dismissed H-1B Case: Religion

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 4, 2024 In Re: 34489314 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
The Petitioner, a church, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a church planting pastor under 
the H-lB 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-lB program allows a U.S. 
employer to file a petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 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 California Service Center Director denied the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 
(petition), concluding that the record did not establish that the proffered position qualified as a 
specialty occupation. The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof 
to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act; Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de novo. 
Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will 
dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Act defines an H-lB nonimmigrant as a foreign national "who is 
coming temporarily to the United States to perform services ... in a specialty occupation described in 
section 214(i)(l) .... " (emphasis added). Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines 
the term "specialty occupation" as an occupation that requires "theoretical and practical application of 
a body of highly specialized knowledge, and 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 section 214(i)(l) of the Act, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. 
In addition, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) provides that the offered position must meet one of four 
criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation position. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must be read with 
the statutory and regulatory definitions of a specialty occupation under section 214(i)(l) of the Act 
and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). We construe the term "degree" 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. Chertojf, 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"). Lastly, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(J) states that an H-1 B classification may be granted 
to a foreign national who "will pe1form services in a specialty occupation ... " ( emphasis added). 
Accordingly, to determine whether the Beneficiary will be employed in a specialty occupation, we 
look to the record to ascertain the services the Beneficiary will perform and whether such services 
require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge attained 
through at least a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
By regulation, the Director is charged with determining whether the petition involves a specialty 
occupation as defined in section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(2). The Director 
may request additional evidence in the course of making this determination. 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(8). 
In addition, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the petition and must continue to 
be eligible through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner stated that the position requires "at least a Master of Divinity degree or equivalent 
experience." The Petitioner initially provided the position's description with 22 bullet points and 
reframed those duties in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) placing them in a chart. 
For the reasons discussed below, we have determined that the Petitioner has not demonstrated the 
offered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 1 Specifically, we conclude the record the 
Petitioner developed does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its 
equivalent, corresponding with a specialty occupation. 2 
We begin noting a shortcoming in the Petitioner's position prerequisites that, by itself, is detrimental 
to this petition's outcome and is dispositive of this appeal. The Petitioner indicated that an unspecified 
amount of "equivalent experience" would be an acceptable alternative to its master's degree 
requirement. The Petitioner did not offer any information on what amount or type of experience it 
would accept. This is an important aspect for several reasons, one of which is this requirement could 
impact the prevailing wage level the Petitioner must designate on the labor condition application 
depending on the amount of required experience. Furthermore, if what the Petitioner considers to be 
sufficient equivalent experience would not serve as an adequate equivalence under the regulations at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5), that would also undermine its eligibility claims. But we can do 
nothing more than speculate at what amount and type of experience this petitioner would find 
acceptable. 
This illustrates how the Petitioner's initial position requirements were not sufficiently specific. 
Because the Petitioner provided vague requirements, it has not satisfied its burden of proof. In 
1 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation to supp01i the petition, including evidence regarding the position and its business 
operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 
evaluating the evidence, the trnth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its 
quality. See Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
A. First Criterion 
We now turn to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), 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 one possible resource on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. While we do not 
maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information, the Petitioner relies on this 
resource here. To satisfy the first criterion, the burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to submit 
sufficient evidence to support a determination that its particular position would normally have a 
minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for. "[T]he choice of what reference 
materials to consult is quintessentially within an agency's discretion .... " Royal Siam C01p., 484 
F.3d at 146. 
The Petitioner submitted the required DOL ETA Form 9035 & 9035E, Labor Condition Application 
for Nonimmigrant Workers (LCA) with this petition, where it classified the offered position under the 
occupational title "Directors, Religious Activities and Education," corresponding to the standard 
occupational classificational (SOC) code 21-2021. The Petitioner is required to submit a certified 
LCA to DOL to demonstrate that it will pay the Beneficiary 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. 
Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(a). 
We note that there are occupational categories which are not covered in detail by the Handbook, as 
well as occupations for which the Handbook does not provide any information. The occupational title 
of Directors, Religious Activities and Education is one such entry that does not contain detailed 
information. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Data 
for Occupations Not Covered in Detail (Aug. 29, 2024), https://www.bls.gov/ooh /about/data-for­
occupations-not-covered-in-detail.htm. When the Handbook lacks detailed information, it is the 
Petitioner's responsibility to provide probative evidence (e.g., documentation from other objective, 
authoritative sources) that indicates whether the particular position in question qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. 
