dismissed H-1B Case: Pharmaceutical Manufacturing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF G-, LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 7, 2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a medicinal and botanical manufacturing facility, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as an "interpreter/translator" under the H-IB nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-IB 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 that the 
proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the Director erred in its determination that the proffered position is not a specialty 
occupation. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
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. 
Matter of G-, LLC 
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: 
(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). 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. THE PROFFERED POSITION 
According to its support letter, dated March 26, 2015, the Petitioner "manufactures pharmaceuticals, 
nutraceuticals, dietary supplements, and cosmetic lotions for export around the world." The 
Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary as an interpreter/translator and described the position as 
follows: 
[The Petitioner] needs a person who can not only interpret in the spoken 
language, but also a person who can translate in the technical written language of 
business. This person would be responsible for listening to, understanding both 
spoken and written statements, translation of business correspondence, technical 
documentation, marketing material, and tradeshow coordination between the Chinese 
and English languages. In addition the person must be able to travel between the 
various countries and regions that [the Petitioner] does business in and act as an 
official translator and interpreter to facilitate and mediate discussion. It is important 
that [the Petitioner's] concepts and ideas for product launches, registrations, new 
marketing strategies be relayed in a precise manner. Text must be edited and 
proofread to accurately reflect the language. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of G-, LLC 
Daily, the Interpreter/Translator will be receiving communication from our 
foreign offices and customers and must be able to translate this in a timely and 
efficient manner. Occasionally during the week, they will need to be able to translate 
and confer during video conferences and Skype calls, as well as traditional telephone 
calls. Each month there will be a need for meetings with management to relay 
information from customers and distributors, and also to get answers to questions 
they may have. Large conferences and formal meetings will occur several times per 
year, especially when traveling for tradeshows, product launches, and smaller 
exhibitions. All of this requires interpretation/translation. Moreover, the 
sophistication or [sic] such interpretation/translation needs in an international 
business setting requires a Master's Degree in Foreign Language and Applied 
Linguistics. 
In a letter dated July 30, 2015, provided in response to the request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner 
stated that "the complexity of the duties are such that they cannot be competently performed by an 
individual possessing less than a bachelor's degree in applied linguistics, a master's degree is 
preferred." 
The Petitioner further broke down the proffered duties into percentages as follows: 
The Interpreter/Translator will spend approximately 40% (16 hours per week) 
of their time translating our many technical documents and marketing brochures into 
Mandarin Chinese. These technical documents include clinical studies, toxicology 
studies, product information sheets, specification sheets and safety data sheets. 
Marketing material for bulk Products and finished products will also need to be 
translated. The Interpreter/Translator will also be responsible for translating any 
documents that should be required for registration with the foreign health departments 
and other necessary government agencies in Mandarin speaking countries. 
Registration of our products is currently in progress in China. Obtaining certification 
with Chinese health authorities is a very complex process. The Interpreter/Translator 
will assist [the Petitioner's] management team with its interactions with Chinese 
authorities and assist our team to facilitate our business with our distributors. On a 
day to day basis the Interpreter/Translator will receive communications from our 
foreign offices and customers and must be able to translate this in a timely manner. 
Distribution contracts, intellectual property contracts and service agreements 
will need to be accurately translated back and forth from English and Mandarin. One 
specific contract that must be translated is the Non-Exclusive 
Distributer 
Agreement[.]" That Agreement must be accurately translated into Mandarin before 
will sign it. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of G-, LLC 
Also, [the Petitioner] is currently obligated under the 
This contract provides in Section C2a (page 3) that all documents for 
this registration must be translated. Also there will be future contracts with 
that will also need to be translated in order [to] conduct additional 
business with those companies. 
The Interpreter/Translator will spend approximately 30% (12 hours per week) 
of their time interpreting for [the Petitioner's] executive management team in 
negotiations with foreign government health departments and other agencies, as well 
as with foreign distributors and customers in our efforts to expand sales in Asia. The 
Interpreter/Translator must interpret the language and cultural differences for our 
management team to accurately explain to us during meetings and other negotiations, 
as well as at trade show, what [the Petitioner] must do in order to conduct business 
properly and to increase sales in accordance with the desires of potential large-scale 
customers. 
