dismissed H-1B Case: Transportation & Shipping

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-T -, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 25,2015 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an "International Transportation & Shipping" company, seeks to employ the 
Beneficiary as a "Training & Development Specialist - Airfreight" 1 and to classify him as a 
nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation. See section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) ofthe Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The matter is now before us on 
appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The Director denied the petition, finding that the evidence of record did not establish that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The record of proceeding before us contains the following: (1) the Form I-129 and supporting 
documentation; (2) the Director's request for additional evidence (RFE); (3) the Petitioner's 
response to the RFE; (4) the Director's letter denying the petition; and (5) the Form I-290B, Notice 
of Appeal or Motion, and supporting documentation. 
Upon review of the entire record of proceeding, we find that the evidence of record does not overcome 
the Director's basis for denying this petition. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
I. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
The primary issue is whether the evidence of record has demonstrated by a preponderance of the 
evidence that the Petitioner will employ the Beneficiary in a specialty occupation position? 
1 The Labor Condition Application (LCA) submitted by the Petitioner in support ofthe petition was certified for use with 
a job prospect within the "Training and Development Specialists" occupational classification, SOC (O*NET/OES) Code 
13-1151, a Level I (entry-level) prevailing wage rate, the lowest of the four assignable wage-levels. 
2 The "preponderance of the evidence" standard requires that the evidence demonstrate that the applicant's claim is 
"probably true," where the determination of "truth" is made based on the factual circumstances of each individual 
case. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010) (citing Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77,79-80 (Comm'r 
1989)). 
Matter of S- T-, Inc. 
A. Legal Framework 
For an H -1 B petition to be granted, the Petitioner must provide sufficient evidence to establish that it 
will employ the Beneficiary in a specialty occupation position. To meet its burden of proof in this 
regard, the Petitioner must establish that the employment it is offering to the Beneficiary meets the 
applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) states, in pertinent part, the following: 
Specialty occupation means an occupation which [ (1)] requires theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in fields of human 
endeavor including, but not limited to, architecture, engineering, mathematics, 
physical sciences, social sciences, medicine and health, education, business 
specialties, accounting, law, theology, and the arts, and which [(2)] requires the 
attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as 
a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, a proposed position 
must meet one of the following criteria: 
(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 a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
2 
Matter of S-T-, Inc. 
As a threshold issue, it is noted that 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must logically be read together 
with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). In other words, this regulatory 
language must be construed in harmony with the thrust of the related provisions and with the statute 
as a whole. SeeK Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) (holding that construction 
of language which takes into account the design of the statute as a whole is preferred); see also COlT 
Independence Joint Venture v. Federal Sav. And Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989); 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 v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 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)(l) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(ii), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) consistently interprets the 
term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered position. See 
Royal Siam Corp. v. Cherto.ff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1 51 Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in 
a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular 
position"). Applying this standard, USCIS regularly approves H -1 B petitions for qualified aliens 
who are to be employed as engineers, computer scientists, certified public accountants, college 
professors, and other such occupations. These professions, for which petitioners have regularly been 
able to establish a minimum entry requirement in the United States of a 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-1B 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 alien, 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 nor an employer's self-imposed standards, but whether the position actually requires 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty as the minimum for entry into 
the occupation, as required by the Act. 
3 
Matter of S-T-, Inc. 
B. The Proffered Position 
In the Form I-129, the Petitioner indicated that it wishes to employ the Beneficiary as a training and 
development specialist on a full-time basis. In the support letter, the Petitioner provided the 
following information regarding the duties of the proffered position: 
Primarily the Training & Development Specialist will plan, organize, and direct a 
wide range of training activities while responding to corporate and worker service 
requests, as well as customer feedback and market trends. He must consult with 
onsite supervisors regarding available performance improvement services, conduct 
orientation sessions and arrange on-the-job training for new employees. He must 
help all employees maintain and improve their job and interpersonal skills and 
prepare for new services and product roll-outs. 
