dismissed H-1B Case: Vocational Training

MATTER OF S-F-T-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 30. 2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a company providing vocational training services, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "training and development specialist" under the H-1 B nonimmigrant classification 
for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to 
temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a position that requires both (a) the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and (b) the attainment of a 
bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for 
entry into the position. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition. concluding the Petitioner did not 
establish that the proffered position qualities as a specialty occupation. 
In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Director erred in denying 
the petition. 
Upon de novo review. we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term '"specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge. and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition. but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
Matter ofS-F-T-
(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)(iii)(A). We have consistently interpreted the term "'degree .. to mean not just 
any baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the 
proposed position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertofj; 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 3 84. 3 87 (5th Cir. 2000 ). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE). the Petitioner provided the following job 
duties for the proffered position: 1 
Design and create training syllabus. manuals, online learning modules 20% 
and course materials related to Business Analysis, Project Management 
and Agile (Serum). (Training modules and course materials are designed 
per Software Industry demand and current trends). 
Review training books from a variety of vendors and choose appropriate 5% 
books for business analysis, project management and serum training 
related to software development industry. 
DEMO to new students for Business Analysis, Project Management and 10% 
Serum (Agile Management) to help them understand about Course and 
how ifs going to help them in their work and Career. 
Provide/Conduct Business Analysis Training (Business Analyst is key 25% 
important role in Software Development industry as BA understands and 
gathers requirements to develop Product. This training helps students to 
enhance their software industry related business skills). 
1 
The Petitioner provided an additional column in the duty description describing the Beneficiary's qualifications to 
perform each duty. We have not included that column here for the sake of brevity. but have reviewed as a part of our 
complete review of the record. 
2 
Matter ofS-F-T-
Provide Project Management Training and Agile, Serum Software 20% 
Development Life Cycle (SDLC) training for Software development 
(Project Management helps to manage Software Development Projects 
and Agile (Serum) is Software Development methodology used to deliver 
good quality software product and maximize business value.) 
Conduct Examination after training to evaluate performance of Students 5% 
Assist Students in system set up and downloading software 5% 
Conduct Mock up interviews to ensure that Students are ready to find 5% 
employment after their training 
Collect Feedback from trainees after completion of Course and analyze 5% 
training needs to develop new training programs or modify and improve 
existing programs. 
The Petitioner states that the position requires ''at least a Bachelor's degree in a related area with 
relevant work experience.'' On appeal, the Petitioner states that "[t]he beneficiary's education 
specific specialty is a dual major in Computer Information Systems and Business Administration. 
This is specifically the specialty that is needed to provide Training and Development." 
III. ANALYSIS 
For the reasons set out below, we have determined that the proffered position does not qualify as a 
specialty occupation. Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties reqmre an 
educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation.~ 
As a preliminary matter, the Petitioner has not clearly stated a minimum educational requirement for 
the proffered position. At first, the Petitioner stated that it requires ''at least a Bachelor's degree in a 
related area," but did not specify which field(s) of study it considers to be a "related area:· On 
appeal, the Petitioner points to the Beneficiary's dual major in computer information systems and 
business administration and asserts that this education is "specifically the specialty that is needed to 
provide Training and Development.'' However, the Petitioner's statements on appeal are ambiguous 
as they directly address the separate issue of the Beneficiary's qualifications, not the proffered 
position's specific degree requirement. It is not apparent whether the Petitioner intended to assert 
that the proffered position requires a degree in both computer information systems and business 
administration, a degree in computer information systems or business administration, or a bachelor's 
degree in other unspecified majors. 
If it is the Petitioner's claim that a bachelor's degree in business administration is a sutticient 
minimum requirement for entry into the proffered position, then this requirement is inadequate to 
establish that the proposed position qualities as a specialty occupation. A petitioner must 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation in support of the H-1 B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted. we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
3 
.
Matter o.fS-F- T-
demonstrate that the proffered position requires a precise and specific course of study that relates 
directly and closely to the position in question. There must be a close correlation between the 
required specialized studies and the position; thus, the mere requirement of a general-purpose degree 
such as a business administration degree, without further specification, docs not establish the 
position as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147 (recognizing a business 
administration degree as a general-purpose degree). Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assoc.\· .. 19 I&N 
Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988) ("The mere requirement of a college degree for the sake of general 
education, or to obtain what an employer perceives to be a higher caliber employee. also does not 
establish eligibility."). 