Customer service will account for 10% ( 4 hours per week) of the 
Interpreter/Translator's time. This will entail speaking to customers to determine 
their needs and to effectively communicate this to [the Petitioner]. These activities 
will involve our distributors in Taiwan Thailand 
Thailand), China and Singapore/Malaysia 
The Interpreter/Translator will also accompany [the Petitioner's] management 
to meetings and negotiations with new potential customers of [the Petitioner] in Asian 
countries. In order to obtain licensing in foreign countries and to garner new 
customers, [the Petitioner] conducts many business meetings, either as video 
conferences or face-to-face meetings. This will account for 20% (8 hours per week) 
ofthe Interpreter/Translator's time. 
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.' 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or 
its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 
2 
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. 
4 
Matter of G-, LLC 
A. First Criterion 
We turn 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 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-IB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Interpreters and Translators" 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 27-3091.4 
We have reviewed the section of the Handbook on "How to Become an Interpreter or Translator," 
which states in pertinent part: 
Although interpreters and translators typically need at least a bachelor's 
degree, the most important requirement is that they be fluent in at least two languages 
(English and at least one other language). Many complete job-specific training 
programs. It is not necessary for interpreters and translators to have been raised in 
two languages to succeed in these jobs, but many grew up communicating in the 
languages in which they use for work. 
Education 
The educational backgrounds of interpreters and translators vary widely, but it 
is essential that they be fluent in English and at least one other language. 
High school students interested in becoming an interpreter or translator should 
take a broad range of courses that focus on English writing and comprehension, 
3 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 USCIS 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, for entry. 
4 The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level II wage (the second 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 II wage rate is generally appropriate for positions 
for which the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a good understanding of the occupation but that she will only 
perform moderately complex tasks that require limited judgement. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., 
Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://tlcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _11_ 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 ofthe Petitioner's job opportunity. !d. 
5 
Matter of G-, LLC 
foreign languages, and computer proficiency. Other helpful pursuits for prospects 
include spending time in a foreign country, engaging in direct contact with foreign 
cultures, and reading extensively on a variety of subjects in English and at least one 
other language. Through community organizations, students interested in sign 
language interpreting may take introductory classes in American Sign Language 
(ASL) and seek out volunteer opportunities to work with people who are deaf or hard 
of hearing. 
Beyond high school, people interested in becoming interpreters or translators 
have numerous educational options. Although many jobs require a bachelor's degree, 
majoring in a language is not always necessary. Rather, an educational background in 
a particular field of study can provide a natural area of subject-matter expertise. 
Training 
Interpreters and translators generally need specialized training on how to do 
their work. Formal programs in interpreting and translating are available at colleges 
and universities nationwide and through nonuniversity training programs, 
conferences, and courses. 
Many people who work as interpreters or translators in more technical areas­
such as software localization, engineering, or finance-have a master's degree. Those 
working in the community as court or medical interpreters or translators are more 
likely to complete job-specific training programs or certificates. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., 
Interpreters and Translators, http://www. bls. gov I ooh/media-and -communi cation/interpreters-and­
translators.htm#tab-4 (last visited Apr. 6, 2016). 
The Handbook does not indicate that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its 
equivalent is normally the minimum requirement for entry into this occupation. While the 
Handbook states that interpreters and translators typically need at least a bachelor's degree, it also 
states that the educational background of interpreters and translators vary widely. In other words, 
the Handbook does not demonstrate that this occupational category is one for which normally the 
minimum requirement for entry is a baccalaureate degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that "8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l) does not require that the 
degree be in a specific specialty, or that the position require a degree in a specific specialty." 
However, we note that 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must logically be read together with section 
214(i)(l) ofthe Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). To otherwise interpret this section as stating the 
necessary and sufficient conditions for meeting the definition of specialty occupation would result in 
particular positions meeting a condition under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory or 
regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d at 387. To avoid this result, 8 C.F.R. 
6 
Matter of G-, LLC 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must therefore be read as providing supplemental criteria that must be met in 
accordance with, and not as alternatives to, the statutory and regulatory definitions of specialty 
occupation. Further, USCIS consistently interprets the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific 
specialty that is directly related to the proffered position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Cherto.ff, 484 
F.3d at 147. Therefore, 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l) 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner refers to a number of court cases to support its position that a specific 
specialty is not required.5 However, the cases do not support the Petitioner's claim that the 
regulatory criterion does not require a degree in a specific specialty. 
