dismissed H-1B Case: Accounting

(b)(6)
DATE: FEB 0 6 2015 OFFICE: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Cirizenship and Immigration Service 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIO NS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish 
agency policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or 
policy to your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider 
or a motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form 
I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
715��.�� ���· Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Off ice 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director denied the nonimm igrant visa petition, and the matter is 
now before the Admin istrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. The 
petition will be denied. 
On the Petition for a Nonimm igrant Worker (Form I-12 9), the petitioner describes itself as a four­
employee "Retail" business established in The petitioner seeks to continue the employment 
of the beneficiary as an "Accountant" from October 1, 2013 to October 1, 2016. Accordingly, the 
petitioner endeavors to extend the beneficiary's classification as an H-lB nonimmi grant worker in a 
specialty occupation pursuant to section 101(a)(1 5)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 11 01 (a)(1 5)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition on the grounds that the petitioner failed to establish that the proffered 
position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation in accordance with the applicable statutory 
and regulatory provisions. 
The record of proceeding contains the following: (1) the petitioner's Form I-12 9 and supporting 
documentation; (2) the director's request for evidence (RFE); (3) the petitioner' s response to the 
RFE; (4) the director's notice of decision; and (5) the petitioner's Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, and supporting documentation. We have reviewed the record in its entirety before issuing 
our decision. 
Upon review of the entire record of proceeding, we find that the petitioner has failed to overcome the 
director's grounds for denying this petition. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed and the petition 
will be denied. 
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
As noted above, the petitioner indicated on the Form I-12 9 that it is a four-employee "Retail" 
business. The petitioner indicated that it seeks to continue the beneficiary's employment as an 
accountant to work on a full-time basis at an annual salary of $38, 709. The petitioner further 
indicated that the beneficiary will wo rk solely at the address of 
Texas, and will not work off-site. The petitioner indicated on its 2012 ana 2013 federal tax returns, 
U.S. Income Tax Return for an S Corporation (Form 11 20S), that it is a gasoline station and that its 
product or service is "GROCERY N GAS." 
The Labor Condition Application (LCA) submitted to support the visa petition states that the 
proffered position is an Accountant, and that it corresponds to Standard Occupational Classification 
(SOC) code and title "1 3-2011, Accountants and Auditors, " from the Occupational Information 
Network (O*NET). The LCA states that the proffered position is a Level I, entry-level, position. 
On the LCA and on the Form I-12 9 H-1B Data Collection Supplement, the petitioner listed its 
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code as 4471 10, "Gasoline Stations with 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
Convenience Stores. "1 
In a letter dated September 16, 2013 submitted with the petition, the petitioner described itself as a 
corporation "primarily in the business of retail distribution of food, automotive and household 
products." The petitioner stated that it has "about 4 employees." The petitioner asserted that, due to 
its "business structure," "the varied needs of their employees and customers, " "the highly 
specialized and competitive nature of the retail sales ... market, " as well as its 11goal of becoming a 
major participant in the industry," it is "imperativ e" for the petitioner to employ an employee "in the 
specialty occupation of an Accountant ." The petitioner then described the duties and requirements 
of the proffered position as follows: 
Job Duties 
In this position, [the beneficiary's] specific duties will include: (i) compiling 
and analyzing financial information and preparing financial reports by applying 
principles of gene rail y accepted accounting standards; (ii) preparing entries and 
reconciling general ledger accounts, documenting transactions, and summarizing 
current and projected financial position; (iii) maintain or examine the records of 
government agencies, and preparing detailed balance sheet, profit & loss, and cash 
flow statements; (iv) inspect account books and accounting systems for efficiency 
and use of accepted accounting procedures; (v) compute taxes owed and prepare tax 
returns, ensuring compliance with payment, reporting or other tax requirements; and 
(vi) analyzing operating statements, reviewing cost control programs, and making 
strategy recommendations to management. 
Minimum Job Requirements 
Due to the complex and demanding requirements of the posttlon of an 
Accountant, only a person of exceptional ability and skills in business administration, 
acc ou nting, and/or financial management is capable of qualifying as an Accountant 
for [the petitioner]. These minimum prerequisites for the offered position require a 
skilled professional with a Bachelor's degree in Business Administration, Accounting, 
Finance, or a related field. 
In the same letter, the petitioner asserted that the beneficiary is qualified to perform services in the 
proffered position by virtue of his education and work experience, which includes his continuous 
employment with the petitioner as an Accountant since 2009. 
1 U.S. Dep't of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, North American Industry Classification System, 2012 
NAICS Definition, "447110 Gasoline Stations with Convenience Stores," http://www.census.gov/cgi­
bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch (last visited Jan. 29, 2015). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
The director found the initial evidence insufficient to establish eligibility for the benefit sought, and 
issued an RFE. 
