dismissed H-1B Case: Talent Agency

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 8428091 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : WL Y 1 7, 2020 
The Petitioner , a talent and literary agency, seeks to extend the Beneficiary's temporary employment as 
a "talent agent" under the H-1 B nonirnmigrant classification for specialty occupations. Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § l 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) . The H-lB 
program allows a U.S . employer to temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a position that 
requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge 
and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty ( or its equivalent) as a 
minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The matter is now before us 
on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . 1 
We review the questions in this matter de novo.2 Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. 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) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation : 
1 Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofCha wathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
2 See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . 
( I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We construe the term "degree" to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal 
Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in a 
specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular 
position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Specifically, the record (1) does not describe the position's duties with sufficient detail; and (2) does 
not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate 
with a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will be employed as a "talent agent" and provided a job 
description that consisted of ten bullet points. In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) 
and on appeal, the Petitioner provided additional descriptions in paragraph form. 3 
A. First Criterion 
We tum first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(]), which requires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Agents and Business Managers of 
Artists, Performers, and Athletes" corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 13-
3 The Petitioner submitted documentation to suppmt the H-1 B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered position 
and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each 
one. 
2 
1011. 4 We generally consider the information contained in the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) 
Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) regarding the duties and educational requirements of 
the wide variety of occupations it addresses, 5 however, there are occupational categories which the 
Handbook does not cover in detail, and instead provides only summary data. 6 The subchapter of the 
Handbook titled "Data for Occupations Not Covered in Detail" states, in relevant part, that the "[t]ypical 
entry-level education" for a variety of occupations within the category of "[b]usiness and financial 
operations occupations" is a "Bachelor's degree," without indicating that the bachelor's degree must be 
in a specific specialty. 7 Thus, the Handbook is not probative in establishing that these positions comprise 
an occupational group for which the normal minimum requirement for entry is at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
The Petitioner also references the DOL's O*NET summary report for "Agents and Business Managers 
of Artists, Performers, and Athletes." The O*NET Summary Report does not establish that a bachelor's 
degree in a spec[fic specialty, or the equivalent, is normally required. It provides general information 
regarding the occupation, but it does not support a conclusion that the proffered position requires a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent. 
Instead, O*NET assigns these positions a "Job Zone Four" rating, which states "most of these occupations 
require a four-year bachelor's degree, but some do not." Moreover, the Job Zone Four designation does 
not indicate that any academic credentials for Job Zone Four occupations must be directly related to the 
duties performed. In addition, the specialized vocational preparation (SVP) rating designates this 
occupation as 7 < 8. An SVP rating of 7 to less than("<") 8 indicates that the occupation requires "over 
2 years up to and including 4 years" of training. While the SVP rating indicates the total number of years 
of vocational preparation required for a particular position, it is important to note that it does not describe 
how those years are to be divided among training, experience, and formal education. The SVP rating also 
does not specify the particular type of degree, if any, that a position would require. 8 Further, although 
the summary reports provide the educational requirements of "respondents," it does not account for 100% 
of the "respondents." Moreover, the respondents' positions within the occupation are not distinguished 
by career level ( e.g., entry-level, mid-level, senior-level). Finally, the graph in the summary report does 
not indicate that the "education level" for the respondents must be in a specific specialty. For all of these 
reasons, O*NET does not establish the proffered position as a specialty occupation. 
4 A petitioner submits the LCA to DOL to demonstrate that it will pay an H-lB worker the higher of either the prevailing 
wage for the occupational classification in the area of employment or the actual wage paid by the employer to other 
employees with similar duties, expenence, and qualifications. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 
20 C.F.R. § 655.73l(a). 
5 We do not maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source ofrelevant information. 
6 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook. Data for Occupations Not Covered in 
Detail, "Business and financial operations occupations," https://www.bls.gov/ooh/about/data-for-occupations-not­
covered-in-detail.htm#Management%20occupations (last visited Jul. 16, 2020). Here, the Handbook does not provide 
specific information for the various occupations which might be classified within the occupational category. 
7 The Handbook also indicates that this occupation does not require typical on-the-job training. Id. 
8 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/ 
help/online/svp. 
