non-precedent decision of the administrative …...using [the petitioner's] proprietary...

MATTER OF B-G- INC.

APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION

Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office

DATE: NOV. 7, 2018

PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER

The Petitioner, a custom computer programmmg company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "pricing analyst" under the H-1 B 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-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 Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence, and asserts that the Director erred in denying the petition.

Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal.

I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Section 2 l 4(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. § 2 l 4.2(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 offered position must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation:

(I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position;

Matter of B-G-, Inc.

(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 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. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Cherto_ff, 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").

II. PROFFERED POSITION

In its support letter, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary, as a member of the Pricing Team, will be responsible for:

. .. using [the Petitioner's] proprietary software to execute pncmg strategies, researching prices of tickets, helping forecast trends of ticket prices for sports, concert, theater, and other events in secondary markets, and managing ticket inventories to sell at proper prices. To research ticket prices, [the Beneficiary] will gather data on the availability, prices, direct sales, re-sales, customer demographics, and marketing of particular events and provide clients with information about the value of tickets and the level of consumer demand. [The Beneficiary] will also prepare reports and summaries for internal use and for clients, and communicate frequently with clients regarding the value of their ticket inventory, the management of their portfolios and the pricing strategies employed.

In response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner provided the following percentages oftime the Beneficiary would spend on each duty:

60% of [the Beneficiary's] time will be spent pricing ticket inventory for clients; 25% of [the Beneficiary's] time will be spent preparing reports for clients and management; 10% of [the Beneficiary's] time will be spent on projects to improve methods and data analysis techniques and protocols to manage the clients' inventories; and 5% of [the Beneficiary's] time will be spent conducting introductory training, and

acting as a resource, for a group of Junior Pricing Analysts.

2


The Petitioner stated that the position requires a bachelor's degree in statistics, computer science, engineering, finance, accounting, or a related field.

III. ANALYSIS

Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons discussed below, we have determined that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 1 Specifically, we conclude that the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation.

A. First Criterion

We tum 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 generally 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. 2

In the labor condition application (LCA), the Petitioner classified the proffered position under the occupational title "Market Research Analysts and Marketing Specialists," corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 13-1161. In pertinent part, the Handbook states that "[m]arket research analysts typically need a bachelor's degree in market research or a related field. Many have degrees in fields such as statistics, math, and computer science. Others have backgrounds in business administration, the social sciences, or communications."3

The Handbook therefore does not support the assertion that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for these positions. As noted, the Handbook states that there is a wide range of degrees that are acceptable for positions located within this occupational category, including general-purpose degrees such as business administration. As discussed, we interpret the term "degree" to mean a degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. Therefore, the Handbook's recognition that a general, non-specialty "background" in business administration, or one of a number of other fields, math, computer science, or social science, is sufficient for entry into the occupation strongly suggests that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is not a standard, minimum entry requirement for this occupation. Accordingly, as the Handbook indicates that working as a market research analyst does not normally require at least a bachelor's degree in a

1 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 2 We do not, however, maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. The Handbook may be accessed at the Internet site http://www.bls.gov/OCO/. 3 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Market Research Analysts, https://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/market-research-analysts.htm (last visited Oct. 29, 2018).

3


specific specialty, or its equivalent, for entry into the occupation, it does not support the particular position proffered here as being a specialty occupation.

The Petitioner also submits information from DOL's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) for "market research analysts and marketing specialists" for our consideration. However, this resource does not establish the Petitioner's eligibility under the first criterion, either. The O*NET Summary Report provides general information regarding the occupation, but it does not support a conclusion that the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent. For example, O*NET assigns these positions a "Job Zone Four" rating, which states only that most but not all of the occupations within it require a bachelor's degree. In addition, the specialized vocational preparation (SVP) rating 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, experience, and formal education. The SVP rating also does not specify the particular type of degree, if any, that a position would require. 4 For all of these reasons, O*NET does not establish the proffered position as a specialty occupation.

On appeal, the Petitioner cites Raj and Co. v. USCIS, 85 F. Supp. 3d 1241 (W.D. Wash. 2015), and states that "the court held that a Market Research Analyst position is a specialty occupation and that the USCIS' argument regarding the description of the position in the [Handbook] was entirely without merit." However, the Raj court expressly agreed with our interpretation of the term "degree" in the criterion at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l) to mean a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty ( or its equivalent), characterizing it as "reasonable" and "well-settled in the case law." Id. at 1246.

The Petitioner also cites Residential Finance v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012), to argue that a degree may be in more than a single academic discipline in order to be "in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)." Section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act. The Residential Finance court observed that "knowledge [in a specific specialty ( or its equivalent)] and not the title of the degree" is the essence of the requirement at section 214(i)( 1 )(B) of the Act. 839 F. Supp. 2d at 997. The Residential Finance court opined that "there is no apparent requirement that the specialized study need[ s to] be in a single academic discipline as opposed to a specialized course of study in related business specialties" for the purpose of classifying a proffered position as a specialty occupation. Id. at 996-97.

