dismissed H-1B Case: Telecommunications

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF B-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY24,2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a telecommunications retailer, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"corporate trainer" under the H-1 B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 101 (a)( 15)(H)(i)(b ), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(15)(H)(i)(b ). 
The H-!B 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 had not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies for treatment as a specialty 
occupation position. The Director denied a subsequent motion to reconsider. The matter is now 
before us on appeal. 
In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the evidence is sufficient to 
show that the proffered position is a specialty occupation position. 
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: 1 
1 The Petitioner references the statutory definition of a "profession" as defined at section IOI(a)(32) of the Act 
repeatedly. However, whether a position is a "profession" under section I 0 I (a)(32) of the Act is not relevant toward a 
determination of whether it is a specialty occupation. The primary and fundamental difference between qualifying as a 
profession and qualifying as a specialty occupation is that specialty occupations require the U.S. bachelor's or higher 
degree to be in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, although an occupation may be specifically identified as 
qualifying as a profession as that term is defined in section IOI(a)(32) of the Act, that occupation would not necessarily 
qualify as a specialty occupation unless it met the definition of that term at section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
(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 [(I)] requires theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in fields of human 
endeavor including, but not limited to, architecture, engineering, mathematics, 
physical sciences, social sciences, medicine and health, education, business 
specialties, accounting, law, theology, and the arts, and which [(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 quality 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 mJrumum 
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 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 ofW-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 
2 
(b)(6)
Mauer of B-, Inc. 
regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). To avoid this 
result, 8 C.P.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), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) consistently interprets the 
term "degree".in the criteria at 8 C.P.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 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"). 2 Applying this standard, USCIS regularly approves H-1 B petitions for qualified 
individuals 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-lB visa category. 
To determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCIS does not simply 
rely on a position's title. The specific duties of the proffered position, combined with the nature of 
the petitioning entity's business operations , are factors to be considered. USCIS must examine the 
ultimate employment of the individual, and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. The critical element is not the title 
of the position or 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. 
11. PROFFERED POSITION 
In the H-IB petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a "corporate trainer." In 
its support letter, the Petitioner provided the following job duties for the position: 
The Corporate Trainer is required to identifY the educational needs of other 
employees through interviews with .employees and consultation with managers; 
develop and offer formal training programs or classes to help [the Petitioner's] 
employees maintain and improve business development skills; conduct trainings on 
[the Petitioner's] programs, policies and procedures, compliance, 
Products/Services, and Vendor Program Training ( 
etc.); coordinate, implement, and enforce all New Hire Training Programs , including 
2 As such, the Petitioner's assertions to the contrary are not persuasive. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of B-, Inc. 
[the Petitioner's] and vendor training requirements as well as the 
required training; design, plan, coordinate and direct Earn the Right Sales training 
throughout [the Petitioner's organization]; monitor and evaluate the developmental 
the needs of the Sales team; coach and train the Sales team; occasionally travel from 
home office to [the Petitioner's other] .locations for short periods of 1-5 days. 
As to the educational requirements of the proffered position, the Petitioner stated, ''The position 
requires the minimum of a Bachelor's degree in Business Administration, Marketing, or related 
field." On appeal, the Petitioner states that a 
bachelor's degree in "business" would suffice. 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 3 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or 
its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 4 
For example , that the Petitioner would find acceptable a bachelor's degree in business, or business 
administration, with no further specialization precludes a finding that a position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. A petitioner must demonstrate that the proffered position requires a precise 
and specific course. of study that relates directly to the position in question. Since there must be a 
close correlation between the required specialized studies and the position, the requirement of a 
degree with a generalized title, such as business, or business administration, without further 
specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. C.f Mauer of Michael Hertz 
Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). To prove that a job requires the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge as required by section 214(i)(l) of 
the Act, a petitioner must establish that the position requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher 
degree in a specialized field of study or its equivalent. As explained above, USCIS interprets the 
degree requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) to require a degree in a specitic specialty that is 
directly related to the proposed position. USCIS has consistently stated that, although a general-· 
purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business administration, may be a legitimate 
prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify a finding 
that a particular position qualities for classification as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam Corp. v. 
