dismissed H-1B Case: Technology Sales

/ 
MATTER OF V-B- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB.22,2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a technology news and event organizer company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "sales manager" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified 
foreign worker in a position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body 
of highly specialized knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the 
specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief: asserting that it has established that the proffered position 
is a specialty occupation. 
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.P.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: 
Matter of V-B- Inc. 
(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). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has consistently 
interpreted the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any 
baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed 
position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Cherto.ff; 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. PROFFERED POSITION 
In the H-IB petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a sales manager and 
described the duties of the position. According to the initial filing, "[t]he minimum academic 
requirement for this position is a [b]achelor's degree in [b]usiness, or a related field." In response to 
the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided the following regarding the 
position: 
JOB DUTIES %of time on 
each duty 
Define areas in Sales department that need improvement for events, 10% 
research, and design solutions 
Analyze sales statistics gathered by staff to determine sales 10% 
potential and inventory requirements and monitor the preferences of 
customers 
Develop and motivate a small team 10% 
Build relationships through in-person meetings/events/meet-ups, as 10% 
well as over the phone 
Develop and maintain ongomg relationships with corporate, 10% 
advertising, and PR communities 
Design, deliver[,] and execute marketing strategies and 10% 
presentations to internal and external teams 
2 
Matter of V-B- Inc. 
Plan, direct, or coordinate the actual distribution or movement of a 20% 
product or service to the customer, which in turn generates revenue 
for [the Petitioner]. 
Work with clients through a standard process: client marketing 10% 
needs analysis, targeting consumer needs, finding solutions, and 
follow-up 
Coordinate sales distribution by estab 1 i shing sales territories, 10% 
quotas, and goals and establish training programs for sales 
representatives 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualities as a specialty occupation. 1 
As a threshold issue, it is noted that 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must logically be read together 
with section 214(i)(1) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). In other words, this regulatory 
language must be construed in harmony with the thrust of the related provisions and with the statute 
as a whole. SeeK Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281,291 (1988) (holding that construction 
oflanguage which takes into account the design of the statute as a whole is preferred); see also COlT 
Independence Joint Venture v. Fed. Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989); 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 Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387. 
To avoid this result, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must therefore be read as providing supplemental 
criteria that must be met in accordance with, and not as alternatives to, the statutory and regulatory 
definitions of specialty occupation. As such and consonant with section 214(i)( 1) of the Act and the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii), USCIS consistently interprets the term "degree" in the 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any baccalaureate or higher degree, but one 
in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered position. See Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 
147. 
On appeal, the Petitioner cites to Residential Finance Corp. v. USCIS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. 
Ohio 2012), for the proposition that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(A)(l) does not require a 
degree in a "specific specialty." Specifically, the Petitioner cites from the case that "[t]he 
knowledge and not the title of the degree is what is important. Diplomas rarely come bearing 
1 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each ofthe criteria individually. 
3 
Matter of V-B- Inc. 
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 knowledge." 
We agree with the aforementioned proposition that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is 
what is important." In general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry and 
biochemistry, a minimum of a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty is recognized 
as satisfying the "degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)" requirement of section 
214(i)(l )(B) of the Act. In such a case, the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" would 
essentially be the same. Since there must be a close correlation between the required "body of 
highly specialized knowledge" and the position, however, a minimum entry requirement of a degree 
in two disparate fields, such as philosophy and engineering, 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) of the Act (emphasis added). 
However, the Petitioner has not established that the proffered position requires a bachelor's or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. As noted, in the initial filing, the Petitioner indicated 
that the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree in business or a related field. As discussed 
supra, USCIS interprets the degree requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to require a degree 
in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. Although a general-purpose 
bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business, may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular 
position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify a finding that a particular position 
qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147. 
We also note that the Petitioner has not fumished any evidence to establish that the facts of the 
instant petition are analogous to those in Residential Finance.2 Further, 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 matters arising even within the same 
district. See Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715, 719-20 (BIA 1993). 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. !d. 
