dismissed H-1B Case: Video Production

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10547383 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-1B) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 01, 2020 
The Petitioner, a multimedia and video production marketing firm, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "producer" under the H-1B non immigrant classification for specialty occupations.1 The 
H-1B 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 California Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's 
burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a preponderance of the evidence.2 We 
review the questions in this matter de nova. 3 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(I) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(I), 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. 
1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) . 
2 Section 291 of the Act ; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
3 See Matter of Christa's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition but adds a 
non-exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered 
position must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
(4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii i)(A). We construe the term "degree" to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. 4 
11. PROFFERED POSITION 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-1B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Producers and Directors" 
corresponding to the standard occupational classification (SOC) code 27-2012. 5 The Petitioner 
clarifies within its petition that the proffered position is classified as "Producers," SOC code 
27-2012.01, a subcategory under "Producers and Directors." 
The Petitioner states the Beneficiary will be employed as a "producer" and provides the following job 
duties for the position: 6 
I Produce marketing content for [Petitioner's] clients, work with clients' individual 
needs and unique brand images to develop appropriate advertising productions 
[10%]; 
I Coordinate the overall video production process, manage project schedules, work 
with production staff to monitor budgeting, and resource usage [10%]; 
4 See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in a specific 
specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 
201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
5 A petitioner submits the LCA to DOL to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1B worker the higher of either the prevailing 
wage for the occupational classification in the area of employment or the actual wage paid by the employer to other 
employees with similar duties, experience, and qualifications. Section 212(n)(1) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(a). 
6 While we will not quote the entire description for the sake of brevity, we have reviewed and considered it. 
2 
I Determine and direct production for a variety of branding videos including 
short-and long-form commercials, crowdfunding, interviews, and event shooting 
[20%]; 
I Develop marketing plans together with [the Petitioner]'s other creative 
departments, confer with other teams to execute the company's marketing 
strategies through advertising, branding, design, and campaigns [10%]; 
I Write and submit proposals on project plans and specifications, oversee 
production from conception to post-production, ensure proper internal 
communication of project status [10%]; 
I Review video rough cuts, proposed edits, and final cuts to ensure that the content 
tells compelling stories that accurately reflect clients' products and culture [20%]; 
I Monitor post-production processes to ensure a high quality final result, enforce 
company standards throughout the production process [20%]. 
According to the Petitioner, the position requires at least a bachelor's degree in film and television, or 
a related field. 7 
111. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Specifically, the record (1) does not describe the position's duties with sufficient detail; and (2) does 
not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate 
with a specialty occupation. 
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 will consider the information contained 
in the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) regarding the 
duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations it addresses. 8 
The Petitioner asserts the Director erred by finding that the Handbook does not support a normal 
requirement of a degree in a specific specialty for this occupation. However, we note that the 
subchapter of the Handbook entitled "How to Become a Producer or Director" states "most" have a 
7 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-lB 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. 
8 We do not 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. Nevertheless, to satisfy the first criterion, the burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to submit sufficient 
evidence to support a finding that its particular position would normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, 
or its equivalent, for entry. 
3 
bachelor's degree and "study film or cinema in programs at colleges and universities."9 The Handbook 
further states that "other [] producers and directors have degrees in writing, acting, journalism, or 
communications. Some producers earn a degree in business, arts management, or nonprofit 
management. " 10 Thus, the Handbook's report is insufficient to conclude the position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation simply by virtue of its occupational classification.11 Even if the Petitioner had 
established that a bachelor's degree or higher is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the 
particular position, by recognizing that employers hire workers who have degrees in many different 
specialties, the Handbook does not support a claim that a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific 
specialty is a normal, minimum entry requirement for this occupation. The Petitioner disagrees with 
this interpretation of the Handbook, citing to Tapis lnt'I v. INS, 94 F. Supp. 2d 172 (D. Mass. 2000) 
and Residential Finance Corp. v. USCIS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012), to support its claim 
that the first regulatory criterion does not restrict the finding of a specialty occupation position to those 
that have a specifically tailored and titled degree program. 
We agree with the proposition that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is what is 
important."12 However, 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 film and nonprofit management, 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.13 For the aforementioned 
reasons, the Handbook does not support a claim that a bachelor's or higher degree, much less one in a 
specific specialty, is a normal, minimum entry requirement for this occupation and does not, therefore, 
9 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Producers and Directors, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/entertainment-and-sports/producers-and-di rectors.htm (last visited Dec. 1, 2020). 