In order to identify and assess the training meets of our company, the Training & 
Development Specialist must confer with managers and supervisors to conduct 
surveys and evaluate training effectiveness to ensure that employee training programs 
meet the strategic business goals of our company and ensuring that exemplary 
customer service is provided on a consistent and regular basis. 
The Petitioner also stated that it requires a "Bachelor's Degree or its equivalent in Business 
Administration, Shipping, Logistics, Transportation, Industrial Management or a similar field" for 
the proffered position. 
In the RFE response letter, the Petitioner provided the following job description: 
A Training & Development Specialist performs vital functions that will ensure that 
our company will run more efficiently, increase sales, customer service levels, 
productivity, and efficiently distribute its financial resources. He will create and roll 
out specific training programs to help workers improve job skills while monitoring 
the effectiveness of such training programs. He will create and/or update training 
manuals, where necessary, and develop training procedures specific to the department 
he is assigned to. In order to identify and assess the training needs, he will not only 
monitor staff productivity directly, but confer with managers and supervisors to 
evaluate the training effectiveness and ensure that employee training programs meet 
the strategic business goals of our company. He will ensure that through proper 
training in the department(s) to which he is assigned, customer service is at an 
optimum level and is consistent throughout the shipping process. Through this 
training, he will ensure that all employees maintain and improve their job and 
interpersonal skills and prepare for new services and product roll-out. When new 
services or products are introduced, he will create training plans specific to his 
department(s) and train the staff on any new or updated company policies, 
procedures, etc. Below is a list of the position's duties, including level of 
4 
Matter of S- T-, Inc. 
responsibility, hours per week of work, and the percentage of time to be spent on each 
duty: 
• Design and develop training programs to help workers maintain or improve their 
job and interpersonal skills (8 hours - 20% ); 
• Create or update training procedure manuals, guides and course materials, such as 
department standard operating procedures for current and new services and 
products (8 hours - 15% ); 
• Communicate with management, supervisors and staff and monitor and evaluate 
training program effectiveness and efficiency. Assess training needs through 
surveys, interviews, etc. with management, staff and even customers and agents. 
Adjust/alter training programs as needed to provide the highest quality and 
knowledgeable staff, customer service, productivity, etc. possible (1 0 hours -
25%); 
• Conduct training sessions for new and current employees based on needs 
expressed by management, new product roll-outs, customer feedback, 
productivity, efficiency and research results (12 hours- 30%); 
• Monitor training costs to ensure maintenance of training budget and prepare 
reports for department management and supervisors (4 hours- 10%)[.] 
C. Analysis 
Considering the totality of all of the Petitioner's duty descriptions, we find that the evidence of record 
does not establish the depth, complexity, or level of specialization, or substantive aspects of the matters 
upon which the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary will engage. Rather, the duties of the proffered 
position, and the position itself, are described in relatively generalized and abstract terms that do not 
relate substantial details about either the position or its constituent duties. For example, the Petitioner 
states that the Beneficiary will "plan, organize, and direct a wide range of training activities" without 
providing details concerning the Beneficiary's specific duties with regard to planning, organizing, and 
directing training activities. Nor does the Petitioner provide details regarding the specifics of the 
training activities. The abstract nature of the proposed duties is further illustrated by the Petitioner's 
statement that the Beneficiary "must help all employees maintain and improve their job and 
interpersonal skills." The Petitioner does not explain the Beneficiary's actual tasks in helping 
employees with such matters. Similarly, in describing the Beneficiary's duties in its RFE response 
letter, counsel states that the Beneficiary would "monitor training costs," but provides no details in 
what monitoring training costs involve. Nor does counsel provide information regarding frequency 
and the type of reports the Beneficiary would prepare for the management. 
Furthermore, some descriptions of the proffered position that have been submitted in the RFE 
response letter rely on the generic duties of a training and development specialist similar to those 
appear in the Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Information Network (O*NET). 
