dismissed H-1B Case: Accounting

MATTER OF I-E- LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 2, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a hospitality company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an 
"accountant" under the H-lB 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, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and asserts that 
the Director erred in finding that the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a 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 1-E- LLC 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that 
knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the 
attainment of a .baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). U.S. Citize~ship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has consistently 
interpreted the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any 
baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed 
position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree 
requirement in a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a 
particular position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
In the H-IB petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as an "accountant." In its 
support letter, the Petitioner provided the following job duties for the position: 
DESCRIPTION TIME% 
Compiling and analyzing financial information and preparing financial 30% 
reports by applying principles of generally accepted accounting 
standards 
Preparing entries and reconciling general ledger, maintaining payable 10% 
and receivable records, detailing assets, liabilities, capital, and preparing 
detailed balance sheet, profit and loss, and cash flow statement 
Auditil}g orders, contracts, individual transactions and preparing 10% 
depreciation schedules to apply to capital assets 
Preparing compliance reports for taxing authorities 10% 
Reconciling cash and sales reports, prepare cash flow statements and 10% 
deposits 
Analyzing operating statements, review cost control programs, and 30% 
make strategy recommendations to management 
2 
Matter of 1-E- LLC 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-1B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Accountants and Auditors" 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 13-2011. 1 
According to the Petitioner, the position requires a bachelor's degree in business administration, 
accounting, finance, or a related field. 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 2 
Specifically, the record (1) does not describe the position's duties with sufficient detail; and (2) does 
not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate 
with a specialty occupation. 3 
A. Preliminary Findings 
1. Insufficient Job Description 
When determining whether a position is a specialty occupation, we must look at the nature of the 
business offering the employment and the description of the specific duties of the position as it 
relates to the particular employer. To ascertain the intent of a petitioner, USCIS looks 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.F.R. § 214.2(h)(9)(i), the Director has the responsibility to consider all of the 
eviderice 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.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iv) provides that 
"[a]n H-1B petition involving a specialty occupation shall be a<;companied 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 The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level I wage (the lowest of four assignable wage levels). We will 
consider this selection in our analysis of the position. The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" issued by 
DOL provides a description of the wage levels. A Level I wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which the 
Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the occupation. This wage rate indicates: (I) that the 
Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that he will be 
closely supervised and his work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that he will receive specific 
instructions on required tasks and expected results. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage 
Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _11_ 2009.pdf. A prevailing wage determination starts 
with an entry level wage and progresses to a higher wage level after considering the experience, education, and skill 
requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. !d. 
2 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
3 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
3 
Matter of 1-E- LLC 
For H-IB approval, the Petitioner must demonstrate a legitimate need for a specialty occupation 
position to exist and to substantiate that it has H -1 B caliber work for the Beneficiary for the period 
of employment requested in the petition. It is incumbent upon the Petitioner to demonstrate it has 
sufficient . work to require the services of a person with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, to perform duties at a level that requires the theoreticar and practical 
application of at least a bachelor's degree level of a body of highly specialized knowledge in a 
specific specialty for the period specified in the petition. 
We find that the Petitioner did not submit sufficient documentation regarding its business activities 
and the actual work that the Beneficiary has performed or will perform. For example, although the 
Petitioner states on appeal that it has previously employed accountants, it has not submitted any 
work product samples (such as reports) or other documentation that substantiate the work its 
accountants have performed prior to filing this petition, nor does it demonstrate the Beneficiary's 
proposed duties that he would compile and analyze reports and make strategy recommendations to 
management. 
