dismissed H-1B Case: Software Development

(b)(6)
U.S. Department of Homeland Sccuriry• 
U.S. Citizenship and I mmigrat ion Services 
Administrative Appeals Onicc (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts 1\ vc .. N. W .. MS 2090 
Washington. DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: MAR 3 1 2015 OF FICE: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section IOI(a)(IS)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U. S.C. § II 0 I (a)( IS)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTR UCTIONS: 
Encl osed 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 present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider 
or a m ot ion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion 
(Form 1-2908) within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form 1-2908 instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F .R. § I 03.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you 
Ron Rosenber 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition, and the matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petition will be denied. 
I. INTRODUCTION 
On the Form 1-129 visa petition, the petitioner describes itself as a 216-employee software solutions 
business 1 established in In order to employ the beneficiary in what it designates as a full-time 
business analyst position at a salary of $67,080 per year2 the petitioner seeks to classify her as a 
nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the evidence of record does not demonstrate that 
the proffered position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. 
The record of proceeding before us contains the following: (I) the Form 1-129 and supporting 
documentation; (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 
Form I-290B and supporting documentation. 
Upon review of the entire record of proceeding, we find that the evidence of record does not overcome 
the director's ground for denying this petition. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed, and the 
petition will be denied. 
II. LAW 
As noted, the director's sole basis for denying this petition was her determination that the proffered 
position is not a 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)(l) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l) defines the 
term "specialty occupation" as one that requires: 
1 The petitioner provided a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code of 541511, 
"Custom Computer Programm ing Serv ices." U. S. Dep't of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, North American 
Industry Classification System, 2012 NA ICS Definition, "54151 I Custom Computer Programming 
Services," http:/ /www.c ensus.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch (last visited March 26, 20 15). 
2 The Labor Condition Application (LCA) submit ted by the petitioner in support of the petition was certified 
for use with a job prospect within the "Management Analysts" occupational classification, 
SOC (O*NET/OES) Code , and a Leve l I (entry-level) prevailing wage rate, the lowest of the four 
assignable wage-levels. 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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: 
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: 
(l) 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 posttLOns 
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)(l) 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 (1989); 
A1atter 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.F.R. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
§ 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)( A) but not the statutory or regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 20 1 
F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). To avoid this result, 8 C.F.R. § 21 4.2(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)(l) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) consistently interprets the 
term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any baccalaurea te 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, USC IS regularly approves H-1 B 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 baccala ureate 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 occupat ions that 
Congress contemplated when it created the H-1 B visa category. 
To determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCIS does not simply 
rely on a position's title. The specific duties of the proffered position, combined with the nature of 
the petitioning entity's business operations, are factors to be considered. US CIS must examine the 
ultimate employment of the alien, and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. See generally Def ensor v. Mei..,·sner, 201 F. 3d 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. 
III. ANALYSIS 
We will now address the director's finding that the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 
Based upon a complete review of the record of proceeding, we agree with the director and find that 
the evidence of record fails to establish that the position as described constitutes a specialty 
occupation. 
In the petitioner's Jetter dated March 30, 2014, the proffered position is described as follows: 
• Performing various configuration engineering and business analysis activities for 
products when required[;] 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
• Providing implementation services for solutions involving business analysis & 
testing/deploying solutions for products, multiple configuration activities within 
Salesforce and 
• Executing full cycle (end-to-end) contract management software projects with varying 
degrees of supervision, leading requirements gathering sessions and providing high level 
technical documentation, work under guidance from Project Managers and Solution 
Architects; 
• Work with offshore teams as required; [and] 
• Able to manage multiple activities across multiple projects simultaneously, communication 
between multiple teams. 
In the petitioner's May 12, 2014 response to the director's April 28, 2014 RFE, the proffered 
position is described as follows: 
The position of Business Analyst will involve a strong understanding of the Contlgure Price 
Quote domain. The Business Analyst will engage with the client and understand the client's 
current Contract Management proces.s and document the business requirements and process 
flows. This would entail having client interviews and requirement gathering sessions. Based on 
the business requirements gathered the Business Analyst would perform hands-on business 
analysis, requirements gathering, solution design, configuration of the Contract Management 
package as required. 
Business Analysts drive the design and development of the solution ensuring that the 
solution is scalable and meets overall business requirements of the Client. As a part of driving 
the implementation, the business analyst would act as a liaison between Technical team, 
Functional team, Business Functions, and System Integrators. The business analyst would be 
involved in configuration and testing of the solution and would work with the offshore teams as 
required. The business analyst would also support the User acceptance testing of the solution. 
Business analysis tasks will represent 40% of the activities performed by the business analyst. 
Configuration, testing of the solution and implementation of the Contract Management solution 
will represent 60% of the tasks performed by the business analyst. 