Chertojj~ 484 F.3d at 147. The Director's decision must therefore be affirmed and the appeal 
dismissed on this basis alone. 
3 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
4 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support 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. 
4 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
Nevertheless, we will continue our analysis of whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation for the purpose of performing a comprehensive analysis. We will next discuss the record 
of proceedings in relation to the four criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
A. First Criterion 
We turn first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), 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 inform this inquiry, we recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's 
(DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 5 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Training and Developmental 
Specialists" corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 13-1151.6 
The Handbook states the following about the educational requirements of positions located within 
the "Training and Development Specialists" occupational category: 
Training and development specialists need a bachelor's degree. Specialists may have 
a variety of education backgrounds, but many have a bachelor's degree in training 
and development, human resources, education, or instructional design. Others may 
have a degree in business administration or a social science/ such· as educational or 
organizational psychology. 
5 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 findiilg that its particular position 
would normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for. entry. 
6 
The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level I wage (the lowest of four assignable wage levels). We will 
consider this selection in our analysis of the position. 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 he 
will be closely supervised and his work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that he will receive 
specific instructions on required tasks and expected ·results. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing 
Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _ Guidance_Revised_ll_2009.pdf A prevailing wage determination starts 
with an entry level wage and progresses to a higher wage level after considering the experience, education, and skill 
requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. !d. 
7 According to Webster's II New College Dictionary, the term "social science" is "generally held to include sociology, 
psychology, anthropology, economics, political science, and history." Social science," Webster's II New College 
Dictionary (200 I). 
5 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., 
"Training and Development Specialists," http://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/training­
and-development-specialists.htm#tab-4 (last visited May 23, 2016). 
The Handbook does not indicate that positions located within this occupational category require a 
minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent. That is, although it states 
that those positions require a bachelor's degree, it also states that they may have a degree in a variety 
of subjects, including, though not necessarily limited to, training and development, human resources, 
education, instructional design, business administration or "a" social science. 
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 several disparate fields, such as 
education, business administration, and "a" social science, 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)(1 )(B) of the Act (emphasis added). 
In other words, while the statutory "the" and .the regul~tory "a" both denote a singular "specialty," 
we do not so narrowly interpret these provisions to exclude positions from qualifying as specialty 
occupations if they permit, as a minimum entry requirement, degrees in more than one closely 
related specialty. See section 214(i)( 1 )(B) of the Act; 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(ii). This also includes 
even seemingly disparate specialties providing, again, the evidence of record establishes how each 
acceptable, specific field of study is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular 
position. 
However, in the instant case, the Handbook indicates that a degree in any of a wide array of subjects 
would be a sufficient educational preparation for positions located within the 'Training and 
Development Specialists" occupational category, although those various subjects have not been 
shown to be closely and directly related to the proffered position. As such, the Handbook does not 
appear to support the assertion that such positions require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty or its equivalent. 
The Handbook's statement that an otherwise undifferentiated bachelor's degree in business 
administration may be a sufficient educational preparation for positions located within this 
occupational category serves as further evidence that the proffered position does not satisfy the first 
criterion. As was explained above, an educational requirement that may be satisfied by an otherwise 
undifferentiated bachelor's degree in business administration is not a requirement of a minimum of a 
6 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. Cf Matter of" Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 
I&N Dec. at 558. 
The Petitioner cites to Tapis Int 'I v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 94 F. Supp. 2d 172 (D. 
Mass. 2000). In Tapis, 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-1 B 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 
something equivalent is by studying a related field (or fields) and then obtaining specialized 
experience." !d. at 177. 
We agree with the district court judge in Tapis, 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. However, as discussed, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in disparate 
fields 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). 
Moreover, we also agree that, if the requirements to perform the duties and job responsibilities of a 
proffered 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, users must examine the actual employment requirements, and, on the basis of that 
examination, determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. See generally 
Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. 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 that, simply because there is no specialty 
degree requirement for entry into a particular position in a given occupational category, users 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 stands for either (1) that a 
7 
Matter of B-, Inc, 
specialty occupation is determined by the qualifications of a 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, US CIS cannot determine if a particular job is a specialty occupation based on the qualifications 
of a beneficiary. A beneficiary's credentials to perform a particular job are relevant 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 
occupation, and second, whether the beneficiary was qualified for the position at the time the 
nonimmigrant visa petition was filed. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. at 560 
("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-18 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." Temporary Alien Workers Seeking 
Classification Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 56 Fed. Reg. 61,111, 61,112 (Dec. 2, 
1991) (to be codified at 8 C.F.R. pt. 214). 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. 