Providing generic job duties for a proffered position similar to ones listed in O*NET is generally not 
sufficient for establishing H-IB eligibility. That is, while this type of description may be appropriate 
5 
Matter of S-T-, Inc. 
when defining the range of duties that may be performed within an occupational category, it 
generally cannot be relied upon by a petitioner when discussing the duties attached to specific 
employment for H-1B approval as this type of generic description does not adequately convey the 
substantive work that the Beneficiary will perform within the Petitioner's business operations. In 
establishing a position as qualifying as a specialty occupation, a petitioner must describe the specific 
duties and responsibilities to be performed by a beneficiary in the context of the Petitioner's business 
operations, demonstrate a legitimate need for an employee exists, and substantiate that it has H -1 B 
caliber work for the Beneficiary for the period of employment requested in the petition. 
Thus, as so generally described, we find that the descriptions do not illuminate the substantive 
application of knowledge involved or any particular educational attainment associated with such 
application. The duties as described give very little insight to actual tasks that the Beneficiary would 
perform on a day-to-day basis. Furthermore, we find that the Petitioner has not supplemented the job 
and duty descriptions with documentary evidence establishing the substantive nature of the work that 
the Beneficiary would perform, whatever practical and theoretical applications of highly specialized 
knowledge in a specific specialty would be required to perform such substantive work, and whatever 
correlation may exist between such work and associated performance-required knowledge and 
attainment of a particular level of education, or educational equivalency, in a specific specialty. 
In the instant case, the Petitioner has not described the proffered position with sufficient detail to 
determine that the minimum requirements are a bachelor's degree in a specialized field of study. It 
is incumbent on the Petitioner to provide sufficient evidence to establish that the particular position 
that it proffers would necessitate services at a level requiring both the theoretical and practical 
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and the attainment of at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. When "any person makes an application for a visa or 
any other document required for entry, or makes an application for admission, [ ... ] the burden of 
proof shall be upon such person to establish that he is eligible" for such benefit. Section 291 of the 
Act; see also Matter a/Treasure Craft ofCal?fornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972). 
Without a meaningful job description, the record lacks evidence sufficiently concrete and 
informative to demonstrate that the proffered position requires a specialty occupation's level of 
knowledge in a specific specialty. The tasks as described do not communicate (1) the actual work 
that the Beneficiary would perform, (2) the complexity, uniqueness and/or specialization of the 
tasks, and/or (3) the correlation between that work and a need for a particular level education of 
highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. 
The record therefore does not establish the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the 
Beneficiary, which therefore precludes a finding that the proffered position satisfies any criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A), because it is the substantive nature of that work that determines 
(1) the normal minimum educational requirement for the particular position, which is the focus of 
criterion 1; (2) industry positions which are parallel to the proffered position and thus appropriate for 
review for a common degree requirement, under the first alternate prong of criterion 2; (3) the level 
of complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position, which is the focus of the second alternate 
Matter of S-T-, Inc. 
prong of criterion 2; ( 4) the factual justification for a petitioner normally requiring a degree or its 
equivalent, when that is an issue under criterion 3; and (5) the degree of specialization and 
complexity of the specific duties, which is the focus of criterion 4. 
Nevertheless, we will analyze the duties as described and the evidence of record to determine 
whether the proffered position as described would qualify as a specialty occupation. To that end and 
to make our determination as to whether the employment described above qualifies as a specialty 
occupation, we tum first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
A baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is 
normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position 
USCIS recognizes the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook 
(Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements ofthe wide variety 
of occupations that it addresses. 3 The Petitioner asserted in the LCA that the proffered position falls 
under the occupational category "Training and Development Specialists." We reviewed the section 
of the Handbook regarding this occupational category, including the section entitled "How to 
Become a Training and Development Specialist," which states the following: 
Training and development specialists need a bachelor's degree, and most need related 
work experience. 
