dismissed H-1B Case: Mortgage Brokerage

MATTER OF A-F-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 26,2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a 20-employee mortgage loan brokerage company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "mortgage loan processor" under the H-1 B nonimmigrant classification for 
specialty -occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ 
a qualified foreign worker in a position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application 
of a body of highly specialized knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in 
the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded the Petitioner 
did not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the P~titioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the Director erred in denying the petition. \ 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
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.P.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: 
Matter of A-F-, Inc. 
(1) 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 u~ually associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has consistently 
interpreted 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 proposed 
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"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
In the H-lB petitiOn, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a "mortgage loan 
processor." In its appeal, the Petitioner provided the following job duties for the position: 1 
• Analyze applicant's complex financial status, credit rating, financial statements, 
1 and other property appraisal to determine feasibility of granting loans (20%); 
• Obtain and compile copies of loan applicants' credit histories, corporate financial 
statements, and other financial statements (1 0%); . 
• Review loan agreements to ensure that they are complete and accurate according 
to federal and state regulations (20% ); 
• Performs a thorough review and analysis of borrowers credit, employment, 
income and assets as required by the particular program before submitting the file 
to the underwriter (15%); 
• Confer with underwriters to aid in resolving mortgage application problems 
(10%); 
• Use underwriting software to produce a recommendation (15%); and 
• Supervise loan personnel (10%). 
1 The Petitioner states on appeal that the "previous legal representative did not consult with us for the Mortgage Loan 
Processor's job duties or obtain our approval on the proposed job descriptions." Thus, we will not consider the 
previously submitted job descriptions for the proffered position. 
2 
Matter of A-F-, Inc. 
According to the Petitioner, the position requires a bachelor's degree in business administration. 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 2 
Specifically, the record ( 1) does not describe the position's duties with sufficient detail; and (2) does 
not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate 
with a specialty occupation.3 
As a preliminary matter, the Petitioner's claim that a b,achelor's degree in business administration is 
sufficient for the position is inadequate to establish that the proposed position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. A petitioner must demonstrate that the proffered position requires a precise and specific 
course of study that relates directly and closely to the position in question. 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 or business administration, without further 
specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz 
Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558,560 (Comm'r 1988). 
To prove that a job requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge as required by section 214(i)( 1) of the Act, a petitioner must establish that the position 
requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specialized field of study or its 
equivalent. As discussed supra, USCIS interprets the degree requirement at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)( A) to require a degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed 
position. Although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business administration, 
may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will 
not justify a finding that a particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation.4 
Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147.5 
2 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
3 The Petitioner submitted documentation in support of the H-1 B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position and its business operations. Although we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
4 A general degree requirement does not necessarily preclude a proffered position from qualifying as a specialty 
occupation. For example, an entry requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in business administration with a 
concentration in a specific field, or a bachelor's or higher degree in business administration combined with relevant 
education, training, and/or experience may, in certain instances, qualify the proffered position as a specialty 
occupation. In either case, it must be demonstrated that the entry requirement is equivalent to a bachelor's or higher 
degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered position. See Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147. 
5 Specifically, the judge explained in Royal Siam that: 
' The 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 'I v. INS, 94 F.Supp.2d 172, 175-76 (D. Mass. 2000); Shanti, 36 F. 
3 
Matter of A-F-, Inc. 
On the basis of the proffered position's educational requirement alone, we cannot find that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Furthermore, we find that the Petitioner's job description submitted on appeal is recited virtually 
verbatim from the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) OnLine Summary Report's list of 
tasks associated with a loan officer. 6 Providing job duties for a proffered position from O*NET or 
other Internet source is generally not sufficient for establishing H-1 B eligibility. Although this type 
of description may be appropriate when defining the range of duties that may be performed within an 
occupational category, it cannot be relied upon by a Petitioner when discussing the duties attached to 
specific employment for H-lB approval as this type of generic description fails to adequately convey 
the substantive work that the Beneficiary will perform on a day-to-day basis. In establishing a 
position as qualifying as a specialty occupation, a Petitioner must describe the specific duties and 
responsibilities to be performed by a Beneficiary in the context of the Petitioner's business 
operations, demonstrate that a legitimate need for an employee exists, and substantiate that it hasH­
lB caliber work for the Beneficiary for the period of employment requested in the petition. 
Thus, these are issues that preclude the approval of the petition. Nevertheless, for the purpose of 
performing a comprehensive analysis of whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation, we now tum to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
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. To inform this inquiry, we recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's 
(DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritiltive source on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 7 
Supp. 2d at 1164-66; cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 191 & &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 For additional information; see O*NET OnLine, available at http://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/13-2072.00 (last 
visited Jan. 25, 20 17). 
7 All of our references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not, however, maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant 
information. That is, the occupational category designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the 
general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered position, and USC IS regularly reviews 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 of proof remains 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, tor entry. 
4 
Matter of A-F-, Inc. 