For example, the Petitioner cites to Chung Song Ja Corp. v. USCIS, No. C14-0177RSM, 2015 WL 
1058110 (W.D. Wash. 2015). However, the court in Chung Song Ja Corp states "[w]hile 8 C.P.R. § 
214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(1) does not use the language of 'specific specialty,' USCIS does not abuse its 
discretion in reading this regulation together with 8 C.F .R. 214.2(h)( 4 )(ii), which defines 'a specialty 
occupation' as one that 'requires the attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. "'6 
The Petitioner also cites to Raj and Co. v. USCIS, 85 F.Supp.3d 1241(W.D. Wash. 2015).7 
However, we note that 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 USCIS'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 court stated that the 
regulatory provisions do not restrict qualifying occupations to those for which there exists a single, 
specifically tailored and titled degree program; but rather, the statute and regulations contain an 
equivalency provision. 8 Again, we agree with the court that a specialty occupation is one that 
5 We also note that, in contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case law of a United States circuit court, we are 
not bound to follow the published decision of a United States district court in matters arising even within the same 
district. See Matter ofK-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715,719-20 (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. 
6 The court ultimately found that USC IS ignored that "statutory and regulatory allowance for occupations that require the 
attainment of the 'equivalent' of specialized bachelor's degree as a threshold for entry" and overturned the decision. We 
further note that Chung Song Ja Corp. does not share the same fact pattern as the present petition because the proffered 
position in that case was for a part-time health care manager. 
7 We note, however, that in the district court case, the employer designated the position as a "Marketing Analyst & 
Specialist" position. However, as the proffered position is for an interpreter/translator, the positions are not similar. 
8 In Raj, the court concluded that the employer met the first criterion. We must note, however, that the court stated that 
"[t]he first regulatory criterion requires the agency to examine the generic position requirements of a market research 
analyst in order to determine whether a specific bachelor's degree or its equivalent is a minimum requirement for entry 
7 
Matter of G-, LLC 
requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. We 
further note that a petitioner must also demonstrate that the position requires the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in accordance with section 
214(i)(l)(B) of the Act and 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii), and satisfy one of the four criterion at 8 
C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A). 
The Petitioner also cites to Residential Fin. Corp. v. US Citizenship & Immigration Services, 839 F. 
Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012), for its proposition that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the 
degree is what is important. Diplomas rarely come bearing occupation-specific majors. What is 
required is an occupation that requires highly specialized knowledge and a prospective employee 
who has attained the credentialing indicating possession of that knowledge. "9 
We agree with the aforementioned proposition that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is 
what is important." In general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry and 
biochemistry, a minimum of a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty is recognized 
as satisfying the "degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)" requirement of section 
214(i)(1 )(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, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in two 
disparate fields, such as philosophy and engineering, would not meet the statutory requirement that 
the degree be "in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)," unless the Petitioner establishes how each 
field is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position such that the 
required body of highly specialized knowledge is essentially an amalgamation of these different 
specialties. Section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act (emphasis added). As will be discussed later, 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. 
The Petitioner also cited Tapis Int'l v. INS, 94 F. Supp. 2d 172 (D. Mass. 2000) for the same concept 
as Residential Fin. Corp. 10 We agree with the district court judge in Tapis, that in satisfying the 
specialty occupation requirements, both the Act and the regulations require a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty or its equivalent, and that this language indicates that the degree does not have to 
be a degree in a single specific specialty. Moreover, we also agree that, if the requirements to 
into the profession." Thus, the decision misstates the regulatory requirement. That is, the first criterion requires the 
Petitioner to establish that a baccalaureate or higher degree (in a specific specialty) or its equivalent is normally the 
minimum requirement for entry into the particular position. 
9 While 8 C.F.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. 
10 We note that a "professional position" differs from qualifying as a specialty occupation. Specifically, a specialty 
occupation requires theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Therefore, while an occupation may be identified as a profession under 
section 10l(a)(32) ofthe Act, that occupation would not necessarily qualify as a specialty occupation unless it meets the 
definition ofthe term at section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 
8 
Matter of G-, LLC 
perform the duties and job responsibilities of a proffered position are a combination of a general 
bachelor's degree and experience such that the standards at both section 214(i)(l)(A) and (B) of the 
Act have been satisfied, then the proffered position may qualify as a specialty occupation. We do 
not find, however, that the U.S. district court is stating that any position can qualify as a specialty 
occupation based solely on the claimed requirements of a petitioner. 
