dismissed H-1B Case: Accounting

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
,gentlMng data deleted tQ 
prev- cL~ -varmtW 
in- of wrd pmirscv 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: WAC 03 084 5 1025 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: f CB 2 :$ 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)( 1 5)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 1 (a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 03 084 5 1025 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and the matter is now before 
the Administrative Appeals Ofice (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. The petition will be denied. 
The petitioner is a staffing company that seeks to employ the beneficiary as an accountant. The petitioner 
endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to section 
10 l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 8 1 101 (a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition because the petitioner did not establish that the proffered position was a 
specialty occupation. The director also stated that the petitioner had not complied with the terms of its 
previously approved petitions. On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief. 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 11 84(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. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, the position must meet one of 
the following criteria: 
(I) 
 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. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) interprets 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 proffered position. 
The record of proceeding before the AAO contains: (1) Form 1-129 and supporting documentation; (2) the 
director's request for additional evidence; (3) the petitioner's response to the director's request; (4) the 
director's denial letter; and (5) Form I-290B and supporting documentation. The AAO reviewed the record in 
its entirety before issuing its decision. 
WAC 03 084 5 1025 
Page 3 
The petitioner is seeking the beneficiary's services as an accountant. Evidence of the beneficiary's duties 
includes: the 1-129 petition; the petitioner's January 8, 2003 letter in support of the petition; and the 
petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence. According to this evidence, the beneficiary would 
perform duties that entail: compiling and analyzing financial information to prepare entries to general ledger 
accounts documenting business transactions; analyzing financial information detailing assets, liabilities, and 
capital; and preparing balance sheets and profit and loss statements. The petitioner indicated that a qualified 
candidate for the job would possess a bachelor's degree in business administration with a major in 
accounting. 
The director found that the proffered position was not a specialty occupation because the petitioner did not 
establish that there was a bona fide position for the beneficiary to fill. 
On appeal, the petitioner states that it would be the actual employer of the beneficiary. The petitioner also 
states that its record of filing numerous petitions relates to its business of staffing other organizations, and that 
it has a high turnover rate. The petitioner asserts that a license is not required for the proffered position. The 
petitioner further asserts that previous petitions, which were identical to the current petition, were approved. 
Upon review of the record, the petitioner has established none of the four criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. 
$ 2 14.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Therefore, the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 
The AAO turns first to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I) and (2): a baccalaureate or higher 
degree or its equivalent is the normal minimum requirement for entry into the particular position; a degree 
requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations; or a particular 
position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree. 
Factors often considered by CIS when determining these criteria include: whether the Department of Labor's 
Occupational Outlook Handbook (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 1 15 1, 1 165 (D. Minn. 1999) (quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Suva, 7 12 
F. Supp. 1095, I 102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
The AAO routinely consults the Handbook for its information about the duties and educational requirements of 
particular occupations. CIS looks beyond the title of the position and determines, from a review of the duties 
of the position and any supporting evidence, whether the position actually requires the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment of a baccalaureate degree 
in a specific specialty as the minimum for entry into the occupation as required by the Act. The petitioner has 
not provided enough detail about the position to establish that the beneficiary would actually be working as an 
accountant or what the beneficiary would do in that position on a daily basis. 
Although the record contains a staffing agreement between the petitioner and its client, the site where the 
beneficiary will work, the record does not contain a comprehensive description of the beneficiary's proposed 
duties from an authorized representative of the client. Without such a description, the petitioner has not 
WAC 03 084 51025 
Page 4 
demonstrated that the work that the beneficiary will perform for the client is an accountant or that it will 
qualify as a specialty occupation. Thus, the petitioner has not established the first criterion. 
The issue is not whether an accountant is a specialty occupation, because it normally is, but whether the 
petitioner has established that the beneficiary would actually be performing the duties of an accountant. A 
petitioner cannot establish its employment as a specialty occupation by describing the duties of that 
employment in the same general terms as those used by the Handbook in discussing an occupational title. 
This type of generalized description is necessary when defining the range of duties that may be performed 
within an occupation, but cannot be relied upon by a petitioner when discussing the duties attached to specific 
employment. In establishing a position as a specialty occupation, a petitioner must describe the specific 
duties and responsibilities to be performed by a beneficiary in relation to its particular business interests. 