In response to the RFE, counsel for the petitioner submitted the following slightly revised list of the 
duties of the proffered position, along with the percentage of time spent on each duty:2 
• Compiling and analyzing financial information and preparing financial reports by 
applying principles of generally accepted accounting standards (30% ); 
• Preparing entries and reconciling general ledger accounts, maintaining payable 
and receivable records, detailing asserts, liabilities, capital, and preparing 
detailed balance sheet, profit and loss, and cash flow statement (20% ); 
• Inspect account books and accounting systems for efficiency and use of accepted 
accounting procedures (5%); 
• Compute taxes owed and prepare tax returns, ensuring compliance with payment, 
reporting or other tax requirements (10% ); 
• Analyzing operating statements, reviewing cost control programs, and making 
strategy recommendations to management (10% ). 
Counsel added that the most lucrative part of the petitioner's convenience store business is its check 
cashing services which includes cashing over $98,000 a month in checks. Counsel asserted that 
since the petitioner handles large amounts of cash, it must employ a professional accountant to 
"oversee this transfer of cash by ensuring that the Company has sufficient liquidity, 
preparing/reconciling ledger entries, preparing financial reports, reconciling accounts, auditing 
transactions and advising [the] President on methods to protect [the] Company from defaults and 
NSF, [and] working with taxing authorities for compliance reporting." Counsel further asserted that 
a "general bookkeeper could not be entrusted with such a vital role with little or general 
supervision." Counsel elaborated: 
Due to fthe] complexity of the voluminous transactions taking place, 
; strongly believes that having an in-house full-time Accountant 
will be efficient, cost-effective, and highly beneficial for the company. [The 
beneficiary's] responsibilities primarily include managing and directing the financial 
activities, rather than performing the day-to-day bookkeeping function. [The 
beneficiary] would be spending a majority of his time preparing, reviewing, and 
evaluating financial and tax records, implementing cost management techniques, and 
2 These duties only add up to a total of 75%. 
3 Counsel has not explained the relationship between the petitioner and 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
advising management in financial investment decisions to contribute to [the] 
financial success of [the petitioner]. In addition to supervising individuals who 
perform routine bookkeeping services, [the beneficiary] will spend a bulk of his time 
in establishing operational and financial security procedures and advising upper 
management with cost saving and investment strategies. 
Counsel asserted that the beneficiary is more than just a bookkeeper, as he is "also a business 
consultant ... [who] is able to interpret the financial and operational data of a business and offers 
valuable advice regarding operations and growth including providing advice on cash flow 
management, inventory management, price control, and business financi ng. " Counsel asserted that 
the beneficiary spends 95 percent of his time on accounting functions and only five percent of his 
time on bookkeeping functions. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner also submitted, inter alia, the following: 
1. The company's 2012 federal and state tax returns, which were prepared by an outside 
accounting firm, 
2. The petitioner' s quarterly federal tax returns for all quarters of 2012 and 2013: 
3. The petitioner's lease for property located on the corner of ' 
4. Various permits and licenses in the name of the petitioner under the trade name 
located at ' 
5. Various permits and licenses in the name of the petitioner under the trade name 
located at 
6. Invoice addressed jointly to the petitioner and located at 
7. Several invoices addressed to located at ' 
8. Excerpt from the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook 
(Handbook) chapter on "Accountants and Auditors"; 
9. Print-out of the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) OnLine Summary 
Report for the occupation "Accountants"; 
10. Copies of bank statements showing separate accounts for 
1 and I' 
11. Copies of several job postings; and 
12. Copies of paychecks and a 20 13 Form W-2 Wage and Tax Statement issued by the 
petitioner to the beneficiary. 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the evidence did not establish the proffered 
position as a specialty occupation. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Counsel filed an appeal. On appeal, counsel, who described the petitioner as "an acquisition, 
management and development firm, primarily in the business of retail distribution of food, 
automotive, and household products," largely reiterated the same assertions previously made in 
response to the RFE. Counsel provided yet another, slightly revised description of the duties of the 
proffered duties with revised percentages of time. 
In response to a Notice of Derogatory Information and Intent to Dismiss that we subsequently 
issued, the petitioner submitted, inter alia} its 2013 federal and state tax returns, which were again 
prepared by an outside accounting firm, 
II. THELAW 
The principle issue in this matter is whether the director correctly determined that the petitioner 
failed to establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. To meet its burden of proof 
on this issue, the petitioner must establish that the employment it is offering to the beneficiary meets 
the following statutory and regulatory requirements. 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation11 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) states, in pertinent part, the following: 
Specialty occupation means an occupation which [(1)] requires theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in fields of human 
endeavor including, but not limited to, architecture, engineering, mathematics, 
physical sciences, social sciences, medi cine and health, education, business 
specialties, accounting, law, theology, and the arts, and which [-(2)] requires the 
attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a 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, a proposed position 
must also meet one of the following criteria: 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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. 
