dismissed H-1B Case: Sports Coaching

(b)(6)
DATE: 
IN RE: 
JUM Q 8 2015 
Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service! 
Administrative Appeals Office 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION RECEIPT#: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section IOI(a)(H)(15)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 110 l( a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. 
If you believe we incorrectly decided your case, you may file a motion requesting us to reconsider our 
decision and/or reopen the proceeding. The requirements for motions are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. 
Motions must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form 1-290B) within 33 days of the date of this 
decision. The Form I-290B web page (www.uscis.gov/i-290b) contains the latest information on fee, filing 
location, and other requirements. Please do not mail any motions directly to the AAO. 
on Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www .uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Calif ornia Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Of fice on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
On the Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I -129), the petitioner describes itself as a 
235 -employee "Inter-collegia te Athletic Association" established in In order to employ the 
beneficiary in a position it designates as an "Assistant Men's Golf Coach, " the petitioner seeks to 
classify him as a nonimmigrant worker m a specialty occupation pursuant to section 
101(a )(15)(H) (i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 110 1(a)(15)( H)(i)(b). 
The Director denied the petition determining that the record of evidence did not establish that the 
proffered position qualifies for classific ation as a specialty occupation. On appeal, the petitioner 
asserts that the Director's basis for denial of the petition was erroneous and contends that the 
petitioner satisfied all evidentiary requirements. 
The record of proceeding before this of fice includes the following: (1) the petitioner's Form I-129 
and supporting documentation; (2) the Director's request for evidence (RFE); (3) the petitioner's 
response to the RFE; (4) the Director's denial letter; and (5) the Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form 
I-290B), a brief, and additional documentation. We reviewed the record in its entirety before 
issuing our decision. 1 
Upon review of the entire record of proceeding, we find that the evidence of record does not overcome 
the Director's grounds for denying this petition. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed, and the 
petition will be denied. 
II. THE PROFFERED POS ITION 
The petitioner identified the proffered position as an "Assistant Men's Golf Coach" on the Form 
I-129, and attested on the required Labor Condition Application (LCA) that the occupational 
classification for the position is "Coaches and Scouts," SOC (ONET/ OES) Code 27-2022, at a Level 
I (entry) wage. The LCA was certified on June 30 , 2014 , for a validity period from July 1, 2014 to 
June 30, 2016 for the , Kentucky geographical area. 
1 We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). 
Also, in light of the petitioner's references, in response to the Director's RFE, to the requirement that U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) apply the "preponderance of the evidence" standard, we 
affirm that, in the exercise of our appellate review in this matter, as in all matters that come within our 
purview, we follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in the controlling precedent 
decision, Matter ofChawathe, 25l&N Dec. 369, 375-376 (AAO 2010). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
In the petitioner's letter submitted in support of the petition, dated July 23, 2014, the petitioner 
stated that it "oversees the management of the Athletic Department and programs including 
collec tion of revenues and payment of expenses, scholarships and employment of coach es." The 
petitioner stated the follow ing with regard to the proff ered position: 
The position is responsible for assisting the Head Coach with all facets of managing 
a Division I Men's Golf program. These duties include recruiting of US and 
international students, assisting in coaching and providing instruction and ment6ring 
of student-athletes, off and on golf course. The Assistant [C]oach will ensure 
compliance with all NCAA rules and policies as well as educate all team student 
athletes of said rules and policies and enforce observation at all times. The Assistant 
Coach will assist the head coach in identifying, maintaining, interacting and growing 
relationships with team donors, potential donors, community members, alumni and 
members. He will also act as a resource to our student athletes at all times 
and when traveling to competitiOns, overseeing academic progress of 
student-athletes, as well as making travel arrangements for team and coaches for 
travel to competitions. 
Our coaches are heavily integrated into the educational aspect of our college athletes' 
lives, rather than just focusing on coaching for an athletic victory. They fill 
numerous roles in the University in support of the academic mission of the school. 
Because we expect each of its student-athletes to graduate with at least a bachelor's 
level degree, we expect that all of our coaches will also have Bachelor's Degrees and 
at least one to two years of coaching experience at the professional or collegia te 
level. We expect that coaches have degrees in Education, Physical Education, 
Kinesiology or related fields. If their degrees are outside of the education field, we 
require that they have several years of coaching or other relevant work experience so 
that they have the equivalent of a degree in Physical Education or closely related 
field. The minimum requirement and the high level of expertise required in this 
position make it a specialty occupation which qualifies for the H-1B status. 
In a response to the Director's RFE, dated September 29, 2014, the petitioner added to its initial 
description of the duties of the proffered position, now indicating that the "position is responsible 
for all facets of managing a Division I Men's Golf program including designing customized exercise 
plan for each student athlete based on their anatomical state and prior, current or potential injuries." 
