U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

MATTER OF QD- INC.

Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office

DATE: MAY 27,2016

APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION

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

The Petitioner, a construction and design firm, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an "interior designer" 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-IB 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, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the Beneficiary is not qualified to perform the duties of a specialty occupation. The Petitioner filed a motion to reopen and a motion reconsider; however, the Director affirmed her decision to deny the petition.

The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and asserts that the Director erred in her conclusion that the Beneficiary is not qualified to serve in a specialty occupation position.

Upon de novo review, we will remand the matter to the Director for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision.

I. BENEFICIARY QUALIFICATIONS

The Director denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the services in a specialty occupation. A beneficiary's credentials to perform a particular job, however, are relevant only when the job is found to qualify as a specialty occupation. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is required to follow long-standing legal standards and determine first, whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, and second, whether a beneficiary was qualified for the position at the time the nonimmigrant visa petition was filed. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assoc., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988) ("The facts of a beneficiary's background only come at issue after it is found that the position in which the petitioner intends to employ him falls within [a specialty occupation]."). In the instant case, the record of proceedings does not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a

Matter of QD- Inc.

specialty occupation. We are therefore remanding this matter to the Director to analyze first whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation.

II. LAW

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 non­exhaustive 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)(iii)(A). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has consistently interpreted the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. 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).

III. PROFFERED POSITION

In response to a request for additional evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided the following job description as follows:

2

Matter of QD- Inc.

Will develop detailed project budgets and timelines with regular updates being required to assure successful completion of projects within short lead timelines. (10%)

Will manage and execute client presentations, including design concept, space planning, architectural elements, color schemes, fabric schemes, custom window treatments and custom furniture pieces. ( 40%)

Will communicate and collaborate with clients, vendors, general contractors and sub­contractors throughout project. (10%)

Will help as part of the scope of duties to assist in the preparation of electrical switching hardware, plumbing, paint and lighting schedules plans. ( 10%)

Will provide management of drafting required for manufacturing and installation of furniture, window treatments, lighting and accessories. (5%)

Will manage preparation of client proposals and purchasing of decorative items and deliveries while also managing purchased items from source through final installation. (25%)

The Petitioner also stated that it requires "a bachelor degree or its equivalency in Architectural Design, Interior Design, Industrial Design or in a related discipline."

The Petitioner submitted an education evaluation that indicated that the Beneficiary has the U.S. equivalent of a bachelor's degree in industrial design based on his foreign education.

IV. 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. 1

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.2

·

1 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 2 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support 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 of QD- Inc.

A. First Criterion

We tum 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 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. 3

On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-1B petition, the Petitioner designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Interior Designers" corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 27-1025. 4

We reviewed the section of the Handbook covering "Interior Designers," including the section entitled "How to Become an Interior Designer," which states the following:

Interior designers usually need a bachelor's degree with a focus on interior design.

Education A bachelor's degree is usually required, as are classes in interior design, drawing, and computer-aided design (CAD). A bachelor's degree in any field is acceptable, and interior design programs are available at the associate's, bachelor's, and master's degree levels.

The National Association of Schools of Art and Design accredits about 320 postsecondary colleges, universities, and independent institutes with programs in art and design. The Council for Interior Design Accreditation accredits more than 180 professional-level (bachelor's or master's degrees) interior design programs.

3 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 USCIS regularly reviews 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 would normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 4 The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level II wage (the second 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 indicative that, relative to other positions falling under the occupational category, the Beneficiary is expected to have a good understanding of the occupation but that she will only perform moderately complex tasks that require limited judgment. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://flcdatacenter.com/download!NPWHC_Guidance_Revised_ll_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.

4

Matter of QD- Inc.

The National Kitchen &Bath Association accredits kitchen and bath design specialty programs (certificate, associate's, and bachelor's degree levels) in 45 colleges and universities.

Applicants may be required to submit sketches and other examples of their artistic ability for admission to interior design programs.

Licenses, Certifications, and Registrations Licensure requirements vary by state. In some states, only licensed designers may do interior design work. In other states, both licensed and unlicensed designers may do such work; however, only licensed designers may use the title "interior designer." In still other states, both licensed and unlicensed designers may call themselves interior designers and do interior design work.

In states where laws restrict the use of the title "interior designer," only those who pass their state-approved exam, most commonly the National Council for Interior Design Qualification (NCIDQ) exam, may call themselves registered interior designers. Qualifications for eligibility to take the NCIDQ exam include a combination of education and experience. For example, applicants must have at least a bachelor's degree in interior design and 2 years of experience.

California requires a different exam, administered by the California Council for Interior Design Certification (CCIDC). Qualifications for eligibility to take the CCIDC exam include a combination of education and experience.

Voluntary certification in an interior design specialty, such as healthcare interior design, allows designers to demonstrate expertise in a particular area of the occupation. Interior designers often specialize to distinguish the type of design work they do and to promote their expertise. Certifications usually are available through professional and trade associations and are independent from the NCIDQ licensing examination.

