dismissed H-1B Case: Religious Education

(b)(6)
DATE: FEB 0 6 2015 
IN RE: Petitioner : 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave .• N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
OFFICE: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precede nt decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to pre sent new facts for consideration, you may file a motion . to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appe al or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director (hereinafter "director" ) denied the nonimmigrant visa 
petition, and the matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will 
be dismissed. The petition will be denied. 
On the Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129), the petttloner describes itself as a 
"Church" established in with one employee and ten volunteers. In order to employ the 
beneficiary in what it designates as a part-time "Instructional Coordinator" position, the petitioner 
seeks to classify her as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to section 
10l(a)(15 )(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to establish that the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The petitioner now files this appeal, asserting that the 
director's decision was erroneous and failed to fully consider the submitted evidence. 
As will be discussed below, we have determined that the director did not err in her decision to deny 
the petition. Beyond the director's decision, we have identified an additional ground of ineligibility, 
i.e., that the submitted Labor Condition Application (LCA) does not correspond to the petition. For 
these reasons, the appeal will be dismissed, and the petition will be denied. 
We base our decision upon our review of the entire record of proceeding, which includes: (1) the 
petitioner's Form I-129 and the supporting documentation filed with it; (2) the director's request for 
additional evidence (RFE); (3) the petitioner's response to the RFE; (4) the director's letter denying 
the petition; and (5) the petitioner's appeal and submissions on appeal. 
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
As noted above, the petitioner describes itself as a "Church" established in In a letter dated 
September 27, 2013 submitted in support of the petition, the petitioner describes itself as a newly 
formed, "C hrist-centered church" that offers "regular religious services" in addition to "various 
special meetings and religious activities" such as youth fellowship, couples-based fellowship, and 
age-specific worship. The petitioner states that it has "identified a need .. . to bring music to the 
Jives of youth," and hence, it is "in need of an Instructional Coordinator who can, among other tasks, 
bring music and religious teaching to the youth members." Specifically, the petitioner describes the 
duties of the Instructional Coordinator as follows: 
(1) Manage and coordinate production of religious, youth, and music programs materials 
in consultation with the pastor and program volunteers to meet designated teaching 
targets through the use of short and long-term religious retreats, religious seminars, 
Sunday worship services, and educational children's Sunday school; 
(2) Coordinate, plan, and prepare religious teaching materials and educational programs 
designed to promote spirituality of participants and congregation; 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(3) Research and review currently utilized teaching materials to ensure they remain up­
to-date with current practices and succeed in creating bridges among the church, the 
materials, and the lives of people in the church; 
(4) Regularly distribute materials for religious reflection, spiritual growth, and continued 
education to church members and those attending church outings; 
(5) Conduct group rehearsals, meetings, counseling sessions, and outreach efforts within 
the church and larger community periodically and as necessary; and 
(6) Lead youth group activities, including the creation, promotion, and rehearsal of 
children's music programs. 
As to the educational requirements of the proffered position, the petitioner states that it requires a 
minimum of a "master's degree in education or ministry, related field, foreign equivalent, or its 
equivalent skills and knowledge gained from progressively advanced professional positions." The 
petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary received the equivalent of a Master of Science in 
Ministry and a Bachelor of Arts in Music Education from accredited colleges or universities in the 
United States. 
The LCA submitted to support the visa petition states that the proffered position corresponds to 
Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code and occupation title "25-9031, Instructional 
Coordinators" from the Occupational Information Network (O*NET). The LCA further states that 
the proffered position is a Level I, entry-level, position. 
inter alia, job vacancy announcements for: an "Instructional The petitioner also submitted, 
Coordinator" position posted by 
posted by the 
a "District Arts Education Coordinator" position 
a "Coordinator, Academic Programs" position 
an "ESL Program Instructional Coordinator" position posted 
; and an "Instructional Coordinator" position posted by 
posted by 
by 
---------' 
The director issued an RFE requesting, inter alia, evidence that the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. 
In response, the petitioner submitted, inter alia, a letter dated April 25, 2014 in which the petitioner 
concurrently asserts that the minimum educational requirement is a "bachelor's degree in education 
or ministry" as well as a "baccalaureate degree in education and worship" (emphasis added). 