The petitioner also indicated: 
At the 
_ 
we offer tailored instruction and fitness plans 
depending upon a student's skill level and overall health. To provide appropriate 
instruction, our coaching staff must be well-versed and knowledgeable about the 
latest theories and technologies that relate to their particular sport. The first part of 
instruction is an in-depth assessment of each individual and development of a 
targeted, goal driven plan for instruction. Another key component of instruction is 
injury prevention and healing based on the person's injury history. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
The petitioner stated that the proff ered position requires "at least a bachelor's degree in a 
sports/health field and one to two years of experience in coaching golf at the professional level 
and/or colleg iate level" and that a "degree in a sports/health related field such as kinesiology or 
sports management meets our requirement as it provides the Assistant Golf Coach with sufficient 
underlying knowledge of human anatomy and athletic instruction. " The petitioner also attached a 
job description for the proffered position which included the following duties: 
• Continually evaluate the swing of each golfer and monitor the degrees of 
shoulder and hip turns, making small adjustments until maximum performance. 
(1 5%) 
• Conduct an initial assessment of a golf er's anatomical state including flexibi lity 
degrees and range of motion and create an ongoing exercise plan to prepare to 
maximize physical condition. (1 0%) 
o As a position or event specialist, evaluate student-athletes to identify 
strengths and deficiencies, and design instructional opportunities to 
improve technical and strategic execution based on sound motor 
learning and bio-mechanical principles. 
• Conduct an evaluation of prior, current or potential injuries based on kinesiology 
and plan a course of action to address, repair or prevent spinal hyperextension or 
injury. (1 0%) 
o Examine and prevent injuries during warm up, practice or 
competition, by using protective tape, bandages, braces or the proper 
orthopedic/muscular devices as needed. 
• Evaluate biomechanics of each golfer and coach/instruct to ensure thoracic 
rotational flexibility, lumbar and soft tissues are in order for maximum safety and 
performance. (Biomechanics predict future injuries) (1 0%) 
o Establish a CFTE or clinica l flexibility and therapeutic exercise 
protocol. 
o Evaluate and maintain the CFTE specific to each golfer's needs. 
• Provide ongoing plan to prepare golfers for competition physically, 
psychologic ally and intellectually, this includes training direction, 
encouragement and motivation. (10%) 
o Educate student athletes on sports rules, game strategies and 
performance principles. 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
o Mentor student athletes on an ongoing basis and ensure that the 
student athletes succeed. 
• Collaborate with the Head Coach, certified Athletic Trainers, and Strength and 
Conditioning Coach to design both academic year (in season and out-of-season) 
and summ er conditioning programs, encompassing recognized and approved 
methods of improving power, speed, strength, and aerobic performance, 
consistent with industry safety and health standards. (5%) 
o Assist with the development of schedules for practice and 
competition, as assigned. Interface with appropriate departmental 
administrators to manage site assignments, visiting team practices, 
reservations for alternative facilities (e.g. classrooms, meeting 
rooms) pre-and post-events, hospitality room and cancelled practices. 
• Game Management ( 1 0%) 
o Scout opponent teams, collecting and analyzing tactical and 
statistical data, evaluating and editing game film, and designing 
game plans and strategies. 
o Attend coaches' preparatory meetings to develop 
collaboratively-determined coaching strategies for upcoming 
competitions, and to prepare the official game plan materials and 
game simulations for the student-athletes. 
o Manage team-related game day activities, including game-day 
practices, pre-or post-game meals and sport psycholog y/performance 
sesswns. 
o Manage film exchange programs per conference game management 
manuals. 
0 
Tournament management and execution. 
o Act as a liaison to appropriate event units, including Marketing, 
Media Services, Operations & Events, Grounds/Facilities staff, 
Ticket Operations, DAF and Compliance office. 
o Supervise and assign responsibilities to team manager(s), video staff, 
and graduate assistant(s). 
o Assume responsibility for game management in the absence of the 
Head Coach. 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
• Recruitment Management ( 15%) 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
o As an NCAA certified recruiter, successfully research, scout, 
evaluate and contact prospective student-athletes while operating 
within the scope of the department, ACC and NCAA regulations at 
all times. 
o Manage International recruitment. Establish and maintain 
international relationships with coaches and administrators that assist 
in connecting with those top 1 0% golfers in the world that we recruit. 
o Evaluate talent and make frequent international recruiting trips to 
build relationships with future golf ers. 
o As an on-campus recruiter, collaborate with other department and 
university staff in designing official and unofficial visits in 
compliance with all university, ACC and NCAA regulations. 
o Coordinate mailing of recruitment materials to prospective 
student-athletes, ensuring that all commitments fit within the total 
number of available scholarships. 
o Establish and develop relationship with appropriate high school and 
junior college officials, amateur club coaches, and coaches within the 
sport's national governing body for public relations purposes, this 
[sic] positioning the university nationally. 
o Utilize social media tools to enhance ef fective recruiting efforts. 