[The beneficiary's] specific job duties will be as follows: 
• Perform various business analysis activities[;] 
• Perform configuration engineering activities for products when required[;] 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
• Provide implementation services for 
testing/deploying solutions for 
Salesforce and �;] 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
solutions involving business analysis & 
products, multiple configuration activities within 
• Execute full cycle (end-to-end) contract management software projects with varying degrees 
of supervision, leading requirements gathering sessions and providing high level technical 
documentation, work under guidance from Project Managers and Solution Architects; 
• Work with offshore teams as required; [and] 
• Manage multiple activities across multiple projects simultaneously, communication between 
multiple teams. 
Before reviewing the director's decision, we will first discuss why we will accord no probative 
value to the letter submitted on appeal from Professor School of Business and 
Economics, 
In his July 14, 2014 letter, Professor (I) descri bes the credentials that he asserts quality him 
to assess the nature of the proffered position, (2) lists the duties proposed for the beneficiary, and 
(3) states his belief that the performance of the duties he lists requires "a Bachelor's Degree 
Bus iness Administration, or a related degree." 
Upon review, we find that Professor letter does not constitute probative evidence of the 
proffered position satisfying any criterion described at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). 
Professor does not provide any information with regard to studies, treatises, statistical 
surveys , authoritative industry sources, or any other relevant and authoritative sources of which he 
may have specialized knowledge that would merit deference or special weight to the particular 
opinion that he offers in this case, other than his references to the U.S. Department of Labor's 
(DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook and the DOL's Occup ational Information Network 
(O*NET OnLine), which we address below. Thus, we accord little to no weight to his position, 
degrees, academic history, or teaching duties as endowing him with specialized knowledge relevant 
to the particular matters upon which he here provides his opinion, namely, the educational 
requirements for the particular position proffered in this petition. 
The letter is not accomp anied by, and does not expressly state the full content of, whatever 
documentation and/or oral transmiss ions upon which it may have been based. For instance, 
Professor _ does not indicate whether he visited the petitioner's business premises or 
communicated with anyone affiliated with the petitioner as to what the performance of the general list 
of duties he cites would actually require. Nor does Professor articulate whatever familiarity he 
may have obtained regarding the particular content of the work products that the petitioner would 
require of the beneficiary. In short, while there is no standard formula or "bright line" rule for 
producing a persuasive opinion regarding the educational requirements of a particular position, a 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
person purporting to provide an expert evaluation of a particular position should establish greater 
knowledge of the particular position in question than Professor has done here. 
Nor does Professor reference and discuss any studies, surveys, industry publications, other 
authoritative publications, or other sources of emp.irical information which he may have consulted 
in the course of whatever evaluative process he followed. 
Furthermore, Professor _ description of the position does not indicate that he considered, or was 
even aware of, the fact that the petitioner submi tted an LCA certified for a wage-level that is only 
appropriate for a comparat ively low, entry-level position relative to others within its occupation 
which, as discussed below, signifies that the beneficiary is only expected to possess a basic 
understanding of the occupat ion. In any event, he nowhere discusses this aspect of the proffered 
position. We consider this a significant omission, in that it suggests an incomplete review of the 
position in question and a faulty factual basis for his ultimate conclusion as to the educational 
requirements of the position at issue. 
As noted earlier, the LCA subm itted by the petitioner in support of the instant position was certified 
for use with a job prospect within the "Management Analysts" occupational category, SOC 
(O*NET/OES) Code , and a Level I (entry-level) prevailing wage rate, the lowest of the 
four ass ignable wage-levels. The Prevailing Wage Determinalion Policy Guidance issued by DOL 
states the following with regard to Level I wage rates : 
Level I (entry) wage rates are assigned to job offers for beginning level employees 
who have only a basic understanding of the occupation. These employees perform 
routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment. The tasks provide 
experience and familiarization with the employer's methods, practices, and programs. 
The employees may perform higher level work for training and developmental 
purposes. These employees work under close supervision and receive specific 
instructions on required tasks and results expected. Their work is closely monitored 
and reviewed for accuracy. Statements that the job offer is for a research fellow, a 
worker in training, or an internship are indicators that a Level I wage should be 
considered. 3 
The proposed duties' level of complexity, uniqueness, and specialization, as well as the level of 
independent judgment and occupational understanding required to perform them, are questionable, as 
the petitioner submitted an LCA certified for a Level I, entry-level position. A Level I wage is only 
appropriate for a position requiring only "a basic understanding of the occupat ion" expected of a 
"worker in training" or an individual performing an "internship." That designation indicates further 
that the beneficiary will only be expected to "perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, 
3 U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wag e Determination Policy Guidance, 
Nonagric.l mmigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://www.f oreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf / 
NPW HC_Guidance_Revised_II _2009.pdf 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
exercise of judgment."4 The LCA's wage-level, therefore, indicates that the proffered position is 
actually a low-level, entry position relative to others within the same occupation. In accordance with 
the relevant DOL explanatory information on wage levels, this wage rate indicates that the 
beneficiary is only required to possess a basic understanding of the occupation ; that she will be 
expected to perform routine tasks requiring limited, if any, exercise of judgment; that she will be 
closely supervised and her work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and that she will 
receive specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. 
