dismissed H-1B Case: Religious Media Production

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6293120 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 31, 2020 
The Petitioner, a church, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "producer" under the H-lB 
nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) . The H-lB 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 of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the proffered position 
does not qualify as a specialty occupation . On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and asserts that 
the Director erred. 
Upon de nova review , we will dismiss the appeal. 1 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 184(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: 
1 We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 
(AAO 2010). 
(]) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 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. 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"). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner described the duties of the proffered "producer" position as follows: 
• Plan and coordinate religious and spiritual video projects from start to finish[,] from 
initial meetings through post-production. 
• Create concepts, script writing, story boards, set design and creation, direct and edit 
filming, and, interview talents. 
• Work with Camera, Post-production and Graphics. 
• Direct live TV. 2 
Initially, the Petitioner stated that "[t]he minimum educational requirement for this professional 
position of Producer is a Bachelor's Degree," without specifying whether the degree must be in a 
specific specialty. In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner amended 
its academic requirement, stating that "[a] qualified producer is a person who has studied media at 
bachelor's [sic] degree level." 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 3 
2 The Petitioner provided an additional list of "responsibilities" that the "duties carry," which generally reiterate the duties. 
Although we omit the "responsibilities" that the "duties carry" here for brevity, we have reviewed them in their entirety. 
3 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
2 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its 
equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 4 
A. First Criterion 
The criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I) 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. 5 
On the labor condition application (LCA)6 submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Producers and Directors" 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 27-2012. The subchapter of the 
Handbook titled "How to Become a Producer or Director" states, in relevant part, that "[p ]roducers 
and directors usually have a bachelor's degree. Many students study film or cinema in programs at 
colleges and universities. . . . Others [sic] producers and directors have degrees in writing, acting, 
journalism, or communications. Some producers earn a degree in business, arts management, or 
nonprofit management." Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook 
Handbook, Producers and Directors, https: /www.bls.gov/ ooh/ entertainment-and-sports/producers­
and-directors .htm#tab-4 (last visited Jan. 29, 2020). 
While the Handbook states that producers usually have a bachelor's degree, it does not state that it is 
required for entry into the occupation nor does it state that a specific specialty is required. In fact, the 
Handbook's observation that degrees in disparate fields such as writing, acting, and business qualify 
workers for "Producer" positions indicates that a bachelor's or higher degree in a spec[fic specialty, 
or its equivalent, is not normally the minimum requirement for entry into the occupational category. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the language from the Handbook quoted above satisfies the first 
criterion because "[a]ll the variations listed by the [Handbook] directly relate to the duties and 
responsibilities of producing and directing," generally citing Royal Siam Corp. However, the 
Petitioner does not elaborate on how degrees in a field such as business is a spec[fic specialty. 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. 
4 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H- IB 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. 
5 We do not maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source ofrelevant 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 we regularly review the Handbook on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of 
occupations that it addresses. Nevertheless, to satisty the first criterion, 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. 
6 A petitioner submits the LCA to DOL to demonstrate that it will pay an H-IB 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 duties, experience, and qualifications. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(a). 
3 
As discussed supra, we interpret 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. Although a general­
purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business, may be a legitimate prerequisite for a 
particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify a conclusion that a particular 
position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. 
Further, acceptance of disparate degrees suggests that the occupational category is not "one that by its 
nature demands a bachelor's degree or its equivalent in a specific specialty." Id. 
The Petitioner also asserts on appeal that the DOL's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) 
"superseded the [Handbook] as the primary basis for information relating to the minimum education 
for jobs and professions," generally citing the DOL's Prevailing Wage Determination Policy 
Guidance. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy 
Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC_Guidance_Revised_ll_2009.pdf However, 
the Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance does not state, as the Petitioner asserts, that 
O*NET supersedes the Handbook for information relating to academic requirements. Instead, it states 
that O*NET "supersedes the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) as the resource to be consulted 
for occupational information for the Foreign Labor Certification process." Id. at 3. 
Further, O*NET does not establish that a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position. Instead, the 
O*NET summary report for "Producers," in relevant part, assigns this occupation a Job Zone "Four" 
rating, which groups it among occupations for which "most ... require a four-year bachelor's degree, 
but some do not." O*NET OnLine Summary Report for "27-2012.01 - Producers," 
http://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/27-2012.0l (last visited Jan. 29, 2020). The O*NET 
summary report does not specify that a qualifying bachelor's degree, or its equivalent, must be in a 
specific specialty. 