Again, the Petitioner in this matter claims that the duties of the proffered position can be performed 
by an individual with only a general-purpose bachelor's degree, i.e., a bachelor's degree in business. 
2 It is noted that the district judge's decision in that case appears to have been based largely on the many factual errors 
made by the Director in the decision denying the petition. We further note that the Director's decision was 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 
for many of the same reasons articulated by the district court if these errors could not have been remedied by us in our de 
novo review of the matter. 
( 
4 
Matter of V-B- Inc. 
Without more, this assertion alone indicates that the proffered position is not in fact a specialty 
occupation. 
Moreover, it also cannot be found that the proffered position is a specialty occupation because the 
Petitioner has not satisfied any of the supplemental, additional criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties requue an 
educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 3 
A. First Criterion 
We tum first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J), 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. 
To determine whether a particular position normally requires a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, as the minimum requirement tor entry into the particular position, 
we recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as 
an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations 
that it addresses.4 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Sales Managers" (corresponding 
to the Standard Occupational Classification code 11-2022). 5 In pertinent part, the Handbook states 
that "[m]ost sales managers have a bachelor's degree, although some have a master's degree. 
Educational requirements are less strict for job candidates who have signiticant work experience. 
Courses in business law, management, economics, accounting, tinance, mathematics, marketing, and 
statistics are advantageous." 6 / 
3 
The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position and its business qperations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
4 All of our references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not, however, maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant 
information. That is, the occupational category designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the 
general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered position, and USC IS regularly reviews the Handbook on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. To satisfy the first criterion, however, 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. 
5 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to USCIS to demonstraty that it will pay an H-1 B 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 experience and qualifications who are performing the same 
services. See Matter ofSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 545-546 (AAO 20 15). 
6 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/sales-managers.htm#tab-4 (last visited Feb. 15, 20 17). 
5 
Matter of V-B- Inc. 
The Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, is 
normally required for entry into this occupation. That is, while the Handbook states that "[ m ]ost 
sales managers have a bachelor's degree," it does not state whether the bachelor's degree must be in 
·a spec?fic specialty, and if so, which specific specialty. In addition, the Handbook states that courses 
in a wide range of subjects including business law, management, and economics are "advantageous." 
However, the Handbook does not state that such courses are required. or that these courses 
cumulatively lead to a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 
Contrary to the Petitioner's assertions on appeal, the information found in the Occupational 
Information Network (O*NET) Summary Report for the sales managers occupational classification 
(a copy of which the Petitioner submitted) does not establish that the proffered position satisfies this 
criterion either. Specifically, O*NET makes no mention of the specific field of study from which a 
degree must come. In other words, although O*NET indicates that most, but not all, of these 
positions require at least a bachelor's degree (through its Job Zone Four rating), it does not indicate 
whether these bachelor's degrees come from a spec?fic specialty, and if so, which specific specialty.7 
Similarly, the occupation's Specific Vocational Preparation (SVP) rating is not probative of the 
proffered position being a specialty occupation, as these ratings are meant to indicate only the total 
number of years of training required for a particular position, but do not describe how those years are 
to be divided among training, formal education, and experience, and do not specify the particular 
type of degree, if any, that a position would require. 8 
In light of the above, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J). 
B. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs: "The degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or. in the alternative, an employer may 
show that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong 
contemplates the 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. 
For more information about Job Zone ratings, see O*NET Online Help Job Zones, 
https://www.onetonline.org/help/online/zones (last visited Feb. 15, 20 17). 
8 For more information about SVP ratings, see O*NET Online Help Specific Vocational Preparation (SVP), 
https://www.onetonline.org/help/online/svp (last visited Feb. 15, 20 17). 
6 
Matter of V-B- Inc. 
