dismissed H-1B Case: Recruiting

MATTER OF C-G- INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 29,2016 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a recruiting agency, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an "executive 
recruiter" under the H -1 B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(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, Vermont Service Center, denied the petitiOn. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner had not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation 
position. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the evidence of 
record satisfies all evidentiary requirements. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized· 
knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition; but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
Matter of C-G- Inc. 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the pmiicular 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. PROFFERED POSITION 
In the H-1 B petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as an "executive recruiter." 
In a letter submitted in response to the Director's request for additional evidence (RFE), the 
Petitioner provided the following description of the job duties of the proffered position: 
• Interview applicants to obtain information on work history, training, education, and 
job skills. (5 hours/week) 
• Review and evaluate applicant qualification or eligibility for specified licensing, 
according to established guideline and designated licensing codes. (4 hours/w) 
• Screen and refer applicants to hiring personnel in the organization, making hiring 
recommendations when appropriate. (2 hours/w) 
• Contact applicants to inform them of employment possibilities, consideration and 
selection. (2 hours/w) 
• Conduct reference and background checks on applicants. (2 hours/w) 
• Advise managers and ~mployees on staffing policies and procedures. (2 hours/w) 
• Inform potential applicants about facilities, operations, benefits, and job or career 
opportunities in organizations. (2 hours/w) 
• Perform searches for qualified candidates according to relevant job criteria, using 
computer databases, networking, Internet recruiting resources, cold calls, media, 
recruiting firms, and employee referrals. (3 hours/w) 
• Prepare and maintain employment records. (3 hours/w) 
2 
Matter ofC-G- Inc. 
• Hire applicants and authorize paperwork assigning them to positions. (2 hours/w) 
The Petitioner also stated, "Due to the highly specialized nature of the duties and responsibilities 
listed above, our company requires an individual to possess a Bachelor's degree or its equivalent for 
the position." 
III. ANALYSIS 
Initially, we observe that the Petitioner has not claimed that the proffered position requires a 
minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. The Petitioner has asserted 
that the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree, but not that the degree must be in any 
specific specialty. To establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation, however, the 
Petitioner must demonstrate that the proffered position requires a precise and specific course of 
study that relates directly to the position in question. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertojj; 484 F.3d at 
147 (describing "a degree requirement in a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the 
duties and responsibilities of a particular position"). There must be a close correlation between the 
required specialized studies and the position; thus, the mere requirement of a degree, without further 
specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz 
Associates, 19 I&N Dec. 558 (Comm'r 1988) (stating that "[t]he mere requirement of a college 
degree for the sake of general education, or to obtain what an employer perceives to be a higher 
caliber employee, also does not establish eligibility"). Thus, while a general-purpose degree or a 
degree in any discipline 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. !d. Thus, the Petitioner's claim that a general-purpose degree is acceptable 
is essentially an admission that the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. This is sut1icient 
reason, in itself, to find that the position is not a specialty occupation. 
Nevertheless, we will continue our analysis of whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation for the purpose of performing a comprehensive analysis. We will next discuss the record 
of proceedings in relation to the four criteria at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)(4 )(iii)(A). 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 
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. 
3 
Matter of C-G- Inc. 
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)4 submitted in support of the H-IB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Human Resources Specialist" 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 13-1071.5 The Handbook states the 
following about the educational requirements of human resources specialist pos,itions: 
Human resources specialists must usually have a bachelor's degree. 
Education 
Applicants seeking positions as a human resources specialist must usually have a 
bachelor's degree in human resources, business, or a related field. 
Coursework typically includes business, industrial relations, psychology, professional 
writing, human resource management, and accounting. 
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 USC IS 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-1 B worker the 
higher of either the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the "area of employment" or the actual wage 
paid by the employer to other employees with similar experience and qualifications who are performing the same 
services. See Matter ofSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 545-546 (AAO 20 15). , 
5 The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level I wage (the lowest of four assignable wage levels). We will 
consider this selection in our analysis of the position. The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" issued by 
the DOL provides a description of the wage levels. A Level I wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which 
the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding ofthe occupation. This wage rate indicates: (I) that 
the Benefi{;iary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that she 
will be closely supervised and her work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that she will receive 
specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing 
Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http:/Jflcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _II_ 2009.pdf A prevailing wage determination starts 
with an entry level wage and progresses to a higher wage level after considering the experience, education, and skill 
requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. !d. 