In any event, the Petitioner has furnished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition 
are analogous to those in Tapis. 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 matters arising even within the same district. See Matterof"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. 
Further, the Petitioner has not provided documentation from another probative source to substantiate 
its assertion regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. We find that, 
to the extent that they are described in the record of proceedings, the numerous duties that the 
Petitioner ascribes to the proffered position indicate a need for a range of knowledge of planning, 
developing, and coordinating employee training, but do not establish any particular level of formal, 
postsecondary education leading to a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty as minimally 
necessary to attain such knowledge. 
Neither the Handbook nor any other authoritative evidence supports the proposition that the 
occupational category of training and development specialists is one for which normally the 
minimum requirement for entry is a baccalaureate degree (or higher) in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. Even if it did, the record lacks sufficient evidence to support a finding that the particular 
8 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
position proffered here, a Level I, entry-level position, would normally have such a minimum, 
specialty degree requirement or its equivalent. 
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 a degree[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong 
casts its gaze upon. the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
I. 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. 
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 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 
1999) (quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
Here and as already discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for 
which the Handbook (or other independent, authoritative source) reports an industry-wide 
requirement for 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. 
The Petitioner provided three letters written by individuals working for other organizations. One is 
from a leadership and organizational consultant, who stated that a four-year degree in business, 
marketing, or a related field is necessary for the proffered position. Another is from a senior trainer 
at a telecommunications company, who also stated that the proffered position requires a bachelor's 
degree in business, marketing, or a related field. The third is from the vice president for sales of a 
financial services and insurance company, who stated that a corporate trainer position requires a 
four-year degree, but did not indicate that the degree needed to be in a specific specialty. 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter of B-, Inc. 
As was noted above, an educational requirement that may be satisfied by an otherwise unspecified 
degree in business administration is not a requirement of a degree in a specific specialty. As such, 
none of these letters states a requirement of a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty 
or its equivalent, and none therefore provides support for the proposition that the proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation position. 
The Petitioner also submitted job vacancy announcements for positions including corporate trainer, 
curriculum manager, sales trainer, field sales trainer, national sales trainer, training development 
specialist, and training specialist. However, they do not establish that the degree requirement is 
common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. First, we note that the 
Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how representative these job advertisements 
are of the particular advertising employers' recruiting history for the type of jobs advertised. 
Second, some of the firms that placed those vacancy announcements do not appear to conduct 
business within the Petitioner's industry. 8 Additionally, the vacancy announcements do not provide 
sufficient information about the advertising organizations to establish that they are otherwise similar 
to the Petitioner. Without such evidence, these advertisements are generally outside the scope of 
consideration for this criterion, which encompasses only organizations that are similar to the 
Petitioner and in the Petitioner's industry. 
Moreover, the descriptions of responsibilities in the advertisements are generally perfunctory and do 
not provide sufficient information to determine the role the successful applicant will play in the 
advertising organization or the level of responsibility that will be required of the successful 
applicant. 
Also, some of those vacancy announcements state that the posttwns they announce require a 
bachelor's degree, but do not indicate that the requisite degree must be in any specific specialty. 
One of those vacancy announcements states a preference, but not a minimum requirement, for a 
bachelor's degree. 
While some of the announcements state a requirement for a degree or equivalent experience, they do 
not specify the amount and type of experience the hiring authority would consider equivalent to a 
bachelor's degree. As such, whether they require a bachelor's degree or the equivalent within the 
meaning of the salient regulations is unclear. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5). 
Some of those vacancy announcements indicate that the positions announced require a minimum of a 
bachelor's degree, but also indicate that a degree in business with no further specification would 
suffice. Again, an educational requirement that may be satisfied by a degree in business is not a 
requirement for a degree in a specific specialty. 
