dismissed H-1B Case: Accounting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF L-C-I-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 15. 2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129. PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an apparel retail company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a part-time 
·'accountant" 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 of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the evidence of 
record does not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Subsequently, the Petitioner tiled a combined motion to reopen and reconsider, and the Director 
affirmed her decision to deny the petition. 
On appeal. the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Director erred in denying 
the petition. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i )(I) of the Act. 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 non­
exhaustive 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: 
Matter of L-C-1-. Inc. 
(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 
(.f) 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 have consistently interpreted the term "'degree"' 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. Chertqfj; 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"'): Dej'ensor v. Meissner, 
201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary will be employed as a part-time accountant and. on the 
labor condition application (LCA) 1 submitted in support of the H-1 B petition. designated the proffered 
position under the occupational category "Accountants and Auditors,'" corresponding to the Standard 
Occupational Classification code 13-20 I L at a Level I wage rate. 2 
The Petitioner submitted the following duties for the proffered position: 
• Responsible for developing, interpreting and implementing financial cost accounting 
concepts for financial planning, budgeting, and general ledger applications. Gather. 
analyze, prepare. and summarize information for financial plans, operations and 
budgets. Design and implement effective management information and control 
1 
The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) to 
demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 8 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 arc performing the same services. See Matter o(Simein Solutions, LLC. 26 I&N Dec. 542. 545-546 
(AAO 2015). 
2 
A wage determination starts at a Level I (entry) wage and progresses to a higher wage level after considering the 
experience, education. and skill requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. DOL, Emp't & Training Admin., 
Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009). available at 
http://www. foreignlaborcert.doleta.govipdf!NPWHC_ Guidance_ Revised_ I I_ 2009.pdf 
2 
Matter ofL-C-1-, Inc. 
system. This is needed to navigate managerial decisions, stabilize budgets and 
standards. and assess operational efficiency and the effectiveness of distribution 
system. In particular. should be able to identify areas where improvements can be 
made and work with management to ensure understanding of the results and impact 
on business: 
• Perform technical analysis to determine present and future finance performance. 
Interpret information and data related to business activities and translate them to 
guide management into taking the right decisions: 
• Research and improve existing cost analysis and processes and continually improve 
the accounting and general ledge reporting and analysis processes. Contribute in 
plans to reduce non-value added costs, setting overhead rates and cost reduction 
efforts: 
• Oversee the preparation of monthly financial statements. quarterly and year-end 
financial reports. Plan costing systems and methods, investments analysis, internal 
audit, cost audit, fund management, and pricing planning. Coordinate and participate 
in annual physical inventory. Analyze pricing proposal against cost calculation. 
Perform budget and forecast project variance analysis; 
• Research, compile and track industry performance for top competitors. Maintain 
statistics on key economic indicators; 
• Devote time in implementing a system that will be available to other Accountants at 
the conclusion of his period of stay. 
According to the Petitioner, the protlered position reqmres at least a bachelor's degree m the 
relevant field. 
III. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualities as a specialty occupation:' 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or 
its equivalent. commensurate with a specialty occupation. 4 
A. First Criterion 
We turn first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(/), 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. We recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) 
1 
Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap. we will address each ofthe criteria individually. 
4 
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. 
Matter olL-C-1-. Inc. 
Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and educational 
requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 5 
The subchapter of the Handbook entitled ''How to Become an Accountant or Auditor:·h states. in 
pertinent part: ''[ m ]ost accountant and auditor positions require at least a bachelor's degree in 
accounting or related field.'' However, it also states ''in some cases. those with associate· s degrees. 
as well as bookkeepers and accounting clerks who meet the education and experience requirements 
set by their employers. get junior accounting positions and advance to accountant positions by 
showing their accounting skills on the job." Thus. the Handbook does not indicate that at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. or its equivalent. is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the ''Accountants and Auditors'' occupation. Rather. this occupation accommodates those 
with associate's degrees as well as bookkeepers and accounting clerks who meet the education and 
experience requirements set by their employers. 
On appeaL the Petitioner asserts "in this instance we are looking at the typical entry level education 
not an outlier." The Petitioner further asserts that it is "not looking to hire the beneficiary as a junior 
accountant,'' and that it is ·'looking to hire additional accountant to work under the beneficiary ... 