In the same letter, the petitioner explains the duties of the proffered position in more detail. 
Specifically, with respect to the first enumerated duty, the petitioner explains that "[i]n order to 
manage and coordination [sic] the production of religious teachings at our church, the Instructional 
Coordinator must have sound knowledge of God's word through academic study of the Bible." In 
addition, the petitioner asserts that the Instructional Coordinator must have "knowledge of the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
fundamentals of religious music," "knowledge of vocal techniques and choral singer instruction," 
"working knowledge of organ," and "advanced knowledge of the fundamentals of Christian music." 
With respect to the second enumerated duty, the petitioner asserts that the Instructional Coordinator 
must have "[f]amiliarity with the Bible, its teachings, and our church's doctrine." As for the "[l]evel 
of responsibility" of this particular job duty, the petitioner states that the Instructional Coordinator 
"will complete the tasks associated with this job responsibility fairly autonomously, but will heed to 
seek the suggestion of the church's pastor, who will provide the spiritual guidance and religious 
wisdom as a catalyst for Christ." 
With respect to the third enumerated duty, the petitioner explains that the Instructional Coordinator 
"has primary responsibility for managing and completing the tasks associated with this job duty." 
With respect to the fourth enumerated duty, the petitioner explains that the Instructional Coordinator 
"must be aptly skilled with the unification of word and action with biblical tenants, which can only 
be achieved through advanced education in ministry." As for the "[l]evel of responsibility" of this 
particular job duty, the petitioner states that the Instructional Coordinator "will undertake the tasks 
of distributing educational materials independently, with occasional consultation with the pastor." 
With respect to the fourth and fifth enumerated duties, the petitioner explains that the Instructional 
Coordinator "has primary responsibility for managing and completing the tasks associated with 
[these] job [duties]." 
Regarding its hiring history for the proffered position, the petitioner states: "[A]s a newly established 
church with only one paid employee, we do not have such a history from which to draw. 
Nonetheless, because of the highly skilled nature of the Instructional Coordinator's job 
responsibilities, the church elders collectively decided a bachelor's-level education was appropriate." 
Regarding the complexity of the position, its constituent duties, and the knowledge required to 
perform them, the petitioner states the following: 
As noted above, the Instructional Coordinator at our church will be responsible for 
overseeing the entirety of our religious educational efforts outside of normally 
scheduled worship services, which also includes the education of our congregation's 
children. The Instructional Coordinator is further responsible for making critical 
resources decisions in conjunction with the counsel of our pastor as it relates to 
programming content and fellowship efforts. Because the position is so complex, 
only an individual with at least a baccalaureate degree in education and worship can 
perform the duties associated with the position at our church. 
In its letter dated February 3, 2014, the Service requested that we "[p}rovide in 
layman's terms, a clear explanation of what differentiates the proffered position from 
other related [']non-specialty occupation['] positions." Simply, the offered specialty 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
occupation of Instructional Coordinator is distinguished from related non-specialty 
positions, such as Sunday School Teacher, Youth Group Leader, or Worship Leader, 
in the level of authority and responsibility that the Instructional Coordinator possess 
with regard to the research, design, scheduling, recruitment, and, execution of 
contracts Christian educational programming for our church. The Instructional 
Coordinator is required to plan appropriate religious education, whereas leaders and 
teachers tend to deliver the message the Coordinator provides via specifically sourced 
material. 
The petitioner submitted, inter alia, additional job 
"Coordinator of Youth Ministry" position posted by 
"Family Ministry Coordinator" position posted by 
vacancy announcements as follows: a 
a 
a "Coordinator of Youth 
Ministry" position posted by 
Coordinator" posted by 
by an unidentified Catholic Church in 
a "Christian Formation 
and a "Coordinator of Religious Education" position posted 
New Jersey. 
The director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to establish that the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The petitioner now files this appeal. On appeal, the 
petitioner asserts that the director failed to consider the totality of the evidence provided, and in 
particular, the entirety of the job duties. The petitioner emphasizes the nature of its organization as a 
religious organization, and states that the fact that it is a church makes it "unique and more complex 
than other organizations that may require the knowledge and skills of an Instructional Coordinator." 