Professor omission of such an important factor as the LCA wage-level significantly 
diminishes the evidentiary value of his assertions, particularly his assertions regarding the "complex 
and specialized" nature of the beneficiary's proposed job duties. 
Finally, Professor finds that the proffered position requires "a Bachelor's Degree Business 
Administration, or a related degree." However, the evidence of record must demonstrate that the 
proffered position requires a precise and specific course of study that relates directly and closely to 
the position in question. Since there must be a close correlation between the required specialized 
studies and the position, the requirement of a degree with a generalized title, such as business 
administration, without further specification, does not establish the position as a specialty 
occupation. Cf Matter of lvlichael Hertz Associates, 19 I&N Dec. 558 (Comm'r 1988). 
In addition to proving that a job requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of 
specialized knowledge as required by section 214(i)(l) of the Act, a petitioner must also establish 
that the position requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specialized field of 
study or its equivalent. As explained above, USCIS interprets the supplemental degree requirement 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) as requiring a degree in a specific specialty that is directly related 
to the proffered position. USCIS has consistently stated that, although a general-purpose bachelor's 
degree, such as a degree in business administration, may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular 
position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify a finding that a particular position 
qualifies for classification as a specialty occ upation. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertojj; 484 F.Jd at 
147. 
We may, in our discretion, use as advisory opmwn statements submitted as expert testimony. 
However, where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we 
are not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Matter of Caron International, 19 
I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988). 
For all of these reasons, we find that Professor letter is not probative evidence towards 
satisfying any criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). For the sake of economy, we hereby 
incorporate the above discussion and findings into its analysis of each of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
We will now discuss the application of each supplemental, alternative criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2( h)(4)(iii)(A) to the evidence in this record of proceeding. 
We will first discuss the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2 (h)(4)(iii)(A)(I), which is satisfied by 
establishing that a baccalaureate or higher degree, or its equivalent, in a specific specialty is 
normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position that is the subject of the 
petition. 
We recognize the Handbook as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements 
of the wide variety of occupations it addresses. 5 As noted above, the LCA that the petitioner 
submitted in support of this petition was certified for a job offer falling within the "Management 
Analysts" occupational category. 
The Handbook states the following with regard to the duties of positions falling within the 
"Management Analysts" occupational categories : 
Management analysts, often called management consultants, propose ways to 
improve an organization's efficiency. They advise managers on how to make 
organizations more profitable through reduced costs and increased revenues. 
Duties 
Management analysts typically do the following: 
• Gather and organize information about the problem to be solved or the procedure 
to be improved 
• Interview personnel and conduct on-site observations to determine the methods, 
equipment, and personnel that will be needed 
• Analyze financial and other data, including revenue, expenditure, and 
employment reports 
• Develop solutions or alternative practices 
• Recommend new systems, procedures, or organizational changes 
• Make recommendations to management through presentations or written reports 
• Confer with managers to ensure that the changes are working 
5 The Handbook, which 
http://www. stats.bls .gov/oco/. 
online. 
is available in printed form, may also be accessed online at 
Our references to the Handbook are from the 2014-15 edition avai !able 
(b)(6)
NON- PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
Although some management analysts work for the organization that they are 
analyzing, most work as consultants on a contractual basis. 
Whether they are self-employed or part of a large consulting company, the work of a 
management analyst may vary from project to project. Some projects require a team 
of consultants, each specializing in one area. In other projects, consultants work 
independently with the client organization's managers. 
Management analysts often specialize in certain areas, such as inventory management 
or reorganizing corporate structures to eliminate duplicate and nonessential jobs. 
Some consultants specialize in a specific industry, such as healthcare or 
telecommunications. In government, management analysts usually specialize by type 
of agency. 
Organizations hire consultants to develop strategies for entering and remammg 
competitive in the electronic marketplace. 
Management analysts who work on contract may write proposals and bid for jobs. 
Typically, an organization that needs the help of a management analyst solicits 
proposals from a number of consultants and consulting companies that specialize in 
the needed work. Those who want the work must then submit a proposal by the 
deadline that explains how they will do the work, who will do the work, why they are 
the· best consultants to do the work, what the schedule will be, and how much it will 
cost. The organization that needs the consultants then selects the proposal that best 
meets its needs and budget. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 
ed.,"Management Analysts," http://www .bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/management­
analysts.htm#tab-2 (last visited March 26, 20 15). 