However, when reviewing the Handbook, we must consider the Petitioner's designation of the 
proffered position at a Level I wage rate (the lowest of four assignable wage levels). The Level I 
wage designation indicates that the proffered position is a relatively low, entry-level position 
compared to other positions within the same occupation. 7 The record lacks sufficient evidence to 
5 
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 we regularly review 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. 
6 
The Handbook also reports that certification may be advantageous or even required for some accountant positions. 
However, there is no indication that the Petitioner requires the Beneficiary to have obtained the designation Certified 
Public Accountant, Certified Management Accountant, or any other professional designation to serve in the proffered 
position. 
7 
According to the DOL guidance, wage levels should be determined only after selecting the most relevant occupational 
code classification. Then. a prevailing wage determination is made by selecting one of four wage levels for an 
occupation based on a comparison of the employer's job requirements to the occupational requirements provided by the 
Occupational Information Network (O*NET). including tasks, knowledge. skills, and the specific vocational preparation 
(SVP) (education, training and experience) generally required for acceptable performance in that occupation. It is 
through the wage level that the Petitioner reflects the job requirements, experience. education, special skills/other 
requirements and supervisory duties. 
If the proffered position requires supervising other accountants, it may require an increase in the wage level and the 
Petitioner has not established that Levell wage supports and corresponds to the petition. See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't 
& Training Admin .. Prevailing Wage Determination Potier Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 
2009), available at http://flcdatacenter.com/download/ NPWHC_Guidance_Revised_ll_2009.pdf: 20 C.F.R. 
§ 655.705(b). 
4 
Matter (~fL-C-1-. Inc. 
support a finding that an entry-level accountant position such as this (according to the LCA) would 
normally have a minimum specialty degree requirement (or its equivalent), especially when the 
Handbook does not indicate that the occupational category of accountants, as a whole, has such a 
requirement. 
On appeal, the Petitioner relies on Young China Dai~v v. Chappell. 742 F. Supp. 552 (N.D. Cal. 
1989), asserting that the Director erroneously focused on the size of the Petitioner in reviewing the 
petition and reaching her decision. 8 While we concur that USCIS should not limit its review to the 
size of a petitioner and must consider the actual responsibilities of the proffered position, we 
conclude that it is reasonable to assume that the size of an employer's business has or could have an 
impact on the claimed duties of a particular position. See EG Enters .. Inc. v. Dep 't of Homeland 
Sec., 467 F. Supp. 2d 728 (E.D. Mich. 2006). In matters where a petitioner's business is relatively 
small, we review the record for evidence that its operations, are, nevertheless. of sufficient 
complexity to indicate that it would employ the Beneficiary in a position requiring the theoretical 
and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge that may be obtained only 
through a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty. or its equivalent. Additionally, 
when a petitioner employs relatively few people, it may be necessary for the petitioner to establish 
how the beneficiary will be relieved from performing non-qualifying duties. 
The organizational chart indicated that the Beneficiary will be the only employee working in its 
accounting department. While the Petitioner stated that a junior accountant will be hired in the 
future, it is unclear whether the Beneficiary will be relieved from performing non-qualifying duties 
while the more junior position remains untilled. 
In addition. the Petitioner provided inconsistent evidence regarding its business operations. For 
example, the Petitioner stated in the H-1 B petition that the company was established in 2014, and 
under the gross annual income section the Petitioner wrote, "TBD new company.'' However. it 
stated in the support letter that it began in 2007. Furthermore, in response to the Director's request 
for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner claimed that the company reorganized in June 2015 and has fewer 
employees. It is not clear if the company is a new business. reorganized after 2014, and whether its 
operations are of sufficient complexity to establish that a bachelor's or higher degree in a specitic 
specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into this particular 
position. 
We turn finally to the Petitioner's assertions and citations on appeal pertaining to the definition of 
the terms "profession" and '·professional.'' Those definitions are not relevant here. as they relate to 
immigrant visa petitions and whether the beneficiaries of those petitions were members of the 
R In contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case law of a United States circuit court, we are not bound to 
follow the published decision of a United States district court in matters arising within the same district. See Malfer of' 
K-S-. 20 I&N Dec. 715,719-20 (BIA 1993). Although the reasoning underlying a districtjudge·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. !d. 
Matter of L-C-1-. Inc. 
professions as defined in section 101(a)(32) ofthe Act 8 U.S.C. ~ 1101(a)(32). The issue before us 
is whether the Petitioner's proffered position qualifies as a nonimmigrant H -1 B specialty occupation 
-not whether it is a profession. 9 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation from a probative source to substantiate its 
assertion regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. Thus. the 
Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 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 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 
requiremenC (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 at1idavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms '"routinely employ 
and recruit only degreed individuals." See ,)hanti. Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151. 1165 (D. Minn. 