In support of the appeal, the petitioner submits a brief and copies of previously submitted evidence. 
A. The Law 
II. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
To meet its burden of proof in establishing the proffered position as a specialty occupation, the 
petitioner must establish that the employment it is offering to the beneficiary meets the following 
statutory and regulatory requirements. 
Section 214(i)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(1) defines the 
term "specialty occupation" as one 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 term "specialty occupation" is further defined at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) as: 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISIOJ.i 
An occupation which requires [(1)] theoretical and practical application of a body of 
highly specialized knowledge in fields of human endeavor including, but not limited 
to, architecture,. engineering, mathematics, physical sciences, social sciences, 
medicine and health, education, business specialties, accounting, law, theology, and 
the arts, and which requires [(2)] the attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the 
United States. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, the position must 
also meet one of the following criteria: 
(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. 
As a threshold issue, it is noted that 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must logically be read together with 
section 214(i)(1) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). In other words, this regulatory language 
must be construed in harmony with the thrust of the related provisions and with the statute as a 
whole. SeeK Mart Corp. v. Cartier Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) (holding that construction of 
language which takes into account the design of the statute as a whole is preferred); see also COlT 
Independence Joint Venture v. Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1.989); Matter of W­
F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). As such, the criteria stated in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) 
should logically be read as being necessary but not necessarily sufficient to meet the statutory and 
regulatory definition of specialty occupation. To otherwise interpret this section as stating the 
necessary and sufficient conditions for meeting the definition of specialty occupation would result 
in particular positions meeting a condition under 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory 
or regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). To avoid this 
result, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must therefore be read as providing supplemental criteria that 
must be met in accordance with, and not as alternatives to, the statutory and regulatory definitions of 
specialty occupation. 
As such and consonant with section 214(i)(1) of the Act and the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii), USCIS consistently interprets the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISIOJ>i 
Page 7 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific 
specialty that is directly related to the proffered position. 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"). Applying this standard, 
US CIS regular! y approves H -lB petitions for qualified aliens who are to be employed as engineers, 
computer scientists, certified public accountants, college professors, and other such occupations. 
These professions, for which petitioners have regularly been able to establish a minimum entry 
requirement in the United States of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty or its 
equivalent directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position, fairly represent 
the types of specialty occupations that Congress contemplated when it created the H-lB visa 
category. 
To determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCIS does not rely 
simply upon a proffered position's title. The specific duties of the position, combined with the 
nature of the petitioning entity's business operations, are factors to be considered. users must 
examine the ultimate employment of the beneficiary, and determine whether the position qualifies 
as a specialty occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d at 384. The critical 
element is not the title of the position nor an employer's self-imposed standards, but whether the 
position actually requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty as the 
minimum for entry into the occupation, as required by the Act. 
B. Preliminary Findings 
As a preliminary matter, we find that the SOC code and title of "25-9031, Instructional 
Coordinators" is not appropriate for the proffered position. We make this finding based upon the 
nature of the petitioner as a religious organization, and not an educational institution. 
We recognize the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistic's Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook)1 as 
an authoritative source regarding the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. According to the 
Handbook, the work environment for Instructional Coordinators is within schools and other 
educational institutions. Specifically, the Handbook states: "Work Environment: Instructional 
coordinators work in elementary and secondary schools, and various education institutions, such as 
colleges, professional schools, and education support services." I d. at 
http://www .bls.gov /ooh/education-training-and -library /instructional-coordinators.htm#tab-1 (last 
visited Feb. 4, 2015). Here, the record of proceeding lacks evidence that the petitioner could 
reasonably be considered a "school" or "educational institution" within the ordinary meaning of 
those terms. 2 
The Handbook, which is available in printed form, may also be accessed on the Internet, at 
http://www.bls.gov/oco/. Our references to the Handbook are to the 2014-2015 edition available online. 