10 Id. 
11 In its response to the RFE, the Petitioner references the DOL's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) summary 
report for "Producers," SOC code 27-2012.01. The summary report provides general information regarding the 
occupation; however, it does not support the Petitioner's assertion regarding the educational requirements for these 
positions. The Petitioner refers to the specialized vocational preparation (SVP) rating cited within O*NET's Job Zone, 
which designates this occupation as 7 < 8. An SVP rating of 7 to less than ("<") 8 indicates that the occupation requires 
"over 2 years up to and including 4 years" of training. While the SVP rating indicates the total number of years of 
vocational preparation required for a particular position, it is important to note that it does not describe how those years 
are to be divided among training, formal education, and experience - and it does not specify the particular type of degree, 
if any, that a position would require. See the O*NET Online Help webpage available at 
http://www.onetonline.org/help/online/svp. Additionally, the graph in the summary report does not indicate that the 
"education level" for the respondents must be in a specific specialty. See O*NET Online Summary Report for 
"27-2012.00 Producers," https://www.onetonline.org/Archive_ ONET­
SOC_2010_ Taxonomy_09_2020/link/summary/27-2012.00 (last visited Dec. 1, 2020). 
12 Residential Finance Corp., 839 F. Supp. 2d at 997. 
13 See Section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). 
4 
demonstrate that a position so designated is a specialty occupation as defined in section 214(i)(l) of 
the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii).14 
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 first prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), contemplates common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows 
its focus to the Petitioner's specific position.15 To satisfy this first prong, the Petitioner must establish 
that the "degree requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations. 
We generally consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there is such a common degree 
requirement: whether an authoritative source reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the 
industry's professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether 
letters or affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry establish that such firms "routinely employ 
and recruit only degreed individuals."16 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that an authoritative source reports at least 
a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required for the proffered position, and 
we incorporate our previous discussion on this matter. The Petitioner also did not submit evidence 
from an industry professional association indicating such a degree is a minimum requirement for entry 
into the position. 
The Petitioner submitted copies of three job advertisements in the underlying record, and two on 
appeal, as evidence that its degree requirement is standard among its peer organizations for parallel 
positions to the proffered position. However, for the petitioner to establish that an advertising 
organization is similar, it must demonstrate that the petitioner and the organization share the same 
general characteristics. Without such evidence, postings submitted by a petitioner are generally 
outside the scope of consideration for this criterion, which encompasses only organizations 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). 
14 On appeal, the Petitioner states its expert and industry letters satisfy the first criterion but were "discount[ed]" and not 
given "proper consideration" in the Director's analysis. However, these letters do not address whether the proffered 
position categorically qualifies as specialty occupation nor do they refer to an authoritative source to support a minimum 
entry requirement in a specific specialty for the occupation. As the letters do address industry standards and provides some 
analysis of the proffered position's duties, we wi 11 review them under the other regulatory criteria. 
15 As there are arguments and documents submitted in support of the second prong of the second criterion that overlap 
with criterion four, we will analyze these two criteria together. 
16 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) (considering these "factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
5 
While the job advertisements contain a brief description of the companies, these descriptions lack 
enough detail to determine whether the companies are similar to the Petitioner. Of the three companies 
advertising for producers, provided in response to the RFE, the Petitioner indicated two were similar 
in size but not industry and one similar in industry, but not size. This is the extent of the Petitioner's 
analysis of the companies' similarities. Although the Petitioner states the two advertising companies 
submitted on appeal, are "very extremely similar in characteristics," details were not provided on what 
general characteristics "digital marketing" and "animation and visual effects" companies share with 
the Petitioner, a commercial production company providing "branding, design, video, advertising, and 
e-commerce to companies of all sizes." Moreover, such a limited number of postings, which appear 
to have been consciously selected, have little probative value in establishing a common industry 
standard for parallel positions within similar companies.17 
In addition, the job advertisements either state a general requirement for a bachelor's degree without 
specialization, or allow for numerous disparate fields, i.e. fine arts, communications, advertising, art, 
literature, journalism, marketing, film, to be acceptable for entry into the position. Therefore, the 
advertisements do not establish that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, 
as common to the industry. Moreover, it is also not evident that the advertisements would be for 
parallel positions as the job descriptions are not written with sufficient detail. For example, what little 
detail is provided, i.e. the level of experience required, varies from 2 to 10 years, while the Petitioner 
does not have an experience requirement. Even if all of the job postings indicated that a bachelor's or 
higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, were required, the Petitioner has not established 
that the submitted advertisements are relevant in that the posted job announcements are for parallel 
positions in similar organizations in the industry. 