We further note that some of the Beneficiary's duties are described in terms of generalized and 
generic functions that do not convey sufficient substantive information to establish the relative 
complexity, uniqueness and/or specialized of the proffered position or its duties. For example, the 
Beneficiary's duties include "[p]reparing entries and reconciling general ledger, maintaining payable 
and receivable records, detailing assets, liabilities, capital, and preparing detailed balance sheet, 
profit and loss, and cash flow statement." The Petitioner does not convey either the substantive 
nature of the work that the Beneficiary would actually perform, any particular body of highly 
specialized knowledge that would be theoretically and practically applied to perform it, or the 
educational level of any knowledge that may be necessary. To the extent described by the Petitioner, 
the duties do not provide a sufficient factual basis to persuasively support the claim that the 
position's actual work would require the theoretical and practical application of highly specialized 
knowledge in a specific specialty directly related to the demands of the proffered position. 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient consistent details regarding the nature and scope of the 
Beneficiary's employment or substantive evidence regarding the specialty occupation work that the 
Beneficiary would perform. Without a meaningful job description, the record lacks evidence 
sufficiently concrete and informative to demonstrate that the proffered position requires the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and the attainment of 
a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty, or its equivalent, as a minimum for entry into 
the occupation. The tasks as described do not consistently communicate (1) the substantive nature 
and scope ofthe Beneficiary's employment within the Petitioner's business operations; (2) the actual 
work that the Beneficiary would perform; (3) the complexity, uniqueness and/or specialization of the 
tasks; and/or (4) the correlation between that work and a need for a particular educational level of 
highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. 
Another problematic aspect of the Petitioner's job description is the fact that many of the Petitioner's 
assertions regarding the proffered duties appear inconsistent with the wage level designated in the 
4 
Matter of 1-E- LLC 
LCA. Again, in designating the proffered position at a Level I wage, the Petitioner attested that it is 
an entry-level position in which: (1) that the Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks 
that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that he will be closely supervised and his work 
closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that he will receive specific instructions on 
required tasks and expected results. According to DOL, "[s]tatements that the job offer is for a 
research fellow, a worker in training, or an internship are indicators that a Level I wage should be 
considered." U.S. Dep't of Labor; Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination 
Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _11_ 2009 .pdf 
However, the Petitioner has made numerous statements indicating that the Beneficiary would 
actually possess relatively high-level responsibilities and be expected to exercise a significant degree 
of independent judgment and discretion. For example, on ·appeal the Petitioner discusses the 
importance of hiring "an individual who can carry on the responsibility of the position with little or 
no supervision," and contends that the Beneficiary would "coordinate activities involved with 
management of the entire financial operation" and "have overall responsibility for developing, 
organizing, and managing the financial operations of [the Petitioner]." The Petitioner's designation 
of the proffered position as a Level I, entry-level position is inconsistent with these duties and 
responsibilities, and in addition to calling into question the reliability of the Petitioner's job 
description raises questions regarding the substantive nature of the proffered position.4 
For all of these reasons, we are precluded from finding that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation under 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 entry into the particular 
position, which is the focus of criterion 1; (2) industry positions which are parallel to the proffered 
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. Thus, the 
Petitioner has not satisfied any of the criteria under the applicable provisions at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). For this reason alone, the Petitioner has not established that the proffered 
position is a specialty occupation. 
2. Acceptability of a General-Purpose Bachelor's Degree 
The Petitioner also maintains that a bachelor's degree in business administration, with no further 
specialization, would adequately prepare an individual to perform the duties of the proffered 
4 To the extent the Petitioner's assertions are correct they raise the question of whether the LCA corresponds to and 
supports the H-1 B petition. We will not discuss this issue further in our decision except to note that if the Petitioner is 
able to overcome our grounds for dismissing the appeal at some point in the future, USCIS would have to explore the 
issue before approval of the petition could be considered. 
5 
Matter of 1-Ji,_ LLC 
position. However, that requirement is inadequate to establish that the proposed position qualifies as 
a specialty occupation. A petitioner must demonstrate that the proffered position requires a precise 
and specific course of study that relates directly and closely to the position in question. Since there 
must be a close correlation between the required specialized studies and the position, the 
requirement of a degree with a generalized title, such as business administration, without further 
specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz 
Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). 
To prove that a job requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge as required by section 214(i)(l) 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. As discussed supra, USC IS 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 bachelor's 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. 
Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007). 5 
Again, the Petitioner in this matter claims that the duties of the proffered position can be performed 
by an individual with only a general-purpose bachelor's degree, i.e., a bachelor's degree in business 
administration. Without more, this assertion alone indicates that the proffered position is not in fact 
a specialty occupation. Once again, the Director's decision must therefore be affirmed and the 
appeal dismissed on this basis alone. 