Education 
Training and development specialists need a bachelor's degree. Specialists can come 
from 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 or the social sciences, such as educational or 
organizational psychology. 
In addition, as technology continues to play a larger role in training and development, 
a growing number of organizations seek candidates who have a background in 
information technology or computer science. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., 
Training and Development Specialists, available at http://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and­
financial/training-and-development-specialists.htm#tab-4 (last visited Sep. 17, 20 15). 
3 All of the references are to the 2014-2015 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
http://www.bls.gov/OCO/. The excerpts of the Handbook regarding the duties and requirements of the referenced 
occupational category are hereby incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
Matter of S-T-, Inc. 
The Handbook does not state that a baccalaureate or higher degree, in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the proffered position. To the 
contrary, the Handbook specifically states that specialists "can come from a variety of education 
backgrounds." According to the Handbook, many specialists have a bachelor's degree in training 
and development, human resources, education, or instructional design while others may have a 
degree in business or the social sciences, such as educational or organizational psychology. 
Accordingly, as the Handbook indicates that working as a training and development specialist does 
not normally require at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for entry into 
the occupation, it does not support the proffered position as being a specialty occupation. 
In its support letter, the Petitioner states that the proffered position requires a "Bachelor's degree or 
its equivalent in Business Administration, Shipping, Logistics, Transportation, Industrial 
Management or a similar field." Even if established by the evidence of record, which it is not, the 
requirement of a bachelor's degree in business administration is inadequate to establish 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 and closely to the 
position in question. Since there must be a close correlation between the required specialized studies 
and the position, the requirement of a degree with a generalized title, such as business, without 
further specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of Michael 
Hertz Associates, 19 I&N Dec. 558 (eomm'r 1988). In addition to demonstrating that a job requires 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of specialized knowledge as required by section 
214(i)(l) of the Act, a petitioner must also establish that the position requires the attainment of a 
bachelor's or higher degree in a specialized field of study or its equivalent. As explained above, 
users interprets the supplemental degree requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) as requiring 
a degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. users has 
consistently stated that, although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business 
administration, may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, 
without more, will not justify a finding that a particular position qualifies for classification as a 
specialty occupation. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Cherto.ff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st eir. 2007). 
It is incumbent upon the Petitioner to provide persuasive evidence that the proffered pos1t10n 
qualifies as a specialty occupation under this criterion, notwithstanding the absence of Handbook 
support on the issue. The regulation at 8 e.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iv) provides that "[a]n H-1B petition 
involving a specialty occupation shall be accompanied by [ d]ocumentation ... or any other required 
evidence sufficient to establish ... that the services the beneficiary is to perform are in a specialty 
occupation." Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of So.ffzci, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 
165 (eomm'r 1998) (citing Matter ofTreasure Craft ofCal?fornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l eomm'r 
1972)). 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted a copy of the DOL's O*NET Summary Report for 
13-1151.00. On appeal, counsel states that the summary report indicates that the position "regularly 
requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree, and sometimes even higher." Under the subsection 
Matter of S-T-, Inc. 
titled "Education," O*NET states that "[m]ost of these occupations require a four-year bachelor's 
degree, but some do not." Moreover, O*NET does not state that a degree must be in a spec?fic 
specialty. Therefore, O*Net does not support the Petitioner's assertion that the proffered position is 
a specialty occupation. 
Counsel also cites Residential Fin. Corp. v. US. Citizenship & Immigration Services, 839 F. Supp. 
2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012), asserting that "the court rejected agency interpretation because it would 
preclude any position form satisfying the 'specialty occupation' requirement where a specific degree 
was not available in that field." Counsel continues to state that the Petitioner requires a bachelor's 
degree in specific fields of study that are relevant to the industry. Counsel further cites the 
Handbook's educational requirements for the training and development specialists. 