In support of this prong, the Petitioner also submits a letter from _________ as evidence 
of an individual from the industry attesting that similar firms routinely employ and recruit only degreed 
individuals. The author states he has been working in the "commercial industry" for thirteen years18 
and owns a commercial production company "substantially similar" to the Petitioner. The author, 
however, does not explain how his company is similar to the Petitioner's and does not describe his 
experience in the industry. According to the author, the occupation "demands technical and 
specialized knowledge about film, television and arts" and it is the "common practice that a producer 
... have at least a bachelor's degree in film or [t]elevision, [b]usiness [a]dministration, 19 [a]rt or related 
17 See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 (7th ed. 1995). Given that there is no indication 
that the advertisements were randomly selected, the validity of any such inferences could not be accurately determined 
even if the sampling unit were sufficiently large. See id. at 195-96 (explaining that "[r]andom selection is the key to [the] 
process [of probability sampling]" and that "random selection offers access to the body of probability theory, which 
provides the basis for estimates of population parameters and estimates of error"). 
18 The Petitioner includes an online internet profile for! I listing ten years' worth of job titles: marketing 
advertising specialist, production designer, "VP of Content" and creative art director. Neither his letter, nor the record, 
describes his experience, the types of companies he has worked for or the background he is relying on to formulate his 
opmmns 
19 ! ts letter expands upon the Petitioner's previously stated minimum degree requirement for entry into the 
proffered position, specifically recognizing an unspecialized bachelor's degree in business administration as being one of 
the many degrees the author considers as providing adequate preparation to perform the duties of the proffered position. 
However, a bachelor's degree in business administration, with no further specialization, will not justify the granting of a 
6 
fields." The author does not offer corroborating evidence of similar companies' hiring policies within 
the industry and does not explain from where he draws this conclusion.20 Nor does he explain how 
these disparate degrees are directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the occupation so that 
they form a common degree requirement in a specific specialty. Furthermore, one individual's 
uncorroborated letter regarding industry practice is insufficient to establish that there is a common 
requirement for a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty within similar companies in the industry for 
parallel positions. 
The Petitioner also submits an advisory opinion letter from I I PhD, Professor of Film and 
Photography a ________ ~ __ ____.who lends one paragraph to analyze the industry. 
However, his analysis does not define the industry. For this reason, the record is unclear whether the 
professor is referring to companies with the same general characteristics such as size, revenue, and/or 
companies that categorize themselves as commercial production companies similar to the Petitioner 
when describing the industry. For example, the "producers" he mentions are those involved in 
documentary, low-budget independent features and multimillion-dollar epics. The professor's letter 
also does not provide analysis for how the proffered position is parallel to other positions in similar 
organizations in the industry. Most importantly, the professor does not identify a common degree 
requirement for the industry. He states, "[t]he common industry practice is definitely to prefer the 
bachelor's degree and more often, to require it." Other than anecdotal evidence for his students with 
bachelor's degrees, the professor's only corroboration for his statement is reference to an internet job 
search on www.google.com. The professor's opinion letter lacks sufficient detail to support a common 
degree requirement in the industry.21 
Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it normally 
requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. 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 states it hired "one other employee in the same position and he is still with the 
company." The organizational chart shows twenty-two of the Petitioner's forty-five employees, so 
we are not aware of the entire reporting structure and other undepicted positions. Two positions are 
"producers" in the video production department. One of the "producers" is listed at the top of the 
petition for an H-lB specialty occupation visa. See Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147; see also Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 
2d 1151 (D. Minn . 1999); 2233 Paradise Road, LLC v. Cissna, No. 17-cv-010 18-APG- VCF , 2018 WL 3312967 (D. 
Nev., July 3, 2018); XiaoTong Liu v. Baran, No. 18-00376-JVS, 2018 WL 7348851 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 21, 2018); Parzenn 
Partners v. Baran, No. 19-cv-11515-ADB , 2019 WL 6130678 (D. Mass. , Nov. 19, 2019). 