Even if we were to accept the Handbook's summary information relating to this category as 
sufficiently detailed, it reflects the "Typical entry-level education" consists of a bachelor's degree. Id. 
However, it does not specify that this degree must be within any specific specialty and a bachelor's 
degree requirement without further specification, does not establish the position as a specialty 
occupation. Cf Matter ofMichael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988); Royal Siam 
Co,p., 484 F.3d at 147. Consequently, the Handbook does not support the Petitioner's claims under 
this provision. 
On appeal the Petitioner claims the Director improperly relied on the Handbook "to make legal 
conclusions about whether a position qualifies as a specialty occupation." But that's not what has 
3 
occurred here. Here, in its RFE response, the Petitioner provided an excerpt of the Handbook that 
only indicated for the occupational title at issue here, the typical entry-level education was a bachelor's 
degree, but as we note above there was no specialization associated with that degree. The Petitioner's 
stated purpose for providing that excerpt was to demonstrate eligibility under this criterion. And the 
district court case the Petitioner cites on appeal is not relevant to this case as the Director considered 
the information contained in the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) relating to this SOC 
code. In the court case the Petitioner cites, USCTS chose to rely only on the Handbook to the exclusion 
of O*NET. When the agency considers both resources, it acts appropriately. Jonathan D. Rosen Fam. 
Found., Inc. v. Baran, No. 1:19-CV-04301-ELR, 2020 WL 5551030, at *8 (N.D. Ga. May 26, 2020). 
That brings us to the O*NET as a resource. The Director noted the O*NET only provides general 
information and does not make any reference to a degree requirement in a specific field of study. On 
appeal, the Petitioner states that based on the evidence it provided in its RFE response, "that these 
other majors listed in O*NET are also in the same general field and directly related to the job functions 
of a Church Planting Pastor." The Petitioner does not identify what "majors" it is referencing in 
O*NET, but if this reference is to the O*NET printout it provided titled, "Local Training," there is a 
column titled "Program" but no such information reflecting any majors. 
The Program column is displayed on the page corresponding to different institutions of higher learning 
and the O*NET printout does not reflect that the contents listed under the Program column are the 
fields of study that are normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position. And 
that is what is at issue here. But in asking us to assume the Program column in the O*NET-a resource 
that provides general information but not particular fields of study-equates to the specialized degree 
program normally required for the SOC code listed for the offered position is just that; an assumption. 
Making such an assumption requires a logical leap asking us to allow them to "jump" farther than their 
evidence can carry their burden. We are not prepared to make the same unfounded extrapolation 
without more cardinal evidence leading us over the gap in the Petitioner's claims and evidence. 
The Petitioner has not provided documentation from a probative source to substantiate its assertion 
regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. Therefore, it 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). The first prong contemplates common industry 
practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific position. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy the second criterion's first prong, 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. As recognized in federal court cases 
(RELX, Inc. v. Baran, 397 F. Supp. 3d 41, 54 (D.D.C.2019); Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 
4 
1165 (D. Minn. 1999) ( quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. l 095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989))), 
we generally consider the following sources of evidence to determine ifthere is such a common degree 
requirement: 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 establish that such firms routinely employ and 
recruit only degreed individuals. 
As previously discussed, the Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty is a common requirement within the industry for parallel positions among similar 
organizations. Also, the Petitioner did not submit evidence from an industry professional association 
or from firms or individuals in the industry indicating such a degree is a minimum requirement for 
entry into the position. 
In support of this prong, the Petitioner submitted a chart listing 10 positions with other religious 
institutions along with their corresponding job advertisements. The Petitioner asserts that all the 
advertisements satisfy the three main elements that the degree requirement is common: ( l) to the 
industry, (2) among similar organizations, and (3) in parallel positions. When determining whether 
the Petitioner and other organizations share the same general characteristics, such factors may include 
information regarding the nature or type of organization, and, when pertinent, the size, scope, or scale 
of operations, expenditures, as well as the level ofrevenue and staffing (to list just a few elements that 
may be considered). 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. 
We offer analysis on some of the evidence. In the Pastor of Pastoral Care job announcement, while 
they required a bachelor's degree and required either the degree, training, or a certification in religion 
or theology, they also required between five and ten years ofleadership experience suggesting it is not 
a parallel position. Again, we note the shortcoming in the Petitioner's position requirements in which 
they mandated an unspecified amount of "equivalent experience" without any degree that it would 
find to be acceptable to its degree requirement. 