Instead, USCIS must examine the actual employment requirements, and, on the basis of that 
examination, determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. See generally 
Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. In this pursuit, the critical element is not the title of the 
position, or the fact that an employer has routinely insisted on certain educational standards, but 
whether performance of the position actually requires the theoretical and practical application of a 
body of highly specialized knowledge and the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty as the minimum for entry into the occupation as required by the Act. 11 
Here, the Petitioner has not met its burden to establish that a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular 
position. As mentioned, the Petitioner initially asserts that a degree in a specific specialty is not 
required under 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)(l). Further, on appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the 
proffered position is "similar to those positions discussed in the cases cited above, in that a degree 
and specialized knowledge is required, even if a degree with a specific title is not." However, the 
Petitioner has not explained what specialized knowledge is required, and that it is normally the 
minimum requirement for entry into the particular position. 12 
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 
contemplates common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
11 The Petitioner has furnished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition are analogous to those in 
Tapis The district judge's decision in that case appears to have been based largely on the many factual errors made by 
the service center in its decision denying the petition. We further note that the Director's decision was not appealed to 
us. Based on the district court's findings and description of the record, if that matter had first been appealed through the 
available administrative process, we may very well have remanded the matter to the service center for a new decision for 
many of the same reasons articulated by the district court if these errors could not have been remedied by us in our de 
novo review of the matter. 
12 The Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary has a Master's degree in Foreign language and Applied Linguistics. 
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. 
9 
Matter of G-, LLC 
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 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)). 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook, or another independent, authoritative source, reports a standard industry-wide 
requirement for at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. We incorporate 
by reference the previous discussion on the matter. 
There are no submissions from the Petitioner's industry's professional association(s) indicating that 
it has made a degree a minimum entry requirement. In support of the assertion that the degree 
requirement is common to the Petitioner's industry in parallel positions among similar organizations, 
the Petitioner submitted copies of job advertisements. However, upon review of the documents, we 
find that the Petitioner's reliance on the job announcements is misplaced. 
The Petitioner stated that it is a medicinal and botanical manufacturing facility. The Petitioner 
designated its business operations under the North American Industry Classification System 
(NAICS) code 325411. 13 This NAICS code is designated for "Medicinal and Botanical 
Manufacturing," an industry primarily engaged in ( 1) manufacturing uncompounded medicinal 
chemicals and their derivatives (i.e., generally for use by pharmaceutical preparation manufacturers) 
and/or (2) grading, grinding, and milling uncompounded botanicals."
14 
For the Petitioner to establish that other organizations are similar, it must demonstrate that they share 
the same general characteristics. Without such evidence, documentation submitted by the Petitioner 
is generally outside the scope of consideration for this criterion, which encompasses only 
organizations that are similar to the Petitioner. When determining whether the Petitioner and the 
13 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) is used to classify 
business establishments according to type of economic activity and each establishment is classified to an industry 
according to the primary business activity taking place there. See http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/ (last visited 
Apr. 6, 20 16). 
14 U.S. Dep't of Commerce, U.S Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definition, 325411 - Medicinal and Botanical 
Manufacturing, http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch (last visited Apr. 6, 20 16). 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter of G-, LLC 
organization share the same general characteristics, such factors may include information regarding 
the nature or type of organization, and, when pertinent, the particular scope of operations, as well as 
the level of revenue and staffing (to list just a few elements that may be considered). Notably, it is 
not sufficient for the Petitioner to claim that an organization is similar and in the same industry 
without providing a legitimate basis for such an assertion. 
The Petitioner has not established that it meets this criteria. For instance, the advertisements were 
not placed by companies similar to the Petitioner. Instead, the ads were placed by a government 
outsourced services provider, horne care agency, printing company, and staffing company for an 
unidentified employer. The Petitioner did not provide sufficient information to establish that it shares 
the same general characteristics with the advertising organizations. 