3 
The Petitioner references information contained at CareerOneStop.com in support of its arguments, 
however this resource does not state that a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific field is required. 9 
While, the site states that individuals in positions within this occupational category ''usually" have a 
bachelor's degree, it does not state that this degree is required, nor does it state that the bachelor's degree 
must be in a specific specialty. Instead, the site lists possible programs that can prepare a person for such 
an occupation, but it does not indicate that the programs comprise an exhaustive or exclusive list or that 
such programs are required in order to enter the occupation. The Occupation Profile lists degree 
"[p ]rograms that can prepare you" for these types of positions. However, the H-1B statute uses the 
word requires, not the phrase can prepare: "the term 'specialty occupation' means an occupation that 
requires .... " 10 The terms are not interchangeable. To analogize, a medical degree can prepare 
someone to teach a middle school biology course, but that does not mean the degree was required. 
CareerOneStop specifically states that "these are not requirements for entering this field, but the 
information can help you understand how qualified you might be." If CareerOneStop is not even 
intended to address "the requirements for entering this field," then by virtue of its own self-limiting 
language, CareerOneStop would seem irrelevant to the question at hand. 
Moreover, we reviewed the survey data contained in the site and conclude that, similar to O*NET, the 
respondents' positions within the occupation are not distinguished by career level (e.g., entry-level, mid­
level, senior-level), which is relevant in determining the requirements to enter into the occupation. 
Furthermore, the graph and percentages do not indicate that the "education level" for the respondents 
must be in a specific specialty. Therefore, CareerOneStop does not establish the proffered position as a 
specialty occupation. 
Also in support of its arguments, the Petitioner cites to various court opinions. Initially, we 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 decisions of a United States district courts in matters arising even within 
the same district. 11 Although the reasoning underlying a district judge's decision will be given due 
consideration when it is properly before us, the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of 
law. 12 
The Petitioner cites to RELX, Inc. v. Baran 13 to support its argument that a position may be specialized 
even when the position permits more than one specific specialty for entry into it. As the foregoing 
discussion demonstrates, while we agree that the bachelor's degree does not have to be a degree in a 
single specific specialty, we do not agree with the analytical framework set forth by the RELX court. 
In RELX, the court did not address the statutory and regulatory provisions as they pertain to the 
requirement that the bachelor's degree, or its equivalent, be in a spec[fic specialty. To avoid restricting 
the qualifying occupations to those for which a single, specific specialty exists, the court did not 
consider the requirement for specialization and overlooked that neither the Handbook nor O*NET 
9 CareerOneStop for the occupational category of "Agents and Business Managers of Artists, Performers, and Athletes" 
can be accessed at https://www.careeronestop.org/site-search.aspx?keyword=talent%20agent (last visited Jul. 16, 2020). 
10 INA§ 214(i)(l) 
11 See Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715, 719-20 (BIA 1993). 
12 Id. 
13 RELX, Inc. v. Baran, 397 F.Supp.3d 41 (D.D.C. Aug. 5, 2019). 
4 
stated that for the occupational category in question the referenced bachelor's degree must be in a 
specific specialty. In overlooking this relevant detail, the court disposed of the precedential authority 
created by Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff 4and continued to do so when it examined the evidence 
presented for the other criteria. As such, we disagree with its conclusion that the petitioner in the 
RELX case had sufficiently shown that its particular position was one in which a bachelor's degree in 
a specific specialty is required. 
We also disagree with the court's statement that "[the Petitioner] did not just make a general reference 
to O*NET. Rather, [the Petitioner] stated that the Data Analyst position is aligned with the DOL's 
"Business Intelligence Analyst" position for which there is a detailed description that is directly 
relevant to the inquiry of whether the position is specialized." 15 While we agree that O*NET is 
relevant, the court's treatment of O*NET as dispositive simply because the proffered position aligned 
with the occupational category disregards the spec[fic specialty analysis that underpins Royal Siam 
Corp. The RELX court further stated that "[s]ince the [Handbook] indeed does provide specific 
detailed information regarding educational requirements for the computer operations category, and the 
detailed information states most of the occupations require a four-year bachelor's degree, the agency's 
rationale was both factually inaccurate and not supported by the record." 16 Here, again the court did 
not undertake the proper inquiry regarding the specific educational requirements of the position and 
instead regards a general requirement for a bachelor's degree as sufficient to discharge the petitioner's 
burden. 
