dismissed H-1B Case: Accounting

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clear! y unwarranted 
invasion of personal privw 
pmLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: WAC 02 025 52562 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: AUG 0 7 ZOO6 
'- 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1 101 (a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
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 skilled nursing facility that seeks to extend its authorization to employ the beneficiary as a 
full-time accountant. The petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant worker in a 
specialty occupation pursuant to 5 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. 5 1 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition because the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. On appeal, 
counsel submits a brief. 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 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. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(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. 5 214.2(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 02 025 52562 
Page 3 
The petitioner is seeking the beneficiary's services as a full-time accountant. Evidence of the beneficiary's 
duties includes: the 1-129 petition; the petitioner's undated 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: preparing cash flow and budgetary projections; updating the general ledger and explaining 
variances; instituting a check and balance system; and instituting and developing a computerized accounting 
software system. The petitioner indicated that a qualified candidate for the job would possess a bachelor's 
degree in business administration, commerce, accounting, or a related field. 
The director found that the proffered position was not a specialty occupation because the petitioner has not 
demonstrated that the beneficiary will perform accounting/financial analyst duties. The director found further 
that the petitioner did not clarify as to why it has filed a large number of petitions for accountants and 
financial managers. 
On appeal, counsel states, in part, that the proffered position is that of an accountant for the petitioner, which 
has 4500 employees and annual revenues of $180,000,000. Counsel states f:rther that, although there is no 
evidence in the record of the petitioner filing any other petitions, it would not be unreasonable for an 
organization of this size to require the services of several accountants. Counsel also states that the 
beneficiary's H-1 professional worker status has been approved previously. 
Upon review of the record, the petitioner has established none of the four criteria outlined in 
8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(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. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l) 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 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 115 1, 1165 (D. 
Minn. 1999)(quoting HirdIBlaker Corp. v. Suva, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1 102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
The AAO routinely consults the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) for its 
information about the duties and educational requirements of particular occupations. Although a review of the 
Handbook finds that an accountant position may qualie as a specialty occupation, the AAO does not concur with 
counsel that the proffered position is that of an accountant. Counsel's assertion that the petitioner has 4500 
employees and annual revenues of $1 80,000,000 is not corroborated by any evidence such as federal income 
tax returns and quarterly wage reports. Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of 
counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not 
constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N 
Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). Further, as the record 
contains no evidence of the petitioner's organizational hierarchy, the exact nature of the proffered position is 
not clear. Simply going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for the purpose 
Page 4 
of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofjci, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
Counsel asserts that CIS has already determined that the proffered position is a specialty occupation since CIS 
has approved another, similar petition in the past. Each nonimmigrant petition, however, is a separate 
proceeding with a separate record. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.8(d). The AAO is never bound by a decision of a 
service center or district director. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), 
afd 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 5 1 (2001). 
The record does not include any evidence regarding parallel positions in the petitioner's industry. The record 
also does not include any evidence from firms, individuals, or professional associations regarding an industry 
standard, or documentation to support the complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position. 
The petitioner, therefore, has not established the criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I) or (2). 
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. As counsel does not address this issue on appeal, it will not be discussed 
further. The evidence of record does not establish this criterion. 
Finally, the AAO turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 2 14.2(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. Therefore, the evidence does not establish that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation under 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(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. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.