• Responsible for promoting the philosophy and objectives of the inter collegia te 
athletics program, including adherence to all department policies and procedures, 
as well as the rules and regulations of the university, the Atlantic Coast 
Conference "ACC" and the NCAA. (5%) 
o Must understand and comply with all NCAA and ACC rules and 
regulations at all times. Lack of compliance could result in severe 
ACC or NCAA sanctions for the program the department and the 
university. 
o Design, conduct and monitor countable athletically-related activities 
per NCAA playing and practice regulations and departmental policy, 
including declaring the practice season, reporting weekly countable 
athletically-related activities and adhering to sport-specific rules 
regarding voluntary activities and sport-specific safety exceptions. 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
• Responsible for providing coaching and administrative assistance to the Head 
Coach. (1 0%) 
o Provide valuable input in developing and monitoring the program 
budget relative to position's primary responsibilities, such as 
recruitment, team travel, or equipment and apparel. 
o Assist in or manage the purchase of apparel and/or specialized 
equipment, as assigned. Work with vendors in accordance with 
university protocol. Consult with the equipment manager on matters 
of inventory, purchase and delivery. Coordinate with equipment 
manager to ensure the issuance of the necessary equipment and 
apparel for scheduled practices and competitive events. 
o As assigned, liaison with primary support unites [sic] such as Student 
Services, Athletic Medicine and Compliance. 
o Manage, monitor and archive all required records and paperwork per 
regulatory requirements (e.g. state, federal and NCAA compliance). 
o Cooperate with all coaches and administrative staff within the 
intercollegiate athletics programs to enhance overall departmental 
operations. 
o Assistant Coach is expected to conduct him/herself in a loyal honest, 
responsible, ethical and professional manager at all times. 
III. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
A. Legal Framework 
Section 214(i)( l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) states, in pertinent part, the following: 
Specialty occupation means an occupation which [ (1)] requires theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in fields of human 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
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 [(2)] requires 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, a proposed position 
must meet one of the following criteria: 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
(4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
As a threshold issue, it is noted that 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(h)(4) (iii)(A) must logically be read together 
with section 214(i )( 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 wh ole. See K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1 988) (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. Cor p., 489 U.S. 56 1 (19 89); 
Matter of W-F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). As such, the criteria stated in 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4) (iii)(A) should logically be read as being necessary but not necessarily sufficient to 
meet the statutory and regulatory definition of specialty occupation. To otherwise interpret this 
section as stating the necessary and sufficient conditions for meeting the definition of specialty 
occupation would result in particular positions meeting a condition under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214 .2(h)(4)( iii)(A) but not the statutory or regulatory definition. See Def ensor v. Meissner, 
201 F.3 d 38 4, 38 7 (5t h Cir. 2000). To avoid this result, 8 C.F.R . § 214 .2(h)(4) (iii)(A) must 
therefore be read as providing supplemental criteria that must be met in accordance with, and not as 
alternatives to, the statutory and regulatory definitions of specialty occupation. 
As such and consonant with section 214(i)( l) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214 .2(h)(4)(ii), USCIS consistently interprets the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 21 4.2( h)(4) (iii)(A) to mean not just any baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific 
specialty that is directly related to the proff ered position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 
484 F.3d 13 9, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in a specific specialty" as "one 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular position"). Applying this 
standard, USCrS regularly approves H-IB petitions for qualified aliens who are to be employed as 
engineers, computer scientists, certified public accountants, college professors, and other such 
occupations. These professions, for which petitioners have regularly been able to establish a 
minimum entry requirement in the United States of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position, 
fairly represent the types of specialty occupations that Congress contemplated when it created the 
H-IB 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 proff ered position, combined with the nature of 
the petitioning entity's business operations, are factors to be considered. users must examine the 
ultimate employment of the alien, and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. See generally Def ensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 38 4. The critical element is not the title 
of the position nor an employer's self-imposed standards, but whether the position actually requires 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty as the minimum for entry 
into the occupation, as required by the Act. 
B. Analysis 
A baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is 
normally the minimum requirement fo r entry into the particular positio n 
We will first address the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4) (iii)(A )(l ). This criterion 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. We recognize the Department of Labor's 
Occupational Outlo ok Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and educational 
requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses.2 The petitioner claims on the LCA 
that the proff ered position corresponds to SOC code and title 27-2022, Coaches and Scouts. 
We reviewed the section of the Handbook regarding the occupational category "Coaches and 
Scouts," including the section entitled "How to Become a Coach or Scout," which describes the 
follow ing preparation for the occupation: 
Coaches and scouts typically need a bachelor's degree. They must also have 
extensive knowledge of the sport. Coaches typically gain this knowledge through 
their own experiences playing the sport at some level. Although previous playing 
experience may be beneficial, it is not required for most scoutingjobs. 
2 All of the references are to the 2014-2015 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet 
site http://www.bls.gov/OCO/. The excerpt of the Handbook regarding the duties and requirements of the 
referenced occupational category is hereby incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)
Page 10 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Education 
High schools typically hire teachers at the school for most coaching jobs. If no 
suitable teacher is found, schools hire a qualified candidate from outside the school. 
For more information on education requirements for teachers, see the profile on high 
school teachers. 