Regarding the Youth Pastor position, the duties are distinct from the offered position focusing 
narrowly on that institution's youth ministry. While the Petitioner indicated in its RFE response that 
an unspecified portion of the Beneficiary's time would be spent working on issues related to student 
college interns, that vague and minority of the position's time is inadequate to indicate that the 
positions are parallel. This announcement also required work experience as a staff member in a student 
ministry in a leadership capacity drawing an additional distinction between the Youth Pastor position 
and the one in this petition. 
The Element Leadership College and Small Groups Pastor announcement does share some duties 
similar to the position in this petition. The job announcement indicated it is a position that combines 
leadership over that institution's college with pastoral oversight of their small group ministry. But, 
we note a dissimilarity in the advertised position's requirements when it mandated leadership work 
experience in either college ministry or small groups within a church organization. And the Director 
of Campus Ministry advertisement also has a narrow focus on youth including an experiential 
requirement of working with youths, differentiating it from the offered position. The Church Plant 
5 
Resident in Northeast Ohio position does appear to be one with duties that are similar to the position 
offered in the petition with somewhat similar position prerequisites. 
Where some job advertisements support the Petitioner's claims under this criterion, and some do not, 
USCIS does not act improperly in finding that evidence insufficient to satisfy the second criterion's 
requirements under the first prong. Xiaotong Liu v. Baran, No. SACV1800376JVSKESX, 2018 WL 
7348851, at *10 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2018); see also Sagarwala v. Cissna, 387 F. Supp. 3d 56, 67 
(D.D.C. 2019). 
On appeal the Petitioner does not specifically identify what job announcements we should review and 
why, so we performed a sampling of half of them with only one advertisement that appears to support 
the Petitioner's claims under this criterion. Under the preponderance of the evidence standard, a 
petitioner must establish that the arguments and the evidence presented make it more likely than not 
that it has satisfied the regulatory requirements. Matter o/Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884,889 n.8 (AAO 
2016) (citing Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376). The extent of the Petitioner's eligibility claims is 
disproportionate to the evidence it offers in support of those claims. 
Without more, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations. Consequently, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
The Petitioner did not assert eligibility under this prong before the Director, nor do they make such a 
claim on appeal. 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 record must establish that a petitioner's stated degree requirement is not a matter of preference 
for high-caliber candidates but is necessitated instead by the position's performance requirements. See 
Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. A petitioner must demonstrate that its imposed requirements are 
genuine. Sagarwala, 387 F. Supp. 3d at 69; Cf Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 T&N Dec. at 560 (finding: 
(1) the requirement of a degree for the sake of general education, or to obtain what an employer 
perceives to be a higher caliber employee, does not establish eligibility; and (2) an analysis of 
eligibility includes not only the actual requirements a petitioner specifies, but also those the specific 
industry in question requires to determine, in part, the validity of a petitioner's requirements). 
Were USCTS limited solely to reviewing the Petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, then any 
individual with a bachelor's degree could be brought to the United States to perform any occupation 
as long as the Petitioner created a token degree requirement. Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. Evidence 
provided in support of this criterion may include, but is not limited to, documentation regarding the 
6 
Petitioner's past recrnitment and hiring practices, as well as information regarding employees who 
previously held the position. 
As evidence under this criterion before the Director, the Petitioner offered its statements and other 
material relating to its pastoral staff such as an organizational chart and a separate document reflecting 
the education each of its pastors had attained. In the denial, the Director noted that the Petitioner's 
statement "indicates you accept a variety of fields for entry into the position, including the fields of, 
which encompasses numerous specialties and vocations." But the Director did not offer additional 
details regarding the variety of fields. As we previously noted, for this petition the Petitioner required 
"at least a Master of Divinity degree or equivalent experience." The Director acknowledged evidence 
the Petitioner provided relating to its other pastoral staff and the degrees each of those employees hold. 
But they determined that evidence did not demonstrate eligibility under this criterion "because it does 
not indicate the attainment of these degrees was a requirement upon being hired." The Director closed 
this section noting that although the degree levels reflected what degree each of the other employees 
earned, it did "not indicate whether any of these degrees are in a specialty required by the position." 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not identify a direct error in the Director's findings under this criterion. 