On the\ labor condition application (LCA)8 submitted in support of the H-1B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Loan Officers" corresponding to 
the Standard Occupational Classification code 13-2072.9 
The Handbook's section titled "How to Become a Loan Officer" states, in pertinent part: "Loan 
officers typically need a bachelor's degree, usually in a field such as business or finance." U.S. 
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., 
Loan Officers, http://www.bls.gov/oohlbusiness-and-financial/loan-officers.htm#tab-4 (last visited 
Jan. 25, 2017). The Handbook also states: "Some loan officers may be able to enter the occupation 
without a bachelor's degree ifthey have related work experience, such as in sales, customer service, 
or banking." !d. 
In its appeal, the Petitioner points to the Handbook and asserts that this establishes that "a Bachelor's 
degree is normally the minimum requirement within the industry of [a] Loan Officer." First, we note 
that a minimum requirement of a bachelor's degree alone does not demonstrate that a position is a 
specialty occupation, but such a bachelor's degree must be in a specific specialty. As such, we do 
not concur with the Petitioner's assessment of the Handbook. 
The Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position. Rather, the 
occupation accommodates a wide spectrum of educational and/or experience credentials. While the 
. Handbook reports that most officers need a bachelor's degree, it also reports that some firms hire 
loan officers with related work experience instead of a bachelor's degree. 
The Petitioner also referenced the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) OnLine Summary 
Report for "Loan Officers." The summary report states that the "Loan Officers" occupational 
category has a designation of Job Zone 3, which indicates that medium preparation is needed. It also 
states that most occupations in this zone require training in vocational schools, related on-the-job 
experience, or an associate's degree. See O*NET OnLine Help Center, available at 
8 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to USC IS to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B worker the 
higher of either the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the "area of employment" or the actual wage 
paid by the employer to other employees with similar experience and qualifications who are performing the same 
services. See Matter ofSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 545-546 (AAO 20 15). 
9 
The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level I wage (the lowest of four assignable wage levels). We will 
consider this selection in our analysis of the position. The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" issued by 
the DOL provides a description of the wage levels. A Level I wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which 
the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the occupation. This wage rate indicates: (I) that 
the Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that she 
will be closely supervised and her work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that she will receive 
specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing 
Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _II_ 2009.pdf A prevailing wage determination starts 
with an entry level wage and progresses to a higher wage level after considering the experience, education, and skill 
requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. !d. 
5 
Matter of A-F-. Inc. 
http://www.onetonline.org/help/online/zones, for a discussion of Job Zone 3. This submission 
therefore strengthens our determination that the position does not satisfy this criterion. Even if the 
occupation has received a Job Zone 4 or higher designation, we would still find the O*NET 
information does not establish that the position qualifies as a specialty occupation normally requiring 
at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Even when it indicates that a 
bachelor's degree, or its equivalent, is necessary, the O*NET does not normally specify that a 
bachelor's degree in any specffic specialty is required, and does not, therefore, demonstrate that a 
position so designated qualifies as a specialty occupation as defined in section 214(i)(l) of the Act 
and 8 C.P.R. §~214.2(h)(4)(ii). Therefore, despite the Petitioner's assertion to the contrary, the 
O*NET is not probative evidence that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation from a probative source to substantiate its 
assertion regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. Thus, the 
Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.P.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.P.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 ~ specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by 
USCIS include: 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)). 
Here\and as already discussed, the Petitionerhas not established that its proffered position is one for 
which the Handbook (or other independent, authoritative source) reports an industry-wide requirement 
for at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. Thus, we incorporate by 
reference tfie previous discussion on the matter. In addition, 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 individua!s in 
6 
Matter of A-F-, Inc. 
the Petitioner's industry attesting that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only de greed 
· individuals." 
- The Petitioner has submitted several job postings for various mortgage loan officer positions. The 
Petitioner provided 17 job postings in response to the RFE and further offers another 8 job postings on 
appeal. The Petitioner asserts that "these advertisements show that a degree requirement is common to 
the industry amongst similar organizations of loan service providers." However, the Petitioner again 
provides evidence meant to establish that the proffered position requires merely a bachelor's degree, but 
not a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty as required by the regulations. Further, the job postings 
do not demonstrate that a bachelor's degree in specific specialty is required, or indeed, that even a 
general bachelor's degree is required in all cases. For instance, only 4 of the 25 job postings submitted 
reference a specific degree requirement, 3 citing a degree in finance or accounting, while another states 
that a business administration or related degree would suffice. 12 of the job postings reflect that a 
bachelor's degree of any kind would be sufficient. In addition, 5 job postings indicate that a bachelor's 
degree is only "preferred" or "typical," while 4 suggest that a high school diploma would be sufficient. , 
A majority of the job postings state that only a general degree is necessary, while more of the postings 
reflect that a high school diploma is sufficient as compared to those setting forth a specific degree 
requirement. As such, the job postings do not demonstrate that a bachelor's degree in specific specialty 
is commonly required for mortgage loan officer positions in the industry. 