College and professional coaches must usually have a bachelor's degree. This degree 
can typically be in any subject. However, some coaches may decide to study 
exercise and sports science, physiology, kinesiology, nutrition and fitness, physical 
education, and sports medicine. 
Scouts must also typically have a bachelor's degree. Some scouts decide to get a 
degree in business, marketing, sales, or sports management. 
[Emphasis added.] 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., 
"Coaches and Scouts," http://www . bls. gov I ooh/entertainment -and -sports/coaches-and­
scouts.htm#tab-4 (last visited June 3, 2015 ). 
The Handbook reports that although college and professional coaches must usually have a 
bachelor's degree, the degree can typically be in any subject. As such, although some coaches may 
decide to study a sports-related field or physiology, kinesiology, or sports medicine, the Handbook 
does not indicate that such bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is a minimum 
requirement. 
Additionally, when reviewing the Handbook, it must be noted that the petitioner designated the 
proffered position as a Level I (entry) position on the LCA.3 The wage levels are defined in DOL's 
"Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance."4 A Level I wage rate is described as follows: 
3 Wage levels should be determined only after selecting the most relevant O*NETcode classification. Then, 
a prevailing wage determination is made by selecting one of four wage levels for an occupation based on a 
comparison of the employer's job requirements to the occupational requirements, including tasks, knowledge, 
skills, and specific vocational preparation (education, training and experience) generally required for 
acceptable performance in that occupation. 
4 Prevailing wage determinations start with a Level I (entry) and progress to a wage that is commensurate 
with that of a Level II (qualified), Level Ill (experienced), or Level IV (fully competent) after considering the 
job requirements, experience, education, special skills/other requirements and supervisory duties. Factors to 
be considered when determining the prevailing wage level for a position include the complexity of the job 
duties, the level of judgment, the amount and level of supervision, and the level of understanding required 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 commensurate with the complexity of the tasks, independent 
judgment required, and amount of close supervision received. 
(b)(6)
Page 11 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
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. 
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 _ 11 _ 2009.pdf 
Thus, in designating the proff ered 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 he would be closely supervised; that his work would be closely 
monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and that he would receive specific instructions on required 
tasks and expected results.5 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. 
We have also reviewed the petitioner's reference to O*NET's report on the occupational group of 
"Coaches and Scouts" which indicates that the occupational group is in the SVP range of 7.0 to < 
8.0 and is assigned a Job Zone "Four" rating, which groups it among occupations of which "most," 
but not all, "require a four-year bachelor's degree." An SVP rating of 7.0 for "coaches and scouts 
simply indicates that the occupation requires "[o]ver 2 years up to and including 4 years" of training 
while an SVP rating of 8.0 indicates that the occupation requires "[o]ver 4 years up to and including 
5 The petitioner's designation of this position as a Level l, entry-level position undermines its claim that the 
position is particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same 
occupation. Nevertheless, it is important to note that a Level I wage-designation does not preclude a 
proffered position from classification as a specialty occupation. In certain occupations (doctors or lawyers, 
for example), an entry-level position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, for entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designation would not reflect that 
an occupation qualifies as a specialty occupation if that higher-level position does not have an entry 
requirement of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. That is, a position's wage 
level designation may be a consideration but is not a substitute for a determination of whether a proffered 
position meets the requirements of section 214(i)( 1) of the Act. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
10 years" of training. Therefore, the SVP and Job Zone information is not probative of the 
proffered position being a specialty occupation. 
We have also reviewed the opinion letter authored by Ed.D., and offered 
in support of the proposition that the proff ered position of "Assistant Men's Golf Coach" requires 
the candidate to possess at least a Bachelor's Degree or its equivalent in Physical Education, 
Kinesiology, or a related field. Dr. repeats the job duties provided by the petitioner in 
response to the Director's RFE and claims the "industry standards for hiring coaches at the 
coll egiate level to show that it is an industry standard to only have appropriately degreed individuals 
hired to coach collegiate level teams. " 
Dr. opines that the duties described by the petitioner "require candidates for the position to 
possess skills in the area of Physical Education, and other related areas." Dr. notes that 
such skills are often taught in various college-l evel courses and that the beneficiary completed 
coursework directly related to the sport and health field.6 Dr. concludes that "[i]t is 
standard practice in coll egiate and university athletics to require a coach to possess an 
undergraduate degree in a sport, physical education, or health-related field" and that the "reason that 
a degree in a physical education-related field is required to coach is that a graduate of such a degree 
program would be provided with the knowledge and skills necessary to coach at the collegiate 
level." Dr. adds: 
A collegiate-level coach must be well-versed and knowledgeable about the latest 
theories and technologies related to their specific sport. In order to provide 
high-level instruction, an individual must possess formal instruction that is provided 
in an undergraduate degree program in physical education or a related field, and not 
just playing and/or coaching experience. 
Dr. does not differentiate the proff ered position from those coaching positions that the 
Handbook indicates are performed by persons who have only a general degree and not a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty. To the extent that the opinion suggests that a 
coll egiate coach position comprises an occupational class that requires a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or the equivalent, the opinion conflicts with the information in the Handbook­
and does so without acknowledgement of the fact or explanation. 