2 While we acknowledge that the petitioner offers religious educational programs, this still does not overcome 
the fact that the petitioner is primarily a religious organization, and not primarily an educational institution. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
Rather, considering that the petitioner is a religious organization, we find that the proffered position 
is best categorized under the SOC code and title of "21-2021, Directors, Religious Activities and 
Education." In particular, O*NET describes the primary duties of positions falling under the "21-
2021, Directors, Religious Activities and Education" occupational classification as follows: "Plan, 
direct, or coordinate programs designed to promote the religious education or activities of a 
denominational group. May provide counseling and guidance relative to marital, health, financial, 
and religious problems." See: http:/ /www.onetonline.or g/link/summary /21-2021.00 (last visited 
Feb. 4, 2015). We find that this description accurately summarizes the duties of the proffered 
position within the context of the petitioner's overall operations as a religious organization. 
Furthermore, O*NET lists the following tasks for positions falling within the "Directors, Religious 
Activities and Education" occupational classification: 
!d. 
1. Identify and recruit potential volunteer workers. 
2. Train and supervise religious education instructional staff. 
3. Develop or direct study courses or religious education programs within 
congregations. 
4. Select appropriate curricula or class structures for educational programs. 
5. Implement program plans by ordering needed materials, scheduling speakers, 
reserving space, or handling other administrative details. 
6. Counsel individuals regarding interpersonal, health, financial, or religious problems. 
7. Analyze member participation or changes in congregational emphasis to determine 
needs for religious education. 
8. Collaborate with other ministry members to establish goals and objectives for 
religious education programs or to develop ways to encourage program participation. 
9. Schedule special events such as camps, conferences, meetings, seminars, or retreats. 
10. Confer with clergy members, congregational officials, or congregational 
organizations to encourage support of or participation in religious education 
activities. 
The majority of the tasks listed in O*NET for "Directors, Religious Activities and Education" 
directly correlate to the duties of the proffered position. For instance, the proffered duties include 
managing, planning, coordinating, and preparing the production of religious teaching materials and 
educational programs, in consultation with the pastor and other volunteers, which overlap with at 
least the third, fourth, fifth, and eighth duties listed in O*NET for "Directors, Religious Activities 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page !} 
and Education. " Also, the petitioner elaborated in response to the RFE that the beneficiary will 
"source, purchase, and distribute Christian teaching resources, " which corresponds to the O*NET 
duty of selecting appropriate curricula for educational programs. 
Accordingly, we find that the proffered position is best classified as a position falling under the SOC 
code and title of "21-2021, Directors, Religious Activities and Education." As such, our analysis of 
whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation will be based upon the SOC code 
and title of "21-2021, Directors, Religious Activities and Education," and not "25-9031, Instructional 
Coordinators" as chosen by the petitioner. 
As a second preliminary matter, we find that the petitioner has provided inconsistent statements 
regarding the minimum educational requirement for the proffered position. More specifically, in the 
petitioner's letter dated September 27, 2013, the petitioner asserted that it requires a minimum of a 
"master's degree in education or ministry, related field, foreign equivalent, or its equivalent skills 
and knowledge gained from progressively advanced professional positions." In response to the RFE, 
however, the petitioner concurrently asserts that the proffered position requires a minimum of a 
"bachelor's degree in education or ministry" as well as a "baccalaureate degree in education and 
worship" (emphasis added). Not only do these inconsistencies undermine the legitimacy of the 
petitioner's assertions regarding the minimum educational requirements for the proffered position -
and hence the position's qualification as a specialty occupation - but they also undermine the 
petitioner's overall credibility as well. 
It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent 
objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless 
the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 
19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of 
course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in 
support of the visa petition. !d. 
C. Discussion of Criteria 
To make our determination whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, we 
turn to the supplemental, additional criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) . As indicated above, 
our analysis of the proffered position will be based upon the SOC code and title of "21-2021, 
Directors, Religious Activities and Education." 
The criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l) and (2) requires the petitioner to demonstrate that a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; or a degree requirement in a specific specialty is 
common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or a particular position is 
so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree in a specific 
specialty. Factors we consider when determining these criteria include: whether the Handbook on 
which we routinely rely for the educational requirements of particular occupations, reports the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
industry requires a degree in a specific specialty; whether the industry's professional association has 
made a degree in a specific specialty 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) (quoting 
Hird!Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
We will first address the requirement under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I): A baccalaureate or 
higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular 
position. 