1999) (quoting Hird!Biaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095. 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (considering 
these "'factors'' to inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
As previously discussed. the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook. or another authoritative source, reports a requirement for at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty. or its equivalent. We incorporate by reference the previous discussion on the 
matter. Furthermore. the Petitioner has not offered evidence from an industry professional 
association, or from firms or individuals in the industry. indicating such a degree is a minimum 
requirement for entry into the position. 
9 
The primary difference between qualifying as a profession and qualifying as a specialty occupation is that specialty 
occupations require the U.S. bachelor's or higher degree to be in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, while an 
occupation may be specifically identified as qualifying as a profession as defined in section I 0 I (a)(32) of the Act, it 
would not necessarily qualify as a specialty occupation unless it met the definition of that term at section 214(i)( 1) of the 
Act. 
.
Matter of L-C-1-, Inc. 
The Petitioner submitted job announcements placed by other employers for our consideration under 
this criterion. The Petitioner stated that the advertisements are from similar companies. However, 
we note that most of the postings did not provide information of the posting company. In addition. 
three of the job postings are from Accounting Principles, described as a leader in finance and 
accounting staff~ which is different from the Petitioner's business as a retail company. In addition, 
the Petitioner does not explain how the services provided by these companies are similar to those 
provided by the Petitioner or how it came to the conclusion that they are in the same industry. 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 basis for such an assertion. 
Further, many of the advertisements do not appear to involve parallel positions. For example, the 
postings require a degree and several years of experience, such as: 
• -
3 to 5 years of experience; 
• - the posting is for a "senior accountant" that requires 1 0+ years 
of experience; 
• - the posting is for a "senior accountant" that requires 5 years of 
expenence; 
• - the posting is for a "senior accountant" and requires 3-5 years of 
experience; and 
• - the positing is for a "senior accountant" and requires 5+ years of 
expenence. 
As noted, the Petitioner attested to DOL that the proffered position is a Level L entry-level position. 
In addition, we observe that several of the job vacancy announcements contain terms that seem to be 
at odds with a Level I designation (e.g., "'supervising the day-to-day operations:' "train and mentor 
team members." "previous supervisory experience," etc.). Finally, we observe that several of the 
advertised positions require designation as a certified public accountant. which does not appear to be 
a requirement for the proffered position. These factors suggest that the advertised positions are not 
all entry-level positions that are "parallel" to the one proffered here. 
In addition, some ofthe postings do not indicate that at least a bachelor's degree in a directly related 
specific specialty (or its equivalent) is required. 1° For instance, the posting for states that a 
10 
As discussed, the degree requirement set by the statutory and regulatory framework of the H-1 B program is not just a 
bachelor's or higher degree, but a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the duties of the 
position. See section 214(i)(l)(b) ofthe Act and 8 C.F.R. ~ 214.2(h)(4)(ii). Further, a preference for a degree in a field 
is not necessarily an indication of a minimum requireme/11. 
Matter of L-( '-!-, Inc. 
bachelor's degree is needed, but did not state that it needed a bachelor's degree in a specific .specialty 
( . . I ) II or Its eqwva ent . 
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 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 he 
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 qualities as a specialty occupation, the 
Petitioner submitted a job description for the proffered position and information regarding its 
business operations. However, we conclude that the Petitioner did not sufticiently develop relative 
complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position. and it did not identify any tasks 
that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. For 
example. 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 a few related courses may be beneficial, or even 
required, in performing certain duties of the position, we conclude that 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 duties of the proffered 
position. 
As noted, the Petitioner designated the proffered pos1t10n as an entry-level positiOn within the 
occupational category by selecting a Level I wage. 12 This designation. when read in combination 
11 It must be noted that 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 
Kenera//y Earl Babbie, The Practice oj'S'ocia/ 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"). 