Moreover, it also cannot be found that the proffered position is a specialty occupation because the 
Petitioner has not satisfied any of the supplemental, additional criteria at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
B. First Criterion 
We tum next to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), whichiequires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. To inform this inquiry, we recognize the U.S. Department of 
5 Specifically, the judge explained in Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147, that: 
The 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-1 B specialty 
occupation visa. See, e.g., Tapis Int '1 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 ([Comm'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. 
6 
Matter of 1-E- LLC 
Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the 
duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 6 
We reviewed the chapter of the Handbook on "Accountants and Auditors" including the sections 
regarding the typical duties and requirements. However, 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 this occupational category. The subsection of the Handbook entitled "How to Become an 
Accountant or Auditor" states the following: 
Most accountants and auditors need at least a bachelor's degree in accounting or a 
related field. Certification within a specific field of accounting improves job 
prospects. For example, many accountants become Certified Public Accountants 
(CPAs). 
Education 
Most accountant and auditor pos1t10ns require at least a bachelor's degree in 
accounting or a related field. Some employers prefer to hire applicants who have a 
master's degree, either in accounting or in business administration with a 
concentration in accounting. 
A few universities and colleges offer specialized programs, such as a bachelor's 
degree in internal auditing. 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. 
Many colleges help students gain practical experience through summer or part-time 
internships with public accounting or business firms. 
Licenses, Certifications, and Registrations 
Every accountant filing a report with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) 
is required by law to be a Certified Public Accountant (CPA). Many other 
accountants choose to become a CPA to enhance their job prospects or to gain clients. 
Many employers will often pay the costs associated with the CPA exam. 
6 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 USC IS regularly reviews the Handbook on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. To satisfy the first criterion, however, the 
burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position 
would normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
7 
Matter of 1-E- LLC 
CPAs are licensed by their state's Board of Accountancy. Becoming a CPA requires 
passing a national exam and meeting other state requirements. Almost all states 
require CPA candidates to complete 150 semester hours of college coursework to be 
certified, which is 30 hours more than the usual 4-year bachelor's degree. Many 
schools offer a 5-year combined bachelor's and master's degree to meet the 150-hour 
requirement, but a master's degree is not required. 
A few states allow a number of years of public accounting experience to substitute for 
a college degree. 
U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 
2016-17 ed., Accountants and Auditors, available on the Internet at 
http://www. bls.gov I ooh/business-and-financial/ accountants-and -auditors.htm (last visited July 2 7, 
2016). 
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 this occupation. Rather, the 
occupation accommodates other paths for entry, including ones that fall short of a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty. For example, the Handbook's states that some individuals with an associate's 
degree, as well as some bookkeepers and accounting clerks, can obtain junior accounting positions 
and then advance to accountant positions "by showing their accounting skills on the job." In other 
words, the Handbook makes clear that although an individual could be employed in a position 
designated as that of an accountant, and apply accounting principles in the course of that position, 
those facts would in and of themselves be sufficient to establish that the particular position would be 
one for which a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty is normally a minimum 
requirement for entry. Thus, it is incumbent on the petitioner to provide sufficient evidence to 
establish that the particular position being proffered would involve accounting services at a level 
requiring the theoretical and practical application of at least a bachelor's-degree level of a body of 
highly specialized knowledge in accounting. 
Again, by virtue of its wage-level designation in the LCA, the Petitioner has attested that the 
proffered position is an entry-level position. When considered in conjunction with the Petitioner's 
job description, which consists largely of generalized descriptions of functions common to 
accounting positions, these factors indicate that the proffered position is, at most, the type of "junior 
accounting position" described in the Handbook for which a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or the equivalent, is not a normal requirement. In short, the Handbook does not support 
the proffered position as constituting a specialty occupation. 
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 "certified public accountant" designation, or any other professional designation, to 
perform the duties of the proffered position. 