We recognize the Handbook as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of 
the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. We have reviewed the information in the Handbook 
regarding the occupational category "Directors, Religious Activities and Education" and note that 
this occupation is one for which the Handbook does not provide detailed data. The Handbook states 
the following about these occupations: 
Data for Occupations Not Covered in Detail 
Although employment for hundreds of occupations are covered in detail in the 
Occupational Outlook Handbook, this page presents summary data on additional 
occupations for which employment projections are prepared but detailed 
occupational information is not developed. For each occupation, the Occupational 
Information Network (O*NET) code, the occupational definition, 2012 employment, 
the May 2012 median annual wage, the projected employment change and growth 
rate from 2012 to 2022, and education and training categories are presented. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., 
"Data for Occupations Not Covered in Detail," http://www.bls.gov/ooh/about/data-for-occupations­
not-covered-in-detail.htm (last visited Feb. 4, 2015). 
Thus, the narrative of the Handbook indicates that there are many occupations for which only brief 
summaries are presented. That is, detailed occupational profiles for these occupations are not 
developed? The Handbook continues by stating that approximately five percent of all employment is 
not covered either in the detailed occupational profiles or in the summary data. The Handbook 
suggests that for at least some of the occupations, little meaningful information could be developed. 
3 We note that occupational categories for which the Handbook only includes summary data includes a range 
of occupations, including for example, postmasters and mail superintendents; agents and business managers 
of artists, performers, and athletes; farm and home management advisors; audio visual and multimedia 
collections specialists; clergy; merchandise displayers and window trimmers; radio operators; first-line 
supervisors of police and detectives; crossing guards; travel guides; agricultural inspectors, as well as others. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
Accordingly, in certain instances, the Handbook is not determinative. There is no documentation 
from any other authoritative sources with regard to this criterion. As the evidence of record does not 
establish that the particular position here proffered is one for which the normal minimum entry 
requirement is a baccalaureate or higher degree, or the equivalent, in a specific specialty, the 
petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
Next, we find that the petitioner has not satisfied the first of the two alternative prongs of 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). This prong alternatively calls for a petitioner to establish that a 
requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common 
(1) to the petitioner's industry; and (2) for positions within that industry that are both: (a) parallel to 
the proffered position, and (b) located in organizations that are similar to the petitioner. 
In determining whether there is 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 at 1165 (quoting 
Hird!Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. at 1102. 
In the instant case, the petitioner has not established that the proffered position falls under an 
occupational category for which the Handbook, or other reliable and authoritative sources, indicates 
that there is a standard, minimum entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent. Also, there are no reliable submissions from professional associations, 
individuals, or similar firms in the petitioner's industry attesting that individuals employed in 
positions parallel to the proffered position are routinely required to have a minimum of a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for entry into those positions. 
The petitioner has submitted several vacancy announcements. However, the petitioner's reliance on 
these announcements is misplaced. The first set of vacancy announcements submitted bv the 
petitioner (i.e., the announcements for an "Instructional Coordinator" position at a 
"District Arts Education Coordinator" position at the a 
"Coordinator, Academic Programs" position at an "ESL Program 
Instructional Coordinator" position at and an "Instructional Coordinator" 
position at _j are not for similar organizations in the petitioner's industry nor for 
parallel positions. As we discussed earlier, the petitioner is not a school or educational institution, 
and the proffered position is not appropriately classified as an Instructional Coordinator position. 
With respect to the second 
Ministry" position at 
position at 
set of vacancy announcements (i.e., for a "Coordinator of Youth 
a "Family Ministry Coordinator" 
a "Coordinator of Youth Ministry" position at 
a "Christian Formation Coordinator" at and a "Coordinator of 
Religious Education" position at an unidentified Catholic Church in New Jersey), 
the petitioner has failed to establish that the posting organizations are similar to the petitioner. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
For the petitioner to establish that an organization is similar, it must demonstrate that it shares the 
same general characteristics with the advertising organization. Without such evidence, 
documentation submitted by a petitioner is generally outside the scope of consideration for this 
criterion, which encompasses only organizations that are similar to the petitioner. 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. The petitioner has not supplemented the record with 
sufficient information to establish that the advertising organizations are similar to the petitioner. 