We agree with the Residential Finance court's proposition that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is what is important." However, there must be a close correlation between the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" and the position; therefore, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in disparate fields would not meet the statutory requirement that the degree be "in the

4 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/ help/online/svp.

4


specific specialty ( or its equivalent)," unless the Petitioner establishes how each field is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position. The Petitioner has not done so here, as it has not explained how accounting and finance knowledge specifically correlate to a computer science degree. The Petitioner also does not offer an analysis of how the duties of this position such as pricing strategies and forecasting ticket prices for sporting and concert events directly relate to a computer science or an engineering degree.

In any event, the Petitioner has not furnished sufficient evidence to establish that the facts of its petition are analogous to those in Residential Finance. 5 We also note that, in contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case law of a U.S. circuit court, we are not bound to follow the published decision of a U.S. district court in matters arising even within the same district. See Matter of K-S-, 20 l&N Dec. 715, 719-20 (BIA 1993). Although the reasoning underlying a district judge's decision will be given due consideration when it is properly before us, the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of law. Id.

The record does not demonstrate that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J).

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 concentrates on 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

5 We note that the district judge's decision in Residential Finance appears to have been based largely on the many factual errors made by the Director in the decision denying the petition. We further note that the Director's decision in that case was not appealed to us. Based on the district court's conclusions 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 nova review of the matter.

5


employ and recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. l999)(quotingHird/BlakerCorp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)).

As previously discussed, the Handbook does not establish that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is a common requirement within the industry for parallel positions among similar organizations. In addition, there are no submissions from the industry's professional association indicating that it has made a degree a minimum entry requirement. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not submit any letters or affidavits from similar firms or individuals in the Petitioner's industry attesting that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals."

In support of this prong, the Petitioner submitted copies of several job announcements placed by other employers and stated that the job postings "conclusively demonstrate that the proffered specialty position is professional in nature and requires the incumbent to be the holder of at least a Bachelor's Degree or its U.S. equivalent." However, we find that the Petitioner's reliance on the job announcements is misplaced. When determining whether the Petitioner and the 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 in the same industry without providing a legitimate basis for such an assertion. The postings provide little or no information regarding the hiring employers, and the Petitioner did not supplement the record of proceedings to establish that these advertising organizations are similar.

Moreover, the record does not establish that the advertised positions are for parallel positions. Many of the postings do not include sufficient information about the tasks and responsibilities for the advertised positions. Furthermore, the postings by the Ticket Group and Elite Placement Group require a bachelor's degree but do not specify a specialty. In addition, Encore Tickets and Stub World state that they "prefer" or "suggest" a bachelor's degree in a specialty. However, a preference for a degree in a field is not necessarily an indication of a minimum requirement. The job postings suggest, at most, that a bachelor's degree is sometimes required for positions located within the market research analysts and marketing specialists occupational category, but not a bachelor's degree in a specffic specialty (or its equivalent).6 Therefore, the record does not establish that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is a common requirement within the industry for parallel positions.

6 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 generally 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 if the 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").


In addition, the Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence as to how representative these particular job advertisements are of the particular advertising employers' recruiting history for the types of job advertised. As the advertisements are only solicitations for hire, they are not evidence of the employers' actual hiring practices.

Without more, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first prong of 8 C.F.R. § 2 l 4.2(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 support of its assertion that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, the Petitioner described the proffered position and its business operations. However, the Petitioner has not sufficiently developed relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the proffered position. In other words, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the duties of the proffered position require 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. Rather, the Petiti_oner described the duties in brief and general terms. For example, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will be "managing ticket inventories" for clients, "research[ing] ticket prices" and "prepar[ing] reports" for clients and internal use. This type of generalized description does not adequately convey any particular details regarding the demands, level of responsibilities and requirements necessary for the performance of these duties. The statements do not provide any information as to the complexity of the job duties, the amount of supervision required, and the level of judgment and understanding required to perform the duties. Such generalized information does not in itself establish a necessary correlation between any dimension of the proffered position and a need for a particular level of education, or educational equivalency, in a body of highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty.

Furthermore, the Petitioner's statement that the Beneficiary will be "conducting introductory training" and "acting as a resource" for "a group of Junior Pricing Analysts" is inconsistent with its Level I entry-level designation of the position on the LCA.7

7 According to the Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, a Level I wage is appropriate for positions requiring only "a basic understanding of the occupation" expected of a "worker in training" or an individual performing an "internship." That designation indicates further that the Beneficiary will only be expected to "perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment." 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.flcdatacenter.com/pdf/NPWHC_Guidance_Revised_l 1_2009.pdf. These duties are not included or referred

,,.,

.


Moreover, the Petitioner did not submit information relevant to a detailed course of study leading to a specialty degree and establish how such a curriculum would be necessary to perform the duties it believes are so complex and unique. While some related courses may be beneficial, or even required, 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 proffered position's duties.