Further, the Petitioner has not established that the postings are for parallel positions. For instance, 
responsibilities for the bilingual Spanish translator position for include "create quotes and 
invoices to submit to client" and "assign projects to internal/external sources." There is no further 
information to establish that the primary duties and responsibilities of the advertised position are 
parallel to the proffered position. Moreover, the posting for Chinese translators lists "a four-year 
college degree," but does not indicate that it must be in specific specialty or its equivalent. As 
discussed, 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 position. Although a general-purpose 
bachelor's degree 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 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. 15 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that it "is a highly unique company" and "the greater industry of 
interpreting and translating important documents supports [its] argument" that the degree requirement is 
common to the industry. In support, the Petitioner submitted a letter from a company it 
15 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 advertised. As the advertisements are only solicitations for 
hire, they are not evidence of the actual hiring practices of these employers. 
Further, the Petitioner does not demonstrate what inferences, if any, can be drawn from these advertisements with regard 
to determining the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. See 
generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 (7th ed. 1995). As such, even if the job announcements 
supported the finding that the position required a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent (for 
organizations in the same industry that are similar to the Petitioner), it cannot be found that such a limited number of 
postings that appear to have been consciously selected could credibly refute the findings of the Handbook published by 
the Bureau of Labor Statistics that such a position does not normally require at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
I 1 
(b)(6)
Matter of G-, LLC 
previously used for its interpreter and translation services. The letter from stated that 
"[a]ny linguist that we take on must have a university degree in Translation , followed by a master's 
degree that relates to their chosen specialism." It further indicated that "[t]hey must also have either 
3 years translation experience or demonstrate 100,000 words of experience to us." 
However, the printouts from website in the record of proceedings reflect different 
requirements than what is provided in its letter and do not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty or its equivalent is required for interpreter/translator positions .16 For example, for 
its translator positions , states: 
Our translators are all native speakers who translate into their mother-tongue and are 
selected on the basis of: 
• Relevant qualifications-Higher education degree in Translation or similar 
• Evidence of specialized areas e.g. translating medical documentation 
• 3 years/ 100,000 words or experience 
• 2 professional reference 
Translators complete a test-piece relevant to their special[ty]. 
While . lists a "higher education degree in Translation" or "3 years/ 100,000 words or 
experience" as part of its selection criteria, it does not indicate that it is a requirement. Further, 
based on this document, we cannot determine if a higher education degree is equivalent to a 
bachelor's degree. Moreover , in discussing quality assurance measures, states that for its 
staff selection, "all [its] linguists translate into their native language" and "selection process includes 
a test-piece in respective language pair and completion of a client-specific test-piece." In other 
words, the documentary evidence does not demonstrate that requires a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty is required for its translator position. Therefore, the Petitioner has not 
established that the degree requirement is common to the "greater industry of interpreting and 
translating important documents." 
Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.P.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 
16 "[I]t is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve the inconsistencies by independent objective evidence." Matter of H o, 
19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the 
petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Jd. at 591-92. Inconsistencies 
undermine probative value of letter. 
12 
(b)(6)
Matter of G-, LLC 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
Upon review, we find that the Petitioner has not established that its particular position meets this 
alternative prong. On appeal, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary would "translate highly 
complex documents , and perform interpreter services in sophisticated settings." However, the 
Petitioner does not sufficiently demonstrate why a degree in linguistics is required to perform the 
duties of the proffered position. 
Specifically, the Petitioner states in its brief that its documents contain "legal terms of art, and/or 
have acquired significant secondary legal meaning beyond a literal meaning." As an example, the 
Petitioner states that "the term 'consequential damages' has a distinct contractual meaning, and 
denote[ s] a type or category of damages"; therefore, the "translator would have to understand the 
significance of the way the words relate to each other, and their corresponding words or concepts in 
the other language." The Petitioner further asserts that "linguistics is the scientific study of 
language, and linguists 'study how to represent the structure of the various aspects of language (such 
as sounds or meaning), how to account for different linguistics patterns theoretically, and how the 
different components of language interact with each other."' 
However, the Petitioner does not sufficiently explain how "legal terms of art" such as "consequential 
damages" can be translated by the study of structure of the language and understanding the 
significance of the way the words relate to each other. As the Petitioner notes, "consequential 
damages" is defined as "(l]osses that do not flow directly and immediately from an injurious act but 
that result indirectly from the act" and is a term of art; but the Petitioner does not explain how the 
study of linguistics will render translation of such a term of art. 17 
Similarly, the Petitioner claims that it has "voluminous scientific documents" that are "highly 
complex material." The Petitioner also claims that it requires toxicology studies to be translated ," 
and that "[a] mistranslation of a toxicology study could have extremely dire consequences," and thus 
"accurate translation is of extreme importance." However, again, the Petitioner does not sufficiently 
explain how the study of linguistics contributes to accurate translation of highly complex scientific 
terms. 