As is the case here, because the Handbook and O*NET do not describe the normal mm1mum 
educational requirements with sufficient specificity to establish that the positions falling within the 
occupational category are specialized, a petitioner cannot rely on them to establish eligibility. As 
such, a petitioner must show that its particular position is one for which a bachelor's degree is normally 
required, as well as how the stated field( s) of study directly relate to the performance of the duties. In 
other words, though we agree that the bachelor's degree does not have to be a degree in a single 
specific specialty, this agreement is predicated upon the fields of study being closely related to the 
duties of the position and a petitioner providing sufficient evidence of such relation. Here, as discussed 
throughout this decision, the record does not sufficiently establish the duties and requirements for the 
proffered position, which undermines the Petitioner's claims regarding the minimum qualifications 
for entry into the particular position. 17 
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 
14 Royal Siam COip., 484 F.3d 139 at 147 (describing "a degree requirement in a specific specialty" as "one that relates 
directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular position"). 
15 RELX Inc., 397 F.Supp.3d at 54. 
16 Id. 
17 The record must establish that a petitioner's stated degree requirement is not a matter of preference for high-caliber 
candidates but is necessitated instead by performance requirements of the position. See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. 
Were we limited solely to reviewing a petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, an organization could bring any 
individual with a bachelor's degree to the United States to perform any occupation as long as the petitioning entity created 
a token degree requirement. Id. 
5 
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 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. 18 For the foregoing reasons, we cannot agree with the 
reasoning contained in the RELX decision 19 and therefore conclude that the Petitioner's reliance upon 
the case does not support its eligibility. 20 
As previously discussed with regard to the instant case, the Handbook does not individually address 
the various positions within the occupational category and only generally states that the typical entry­
level education is a bachelor's degree. Likewise, O*NET simply states "[m]ost of these occupations 
require a four-year bachelor's degree, but some do not." Neither source specifies whether the various 
occupations within that category require the referenced bachelor's degree to be in a specific specialty. 
On appeal, the Petitioner cites to a district court case, Raj and Co. v. USCIS, 21 and claims that it is 
relevant here. We reviewed the decision; however, the Petitioner has not established that the duties 
and responsibilities, level of judgment, complexity, supervisory duties, independent judgment, or 
amount of supervision in that case are analogous to the position proffered here. 22 There is little 
indication that the positions are similar. 
Further, in Raj, the court stated that a specialty occupation requires the attainment of a bachelor's 
degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The court confirmed that this issue is well­
settled in case law and with the agency's reasonable interpretation of the regulatory framework. In 
the decision, the court noted that "permitting an occupation to qualify simply by requiring a 
generalized bachelor degree would run contrary to congressional intent to provide a visa program for 
specialized, as opposed to merely educated, workers." The court stated that the regulatory provisions 
do not restrict qualifying occupations to those for which there exists a single, specifically tailored and 
titled degree program; but rather, the statute and regulations contain an equivalency provision. 23 
18 Section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act ( emphasis added). 
19 The Petitioner also cited to Residential Finance Co1p. v. USC1S, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012) and Tapis Int'! 
v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 94 F. Supp. 2d 172 (D. Mass. 2000) for the proposition that "there is no apparent 
requirement that the specialized study needed be in a single academic discipline ... The knowledge and not the title of the 
degree is what is important. Diplomas rarely come bearing occupation specific majors." As the Petitioner cited these 
cases for reasons similar to that for which it cites to RELX, we incorporate herein by reference our discussion of closely 
related specialties as it pertains to our analysis of the RELX case. 
20 We further note that the Director's decision in RELXwas not appealed to us. 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 to address many of the concerns a11iculated by the 
district court if they could not have been remedied by us in our de nova review of the matter. 
21 Raj and Co. v. USC1S, 85 F. Supp. 3d 1241 (W.D. Wash. 2015). 
22 We note that the Director's decision was also not appealed to our 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 in our de nova review of the matter. 