4 
Matter of C-G- Inc. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., 
"Human Resources Specialists," http://www. bls.gov /ooh/business-and- tl.nancial/human-resources­
specialists.htm#tab-4 (last visited Dec. 28, 2016). 
While the Handbook reports that a bachelor's degree is usually required for these positions, it does 
not report that the degree must be in a spec{fic ~pecialty directly related to the occupation. For this 
reason alone, the Handbook does not indicate that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
In addition, the Handbook suggests that a bachelor's degree in business, without further 
specification, is sufficient for some such positions. However, a requirement of a bachelor's degree 
in business is inadequate to establish that a position qualitl.es as a specialty occupation. A petitioner 
must demonstrate that the proffered position requires a precise and specific course of study that 
relates directly to the position in question. Since there must be a close correlation between the 
required specialized studies and the position, the requirement of a degree with a generalized title, 
such as business, without further specification, does not establish the position as a specialty 
occupation. Cf j\1atter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. at 560. To prove that a job requires 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge as required by 
section 214(i)(l) of the Act, a petitioner must establish that the position requires the attainment of a 
bachelor's or higher degree in a specialized field of study or its equivalent. As explained above, 
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. USCIS has consistently stated 
that, although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business administration, 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. Royal 
Siam Corp. v. Cherto_[f, 484 F.3d at 147. 
Further, in designating the proffered position at a Level I wage, the Petitioner has indicated that the 
proffered position is a comparatively low, entry-level position relative to others within the 
occupation. That is, in accordance with the relevant DOL explanatory information on wage levels, 
this wage rate indicates that the Beneficiary is only required to have a basic understanding of the 
occupation and carries expectations that the Beneficiary perform routine tasks that require limited, if 
any, exercise of judgment; that she would be closely supervised; that her work vmuld be closely 
monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and that she would receive specitl.c instructions on required 
tasks and expected results. As noted above, according to DOL guidance, a statement that the job 
offer is for a research fellow, worker in training or an internship is indicative that a Level I wage 
should be considered. Given the Handbook ·s implication that typical positions located within this 
occupational category do not require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, it appears unlikely 
that an entry-level position with these characteristics would have such a requirement. 
When the Handbook does not support the proposition that a proffered position is one that meets the 
statutory and regulatory provisions of a specialty occupation, it is incumbent upon the Petitioner to 
provide persuasive evidence that the proffered position more likely than not satisfies this or one of 
the other three criteria, notwithstanding the absence of the Handbook's support on the issue. In such 
cases, it is the petitioner's responsibility to provide probative evidence (e.g., documentation from 
5 
(b)(6) ) ' 
Matter of C-G- Inc. 
other objective, authoritative sources) that supports a finding that the particular position in question 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. Whenever more than one authoritative source exists, an 
adjudicator will consider and weigh all of the evidence presented to determine whether the particular 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. In the instant case, however, the Petitioner provided no 
evidence from any other authoritative source pertinent to the educational requirements of human 
resources specialist positions. 
Further, we find that, to the extent that they are described in the record of proceedings, the numerous 
duties that the Petitioner ascribes to the proffered position indicate a need for a range of knowledge 
pertinent to human resources, but do not establish any particular level of formal, postsecondary 
education leading to a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty as minimally necessary to 
attain such knowledge. 
We tum finally to the evaluation prepared by an adjunct professor at 
m Georgia. After reiterating the duties of the proffered position as described 
by the Petitioner, asserted that the proffered position, " .... requires a Bachelor's degree 
in order to adequately perform the complex duties required for the position." 
However, there is no indication that possesses any knowledge of the proffered position in 
the Petitioner's operation beyond the Petitioner's own description of the duties, which the Director 
considered before denying the petition. She does not discuss the duties of the proffered position in 
any substantive detail. Nor does she demonstrate or assert in-depth knowledge of the specific 
business operations or how the duties of the position would actually be performed in the context of 
the Petitioner's business enterprise. For instance, there is no evidence that has visited the 
Petitioner's business, observed the Petitioner's employees, 'interviewed them about the nature of 
their work, or documented the knowledge that they apply on the job. She does not relate her 
conclusion to specific, concrete aspects of the Petitioner's business operations to demonstrate a 
sound factual basis for the conclusion about the educational requirements for the particular position 
here at issue. It is unclear how she could attribute a degree requirement to such a generalized 
treatment of the proffered position. 
