dismissed H-1B Case: Public Relations

MATIER OF S-D-A-D-, INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 23, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an Italian culture and language institution, seeks to extend the temporary employment of 
the Beneficiary as a "public relations specialist" under the H-1B 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-1B 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, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not sufficiently establish that (1) the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation; or (2) it was paying the prevailing wage in accordance with a labor condition application 
(LCA) that corresponded with the petition. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner a~serts that it has satisfied all 
evidentiary requirements and that the petition should be approved. 
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. 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a 
non-exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered 
position must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
(b)(6)
Matter ofS-D-A-D-, Inc. 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that 
knowledge required to perform the duties is 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.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 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-lB petition, the Petitioner stated that it wished to extend~the Beneficiary's employment as a 
;•public relations specialist." In the letter of support, the Petitioner claimed that it is an organization 
that promotes Italian language and culture throughout the world, and that it required the continued 
services of the Beneficiary to further these goals. In addition, the Petitioner stated that "[h]is duties 
will continue to be preparing public materials, public relations, project execution and daily client 
service." 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided the following list of 
job duties for the position: 
1) Coordinates all the cultural activities and events organized by our Society and the 
in (2 hours per day); 
2) Is responsible for the academic coordination of the Italian and French programs in 
our Society (3 hours per day); 
3) Officially represents our Society in the various official and diplomatic events we 
are requested to attend (1-2 times per week for 3-4 hours); 
4) Is in charge of the administrative sector of our business; he prepares and carefully 
reviews all the documents and contracts (in Italian, English, Spanish and French) 
between our Institution and all other businesses we are working with (3 hours per 
day);/ 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter ofS-D-A-D-, Inc. 
5) Certifies the legal translation of official documents that Italian citizens need for 
the in (6 hours per week); 
6) Manages and is responsible for our institutional relations with all other consulates 
in (4 hours per week). 
The Petitioner (through counsel) also stated that "the job in question is obviously of a professional 
nature requiring the job duties of a person with an advanced graduate degree in Italian literature, 
knowledge of foreign languages, and communications expertise." 
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. 1 
Specifically, the record (1) does not describe the position's duties with sufficient detail; and (2) does 
not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate 
with a specialty occupation. 2 
As a preliminary matter, we find that there are discrepancies with regard to the Beneficiary's 
position. On the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, and LCA, the Petitioner stated 
that the Beneficiary would continue to be employed as a "public relations specialist." However, the 
Petitioner submitted a printout from its website, which lists the Beneficiary as a teacher. In addition, 
the Petitioner provided a letter from the that states that she "personally 
witnessed the ability of [the Beneficiary] while working at the institute and interacting with students 
in the capacity of teacher, coordinator of programs, academic counselor and inspiring role model." 
Furthermore, the Petitioner claimed that the· Beneficiary will coordinate academic programs, certify 
legal translations, and review 
documents and contracts. It does not appear that these duties 
correspond to the occupation of public relations specialists. No explanation for these discrepancies 
was provided. Therefore, the nature of the proffered position is unclear, and the evidence of record 
does not establish the role in which the Beneficiary will play in the Petitioner's organization. 
The Petitioner has not established the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the 
Beneficiary, which therefore precludes a finding that the proffered position satisfies any criterion at 
8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), because it is the substantive nature of that work that determines (1) 
the normal minimum educational requirement for entry into the particular position, which is the 
focus of criterion 1; (2) industry positions which are parallel to the proffered position and thus 
appropriate for review for a common degree requirement, under the first alternate prong of criterion 
2; (3) the level of complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position, which is the focus of the 
second alternate prong of criterion 2; (4) the factual justification for a petitioner normally requiring a 
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-lB 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. 
3 
Matter ofS-D-A-D-, Inc. 
degree or its equivalent, when that is an issue under criterion 3; and (5) the degree of specialization 
and complexity of the specific duties, which is the focus of criterion 4. 
Nevertheless, for the purpose of performing a comprehensive analysis of whether the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation, we now turn to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
A. First Criterion 
We will first discuss 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? 