Specifically, the vacancy announcement for states that this 
organization ,,has over 2300 families registered in our parish, 11 and is served by three Catholic priests 
and five active deacons. Similarly, the vacancy announcement for the 
states that this organization 11iS a young parish consisting of approximately 2,000 families_,, 
The petitioner has not provided sufficient information about its general characteristics, such as the 
size of its congregation and staffing,4 in order to establish that it is similar to 
Furthermore, the petitioner provided no 
information about the general characteristics of and the 
unidentified Catholic Church in New Jersey. 
Thus, the evidence of record does not establish that a requirement of a bachelor1s or higher degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the petitioner1s industry in positions that are 
both: (1) parallel to the proffered position; and (2) located in organizations that are similar to the 
petitioner. The petitioner has not, therefore, satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The evidence of record also does not satisfy the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2), which provides that ,,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_,, A review of the 
record indicates that the petitioner has failed to credibly demonstrate that the duties that comprise the 
proffered position entail such complexity or uniqueness as to constitute a position so complex or 
unique that it can be performed only by a person with at least a bachelor1s degree in a specific 
specialty. 
Here, the petitioner asserts that the proffered pos1t10n is 11Complex11 because the Instructional 
Coordinator will be ,,responsible for overseeing the entirety of our religious educational efforts 
outside of normally scheduled worship services, which also includes the education of our 
congregation 1S children. 11 The petitioner emphasizes the 11level of authority and responsibility that 
the Instructional Coordinator possesses with regard to the research, design, scheduling, recruitment, 
4 On the Form 1-129, the petitioner indicated that it has one paid employee and ten 1'volunteers to be 
converted to paying positions in the future." However, the petitioner did not provide any other explanation 
regarding its paid employee and volunteers, such as their positions within the church. In its September 27, 
2013 letter, the petitioner stated that it is a "new church with a budding congregation .... " The petitioner did 
not provide any evidence of the size of its congregation. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
and, execution of contracts Christian educational programming for our church." In addition, the 
petitioner asserts that the Instructional Coordinator is "responsible for making critical resources 
decisions in conjunction with the counsel of our pastor as it relates to programming content and 
fellowship efforts." On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the fact that it is a church makes the 
position "unique and more complex than other organizations." 
However, the record does not establish that this position is significantly different from other 
"Directors, Religious Activities and Education" positions, for which O*NET summarizes the 
primary job duties as to "[ p]lan, direct, or coordinate programs designed to promote the religious 
education or activities of a denominational group." /d. at 
http://www.onetonline.orgllink/summary/21-2021.00 (last visited Feb. 4, 2015). As discussed 
previously, the record does not establish that a baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is 
normally the minimum requirement for entry into positions within this occupational classification. 
As the petitioner fails to demonstrate how the proffered position is so 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.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
. 
We will next address the criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3), which may be satisfied if the 
petitioner demonstrates that it normally requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent for the proffered position.5 
With respect to this criterion, the petitioner indicates that it has never previously hired for the 
proffered position. Specifically, the petitioner states: "[ A]s a newly established church with only 
one paid employee, we do not have such a [hiring] history from which to draw." While a first-time 
hiring for a position is certainly not a basis for precluding a position from recognition as a specialty 
occupation, it is unclear how an employer that has never recruited and hired for the position would 
be able to sat isfy the criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3), which requires a demonstration 
5 While a petitioner may believe or otherwise assert that a proffered position requires a degree, that opinion 
alone without corroborating evidence cannot establish the position as a specialty occupation. Were USCIS 
limited solely to reviewing a 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 employer 
artificially created a token degree requirement, whereby all individuals employed in a particular position 
possessed a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. See Defensor v. Meissner, 
201 F. 3d at 387. In other words, if a petitioner's degree requirement is only symbolic and the proffered 
position does not in fact require such a specialty degree or its equivalent to perform its duties, the occupation 
would not meet the statutory or regulatory definition of a specialty occupation. See § 214(i)(l) of the Act; 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty occupation"). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
that it normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for the 
position. 
The petitioner did not submit any evidence pertinent to this criterion, and as such, has failed to 
satisfy the criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(3). 