The Handbook states the following with regard to the educational requirements necessary for 
entrance into positions within this occupational category: 
Most management analysts have at least a bachelor's degree. The Certified 
Management Consultant (CMC) designation may improve job prospects. 
Education 
A bachelor's degree is the typical entry-level requirement for management analysts. 
However, some employers prefer to hire candidates who have a master's degree in 
business administration (MBA). 
Few colleges and universities offer formal programs in management consulting. 
However, many fields of study provide a suitable education because of the range of 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
areas that management analysts address. Common fields of study include business, 
management, economics, political science and government, accounting, finance. 
marketing, psychology, computer and information science, and English. 
Analysts also routinely attend conferences to stay up to date on current developments 
in their field. 
Licenses, Certifications, and Registrations 
The Institute of Management Consultants USA (IMC USA) offers the Certified 
Management Consultant (CMC) designation to those who meet minimum levels of 
education and experience, submit client reviews, and pass an interview and exam 
covering the IMC USA's Code of Ethics. Management consultants with a CMC 
designation must be recertified every 3 years. Management analysts are not required 
to get certification, but it may give jobseekers a competitive advantage. 
Work Experience in Related Occupation 
Many analysts enter the occupation with several years of work experience. 
Organizations that specialize in certain fields typically try to hire candidates who 
have experience in those areas. Typical work backgrounds include management, 
human resources, and information technology. 
Advancement 
As consultants gain experience, they often take on more responsibility. At the senior 
level, consultants may supervise teams working on more complex projects and 
become more involved in seeking out new business. Those with exceptional skills 
may eventually become partners in their consulting organization and focus on 
attracting new clients and bringing in revenue. Senior consultants who leave their 
consulting company often move to senior management positions at nonconsulting 
organizations. 
Important Qualities 
Analytical skills. Management analysts must be able to interpret a wide range of 
information and use their findings to make proposals. 
Communication skills. Management analysts must be able to communicate clearly 
and precisely in both writing and speaking. Successful analysts also need good 
listening skills to understand the organization's problems and propose appropriate 
solutions. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
Interpersonal skills. Management analysts must work with managers and other 
employees of the organizations where they provide consulting services. They should 
work as a team toward achieving the organization's goals. 
Problem-solving skills. Management analysts must be able to think creatively to 
solve clients' problems. Although some aspects of different clients' problems may be 
similar, each situation is likely to present unique challenges for the analyst to solve. 
Time-management skills. Management analysts often work under tight deadlines and 
must use their time efficiently to complete projects on time. 
!d. at http://www .bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/management-analys ts.htm#tab-4 (last visited 
March 26, 20 15). 
In general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry and biochemistry, a minimum 
of a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty is recognized as satisfying the "degree in 
the specific specialty (or its equivalent)" requirement of section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act. In such a 
case, the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" would essentially be the same. Since 
there must be a close correlation between the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" and 
the position, however, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in two disparate fields, such as 
philosophy and engineering, for example, would not meet the statutory requirement that the degree 
be "in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)," unless the petitioner establishes how each field is 
directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position such that the required 
body of highly specialized knowledge is essentially an amalgamation of these different specialties.6 
Section 214(i)( 1 )(B) of the Act (emphasis added). 
Here, the Handbook reports that " ... many fields of study provide a suitable education because of 
the range of areas that management analysts address. Common fields of study include business, 
management, economics, political science and government, accounting, finance, marketing, 
psychology, computer and information science, and English." Here and as indicated above, the 
petitioner, who bears the burden of proof in this proceeding, fails to establish that busine ss, 
management, economics, political science and government, accounting, finance, marketing, 
psychology, computer and information science, and English are closely related fields. Absent this 
evidence, it cannot be found that the particular position proffered in this matter has a normal 
minimum entry requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent 
under the petitioner's own standards. Accordingly, as the evidence of record fails to establish a 
standard, minimum requirement of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its 
6 Whether read with the statutory "the" or the regulatory "a," both readings denote a singular "specia lty." 
Section 214 (i)(l)(B) of the Act; 8 C. F.R. § 214.2(h)(4 )(ii). Still, we do not so narrowly interpret these 
provisions to exclude positions from qualifying as specialty occupations if they permit, as a minimum entry 
requirement, degrees in more than one closely related specialty. As just stated, this also includes even 
seem ingly disparate specialties provided the evidence of record establishes how each acceptable, specific 
field of study is directly re lated to the duties and respons ibilities of the particular position. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
equivalent for entry into the particular position, it does not support the proffered position as being a 
specialty occupation and, in fact, supports the opposite conclusion. 
