dismissed H-1B Case: Public Relations

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
P"UBL1C COPY . 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: WAC 03 057 50342 Office: CALFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: SEP 0 2 2005 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 03 057 50342 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and the matter is now before 
the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. The petition will be denied. 
The petitioner is a Japanese cultural and community center that seeks to employ the beneficiary as an 
administrative assistant to the director. The petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a nonimrnigrant 
worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to 5 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition because the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. On appeal, 
counsel submits a brief. 
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. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, the position must meet one of 
the following criteria: 
(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. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) interprets the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 214.2(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. 
The record of proceeding before the AAO contains: (1) Form 1-129 and supporting documentation; (2) the 
director's request for additional evidence; (3) the petitioner's response to the director's request; (4) the 
director's denial letter; and (5) Form I-290B and supporting documentation. The AAO reviewed the record in 
its entirety before issuing its decision. 
The petitioner is seeking the beneficiary's services as an administrative assistant to the director. Evidence of 
the beneficiary's duties includes: the 1-129 petition; the petitioner's December 2,2002 letter in support of the 
WAC 03 057 50342 
Page 3 
petition; and the petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence. According to counsel's July 18, 
2003 letter, the beneficiary would pedorm duties that entail 80 percent public affairs duties and 20 percent 
administrative assistant duties. The public affairs duties includes a variety of activities including: devising 
public relations strategies and policies to expose the petitioner to media attention; preparing press releases; 
and contacting the media about events. The petitioner indicated that the beneficiary is well qualified for the 
job because she possesses a U.S. bachelor's degree in cultural and communications studies. 
The director found that the proffered position, which primarily reflects the duties of a public relations 
specialist, was not a specialty occupation. Citing to the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook 
Handbook (Handbook), 2004-2005 edition, the director noted that the minimum requirement for entry into the 
position was not a baccalaureate degree or its equivalent in a specific specialty. The director found further that 
the petitioner failed to establish any of the criteria found at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
On appeal, counsel states, in part, that the proffered position primarily entails public relations duties for the 
petitioner. Counsel states further that the proposed duties are so complex as to require a bachelor's degree. 
Upon review of the record, the petitioner has established none of the four criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. 
5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Therefore, the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 
The AAO turns first to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l) and (2): a baccalaureate or higher 
degree or its equivalent is the normal minimum requirement for entry into the particular position; a degree 
requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations; or a particular 
position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree. 
Factors often considered by CIS when determining these criteria 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 fm 
"routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. 
Minn. 1999)(quoting HirdIBlaker Cop v. Suva, 712 F. Supp. 1095,1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
The AAO routinely consults the Handbook for its information about the duties and educational requirements of 
particular occupations. The AAO does not concur with counsel that the proffered position, which is primarily that 
of a public relations specialist, is a specialty occupation. No evidence in the Handbook, 2004-2005 edition, 
indicates that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required for a public 
relations specialist position. 1 
The record does not include any evidence regarding parallel positions in the petitioner's industry. The record 
also does not include any evidence from professional associations regarding an industry standard, or 
1 A review of the petitioner's website at ht tp : / / www . j accc . org also finds that ALW & Associates, 
which is an arts management firm specializing in marketing, planning, fund development, and project 
coordination, handles the petitioner's publicity duties. Thus, it is not clear how the beneficiary could 
realistically serve as the petitioner's public relations specialist, performing such duties as devising public 
relations strategies and policies to expose the petitioner to media attention, preparing press releases, and 
contacting the media about events, when information on the petitioner's website indicates that the petitioner 
has already hired an outside firm to handle its publicity duties. 
WAC 03 057 50342 
Page 4 
documentation to support the complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position. The petitioner, therefore, 
has not established the criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l) or (2). 
The AAO now turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3) - the employer normally requires a 
degree or its equivalent for the position. As counsel does not address this issue on appeal, it will not be discussed 
further. 
Finally, the AAO turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(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. 
To the extent that they are depicted in the record, the duties do not appear so specialized and complex as to 
require the highly specialized knowledge associated with a baccalaureate or higher degree, or its equivalent, 
in a specific specialty. Therefore, the evidence does not establish that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation under 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
As related in the discussion above, the petitioner has failed to establish that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation. Accordingly, the AAO shall not disturb the director's denial of the petition. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.