U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., "Interior Designers," http://www.bls.gov/oohlarts-and-design/interior-designers.htm#tab-4 (last visited May 23, 2016).

The Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position. While the Handbook reports that a bachelor's degree is usually required, it also reports that this degree can be in any field. Notably, the Handbook also states that a bachelor's degree with a "focus on interior design" and "classes in interior design, drawing, and computer-aided design" are usually needed.

5

(b)(6)

Matter of QD- Inc.

However, it is not evident whether a "focus" on or a few "classes" in interior design are equivalent to a bachelor's degree specifically in the field of interior design or a related field.

In support of the Petitioner's motion, the Petitioner included a professional position and academic credential evaluation prepared by an associate professor of transmedia at

statedthat the proffered position requires "a college graduate with the minimum of a Bachelor' s Degree in Interior Design or a related area, or the equivalent." We carefully evaluated assertions in support of the instant petition but, for the following reasons, determined his opinions lent little probative value.

First, expertise, regarding academic requirements for interior designer positions, is not established in the record. His curriculum vitae does not address his qualifications on interior designer qualifications. As mentioned, he is a professor of transmedia. Further, he describes himself as "a professional artist" in the letter. did not provide further information regarding his qualifications to opine on degree requirements for interior designers.

Moreover, has not provided suf~cient information to establish his expertise on the practices of organizations seeking to hire interior designers. Without further clarification, it is unclear how his education, training, skills or experience would translate to expertise regarding the current recruiting and hiring practices of a construction and design firm (as designated by the Petitioner in the petition.)

While provides a brief, general description of the Petitioner's business, he does not demonstrate in-depth knowledge of its operations or how the duties of the position would actually be performed in the context of its business enterprise. Accordingly, we find the record does not demonstrate that is a recognized expert on the current requirements for interior designer positions.

Further, opinion letter does not cite specific instances in which his past opinions have been accepted or recognized as authoritative on this particular issue. There·is no indication that he has conducted any research or studies pertinent to the educational requirements for such positions (or parallel positions), and no indication of recognition by professional organizations that he is an authority on those specific requirements. His curriculum vitae does not reflect that he has published any works on the academic/experience requirements for interior designers (or related issues).

Even assuming was an expert on degree requirements for interior designers, his letter does not substantiate his conclusions, such that we can conclude that the Petitioner has shouldered its burden of proof. First, does not reference, cite, or discuss any studies, surveys, industry publications, authoritative publications, or other sources of empirical information which. he may have consulted to complete his evaluation. Second, the record does not indicate whether

was aware that, as indicated by the Level II wage on the LCA, the Beneficiary is only expected perform moderately complex tasks that require limited judgment. In other words, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that possessed the requisite information to adequately assess the nature of the position.

Matter of QD- Inc.

As such, we find that Professor Hanlin's opinion letter lends little probative value, and thus the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (providing that an adjudicator is not required to accept, or may give less weight to, an advisory opinion when it is "not iri accord with other information or is in any way questionable."). For efficiency's sake, we hereby incorporate the above discussion regarding the letter into our analysis of each criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A).

In this case, the Petitioner has not established that the proffered position falls under an occupational category for which the Handbook, or other authoritative source, indicates that normally the minimum requirement for entry is at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the 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.

In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by USCIS include: 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 attest that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." 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)).

As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which the Handbook (or other independent, authoritative source) reports a standard 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.

There are no submissions from the industry's professional association indicating that it has made a degree a minimum entry requirement and no submission of letters or affidavits from firms or

7

(b)(6)

Matter of QD- Inc.

individuals that attest that such firms routinely employ only individuals with a degree in a specific specialty.

The Petitioner submitted copies of job advertisements in support of the assertion that the claimed degree requirement is common to the Petitioner's industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. However, upon review of the documents, we find that the Petitioner's reliance on the job announcements is misplaced.

In the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, the Petitioner stated that it is a construction and design firm with four full-time employees. The Petitioner also reported its gross annual income as $201,918. The Petitioner designated its business operations under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 23622, which corresponds to "Commercial and Institutional Building Construction." The U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau website describes this NAICS code as follows:

This industry comprises establishments primarily responsible for the construction (including new work, additions, alterations, maintenance, and repairs) of commercial and institutional buildings and related structures, such as stadiums, grain elevators, and indoor swimming facilities. This industry includes establishments responsible for the on-site assembly of modular or prefabricated commercial and institutional buildings. Included in this industry are commercial and institutional building general contractors, commercial and institutional building for-sale builders, commercial and institutional building design-build firms, and commerciai and institutional building project construction management firms.

See U.S. Dep't of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definition, 23622- Commercial and Institutional Building Construction, http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch (last visited May 23, 2016).