23 We agree with the court that a specialty occupation is one that requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree 
in a specific specialty or its equivalent. We further note that a petitioner must also demonstrate that the position requires 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in accordance with section 
6 
In Raj, the court concluded that the employer met the first criterion. We must note, however, that the 
court stated that "[t]he first regulatory criterion requires the agency to examine the generic position 
requirements of a market research analyst in order to determine whether a specific bachelor's degree 
or its equivalent is a minimum requirement for entry into the profession." Thus, the decision misstates 
the regulatory requirement. That is, the first criterion requires the petitioner to establish that a 
baccalaureate or higher degree (in a specific specialty) or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position. 
Consequently, if the court meant to suggest that any position classified under the occupational category 
"Market Research Analysts" would, as it stated, "come within the first qualifying criteria" - we must 
disagree. 24 The occupational category designated by a petitioner is considered as an aspect in 
establishing the general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered position, and USCIS regularly reviews 
the Handbook on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it 
addresses. However, to satisfy the first criterion, the burden of proof remains on the petitioner to 
submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position would normally have a 
minimum, specialty degree requirement or its equivalent for entry. That is, to determine whether a 
particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCIS does not simply rely on a position's title or 
designated occupational category. The specific duties of the proffered position, combined with the 
nature of the petitioning entity's business operations, are factors to be considered. USCIS must 
examine the ultimate employment of the beneficiary and determine whether the position qualifies as 
a specialty occupation. 25 
Nevertheless, it is important to note that the court in Raj determined that the evidence in the record 
demonstrated that the particular position proffered required a bachelor's degree in market research or 
its equivalent as a minimum for entry. Further, the court noted that "[t]he patently specialized nature 
of the position sets it apart from those that merely require a generic degree." The position in Raj can, 
therefore, be distinguished from the instant position. Here, the duties and requirements of the position 
as described in the record of proceeding do not indicate that this particular position proffered by the 
petitioner is one for which a baccalaureate 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). 
B. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs: "The degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show 
that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with 
214(i)(l)(B) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii), and satisfy one of the four criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 2 l 4.2(h )( 4)(iii)(A ). 
24 In Raj, the court quoted a brief excerpt from the Handbook; however, the quotation is from the 2012-2013 edition 
rather than the current 2014-2015 edition (which contains several revisions). Further, we observe that the court did not 
address the section of the Handbook indicating that there are no specific degree requirements to obtain the Professional 
Researcher Certification credential - and therefore to work as a market research analyst. 
25 See generally Defensor. 201 F.3d 384. 
7 
a degree[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong contemplates 
common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific 
position. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
We generally consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there is such a common degree 
requirement: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the industry's 
professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether letters or 
affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry establish that such firms "routinely employ and 
recruit only degreed individuals." 26 
For our consideration under this prong, the Petitioner submitted job vacancy announcements, Linkedln 
and IMDb profiles for positions with other companies, as well as letters from other companies attesting 
that they employ only degreed individuals for their talent agent positions. The Director's decision 
provided a detailed explanation of why the job vacancy announcements and profile printouts did not 
establish an industry standard. On appeal, the Petitioner does not address any specific issues regarding 
the Director's analysis of these vacancy announcements or profile printouts. Because the AAO generally 
does not address issues that are not raised with specificity on appeal and the Petitioner has not addressed 
any specific issues raised by the Director concerning the vacancy announcements or profile printouts, any 
issues concerning them are deemed to be waived. 27 The Petitioner does address specific issues 
concerning the Director's analysis of the company letters from Claire Best & Associates, Verve Talent 
and Literary Agency, as well as Clear Talent Group. Therefore, we limit our discussion of this prong of 
the second criterion to these letters. 
Each letter confirms that across talent agents as an industry and also among the talent agents in each of 
their own companies, there is standard for at least a bachelor's degree in business, communications, or 
marketing. 28 Paradoxically, the Petitioner's own stated required qualifications for its talent agent position 
differ from the requirements stated by the authors of these letters, thereby undermining the Petitioner's 
claims of an industry standard. Furthermore, the statement that a general-purpose bachelor's degree 
(business or business administration) would be sufficient to perform the duties of the talent agent position 
also undermines the Petitioner's claims that positions in the occupational category are specialized. 29 
26 See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D.Minn. 1999) (quoting Hird/Blaker Co1p. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 
1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) ( considering these "factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
27 See, e.g., Matter of M-A-S-, 24 T&N Dec. 762, 767 n.2 (BIA 2009). The courts' view of issue waiver varies from circuit 
to circuit. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (finding that issues not raised in a brief are deemed 
waived); Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (finding that an issue referred to in an affected 
party's statement of the case but not discussed in the body of the brief is deemed waived). 