The Petitioner attested on the required LCA 4 that the occupational classification for the position is 
"Public Relations Specialists," corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 27-
3031 at a Level I wage.5 
The subchapter of the Handbook entitled "How to Become a Public Relations Specialist" states, in 
pertinent part: "Public relations specialists typically need a bachelor's degree in public relations, 
journalism, communications, English, or business." U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., "Public Relations Specialists," 
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 is required to submit a certified LCA to USCIS to demonstrate that it will pay an H-lB 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, 545-546 (AAO 2015). 
5 We will consider the Petitioner's classification of the proffered position at a Level I wage (the lowest of four assignable 
wage levels) 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: (1) that the 
Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that he will be 
closely supervised and his work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that he 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 _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 of the Petitioner's job,opportunity. /d. A Le~el I wage should be considered for research fellows, workers 
in training, or internships. /d. 
4 
Matter ofS-D-A-D-, Inc. 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/media-and-communication/public-relations-specialists.htm#tab-4 (last 
visited Nov. 22, 2016). 
The Handbook does not support the assertion that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is .. normally the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation. 
Here, although the Handbook indicates that a bachelor's or higher degree is required, it also 
indicates that bachelor's . degrees in various fields such as public relations, journalism, 
communications, English or business, are acceptable for entry into the occupation. 
To demonstrate that a job requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly 
specialized knowledge as required by section 214(i)(1) of the Act, a petitioner must establish that the 
position requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. Again, USCIS interprets the degree requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to 
require a degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. In addition to 
recognizing degrees in disparate fields, i.e., English and business, the Handbook also states that a 
general business degree is acceptable. Although 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. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d at 147. Therefore, the 
Handbook's recognition that a general, non-specialty business degree is sufficient for entry into the 
occupation strongly suggests that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is not normally the 
minimum requirement for entry for this occupation. 
We note the Petitioner's submission of excerpts from the· Occupational Information Network 
(O*NET) OnLine summary report for ''Public Relations Specialists." The summary report provides 
general information regarding the occupation; however, it does not support the Petitioner's assertion 
regarding the educational requirements for the occupation. For example, the Specialized Vocational 
Preparation (SVP) rating cited within O*NET's Job Zone designates this occupation as 7 < 8. An 
SVP rating of 7 to less than ("<") 8 indicates that the occupation requires "over 2 years up to and 
including 4 years" of training. Further, while the SVP rating indicates the total number of years of 
vocational preparation required for a particular position, it is important to note that it does not 
describe how those years are to be divided among training, formal education, and experience - and it 
does not specify the particular type of degree, if any, that a position would require.6 
Further, the summary report provides the educational requirements of "respondents," but does not 
account for 100% of the "respondents." The respondents' positions within the occupation are not 
distinguished by career level (e.g., entry-level, mid-level, senior-level). Additionally, the graph in 
the summary report does not indicate that the "education level" for the respondents must be in a 
specific specialty. 
For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at 
http://www.onetonline.org/help/online/svp. 
5 
Matter ofS-D-A-D-, Inc. 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation from a probative source to substantiate its 
assertion regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. Thus, the 
Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.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 
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 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)(quotingHird!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 authoritative source reports a 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. Also, there are no submissions from the industry's professional association indicating 
that it has made a degree a minimum entry requirement. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not submit 
any letters or affidavits from similar firms or individuals in the Petitioner's industry attesting that 
such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." Thus, the Petitioner has not 
satisfied the first alternative prongof 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. 
6 
Matter of S-D-A-D-, Inc. 
The Petitioner asserts throughout the record that the proffered position requires an individual with a 
high level of knowledge of Italian language, culture, and civilization. However, the need for such 
cultural knowledge does not indicate that the position is so complex and unique that it can only be 
performed by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 
Moreover, the Petitioner designated the proffered position as an entry-level position within the 
occupational category (by selecting a Level I wage). This designation, when read in combination 
with the Petitioner's job description and the Handbook's account of the requirements for this 
occupation, further suggests that this particular position is not so complex or unique relative to other 
public relations specialists that the duties can only be performed by an individual with a bachelor's 
degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 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 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 Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative complexity or uniqueness as an· aspect of the 
duties of the position, and it did not identify any tasks that are so complex or unique that only a 
specifically degreed individual could perform them. 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. 