Moreover, 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 duties it 
may believe are so complex and unique. While a few related courses may be beneficial, or even 
required, 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. 
17 We note that in at least two distribution agreement s, _ the language of the 
agreement is "expressly stipulated to be the English language .," which raises question on whether the documents need to 
be translated. 
13 
-- ----------------·- -----------------
(b)(6)
Matter of G-, LLC 
To support its claim that the particular position in question is so complex or unique, the Petitioner 
submits on appeal two opinion evaluations of the proffered position by: (1) 
Assistant Professor of Accounting and Assistant Professor of Law at 
(joint evaluation); and (2) Associate Professor of Japanese 
Languages, Literature & Culture at However, we find that the 
letters are of limited probative value in finding that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. 
The letter from states: "[the Petitioner] is an exceptionally 
unusual business with unique challenges that can only be met by the selection of an 
interpreter/translator with a minimum of an undergraduate degree, or preferably a candidate with an 
advanced degree in linguistics or a related field." We note, however, that the requirement of a 
general undergraduate degree that is not in a specific specialty is inadequate to establish that a 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. As explained above, USCIS interprets the supplemental 
degree 
requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) as requiring a degree in a specific specialty that 
is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal Siam Corp. v . Chertoff, 484 F.3d at 147. A 
"preference" for an advanced degree in linguistics or a related field is not the same as a minimum 
requirement and, therefore, the letter from does not establish a 
requirement of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty for interpreter/translator positions . 
Further, the letter states that the "employee hired into this position will be a very visible member of 
[the Petitioner's] team, joining the executive team in meetings, representing the company at 
international trade shows, and providing direct customer service to the distribution partners." The 
letter further states that "it would be inappropriate to hire an individual lacking a college degree for a 
role with this level of complexity." However, there is no indication that the Petitioner has advised 
that it designated the proffered position as a Level II position 
on the submitted LCA, indicating that it is a position for an employee who has a good understanding 
of the occupation, but who will only perform moderately complex tasks that require limited 
judgment. 18 It appears that would have found this information 
relevant for their opinion letter. Moreover, without this information , the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that possessed the requisite information 
necessary to adequately assess the nature of this particular position. 
For all of these reasons, the letters from carry limited 
evidentiary weight and they do not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. We may, in our discretion, use advisory opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner 
as expert testimony. Matter of Caron Int'l, Inc. 19 l&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 
18 See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. 
Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://www.foreignlaborcert .doleta .gov/pdf!NPWHC_Guidance_ 
Revised_ll_2009.pdf. 
14 
(b)(6)
Matter of G-, LLC 
required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Id. For efficiency's sake, we hereby 
incorporate the above discussion regarding the letters into our analysis of each criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
Similarly, we find that the letter from also has limited probative value in satisfying 
this criteria, because it is not supported by documentary evidence. The letter from 
states that the proffered position requires at least a bachelor's degree program in linguistics or a 
related field. In support of her conclusion, includes a profile of translators at the 
and an "article" entitled 
We have reviewed the documents, and find that they do not support 
conclusions. For example, the profile of translators from the appears to 
indicate that the translators are native speakers; however, they have degrees in various fields such as 
nursing, educational psychology, English, dentistry, Japanese literature and more. 
The printout from states that its team of 
translators and interpreters who work for this industry have professional degrees, such as MDs and 
PhDs "in all major areas of life sciences and medicine." There is no mention of a minimum 
requirement of a degree in linguistics or related field; thus, it does not support 
conclusions. Further, letter does not reference or discuss authoritative studies, 
surveys, industry publications, publications, or other sources of empirical information which she 
may have consulted in the course of her evaluative process. Therefore, we find that the conclusion 
reached by is not supported by independent, objective evidence demonstrating the 
manner in which she reached her conclusions, and has little probative value in satisfying the criteria. 
