dismissed H-1B Case: Public Relations

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 5463078 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR. 4, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-IB nonimmigrant 
classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the proffered 
position was not a specialty occupation, and we dismissed the Petitioner's appeal. The matter is again 
before us on a combined motion to reopen and reconsider. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review, we will dismiss the combined motion. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
To merit reopening or reconsideration, a petitioner must meet the formal filing requirements (such as, 
for instance, submission of a properly completed Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with the 
correct fee), and show proper cause for granting the motion. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l). 
A motion to reopen is based on factual grounds and must (1) state the new facts to be provided in the 
reopened proceeding; and (2) be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider is based on legal grounds and must (1) state the reasons for 
reconsideration; (2) be supported by any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the decision 
was based on an incorrect application oflaw or policy; and (3) establish that the decision was incorrect 
based on the evidence ofrecord at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
By regulation, the scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision." 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Therefore, the filing before us is not a motion to reopen and reconsider the denial of the petition or the 
dismissal of the appeal. Instead, the filing is a motion to reopen and reconsider our most recent 
decision. Therefore, we cannot consider new objections to the earlier denial, and the Petitioner cannot 
use the present filing to make new allegations of error at prior stages of the proceeding. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Motion to Reopen 
The Petitioner submits additional documentation to establish that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation. On motion, the Petitioner submits a letter from I . l its Business Manager. 
The Petitioner also submits a copy of its Public Relations Plan for 2018-2019, as well as a copy of its 
brochure. For the reasons below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established new facts 
sufficient to satisfy the requirements to reopen. 
The letter from I I provides an overview of the Petitioner's history. In addition to 
providing details regarding its origins and expansion since 1997, I I discusses the 
Petitioner's marketing history, noting that the original "word of mouth" method for recruiting new 
students became ineffective and re9uired the establishment of a formal marketing position in 2012 in 
order to better promote the school. I~. ----~f asserts that the private school industry inl I is 
unique and competitive, and that the Petitioner is distinguished from other private schools because it 
is the only non-sectarian, for-profit private school in the area. Consequently,! I concludes 
that the Petitioner is immersed in a "niche private school market" that requires a public relations 
specialist to promote its branding and publicity in order to recruit students to the school. I I 
also refers to the Petitioner's Public Relations Plan for 2018-2019, a copy of which is submitted on 
motion, and asserts that the plan demonstrates how the new marketing and public relations approach 
implemented largely by the public relations specialist, is integral to its success. 
We have reviewed and considered both the letter and the plan, as well as the Petitioner's brochure. 
While these documents provide insight on the nature of the Petitioner's business and the manner in 
which the Petitioner, through the work of its public relations specialist, intends to reach its target 
audience, the evidence does not establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation under 
any of the four alternative criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
As we noted in our previous decision, the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook 
Handbook (Handbook) reports that a bachelor's degree is not always a requirement for this occupation. 
We concluded that a bachelor's degree in a directly related discipline is not required for entry into the 
occupation, and therefore the Handbook does not support the Petitioner's claim that the occupational 
category of "Public Relations Specialists" is one for which normally the minimum requirement for 
entry is a baccalaureate degree ( or higher) in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Consequently, we 
determined that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position 
as required by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(]). Moreover, we determined that the Petitioner's 
evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that the proffered position qualified as a specialty occupation 
under any of the three remaining criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
While the Petitioner's new evidence is noted, we find that the submissions do not specifically address 
or refute our findings regarding the nature of the proffered position under 8 C.F.R. 
2 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). While I ts letter discusses the competitive nature of the private 
school market and the need for marketing and publicity to reach its target audience effectively, it does 
not demonstrate that the specific position proffered here meets the requirements for a specialty 
occupation. Moreover, the Petitioner's Public Relations Plan does not offer additional insight into the 
proffered position such that we can conclude that the proffered position satisfies any of the four 
alternative criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). While the plan lists the Petitioner's mission 
and the various strategies to be implemented by the public relations specialist, there is no indication 
that the implementation of such strategies require the services of a specialty-degreed individual. For 
example, the plan states that the public relations specialist "is in charge of greeting visitors, parents, 
and students to the school." It further indicates that the public relations specialist is in charge of social 
media management, and that the public relations specialist "implemented a music system which plays 
music every time classes change." It is unclear how the performance of such duties require the services 
of a specialty-degreed individual. 