Again, the Petitioner indicates that the mm1mum requirement for the proffered position can be 
satisfied by a bachelor's degree in business administration, without further requiring a degree in any 
specific specialty. Without more, the Petitioner's statement alone indicates that the proffered 
position is not in fact a specialty occupation. 
Further, we find that the evidence of the Petitioner's operations does not establish that it would 
likely have specialty occupation work available for the Beneficiary for the entire requested period of 
employment. The Petitioner acknowledges that it had no operations as of the date of the petition. 
despite asserting in the H-1B petition that it was established in 2011 and has 11 employecs. 3 The 
Petitioner stated in response to the RFE that it did not file tax returns for 2014 or 2015, and that it 
"started doing business in 2016.'" The Petitioner also submitted invoices and evaluations of its 
courses by students that were all dated after May 2016. The H-1B petition listed only ··projected·· 
gross annual income and "unknown" net annual income. As such, the Petitioner's direct statements 
and the submitted evidence demonstrate that the company was not operating or garnering any 
revenue as of the date of the petition. 
The Petitioner also provided an organizational chart indicating that it has a chief executive officer 
overseeing "training specialists," "IT/software training 
development specialists," and a "training and 
development specialist" (the Beneficiary), whom in turn supervise "students'' in those training 
specialists' courses. 4 However, its organizational does not reflect that the Petitioner has 11 
employees as asserted in the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker. In fact. the "Trainer 
Profiles" submitted by the Petitioner list only three trainers. The Petitioner has not resolved these 
inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter ofHo, 
19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
In addition, the Petitioner makes conflicting statements regarding the type of services it provides. In 
its initial letter of support, the Petitioner described itself as providing '·IT Training and Consulting 
services," and proceeded to describe the types of IT consulting services provided, such as assessing 
customers' "current IT situation," delivering recommendations for '·business and technology 
~ On appeal, the Petitioner refers to itself as · · However. the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained or 
documented its relationship with 
4 The signatory of this petition, the director of admissions, is not listed in the organizational chart. 
4 
Matter qfS-F- T-
strategies;' helping to "install a hybrid cloud infrastructure," and providing ··support" for data center 
consolidation. In response to the RFE, however, the Petitioner omitted any further reference to IT 
consulting services. For example, we again recall the Petitioner's organizational chart which depicts 
only the CEO, training specialists, and students enrolled in training courses. but no employees who 
appear to provide actual IT consulting services. 
Therefore, in sum, the evidence does not establish the nature of the Petitioner's operations. and that 
the Petitioner is sufficiently operational to employ the Beneficiary at the time of tiling throughout 
the requested period of employment. 5 
Despite the aforementioned insufficiencies on the record, we will nevertheless perform a more 
comprehensive specialty occupation analysis under each of the four, alternative criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 6 
A. First Criterion 
We turn first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J), which requires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. To inform this inquiry, we recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's 
(DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 7 
5 The agency made clear long ago that speculative employment is not permitted in the H-1 B program. For example. a 
1998 proposed rule documented this position as follows: 
Historically, the Service has not granted H-1 B classification on the basis of speculative. or 
undetermined. prospective employment. The H-1 B classification is not intended as a vehicle for an 
alien to engage in a job search within the United States, or for employers to bring in temporary foreign 
workers to meet possible workforce needs arising from potential business expansions or the 
expectation of potential new customers or contracts. To determine whether an alien is properly 
classifiable as an H-1 B nonimmigrant under the statute, the Service must first examine the duties of the 
position to be occupied to ascertain whether the duties of the position require the attainment of a 
specific bachelor's degree. See section 214(i) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act (the "'Act"). The 
Service must then determine whether the alien has the appropriate degree for the occupation. In the 
case of speculative employment, the Service is unable to perform either part of this two-prong analysis 
and, therefore. is unable to adjudicate properly a request for H-1 B classification. Moreover, there is no 
assurance that the alien will engage in a specialty occupation upon arrival in this country. 
Petitioning Requirements for the H Nonimmigrant Classification, 63 Fed. Reg. 30.419. 30.419-20 (proposed June 4. 
1998) (to be codified at 8 C .F.R. pt. 214 ). 
6 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap. we will address each of the criteria individually. 
