dismissed H-1B Case: Non-Profit Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF F-F-T-G'"C-
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 28,2017 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a non-profit fundraising organization, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"capacity building and information infrastructure manager" 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 of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the proffered position 
is not a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner 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.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: 
.
Matter of F-F-T-G-C-
(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 
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 have consistently interpreted the term "degree" to mean not just 
anyJ 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"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
In the H-1 B petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a "capacity building and 
information infrastructure manager." In a statement submitted in response to the Direct6r's request 
for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted a chart outlining the Beneficiary 's proposed duties, 
which is summarized in pertinent part below: 
• Developing the content, coordinating the logistical functions, managing the 
budget, and carrying-out all of the annual Capacity Building Programs 
(namely but not limited to two Exchange Programs and one Issue Engagement 
Program); 30% 
• Executing project management activities including content management, 
distribution, scheduling, ensuring availability of resources, and data analysis; 
15% 
• · Producing effectiveness reports of the Annual Local Networks Survey and 
reporting on logistics and capacity building performance against program 
targets; 5% · 
• Acting as the Local Networks Team key focal point to provide data analysis 
about the Local Networks within the office as well as to external stakeholders; 
5% 
• Managing the relations with the whose 
secretariat is based in Australia, to ensure alignment and integration of 
logistics and operations; 5% 
2 
Matter of F-F-T-G-C-
• Producing reports and briefings documents on the profile of the Local 
Networks to inform the development of intra-office policies and strategy; 10% 
• Contributing to the development of the Local Networks department strategy, 
logistics activities, work plan, budget, fundraising, and activity report 
annually; 5% 
• Developing the Local Networks management tool kit based on enhanced 
governance structures and Local Networks progression model; 5% 
• Managing the content and well-functioning of the Local Networks Knowledge 
Sharing System; 5% 
• Managing the content development and budget of the new online social 
platform for the Local Networks; 10% 
• Managing the capacity building trainings for the Annual Local Network 
Forum and for the five annual Local Networks Regional Meetings; 5% 
According to the Petitioner, "the standard minimum education requirement for the offered 
position is a post-graduate degree in international development, global affairs, or public 
administration." · 
III. ANALYSIS 
For the reasons set out below, we determine that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation.
1 
Specifically, the record does not establish 
that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a 
specialty occupation? 
A. First Criterion 
We tum first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J), 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 authoritative source on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses.3 
1 
Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
2 
The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 B 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. J 
3 All of our references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
http://www.b1s.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 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 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, for entry. 
Matter of F-F-T-G-C-
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 "Logisticians" corresponding to 
the Standard Occupational Classification code 13-1081. 5 We reviewed the subchapter of the 
Handbook entitled "How to Become aLogistician." Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, 
Occupational Outlook Handbook, Logisticians (20 16-17 ed. ). 
Though the Handbook states that more companies prefer to hire workers with at least a bachelor's 
degree as logistics becomes increasingly complex, it does not indicate that it requires a bachelor's 
degree. In fact, the Handbook specifically states that logisticians may qualify for some positions with 
an associate's degree. As the proffered position is an entry-level position with the Level I 
characteristics outlined above, the Handbook does not support a finding that a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty is the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position. 
Further, the Handbook also states that a bachelor's degree in "business" is acceptable for this position. 
While a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business, 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., 
484 F.3d at 147. As noted, we interpret 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, without further specification, does not 
establish the position as a specialty occupation. C.f Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558 
(Comm'r 1988). Therefore, the Handbook's recognition that a general, non-specialty "background" in 
business may be sufficient for entry into the occupation suggests that a bachelor's degree in a specffic 
specialty is not normally the minimum entry requirement for this occupation. 
' 
For all of these reasons, the Handbook's report is insufficient to establish that the proffered po~ition 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
( 
4 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA 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 of Simeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 545-46 (AAO 20 15). 
5 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 tl)at 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. 