As discussed above, the Handbook states that some individuals who enter this occupational category 
have degrees in, among other fields, business, human resources, education, social sciences, and 
computer sciences. 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 business and social sciences, 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). For the 
aforementioned reasons, however, the Petitioner has not met its burden to establish that the particular 
position offered in this matter requires a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, directly related to its duties in order to perform those tasks. 
In any event, counsel has furnished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition are 
analogous to those in Residential Fin. Corp. v. US Citizenship & Immigration Services. 4 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 Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715 (BIA 1993 ). Although 
the reasoning underlying a district judge's decision will be given due consideration when It IS 
properly before us, the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of law. Id. at 719. It is 
4 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 service center in its 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. 
9 
Matter of S- T-, Inc. 
important to note that in a subsequent case that was reviewed in the same jurisdiction, the court 
agreed with our analysis of Residential Fin. Corp. See Health Carousel, LLC v. US. Citizenship & 
Immigration Services, 2014 WL 29591 (S.D. Ohio 2014). 
The Petitioner also submits a copy of Tapis Int'l v. INS, 94 F. Supp. 2d 172 (D. Mass. 2000). We 
note that in Tapis Int 'I v. INS, the U.S. district court found that while the former Immigration and 
Naturalization Service (INS) was reasonable in requiring a bachelor's degree in a specific field, it 
abused its discretion by ignoring the portion of the regulations that allows for the equivalent of a 
specialized baccalaureate degree. According to the U.S. district court, INS's interpretation was not 
reasonable because then H-1B visas would only be available in fields where a specific degree was 
offered, ignoring the statutory definition allowing for "various combinations of academic and 
experience based training." Tapis Int 'I 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 1 77. 
We agree with the district court judge in Tapis Int'l v. INS, that in satisfying the specialty occupation 
requirements, both the Act and the regulations require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or 
its equivalent, and that this language indicates that the degree does not have to be a degree in a single 
specific specialty. However, as discussed above, 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 disparate fields, such as business and social sciences, would not meet the statutory 
requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)," unless the Petitioner 
establishes how each field is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular 
position such that the required body of highly specialized knowledge is essentially an amalgamation 
of these different specialties. Section 214(i)(l)(B) (emphasis added). 
In addition, the district court judge does not state in Tapis Int 'I v. INS 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 Int'l v. INS stands for 
either (1) that a specialty occupation is determined by the qualifications of the Beneficiary being 
petitioned to perform it; or (2) that a position may qualify as a specialty occupation even when there 
is no specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry into a particular position in a given 
occupational category. 
First, USers cannot determine if a particular job is a specialty occupation based on the qualifications 
of the Beneficiary. A beneficiary's credentials to perform a particular job are relevant only when the 
job is first found to qualify as a specialty occupation. users is required instead to follow long­
standing legal standards and determine first, whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation, and second, whether an alien beneficiary was qualified for the position at the time the 
nonimmigrant visa petition was filed. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assoc., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 
10 
Matter of S-T-, Inc. 
(Comm'r 1988) ("The facts of a beneficiary's background only come at issue after it is found that 
the position in which the Petitioner intends to employ him falls within [a specialty occupation]."). 
Second, in promulgating the H-1B regulations, the former INS made clear that the definition of the 
term "specialty occupation" could not be expanded "to include those occupations which did not 
require a bachelor's degree in the specific specialty." 56 Fed. Reg. 61111, 61112 (Dec. 2, 1991 ). 
More specifically, in responding to comments that "the definition of specialty occupation was too 
severe and would exclude certain occupations from classification as specialty occupations," the 
former INS stated that "[t]he definition of specialty occupation contained in the statute contains this 
requirement [for a bachelor's degree in the specific specialty or its equivalent]" and, therefore, "may 
not be amended in the final rule." !d. 
Again, the Petitioner has furnished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition are 
analogous to those in Tapis Int 'l v. INS. 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 Matter 
of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. at 715. 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 oflaw. !d. at 719. 