As a threshold issue, it is noted that 8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must logically be read together 
with section 214( i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2 (h)( 4)(ii). In other words, this regulatory 
language must be construed in harmony with the thrust of the related provisions and with the statute 
as a whole. SeeK Mart Corp. v. Cartier) Inc., 486 U.S. 28 1, 291 (1 988) (holding that construction 
of language which takes into account the design of the statute as a whole is preferred); see also 
COlT Independence Joint Venture v. Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (19 89); 
Matter of W-F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 19 96). As such, the criteria stated in 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214 .2(h)( 4)(iii )(A) should logically be read as being necessary but not necessarily sufficient to 
meet the statutory and regulatory definition of specialty occupation. To otherwise int erpret this 
section as stating the necessary and sufficient conditions for meeting the definition of specialty 
occupation would result in particular positions meeting a condition under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2( h)(4)(iii )(A) but not the statutory or regulatory defini tion. See Defensor v. Meissner, supra. 
To avoid this result, 8 C.F.R. § 21 4.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must therefore be read as stating additional 
requirements that a position must meet, supplementing the statutory and regulatory definitions of 
specialty occupation. 
Consonant with section 214 (i)(l) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214 . 2(h)(4)(ii), USCIS 
consistently 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. 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"). Applying this standard, United States Citizens hip and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) regularly approves H-lB petitions for qualified aliens who are to be 
employed as engineers, computer scientists, certified public accountants, college professors, and 
other such occupations. These professions, for which petitioners have regularly been able to 
establish a minimum entry requirement in the United States of a baccalaureate or higher degree �n a 
specific specialty or its equivalent directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular 
position fairly represent the types of specialty occupations that Congress contemplated when it 
created the H -lB visa category. 
To determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCIS does not simply 
rely on a position's title. The specific duties of the proffered position, combined with the nature of 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
the petitioning entity1s business operations, are factors to be considered. USCIS must examine the 
ultimate employment of the alien, and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. The critical element is not the title 
of the position nor an employer's self-imposed standards, but whether the position actually requires 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty as the minimum for entry 
into the occupation, as required by the Act. 
III. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS 
Based upon a complete review of the record of proceeding, we will make some preliminary findings 
that are material to the determination of the merits of this appeal. 
A. Description of Duties of the Proffered Position 
To ascertain the intent of a petitioner, USCIS must look to the Form I-129 and the documents filed 
in support of the petition. It is only in this manner that the agency can determine the exact position 
offered, the location of employment, the proffered wage, et cetera. Pursuant to 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2 (h)(9)(i), the director has the responsibility to consider all of the evidence submitted by a 
petitioner and such other evidence that he or she may independently require to assist his or her 
adjudication . Further, the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iv) provides that 11[a]n H-lB petition 
involving a specialty occupation shall be accompanied by [ d]ocumentation ... or any other required 
evidence sufficient to establish ... that the services the beneficiary is to perform are in a specialty 
occupation.1 1 
Thus, a crucial aspect of this matter is whether the petitioner has adequately described the duties of 
the proffered position, such that users may discern the nature of the position and whether the 
position indeed requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge attained through attainment of at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific discipline. 
We find that the petitioner has not done so here. 
Here, the petitioner describes the duties of the proffered position in generalized terms. We note that 
the petitioner has described the duties of the benefici ary's employment in the same general terms as 
those used from various sources on the Internet; some of the wording of the duties, as stated by the 
petition er, is recited almost verbatim from these other sources.4 This type of generalized 
4 For example, duties for accountants as listed in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) include 
"Compiles and analyzes financial information to prepare entries to accounts, such as general ledger accounts, 
documenting business transactions" and "Analyzes financial information detailing assets, liabilities, and 
capital, and prepares balance sheet, profit and loss statement, and other reports." !d. at 
http://www.occupationalinfo.org; html (last visited Jan. 29, 2015). 
Similarly, duties as listed in the Handbook include "Inspect account books and accounting systems for 
efficiency and use of accepted accounting procedures" and "Compute taxes owed, prepare tax returns, and 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
description may be appropriate when defining the range of duties that may be performed within an 
occupational category, but is insufficient to adequately convey the substantive work that the 
beneficiary will perform within the petitioner's business operations. Such general descriptions 
cannot be relied upon by a petitioner when discussing the duties attached to specific employment 
for H-lB approval. In establishing a position as a specialty occupation, a petitioner must describe 
the specific duties and responsibilities to be performed by a beneficiary, demonstrate a legitimate 
need for an employee exists, and substantiate that it has H-lB caliber work for the beneficiary for 
the period of employment requested in the petition. 