8 
Matter of 1-E- LLC 
The Petitioner submitted an O*NET OnLine Summary Report for the occupational category 
"Accountants," and noted that the category was assigned a Specific Vocational Preparation (SVP) 
range of 7.0 to 8.0, and assigned a Job Zone Four rating. However, an SVP rating of 7.0 indicates 
' ' 
that the occupation requires "[ o ]ver 2 years up to and including 4 years of' training, which is not 
necessarily a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent. Moreover, a Job Zone Four 
rating indicates only that "most," but not necessarily all, occupations "require a four-year bachelor's 
degree." Furthermore, neither the SVP nor JobZone ratings indicate that any requisite degree be 
from a specific specialty directly related to the occupation. Moreover, the Petitioner's Level I wage­
level-designation in the LCA, as well as the inconsistencies between that designation and the 
Petitioner's job description, would also have to be taken into account if we were to assign significant 
weight to these sources. 
Thus, neither the Handbook nor O*NET support the claim that the occupational category of 
accountants is one for which normally the minimum requirement for entry is at minimum a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
The Petitioner's citation to Tapis Int 'I v. INS, 94 F. Supp. 2d 172 (D. Mass. 2000) is acknowledged. 
In Tapis, the U.S. district court found that while the former Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) was reasonable in requiring a bachelor's degree in a specific field, it abused its discretion by 
ignoring the portion of the regulations that allows for the equivalent of a specialized baccalaureate 
degree. According to the U.S. district court, INS's interpretation was not reasonable because then 
H-1B visas would only be available in fields where a specific degree was offered, ignoring the 
statutory definition allowing for "various combinations of academic and experience based 
training." Tapis Int 'I v. INS, 94 F. Supp. 2d at 176. The court elaborated that "[i]n fields where no 
specifically tailored baccalaureate program exists, the only possible. way to achieve something 
equivalent is by studying a related field (or fields) and then obtaining specialized experience." !d. at 
177. 
We agree with the district court judge in Tapis that in satisfying the specialty occupation 
requirements, both the Act and the regulations require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent, and that this language indicates that the degree does not have to be a degree in a single 
specific specialty. In general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry and 
biochemistry, a minimum of a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty is recognized 
as satisfying the "degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)" requirement of section 
214(i)(1)(B) ofthe Act. In such a case, the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" would 
essentially be the same. Since there must be a close correlation between the required "body of 
highly specialized knowledge" and the position, however, a minimum entry requirement of a degree 
in disparate fields, such as philosophy and engineering, would not meet the statutory requirement 
that the degree be "in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)," unless the Petitioner establishes how 
each field is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position such that the 
required body of highly specialized knowledge is essentially an amalgamation of these different 
specialties. Section 214(i)(1)(B) ofthe Act (emphasis added). 
9 
Matter of 1-E- LLC 
Moreover, we also agree that, if the requirements to perform the duties and job responsibilities of a 
proffered position are a combination of a general bachelor's degree and experience such that the 
standards at both section 214(i)(l)(.A) and (B) of the Act have been satisfied, then the proffered 
position may qualify as· a specialty occupation. We do not find, however, that the U.S. district court 
is stating that any position can qualify as a specialty occupation based solely on the claimed 
requirements of a petitioner. 
Instead, USCIS 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 a 
specific specialty as the minimum for entry into the occupation as required by the Act. 
In addition, the district court judge does not state in Tapis that, simply because there is no specialty 
degree requirement for entry into a particular position in a given occupational category, USCIS must 
recognize such a position as a specialty occupation if the beneficiary has the equivalent of a 
bachelor's degree in that field. In other words, we do not find that Tapis stands for either (1) that a 
specialty occupation is determined by the qualifications of a beneficiary being petitioned to perform 
it; or (2) that a position may qualify as a specialty occupation even when there is no specialty degree 
requirement, or its equivalent, for entry into a particular position in a given occupational category. 
First, USCIS cannot determine if a particular job is a specialty occupation based on the qualifications 
of a beneficiary. A beneficiary's credentials to perform a particular job are relevant only when the 
job is first found to qualify as a specialty occupation. USCIS is required instead to follow long­
standing legal standards and determine first, whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation, and second, whether the beneficiary was qualified for the position at the time the 
nonimmigrant visa petition was filed. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 
(Comm 'r 1988) ("The facts of a beneficiary's background only come at issue after it is found that 
the position in which the petitioner intends to employ him falls within [a specialty occupation]."). 