20 See Xiaotong Liu, 2018 WL 7348851 at *10 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2018) (finding USCIS acted properly when it determined 
that such generalizations do not explain how the author came to their conclusion, which is insufficient to meet the 
regulatory requirements). 
21 See Matter of Caron lnt'I , 19 l&N Dec. at 795 (finding the service is not required to accept or may give less weight to 
an advisory opinion when it is "not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable.") 
7 
chart and the other is for the proffered position, listed further down on the chart.22 The Petitioner 
states the previously hired producer has a bachelor's degree in cinema and "if proper weight is given 
to [this] evidence" it will have "exceeded the preponderance of the evidence standard." However, the 
Petitioner does not provide the duties for the previously hired "producer," which would support that 
the two positions are similar. Moreover, the record suggests the two positions are different. For 
example, the pay records submitted for the previously hired "producer," evidences an hourly rate of 
$44.69 per hour, while the proffered position's hourly rate is $25.80 per hour. The Petitioner does not 
explain the disparity in pay. Furthermore, even if the Petitioner had established that the previously 
hired "producer" position is similar to the proffered position, the Petitioner's claim regarding one 
individual does not persuasively establish a hiring practice. 
~---_.I the Petitioner's "HR Director" does not provide more information on the Petitioner's 
hiring practice and his letter contains errors, undermining the credibility of his statements. He states, 
"employees in this position usually possess at minimum a Bachelor's degree in Film and Evaluation 
or a related field." (emphasis added). He mischaracterizes the Beneficiary's master's degree as one 
in "environmental engineering."23 In addition, he states the Beneficiary "has limited work experience 
and will be supervised by the company's experienced producers" when the record indicates there is 
only one other producer on staff. When explaining why the Petitioner requires individuals with a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, he states that the results of the proffered position's work 
would "directly translate into [Petitioner's] service sales and profits. Therefore, in order to ensure our 
profits, our hiring policy for this specific position is to always require [at least a bachelor's] level of 
education." This explanation does not establish that the position requires the theoretical and practical 
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge. 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.24 Were we limited solely to reviewing a 
petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, an organization could bring any individual with a 
bachelor's degree to the United States to perform any occupation as long as the petitioning entity 
created a token degree requirement. 25 As the human resources representative's letter does not 
substantively discuss the hiring practices of the Petitioner and contains errors, it offers little evidentiary 
weight in establishing the requirements of the criteria. 
The Petitioner also provided an online generated, "producer" advertisement, dated October 8, 2019, 
which was posted after the RFE and does not pre-date the petition's filing. The Petitioner must 
establish eligibility at the time of filing for the nonimmigrant visa petition.26 Necessarily, evidence 
must be contemporaneous with the event to be proven and existent at the time of filing. Therefore, 
this posting also holds little probative value. Moreover, one job posting over five years of business 
does not establish the Petitioner's past recruitment and hiring practices and does not sufficiently 
22 The Beneficiary's offer letter states she will report to the company's "CEO," who is not listed on the organizational 
chart. However, the organizational chart indicates the Beneficiary would report to a multimedia artist. This inconsistency 
makes it difficult to ascertain the proffered position's level of responsibility and whether it is similar to the previously 
hired "producer." 
23 According to her degree and transcript, the Beneficiary has a master's degree in sound design. 
24 See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. 
25 See Id. 
26 See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). 
8 
demonstrate that the employer normally requires a degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for 
the proffered position. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i ii)(A)(3). 
D. Second Prong of Second Criterion and Fourth Criterion 
The second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) is satisfied if the Petitioner shows 
that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with 
at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The 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. 
When determining whether a position is a specialty occupation, we look at whether the position 
actually requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge 
attained through at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific discipline. Upon review of the totality of 
the record, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained or documented why the proffered position is 
so "complex or unique" or "specialized and complex" that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty 
is required. 