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; \Vhether 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, fl;lc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 
1999) (quoting Hird!Blaker Corp. v. Sava. 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook, or another authoritative source, reports a requirement of at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. In fact, the Petitioner acknowledges that "[b]oth the OOH 
[the Handbook] and the O*NET job description for [s]ales [m]anager do not specify a specific 
specialty." Rather, the Petitioner continues to assert that a degree in a specific specialty is not 
required. Thus, we incorporate by reference the previous discussion on the matter. 
Although the Petitioner did not submit any information from a professional association or letters or 
affidavits from similar firms or individuals in the Petitioner's industry, it did submit several job 
announcements posted by other companies to assert that "the [ s ]ales [ m ]anager position remains one 
that requires a bachelor's degree as a minimum requirement." The postings do not, however, 
establish this. For example, the posting from Jolt indicates that a "[b]achelor's [d]egree in business, 
marketing, or a related field" is "a plus," but does not state that it is required. Further, for those 
postings that do indicate a degree requirement, they either do not require a degree in a specific 
specialty or they require one in a variety of fields, including landscape architecture, engineering and 
. 9 sc1ence. 
As discussed, since there must be a close correlation between the required "body of highly 
specialized knowledge" and the position, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in two 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 hmv 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) of the Act (emphasis added). If a sales manager can hold a \Vide variety of 
degrees in disparate fields, such as business and engineering, then this indicates that the proffered 
position does not require a degree in a specific specialty and, therefore, the requirement of a 
bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty is not common to the industry in parallel positions 
among similar organizations. 
9 
The Petitioner does not demonstrate what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from these job postings 
with regard to the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations in the 
industry. See generalZv Earl Babbie. The Practice of Social Research 186-228 (7th ed. 1995). Moreover, given that 
there is no indication that the advertisements were randomly selected, the validity of any such inferences could not be 
accurately determined even if the sampling unit were sufficiently large. See id. at 195-96 (explaining that "[r]andom 
selection is the key to [the] process [of probability sampling]" and that "random selection offers access to the body of 
probability theory, which provides the basis for estimates of population parameters and estimates of error"). 
(b)(6)
Matter of V-B- Inc. 
Further, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that these other companies 
are similar to the Petitioner. For the Petitioner to establish that an organization is similar, it must 
demonstrate that it shares the same general characteristics with the advertising organization, which 
may be demonstrated by factors such as the nature or type of organization, the particular scope of 
operations, as well as the level of revenue and Staffing (to list just a few elements that may be 
considered). It is not sufficient for the Petitioner to claim that an organization is similar and in the 
same industry without corroborating evidence. The Petitioner must support its assertion with 
relevant, probative, and .credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 
2010). 
The Petitioner also submitted an advisory opinion letter from an associate 
dean of academic affairs at the We reviewed the opinion letter in its 
entirety. Although the Petitioner repeats the assertion that specialty occupations do not require a 
degree in a specific field, it relies on the opinion letter to "establish[] that the common industry 
standards for a Sales Manager is a Bachelor's degree in Sales and Marketing, or Sales 
Management," or a related field. The degree information r from O*NET, the Handbook, the 
Petitioner;s stated requirement and the job postings is not consistent with the evaluation submitted. 
It is incumbent upon the Petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent 
objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless 
the Petitioner submits-competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 
19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). As such, we find that opinion letter lends 
little probative value. Matter o.(Caron Jnt'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (providing that 
an adjudicator is not required to accept, or may give less weight to, an advisory opinion when it is 
"not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable."). 
The Petitioner has not, therefore, satisfied the criterion of the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(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. 
The Petitioner again relies on the opinion letter from but there is no indication that 
possesses any knowledge of the Petitioner's proffered position beyond the limited 
information provided by the Petitioner in support of the instant petition. He did not demonstrate or 
assert in-depth knowledge of the Petitioner's specific business operations or how the duties of the 
position would actually be performed in the context of the Petitioner's operations. There is no 
indication that visited the Petitioner's business, observed or interviewed the 
Petitioner's employees, or documented the knowledge applied on the job. opmwn 
does not relate his conclusions to specific , concrete aspects of this Petitioner's business operations to 
8 
(b)(6)
_.J 
Matter of V-B- Inc. 
demonstrate a sound factual basis for the conclusion about the educational requirements for the 
particular position here at issue. The author's omission of such important factors significantly 
diminishes the evidentiary value of his assertions. 