6 Dr. states that the beneficiary completed a course(s) in anatomy and kinesiology; however, the 
beneficiary's transcript indicates that he withdrew from "Anatomy & Kinesiology" during the Fall 2007 
semester. Additionally, the beneficiary's diploma is in general studies. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to 
resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or 
reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). The petitioner has not 
provided sufficient probative evidence that the beneficiary completed a general studies degree with a 
concentration in kinesiology. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
Further, we observe that Dr. does not discuss the duties of the proffered position in any 
meaningful detail. He does not identify or expressly state the full content of, whatever 
documentation and/or oral transmissions upon wh ich he based his opinion. To the contrary, he 
simply repeats the list of duties contained in the petitioner's response to the Director's RFE and then 
offers conclusory statements without analysis. Additionally, Dr. does not discuss the fact 
that the petitioner submitted an LCA certified for a wage-level that is appropriate for a 
comparatively low, entry-level position relative to others within its occupation, which signifies that 
the beneficiary is only expected to possess a basic understanding of the occupation. Importantly, he 
also does not explain the empirical basis for his assertion regarding minimum industry hiring 
standards. For example, he does not specify or discuss any relevant research, studies, surveys, or 
other authoritative publications as part of his review and or as a foundation for his opinion 
regarding an industry standard. 
We may, in our discretion, use as advisory op1mon 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 Internat ional, 
19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988). For the reasons discussed above, we find that Dr. 
opinion letter does not merit recognition or weight as an expert opinion, and the opinion letter is not 
probative evidence towards satisfying any criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). For efficiency's 
sake, we hereby incorporate the above discussion and analysis regarding the opinion letter into each 
of the bases in this decision for dismissing the appeal. 
In the instant case, the duties and requirements of the position as described in the record of 
proceeding do not indicate that this particular position proff ered by the petitioner is one for which a 
bacc alaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry. Thus, the petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214 .2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) (l). 
The requirement of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, is common to the indust ry in parallel 
positions among similar organizations 
Next, we will review the record of proceeding regarding 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 for 
positions that are identifiable as being (1) in the petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered 
position, and also (3) 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)). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
Here and as already discussed, the petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for 
which the Handbook, or other authoritative source, reports a standard, industry-wide requirement of 
at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, we incorporate by 
reference the previous discussion on the matter. Also, there are no submissions from the industry's 
professional association indicating that it has made a degree a minimum entry requirement. We 
have also reviewed Dr. opinion submitted in support of a finding that an industry standard 
for a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is required for the proffered position. We incorporate 
the above discussion of this document here. As set out above, we do not find, based upon a 
complete review of the record of proceeding, that the petitioner has established that a requirement 
for at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is (1) common to the 
petitioner's industry (2) in parallel positions (3) among organizations similar to the petitioner. Thus, 
for the reasons discussed above, the petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 
8 C.F.R . § 214 .2(h)(4)(i ii)(A)(2) . 
The particular position is so complex or unique that it can be perf ormed only by 
an individual with a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(h)(4) (iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
In support of its assertion that the proff ered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, the 
petitioner submitted various documents, including evidence regarding its business operations. For 
example, the petitioner submitted various corporate documents, letters describing its operations, and 
its organizational chart. However, upon review of the record of proceeding, the evidence of record 
does not credibly demonstrate that the duties the beneficiary will be responsible for or perform on a 
day-to-day basis constitute a position so complex or unique that it can only be performed by a 
person with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
Specifically, the evidence does not demonstrate how the duties that coll ectively constitute the 
proffered position require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge such that a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is 
required to perform them. For instance, the petitioner did not submit information relevant to a 
detailed course of study leading to a specialty degree and did not establish how such a curriculum is 
necessary to perform the duties of the proffered position. While a few related courses may be 
beneficial, or even required, in performing certain duties of the proffered position, the petitioner has 
not demonstrated how an established curriculum of such courses leading to a baccalaureate or 
higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the duties of the 
particular position here. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
Further, as was also noted above, the LCA submitted in support of the visa petition is approved for 
a wage Level I employee, an indication that the proffered position is an entry-level position for an 
employee who has only a basic understanding of the occupation. 7 This does not support the 
proposition that the proffered position is so com plex or unique relative to other positions in the 
same occupation that it can only be performed by a person with a specific bachelor's degree, 
especially as the Handbook suggests that some coach positions do not require such a degree. 
Therefore, the evidence of record does not establish that this position is significantly different from 
other positions in the occupation such that it refutes the Handbook's information to the eff ect that 
there is a spectrum of degrees acceptable for such positions, including degrees not in a specific 
specialty, and that some such positions may not require any college degree at all. In other words, 
the record lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish the proffered position as unique 
from or more complex than positions that can be performed by persons without at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. As the evidence of record does not demonstrate 
how the proffered position is so complex or unique relative to other positions within the same 
occupational category that do not require at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty or its 
equivalent for entry into the occupation in the United States, it cannot be concluded that the 
petitioner has satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F .R. § 214 .2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The employer normally requires a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, fo r the positio n 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it 
normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. To 
this end, USCIS reviews the petitioner's past recruiting and hiring practices, information regarding 
employees who previously held the position, as well as any other documentation submitted by a 
petitioner in support of this criterion of the regulations. 