Therefore, absent evidence of a direct relationship between the claimed degrees required and the 
duties and responsibilities of the position, it cannot be found that the proffered position requires 
anything more than a general bachelor's degree. As explained above, USCJS interprets the degree 
requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to require a degree in a specific specialty that is 
directly related to the proposed position. Again, USCIS has consistently stated that, although a 
general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business administration, may be a legitimate 
prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify a 
finding that a particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. See Royal 
Siam Corp. v.· Chertojf, 484 F.3d at 147. 
Furthermore, we note that the Handbook states only that "most" management analysts have at least 
a bachelor's degree. The first definition of "most" in Webster's New College Dictionary 731 (Third­
Edition, Hough Mifflin Harcourt 2008) is "[g]reatest in number, quantity, size, or degree." As such, 
if merely 51% of management analyst positions require at least a bachelor's degree in one of the 
fields mentioned or a closely related field, it could be said that "most" management analyst 
positions require such a degree. It cannot be found, therefore, that a particular degree requirement 
for "most" positions in a given occupation equates to a normal minimum entry requirement for that 
occupation, much less for the particular position proffered by the petitioner. Instead, a normal 
minimum entry requirement is one that denotes a standard entry requirement but recognizes that 
certain, limited exceptions to that standard may exist. To interpret this provision otherwise would 
run directly contrary to the plain language of the Act, which requires in part "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." § 214(i) (l) of the Act. 
When reviewing the Handbook, it also must be noted that the petitioner designated the proffered 
position as a Level I (entry level) position on the LCA. 7 The wage levels are defined in DOL's 
"Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance."8 A Level I wage rate is described as follows: 
7 Wage levels are determined only after select ing the most relevant O*NET code classification. Then, a 
prevailing wage determina tion is made by selecting one of four wage levels for an occupation based on a 
comparison of the employer's job req uirements to the occupational requirements, including tasks, knowledge, 
skills, and specific vocational preparation (education, training and experience) generally requi red for 
acceptable performance in that occupation. 
· 
8 Prevailing wage determ inations start with a Level I (entry) and progress to a wage that is commensurate 
with that of a Level II (qualified), Level III (experienced), or Level lY (fully competent) after considering the 
job req uireme nts, experience, education, special skills/other requir eme nts and supervisory duties. Factors to 
be considered when deter mining the prevailing wage level for a position include the complexity of the job 
duties, the level of judgment, the amount and level of superv ision, and the level of understanding req uired to 
perform the job duties. DOL emphasizes that these guidelines should not be implemented in a mechanical 
fashion and that the wage level should be commensur ate with the complexity of the tasks, independent 
judgment required, and amount of close supervision rece ived. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
Level I (entry) wage rates are assigned to job offers for beginning level employees 
who have only a basic understanding of the occupation. These employees perform 
routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment. The tasks provide 
experience and familiarization with the employer's methods, practices, and programs. 
The employees may perfom1 higher level work for training and developmental 
purposes. These employees work under close supervision and receive specific 
instructions on required tasks and results expected. Their work is closely monitored 
and reviewed for accuracy. Statements that the job offer is for a research fellow, a 
worker in training, or an internship are indicators that a Level I wage should be 
considered. 
See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy 
Guid ance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009); available at 
http://www. foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _11_2009.pdf 
Thus, in designating the proffered position at a Level I wage, the petitioner has indicated that the 
proffered position is a comparatively low, entry-level position relative to others within the 
occupation. That is, in accordance with the relevant DOL explanatory information on wage levels, 
this wage rate indicates that the beneficiary is only required to have a basic understanding of the 
occupation and carries expectations that the beneficiary perform routine tasks that require limited, if 
any, exercise of judgment; that she would be closely supervised; that her work would be closely 
monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and that she would receive specific instructions on required 
tasks and expected results. Based upon the petitioner's designation of the proffered position as a 
Level I (entry) position, it does not appear that the beneficiary will be expected to serve in a senior 
or leadership role. As noted above, according to DOL guidance, a statement that the job offer is for 
a research fellow, worker in training or an internship is indicative that a Level I wage should be 
considered. 
For all of these reasons, the Handbook does not support the assertion that at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for this 
position, and thus does not support the proffered position as being a specialty occupation. 
The materials from O*NET OnLine also fail to establish that the proffered position satisfies the first 
criterion described at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). O*NET OnLine does not state a requirement 
for a bachelor's degree. Rather, it assigns this occupation a Job Zone "Four" rating, which groups it 
among occupations of which "most," but not all, "require a four-year bachelor's degree." Further, 
O*NET On Line does not indicate that four-year bachelor's degrees required by Job Zone Four 
occupations must be in a specific specialty directly related to the occupation. Therefore, O*NET 
OnLine information is not probative of the proffered position being a specialty occupation. 