28 The Claire Best & Associates letter specifically states "business administration," while the other two state "business." 
29 Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147 (a general-purpose bachelor's degree in business may be a legitimate prerequisite for 
a particular position, but such a degree, without more, will not justify a finding that a paiticular position qualifies for 
classification as a specialty occupation). See also Irish Help at Home LLC v. Melville, No. 13-cv-00943-MEJ, 2015 WL 
848977 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 24, 2015), aff'd 679 Fed. App'x 634 (9th Cir. 2017). 
8 
The claims made by the authors regarding the proffered position do not reflect a comprehensive 
knowledge of the specific duties of the proffered position. Though the authors state that their talent agent 
positions are similar to or "indistinguishable" from the proffered position, the information in the letters 
remains general and does not include a detailed examination of the proffered position's specific duties. 
As the authors do not engage in a meaningful discussion of the duties of either their own talent agent 
positions or the proffered position, it cannot be concluded that a degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
For instance, the Claire Best letter states that their talent agents must "tap their network of promoters, PR 
managers, and industry executives to grow our clients' careers." While having marketing and promotion 
knowledge may be helpful to perform this duty, the letter does not explain why such knowledge would 
be required to perform this duty or why the knowledge could not be obtained through study in other 
academic areas or simply life experience in general. At face value, the duty does not appear to be closely 
related to a specific course of study learned in a bachelor's degree program in a specific specialty. Instead, 
the duty appears to be largely personality driven, dependent upon an individual client's needs or the 
people a talent agent knows. 
Likewise, the Verve letter states that talent agents "must analyze industry trends, assess production 
compatibility, [ and] negotiate contract terms and conditions" and that these skills cannot be achieved 
without university level training. In addition to not defining what "production compatibility" means in 
the talent agent context, the author fails to identify any course of study in the qualifying fields that relates 
to the performance of these duties. Further, the author does not explain or sufficiently support its claims 
that the ability to analyze industry trends, for example, can only be learned in a bachelor's degree program 
in business, communications, or marketing. 
In addition to this, the Verve letter provides no meaningful discussion concerning the actual activities of 
a talent agent, but rather makes vague and abstract claims such as, "our talent agent and equivalent 
positions require the successful performance of specialized and complex duties, translating cutting-edge 
ideas into concrete, viable realities." The letter does not identify any specific work that might be 
characterized as a cutting-edge idea or any examples or definitions of "concrete, viable realities," nor does 
the letter explain what duties are specialized and complex and why. 
Similarly, the author of the Clear Talent Group letter merely lists duties and then declares the work to be 
complex, specialized, and unique, without providing adequate support for those assertions. We read that 
talent managers are "responsible for managing their clients' business, financial, and legal affairs," but the 
letter offers no specifics as to what day-to-day activities performance of this duty involves. Moreover, 
the author fails to connect how or why the ability to perform this duty would be learned in a bachelor's 
degree program in, for example, communications, which it previously claimed was one of the qualifying 
fields of study. 
While the authors may draw inferences that certain courses or knowledge obtained through a 
bachelor's degree in communications, marketing, or business may be beneficial in performing certain 
duties of the position, we disagree with the collective inference that a specific degree is required in 
order to perform the duties of a position falling within this occupational category. None of the letters 
offer cogent analysis of how and why the specific duties require any specialized knowledge. 
9 
The similarity of the broad declarations made in the letters and the overall lack of analysis in how each 
author arrived at such conclusions suggests that the authors were asked to confirm preconceived 
notions about an industry standard. Furthermore, without corroborating evidence to establish an actual 
routine in hiring, general statements submitted at the behest of the Petitioner offer little probative value 
in establishing a routine in recruiting and employing only degreed individuals. While we will review 
the opinions presented, they have little value as they are unsupported by specific analysis of the duties 
and educational requirements that dictate the claimed industry standard. 30 We may, in our discretion, 
use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. 31 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. 32 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient probative evidence to establish that a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 2 l 4.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
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. 
Upon review of the totality of the record, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained or documented 
why the proffered position is so complex or unique that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is 
required. When determining whether a position is a specialty occupation, we also look at whether the 
position actually requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge attained through at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific discipline. 