7 
All of our references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook. which may be accessed at the Internet site 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not, however. maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant 
information. That is. the occupational category designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the 
general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered position. and we regularly review the Handbook on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. To satisfy the first criterion. however, the 
burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position 
Matter ofS-F-T-
On the labor condition application (LCA)8 submitted in support of the H-1 B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category ''Training and Development 
Specialists" corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 13-1151.9 
The Handbook states that a bachelor's degree is required for entrance into positions located within 
the ''Training and Development Specialists" occupational category. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. 
Dep 't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Training and Development Specialists (20 16-17 
ed.). It states that those entering this tield may have a bachelor's degree in a '"variety of education 
backgrounds," including in "training and development, human resources. education. or instructional 
design,'' or "business administration or a social science. such as educational or organizational 
psychology." ld. 
Although the Handbook states that training and development specialists need a bachelor's degree. it 
continues by specifying that many have degrees in fields such as training and development human 
resources, education, or instructional design. According to the Handbook. other training and 
development specialists have backgrounds in fields such as business administration. the social 
sciences, information technology, or computer science. Therefore. the Handbook indicates that 
degrees and backgrounds in various fields are acceptable for jobs in this occupation. including 
education, instructional design. and the social sciences, as well as business administration and 
computer science. 
In general, provided the specialties are closely related. e.g., chemistry and biochemistry. a minimum 
of a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty is recognized as satisfying the '"degree in 
the specific specialty (or its equivalent)" requirement of section 214(i)(1)(B) ofthe 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 
education and computer science, would not meet the statutory requirement that the degree be '"in the 
would normally have a minimum. specialty degree requirement. or its equivalent. for entry. 
8 
The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B worker the higher of either 
the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the ·'area of employment'" or the actual wage paid by the 
employer to other employees with similar experience and qualifications who are performing the same services. See 
Matter o(Simeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 545-46 (AAO 20 15). 
9 
The P~titioner classified the proffered position at a Level I wage (the lowest of four assignable wage levels). We will 
consider this selection in our analysis of the position. The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance'' issued by 
the DOL provides a description of the wage levels. A Level I wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which 
the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the occupation. This wage rate indicates: ( 1) that 
the Beneficiary will be expected to perfonn routine tasks that require limited, if any. exercise of judgment; (2) that she 
will be closely supervised and her work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that she will receive 
specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prerailing 
Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://tlcdatacenter.com/download!NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _I I_ 2009.pdf A prevailing wage determination starts 
with an entry-level wage and progresses to a higher wage level after considering the experience, education, and skill 
requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. !d. 
Matter o.fS-F-T-
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). The Petitioner has not done so here. 
The Handbook also states that "others may have a degree in business administration... As we 
discussed earlier. while 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 tor classification as a 
specialty occupation. See Royal Siam Corp .. 484 F.3d at 147. Cl Michael Hertz Assoc.\·., 19 I&N 
Dec. at 558. Therefore, the Handbook's recognition that a general, non-specialty degree in business 
administration is sufficient for entry into the occupation strongly suggests that a bachelor's degree in 
a spec((ic .\pecialty is not normally the minimum entry requirement for this occupation. 
In this matter, the Handbook does not support the claim that the occupational category ""Training and 
Development Specialists" is one for which normally the minimum requirement for entry is a 
baccalaureate degree (or higher) in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Moreover. the Petitioner 
has not provided documentation from another probative source to substantiate its assertion regarding 
the minimum requirement tor entry into this particular position. Thus, the Petitioner has not 
satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
B. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two alternative prongs: ··The degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or. in the alternative. an employer may 
show that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong 
casts its gaze upon the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the ""degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty. or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
We generally consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there is such a common 
degree requirement: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the 
industry's professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement: and whether 
letters or affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry establish that such firms "'routinely 
employ and recruit only degreed individuals." See .%anti. 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)). 
Matter qfS-F-T-
Here and as already discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for 
which the Handbook (or another independent, authoritative source) reports an industry-wide 
requirement for at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. Thus, we 
incorporate by reference the previous discussion on the matter. In addition. there are no submissions 
from the industry's professional association indicating that it has made a degree a minimum entry 
requirement. 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner submits three job advertisements for training specialist 
related positions. However, similar to the proffered position, one announcement reflects that a 
bachelor's degree in business administration would be sufficient for minimum entry into the 
position. The two other job announcements do not articulate that a bachelor's degree in any 
particular field is required for the position. As we have noted. while a general-purpose or general 
bachelor's degree may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree. 
without more, will not justify a finding that a particular position qualities for classification as a 
specialty occupation. Royal Siam Corp., 484 F .3d at 14 7. Cl Michael Hertz Assoc.\·., 19 J&N Dec. 
at 558, 560. 