The Petitioner next asserts on appeal that the proffered position satisfies the first criterion because 
"two letters from experts in the specific field ... state that a bachelor's degree level of education in 
media or a directly related subject is required." The first letter is signed by an executive producer at 
a "production, strategy, [ and] consulting" company inl I California. The second letter is signed 
by the communications and creative director of "one of Upstate New York's largest [ c ]hurches." 
As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter 
o_f Caron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, we may give an opinion less 
weight if it is not in accord with other information in the record or if it is in any way questionable. 
Id. We are ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an individual's 
eligibility for the benefit sought; the submission of expert opinion letters is not presumptive evidence 
of eligibility. Id.; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, 502 n.2 (BIA 2008) ("[E]xpert opinion 
testimony, while undoubtedly a form of evidence, does not purport to be evidence as to 'fact' but 
rather is admissible only if 'it will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a 
fact in issue."'). 
4 
Both letters-which are undated-contain verbatim language appearing in the Handbook or the other 
letter, including identical typographical errors. The following table compares the language from the 
Handbook and the two letters, with emphasis added: 
The Handbook 
Producers and directors 
usually have a bachelor's 
degree. Many students 
study film or cmema m 
programs at colleges and 
universities. In these 
programs, students learn 
about film history, editing, 
screenwriting, 
cinematography, and the 
filmmaking process . ... 
Others [sic] producers and 
directors have degrees in 
writing, acting, journalism, 
or communications. Some 
producers earn a degree in 
business, arts management, 
or nonprofit management. 
The First Letter The Second Letter 
The minimum requirement for The minimum requirement for 
this position IS a Bachelor's this position IS a Bachelor's 
[d]egree from a United States [d]egree from a United States 
[u]niversity, and several years['] [u]niversity, and several years['] 
work expenence m [ m ]otion work expenence m [ m ]otion 
[p]icture [a]rts, [t]elevision, or [p]icture [a]rts, [t]elevision, or 
[t]heater [p ]roduction. . . . In [t]heater [p ]roduction. . . . In 
these programs, students learn collegiate or [u]niversity 
about film history, editing, programs for [f]ilmmakers, 
screenwriting, cinematography, students learn about film 
and the filmmaking process. history, film editing, 
Others [sic] producers and screenwriting, cinematography, 
directors have degrees in filmmaking software, and other 
writing, acting, journalism, or processes related tofilmmaking. 
communications. Some Whilst Producers and Directors 
producers earn a degree in have degrees in writing, acting, 
business, arts management, or journalism, business, creative 
nonprofit management. arts management, non-profit 
management, and or [sic] 
communications. 
There is no evidence that the letter authors conducted any research or studies pertinent to the 
educational requirements for such positions, and no indication of recognition by professional 
organizations that the authors are authorities on those specific requirements. Instead, as illustrated 
above, their opinions regarding the academic requirements for producer positions in general appear to 
be verbatim recitations of the Handbook's observations, which as discussed above do not establish 
that the minimum requirement to enter a position in the "Producers and Directors" occupational 
category normally is a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Given the 
extent to which the letters contain verbatim language from the Handbook regarding academic 
requirements for the particular position, they bear minimal probative value. 
In summation, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
B. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two alternative prongs: "The degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show 
that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with 
a degree[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). The first prong contemplates common industry 
practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific position. 
5 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy the 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. 
We generally consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there 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." 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) (considering these 
"factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
Here, however, 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. 
Similarly, as addressed above, the letters in the record from the executive director and the 
communications and creative director bear minimal probative value and, moreover, essentially 
reiterate information already provided in the Handbook. 
The Petitioner asserts on appeal that "various job announcements posted by different companies [are] 
evidence that the degree requirement in a specific specialty is common to the industry in parallel 
positions among similar organizations." 
Ten of the job postings in the record are from organizations dissimilar to the Petitioner, a church. 