The generalized functions described by the petitioner do not provide sufficient substantive 
information about the proffered position and its duties. For instance, in response to the RFE, the 
petitioner states that the beneficiary will be responsible for "compiling and analyzing financial 
information and preparing financial reports." The petitioner then proceeds to explain the 
"[ c]ommon duties for accountants" in general, without specifying the actual duties of the proffered 
position in the scope of the petitioner's actual business operations. These generalized statements fail 
to provide any insight into the nature of proffered position. Notably, the petitioner fails to explain 
how the performance of the proffered duties, as described in the record, would require the 
attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The petitioner 
merely states in conclusory terms that "accounting skills" and "thorough knowledge of all laws and 
regulations relating to accounting and practices" are necessary to perform the proffered duties, but 
does not provide any further explanation or documentary evidence to support these assertions. 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting 
the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 16 5 (Comm'r 1998 ) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 19 0 (Reg. Comm'r 19 72)). 
Thus, it is not evident that the proposed duties, as described in this record of proceeding, and the 
position that they comprise, merit recognition of the proffered position as a specialty occupation. 
To the extent that they are described, the proposed duties do not provide a sufficient factual basis 
for conveying the substantive matters that would engage the beneficiary in the actual performance 
of the proffered position for the entire three-year period requested. The proposed duties as 
described do not persuasively support the claim that the position's actual work would require the 
theoretical and practical application of any particular educational level of highly specialized 
knowledge in a specific specialty directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the proffered 
position. 
In addition, there are discrepancies and deficiencies within the record that raise doubt as to the 
credibility of the petitioner's statements and descriptions of the proffered position. For instance, in 
response to the RFE, the petitioner states that the beneficiary "will spend a bulk of his time in 
establishing operational and financial security procedures and advising upper management with cost 
ensure that taxes are paid properly and on time." !d. at http://wW\:v.bls.gov/ooh/business-and­
financial/accountants-and-auditors.htm#tab-2 (last visited Jan. 29, 2015). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
saving and investment strategies." However, in another section of the petitioner's RFE response in 
which the duties of the proffered position are listed with the approximate percentages of time spent 
on each duty, the petitioner states that the beneficiary will only spend 10 % of his time "[a]nalyzing 
operating statements, reviewing cost control programs, and making strategy recommendations to 
management." The petitioner does not clarify what portion of this 10% will be spent on the 
particular duty of "making strategy recommendations to management." Nevertheless, even if the 
beneficiary were to spend the entire 10 % on "making strategy recommen dations to management," 
this would still fall significantly short of spending "a bulk of his time .. . advising upper 
management," as the petitioner asserts. 5 Moreover, the petitioner does not list any duties involving 
establishing operational and financial procedures. 
It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent 
objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless 
the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 
19 I&N Dec. 582, 591- 92 (BIA 198 8). Doubt cast on any aspect of the petition er's proof may, of 
course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in 
support of the visa petition. !d. 
Significantly, while the petitioner claims that the beneficiary will supervise indivi duals who 
perform the routine bookkeeping services for the company, the record of proceeding does not 
corroborate this claim. That is, the petitioner has not identified and documented which of its four 
employees perform the routine bookkeeping services, as claimed. Further, the listed duties for the 
proffered position do not contain any supervisory duties. In fact, there is no explanation or 
documentation of the roles of the petitioner's employees in operating the business, or any 
substantive evidenc e of the petitioner's organizational structure. In other words, the record lacks 
probative evidence that the petitioner employs other individuals who perform the bookkeeping and 
other routine tasks necessary to the operation of the petitioner' s business, in order to relieve the 
beneficiary of such duties. Collectively, this brings into question how much of the beneficiary's 
time can actually be devoted to accounting duties. Again, doubt cast on any aspect of the remaining 
evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Id. 
In the instant case, the petitioner claims that the beneficiary has served in the proffered position 
since 2009. However, the petitioner has not provided examples of the beneficiary's actual work, 
even though such evidence was specifically requested in the director's RFE. Failure to submit 
requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the 
petition. 8 C.P.R. § 103 .2(b)(14). 
5 On appeal, the petitioner increased the percentage of time spent on these particular duties to 25%, without 
explaining the reason for the increase. Regardless, even if the beneficiary spent all 25% of his time on these 
duties, it still would fall significantly short of spending "a bulk of his time," as asserted. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
In particular, we note that the beneficiary's duties, as described by the petitioner, specifically 
include "compute taxes owed and prepare tax returns, ensuring compliance with payment, reporting 
or other tax requirements." However, the petitioner's 2012 and 2013 federal and state tax returns 
were prepared by an outside accounting firm, While the petitioner claims that 
these tax returns were "signed by an outside CPA" in order to "show independence," this 
explanation is neither credible nor supported by evidence. The petitioner has not sufficiently 
explained why an outside accounting service was required to prepare the petitioner's taxes while the 
petitioner claims to employ the beneficiary as a full-time accountant whose duties specifically 
include preparing the company's tax returns.6 
We also note that the evidence of record is unclear as to the exact nature and scope of the 
petitioner's business operations. According to its NAICS code and the petitioner's descriptions on 
the Form I -12 9 and supporting documentation, the petitioner is a gas station with a convenience 
store located at Texas. The petitioner indicates that the 
beneficiary will only work at this location and will not work off-site. However, the record of 
proceeding does not contain evidence establishing that the petitioner is actually doing business at 
this particular location, and that the beneficiary is working at this particular location. Again, going 
on record without supporting documentary evidenc e is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 16 5. 