4 
Matter of F-F-T-G-C-
The Petitioner submits information from the DOL's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) 
for our consideration under this criterion. O*NET assigns these positions a "Job Zone Four" rating, 
which groups it among occupations for which "most ... require a four-year bachelor's degree, but 
some do not." It is therefore not clear that a bachelor's degree is even required, which is consistent 
with the Handbook. Further, as indicated above a requirement for a bachelor's degree alone is not 
sufficient. We have consistently interpreted 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; Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387. O*NET does not indicate that when 
a four-year bachelor's degree is required, that it must be in a specific specialty directly related to the 
occupation, or the equivalent. For both reasons, this information does not establish the proffered 
position as a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner cites to a recent district court case, Raj and Company v. US Citizenship 
and Immigration Services, 85 F. Supp. 3d 1241 (W.D. Wash. 2015), and claims that it is relevant 
here.6 We reviewed the decision; however, there is no indication that aspects of the work such as the 
duties and responsibilities, level of judgment, complexity of the job duties, supervisory duties, 
independent judgment required or the amount of supervision received are analogous to the position 
proffered here. 7 There is no indication that the positions are similar. 
Further, in Raj, the court stated that a specialty occupation requires the attainment of a bachelor's 
degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The court confirmed that this issue is well­
settled in case law and with the agency's reasonable interpretation of the regulatory framework. In 
the decision, the court noted that "permitting an occupation to qualify simply by requiring a 
generalized bachelor degree would run contrary to congressional intent to provide a visa program for 
specialized, as opposed to merely educated, workers." The Petitioner's citation to Raj does not 
satisfy the first criterion. 
The Petitioner also cites to Residential Finance Corp. v. USCJS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 
2012) as relevant here. As in Raj, the H-1B petition in Residential Finance was never appealed to 
our office through the available administrative process. Nevertheless we note that the district 
judge's decision in Residential Finance appears to have been based largely on the many factual 
errors made by the service center in its decision denying the petition. Had we been afforded the 
opportunity to do so, based on that court's findings, 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 our de novo review of the matter. It is important to 
6 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. /d. at 719. 
7 
We note that the Director's decision was not appealed to our office. Based on the district court's findings and 
description of the record, if that matter had first been appealed through the available administrative process, we may very 
well have remanded the matter to the service center for a new decision in our de novo review of the matter. 
5 
---------- -----------
Matter of F-F-T-G-C-
note that in a subsequent case that was 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). 
Nor are we persuaded by the Petitioner's citations to unpublished AAO decisions. However, the 
Petitioner has furnished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition are analogous to 
those in the unpublished decision. While 8 C.P.R. § 103.3(c) provides that our precedent decisions 
are binding on all USCIS employees in the administration of the Act, unpublished decisions are not 
similarly binding. 
The Petitioner has not established that the proffered position falls under an occupational category for 
which the Handbook, or other authoritative source, indicates that normally the minimum requirement 
for entry is at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Moreover, the 
Petitioner has not provided documentation from another probative source to substantiate its assertion 
regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. The record lacks sufficient 
evidence to support a finding that the particular position proffered here, an entry-level logistician 
position (as indicated on the LCA), would normally have such a minimum, specialty degree 
requirement or its equivalent. The duties .and requirements of the position as described in the record of 
proceeding do not indicate that this particular position proffered by the Petitioner 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 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 a 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 
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 
6 
.
Matter of F-F-T-G-C-
recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 
1999)(quotingHird!BlakerCorp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095,1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
Here, and as already discussed, the Petitioner has not established that the 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. In addition, there are no submissions 
from the industry's professional association indicating that it has made a degree a minimum entry 
requirement. 
In support of its assertion that the degree requirement is common to the Petitioner's industry in 
parallel positions among similar organizations, the Petitioner submitted copies of six advertisements 
for various positions it claims are parallel to the proffered position among similar organizations. 
Upon review, we find these job postings insufficient to demonstrate that a common degree 
requirement exists within the Petitioner's industry. 
To begin with, we note that three of the six postings indicate that the advertising organizations will 
accept an individual with a bachelor's degree in business or business administration, among other 
fields. However, as discussed, the requirement of a degree with a generalized title, such as business 
administration, without further specification, does not establish the position as a specialty 
occupation. Cf Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. at 560. Here, the Petitioner's reliance on 
postings that find a generalized degree in the field of business an acceptable prerequisite undermines 
the claim that these postings demonstrate the existence of a routine requirement for specialty degrees 
for parallel positions among similar organizations. 