Those organizations are as follows: 
• A production company creating a "weekly feature series on [ a~I _____ ___. 
television station] that focuses on current events in arts, culture, entertainment, 
lifestyle, music and fashion - discovering and exploring the richness ofO'; 
• Two public television stations; 
• A community college district; 
• A "traffic + weather network"; 
• An "NBC affiliate TV station"; 
• A media company describing itself as "the global leader in standards-based digital 
content for K-12, transforming teaching and learning with award-winning digital 
textbooks, multimedia content, professional development, and the largest 
professional learning community of its kind ... in half of U.S. classrooms, 50 
percent of all primary schools in the U.K., and more than 50 countries"; 
• A healthcare company; and 
• Two U.S. universities. 
Another employer, located inl I Virginia, generally describes itself as a media company, 
but does not farther elaborate on the nature of the organization, the content it produces, and the 
audience, and other salient aspects of its operation, which prevents us from determining the extent to 
which it may be similar to the Petitioner. Because 11 of the organizations are either dissimilar to the 
6 
Petitioner or do not provide sufficient information to determine the extent of a similarity to the 
Petitioner, those job postings bear minimal probative value for the first prong of the second criterion. 
Among the job postings in the record, three are from churches, like the Petitioner. However, the job 
postings do not provide sufficient information regarding the organizations' operations in order to 
determine the extent to which they may be similar to the Petitioner beyond their general subject matter. 
The stated academic requirements in those organizations' job postings are as follows: 
• Degree in Video Production or 4 years['] minimum equivalent on the job 
expenence; 
• A BS/BA degree; and 
• Bachelor's degree. 
We first note that, although two of the three job postings from churches require a bachelor's or higher 
degree, they do not require a degree in a spec[fic specialty, or its equivalent. Although the third job 
posting requires a degree in the specialty of "video production," it does not require the degree to be at 
a bachelor's or higher level. Although the posting permits "4 years['] minimum equivalent on the job 
experience" as equivalent to the degree, we recognize three years of specialized training or work 
experience as equivalent to one year of college-level training. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5). 
Therefore, four years of job experience instead of a "[ d]egree in Video Production" would equate to 
less than two years of college-level training, which is not equivalent to a bachelor's or higher degree. 
Accordingly, the job postings do not establish that a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, is common to the Petitioner's industry for positions parallel to the proffered position 
among organizations similar to the Petitioner. 
In summation, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
The second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) is satisfied if the Petitioner shows 
that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with 
at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the two opinion letters, discussed above, and "copies of trade 
publications concerning the specific complex or unique functions of the position" satisfy the second 
prong of the second criterion. 
As noted above, the opinion letters contain language that appears in the Handbook or the other letter 
regarding academic requirements for "Producers." The opinion letters also contain essentially 
identical lists of 13 'job responsibilities within this position and like positions." 7 Similarly, as noted 
above, the extent to which the letters are similar to each other-and moreover to the Handbook-raise 
questions regarding whether they reflect the signatories' own opinions. Doubt cast on any aspect of a 
7 The letters contain other language that appears verbatim in the other letter. We omit a full discussion of the letters' 
similarities for brevity. 
7 
petitioner's proof may undermine the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in 
support of the visa petition. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). 
Additionally, as noted above, there is no evidence that the letter authors conducted any research or 
studies pertinent to the educational requirements for such positions, and no indication of recognition 
by professional organizations that the authors are authorities on those specific requirements. 
Furthermore, several of the 13 'job responsibilities" on which the authors base their opinion exceed 
the scope of the four duties provided by the Petitioner, quoted above, raising questions regarding the 
extent to which the duties-and the opinions based on them-correspond to the proffered position. 
For example, both opinion letters state verbatim that "this position and like positions" would "[t]ravel 
for missions and other various projects to capture and produce content and stories connected to work 
[sic] of [the Petitioner]." However, the petition and the LCA submitted in support of it indicate that 
the Beneficiary's only work location would be the Petitioner's location inl I Louisiana. 
Even to the extent to which the letters reflect the signatories' opinions regarding the complexity or 
uniqueness of the particular position, they do not satisfy the second prong of the second criterion. The 
duty descriptions contain generalized language such as "[ o ]versee production for creative projects 
assigned,""[ e ]nsure completion and proper distribution of all projects created," and "[i]nterview talent 
and respected personalities connected to [the Petitioner]." Beyond reciting duties and stating that they 
are "highly complex and specialized," the letters do not elaborate on how a given duty is complex. 