Second, in promulgating the H -1 B regulations, the former INS made clear that the definition of the 
term "specialty occupation" could not be expanded "to include those occupations which did not 
require a bachelor's degree in the specific specialty." Temporary Alien Workers Seeking 
Classification Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 56 Fed. Reg. 61,111, 61,112 (Dec. 2, 
1991) (to be codified at 8 C.P.R. pt. 214). More specifically, in respondingto comments that "the 
definition of specialty occupation was too severe and would exclude certain occupations from 
classification as specialty occupations," the former INS stated that "[t]he definition of specialty 
occupation contained in the statute contains this requirement [for a bachelor's degree in the specific 
specialty, or its equivalent]" and, therefore, "may not be amended in the final rule." !d. 
10 
Matter of 1-E- LLC 
The Petitioner also cites to Residential Fin. Corp. v. US. Citizenship & Immigration Services, 839 F. 
Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012), for the proposition that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the 
degree is what is important. Diplomas rarely come bearing occupation-specific majors. What is 
required is an occupation that requires highly specialized knowledge and a prospective employee 
who has attained the credentialing indicating possession of that knowledge." 
We agree with the aforementioned proposition that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is 
what is important." In general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry and 
biochemistry, a minimum of a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty is recognized 
as satisfying the "degree in the speCific specialty (or its equivalent)" requirement of section 
214(i)(1 )(B) of the Act. In such a case, the required "body of highly specialized lqlowledge" would 
essentially be the same. Since there must be a close correlation between the required "body of 
highly specialized knowledge" and the position, however, a minimum entry requirement of a degree 
in two disparate fields, such as philosophy and engineering, would not meet the statutory 
requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)," unless the Petitioner 
establishes how each field is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular 
position such that the required body of highly specialized knowledge is essentially an amalgamation 
of these different specialties. Section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). For the 
aforementioned reasons, however, the Petitioner has not met its burden to establish that the particular 
position offered in this matter requires a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, directly related to its duties in order to perform those tasks. 
In any event, the Petitioner has furnished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition 
are analogous to those in Tapis Int 'lor Residential Fin. Corp. 7 We also note that, 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 even within the same 
district. See Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715 (BIA 1993). Although the reasoning underlying a 
district judge'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. Id at 719. It is important to note that in a 
subsequent case that was reviewed in the same jurisdiction, the court agreed with our analysis of 
Residential Fin. Corp. See Health Carousel, LLC v. US. Citizenship & Immigration Services, No. 
1:13-CV-23, 2014 WL 29591 (S.D. Ohio 2014). 
For all of these reasons, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(l). 
7 The district judge's decision in that case appears to have been based largely on the many factual errors made by the 
service center in its decision denying the petition. We further note that the Director's decision was not appealed to 
us. Based on the district court's findings and description of the record, if that matter had first been appealed through the 
available administrative process, we may very well have remanded the matter to the service center for a new decision for 
many of the same reasons articulated by the district court if these errors could not have been remedied by us in our de 
novo review of the matter. 
11 
Matter of 1-E- LLC 
C. 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.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong 
casts its gaze upon the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by 
USCIS include: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the 
industry's professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether 
letters or affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms "routinely employ 
and recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 
1999) (quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook (or other independent, authoritative source) reports a standard industry-wide 
requirement for at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, we 
incorporate by reference the previous discussion on the matter. 
There are no submissions from the industry's professional association indicating that it has made a 
degree a minimum entry requirement and no submission of letters or affidavits from firms or 
individuals that attest that such firms routinely employ only individuals with a degree in a specific 
specialty. In support of the assertion that a degree requirement is common to the Petitioner's 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations, the Petitioner submitted copies of job 
vacancy announcements. However, upon review of the documents, we find that the Petitioner's 
reliance on the job vacancy announcements is misplaced. 
The Petitioner claims to be a hospitality business establislted in 2003 with 25 employees and a gross 
annual income of approximately $3.6 million. The Petitioner designated its business operations 
under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 721110.8 This NAICS 
8 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the North American·Industry Classification System (NAICS) is used to classify 
business establishments according to type of economic activity and, each establishment is classified to an industry 
according to the primary business activity taking place there. See http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/ (last visited 
July 27, 2016). 