Moreover, many of the advertisements do not appear to involve parallel positions. For example, the 
position advertised by the namely, "Manager, Grants, Proposals; and 
- Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data," requires a minimum of six 
years of experience in international affairs and development and/or finance· and or grants 
management. Moreover, the "Director, Gift-in-Kind Process Management" position posted by 
is designated a "mid-senior level" position that requires at least five years of experience 
in managerial andoperational process management. Again, given the Petitioner's designation of the 
proffered position as a Level I, entry-level position, it appears that these postings are for more senior 
positions than _the position proffered here. The Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the 
primary duties and responsibilities of the advertised positions parallel those of the proffered 
position.8 
8 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 
has not demonstrated what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from the advertisements with regard to 
determining the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. See 
generally Earl Babbie, The Practice ofSocia/ Research 186-228 (1995). Moreover, given that there is no indication that 
Matter of F-F-T-G-C-
For these reasons, th~ Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion of 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. 
In this matter, the evidence of record does not distinguish the proffered position as unique from or 
'"' more complex than other logistician positions that can be performed by persons without at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
The evidence of record does not credibly demonstrate relative complexity or uniqueness as aspects of 
the proffered position. Specifically, it is unclear how the proffered position, as described, necessitates 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge such that a person 
who has attained a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent is required to 
perform them. Rather, we find that, as reflected in this decision's earlier quotation of the duty 
description from the record of proceeding, the evidence of record does not distinguish the proffered 
position from other positions falling within the "Logisticians" occupational category,' which, the 
Handbook indicates, do not necessarily require a person with at least a bachelor's degree m a 
specific specialty or its equivalent to enter those positions. 
/ 
To begin with, the Petitioner claims in response to the RFE that the duties of the proffered position 
require "data analysis skills as well as knowledge of qualitative and quantitative analysis" as well as 
knowledge related to business administration and corporate social responsibility. The Petitioner, 
however, does not demonstrate how the duties described require 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. Moreover, although the Petitioner 
asserts that the proffered position requires "a post-graduate degree in international development, 
global affairs, or public administration," the record does not include sufficient information relev;ant 
to a detailed course of study leading to a specialty degree, nor has tl;le Petitioner established how 
such a curriculum is necessary to perform the duties it claims are so complex. While 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 leading to a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the duties of the proffered 
position. 
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 195-96. 
I 
8 
.
Matter ofF-F-T-G-C-
The Petitioner's numerous claims regarding the complex nature of the proffered position are noted. 
For example, the Petitioner contends that its relationship with the "makes the 
proffered ... position unique in nature." The Petitioner similarly references its size and its mission. 
However, its Level I wage designation undercuts its claim that it satisfies this criterion.9 In other 
words, if typical positions located within the occupational category do not require a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, then it is unclear how a position with the Level I 
characteristics described above would, regardless ofthe Petitioner's assertions. 
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 record lacks sufficiently detailed information to 
distinguish the proffered position as unique from or more complex than positions that can be 
performed by persons without at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
Consequently, as the Petitioner does not demonstrate how the proffered position is so complex or 
unique relative to other supply chain analyst positions that do not require at least a baccalaureate 
degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for entry into the occupation in the United States, it 
cannot be concluded that the Petitioner has 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. 
The Petitioner does not assert that it satisfies this criterion, and has submitted no evidence to 
demonstrate otherwise. Absent evidence that the Petitioner normally requires a bachelor's degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for this position, we find that the Petitioner has not satisfied the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 10 
9 The Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position undermines its claim that the position is 
particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same o ccupation . 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 definitivel y 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 LevellY 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-lt'~vel 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. 
10 Whil.e a petitioner may believe or otherwise assert that a proffered position requires a degree in a specific specialty, 
that opinion 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 position possess ed a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in the specific specialty, or its equivalent. See Defensor, 20 I F. 3d at 387 _ In other words, if a petitioner's degree 
9 
Matter of F-F-T-G-C-
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. 
We acknowledge the Petitioner's assertions regarding the specialization and complexity of the 
position's duties. However, as above, those claims are undermined by the Petitioner's Level I wage 
designation. Again, in classifying the proffered position at a Level I (entry-level) wage, the 
Petitioner effectively attested to the DOL that the Beneficiary would perform routine tasks that 
require limited, if any, exercise of judgment, that she would be closely supervised and her work 
closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy, and that she would receive specific instructions on 
required tasks and expected results. 11 The DOL guidance referenced above states that an employer 
should consider a Level I wage designation when the job offer is for a research fellow, a worker in 
training, or an internship. 
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 Petitioner has not established that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed . 
. Cite as Matter of F-F-T-G-C-, ID# 324276 (AAO Apr. 28, 2017) 
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)( I) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty occupation"). 
11 Again, the Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position undermines its claim that the 
position is particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation. 
10