In addition, there is no indication that he has conducted any research or studies pertinent to the 
educational requirements for sales manager positions in the Petitioner 's industry , and no indication 
of recognition by professional organizations that he is an authority on those specitic requirements . 
does not reference, cite, or discuss any studies, surveys, industry publications , 
authoritative publications, or other sources of empirical information which he may have consulted to 
complete his evaluation. Without further clarification, it is unclear how his education, training, skills 
or experience would translate to expertise regarding the current industry standards for an enterprise 
such as the Petitioner's. Again, we find that letter is not probative evidence to satisfy 
the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 10 
We must also note the Petitioner's designation of a Level I wage (the lowest of four assignable 
wage-levels). 11 If typical positions located within the occupational category do not require a 
bachelor's ·degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, then it is unclear how the proffered 
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 light of the above, 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 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 the actual performance requirements of the position. The record does not 
establish this. 
1° 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. 
11 The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" issued by the DOL provides a description of the wage levels. 
A Level I wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic 
understanding of the occupation. This wage rate indicates: (I) that the Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine 
tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that she will be closely supervised and her work closely 
monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that she will receive specific instructions on required tasks and expected 
results. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing 11/age Determination Polic_v Guidance, Nonagric. 
Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://flcdatacenter.com /download /NPWHC _Guidance _ Revised_!! 
_2009.pdf A prevailing wage determination starts with an entry level wage and progre
sses to a higher wage level after 
considering the experience , education, and skill requirements of the Petitioner 's job opportunity . /d. 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter of V-B- Inc. 
We note that the Petitioner contends that it "has required a degree or its equivalent for the position," 
but does not indicate a specific specialty. Further, while the Petitioner submitted copies of the 
profiles of two individuals that it claims to have employed, the Petitioner did not submit 
additional documentary evidence to corroborate their claimed credentials or employment status with 
the Petitioner. Moreover, the profiles indicate that one individual holds a bachelor's 
degree in English, and the other individual holds a bachelor's degree in English and American 
literature. While the Petitioner claims that the individuals have attained relevant experience, the 
Petitioner did not substantiate the record with documentary evidence. Again, the Petitioner must 
support its assertion with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 
376. 
Without more, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that it normally 
requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the proffered 
position. Therefore, it has not satisfied the third criterion of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
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. 
The Petitioner again relies on letter. For the same reasons we discussed under the 
second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), findings and ultimate 
conclusions are of limited evidentiary value in this proceeding and, therefore, are not sufficient to meet 
this criterion. 
We also incorporate our earlier 
discussion and analysis regarding the designation of the position as a 
Level I position. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated in the record that its protlered position is one with duties 
sufficiently specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
IV. BENEFICIARY'S QUALIFICATIONS 
As the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the proffered position is a specialty occupation, we need 
not fully address other issues evident in the record. That said, we wish to identify an additional issue 
to inform the Petitioner that this matter should be addressed in any future proceedings. 
Specifically, the record does not currently demonstrate that the Beneficiary's combined education 
and work experience is the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. While the 
claimed equivalency is based in part on experience, the record does not establish (1) that the 
evaluator has authority to grant college-level credit for training and/or experience in the specialty at 
10 
Matter C?f V-B- Inc. 
an accredited college or university with a program for granting such credit, or (2) that the 
Beneficiary's expertise in the specialty is recognized through progressively responsible positions 
directly related to the specialty. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4) and (D)(l). 
V. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not satisfied one ofthe criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), and therefore has 
not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The burden is on the Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofV-B- Inc. ID# 205605 (AAO Feb. 22, 2017) 
11