We first look to the duties of the position. The Petitioner provides a list enumerating seven main 
duties, broken down into sub-duties, and includes the relevant knowledge and skills required for the 
duty.27 A duty requiring more time than others has the Beneficiary "[d]etermin[ing] and direct[ing] 
production for a variety of branding videos including short-and long-form commercials, 
crowdfunding, interviews, and event shooting." Based on the duty description alone, it is not evident 
how "directing production" requires specialized knowledge.28 According to the Petitioner, the 
knowledge and skills required to perform this duty includes "excellent communication skills; good 
content research skills; and knowledge of filmmaking." The Petitioner does not explain what 
knowledge of filmmaking is necessary, other than to state courses in movie and television and culture, 
has helped prepare the Beneficiary. An explanation is not provided of how these courses relate to the 
duties and what "complex or unique" or "specialized and complex" knowledge is imparted by taking 
these courses. One of the sub-duties adds that the Beneficiary will communicate with clients to 
understand their product and ideas and determine the target group for the product. However, an 
27 The Petitioner replicates this document in a separate exhibit entitled "Detailed Job description" and includes notes to 
explain the duties even further. However, within the notes, the document refers to another individual, not the Beneficiary. 
The notes state this individual, "is the only person responsible for running, optimizing, and analyzing Facebook and Google 
ads for all clients ... " The organizational chart explains that this individual is a digital marketing strategist, which is not 
the proffered position in this case. The Petitioner does not clarify this discrepancy and for this reason, we are unable to 
ascribe evidentiary weight to this document. The Petitioner must resolve discrepancies in the record with independent, 
objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. See Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
28 In the "Detailed Job description" the notes state that the Beneficiary creates a form listing the features and benefits of a 
product and has three people answer a survey. Detai Is such as who creates the survey, how the responding individuals are 
selected, or how the responses are analyzed are not provided. Even if we were to give this document evidentiary weight, 
it does not provide enough substantive detail for us to ascertain the knowledge or skill required to perform the duties of 
the position. 
9 
explanation of how determining a target group requires "specialized and complex" or "complex or 
unique" knowledge, i.e. any advanced concepts or techniques used, is not provided. Similarly, the 
remaining duties provide little detail to establish that their performance requires highly specialized 
knowledge. 
Moreover, a number of the duties involve "[c]oordinating the overall video production process, 
manag[ing] project schedules, ... monitor[ing] budgeting[] and resource usage[,]. .. applying for 
permits ... [m]ak[ing] a production schedule[,] ... coordinat[ing] location, actors, and all production 
crew, etc." These duties evidence that the Petitioner is looking for someone with time management, 
teamwork, and good communication skills. Moreover, in discussing the skills necessary to perform 
the job, the Petitioner recognizes the need for "good" storytelling and research skills, creative skills of 
music and sounds, and managing and tracking skills. It is not clear that a degree in a specific specialty 
is required to establish these skills and if these skills are made "specialized and complex" or "complex 
or unique" based on additional factors, it was not established in the record. 
In addition, according to the Petitioner, the knowledge necessary to perform the proffered position's 
duties include a "good" understanding of video production's overall process; a "basic" understanding 
of design and content and digital marketing; and "familiarity" with digital audio workstations and 
UI/UX design. An explanation is not provided to establish that a bachelor's or higher degree in a 
specific specialty would be required to obtain this knowledge. With respect to technological tools for 
the job, the Petitioner states a "basic knowledge" of Protools and SMART and "knowledge" of adobe 
creative cloud software is required. To the extent these programs require specialized knowledge to 
use them, even on a basic level, is not discussed in the record. In sum, the Petitioner does not explain 
or clarify which of the duties, if any, of the proffered position would be so "specialized and complex" 
or "complex or unique" as to be distinguishable from those of similar but non-degreed or non-specialty 
degreed employment. 
To establish the specialized nature of the proffered position's duties, the Petitioner also relies on the 
letter byl land advisory letter by I 129 After reviewing the job description for the 
proffered position and relying on his undefined experience, I I states the required knowledge 
includes, "in-depth video making processes, market needs research and competitive analysis, ... 
creativity and artistic background, sound and music background as well as a good understand[ing of] 
the pre-advertising and post-production process." He then summarily states the proffered position 
"demands technical and specialized knowledge about film, television and arts. However, he does not 
connect how a degree in film, and television and the arts would provide this requisite knowledge and 
skill, a majority of which appear synonymous with work experience. 30 The letter also seems to create 
pre-requisites absent from the duties' description. For example, the author states "in depth" 
knowledge of video making is required when the duties themselves only require a "good" 
understanding. The author also stresses marketing and economic knowledge needed for commercial 
production when the duties call for a "basic understanding." The professor's statements similarly call 
29 We incorporate our discussion of both letters into our discussion of the other 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) criteria. 
3° For example, the author states producers "need □ to know the director, know creativity, know the camera, understand 
the lighting, understand the art, understand the makeup, understand the props, and even understand the post-production." 
