remanded H-1B Case: Broadcasting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 18569687 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 13, 2021 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "radio and television announcer" under 
the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) . The H-lB program allows a 
U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a position that requires both (a) the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and (b) the attainment 
of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite 
for entry into the position. 
The Vermont Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish 
that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform services in a specialty occupation. On appeal, the Petitioner 
submits a brief and asserts that the Director erred by denying the petition. The matter is now before 
us on appeal. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence . 1 The Administrative Appeals Office reviews the questions in this 
matter de novo2 but a threshold matter must be resolved before we may address the merits of the 
Director's decision and the Petitioner's appeal. Accordingly, the matter will be remanded to the 
Director for further review of the record and a new decision . 
I. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner provided a general description of the proffered pos1t10n, including tasks that 
paraphrased the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) Summary Reports for the occupational 
category "Broadcast Announcers and Radio Disc Jockeys," standard occupational classification 
(SOC) code 27-3011. On the labor condition application (LCA) 3 submitted in support of the H-lB 
1 Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
2 See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
3 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA 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 experience and qualifications who are performing the same services. Section 2 l 2(n)( 1) 
of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.73l(a) . 
petition, the Petitioner designated the proffered position under this occupational category with a Level 
II wage. The Director may wish to determine whether the Petitioner sufficiently described the duties 
of the position such that the minimum requirements to perform the duties of the position can be 
ascertained. It also appears that the Petitioner may not have correctly calculated the proper wage level 
for the LCA to support the petition. The Petitioner's narrative suggests that the position may require 
special skills which would increase the wage level and, in addition, may also require fluency in a 
second language, which would increase the wage level an additional level. As the descriptions of 
duties are general and the minimum requirements to perform the position are not well-defined, the 
Director may wish to question whether the LCA wage level properly corresponds to and supports the 
petition. 
Notably, the Petitioner's minimum requirements to perform the duties of the position it described 
varied and suggests the Petitioner is relying on the Beneficiary's background to establish the position 
is a specialty occupation. However, the test to establish a position is a specialty occupation is not the 
skill set or education of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. Although the Petitioner stated consistently throughout the record that the position requires 
a general bachelor's degree, the record does not include sufficient or consistent evidence of the specific 
bachelor's-level body of specialized knowledge needed to perform the position. 
For example, the Petitioner initially indicated that to be competitive for the position, the incumbent 
would "[h]ave a bachelor's degree, such as I I communications, broadcasting, or 
joumalism." 4 In response to the Director's first request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner, through its 
counsel, stated the "profferedjob-DAnnouncer fo~ I requires a bachelor's degree 
plus knowledge and/or experience related to health care to provide sound programs to the target 
I !audience about what good health is." In the Petitioner's letter in response to the 
Director's first RFE, the Petitioner reiterated that "[t]his position requires a minimum of a bachelor's 
degree with additional health-related education or knowledge or related work experience." The 
knowledge and/or experience required, however, is undefined. 5 It is not possible to ascertain whether 
the Petitioner requires only a general bachelor's degree and some indefinite general knowledge or 
whether the Petitioner requires a general bachelor's degree and additionally, a body of specialized 
knowledge in a specific field. The Petitioner's imprecise minimum requirement to perform the 
position undermines its claim that the position is a specialty occupation. 
In response to the Director's second RFE, the Petitioner, through counsel, claimed that the particular 
position is for a show that is specialized in a specific area, thus, the announcer's job duties are beyond 
the duties of a general announcer. 6 In a separate letter, the Petitioner emphasized that the "position 
requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree with additional health-related education or knowledge or 
4 The Petitioner also listed other generic knowledge such as knowledge of business and management principles, knowledge 
of somd I language, sales and marketing, and relevant culture, society. However, it is not clear that the 
knowledge required is knowledge attained through bachelor's-level study or is generally available knowledge. 
5 Although the Petitioner referred to the Beneficiary's education, her license as an acupuncturist, and her knowledge of 
herbal tea, aromatherapy and healing functions of essential oils, as qualifications to perform the position. a beneficiary's 
background is relevant only after a petitioner has established the :roffered position is a specialty occupation. 
6 Counsel also refers to the Beneficiary's as "a licensed! 1 I ,n California which helps [her] carry out the goal of 
thd I' However, the duties described do not appear to require a licensed acupuncturist to perform them. 
If such a license is required, this could require an additional bump in the wage level on the ce1tified LCA. 
2 
related work experience." Although the Petitioner identifies some tasks that appear to require 
knowledge inl I culture and herbal and oriental medicine, the record does not establish 
that these duties require bachelor's-level study in I I culture and herbal and oriental 
medicine. That is, the record does not include sufficient evidence to establish that the duties of the 
proffered position require health-related education, knowledge, or work experience that is equivalent 
to bachelor's-level study in a specific discipline. The Director may wish to further explore the 
generality of the tasks associated with the proffered position and question the need for a bachelor's 
degree or higher in a specific specialty in order to carry out the duties of the position. 
The record here does not include sufficient evidence to establish that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation as defined in the statute and regulations; and a beneficiary's credentials to 
perform a particular job are relevant only when the job is found to be a specialty occupation. Thus, 
until the record includes sufficient evidence to establish the proposed position is a specialty 
occupation, an analysis of the Beneficiary's qualifications in this matter is premature. Although there 
are deficiencies in the information regarding the Beneficiary's qualifications,7 it is not possible to 
conclude that the Beneficiary is unqualified to perform the non-H-IB caliber position described in the 
current record. 
II. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner was not previously accorded the opportunity to address the deficiencies in the record 
discussed above, we will remand the record for further review of these issues. The Director may 
request any additional evidence considered pertinent to the new determination. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
7 For example, the Director may also wish to review the Beneficiary 's claimed U.S. degree. The degree appears to have 
been awarded by an unaccredited institution Thus its probative value in this matter is questionable. See 
http:~ I 
3