Counsel further refers to an unpublished decision in which we determined that the position of film 
and video director proffered in that matter qualified as a specialty occupation. However, counsel has 
furnished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition are analogous to those in the 
unpublished decision. While 8 C.F .R. § 103 .3( c) provides that our precedent decisions are binding 
on all USCIS employees in the administration of the Act, unpublished decisions are not similarly 
binding. 
In the instant case, the Petitioner has not established that the proffered position falls under an 
occupational category for which the Handbook, or other authoritative source, indicates that normally 
the minimum requirement for entry is at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). 
The requirement of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel 
positions among similar organizations 
Next, we will review the record of proceeding regarding the first of the two alternative prongs of 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). This prong alternatively calls for a petitioner to establish that a 
requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common for 
positions that are identifiable as being (1) in the Petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered 
position, and also (3) located in organizations that are similar to the Petitioner. 
II 
Matter of S-T-, Inc. 
Here and as already discussed, the evidence of record does not establish that the Petitioner's proffered 
position is one for which the Handbook reports an industry-wide requirement for at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. Also, there are no submissions from professional 
associations in the Petitioner's industry attesting that individuals employed in positions parallel to the 
proffered position are routinely required to have a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent for entry into those positions. 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides letters from two companies. While the names of these companies 
suggest that they conduct business in the shipping industry, the authors provide no information 
regarding the nature of their business, nor do they claim that operate within the same industry as the 
Petitioner. 5 Moreover, these letters provide no insight into how similar these companies are to the 
Petitioner. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the duties of the positions discussed in these letters 
parallel those of the proffered position. Therefore, these letters are insufficient to demonstrate that of a 
bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common for positions that are 
identifiable as being (1) in the Petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered position, and also (3) 
located in organizations that are similar to the Petitioner. 
We will next address the job advertisements submitted by the Petitioner. The record of proceeding 
contains copies of 18 job advertisements in support of the Petitioner's assertion that its claimed 
degree requirement is common to the Petitioner's industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations. However, upon review of the documents, we find that the Petitioner's reliance on the 
job advertisements is misplaced. 
In the Form I-129 petition, the Petitioner describes itself as a 440-employee international 
transportation and shipping company established in 1988. The Petitioner states that its gross annual 
income is over $54 million and its net annual income is over four million dollars. 
For the Petitioner to establish that an organization in its industry is similar, it must demonstrate that 
the Petitioner and the organization share the same general characteristics. Without such evidence, 
documentation submitted by a petitioner is generally outside the scope of consideration for this 
criterion, which encompasses only organizations that are similar to the Petitioner. When 
determining whether the Petitioner and the advertising organization share the same general 
characteristics, such factors may include information regarding the nature or type of organization, 
and, when pertinent, 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 conducts business in the same industry without providing a legitimate 
basis for such an assertion. 
5 Furthermore, both letters state that they require a bachelor's degree in business administration or equivalent for the 
position. Please refer to the discussion regarding a degree requirement in business addressed in the first criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
12 
(b)(6)
Matter of S- T-, Inc. 
Upon review, we find that the record does not demonstrate that a requirement of a bachelor's or 
higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common for positions that are identifiable 
as being (1) in the Petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered position, and (3) located in 
organizations that are similar to the Petitioner. 6 
For example, the Petitioner submitted advertisements from (a consulting and 
staffing company) , (a global development firm that specializes in 
education, economic growth, democratic institutions, and stabilization), 
(a staffing company), (a chain of grocery stores), (a 
healthcare staffing company), (a staffing company), (a staffing company), and 
(a staffing company). The advertisements also include unidentified companies. 
The Petitioner did not state which aspects or traits (if any) it shares with the advertising 
organizations. Without further information, the advertisements do not appear to involve 
organizations that operate in the Petitioner's industry that are also similar to the Petitioner, and the 
Petitioner has not provided any probative evidence to suggest otherwise. The Petitioner did not 
supplement the record of proceeding to establish that the advertising organit:ations are similar to it. 