Nor does the record of proceeding contain any persuasive documentary evidence from any other 
relevant authoritative source establishing that the proffered position's inclusion within any of these 
occupational categories is sufficient in and of itself to establish the proffered position as, in the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
words of this criterion, a "particular position" for which "[a] baccalaureate or higher degree or its 
equivalent is normally the minimum requirement for entry." 
· Finally, the petitioner states in its March 30, 2014 letter that the proffered position requires a 
bachelor's degree in bus iness, management, economics or a related field. However, a petitioner 
must demonstrate that the proffered position requires a precise and specific course of study that 
relates directly and closely to the posit ion in question. Since there must be a close correlation 
between the required specialized studies and the position, the requirement of a degree with a 
generalized title, such as business, without further specification, does not establish the position as a 
specialty occupation. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Associates, 19 I&N Dec. 558 (Comm'r 1988). 
The petitioner's assertion that duties of the proffered position can be performed by an individual 
with a bachelor's degree in bus iness administration, with no further specialization, does not 
establish the position as a specialty occupation. 
As the evidence in the record of proceeding does not establish that at least a baccalaureate degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for �ntry into the 
particular position that is the subject of this petition, the petitioner has not satisfied the criterion 
described at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii i)(A)(l). 
Next, we find that the evidence of record does not satisfy the first of the two alternative prongs of 
8 C.F.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 such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by 
USCIS include: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the 
industry's professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether 
letters or affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms "routinely employ 
and recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d at 1165 
(D.Minn. 1999) (quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
Here and as already discussed, the petitioner has not established that its proffered position falls within 
an occupational category for which the Handbook reports an industry-wide requirement for at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
The petitioner has submitted job advertisements from a financial services business, a 
biotechnology/pharmaceutical business, an internet services/advertising/public relations services 
business and an engineering solutions business. These job listings are not from organizations that are 
similar to the petitioner. The advertisements submitted by the petitioner do not establish that these 
employers are "similar" to the petitioner in size, scope, and scale of operations, business efforts, 
expenditures, or in any other relevant extent. Furthermore, most of the advertisements require 
experience, ranging from three to ten years. However, as noted above the petitioner submitted an 
LCA certified for a Level I, entry-level position, therefore indicating that the positions are not 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 16 
parallel. The advertisements do not establish that the positions are the same or similar to the 
proffered posit ion, and do not satisfy this prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( h)(4)(iii)(A)(2).9 
More importantly, most of these advertisements fail to state a requirement for a bachelor's degree in 
a specific specialty, or the equivalent. 
Nor does the record contain any submissions from professional assoc iations 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. 
Therefore, the evidence of record does not satisfy the first of the two alternative prongs described at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2), as it does not establish a requirement for at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent that is common ( 1) to the petitioner's industry and (2) 
for positions in that industry that are both (a) parallel to the proffered position and (b) located in 
organizations that are similar to the petitioner. 
Next, we find that the evidence of record 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." 
In this particular case, the evidence of record does not credibly demonstrate that the duties the 
beneficiary will perform on a day-to-day basis constitute a position so complex or unique that it can 
only be performed by a person with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its 
equivalent. 
The record of proceeding does not contain evidence establishing relative complexity or uniqueness 
as aspects of the proffered position, let alone that the position is so complex or unique as to require 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge such that a 
person with a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent is required to 
perform the duties of that posit ion. Rather, we find, that, as reflected in this decision's earlier 
quotation of duty descriptions from the record of proceeding, the evidence of record does not 
distinguish the proffered position from other positio ns falling within the "Management Analysts" 
occupational category, which, the Handbook indicates, do not necessarily require a person with at 
least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent to enter those positions. 
9 USCIS "mus t examine each piece of evide nce for relevance, probative value, and cred ibility, both 
individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determ ine whether the fact to be proven 
is probably true." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 36 9, 37 6 (AAO 20 I 0). As just discussed, the petitioner 
has failed to establish the relevance of the job advertisem ents submitted to the position proffered in this case. 
Even if their relevance had been established, the petitioner still fails to demonstrate what inferences, if any, 
can be drawn from these few job postings with regard to determ ining the common educational requireme nts 
for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations in the same industry. See generally Earl Babbie, The 
Practice of Social Research 18 6-228 (1 995). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 17 
The statements of counsel, the petitioner, and Professor with regard to the claimed complex 
and unique nature of the proffered position are acknowledged. However, those assertions are 
undermined by the fact that the petitioner submitt ed an LCA certified for a job prospect with a 
wage-level that is only appropriate for a comparatively low, entry-level position relative to others 
within its occupation. We incorporate here by reference and reiterate our earlier discussion 
regarding the LCA and its indication that the petitioner would be paying a wage-rate that is only 
appropriate for a low-level, entry position relative to others within the occupation, as this factor is 
inconsistent with the relative complexity and uniqueness required to satisfy this criterion. Based 
upon the wage rate selected by the petitioner, the beneficiary is only required to have a basic 
understanding of the occupation. Moreover, that wage rate indicates that the beneficiary will 
perform routine tasks requiring limited, if any, exercise of independent judgment; that the 
beneficiary's work will be closely supervised and monitored; that she will receive specific 
instructions on required tasks and expected results; and that her work will be reviewed for accuracy. 