In the instant case, the petitioner has offered no description of the duties of its proffered position beyond the 
generalized outline it provided at the time of filing. The petitioner has not established it will employ the 
beneficiary as an accountant; it cannot, therefore, establish that the position meets any of the requirements for 
a specialty occupation set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
Specific job duties vary widely among the four major fields of accounting: public, management, government, and 
internal. The closest category to the proffered position is the management accountant. In the Handbook, 
management accountants-also called cost, managerial, industrial, corporate, or private accountants-record and 
analyze financial information of the companies for which they work. Other responsibilities include budgeting, 
performance evaluation, cost management, and asset management. Usually, management accountants are part of 
executive teams involved in strategic planning or new-product development. They analyze and interpret the 
financial information that corporate executives need to make sound business decisions. They also prepare 
financial reports for nonmanagement groups, including stockholders, creditors, regulatory agencies, and tax 
authorities. Within accounting departments, they may work in various areas, including financial analysis, 
planning and budgeting, and cost accounting. 
Very few of the duties of a management accountant as described in the Handbook apply to the proffered position. 
According to the Handbook, management accountants prepare financial reports for nonmanagement groups, 
including stockholders, creditors, regulatory agencies, and tax authorities, and usually, they are part of executive 
teams. The beneficiary will not be part of an executive team. Nor will the beneficiary prepare financial reports 
for nonmanagement groups such as stockholders, creditors, or regulatory agencies. Given this significant 
dissimilarity, and the lack of detail about the proposed job duties in the context of the petitioner's client's business, 
the range of the proffered position's duties and responsibilities do not rise to the level of an accountant. 
Consequently, a bachelor's degree in accounting or a related field-which the Department of Labor states is 
required for a management accountant-would not be required for the proffered position. 
The petitioner did not submit any evidence regarding parallel positions in the petitioner's industry, nor does 
the record include any evidence from professional associations regarding an industry standard, or 
documentation to support the complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position. The petitioner has, thus, not 
established the criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. tj 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I) or (2). 
WAC 03 084 51025 
Page 5 
The AAO now turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3) - the employer normally requires a 
degree or its equivalent for the position. There is no evidence in the record regarding the petitioner's client's past 
hiring practices. In Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384 (5" Cir. 2000), the court held that the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service, now CIS, reasonably interpreted the statute and the regulations when it required the 
petitioner to show that the entities ultimately employing the foreign workers require a bachelor's degree for all 
employees in that position. The court found that the degree requirement should not originate with the employment 
agency that brought the aliens to the United States for employment with the agency's clients. 
Finally, the AAO turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(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. 
To the extent that they are depicted in the record, the duties do not appear so specialized and complex as to 
require the highly specialized knowledge associated with a baccalaureate or higher degree, or its equivalent, 
in a specific specialty. As noted above, the position description lacks detail about how the beneficiary would 
perform this position; therefore, the evidence does not establish that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation under 8 C.F.R. 5 2 14.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
As related in the discussion above, the petitioner has failed to establish that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation. Accordingly, the AAO shall not disturb the director's denial of the petition. 
Regarding the petitioner's assertion that identical petitions were previously approved, the record of proceeding 
does not contain copies of the visa petitions that the petitioner claims were approved. If the previous 
nonimmigrant petitions were approved based on the same unsupported and contradictory assertions that are 
contained in the current record, the approvals would constitute clear and gross error on the part of CIS. CIS is 
not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely because 
of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g. Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 
I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm. 1988). It would be absurd to suggest that CIS or any agency must treat 
acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 
1987); cert. denied 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Furthermore, the AAO's authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between the court of 
appeals and the district court. Even if a service center director had approved the nonimmigrant petitions on 
behalf of the beneficiary, the AAO would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of a service 
center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), afld 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 
2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 5 1 (2001). 
The director also found that the petitioner had not actually employed many of the individuals for whom it had 
previously received approval, and when it did employ them, they were frequently paid at a significantly lower 
rate than had been asserted on the Form 1-129 at the time of filing. The petitioner did not directly address this 
issue on appeal, and did not overcome the director's findings. 
WAC 03 084 51025 
Page 6 
An H-1B alien is coming temporarily to the United States to perform services in a specialty occupation. 
Section 1 Ol(a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 101(a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b). 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(h)(l)(ii)(B). In this 
case, the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary would be coming to the United States to perform 
services in a specialty occupation. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.