Though the Petitioner claims that the work is specialized due to the high-end or high-profile clientele 
with whom the Beneficiary works, the evidence contained in the record does not support this claim. 
First, merely working with high-profile clientele does not establish that the work itself is specialized. 
Second, though the Petitioner claims several well-known performers as part of its clientele, the 
evidence provided by the Petitioner does not indicate that the Beneficiary will be the talent agent for 
these named performers. Furthermore, when examining the Beneficiary's network, as submitted 
through the IMDb printouts, we observe many miscellaneous crew members and individuals working 
in costume and wardrobe. As production crew members do not generally attract household name 
recognition, the Petitioner then bears the burden of establishing how names such as I I 
I ~ I I' or 1 !would be considered high-profile clients. 
Without further information, these printouts alone do not establish how the Beneficiary works with 
high-profile or high-end clientele. 
30 We hereby incorporate our discussion of these letters into our discussion of the other 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) 
criteria. 
31 Matter of Caron Int'l,Inc., 19 l&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). 
32 Id. 
10 
In examining the work itself, the Petitioner has not explained how tasks such as ( 1) developing a client 
base by establishing communication with client company representatives; (2) providing advice to 
clients on how to stay within their budget; and (3) identifying sources of new talent in concert halls 
would require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge. 
Similarly, the Petitioner stated that the duties include hiring professional staff on behalf of clients; 
collecting fees, commissions, or other payments; and creating financial statements that list earnings 
and expenses. These duties appear to be administrative or clerical in nature and we question whether 
they require any specialized knowledge or skill. Furthermore, to the extent that we can ascertain what 
"helps increase profit through personal appearances" actually involves, we conclude that merely being 
physically present somewhere would not involve specialized knowledge. As described, it appears the 
Beneficiary will not be relieved of performing non-qualifying duties. 
The Beneficiary's work product samples also do not establish a unique or complex position. Much of 
the work product is comprised of contracts and template letters for which the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated the Beneficiary actually wrote in their entirety. Rather, it appears as though the 
documents contain boilerplate contractual terms which the Beneficiary modifies as needed to meet the 
needs of a particular client. Other documents include basic correspondence, personnel forms, and 
waivers. Simply filling in a name or wage into a contract, inserting terms onto a blank line, having a 
client complete a pre-prepared form, or itemizing a costume inventory do not appear to be activities 
so unique or complex that they require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty to perform. 
Though the Petitioner states that these duties cannot be reliably carried out by someone without at 
least a bachelor's degree in entertainment communications, entertainment management, or business 
management, we conclude that the Petitioner has not substantiated its claims with sufficient evidence. 
Accordingly, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown that the 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. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the pos1t10n and references her 
qualifications. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education 
or experience of a particular beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative 
complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position, and it did not identify any tasks 
that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it normally 
requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. To satisfy this 
criterion, the record must establish that the specific performance requirements of the position 
generated the recruiting and hiring history. 
11 
The record must establish that a petitioner's stated degree requirement is not a matter of preference 
for high-caliber candidates but is necessitated instead by performance requirements of the position. 33 
Were U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) limited solely to reviewing the Petitioner's 
claimed self-imposed requirements, then any individual with a bachelor's degree could be brought to 
the United States to perform any occupation as long as the Petitioner created a token degree 
requirement. 34 Evidence provided in support of this criterion may include, but is not limited to, 
documentation regarding the Petitioner's past recruitment and hiring practices, as well as information 
regarding employees who previously held the position. 
The Petitioner submitted a chart of individuals it claims are current or former talent agent employees, 
their job titles, their education levels, along with copies of educational records for some, but not all of 
them. We infer that the Petitioner wishes to demonstrate that its employees have specialized degrees. 
Based on the title of the position, many individuals appear to occupy or have occupied different roles than 
the proffered position. Further, some of the roles appear to be more senior than the proffered position, 
including VP of Literary Talent, Sr. VP of Physical Production, Partner, Business Affairs Executive, and 
VP of Comedy and Touring. 