Further, the Petitioner has designated the proffered position a wage Level I position which, as was 
explained above, is an entry-level position relative to others in the occupational category. However, 
nearly all of the job postings provided by the Petitioner indicate that prior experience is required, in 
some cases significant experience. As such, it is unlikely that these positions can be considered 
parallel to the proffered position, and they have not been shown to be relevant to the first alternative 
prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). Some of the vacancy announcements state a requirement 
of a considerable amount of specific experience, which suggests that the positions they discuss are 
also not analogous to wage Level I positions and are not, therefore, directly relevant to whether the 
Petitioner has satisfied this criterion. 
In order to attempt to show that parallel positions require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, the Petitioner would be obliged to demonstrate that other entry­
level positions, wage Level I mortgage loan officer positions that involve only a basic understanding 
of the duties of the position require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. However, this proposition i's not supported by the Handbook.-
Finally, even if all of the vacancy announcements were for parallel positions with organizations 
similar to the Petitioner and in the Petitioner's industry and unequivocally required a minimum of a 
bayhelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, the Petitioner has not demonstrated what 
statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from the few announcements provided with regard 
\ 
7 
Matter of A-F-, Inc. 
to the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations: 10 
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 protiered position; however, in the appeal 
brief, the Petitioner does not assert that it satisfies this prong of the second criterion. Further, the 
Petitioner has not sufficiently developed relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the 
proffered position. Thus, 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. 
In its appeal, the Petitioner states that it "would not consider employing anyone for this position 
without a minimum of a Bachelor's Degree in Business Administration or a related field." The 
Petitioner also asserts that we should give ·deference to its assessment of the educational 
requirements of the position. We do not find this assertion persuasive. Although a petitioner may 
assert that a proffered posit_ion requires a degree in a specific specialty, that statement alone without 
corroborating evidence cannot establish the position as a specialty occupation. Were USCIS 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 
employer artificially created a token degree requirement, whereby all individuals employed in a 
particular positiop possessed a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. See Defensor, 201 F. 3d at 387. In other words, if a petitioner's degree requirement is 
only symbolic and the proffered position does not in fact require such a specialty degree, or its 
equivalent, to perform its duties, the occupation would not meet the statutory or regulatory definition 
of a specialty occupation. See section'214(i)(l) ofthe Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the 
term "specialty occupation"). 
10 USCIS "must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true." Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec, 369,376 (AAO 2010). As just discussed, the Petitioner has not established the relevance ofthe 
job advertisements submitted to the position proffered in this case. Even if their relevance had been established, the 
Petitioner still would not have demonstrated what inferences, if any, can be drawn from these few job postings with 
regard to determining the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations in 
the same industry. See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice a_{ Social Research 186-228 (1995). 
8 
Matter of A-F-, Inc. 
Here, the Petitioner has not established the referenced criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3) 
based on its normal hiring practices. The Petitioner has not submitted evidence to demonstrate that 
the company has normally required a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for 
the position. The Petitioner merely states that the position requires a bachelor's degree in business 
administration, but provides no supporting evidence that it has previously hired mortgage loan 
processors with bachelor's degrees in a specific specialty. Indeed, as stated previously, the 
Petitioner's assertion on appeal that it would not hire anyone without a bachelor's degree in business 
administration directly indicates that the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 11 
Without more, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that it normally 
requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the proffered 
position. Therefore, it has not satisfied the third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). · 
D. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature 
of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. 
In its appeal, the Petitioner states that it is a "prestigious mortgage lender" and a "one stop shop" for 
all types of mortgage products. The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary's duties are complex and 
involve "skill in the field of Business Administration, Finance, Accounting, and Economics" 
representing the attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in business administration. However, 
contrary to the Petitioner's assertion that the position has complex duties, the Petitioner designated 
the proffered position on the LCA at the Level I wage level.12 As discussed earlier, this designation 
indicates that the proffered position is a low-level, entry position relative to others within the "Loan 
Officers" occupational category. 
Although the Petitioner may believe that the proffered position meets this criterion of the 
regulations, it has not sufficiently demonstrated how the position as described requires the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and the attainment of 
11 Again, although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business administration, may be a legitimate 
prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify a finding that a particular 
position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147. 
12 
The Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position undermines its claim that the position is 
particularly complex compared to other positions within the same occupation. Nevertheless, a Level I wage-designation 
does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty occupation, just as a Level IV wage-designation 
does not definit'ively establish such a classification. In certain occupations (e.g., doctors or lawyers), a Level I, 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 qualities 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 relevant factor but is not itself 
conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)( I) of the Act. 
9 
Matter of A-F-, Inc. 
a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. For instance, the Petitioner 
did not submit information relevant to a detailed course of study leading to a specialty degree and 
did not establish how such a curriculum is necessary to perform the tasks. Although a few related 
courses may be beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated how an established curriculum of such courses is required. The evidence in the record 
does not refute the Handbook's information indicating that a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is not required for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
Without more, the record lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish the level of judgment 
and understanding necessary to perform the duties as specialized and complex. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well qualified for the position, and references her 
qualifications. 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. The Petitioner has not demonstrated in the record 
that its proffered position is one with duties sufficiently specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The burden is on the Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-F-, Inc., ID# 283025 (AAO Jan. 26, 2017) 
10