The Petitioner submits an opinion letter from , a professor at in which he concludes that the position is a specialty occupation requiring at least a bachelor's degree in a "quantitative discipline, such as Statistics, Computer Science, Engineering, Finance, Accounting, or a related field." states that he reviewed the job duties and qualifications for the proffered position, information contained in O*NET, the Handbook, the Petitioner's response letter, and the Beneficiary's academic credentials and resume to inform his op1mon.

Overall, we find statements conclusory without much analysis into what makes the proffered position a specialty occupation. For example, states that "[g]athering and analyzing data will be a complicated task and must be performed with a high level of skill or any subsequent pricing that relies on these insights will be faulty." Similarly, he goes on to say, the position "is responsible for advanced collection and analysis of information on transaction data, analytics and for pricing, client communication, and for market analysis" and "requires a sophisticated understanding of statistics, analysis, marketing, analytics, business, finance, and pricing." adds "[a]nalyzing data, interpreting the analysis, and pricing are complex and specialized technical activities .... " However, does not explain why "gathering and analyzing data" in this particular position is "complicated," or what makes "analyzing data, interpreting the analysis, and pricing" complex and specialized.

Moreover, the Petitioner has assigned the position a Level I wage on the LCA indicating that the proffered position is an entry-level position. description of the position as involving complicated tasks that must be performed with a high level of skill does not appear consistent with the proffered position's generally described duties and level ofresponsibility. Given the incongruence between depiction of the position and the entry-level responsibility of the proffered position as designated by the Petitioner, it is not clear he had sufficient information to determine the requirements of the position.

Furthermore, in referencing the Handbook and O*NET, gives examples of some of the duties of market research analysts and marketing specialists occupational category that are listed in these publications, but, again, does not discuss them in detail. As we noted above, neither the Handbook nor O*NET supports his conclusion that the proffered position is a specialty occupation.

to in the O*NET's list of tasks for this position. Thus, these duties are not part of the inherent job duties of this occupation. If these job duties are part of the Beneficiary's position, the perfonnance of these duties appears to require an increase in the wage level.

8

.


conclusory statements are not persuasive in establishing that the duties of the proffered position are "complex and specialized" and therefore the proffered position is a specialty occupation.

attaches job postings from two companies for what he claims to be "parallel" positions. However, he did not discuss in detail what makes these positions parallel to the proffered position. Moreover, these postings list the "acceptable" specialty areas for a bachelor's degree but do not say such specialties are required. In addition, both postings list the degree in business as one of the acceptable specialties. As discussed earlier, we construe 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. A requirement of general-purpose degrees such as a degree in business is insufficient to demonstrate that a position is a specialty occupation.

We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron Int '!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, 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. Id.

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. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 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.

The record must establish that a petitioner's stated degree requirement is not a matter of preference for high-caliber candidates but is necessitated instead by performance requirements of the position. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 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. Id. 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.

In support of this criterion, the Petitioner submits several job announcements for pricing analysts in its company. However, the Petitioner has not established that its actual hiring practices align with the requirements set forth in any of these announcements. Specifically, the evidence of the record is not sufficient to establish the qualifications of pricing analysts that it actually employs. On appeal,

9

.


the Petitioner submits the resumes of individuals who it asserts to be in positions similar to the proffered position along with a letter from its human resources department listing the names and the degrees of these individuals, and identifying all of them as a "senior pricing analyst." The record also contains the Petitioner's organizational chart indicating the same individuals' positions within the organizational hierarchy. The organizational chart however identifies these individuals as "pricing analyst" while listing 'junior pricing analysts" below some of them on the chart. Such inconsistent information raises doubts about the true nature of the proffered position as well as the positions which the Petitioner claims to be the same as the proffered position. We cannot conclude that the proffered position is the same or similar to the "senior" pricing analyst positions listed in the letter from the Petitioner's human resources department as the Petitioner designated the proffered position as Level I entry-level position.8 The Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that the positions in its job announcements or the positions held by the individuals listed in the human resources department's letter are similar to the proffered position.

Furthermore, on its job postings, the Petitioner requires a bachelor' s degree without specifying a specialty, which undermines its assertion that it normally requires a bachelor's degree in a spec(fic specialty, or its equivalent, for the position.

Without more, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that it normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the proffered position. Therefore, it has not satisfied the third criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A).

D. Fourth Criterion

The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent.

As discussed above, relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by the Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position because the substantive nature of the position has not been consistently developed. Nor has the Petitioner explained how the Beneficiary's tasks 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. We also include here by reference our earlier discussion about

opinion letter. Thus, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that its proffered position is one with duties sufficiently specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4).

8 As we mentioned above, a Level I wage is appropriate for positions requiring only a basic understanding of the occupation expected of a worker in training or an individual performing an internship. Individuals in these positions are expected to "perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment." 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. flcdatacenter.corn/pdf/N PWHC _Guidance_ Revised_ I I_ 2009 .pdf.

10


IV. CONCLUSION

The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation.

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

Cite as Matter of B-G-,Inc., ID# 1661448 (AAO Nov. 7, 2018)

11

non-precedent decision of the administrative …...using [the petitioner's] proprietary...

Documents