To merit approval of the petition under this criterion, the record must establish that a petitioner's 
imposition of a degree requirement is not merely a matter of preference for high-caliber candidates 
but is necessitated by performance requirements of the position. A petitioner's perfunctory 
declaration of a particular educational requirement will not mask the fact that the position is not a 
specialty occupation. USCIS must examine the actual employment requirements, and, on the basis 
of that examination, determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. See 
generally Def ensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 38 4. In this pursuit, the critical element is not the title of 
the position, or the fact that an employer has routinely insisted on certain educational standards, but 
whether performance of 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. According 
to the Court in Def ensor, "To interpret the regulations any other way would lead to an absurd 
7 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 _11_ 2009. pdf. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 16 
result. " !d. at 388. If USCIS were constrained to recognize a specialty occupation merely because 
the petitioner has an established practice of demanding certain educational requirements for the 
proff ered position - and without consideration of how a beneficiary is to be specifically employed -
then any alien with a bachelor's degree in specific specialty could be brought into the United States 
to perform non-specialty occupations, so long as the employer required all such employees to have 
baccalaureate or higher degrees. See id. 
The petitioner here asserts that it always requires its Assistant Golf Coaches to have degrees in a 
sport-related field and applicable experience. Although the petitioner does not submit documentary 
evidence substantiating the employment and degrees of its previously employed assi stant golf 
coaches, the record does include evidence that the petitioner previously received H-1B approvals 
for six tennis, soccer, field hockey, rowing, and strength/conditioning coaches. The petitioner 
submitted copies of the letters provided to USCIS wh en it requested approval of these seven H-1 B 
petitions for the six different coaches. The letters submitted, however, provide an overview of the 
duties of the particular coaching position and do not include sufficient detail demonstrating that the 
positions proff ered in those cases are similar to the position proffered here. Additionally, the record 
lacks documentary evidence of the academic and experience levels of the individuals approved for 
H-lB employment. Further, the petitioner has not submitted evidence of the academic history of all 
its coaches, rather than just the coaches that have been approved for H-IB classification. That is, 
the record includes only a sampling of the coaches the petitioner has previously employed. 
Upon review of the record, the petitioner has not provided probative evidence to establish that it 
normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the 
proffered position. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting theburden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 15 8, 
165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter ofTreasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm'r 
1972)). Additionally, as will be discussed below, prior approvals do not compel the approval of a 
subsequent petition or relieve the petitioner of its burden to provide sufficient documentation to 
establish current eligibili ty for the benefit sought. 55 Fed. Reg. 2606, 2612 (Jan. 26, 1990). 
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 not 
satisfy 8 C.P.R. § 21 4.2( h)(4)(i ii)(A)(3 ). 
The nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perfo rm the duties is usually associated with the attain ment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent 
Finally, the petitioner has not satisfied the fourth criterion of 8 C.P.R. § 214. 2(h)(4) (iii)(A), which is 
reserved for positions with specific duties so specialized and complex that their performance 
requires knowledge that is usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. Again, relative speciali zation and complexity have 
not been sufficiently developed by the petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. In other 
words, the proposed duties have not been described with sufficient specificity to show that they are 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 17 
more specialized and complex than collegia te coaching positions that are not usually associated 
with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
Moreover, the petitioner's assertion that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation on 
the basis that its duties are so specialized and complex conflicts with its designation of the proffered 
position as a Level I position on the submitted LCA, indicating that it is an entry-level position 
(compared to others within the occupation) for an employee who has only basic understanding of 
the occupation. 8 Therefore, it is not credible that the position is one with specialized and complex 
duties relative to others, as such a position would likely be classified as a higher level position, 
requiring a signifi cantly higher prevailing wa ge. Again, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to 
resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to 
explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent 
objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591 -92. 
For the reasons related in the preceding discussion, the petitioner has not established that it has 
satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(h)(4)(iii)( A) and, therefore, it cannot be found that 
the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The appeal will be dismissed and the 
petition denied for this reason. 
We note that the petitioner asserts on appeal that US CIS's interpretation of the statutes and 
regulations are "too rigid" and "interpreted too narrowly" and cites to Tapis Int'l v. INS, 94 F. Supp. 
2d 172 (D. Mass. 2000) (Tapis Int' l v. INS) and Residential Fin. Corp. v. US. Citize nship & 
Immigration Services (Resident ial Fin. Corp. v. USCIS ), 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 20 12) in 
support of this assertion. The petitioner states in its brief that " [a ]lthough the title of degree stated 
'Bachelor of General Studies with concentration in Kinesiology,' rather than a 'Bachelor of 
Coaching' (which does not generally exist in academia) Beneficiary and Petitioner should not be 
penalized for having the substantive requirements met, but not the label." The petitioner contended 
in response to the Director's RFE that "case law construing the regulations make clear that a 
position may qualify as a specialty occupation either by requiring such a specific degree, or by 
requiring a combination of education and specific skills that are highly specialized." 