8 One of those firms is a consulting company. Another is named 
10 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
The Petitioner has specified that the proffered position is a wage Level I position; that is, an entry­
level position. Most of the vacancy announcements, however, state an experience requirement, and 
some require a considerable amount of very specific experience. This suggests that they are not 
positions parallel to the proffered position, and that the educational requirements of those positions 
may not be relevant to the education required by the proffered position in the instant case. 
The advertisements provided establish, at best, that a bachelor's degree is generally required for 
most of the positions posted, but do not establish that they require minimum of a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
Finally, even if all of the vacancy announcements involved parallel positions within organizations 
similar to the Petitioner and in the Petitioner's industry, and also stated a requirement for a minimum 
of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from the announcements provided with 
regard to the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar 
. . 9 
orgamzatwns. 
Thus, the evidence of record does not establish that a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to parallel positions with organizations that are in 
the Petitioner's industry and otherwise similar to the Petitioner. 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. 
A review of the record of proceedings finds that the Petitioner has not credibly demonstrated 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 its duties can only be performed by a person with at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Even when considering the Petitioner's general 
descriptions of the proffered position's duties, the evidence of record does not establish why a few 
related courses or industry experience alone would be insufficient preparation for the proffered 
position. While a few related courses may be beneficial, or even required, in performing certain 
9 USCIS "must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true." Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010}. As discussed, the Petitioner has not established the relevance of the 
submitted job vacancy announcements. However, even if their relevance had been established, the Petitioner still would 
not have demonstrated what inferences, if any, could be drawn from these few job postings with regard to determining 
the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations in the same industry. See 
generally Earl Babbie, The Practice' of Social Research 186-228 (1995). 
11 
Matter of B-. Inc. 
duties of the 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 proffered position. The description of the duties does not 
specifically identify any tasks that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed 
individual could perform them. The record lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish the 
proffered position as more complex or unique from other positions that can be performed by persons 
without at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
This is further evidenced by the LCA submitted by the Petitioner in support of the instant 
petition. As noted above, the Petitioner attested on the submitted LCA that the wage level for the 
proffered position is a Level I (entry-level) wage. 10 In order to attempt to show that parallel 
positions require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent, the 
Petitioner would be obliged to demonstrate that other wage Level I training and development 
specialist positions, entry-level positions requiring only a basic understanding of training and 
development specialist duties, require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its 
equivalent, the proposition of which is not supported by the Handbook. 
Therefore, the evidence of record does not establish that this position is significantly different from 
other positions within the occupational category such that it refutes the Handbook's information to 
the effect that there is a spectrum of degrees acceptable for such positions, including degrees not in a 
specific specialty. As the Petitioner did 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). 
In the appeal brief, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position, and 
references his qualifications. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is 
not the education or experience of a proposed 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). 
10 The issue here is that the Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, 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 
rrom 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)(l) of the Act. 
12 
---- -------- ------------------------- -------------------------
Matter of B-, Inc. 
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. 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 v. Meissner, 201 F.3d at 387-88. Were 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. Jd. 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 has not expressly asserted eligibility under this criterion and the record contains no 
evidence for our consideration under this criterion. We note that the Petitioner has stated that this is 
the Petitioner is hiring for this position for the first time. While a first-time hiring for a position is 
certainly not a basis for precluding a position from recognition as a specialty occupation, it is unclear 
how an employer that has never recruited and hired for the position would be able to satisfy the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J), which requires a demonstration that it normally 
requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for the position. 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that it normally requires at least a 
bachelor's degree, or the equivalent, in a specific specialty for the proffered position. 8 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. 
In the instant case, relative specialization and complexity have not been sutliciently developed by 
the Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. We again refer to our earlier comments and 
findings with regard to the implication of the Petitioner's designation of the proffered position in the 
LCA as a Level I (the lowest of four assignable levels) wage. That is, the Level I wage designation 
is indicative of a low, entry-level position relative to others within the occupational category, and 
hence one not likely distinguishable by relatively specialized and complex duties. Upon review of 
the totality of the record, the Petitioner has not established that the nature of the specific duties is so 
specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with 
the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The 
Petitioner has not demonstrated in the record that its proffered position is one with duties sufficiently 
specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
13 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
IV. 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. In visa petition 
proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013) . 
. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of 8-, Inc., ID# 17161 (AAO May 24, 2016) 
14