Accordingly, given the Handbook 's indication that typical positions located within the 
"Management Analysts" occupational category do not require at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or the equivalent, for entry, it is not credible that a po§ition involving limited, if 
any, exercise of independent judgment, close supervision and monitoring, receipt of specific 
instructions on required tasks and expected results, and close review would contain such a 
requirement. 
The evidence of record therefore fails to establish how the beneficiary's responsibilities and day-to­
day duties comprise a position so complex or unique that the position can be performed only by an 
individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
Consequently, as it has not been shown that the particular position for which this petition was filed 
is so complex or unique that it can only be performed by a person with at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty or its equivalent, the evidence of record does not satisfy the second alternative 
prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
We turn next to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4 )(iii)(A)(3), which entails an employer 
demonstrating that it normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent 
for the position. 
Our review of the record of proceeding under this criterion necessarily includes whatever evidence 
the petitioner has submitted with regard to its past recruiting and hiring practices and employees 
who previously held the position in question. 
To satisfy this criterion, the record must contain documentary evidence demonstrating that the 
petitioner has a history of requiring the degree or degree equivalency, in a specific specialty, in its prior 
recruiting and hiring for the position. Additionally, the record must establish that a petitioner's 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 18 
imposition of a degree requirement is not merely a matter of preference for high-caliber candidates but 
is necessitated by the performance requirements of the proffered position. 
10 
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 the specific 
specialty or its equivalent. See Def ensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d at 387. In other words, if a 
petitioner's assertion of a particular degree requirement is not necessitated by the actual 
performance requirements of the proffered positio n, the position would not meet the statutory or 
regulatory definition of a specialty occupation. See section 214(i)( l) of the Act; 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4) (ii) (defining the term "specialty occupat ion"). 
The director's April 28, 2014 RFE specifically requested the petitioner to document its past 
recruiting and hiring history with regard to the proffered position. The third section of the RFE 
includes the following specific requests for such documentation: 
• Position Announcement: To support the petitioner's contention that the position 
is a "specialty occupation," provide copies of the petitioner's present and past job 
vacancy announcements. The petitioner may also provide classified 
advertisements soliciting for the current position, showing that the petitioner 
requires its applicants to have a minimum of a baccalaureate or higher degree or 
its equivalent in a specific specialty. 
• Past Employment Practices: Provide evidence to establish that the petitioner has 
a past practice of hiring persons with a baccalaureate degree, or higher[,] in a 
specific specialty, to perform the duties of the proffered position. Indicate the 
number of persons employed in similar posit ions. Further, submit documentation 
to establish how many of those persons have a baccalaureate degree or higher 
and the particular field of study in which the degree was attained. 
Documentat ion should include copies of transcripts and pay records or Quarterly 
Wage Reports for the employees claimed to hold a baccalaureate degree in the 
specific field of study. 
The record does not include the type of evidence mentioned in the RFE. 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 satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4) (iii)(A)(J), which requires a demonstration 
that it normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for the 
10 Any such assertion would be underm ined in this particular case by the fact that the petitioner indicated in 
the LCA that its proffered position is a comparatively low, entry-level position relative to others within the 
same occupation. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 19 
position. '' 
As the record of proceeding does not demonstrate that the petitioner normally requires at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for the proffered position, it does hot 
satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)( J). 
Next, we find that the evidence of record does not satisfy the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4), which requires the petitioner to establish that the nature of the 
proffered position's 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 the specific specialty or 
its equivalent. 
In reviewing the record of proceeding under this criterion, we reiterate our earlier discussion regarding 
the Handbook' s entries for positions falling within the "Management Analysts" occupational 
category. Again, the Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
the equivalent, is a standard, minimum requirement to perform the duties of such positions (to the 
contrary, it indicates precisely the opposite). With regard to the specific duties of the position 
proffered here, we find that the record of proceeding lacks suffic ient, credible evidence establishing 
that they are so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perfom1 them is usually 
associated with the attainment of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent. 
Finally, we find that both on its own terms and also in comparison with the three higher wage-levels 
that can be designated in an LCA, by the submission of an LCA certified for a Level I wage-level, 
the petitioner effectively attests that the proposed duties are of relatively low complexity as 
compared to others within the same occupational category. This fact is materially inconsistent with 
the level of complexity required by this criterion. 