We note that in Tapis Int' l v. INS, the U.S. district court found that while the former Immigration 
and Naturalization Service (INS) was reasonable in requiring a bachelor's degree in a specific field, 
it abused its discretion by ignoring the portion of the regulations that allows for the equivalent of a 
specialized baccalaureate degree. According to the U.S. district court, INS's interpretation was not 
reasonable because then H-1B visas would only be available in fields where a specific degree was 
offered, ignoring the statutory definition allowing for "various combinations of academic and 
experience based training ." Tapis Int' l v. INS, 94 F. Supp. 2d at 176. The court elaborated that "[i]n 
fields where no specifically tailored baccalaureate program exists, the only possible way to achieve 
8 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 _11_ 2009.pdf. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 18 
something equivalent is by studying a related field (or fields) and then obtaining specialized 
experience. " I d. at 1 77. 
We agree with the district court judge in Tapis Int'l v. INS, that in satisfying the specialty 
occupation requirements, both the Act and the regulations require a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent, and that this language indicates that the degree does not have to be a 
degree in a single specific specialty. 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 know ledge" 
would essentially be the same. Since there must be a close correlation between the required "body 
of highly specialized knowl edge" and the position, however, a minimum entry requirement of a 
degree in disparate fields, such as philosophy and engineering, would not meet the statutory 
requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)," unless the petitioner 
establishes how each field is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular 
position such that the required body of highly specialized knowledge is essentially an amalgamation 
of these different specialties. Section 214(i) (l )(B) (emphasis added). 
Moreover, we also agree that, if the requirements to perform the duties and job responsibilities of a 
proff ered position are a combination of a general bachelor's degree and experience such that the 
standards at both section 214(i) (l )(A) and (B) of the Act have been satisfied, then the proffered 
position may qualify as a specialty occupation. We do not find, however, that the U.S. district court 
is stating that any position can qualify as a specialty occupation based solely on the claimed 
requirements of a petitioner. 
Instead, USCIS must examine the actual employment requirements, and, on the basis of that 
examination, determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. See generally 
Def ensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 38 4. In this pursuit, the critical element is not the title of the 
position, or the fact that an employer has routinely insisted on certain educational standards, but 
whether performance of 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 a 
specific specialty as the minimum for entry into the occupation as required by the Act. 
In addition, the district court judge does not state in Tapis Int' l v. INS that, simply because there is 
no specialty degree requirement for entry into a particular position in a given occupational category, 
USCIS must recognize such a position as a specialty occupation if the beneficiary has the equivalent 
of a bachelor's degree in that field. In other words, we do not find that Tapis Int'l v. INS stands for 
either (1) that a specialty occupation is determined by the qualifications of the beneficiary being 
petitioned to perform it; or (2) that a position may qualify as a specialty occupation even when there 
is no specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry into a particular position in a given 
occupational category. 
First, USCIS cannot determine if a particular job is a specialty occupation based on the 
qualifications of the beneficiary. A beneficiary's credentials to perform a particular job are relevant 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 19 
only when the job is first found to qualify as a specialty occupation. USCIS is required instead to 
follow long- standing legal standards and determine first, whether the proffered position qualifies as 
a specialty oc cupation, and second, whether an alien beneficiary was qualified for the position at the 
time the nonimmigrant visa petition was filed. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assoc. , 19 I&N Dec. 
55 8, 560 (Comm'r 19 88 ) ("The facts of a beneficiary's background only come at issue after it is 
found that the position in which the petitioner intends to employ him falls within [a specialty 
occupation] ."). 
Second, in promulgating the H-1B regulations, the former INS made clear that the definition of the 
term "specialty occupation" could not be expanded "to include those occupations which did not 
require a bachelor's degree in the specific specialty." 56 Fed. Reg. 61111, 61112 (Dec. 2, 1991). 
More specifically, in responding to comments that "the definition of specialty occupation was too 
severe and would exclude certain occupations from classification as specialty occupations, " the 
former INS stated that "[t]he definition of specialty occupation contained in the statute contains this 
requirement [for a bachelor's degree in the specific specialty or its equivalent] " and, therefore, "may 
not be amended in the final rule." !d. 
We have also reviewed the petitioner's citation to Residential Fin. Corp. v. USCIS, for the 
proposition that "'[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is what is important. Diplomas 
rarely come bearing occupation-specific majors. What is required is an occupation that requires 
highly specialized knowledge and a prospective employee who has attained the credentialing 
indicating possession of that knowled ge. "' 
We agree with the aforementioned proposition that " [ t ]he knowledge and not the title of the degree 
is what is important." However, upon review of the totality of the record, the petitioner here has not 
met its burden and established that the particular position off ered in this matter requires a bachelor's 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, directly related to the duties it describes in 
order to perform those duties. We recognize that the petitioner here desires an employee with a 
strong sports-related background. However, the petitioner does not substa ntiate that only a 
bachelor's degree in the field of education, physical education or kinesiology would provide the 
specialized knowledge to perform the duties it ascribes to the proffered position. 