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. To 
this end, we usually review the Petitioner's past recruiting and hiring practices, information 
regarding employees who previously held the position, and any other documentation submitted by a 
petitioner in support of this criterion of the regulations. 19 
19 To satisfy this criterion, the record must establish that the specific performance requirements of the position generated 
the recruiting and hiring history. USCIS must examine the actual employment requirements and, on the basis of that 
examination, determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 
20 I F.3d 384. In this pursuit, the critical element is not the title of the position, or the fact that an employer has routinely 
insisted on certain educational standards, but whether performance of the position actually requires the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in 
the specific specialty, or its equivalent, as the minimum for entry into the occupation as required by section 214(i)(l) of 
the Act. According to the Court in Defensor, "To interpret the regulations any other way would lead to an absurd result." 
Jd. at 388. If USCIS were constrained to recognize a specialty occupation merely because the petitioner has an 
15 
(b)(6)
Matter of G-, LLC 
The Petitioner has not provided any evidence that it has previously employed or recruited anyone as 
an interpreter/translator to perform the proffered duties. On appeal, the Petitioner states, "the in­
house position of Interpreter I Translator is new for the petitioner, as [the Petitioner] has previously 
used contracted interpretation and translation services from 
The plain language of the regulation is clear that this criterion applies to the Petitioner's past 
recruitment and hiring only - not past 
employment practices of its contractors. However, even if we 
were to consider hiring practices under this criterion, the record of proceedings contains 
inconsistencies regarding _ claims, and we are therefore unable to determine its 
requirements for its interpreter or translator positions. 
Therefore, 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. 
Upon review of the record of the proceeding, we find that the Petitioner has not provided sufficient 
evidence to satisfy this criterion of the regulations. We incorporate our previous discussion 
regarding the Petitioner's claims that the proffered position is more complex because of the scientific 
and technical nature of the documents and language being translated or interpreted. As discussed 
previously, the Petitioner has not adequately demonstrated that a master's degree (or even a 
bachelor's degree) in linguistics directly relates to the proffered duties. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted two letters to support its position that the duties of 
the proffered position are complex. However, we find that the letters are of little probative value. 
One letter was from the Petitioner's customer in 
dated June 16, 2015, which stated that the documents from the Petitioner were 
previously translated by a third party, then later reviewed and re-written because they were not 
correctly translated. claimed that correct Chinese language translation resulted in increase 
of purchases from the Petitioner. further claimed that "complexity of pharmaceutical 
ingredient lists and detailed scientific research articles, which are a major part of our marketing are 
far beyond the translation abilities of a fluent person who does not have the specialized training of a 
college degree in applied linguistics." However, the writer did not provide a substantive, analytical 
established practice of demanding certain educational requirements for the proffered posttJOn - and without 
consideration of how a beneficiary is to be specifically employed - then any beneficiary with a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty could be brought into the United States to perform non-specialty occupations, so long as the employer 
required all such employees to have baccalaureate or higher degrees. See id. 
16 
(b)(6)
Matter of G-, LLC 
basis for his opinion and ultimate conclusion. Specifically, he did not support his conclusions by 
providing sales records or citations of any research material used. He has not provided sufficient 
facts that would support the assertion that the proffered position requires at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty (or its equivalent). 
The other letter was from the executive director of where the Petitioner 
is located. The letter stated that the functions of the proffered position "are so highly specialized that 
only an Interpreter/Translator with a degree [in] foreign language/applied linguistics can adequately 
perform them." However, the writer did not adequately establish his expertise to render the opinion 
made in this matter. There is no indication that he conducted any research or studies pertinent to the 
educational requirements for such positions, or that he was recognized by professional organizations 
that he is an authority on those specific requirements. 
Further, the writer did not reference or discuss any studies, surveys, industry publications, 
authoritative publications, or other sources of empirical information that he may have consulted in 
the course of evaluative process. The writer did not provide a substantive, analytical basis for his 
opinion and ultimate conclusion. 
We also incorporate our earlier discussion regarding the duties of the proffered position, and the 
designation of the proffered position in the LCA as a Level II position (out of four assignable wage­
levels) relative to others within the occupational category, and hence one not likely to be 
distinguishable by relatively specialized and complex duties. Therefore, in the instant case, relative 
specialization and complexity have not been credibly developed by the Petitioner as an aspect of the 
proffered position. 
For the reasons related in the preceding discussion, the Petitioner has not established that it has 
satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A). We therefore cannot find that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter o[Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofG-, LLC, ID# 16010 (AAO Apr. 7, 2016) 
1 '7