Instead, the petitioner submitted evidence (e.g., licenses, permits, and invoices) reflecting that the 
oetitioner is doing business as, or is otherwise associated with, the following businesses: (1) 
located at 
located at The petitioner has not explained the nature of 
these other apparent businesses, their exact relationship to the petitioner, and the beneficiary's role 
with respect to these other businesses. As previously noted, the petitioner has not explained and 
documented the roles of the petitioner's employees or organizational structure. These apparent 
other businesses at different locations further call into question the petitioner's ability to relieve the 
beneficiary of non-accounting duties, especially considering that the petitioner only claims to 
employ four persons. 
On appeal, the petitioner states for the first time that it is "an acquisition, management and 
development firm ." If the petitioner is "an acquisition, management and development firm" as now 
claimed on appeal, this raises additional questions as to how the petitioner is able to relieve the 
beneficiary of performing non- accounting duties, especially considering that the petitioner only 
claims to employ four persons. 
It is reasonable to assume that the size of an employer's business has or could have an impact on the 
duties of a particular position. See 
6 We observe that the petitioner's quarterly federal tax returns do not list the beneficiary as a third-party 
designee with whom the government may discuss the petitioner's returns. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
Department of Homeland Security, 467 F. Supp. 2d 728 (E.D. Mich. 2006). Thus, the size of a 
petitioner may be considered as a component of the nature of the petitioner's business, as the size 
impacts upon the duties of a particular position. 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 degree or higher 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. Although this concern 
was specifically addressed in the director's RFE and again in the denial notice, the petitioner has not 
addressed nor provided credible documentation as to how the beneficiary will be relieved from 
performing non-qu alifying duties. 
Finally, we observe that any claims about the high-level duties of the proffered position, such as 
"managing and directing the [company's] financial activities, " supervising bookkeepers, and 
"establishing operational and financial security procedures and advising upper management with 
cost saving and investment strategies," are inherently contradictory to the level of responsibility 
conveyed by the Level I wage level indicated by the LCA submitted in support of petition. As will 
be discussed in more detail infra, the LCA designated the wage level for the proffered position as a 
Level I (entry) position, which corresponds to "job offers for beginning level employees who have 
only a basic understanding of the occupation . . . [and who] perform routine tasks that require 
limited, if any, exercise of judgment. "7 Considering that the LCA is certified for a Level I 
entry-level position, we must further question the veracity of the petitioner's descriptions of the 
proffered position. 
Overall, the above deficiencies and discrepancies in the record preclude a finding that the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
B. Academic Requirements for the Proffered Position 
The academic requirement identified by the petitioner as the minimum education necessary to 
perform services in the proffered position does not qualify the position as a specia 1ty occupation. 
Specifically, the petitioner stated that the duties of the proffered position require an individ ual with 
"a Bachelor's degree in Business Adminis tration, Accounting, Finance, or a related field.'' To 
qualify as a specialty occupation, a petitioner must demonstrate that the proffered position requires 
a precise and specific course of study that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of the 
position in question. Since there must be a close correlation between the required specialized 
studies and the position, the requirement of a general-purpose degree or a degree with a generalized 
7 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.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC_Guidance_Revised_11_2009.pdf. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
title, such as business administ ration, without further specification, does not establish the position as 
a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Associates, 19 I&N Dec. 558 (Comm'r 19 88). 
To demonstrate that a job requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly 
specialized knowledge as required by section 21 4(i)(1) of the Act, a petitioner must establish that 
the position requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specialized field of study or 
its equivalent. USCIS interprets the degree requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to require 
a degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. Although a 
general-purpose degree, such as a degree in business administration, may be a legitimate 
prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify a 
finding that a particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. See Royal 
Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) .8 The petitioner's assertions that a general 
purpose degree is sufficient to perform the duties of the position indicate that the proffered position 
is not in fact a specialty occupation. 
IV. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION DISCUSSION 
We will now address the director's basis for denial of the petition, namely that the petitioner did not 
establish that it would employ the beneficiary in a specialty occupation position. For an H-lB 
petition to be granted, the petitioner must provide sufficient evidence to establish that it will employ 
the beneficiary in a specialty occupation position. 