Moreover, these advertisements do not appear to involve parallel positions. For example, both 
positions with require five to ten years of experience; the position with the 
requires two to five years of experience; the position with 
requires at least seven years of experience; the position with requires three to five 
years of experience; the position with requires a minimum of three years of experience in 
sales; the position with requires a minimum of five years of experience; the position with 
requires a minimum of eight years of experience ; and the 
position with requires a minimum of five years or more experience. However, the 
Petitioner designated the proffered position as a Level I position on the LCA. As we will discuss 
later, individuals occupying positions within this wage level are expected to have only a basic 
understanding of the occupation and perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of 
judgment. The advertised positions appear to involve more senior positions than the proffered 
position. More importantly, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the primary duties and 
responsibilities of the advertised positions are parallel to those of the proffered position. 
As the documentation does not establish that the Petitioner has met this prong of the regulations, 
further analysis regarding the specific information contained in each of the job postings is not 
necessary. That is, as the evidence does not establish that similar organizations in the same industry 
routinely require at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for parallel 
positions, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. 7 
6 See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
7 
It must be noted that even if all of the job postings indicated that a requirement of a bachelor ' s degree in a specific 
specialty is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations (which they do not), the Petitioner 
fails to demonstrate what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn fi·om the advertisements with regard to 
determining the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations . See 
13 
Matter of S-T-, Inc. 
Thus, based upon a complete review of the record, we find that the Petitioner has not established that 
a requirement for at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common for 
positions that are identifiable as being (1) in the Petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered 
position, and also (3) located in organizations that are similar to the Petitioner. Thus, for the reasons 
discussed above, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by 
an individual with a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a ·specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
In the instant case, the Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative complexity or uniqueness as an 
aspect of the proffered position of training and development specialist. Specifically, the record does 
not demonstrate how the training and development specialist position described requires the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge such that a bachelor's 
or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent is required to perform them. 
This is further evidenced by the LCA submitted by the Petitioner in support of the instant petition. 
The LCA indicates a wage level at a Level I (entry) wage, which is the lowest of four assignable 
wage levels. 8 Without further evidence, the evidence does not demonstrate that the proffered 
position is complex or unique as such a position falling under this occupational category would 
likely be classified at a higher-level, such as a Level III (experienced) or Level IV (fully competent) 
position, requiring a significantly higher prevailing wage. 9 For example, a Level IV (fully 
generally Earl Babbie, The Practice ofSocial Research 186-228 (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 195-196 (explaining that "[r ]and om 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"). 
8 The wage-level of the proffered position indicates that (relative to other positions falling under this occupational 
category) the Beneficiary is only required to have a basic understanding of the occupation; that he will be expected to 
perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; that he will be closely supervised and his work 
closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and that he will receive specific instructions on required tasks and 
expected results. 
9 The issue here is that the Petitioner's designation of this position as a Levell, entry-level position undermines its claim 
that the position is particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same 
occupation. Nevertheless, it is important to note that a Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position 
from classification as a specialty occupation. In certain occupations (doctors or lawyers, for example), an entry-level 
position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for 
14 
Matter of S-T-, Inc. 
competent) position is designated by DOL for employees who "use advanced skills and diversified 
knowledge to solve unusual and complex problems." 10 The evidence of record does not establish 
that this position is significantly different from other positions in the occupational category such that 
it refutes the Handbook's information that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent is not required for the proffered position. 
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 has not satisfied the second 
alternative prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The employer normally requires a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it 
normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. To 
this end, we review the Petitioner's past recruiting and hiring practices, as well as information 
regarding employees who previously held the position, and any other documentation submitted by a 
petitioner in support of this criterion of the regulations. 
