branding Consultant, adthinktank, BG" from January 1986 to the 
present, but does not include any information pertaining to this role. The documentation also does not 
provide specific information to indicate any recent relevant consulting work in the Petitioner's area of 
business. As such, without further clarification, it is unclear how his education, training, skills, or 
experience would translate to expertise regarding the current recruiting and hiring practices of an 
enterprise engaged in "providing non-instructional services that support educational processes or 
systems" ( as designated by the Petitioner in the petition) or similar organizations for media editors ( or 
parallel positions). 19 
16 The language of the regulation is clear and when determining whether the job vacancy announcements are relevant for 
consideration, the Petitioner must show that they are "similar" organizations. When determining whether the Petitioner 
and another organization share the same general characteristics, such factors may include information regarding the nature 
or type of organization, and, when pe11inent, the paiiicular 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 basis for the assertion. 
17 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 has not demonstrated 
what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be draV1rn from the advertisements with regard to detennining 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"). 
18 The Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how representative the job postings are of the particular 
advertising employers' recruiting history for the type of job advel1ised. As the advertisements are only solicitations for 
hire, they are not evidence of the actual hiring practices of these employers. 
19 The Petitioner designated its business operations under the N01ih American Industry Classification System code 611710, 
which is for "Educational Support Services" and is described as an industry "primarily engaged in providing non­
instructional services that supp01i educational processes or systems." For additional information, see 
8 
Further.I I states that "it is standard for a company such as [the Petitioner] ... [i]t is typical 
for an education services company ... [ and] the industry standard for a position such as Media Editor 
for [the Petitioner] is to be filled through recruiting a recent college graduate with the minimum of a 
bachelor's degree in journalism, communications, advertising, public relations, or other closely related 
fields." However, while I I briefly states that "[e]mployers with openings for Media Editors 
and similar professional positions have recruited at our campus, always seeking graduates with the 
minimum of a bachelor's degree," he does not discuss the specific relevance of those instances and 
does not farther 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 how 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 find that these evaluations do not satisfy 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) and, for the sake of efficiency, hereby incorporate this finding into 
our analysis of the remaining specialty-occupation criteria. 20 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits three articles from online sources 21 to illustrate industry standards 
for the education requirements of the proffered position. However, while all three of these articles 
discuss the role and importance of an editor within a company, they do not discuss the industry 
standards for the education requirements to enter this occupation, and thus, do not indicate that a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is required for entry. 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
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. 
We reviewed the Petitioner's statements regarding the proffered pos1t10n; however, while the 
Petitioner briefly stated that the media editor "will support [its] marketing, advertising, and public 
relations efforts through optimizing their content and to reach new, larger markets," it has not 
https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrc,....h~. ---~ 
20 We hereby incorporate our discussion ofl l's letter into our discussion of the other 8 C.F.R. 
§ 2 l 4.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) criteria. 
21 The three articles are from: onboardly.com, compukol.com, and brandpoint.com. 
9 
sufficiently developed relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the proffered position. That 
is, the Petitioner has not explained in detail how tasks such as: 
• closely reviewing, editing and revising multimedia content 
• review, edit, and proofread public relations communications with existing and potential clients 
• create content across all forms of social media 
• examine existing promotion and advertising materials for accuracy in clarity 
• invent slogans or catchphrases that appear on promotional material 
• confer with company management in choosing the right media to promote educational services 
to target market 
• develop, design, create, digitize, edit, maintain, archive, and program multimedia contents 
• prepare and rewrite publication to improve readability of content in different platforms 
• review and proofread marketing brochures, course descriptions, and promotion materials 
• coordinate with other team members to refine and optimize publication and marketing materials 
• collect data from the website, social media outlets, and company databases 
• analyze the data collected from the website and social media outlet into key metrics 
• convert key metrics related to the website and social media outlets into graphical information 
• monitor and update data and key metrics 
• design questionnaires to evaluate student satisfaction 
• review social media for information about the Petitioner 
• detect and correct errors in spelling and punctuation in any company related content 
• monitor multimedia content publication and distribution 
• attend weekly meetings to share findings in media content proposals 
require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge. These 
listed duties, when read in combination with the evidence found in record of proceedings, suggests 
that this particular position is not so complex or unique relative to other media editor that the duties 
can only be performed by an individual with a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. 
Further, the Petitioner submitted a "workflow chart" for the proffered pos1t10n, which we have 
reviewed. The chart outlines the process by which the Beneficiary would "publish" articles on social 
media and send final brochures to clients. However, while this chart summarizes the process, it does 
not sufficiently explain why this process or the publication of this content would require a bachelor's 
degree, or the equivalent, in a spec[fic specialty. To the contrary, we question why an individual with 
a bachelor's degree in any field could not perform this work so long as they possess the requisite level 
of knowledge about the Petitioner's business operations. 
We again refer to the expert opinion letter authored byl 11 k's opinion letter does 
not substantiate his conclusions, such that we can conclude that the Petitioner has met its burden of 
proof First,I I does not reference, cite, or discuss any studies, surveys, industry publications, 
authoritative publications, or other sources of empirical information which were consulted to complete 
his evaluation. 
Further, I 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 its equivalent, in 
10 
journalism, communications, advertising, public relations, or other closely related fields. However, 
while I I listed the duties provided by the Petitioner in his letter, he 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 discussions of the generic duties provided by the Petitioner and 
the specific courses found within the listed degrees that would qualify the Beneficiary to perform the 
listed duties, that description 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. Further, in his letter 
I I evaluates the hierarchical level of the proffered position and states that "the duties 
described ... are not those of a lower level employee ... but rather those of a professional employee 
with a strong background in journalism, communications, advertising, and/or public relations concepts 
and principles and a great deal of responsibility within the company" ( emphasis added). He further 
compares lower-level administrative positions to the proffered position and states that "the superior 
background of a bachelor's degree in journalism, communications, advertising, public relations, or 
other closely related fields ... qualifies the Media Editor to serve in this highly skilled leadership role" 
( emphasis added). However, while we note thatl lis attempting to distinguish the proffered 
position as a specialty occupation, the record does not indicate whether! I was aware that, 
as indicated by the Level I wage on the LCA, the Petitioner considered the proffered position to be for 
an employee who is expected to have a basic understanding of the occupation that requires limited, if 
any, exercise of judgment, close supervision, close monitoring of work for accuracy, and specific 
instructions on required tasks and expected results. As a result, we conclude that the Petitioner has 
not demonstrated thatl !possessed the requisite information to adequately assess the nature 
of the position and appropriately determine parallel positions based upon the job duties and level of 
responsibilities. Again, 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 
Int 'l, Inc., supra. 
The Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties 
of the position, and it did not identify any tasks that are so complex or unique that only a specifically 
degreed individual could perform them. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second 
alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it normally 
requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. While the 
Petitioner submitted a list of employees, including the titles of their "educational degrees," it does not 
assert eligibility under this criterion on appeal. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
D. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature of 
the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is usually 
associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
11 
For reasons similar to those discussed under the second prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), we 
find that the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one with duties sufiiciently 
specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). We incorporate our earlier 
discussion and analysis on this matter. 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
IV. 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
12