For the Petitioner to establish that an organization in its industry is also similar under this criterion of the regulations, it must demonstrate that the Petitioner and the organization share the same general characteristics. Without such information, evidence submitted by a petitioner is generally outside the scope of consideration for this criterion, which encompasses only organizations that are similar to the Petitioner.

When determining whether the Petitioner and each 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. In this case, the Petitioner did not submit evidence to demonstrate that the firms placing the advertisements are sufficiently similar to the Petitioner. For example, the advertisement placed by indicates that it is ranked green design firms in the United States and

8

(b)(6)

Matter of QD- Inc.

its projects have been honored with over 400 awards for innovation. Further, there is no other information such as number of its employees or gross income to allow for a proper comparison with the Petitioner. 5

Further, some positions do not appear to be for parallel positions. For instance, senior interior designer position for requires minimum 10 years of experience in addition to a Bachelor's or Master's degree in interior design. It also requires a minimum one year supervisory and personnel management experience. The advertised position appears to be for more senior positions than the proffered position.

As the documentation does not establish that the Petitioner has met this prong of the regulations, further analysis regarding the specific information contained in each of the job postings is not necessary.6 That is, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed.

For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2).

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.

The evidence of record does not establish that this position is significantly different from other positions in the occupational category such that it refutes the Handbook's information that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent is not required for the proffered position. Upon review, we find that the Petitioner has not sufficiently developed relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the proffered position.

The evidence of record does not develop relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the position. The Petitioner did not submit evidence to demonstrate that the proffered position entails

5 The Petitioner does not demonstrate what inferences, if any, can be drawn from these few 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 (7th ed. 1995). As such, even if the job announcements supported the finding that the position required a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent (for organizations in the same industry that are similar to the Petitioner), it cannot be found that such a limited number of postings that appear to have been consciously selected could credibly refute the findings of the Handbook published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics that such a position does not normally require at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for entry into the occupation in the United States. 6 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.

9

Matter of QD- Inc.

work that is more complex or unique that it can only be performed by someone with a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty.

Upon review, we find that the Petitioner has not suffi.ciently developed relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the proffered position. The description of the duties does not specifically identify any tasks that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. The record lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish the proffered position as more complex or unique from other positions that can be performed by persons without at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent.

As indicated above, the LCA submitted by the Petitioner in support of the instant position was certified for a Level II (qualified) prevailing wage rate, the second lowest of the four assignable wage-levels. The proposed duties' level of complexity, uniqueness, and specialization, as well as the level of independent judgment and occupational understanding required to perform them, appear inconsistent with the Level II wage level. In accordance with the relevant DOL explanatory information on wage levels, this wage rate indicates, at best, that the Beneficiary is only required to perform moderately complex tasks that require limited judgment.

The Petitioner did not establish that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can only be performed by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Therefore, 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 at 387-88. Were USCIS limited solely to reviewing the Petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, then any individual with a bachelor's degree could be brought to the United States to perform any occupation as long as the Petitioner created a token degree requirement. !d. 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 stated in response to the first RFE that it previously employed someone in the proffered position who received a U.S. bachelor's degree in architecture. However, the Petitioner did not include copies of this prior employee's degree or evidence that she actually worked for the Petitioner in the same position, such as paystubs or an employment letter. "[G]oing on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings." Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of Cal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). As the Petitioner did not

10

Matter of QD- Inc.

provide sufficient evidence, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that it normally requires a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the proffered position under the third criterion of 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.

Upon review of the record of proceedings, we find that the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to satisfy this criterion of the regulations. In the instant case, relative specialization and complexity have not been credibly developed by the Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. That is, the proposed duties have not been described with sufficient specificity to establish that they are more specialized and complex than positions that are not usually associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Therefore, the evidence of record does not establish that the duties which collectively constitute this position are significantly different from those of other interior designer positions such that it refutes the Handbook's information to the effect that there is a spectrum of degree fields that are acceptable for interior designer positions.

We also incorporate our earlier discussion and analysis regarding the duties of the proffered position, and the designation of the proffered position in the LCA as a Level II position (the second lowest of four assignable wage-levels) relative to others within the same occupational category. 7 Upon review of the totality of the record, the Petitioner has not established that the nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. For these reasons, the evidence of record does not satisfy the fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A).

Therefore, the petition as currently constituted cannot be approved and this matter must be remanded to the Director for issuance of a new decision.

7 The Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level II position undermines its claim that the position is particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation. Nevertheless, a Level II wage­designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty occupation, just as a Level IV wage­designation 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.

1 1

Matter of QD- Inc.

V. CONCLUSION

As discussed, the evidence of record does not demonstrate that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. Consequently, the matter will be remanded to the Director for further review and issuance of a new decision in accordance with the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. The Director may request any additional evidence considered pertinent to the new determination.

ORDER: The decision of the Director, California Service Center, is withdrawn. The matter is remanded to the Director, California Service Center, for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision.

Cite as Matter ofQD-, Inc., ID# 16535 (AAO May 27, 2016)

12