Furthermore, there is no indication that the Petitioner advised that the Petitioner 
characterized the proffered position as a low, entry-level human resources specialist position, for a 
beginning employee who has only a basic understanding of the occupation (as indicated by the 
wage-level on the LCA) relative to other positions within the occupational category. It appears that 
would have found this information relevant for her opinion letter. Moreover, without this 
information, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that possessed the requisite information 
necessary to adequately assess the nature of the Petitioner's position and appropriately determine 
parallel positions based uponjob duties and responsibilities. 
indicated that her opinion is based on a review of vacancy announcements for recruiter 
positions with other companies. However, did not provide copies of the vacancy 
announcements she"' relied upon. Instead, she provided only a brief description of each vacancy 
announcement and stated that each requires, "Bachelor's degree in a related field of work." The 
(b)(6)
Matter of C-G- Inc. 
actual requirement as stated in each individual vacancy announcement is unknown to us. It is not 
clear whether any of the vacancy announcements included a requirement of a minimum of a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. Further, the brief description of the vacancy 
announcements does not provide sufficient information to demonstrate that any of those 
announcements advertised Level I positions. Therefore, insufficient evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate that the educational requirements of those positions mirror those of the proffered 
position. 
Further, asserted only that the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree. She did not 
assert that the proffered position requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a spec(fic specialty or 
its equivalent. 
In summary, and for each and all of the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the evaluation 
rendered by does not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation position . The conclusions reached by lack the requisite specificity and detail 
and are not supported by independent, objective evidence demonstrating the manner in which she 
reached such conclusions. There is an inadequate factual foundation established to support the 
opinion and we find that the opinion is not in accord with other information in the record. 
We may, in our discretion, consider opinion statements submitted as expert testimony. However, 
where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we are not 
required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N 
Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988). As a reasonable exercise of our discretion we discount the advisory 
opinion letter as not probative of any criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). For efficiency's 
sake, we hereby incorporate the above discussion and analysis regarding the opinion letter into each 
of the bases in this decision for dismissing the appeal. 
For all of these reasons, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(J). 
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. 
(b)(6)
Matter of C-G- Inc. 
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/BlakerCorp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102(S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
Here and as already 
discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for 
which the Handbook (or other independent, authoritative source) reports an industry-wide requirement 
for at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. Thus, we incorporate by 
reference the previous discussion on the matter. Also, there are no submissions from the industry's 
professional association indicating that it has made a degree a minimum entry requirement. 
While the Petitioner did submit a letter from of the record does 
not indicate that is a recruiting firm. Because it has not been shown to be in 
the Petitioner ' s industry, it has not been shown to be directly relevant to the analysis pertinent to the 
first prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). In any event, after discussing the proffered position, 
that letter states that a position such as the proffered position would require a bachelor's degree. It 
does not state that it requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a spec(fic .specialty or its 
equivalent. It is not, therefore, persuasive evidence that the proffered position satisfies the first 
prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
Nor do the job vacancy announcements referenced by the Petitioner below and on appeal satisfy this 
prong. As with the advertisements mentioned by the Petitioner did not submit copies. 
Instead, it provided only a brief description of each vacancy announcement and stated that each 
requires, "Bachelor's degree in a related field of work." The actual requirement as stated in each 
individual vacancy announcement, therefore, is unknown. It is not clear whether any of the vacancy 
announcements included a requirement of a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a spec?fic specialty. 
Further, the brief description of the vacancy announcements does not provide sutiicient information 
to demonstrate that any of those announcements advertised Level I positions. Therefore, insufficient 
evidence has been presented to demonstrate that the educational requirements of those positions 
mirror those of the proffered position. 
Thus, the evidence of record does not establish that a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to parallel positions with organizations that are in 
the Petitioner's industry and otherwise similar to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has not, therefore, 
satisfied the criterion ofthe 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.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 
8 
Matter of C-G- Inc. 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree m a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
A review of the record of proceedings finds that the Petitioner has not credibly demonstrated that the 
duties the Beneficiary will be responsible for or perform on a day-to-day basis constitute a position 
so complex or unique that it can only be performed by a person with at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. Even when considering the Petitioner's general descriptions of 
the proffered position's duties, the evidence of record does not establish why a few related courses 
or industry experience alone is insufficient preparation for the proffered position. 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 ofthe proffered position. The description of the duties does not specifically identify any tasks 
that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. The 
record lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish the proffered position as more complex 
or unique from other positions that can be performed by persons without at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. ' 
This is further evidenced by the LCA submitted by the Petitioner in support of the instant 
petition. As noted above, the Petitioner attested on the submitted LCA that the wage level for the 
proffered position is a Level I (entry-level) wage. Such a wage level is for a position which only 
requires the performance of routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; close 
supervision and work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and the receipt of specific 
instructions on required tasks and expected results, and is contrary to a position that requires the 
performance of complex duties.6 It is, instead, a position for an employee who has only basic 
understanding of the occupation. 