Instead, the Petitioner speculated that the Director's discussion of a variety of fields "suggests a policy 
that there may only be one field of study, and that the requirement for a bachelor's or master's 
requirement in theology or Biblical training, (i.e. Master of Divinity) is not specific enough to qualify 
the [offered position] as a specialty occupation." (Emphasis in original). But we do not read the 
Director's broader determination to mean they required a single field of study for the position to 
qualify under the H-lB program and we revealed the agency's ultimate conclusion above. 
Beyond that, we agree with the portion of the Director's analysis indicating that the Petitioner did not 
offer evidence that preponderantly demonstrates it normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. Within the appeal, the Petitioner does not describe how 
the organizational chart or the list of its pastoral staff demonstrated that its normal hiring practice was 
to require a qualifying degree for the offered position. 
Regarding the organizational chart combined with the education list, the Petitioner did not establish 
that these self-generated documents should demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that 
those individuals were hired into the same or a sufficiently similar position as the one offered in the 
petition. Nor did it establish the actual duties these personnel perform daily by presenting this chart. 
We will not presume that the position in this petition is comprised of the same, or similar, duties as 
other positions in its education list, not even if they bear the same title. The Petitioner did not offer 
any evidence relating to the duties of any positions in its education list. While this documentation 
may reflect the degrees the Petitioner claims its other personnel possess, it does not satisfy this 
criterion's requirement that this organization normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. Although the education list reflects the Petitioner has 
hired for the offered position in the past, they did not submit evidence demonstrating what it required 
as prerequisites when it hired those individuals. 
And on appeal the Petitioner identifies a letter from its director of human resources discussing the 
organization's partnership with a local religious education institution. In this letter, she also claims 
the organization was providing a copy of a past job posting they published at ADP Workforce Now 
7 
for the offered position as evidence they require a Master of Divinity degree. But the record does not 
contain any evidence of such a job posting on the platform the director of human resources mentioned. 
Without more, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that it normally requires 
at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the offered position. Therefore, 
it has not satisfied the third criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
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. 
The Director discussed an opinion letter the Petitioner offered and concluded that neither the letter nor 
the organization's job description established that the duties are more specialized and complex than 
those normally associated with the Directors, Religious Activities and Education SOC code in the 
O*NET. And to revisit that resource, the O*NET reflects approximately half of those surveyed 
reported requiring a bachelor's degree and this resource does not indicate that the education level for 
the respondents must be in a specific specialty. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims the duties it reframed in the RFE response and the opinion letter 
should demonstrate the position's duties are sufficiently specialized and complex to qualify. We note 
the reframed duties in the chart the Petitioner presented offered additional insight, but alone they still 
do not demonstrate the essential nature of the duties are sufficiently specialized and complex. 
Even considering the opinion letter from Professor! Ia vice president and academic dean of a 
theological seminary, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the offered position's duties are 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. 
The professor began stating the offered position qualified as a specialty occupation and required a 
minimum of a bachelor's degree or higher in theology, pastoral studies, or a related field. This appears 
to somewhat conflict with the Petitioner's statements that the position requires at least a Master of 
Divinity degree or equivalent experience, and the position "includes duties that someone with just a 
bachelor's degree would not be able to perform." The professor later offered additional information 
relating to some churches requiring or preferring a master's-level degree. Even though this apparent 
conflict remains, by itself, we do not consider it to fully undermine the evidentiary weight of the 
opinion letter. 
Next, the professor summarized the offered position's duties and stated those responsibilities include 
theological knowledge and scriptural expertise involving problem solving and critical thinking skills 
in applying spiritual principles to a religious life. He further stated a bachelor's degree in the specified 
areas ensure that candidates possess the comprehensive theological education and practical ministry 
training needed to carry out the religious functions and complexities of leading a large church. We 
8 
note the Petitioner did not indicate the Beneficiary would be leading a large church in the performance 
of his duties. 
We further observe the professor stated the offered position is a role that "could only be fulfilled by a 
professional with the equivalent of at least a bachelor's degree in theology or Pastoral Studies, or a 
related field." The professor's use of "only," by its very nature rules out any other methods. However, 
the professor did not discuss why any other methods could not lead to a sufficiently similar 
knowledge-set. For instance, one could attain the requisite knowledge through several years of 
experience building the necessary skills and familiarity to perform in the position. A lack of 
sufficiently consideration of alternatives is a basis that can adversely affect the evidentiary weight of 
such an opinion. See Ambrosini v. Labarraque, 101 F.3d 129, 140 (D.C. Cir. 1996). And, the 
Petitioner's acceptance of an unspecified amount of experience in lieu of a degree further highlights 
the shortcoming in the professor's opinion through the limitation of only a particular bachelor's degree 
could serve to prepare a candidate for the offered position. 