The Petitioner, however, is not seeking an experienced "producer" and the author does not explain how the skills he 
describes could be obtained through at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 
10 
for more advanced knowledge and skill than described in the job duties. For example, he states the 
proffered position calls for "very sophisticated knowledge sets" in storytelling, visual representation, 
expression, audio artistry, business, and marketing that "need to be practiced at a very high level." 
However, other than "excellent communication," the duties do not call for more than "good" or "basic" 
knowledge or skills. The professor also does not explain how a degree in film and television or a 
related field would provide the knowledge he believes is required for the proffered position. For 
example, the professor lists fourteen film studies classes that would prepare an individual for the 
proffered position, without detail of the relevant knowledge these courses would provide. Moreover, 
while a few related courses may be beneficial in performing certain 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. 
As discussed herein, the Petitioner has the burden to provide relevant, probative, and credible evidence 
to establish that its claim is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. Both I I and I I n make statements inconsistent with the record and they do not support their declarations with 
~ciently detailed and qualified analysis. Their summary statements are unsupported by explanations, 
references to the record, or citations to studies, surveys, industry pub I ications, authoritative 
publications, or other sources of empirical information. 31 The conclusion the Petitioner requests us to 
draw from their letters is not self-evident, and we are not required to accept cursory or primarily 
conclusory statements as demonstrating eligibility.32 
The Petitioner also states that it has included the Beneficiary's work product in support of the 
specialized nature of the proffered position. Included in the record is a document listing various types 
of commercials the Petitioner can produce with estimated costs, budget sheets, a spreadsheet of 
individuals and their contact information, the Petitioner's style guide, slides, and typed notes on a 
company. On appeal the work product is partially explained but the explanation does not support the 
work product as "specialized and complex" or "complex or unique." For example, the Petitioner states 
the budget sheets "reflect □ how the beneficiary set up the entire team for a commercial video" but a 
review of the sheet has staff, equipment, props, etc. listed with the cost of each. The information on 
the spreadsheet does not appear detailed or complex and if the creation of the spreadsheet requires 
specialized skill, this was not explained in the record. Similarly, the Beneficiary's notes describing 
the commercials gives examples of each and it is not clear if the commercials are the work product of 
the Petitioner. The notes themselves contain incomplete sentences, and incorrect grammar and 
31 The Director found that the professor reached his conclusion solely based on the Petitioner's job description and found 
without the "constructs and measures" used for his analysis, he did not sufficiently establish his viewpoint. The Director 
listed ways the professor could have established support for his statements. The Petitioner asserts that the Director erred 
in imposing novel substantive or evidentiary requirements, citing to Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115, 1121 (9th Cir. 
2010). However, the Petitioner misinterprets the Director, who is not creating evidentiary requirements but holding the 
Petitioner to its burden of proof and explaining that the professor's statements are conclusory and will be given less weight. 
It is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. See Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1361; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369. Where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way 
questionable, we are not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. See Matter of Caron lnt'I, 19 l&N 
Dec. at 795. 
32 See lnnova Sols., Inc. v. Baran, 338 F. Supp. 3d 1009, 1023 (N.D. Cal. 2018); see also 1756, Inc. v. Att'y Gen, 
745 F. Supp. 9, 17 (D.D.C. 1990) (finding USCIS acted properly in not crediting petitioner's conclusory assertions). 
11 
punctuation. Based on the Petitioner's explanation, the Beneficiary will use the information provided 
by the client to present pros and cons of each type of commercial. The notes do not contain much 
analysis, e.g. "fits criteria" is listed as a pro and "might need high budget" is listed as a con, and if the 
template used to elicit information on the company is proprietary, this was not discussed in the record. 
The record is absent of details on how the other documents relate to the proffered position. Without 
context for or an explanation on the, e.g. relevance of the slides and style guide, the documents 
themselves do not independently explain how the proffered position is "specialized and complex" or 
"complex or unique." 
The Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative specialization as an aspect of the duties of the 
position, and it did not identify tasks that are sufficiently complex or unique to satisfy the second 
alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) or specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Upon review of the totality of the evidence submitted, the Petitioner has not established that more 
likely than not, the proffered position is a specialty occupation under any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Moreover, the record does not establish that the Petitioner has satisfied the 
statutory and regulatory definitions of specialty occupation. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. 33 The Petitioner has not 
met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
33 See Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 
12