For all of the reasons explained, the evidence of record does not establish that the proffered position 
in the instant case is significantly different from other positions in the occupation such that it refutes 
the Handbook's information to the effect that there is a spectrum of degrees acceptable for such 
positions, including degrees not in a specific specialty. In other words, the record lacks suffici~ntly 
detailed information to distinguish the proffered position as unique from or more complex than 
positions that can be performed by persons without at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. As the Petitioner did not demonstrate how the proffered position is so 
6 The issue here is that 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, it is important to note that a Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position 
from classification as a specialty occupation. Jn certain occupations (doctors or lawyers, for example), an 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 Level IV 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 consideration but is not a substitute for 
a determination of whether a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)( I) of the Act. : 
9 
Matter ofC-G- Inc. 
complex or unique relative to other positions within the same occupational category that do not 
require at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for entry into the 
occupation in the United States, it cannot be concluded that the Petitioner has satisfied the second 
alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it 
normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. 
To satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner provided a list of the two people it now employs in the 
proffered position and six the people it previously employed in the position, as well as their 
educational qualifications. These individuals possess (1) a bachelor's degree in business 
management and economics, (2) a bachelor's degree in international relations, (3) a master's degree 
in international relations and·international communication, (4) a bachelor's degree in international 
studies and business administration, (5) a master's degree in public administration, (6) a master's 
degree in telecommunications management, (7) a bachelor's degree in communication studies, and 
(8) a bachelor's degree in business administration. 
The Petitioner, therefore, finds a wide variety of degrees acceptable. 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)(l)(B) ofthe 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, however, 
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 dit1erent specialties. Section 214(i)(l )(B) of the 
Act (emphasis added). 
In the instant case, the individuals the Petitioner employs and previously employed in the proffered 
position have degrees in business management and economics, international relations, international 
relations and international communication, international studies and business administration, public 
administration, telecommunications management, communication studies, and business 
administration. That array of subjects does not delineate a specific specialty. Thus, the evidence 
does not demonstrate that the Petitioner requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent for the proffered position. 
10 
Matter ofC-G- Inc. 
Further, that one of the people who worked in the proffered position had only a bachelor's degree in 
business administration suggests that a degree in business administration, without further 
specification, would be a sufficient educational qualification for the proffered position. 7 As was 
explained above, an educational requirement that may be satisfied by an otherwise unspecified 
degree in business administration is not a requirement of a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty or its equivalent. 
Further still, the Petitioner provided a copy of a vacancy announcement that it placed to recruit 
applicants into the proffered position. That vacancy announcement states, inter alia, that the 
proffered position requires, "BA/BS Degree." It contains no indication that the Petitioner requires, a 
bachelor's degree in any specific specialty, or the equivalent. 
For the reasons discussed above, 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. 
Again, relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by the Petitioner 
as an aspect of the proffered position. The duties of the proffered position, such as interviewing 
applicants, reviewing and evaluating qualifications and eligibility for licensing, screening and 
referring applicants, etc., contain insutlicient indication of a nature so specialized and complex that 
they require knowledge usually associated with attainment of a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty or its equivalent. 
We again refer to our earlier comments and findings with regard to the implication of the Petitioner's 
designation of the proffered position in the LCA as a Level I (the lowest of four assignable levels) 
wage. That is, the Level I wage designation is indicative of a low, entry-level position relative to 
others within the occupational category, and hence one not likely distinguishable by relatively 
specialized and complex duties. Upon review of the totality of the record, the Petitioner has not 
established that the nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge 
7 
A general degree requirement does not necessarily preclude a proffered position fi·om qualifying as a specialty 
occupation. For example, an entry requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in business administration with a 
concentration in a specific field, or a bachelor's or higher degree in business administration combined with relevant 
education, training, and/or experience may, in certain instances, qualify the proffered position as a specialty occupation. 
In either case, it must be demonstrated that the entry requirement is equivalent to a bachelor's or higher degree in a 
specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered position. See Ro_val Siam Corp. v. Cherlo.!J; 484 F.3d at 14 7. 
II 
Matter ofC-G- Inc. 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
For the reasons discussed above, the evidence of record does not satisfy the fourth criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)( A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
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 ofC-G- Inc., ID# 64228 (AAO Dec. 29, 2016) 
12