We also observe that the petitioner has not furnished evidence to establish that the facts of the 
instant petition are analogous to those in Tapis Int' l v. INS or Residential Fin. Cor p. v. USCIS.9 We 
also note that, in contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case law of a United States 
circuit court, we are not bound to follow the published decision of a United States district court in 
9 It is noted that the district judge's decision in the Residential Fin. Corp. v. USCIS case appears to have been 
based largely on the many factual errors made by the service center in its decision denying the petition. We 
further note that the service center director's decision was not appealed to this office. Based on the district 
court's findings and description of the record, if that matter had first been appealed through the available 
administrative process, we may very well have remanded the matter to the service center for a new decision 
for many of the same reasons articulated by the district court if these errors could not have been remedied by 
our de novo review of the matter. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 20 
matters ansmg even within the same district. See Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715 (BIA 
1993 ). Although the reasoning underlying a district judge's decision will be given due consideration 
when it is properly before this office, the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of 
law. ld. at 719. 
IV. PRIOR APPROVALS 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that it had previously filed seven petitions for six different coaches 
seeking H-1B classifi cation and that in all those cases, the academic requirements for the positions 
are identical. The petitioner claims that the six coaches had a suitable bachelor's degree or higher 
and relevant work experience that qualified the individual for the position. The petitioner indicates 
that these individuals had bachelor's degrees in Sports Administration, Health and Human 
Performance, Education, and master's degrees in Kinesiology and Exercise Physiology. The 
petitioner notes that each of those cases was approved for H -1 B classifica tion. 
We first note that the Director's decision does not indicate whether USCIS reviewed the prior 
approvals of the other nonimmigrant petitions. However, if the previous nonimmigrant petitions 
were approved based on the same unsupported assertions that are contained in the current record, 
the approvals would constitute material and gross error on the part of the Director. We are not 
required to approve petitions where eligibi lity has not been demonstrated, merely because of prior 
approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g. Matter of Church Scientology International, 
19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). It would be "absurd to suggest that [USCIS] or any agency 
must treat acknow ledged errors as binding precedent." Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. Montgo mery, 825 F.2d 
1084 , 1090 (6th Cir. 198 7), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (19 88). 
Second, we reiterate that in this matter, the petitioner has not met its burden in establishing that the 
position proff ered here in the instant matter qualifies as a specialty occupation for the reasons set 
out above. The record of proceeding does not include sufficient probative evidence to establish that 
the proffered position requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly 
specialized knowledge, and the attainment of a baccal aureate or higher degree in the specific 
specialty or its equivalent as the minimum for entry into the occupation, as required by the Act. 
V. BENEFICIARY'S QUALIFICATIONS 
We do not need to examine the issue of the beneficiary's qualifications, because the petitioner has 
not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
In other words, the beneficiary's credentials to perform a particular job are relevant only when the 
job is found to be a specialty occupation. As discussed in this decision, the petitioner did not 
submit sufficient evidence regarding the proffered position to determine whether it will require a 
baccal aureate or higher degree in a specific speci alty or its equivalent. Absent this determination 
that a baccal aureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform 
the duties of the proff ered position, it also cannot be determined whether the beneficiary possesses 
that degree, or its equivalent. Therefore, we need not and will not address the beneficiary's 
qualifications further, except to note that, in any event, the beneficiary's Bachelor of General 
(b)(6)
Page 21 
Studies degree conferred by 
specific specialty. 
10 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
is not a U.S. bachelor's degree in a 
Even if we considered the beneficiary's general studies degree combined with his work experience, 
the record is insufficient to establish that the beneficiary possesses the equivalent of a U.S. 
baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty. Specifically, as any claimed equivalency would be 
based in part on experience, there is insufficient evidence that the work experience has been 
evaluated by an evaluator who has authority to grant college-level credit for training and/or 
experience in the specialty at an accredited college or university which has a program for granting 
such credit based on an individual's training and/or work experience and that the beneficiary also 
has recognition of expertise in the specialty through progre ssively responsible positions directly 
related to the specialty. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4), 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(h)(4)(iii)( D)(l), (5). 
As such, since evidence was not presented that the beneficiary has at least a U.S. bachelor's degree 
in any specific specialty, or its equivalent, the petition could not be approved even if eligibility for 
the benefit sought had been otherwise established. 
VI. CONCLUSION 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibili ty for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 13 61; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 12 8 
(BIA 2013 ). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied. 
10 
A copy of the beneficiary's 
bachelor's degree in general studies. Further, 
beneficiary's last six of ten semesters at 
studies major. 
diploma indicates that he was awarded a 
a copy of the beneficiary's transcript indicates that the 
_ were completed as a general