As earlier noted, the Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance issued by the U.S. 
Department of Labor (DOL) states the following with regard to Level I wage rates: 
Level I (entry) wage rates are assigned to job offers for beginning level employees who 
have only a basic understanding of the occupation. These employees perform routine 
tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment. The tasks provide experience and 
familiarization with the employer's methods, practices, and programs. The employees 
may perform higher level work for training and developmental purposes. These 
employees work under close supervision and receive specific instructions on required 
tasks and results expected. Their work is close ly monitored and reviewed for accuracy. 
Statements that the job offer is for a research fellow, a worker in training, or an internship 
are indicators that a Level J wage should be considered [emphasis in original]. 
11 See also Caremax Inc. v. Holder,
_ 
F.Supp. 2d _ , 2014 WL 14 93621 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ("lft his is [the 
petitioner's] first-ever public relations spec ialist position, then the company can not claim that it typically 
req uires a bachelor's degree in English." ) 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 20 
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 _11_ 2009. pdf. 
The pertinent guidance from DOL, at page 7 of its Prevailing Wage Determination PoliGy Gui dance 
describes the next higher wage-level as follows: 
I d. 
Level II (qualified) wage rates are assigned to job offers for qualified employees 
who have attained, either through education or experience, a good understanding of 
the occupation. They perform moderately complex tasks that require limited 
judgment. An indicator that the job request warrants a wage determination at Level 
II would be a requirement for years of education and/or experience that are generally 
required as described in the O*NET Job Zones. 
The above descriptive summary indicates that even this higher-than-designated wage level is 
appropriate for only "moderately complex tasks that require limited judgment." The fact that this 
higher-than-here-assigned, Level II wage-rate itself indicates performance of only "�oderately 
complex tasks that require limited judgment," is very telling with regard to the relatively low level 
of complexity imputed to the proffered position by virtue of the petitioner's Level I wage-rate 
designation. 
Further, we note the relatively low level of complexity that even this Level II wage-level reflects 
when compared with the two still-higher LCA wage levels, neither of which was designated on the 
LCA submitted to support this petition. 
The aforementioned Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance describes the Level III wage 
designation as follows: 
I d. 
Level III (experienced) wage rates are assigned to job offers for experienced 
employees who have a sound understanding of the occupation and have attained, 
either through education or experience, special skills or knowledge. They perform 
tasks that require exercising judgment and may coordinate the activities of other 
staff. They may have supervisory authority over those staff . A requirement for years 
of experience or educational degrees that are at the higher ranges indicated in the 
O*NET Job Zones would be indicators that a Level III wage should be considered. 
Frequently, key words in the job title can be used as indicators that an employer's job 
offer is for an experienced worker .... 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 21 
The Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance describes the Level IV wage designation as 
follows: 
!d. 
Level IV (fully competent) wage rates are assigned to job offers for competent 
employees who have sufficient experience in the occupation to plan and conduct 
work requiring judgment and the independent evaluation, selection, modification, 
and application of standard procedures and techniques. Such employees use 
advanced skills and diversified knowledge to solve unusual and complex problems. 
These employees receive only technical guidance and their work is reviewed only for 
application of sound judgment and effectiveness in meeting the establishment's 
procedures and expectations. They generally have management and/or supervisory 
responsibilities. 
Here we again incorporate our earlier discussion and analysis regarding the implications of the 
petitioner's submission of an LCA certified for the lowest assignable wage-level. As already noted, 
by virtue of this submission, the petitioner effectively attested to DOL that the proffered position is 
a low-level, entry position relative to others within the same occupation, and that, as clear by 
comparison with DO L's instructive comments about the next higher level (Level II), the proffered 
position did not even involve "moderately complex tasks that require limited judgment" (the level 
of complexity noted for the next higher wage-level, Level II). 
For all of these reasons, the evidence in the record of proceeding fails to establish that the proposed 
duties meet the specialization and complexity threshold at 8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)( iii)(A)(4). 
As the evidence of record does not satisfy at least one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A), it cannot be found that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 
As set forth above, we agree with the director's findings that the evidence of record fails to 
demonstrate that the proffered position qualifies for class ification as a specialty occupation. 12 
Accordingly, the director's decision will not be disturbed. 
12 Because this issue prec ludes approval of the petition, we will not discuss any of the additional deficiencies 
we have observed in our de novo review of this matter, except to note that in the event the issues discussed in 
this decision are overcome, the following issues must also be explored and resolved before the petition can 
be approved: (I) whether the LCA submitted in support of this petition actually corresponds to it; and (2) 
whether the benefic iary will be an "employee" in an "emp loyer-employee relationship" with a "Un ited States 
emp loyer." 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 22 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 29 1 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter o{Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 20 13). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.