The Petitioner stated in the H-1B petition that it was established in 1997 and has 12 employees. 
Upon review of the record, we find that the Petitioner did not submit information regarding 
employees who currently or previously held the particular position being offered here. The record 
does not establish that the Petitioner normally requires at least a bachelor's degree.in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, directly related to the duties of the position. Therefore, the Petitioner has 
not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J). 
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. 
Although the Petitioner provided a description of the duties of the proffered position and information 
regarding its business operations, we again note that the duties. have not been sufficiently developed 
by the Petitioner to establish that they are more specialized and complex than public relations 
7 
Matter of S-D-A-D-, Inc. 
specialist positions that are not usually associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. 
We also incorporate our earlier discussion and analysis regarding the duties of the proffered position, 
and the designation of the position in the LCA as a Level I position (the lowest of four assignable 
wage-levels) relative to others within the same occupational category.7 The Petitioner has not 
demonstrated in the record that its proffered position is one with duties sufficiently specialized and 
complex to satisfy 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
IV. LCAANDWAGES 
In denying the petition, the Director noted the Petitioner's apparent failure to pay the prevailing 
wage as certified on the LCA. 
The regulations require that before filing a Form I-129 on behalf of an H-lB worker, a petitioner 
obtain a certified LCA from DOL in the occupational specialty in which the H-lB worker will be 
employed. See 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B). The instructions that accompany the Form I-129 also 
specify that an H-1B petitioner must submit evidence that an LCA has been certified by DOL when 
submitting the Form I-129.8 
The regulation discussing filing requirements for applications and petitions at 8 C.P.R.§ 103.2(b)(l) 
states: 
Demonstrating eligibility. An applicant or petitioner must establish that he or she is 
eligible for the requested benefit at the time of filing the benefit request and must 
continue to be eligible through adjudication. Each benefit request must be properly 
completed and filed with all initial evidence required by applicable regulations and 
7 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. 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 definitively 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-level designation may be a relevant factor but is not 
itself conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 
8 DOL reviews LCAs "for completeness and obvious inaccuracies" and will certify the LCA absent a determination that 
the application is incomplete or obviously inaccurate. Section 212(n)(l)(G)(ii) of the Act. In contrast, USCIS must 
determine whether the attestations and content of an LCA correspond to and support the H-lB visa petition, including 
the specific place of employment. 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b); see also 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B). 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-D-A-D-, Inc. 
other USCIS instructions. Any evidence submitted in connection with a benefit 
request is incorporated into and considered part of the request. 
In this matter, the Petitioner initially filed an LCA, certified on August 5, 2015, with the instant visa 
petition which was filed on September 8, 2015. The period of employment certified in that LCA is 
September 1, 2015, to September 1, 2018. This LCA identified the rate of pay as $33,530 for a level 
I position,'for the occupational code and place of employment. The Director noted that the evidence 
of record did not demonstrate that the Petitioner, who appeared to be compensating the Beneficiary 
at varying monthly rates of $2,100 and $2,520, did not appear to be paying the prevailing wage to 
the Beneficiary as certified on the LCA. 
While we concur with the Director's conclusions, we noted a more substantial issue during our de 
novo review of the record. The prevailing wage for the same area, wage level, and occupational 
code when the LCA was filed with DOL was $37,419 per year.9 Thus, when the petition was filed, 
the Petitioner had not obtained a current, certified LCA which supported the petition. 
In addition to not compensating the Beneficiary as required, we find that the LCA submitted here 
does not correspond to the petition. The Petitioner here did not comply with the filingrequirement 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B), and the appeal must be dismissed and the petition denied for this 
additional reason. 
V. CONCLUSION 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each 
considered as an independent and alternative basis for the decision. The burden is on the Petitioner 
to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofS-D-A-D-, Inc., ID# 70786 (AAO Nov. 23,2016) 
9 
For more information, please see Foreign Labor Certification Data Center's Online Wage Library, on the Internet at 
http://www.flcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResults.aspx?code=27 -3031&area= &year=17 &source= 1 (last visited 
Nov. 22, 2016). 
9