As previously discussed, the petitioner has failed to establish nature of the proffered position and in 
\vhat capacity the beneficiary will actually be employed. The petitioner's failure to establish the 
substantive nature of the work to be performed by the beneficiary precludes a finding that the 
proffered position satisfies any criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A), because it is the substantive 
nature of that work that determines (1) the normal minimum educational requirement for the particular 
position, which is the focus of criterion 1; (2) industry positions which are parallel to the proffered 
8 Specifically, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit explained in Royal Siam that: 
!d. 
[t]he courts and the agency consistently have stated that, although a general-purpose 
bachelor's degree, such as a business administration degree, may be a legitimate prerequisite 
for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify the granting 
of a petition for an H-IB specialty occupation visa. See, e.g., Tapis Jnt'l v. INS, 94 
F.Supp.2d 172, 175-76 (D.Mass. 2000); Shanti, 36 F. Supp.2d at 1164-66; cf Matter of 
Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I & N Dec. 558, 560 ([Co mm'r] 1988) (providing frequently cited 
analysis in connection with a conceptually similar provision). This is as it should be: 
elsewise, an employer could ensure the granting of a specialty occupation visa petition by 
the simple expedient of creating a generic (and essentially artificial) degree requirement. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
position and thus appropriate for review for a common degree requirement, under the first alternate 
prong of criterion 2; (3) the level of complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position, which is the 
focus of the second alternate prong of criterion 2; ( 4) the factual justification for a petitioner normally 
requiring a degree or its equivalent, when that is an issue under criterion 3; and (5) the degree of 
specialization and complexity of the specific duties, which is the focus of criterion 4. 
Nevertheless, we will now address in detail the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)( A). Assuming, 
arguendo, that the duties of the proffered position as described by the petitioner would in fact be the 
duties performed by the beneficiary, we will now address the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 21 4.2(h)(4)(iii)( A)(J) . This criterion requires that the petitioner establish 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 Handbook as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of 
the wide variety of occupations that it addresses.9 As previously discussed, the petitioner designated 
the proffered position in the LCA under the occupational category "Accountants and Auditors." 
Upon review, we note that the petitioner has not provided sufficient information to establish that the 
proffered position falls under the occupational category "Accountants and Auditors." Nevertheless, 
we reviewed the chapter of the Handbook entitled "Accountants and Auditors" including the 
sections regarding the typical duties and requirements for this occupational category. However, the 
Handbook does not indicate that "Accountants and Auditors" comprise an occupational group for 
which at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry. 
When reviewing the Handbook, we must note that the petitioner designated the proffered position as 
a Level I (entry) position in the LCA. This designation is indicative of a comparatively low, entry­
level position relative to others within the occupation and signifies that the beneficiary is only 
expected to possess a basic understanding of the occupation. Furthermore, the petitioner's 
designation of the position under this wage level signifies that the beneficiary will be expected to 
work under close supervision and receive specific instructions on required tasks and expected 
results. Additionally, the beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, 
if any, exercise of judgment. Moreover, the beneficiary's work will be closely monitored and 
reviewed for accuracy. DOL guidance indi cates that a job offer for a research fellow, a worker in 
training, or an internship is an ind icator that a Level I wage should be considered. 
The Handbook 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 (CPA), Certified Management Accountant 
(CMA) or any other professional designation to serve in the proffered position. 
9 All of the references to the Handb ook are to the 2014-2015 edition of the Handb ook, which may be 
accessed at the Internet site http://www.bls.gov/OCO/. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
While the Handbook states that most accountant positions require at least a bachelor's degree in 
accounting or a related field, the Handbook continues by stating the following: 
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. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., 
Accountants and Auditors, on the Internet at http://www .bls.gov/ooh/business-and­
financial/accountants-and-auditors. htm#tab-4 (last visited Jan. 29, 2015 ). 
The Handbook does not support a finding that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry. More specifically, the 
Handbook reports that some graduates from junior colleges, as well as bookkeepers and accounting 
clerks meeting education and experience requirements set by employers, can advance to accountant 
positions by demonstrating their accounting skills. According to the Handbook, indi viduals who 
have less than a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, can obtain junior 
accounting positions and then advance to accountant positions. The Handbook does not state that 
this education and experience must be the equivalent to at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty. 