The record on motion does not include new facts that establish that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation. Thus the Petitioner has not established proper cause to reopen this matter. 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
For the reasons below, we conclude that the record does not provide a sufficient basis to reconsider 
the prior decision. 
On motion, the Petitioner first asserts that the descriptions of duties previously provided were 
sufficient to establish that the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. Specifically, the Petitioner 
asserts that our determination that the Petitioner provided different versions of the proffered position 
was erroneous, and that the descriptions were "complimentary" and intended to provide further 
evidence for consideration. The Petitioner further asserts that our finding that the descriptions of the 
position were generalized was erroneous. 
The Petitioner provided multiple descriptions of the duties of the proffered position. While we noted 
the various differences in each description, our analysis ultimately focused not on the differences, but 
on the fact that the duties were broadly described. As a result, we determined that the position was 
not so complex or unique that it could only be performed by an individual with at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, as required under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). We further 
determined that the duties as described did not establish that their nature was so specialized or complex 
that the knowledge required to perform them was usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate degree or higher in a specific specialty, as required under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)( 4). 
On motion, the Petitioner again relies on the letter froml l as well as its Public Relations 
Plan, to demonstrate that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. As noted above, we find 
thaU Is letter addresses the nature of the Petitioner's industry in a generalized fashion, 
noting that it requires the servicer of a plblic relations specialist due to the highly competitive nature 
of the private school industry in This letter does not specifically state the reasons that the 
proffered position should be considered a specialty occupation, nor does it asserts that our findings to 
the contrary were erroneous. 
3 
With regard to the Petitioner's reliance on the Public Relations Plan, we again note that this document 
merely provides an overview of the school's mission as well as an overview of the duties and 
responsibilities of the public relations manager. As noted above, numerous duties identified in the 
plan do not demonstrate the need for a specialty-degreed individual to carry out their performance. 
While the document provides a detailed overview of the position, including the daily and weekly 
activities of the public relations specialist, and charts demonstrating the results of the implementation 
of the public relations strategies, it does not establish that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation. The Petitioner has not demonstrated how the duties and strategies set forth in this 
document require the services of a specialty-degreed individual to perform them. 
The Petitioner also challenges our determination under the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which requires a showing that the degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. In our decision, we reviewed the nine 
letters submitted by the Petitioner from other private schools, but determined that they were not 
accompanied by sufficient evidence to demonstrate that those entities were similar to the Petitioner. 
We farther noted that the content of those letters was virtually identical, thereby raising questions 
regarding the veracity of the claims therein. Finally, we noted that the letters did not state that a degree 
in a specific specialty was required for the position of public relations specialist in those organizations, 
but rather implied that a general bachelor's degree was the normal prerequisite for entry into the 
occupation. 
On motion, the Petitioner asserts that it provided sufficient evidence to establish eligibility under this 
criterion such as its brochure and information from the I I 
I 1. While noted, the Petitioner's assertions do not address our finding that the record contained 
insufficient evidence regarding the nature of the nine other schools from which letters were submitted. 
Moreover, it does not address or challenge our finding that, if the letters were otherwise deemed 
acceptable, they nonetheless did not state a requirement for a degree in a specific specialty as required 
by this criterion. Therefore, we find the Petitioner's reasons for reconsideration of this issue 
unpersuasive. 
Finally, the Petitioner refers to an unpublished decision from 2008 in which we determined that the 
position of public relations specialist qualified as a specialty occupation. The Petitioner asserts that 
the appeal in that matter was approved under similar circumstances, based on the fact that the 
Petitioner's surf shop business was in a similar "niche market" to that of the Petitioner. The Petitioner, 
however, has famished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition are analogous to 
those in the unpublished decision. While 8 C.F .R. § 103 .3( c) provides that our precedent decisions 
are binding on all U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services employees in the administration of the 
Act, unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. 
The Petitioner has not presented sufficient evidence or argument on motion to establish that our prior 
analysis was incorrect as a matter of law. Moreover, the Petitioner has not established that the 
proffered position satisfies the regulatory and statutory definitions of specialty occupation. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner's arguments offered on motion do not provide a sufficient basis to 
reconsider the prior decision. 
4 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reconsidering this matter and 
has not otherwise established eligibility for the immigrant benefit sought. In visa petition proceedings, 
it is a petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
5