For example, the letters do not establish how the duties of overseeing and ensuring the completion and 
distribution of projects, and conducting interviews are so complex or unique that they can be 
performed only by an individual with a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. Duties such as overseeing projects and conducting interviews are common to many 
occupational categories across varying industries. Furthermore, the Petitioner designated the proffered 
position as a Level I position on the submitted LCA, indicating that it is an entry-level position for an 
employee who has only basic understanding of the occupation, raising questions regarding its 
complexity. See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination 
Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised_ 1 l _ 2009 .pdf 
Despite the Petitioner's assertion that the documents it identifies as "trade publications concern[] the 
specific complex or unique functions of the position," the documents do not actually address the 
proffered position. The first document is an 11-page printout of an article published on a website, 
regarding a church in North Carolina; however, the Petitioner is located in Louisiana. The second 
document is an eight-page printout of information provided on the I I University website 
regarding its communication and media education. The third document is a seven-page printout of an 
article published on Study.com titled "How to Become a TV Producer: Education and Career 
Roadmap." Because none of the documents address the particular position, they do not establish that 
the position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a bachelor's 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
In summation, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
8 
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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that, although "this is new [sic] position," the Petitioner "will in [its] 
normal course of business require a bachelor's degree," for "producers" hired in the future. 
Although a first-time hiring for a position is not a basis for precluding a position from recognition as 
a specialty occupation, it is unclear how an employer that has not previously recruited and hired for 
the position would be able to satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
Furthermore, as noted above, the Petitioner provided inconsistent information regarding its academic 
requirements for the proffered position. Initially, the Petitioner stated that "[t]he minimum educational 
requirement for this professional position of Producer is a Bachelor's Degree. These duties are 
complex and specialized in nature and cannot be performed by someone without a Bachelor's Degree. 
We will not hire anyone for this position who does not have a Bachelor's Degree." The Petitioner did 
not initially specify that the degree must be in a specific specialty. In contrast, in response to the 
Director's RFE, the Petitioner amended its academic requirement, stating instead that "[a] qualified 
producer is a person who has studied media at bachelor's [sic] degree level." The Petitioner also stated 
in response to the RFE that it requires "a bachelor's degree, or an equivalent level of education, in a 
field that encompasses [TV], live show, and media." 
A petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the petition. See 8 C .F .R. § 103 .2(b )( 1 ). A 
petition may not be approved at a future date after the Petitioner or Beneficiary becomes eligible under 
a new set of facts. Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. Comm'r 1978). 
Accordingly, even if the record established that the Petitioner normally required a bachelor's or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for other "producer" positions hired in the past, the 
record does not establish that the Petitioner consistently required a bachelor's or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the proffered position. 
In summation, 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that its duty description, "industry publications and two expert letters" 
satisfy the fourth criterion. However, as noted above, the documents the Petitioner identifies as 
"industry publications" refer to a church in another state, a university's own media and 
communications education, and career-planning advice for individuals aspiring to become producers, 
not information regarding the specialization and complexity of the particular position's duties. 
9 
Also, as noted above, the extent of the opinion letters' similarity to language in the Handbook and the 
other letter cast doubt regarding the reliability and sufficiency of the information they contain, and 
even to the extent that the opinion letters bear probative value, their generalized language does not 
establish how the nature of the particular position is sufficiently specialized and complex. We note 
that the opinion letters contrast the proffered position to "a mainstream 'secular' job that deals only 
with the trade." However, the opinion letters nevertheless opine that the knowledge required to 
perform the specific duties is usually associated with the attainment of "a Bachelor's [ d]egree from a 
United States [u]niversity ... in [m]otion [p]icture [a]rts, [t]elevision, or [t]heater [p]roduction[, or] 
writing, acting, journalism, or communications[, or] business, arts management, or nonprofit 
management," without reference to theological knowledge. Therefore, the religious aspect of the 
proffered position does not appear to affect the level or type of academic knowledge usually associated 
with its specific duties. 
Similar to the opinion letters, although the Petitioner recites the position's duties and states that they 
are "specialized and complex," it does not elaborate on how tasks such as planning and coordinating 
projects, selecting scripts, interviewing individuals, and overseeing the work of various teams are 
sufficiently specialized and complex, compared to other managerial or supervisory positions in 
varying industries such as journalism and nonprofit management, as noted in the Handbook. We 
further note that, as discussed above, the Petitioner does not consistently associate the knowledge 
required to perform the position's duties with the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
In summation, the Petitioner has not demonstrated in the record that its proffered position is one with 
duties sufficiently specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
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. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
10