The Handbook does not indicate that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is normally 
the minimum requirement for entry into this occupation . Rather, the occupation accommodates a 
wide spectrum of educational credentials, including less than a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty. The Handbook states that most accountants and auditors need at least a bachelor's degree, 
however, this statement does not support the view that any accountant job qualifies as a specialty 
occupation as "most" does not indicate that a particular position within the wide spectrum of 
accountant Jobs normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivale nt. 1 More specifically, "most" is not indicative that a position normally requires at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, (the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l )), or that a position is so specialized and complex as to require knowledge 
usually associated with attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty (the 
to 
For instance, the first definition of "most" in Webster' s New College Dictionary 731 (Third Edition, Hough 
Mifflin Harcourt 2008) is "[ g]reatest in number, quantity, size, or degree ." As such, if merely 51% of the 
positions require at least a bachelor's degree, it could be said that "most" of the positions require such a 
degree. It cannot be found, therefore, that a particular degree requirement for "most" positions in a given 
occupation equates to a normal minimum entry requirement for that occupation, much less for the particular 
position proffered by the petitioner (which as noted above is designated as a Level I entry position in the 
LCA). Instead, a normal minimum entry requirement is one that denotes a standard entry requirement but 
recognizes that certain, limited exceptions to that standard may exists. To interpret this provision otherwise 
would run directly contrary to the plain language of the Act, which requires in part "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." Section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 16 
criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h) (4)(iii)(A)(4)). Therefore, even if the proffered position were 
determined to be an accountant position, the Handbook 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 
entry. 
In the instant 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. Furthermore, the duties and requirements of the proffered position as described in 
the record of proceeding by the petitioner do not indicate that the position is one for which a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry. Thus, the petitioner failed to satisfy the criterion at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214 .2(h)(4)(iii) (A)(J). 
Next, we will review the record regarding the first of the two alternative prongs of 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A)( 2). This prong alternatively calls for a petitioner to establish that a 
requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to 
the petitioner's industry in positions that are both: (1) parallel to the proffered position; and (2) 
located in organizations that are similar to the petitioner. 
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. 19 99) (quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 10 95, 110 2 (S.D.N.Y. 19 89 )). 
Here and as already 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 of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. We incorporate 
by reference the previous discussion on the matter. Further, the record does not contain any letters 
from the industry's professional association indicating that it has made a degree a minimum entry 
requirement. 
In response to the director's RFE, the petitioner submitted copies of job advertisements in support of 
the assertion that the degree requirement is common to the petitioner's industry in parallel positions 
among similar organizations . However, upon review of the evidence, we find that the petitioner's 
reliance on the job announcements is misplaced. 11 
For instance, the petitioner has not established that it and the advertising organizations are similar 
and in the same industry. Without such evidence, postings submitted by a petitioner are generally 
11 
Many of the internet postings the petitioner provided are partially or completely illegible. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 17 
outside the scope of consideration for this criterion, which encompasses only organizations that are 
similar to the petitioner and in the petitioner's industry. It is not sufficient for the petitioner to claim 
that the organizations are similar and in the same industry without providing a legitimate basis for 
such assertions.12 Moreover, many of the advertisements do not appear to be for parallel positions, 
as several of the postings were for senior-level accountants with several years of experience. As 
previously discussed, the petitioner designated the proffered position on the LCA through the wage 
level as a Level I (entry level) position. In addition, the petitioner did not provide any independent 
evidence of how representative the job advertisements are of the advertising employers' recruiting 
history for the type of jobs advertised. As the advertisements are only solicitations for hire, they are 
not evidence of the employers' actual hiring practices. 
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. That is, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. The evidenc e does 
not establish that similar organizations in the same industry routinely require at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for parallel positions. 
Thus, based upon a complete review of the record, the petitioner has not established that a 
requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to 
the petitioner's industry in positions that are both: (1) parallel to the proffered position; and (2) 
located in organizations that are similar to the petitioner. 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). 
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. 
As previously discussed, the petitioner has not sufficiently developed relative complexity or 
uniqueness as an aspect of the proffered position. That is, the evidence of record is insufficient to 
demonstrate the substantive nature of the duties the beneficiary will perform on a day-to-day basis 
such that complexity or uniqueness can even be developed. Furthermore, the petitioner has not 
provided sufficient documentation to support a claim that its particular position is so complex or 
unique that it can only be performed by an individual with a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. For instance, the petitioner claims that it needs the services of 
an Accountant to expand its business operations, but did not provide documentation to support such 
a claim (e.g., a business plan; documentation substantiating the expansion of physical facilities; 
12 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that it had submitted internet postings for "convenient/retail 
business, posting for cell phone retail store, posting for several small-scale jewelry stores ." However, the 
petitioner provided no objective evidence to su pport these characterizations. Going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 18 
plans to hire staff; evidence substantiating that the petitioner intends to establish branch, subsidiary 
or affiliate offices; probative evidence substantiating investments or new revenue sources; or other 
documentation regarding development/expansion plans).13 
The LCA submitted by the petitioner in support of the instant petition further undermines any claim 
of eligibility under the second alternative prong of 8 C.P.R. § 214 .2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)( 2). More 
specifically, the LCA indicates a wage level at a Level I (entry level) wage. As prev iously 
mentioned, the wage-level of the proffered position indicates that the beneficiary is only required to 
have a basic understanding of the occupation; that he will be expected to perform routine tasks that 
require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; that he will be closely supervised and his work closely 
monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and that he will receive specific instructions on required tasks 
and expected results. Without further evidence, it is simply not credible that the petitioner's 
proffered position is complex or unique. 