The record does not include a list of job duties performed by these employees or the job advertisements 
for their positions. Therefore, we do not know what the recruitment process for hiring these individuals 
involved or whether specialized degrees were prerequisites. We are also unable to discern whether these 
individuals have or had the same or similar substantive responsibilities, duties, and performance 
requirements as the proffered position. Though it has been in business since 1962, the Petitioner has not 
provided the total number of people it has employed in the past to serve in the proffered position. 
We acknowledge the Linkedln profiles of various individuals, but this information does not establish that 
the duties of the position require a particular degree. The Petitioner appears to accept a wide range of 
degrees, including theater arts, music, marketing and economics, communications, English literature, and 
business administration-government. As the Director noted, this range suggests that entry into the 
position does not require the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty. This 
mass grouping of degree-fields is simply too broad to support a finding that the proffered position 
meets the definition of a "specialty occupation." 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that these degrees are not disparate fields of study but that they are, 
"in fact, a combination of degrees either in an arts/entertainment discipline with work experience in 
business management or business communication, or the reverse - a combination of degrees in 
business management or business communication, coupled with work experience in arts or 
entertainment." 35 Even if we accept this explanation, the Petitioner has not established how a degree 
in English literature, for example, would meet any of the Petitioner's qualifying combinations. 
33 See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. 
34 Id. 
35 This explanation appears to alter the Petitioner's previously articulated requirements for the position. The Petitioner 
previously stated that the position requires a bachelor's degree in "Entertainment Management, Entertainment 
Communications. Business Management. or a closely related discipline, together with prior professional experience in the 
entertainment industry." As articulated on appeal, the Petitioner states that it accepts business management or business 
communication experience also. 
12 
Furthermore, the Petitioner included "or a closely related discipline" to its original articulation of the 
minimum qualifications, which contemplates that other academic disciplines could qualify. Nevertheless, 
the Petitioner has not adequately explained how the various fields of theater arts, music, marketing and 
economics, communications, English literature, and business administration-government would be 
considered "a closely related discipline" to either each other; to the study of entertainment management, 
entertainment communications, or business management; or to the duties of the proffered position. The 
current record of proceedings does not establish how this wide and divergent range of degrees could 
form either a body of highly specialized knowledge or a specific specialty. 36 
Consequently, no determination can be made about the Petitioner's normal recruiting and hiring practices 
for the proffered position when the submitted employment evidence covers employees with disparate 
degrees who occupy positions that have not been determined to be the same as or similar to the proffered 
one. The Petitioner has not persuasively established that it normally requires at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the proffered position. 
Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
D. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature 
of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
Although some tasks may connote a requirement of familiarity with general business principles, including 
entertainment or arts industry knowledge, the record is insufficient to establish that the duties require 
anything more than a few basic courses and a broad educational background. While a few such courses 
may be beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner, who bears the burden of 
proof: 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 
proffered position. 
For the same reasons we discussed under the second prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one with duties sufiiciently 
specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). We incorporate our earlier 
discussion and analysis on this matter. 
Consequently, the Petitioner has not satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
36 "A position that requires applicants to have any bachelor's degree, or a bachelor's degree in a large subset of fields, can 
hardly be considered specialized." Caremax, Inc. v. Holder, 40 F.Supp.3d 1182, 1187-88 (N.D. Cal. 2014). 
13 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 37 In visa petition proceedings, it is a 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
37 We are not required to approve petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals 
that may have been erroneous. See Matter of Church Scientology Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). It would 
be "absurd to suggest that [USCIS] or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent." Sussex Eng'g, 
Ltd. v. Montgome1y, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987). A prior approval does not compel the approval of a subsequent 
petition or relieve the Petitioner of its burden to provide sufficient documentation to establish current eligibility for the 
benefit sought. Temporary Alien Workers Seeking Classification Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 55 Fed. 
Reg. 2,606, 2,612 (Jan. 26, 1990) (to be codified at 8 C.F.R. pt. 214). 
A prior approval also does not preclude USCTS from denying an extension of an original visa petition based on a 
reassessment of eligibility for the benefit sought. Sec Tex. A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 F. App'x 556 (5th Cir. 
2004). Furthermore, our authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a court of appeals 
and a district court. Even if a service center director had approved the nonimmigrant petitions on behalf of a beneficiary, 
we would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of a service center. See La. Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 
No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *3 (E.D. La. 2000), affd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001). 
14