12 
The Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I. entry-level position undermines its claim that the position is 
particularly complex. specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation. Nevertheless, a 
Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty occupation. just as a 
Level IV wage-designation 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 
Matter of L-C-1-. Inc. 
with the evidence presented and the Handbook's account of the requirements for this occupation. 
suggests that the particular position is not so complex or unique that the duties can only be 
performed an individual with bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 13 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position, and references his 
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. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the 
second alternative prong of8 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,fiJr the position. The 
Petitioner concedes on that this is a newly-created position. The Beneficiary is the company's first 
and only accountant. Consequently, the record contains no evidence of prior recruiting and hiring 
requirements for this particular position, which is the focus of this criterion. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner provided a job vacancy announcement it posted for a junior 
accountant, who it claims the Beneficiary will supervise. The Petitioner further stated that the 
position of junior accountant requires a bachelor's degree. and since the Beneficiary will supervise 
this position, the Beneficiary therefore, will also require a bachelor's degree. 
We reviewed the documentation but, without more, conclude that it does not establish that the 
Petitioner satisfies the degree requirement under this criterion. Rather, the job vacancy 
announcement shows the Petitioner's preference to hire an individual with a degree. The 
Petitioner's job announcement stated a ·'bachelor's degree in accounting and finance preferred." 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, 201 F.3d at 387-88. Moreover, as this job vacancy announcement does not advet1ise the 
position the Beneficiary would hold. it is of limited evidentiary value. 
In any event. the record does not contain evidence regarding the Petitioner's prior recruitment and 
hiring practices, information regarding current or former employees who have served in the position. 
or other documentation in support of the Petitioner's claim. Without more. the Petitioner has not 
provided sufficient evidence to establish that it normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a 
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. 
u The evidence of record does not establish that this position is significantly different from other positions within the 
occupational category such that it refutes the Handbook's information to the effect that some may qualify for the position 
with less than a bachelor's degree. 
9 
Matter ofL-( '-!-. Inc. 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the proffered position. Therefore, it has not satisfied the third 
criterion of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J). 
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. 
We conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently developed relative specialization and complexity 
as an aspect of the proffered position. The proposed duties have not been described with enough 
detail to show that they are more specialized and complex than other accountant positions that are 
not usually associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The 
Petitioner does not establish how the generally described duties elevate the proffered position to a 
specialty occupation. We also incorporate our earlier discussion and analysis regarding the duties of 
the proffered position, and the designation of the position in the LeA as a Level I position. For the 
reasons discussed above, the evidence of record does not meet 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(-/). 
E. Prior Approval 
The Petitioner points to the facts that another petitioner filed an H-1 B pet1t1on on behalf of the 
Beneficiary and received an approval as evidence that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation. The Director's decision does not indicate whether she reviewed this other petition. 
However, the mere fact that USers, by mistake or oversight, approved a visa petition on one 
occasion does not create an automatic entitlement to the approval of a subsequent petition for 
renewal of that visa. See, e.g., Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 148 (1st Cir 2007): 
Matter ol Church ScientoloAry Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r. 1988). Each nonimmigrant 
petition filing is a separate proceeding with a separate record and a separate burden of proof. In 
making a determination of statutory eligibility. users is limited to the information contained in that 
individual record of proceeding. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(h)(16)(ii). 
A prior approval does not compel the approval of a subsequent petition or relieve the Petitioner of its 
burden to provide sut1icient documentation to establish current eligibility for the benefit 
sought. 14 Temporary Alien Workers Seeking Classification Under the Immigration and Nationality 
Act. 55 Fed. Reg. 2,606, 2,612 (Jan. 26, 1990) (to be codified at 8 C.F.R. pt. 214). Furthermore, our 
authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a court of appeals and a 
I.J USClS recently issued a memo clarifying that "'an adjudicator's fact-finding authority ... should not be constrained by 
any prior petition approval, but instead should be based on the merits of each case.·· USC IS Policy Memorandum, PM-
602-0 151, Rescission of Guidance Regarding Deference to Prior Determinations of Eligihility in the Adjudication of 
Petitions for Extension of Nonimmigrant Status (Oct. 23, 20 17). https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/ 
Memoranda/20 17/2017-1 0-23Rescission-of·Deference-PM6020 151.pdf 
10 
Matter of L-C-1-. Inc. 
district court. Even if a service center director had approved the nonimmigrant petitions on behalf of 
a beneficiary, we would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of a service center. 5-,'ee 
La. Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 44 F. Supp. 2d 800, 803 (E.D. La. 1999). 
The prior H-1 B approval, therefore, does not establish the proffered position as a specialty 
occupation. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not established that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofL-C-I-. Inc .. ID# 724666 (AAO Dec. 15, 20 17) 
1 1