The professor additionally discussed the theological expertise and practical skills necessary for 
pastoral positions in general surmising that relevant course work from a bachelor's in theology or 
Pastoral Studies program will include: "Introduction to the Bible, Hermeneutics/Bible Study Methods, 
Preaching/Communications, Old Testament Survey, New Testament Survey, Studying and Teaching 
the Bible, Christian Missions, Pastoral Ministry, Church Doctrine, Church Planting, and a Practical 
Christian Ministry internship." 
He further indicated that courses on Christian doctrine will offer a pastor familiarity within several 
religious topics. The professor's account expresses his opinion of a bachelor's degree requirement 
without describing a sufficient nexus between an established course of study leading to a specialty 
degree. Although he explains that some related courses would be beneficial in performing certain 
duties of the position, the professor has not demonstrated how an established curriculum of such 
courses leading to at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to 
perform this position's duties. 
We agree with the professor that some of the coursework he identified would provide a pastoral 
candidate with certain knowledge and skill sets. Where we depart is that his opinion adequately 
supports the Petitioner's claims that the nature of the duties is so specialized and complex that the 
knowledge required to perform them is usually associated with the attainment of a qualifying degree. 
We reiterate some aspects that reduce the opinion letter's evidentiary value, from the apparent conflict 
between his assessment of the minimum education needed to perform the duties and that of the 
Petitioner, and his ruling out of other methods that could lead to the necessary knowledge to perform 
the duties. 
Although the Petitioner asserts that the nature of the specific duties is specialized and complex, the 
record lacks sufficient evidence to support this claim. Therefore, the Petitioner has submitted 
insufficient evidence to satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
III. BEYOND THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION 
9 
Here, the Petitioner obtained an LCA certified under the SOC code 21-2021 relating to the "Directors, 
Religious Activities and Education" category at a Level II prevailing wage rate. Although it appears 
the Petitioner selected the most appropriate SOC code, their Level II wage rate does not appear to be 
properly designated. 
Step three of the process for determining the appropriate wage level relates to "Education." Under 
this step, the DOL guidance concentrates on comparing the Petitioner's minimum education 
requirement to that contained in Appendix D of the DOL guidance. Appendix D provides a list of 
professional occupations with their corresponding usual education level. Appendix D further 
designates occupations such as the one in this petition with an Education and Training Category Code 
of 5. The entry for code 5 states: "Bachelor's degree. Completion of the degree program generally 
requires at least 4 years but not more than 5 years of full-time equivalent academic work." 
The DOL guidance states that for professional occupations, "[i]f the education required is more than 
the usual education contained in Appendix D by more than one category, enter a 2 on the worksheet 
in the Wage Level Column." Entering a "2 on the worksheet" equates to increasing the wage level by 
two increments. The Petitioner's master's degree requirement is more than the usual education in 
Appendix D by more than one category, as the usual education associated with the SOC code 21-2021 
is a bachelor's degree with a category code of 5, and a master's degree is associated with the category 
code of 3. This equates to an increase by two category codes meaning it appears that the minimum 
appropriate wage level the Petitioner could have designated on the LCA was at a Level III prevailing 
wage rate. 
Putting that into perspective, this SOC code's Level II wage for the specified location and timeframe 
was $41,496. The apparently appropriate Level III wage was $51,979. This would not only result in 
compensation that was too low by $10,483, but it also means the Petitioner's compensation to the 
Beneficiary would fall approximately 20 percent below what was required compared with other 
employees with similar duties, experience, and qualifications. Irrespective of what the Petitioner 
claims on the petition that it will pay to the Beneficiary, the fact remains that based on the LCA, the 
Petitioner only committed to pay the Beneficiary the lower end of the Level II wage rate when it should 
have indicated it would pay him approximately 20 percent more than that amount. While this may 
seem like a technicality, it is an important distinction when considering the full breadth of the H-lB 
program requirements, and standing alone should result in this petition's denial. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
In summary, the Petitioner has not satisfied any of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Also, other factors preclude this petition's approval such as the vague 
"equivalent experience" prerequisite, and the LCA in the record does not appear to correspond with 
and support the petition. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and 
alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is a petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
11