The petitioner fails to demonstrate how the duties of the position as described 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. For instance, the 
petitioner has not submitted information relevant to a detailed course of study leading to a specialty 
degree and did not establish how such a curriculum is necessary to perform the duties it may believe 
are so complex and unique. While a few related courses may be beneficial, or even required, in 
performing certain duties of the position, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate 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. 
Overall, the evidence fails to demonstrate that the proffered 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. Consequently, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner has satisfied the second 
alternative prong of 8 C.P.R. § 21 4.2(h)(4)(iii )(A)(2). 
The third criterion of 8 C.P.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 . To 
merit approval of the petition under this criterion, the record must establish that a petitioner's 
imposition of a degree requirement is not merely a matter of preference for high-caliber candidates 
but is necessitated by performance requirements of the position. 
While a petitioner may assert that a proffered position requires a specific degree, that statement 
alone, without corroborating evidence, cannot establish the position as a specialty occupation. 
13 Regardless, the claim that the petitioner intends to expand its business operations in the future is 
insufficient to demonstrate that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. That is, a petitioner 
must establish eligibility at the time of filing the nonimmigrant visa petition. See 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)( 1). A 
visa petition may not be approved at a future date after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a 
new set of facts. Matter of Michelin Tire Corp. , 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. Comm'r 1978). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 19 
Were users limited solely to reviewing a 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 artificially created a token degree requirement, whereby all individuals 
employed in a particular position possessed a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d at 388. In other words, if a 
petitioner's stated degree requirement is only designed to artificially meet the standards for an H-lB 
visa and/or to underemploy an individual in a position for which he or she is overqualified and if the 
proffered position does not in fact require such a specialty degree or its equivalent, to perform its 
duties, the occupation would not meet the statutory or regulatory definition of a specialty 
occupation. See § 214( i)(1) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty 
occupation "). 
To sa tisfy this criterion, the evidence of record must show that the specific performance 
requirements of the position generated the recruiting and hiring history. A petitioner's perfunctory 
declaration of a particular educational requirement will not mask the fact that the position is not a 
specialty occupation. users must examine the actual employment requirements, and, on the basis 
of that examination, determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. See 
generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. In this pursuit, the critical element is not the title of 
the position, or the fact that an employer has routinely insisted on certain educational standards, but 
whether performance of the position actually requires the theoretical and practical application of a 
body of highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the 
specific specialty as the minimum for entry into the occupation as required by the Act. To interpret 
the regulations any other way would lead to absurd results: if users were constrained to recognize 
a specialty occupation merely because the petitioner has an established practice of demanding 
certain educational requirements for the proffered position - and without consideration of how a 
beneficiary is to be specifically employed - then any alien with a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty could be brought into the United States to perform non-specialty occupations, so long as 
the employer required all such employees to have baccalaureate or higher degrees. See id. at 388. 
In response to the RFE, counsel for the petitioner states that the proffered position "has always been 
[filled by individuals] with education and experience equivalent to a U.S. Bachelor's degree in 
Business Administration, Accounting, Finance, or a related degree which requirements have 
remained consistent in our staffing of [the beneficiary] ." However, the petitioner has not provided 
any documentation to support this statement. Going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter 
of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 . 
Upon review of the record, 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. Thus, the petitioner has not satisfied the third criterion of 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214 .2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 20 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. 
The submitted documentation fails to support the assertion that the proffered position satisfies this 
criterion of the regulations. The petitioner has failed to credibly demonstrate the duties the 
beneficiary will perform on a day-to-day basis such that specialization or complexity can be 
sufficiently developed as an aspect of the proffered position. We also reiterate our earlier 
comments and findings with regard to the implication of the petitioner' s designation of the proffered 
position in the LCA as a Level I (the lowest of four assignable levels) position. 
The petitioner has submitted inadequate probative evidence to satisfy this criterion of the 
regulations. The evidence of record does not establish that the duties of the position are 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. The 
petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii) (A)(4). 
For the reasons related in the preceding discussion, the petitioner has not established that it has 
satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2( h)( 4)(iii)( A) and, therefore, it cannot be found that 
the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The appeal will be dismissed and the 
petition denied for this reason. 
V. CONCLUSION 
The instant petition seeks to extend the beneficiary's H-lB employment with the petitioner. We 
note that we are 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'r 19 88). 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by us even if the service center does not identi fy all of the grounds for denial in the initial 
decision. See Spencer Enterpr ises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 
2001), affd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 145 (noting that we 
conduct appellate review on a de novo basis). 
Moreover, when we deny a petition on multiple alternative grounds, a plaintiff can succeed on a 
challenge only if it shows that we abused our discretion with respect to all of the enumerated 
grounds. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 10 43, affd. 345 F.3d 
683 . 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.