In addition, the provided job announcements reflect that significant experience is required for these 
positions, including one needing more than six years of experience, another five years. and the third 
three to five years. This is in contrast to the proffered position, designated at the Level I wage in the 
LCA, indicating that it is an entry-level position involving routine tasks that require limited. if any. 
exercise of judgment; work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy: and the receipt of specific 
instructions on required tasks and expected results. 10 The Petitioner also does not articulate how the 
provided job announcements and companies are similar to the proffered position. Therefore. we are 
unable to determine that these companies are similar to the Petitioner or that the submitted positions 
are parallel to the proffered position. In sum, the job advertisements do not establish that 
organizations similar to the Petitioner routinely employ individuals with degrees in a specific 
specialty, in parallel positions in the Petitioner's industry. 11 
10 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Polic:1· Guidance. Nonagric. 
Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://tlcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance __ Revised _I I_ 2009.pdf 
11 
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 has not demonstrated 
what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from the advertisements with regard to determining the common 
educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. See generalzl' Earl Babbie. The 
Practice of' Social 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 ifthe sampling unit were 
sufficiently large. See id. at 195-196 (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''). 
The Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how representative the job postings are of the particular 
advertising employers' recruiting history for the type of job advertised. As the advertisements are only solicitations for 
hire, they are not evidence of the actual hiring practices of these employers. 
Matter (?fS-F-T-
As the record does not include probative evidence that a .. 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. the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative 
prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. or its 
equivalent. 
In this matter, the evidence of record does not distinguish the proffered position as unique from or 
more complex than other training and development specialist positions that can be performed by 
persons without at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Specifically. it 
is unclear how the proffered position, as described, necessitates the theoretical and practical application 
of a body of highly specialized knowledge such that a person who has attained a bachelor's or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform them. Rather, we find that, as 
reflected in this decision ·s earlier quotation of the duty description from the record of proceedings, the 
evidence of record does not distinguish the proffered position from other positions falling within the 
"Training and Development Specialists'' occupational category. which, the Handhook indicates. do not 
necessarily require a person with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent to 
enter those positions. 
Again, the Petitioner has designated the proffered positiOn as a Level I positiOn on the LCA, 
indicating that the Beneficiary will perform routine tasks that require limited exercise of judgment 
and that his work will be closely supervised, monitored, and reviewed for accuracy. See U.S. Dep 't 
of Labor, Emp 't & Training Admin., supra. Therefore, it does not appear that the position is one 
with complex or unique duties relative to other quality assurance specialist positions requiring a 
significantly higher prevailing wage, as such a Level Ill (experienced) or Level IV (fully competent) 
wage level. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the positiOn. and references her 
qualifications. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education 
or experience of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative 
complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position. and it did not identify any tasks 
that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
9 
Matter ofS-F-T-
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it 
normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. The 
Petitioner did not submit any evidence of previous or current employees in the same position as the 
Beneficiary's proffered position. Therefore. the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
D. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature 
of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty. or 
its equivalent. 
The Petitioner asserts that the job duties of the proffered position are specialized and complex. We refer 
to our earlier comments and findings with regard to the implication of the Petitioner's designation of the 
proffered position in the LCA as a Level I wage, and hence one not likely distinguishable by relatively 
specialized and complex duties.
12 
We have also reviewed the Petitioner's description of duties for the 
proffered position. The Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how these duties require the theoretical 
and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment of a bachelor's 
or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated in the record that its protTered position is one with duties 
sufficiently specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(.,l). 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one ofthe criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualities as a specialty occupation. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
12 The Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position undermines its claim that the position is 
particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation. Nevertheless, a 
Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty occupation, just as a 
Level IV wage-designation does not definitively establish such a classification. In certain occupations (e.g .. doctors or 
lawyers), a Level I, entry-level position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent, for entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designation would not reflect that an occupation qualifies 
as a specialty occupation if that higher-level position does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. That is, a position's wage level designation may be a relevant factor but is not 
itself conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)( I) of the Act. 
10 
Matter c?fS-F-T-
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofS-F-T-, 10# 494643 (AAO Aug. 30, 2017) 
11