To merit approval of the petition under this criterion, the record must establish that a petitioner's 
imposition of a degree requirement is not merely a matter of preference for high-caliber candidates 
but is necessitated by performance requirements of the position. While a petitioner may assert that a 
proffered position requires a specific degree, that statement alone without corroborating evidence 
cannot establish the position as a specialty occupation. Were USCIS limited solely to reviewing a 
petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, then any individual with a bachelor's degree could 
be brought to the United States to perform any occupation as long as the Petitioner artificially 
created a token degree requirement, whereby all individuals employed in a particular position 
possessed a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty, or its equivalent. See De.fi:msor 
v. Meissner, 201 F.3d at 388. 
To satisfy this criterion, the evidence of record must show that the specific performance 
requirements of the position generated the recruiting and hiring history. A petitioner's perfunctory 
declaration of a particular educational requirement will not mask the fact that the position is not a 
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 2 I 4(i)(l) of the Act. 
1
° For additional information regarding wage levels as defined by DOL, see U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training 
Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available 
at http://www. foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _ll_ 2009.pdf 
15 
Matter of S-T-, Inc. 
specialty occupation. USCIS must examine the actual employment requirements, and, on the basis 
of that examination, determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. See 
generally 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 the 
specific specialty as the minimum for entry into the occupation as required by the Act. 
The Petitioner submitted several of its employees' resumes, degrees, and Forms W-2. We find that 
information contained in these documents is not sufficient to demonstrate the positions held by these 
individuals were the same as, or even similar to, the position proffered to the Beneficiary. We also 
note varying salaries paid to these individuals and master's degrees held by some of them raise 
questions as to whether the positions held by these individuals are the same as the proffered position. 
Furthermore, it is unclear how accurate a snapshot this information presents, as the Petitioner did not 
provide information establishing how many of these positions exist. Moreover, the Petitioner's own 
assertions regarding the acceptability of a bachelor's degree in business administration demonstrate 
that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, is not required. Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that it normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent for the proffered position, it does not satisfy 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
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 in a spec?fic specialty, or its equivalent 
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. 
Upon review of the record of the proceeding, we find that the Petitioner has not provided sufficient 
probative evidence to satisfy this criterion of the regulations. In the instant case, relative 
specialization and complexity have not been adequately developed by the Petitioner as an aspect of 
the proffered position. That is, the proposed duties have not been described with sufficient 
specificity to establish that they are more specialized and complex than positions in the occupational 
category that are not usually associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
We further incorporate our earlier discussion and analysis regarding the duties of the proffered 
position, and the designation of the proffered position in the LCA as a Level I position (of the lowest 
of four assignable wage-levels) relative to others within the occupational category. Without more, 
the position is one not likely distinguishable by relatively specialized and complex duties. That is, 
without further evidence, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that its proffered position is one with 
16 
Matter of S-T-, Inc. 
specialized and complex duties as such a position would likely be classified at a higher-level, such as 
a Level III (experienced) or Level IV (fully competent) position, requiring a substantially higher 
·1· II prevm mg wage. 
The Petitioner has submitted inadequate probative evidence to satisfy this criterion of the 
regulations. Thus, the Petitioner has not established that the duties of the position are 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. We 
therefore, conclude that the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
For the reasons related in the preceding discussion, the Petitioner has not established that it has 
satisfied any ofthe criteria at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) and, therefore, it cannot be found that 
the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The appeal will be dismissed.
12 
II. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter o[Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 20 13). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofS-T-, Inc., ID# 13816 (AAO Sept. 25, 2015) 
11 As previously discussed, a Level IV (fully competent) position is designated by DOL for employees who "use 
advanced skills and diversified knowledge to solve unusual and complex problems" and requires a significantly higher 
wage. 
12 As the grounds discussed above are dispositive of the Petitioner's eligibility for the benefit sought in this matter, we 
will not address and will instead reserve our determination on the additional issues and deficiencies that we observe in 
the record ofproceeding with regard to the approval ofthe H-18 petition. 
1'"7