Finally, we will address the alternative criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4), which is 
satisfied if the petitioner establishes that the nature of the specific duties is so specialized and 
complex that knowledge required to perform them is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. A review of the record 
indicates that 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 have not been 
shown to be 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. 
The petitioner asserts that the proffered position requires "sound knowledge of God's word through 
academic study of the Bible" as well as "knowledge of the fundamentals of religious music,'' 
"knowledge of vocal techniques and choral singer instruction," "working knowledge of organ," 
"advanced knowledge of the fundamentals of Christian music," and "[f]amiliarity with the Bible, its 
teachings, and our church's doctrine." However, the petitioner has not explained with any specificity 
how such knowledge could only be attained through a minimum of a bachelor's or master's degree in 
education and/or ministry. The petitioner has not specifically identified what particular courses of 
study provide each body of knowledge identified above, and how these courses represent an 
established curriculum leading to a bachelor's or master's degree in education and/or ministry.6 
Moreover, if the minimum educational requirement is a degree in education, then we must question 
how such a degree would provide the required religious and musical knowledge the petitioner asserts 
is necessary for the position. 
For the reasons above, the evidence of record fails to satisfy any of the criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 
214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) and, therefore, it cannot be found that the proffered position qualifies for 
classification as a specialty occupation. The appeal will be dismissed and the petition denied for 
this reason. 
III. THE LCA 
Beyond the decision of the director, the petition must also be denied due to the petitioner's failure to 
provide a certified LCA that corresponds to the petition. Specifically, the job title on the LCA 
6 We incorporate here our earlier discussion regarding the discrepancies in the petitioner's claims about the 
minimum educational requirement for the proffered position, i.e., whether it is a "master's degree in education 
or ministry," a "bachelor's degree in education or ministry" or a "baccalaureate degree in education and 
worship." 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECIS/01'1 
Page 15 
submitted with the petition reads 11lnstructional Coo rdinator," and it was certified for SOC 
(O*NET /OES) Code 25-9031 or "Instructional Coo rdinators." As determined supra, however, the 
job as titled and as described by the petitioner is best classified under SOC (O*NET/OES) Code 21-
2021 or "Directors, Religious Activities and Education." As such, the petitioner was required to 
provide at the time of filing an LCA certified for SOC (O*NET/OES) Code 21-2021, not SOC 
(O*NET/OES) Code 25-9031, in order for it to be found to correspond to the petition. 
While DOL is the agency that certifies LCA applications before they are submitted to USCIS, DOL 
regulations note that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (i.e., its immigration 
benefits branch, USCIS) is the department responsible for determining whether the content of an 
LCA filed for a particular Form I-129 actually supports that petition. See 20 C.P. R. § 655.705(b), 
which states, in pertinent part (emphasis added): 
For H-1B visas ... DHS accepts the employer1s petition (DHS Form I-129) with 
the DOL certified LCA attached. In doing so, the DHS determines whether the 
petition is supported by an LCA which corresponds with the petition, whether the 
occupation named in the [LCA] is a specialty occupation or whether the 
individual is a fashion model of distinguished merit and ability, and whether the 
qualifications of the nonimmigrant meet the statutory requirements of H-1B visa 
classification. 
The regulation at 20 C. F.R. § 655. 705(b) requires that USCIS ensure that an LCA actually supports 
the H-1B petition filed on behalf of the beneficiary. Here, the petitioner has failed to submit a valid 
LCA that has been certified for the proper occupational classification, and the petition must be 
denied for this additional reason. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The evidence of record fails to establish that the proffered positiOn qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. Beyond the director1S decision, the eviden ce of record fails to establish that the LCA 
corresponds to the petition. Accordingly, 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. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by us even if the service center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial 
decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal . 
2001), aff d, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d at 145 (noting that we 
conduct appellate review on a de novo basis). 
Moreover, when we deny a petition on multiple alternativ e grounds, a plaintiff can succeed on a 
challenge only if it shows that we abused our discretion with respect to all of the enumerated 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECIS/Olv 
Page 1 
grounds. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043, aff d. 345 F.3d 
683. 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S. C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.