12 
(b)(6)
Matter of 1-E- LLC 
code is designated for "Hotels (except Casino Hotels) and Motels." The U.S. Department of 
Commerce, Census Bureau website describes this NAICS code as follows: 
This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing short-term 
lodging in facilities known as hotels, motor hotels, resort hotels, and motels. The 
establishments in this industry may offer food and beverage services, recreational 
services, conference rooms and convention services, laundry services, parking, and 
other services. 
See U.S. Dep't of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definition, 721110 - Hotels 
(except Casino Hotels) and Motels, available at http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch 
(last visited July 27, 2016). 
For the Petitioner to establish that an organization in its industry is also similar under this criterion, it 
must demonstrate that it shares the same general characteristics as the organization. Without such 
information, evidence submitted by a petitioner is generally outside the scope of consideration for 
this criterion, which encompasses only organizations that are similar to the Petitioner. 
We note that the majority of the advertisements appear to be placed by central offices of large 
international hotel chains and hospitality services industries, rather than by an individual hotel, like 
the Petitioner. 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). Even for the three advertisements placed by 
individual hotels, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the primary duties and 
responsibilities of the advertised positions parallel those of the proffered position. For example , the 
m and the advertised for accounting managers, rather than 
accountants, while the in required several years of experience for its 
accountant position. Therefore, all of the advertisements placed by individual hotels appear to be for 
higher level positions than the accounting position proffered in this petition. 
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.9 
9 Although the size of the relevant study population is unknown, the Petitioner does not demonstrate what statistically 
valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from these advertisements with regard to determining the common education al 
requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar companies. See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social 
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 provide s the basis for estimates of population 
parameters and estimates of error.") 
13 
Matter ofl-E- LLC 
For all of these reasons, 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 (1) in the Petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered position, and also (3) 
located in organizations that are similar to the Petitioner. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary worked for other employers in H-1B status 
performing duties similar to those of the proffered position. While the Petitioner submitted copies of 
the approval notices, the Petitioner did not submit copies of the petitions and the related 
documentation. Without information regarding the employers, the job duties, and the requirements 
for the position, we are unable to determine that the degree requirement is common to the industry in 
parallel positions among similar organizations. 
Further, 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 the petitioning entity's business operations, are factors to be considered. USCIS must 
examine the ultimate employment of the Beneficiary, 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. The Petitioner did not substantiate its assertion 
with evidence. 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, 
165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter ofTreasure Craft ofCalifornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 
1972)). 
Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
As such, even if the job announcements supported the finding that jobs within the purchasing managers occupational 
category at companies similar to the Petitioner require a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, it could not be found that such a limited number of postings that appear to have been consciously selected 
could credibly refute the findings of the Handbook that such a position does not require at least a baccalaureate degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
14 
Matter of 1-E- LLC 
We reviewed the record in its entirety and find that the Petitioner did not submit documents 
establishing 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. Specifically, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the duties that collectively 
constitute the proffered position 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 did not submit 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 of the proffered position. While a few related courses 
may be beneficial, or even required, in performing certain duties of the proffered position, 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 particular position here. 
This is further evidenced by the LCA submitted by the Petitioner in support of the instant petition. 
The LCA indicates a wage level at a Level I (entry) wage, which is the lowest of four assignable 
wage levels. Without further evidence, the record of proceeding does not indicate that the proffered 
position is complex or unique as such a position falling under this occupational category would 
likely be classified at a higher-level, such as a Level III (experienced) or Level IV (fully competent) 
position, requiring a significantly higher prevailing wage.1° For example, a Level IV (fully 
competent) position is designated by DOL for employees who "use advanced skills and diversified 
knowledge to solve unusual and complex problems." 11 The evidence of record does not establish 
that this position is significantly different from other positions in the occupational category such that 
it refutes the Handbook's information that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent 
is not required for the proffered position. 
On appeal, 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. The Petitioner did not sufficiently 
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 
10 The issue here is that the Petitioner's designation of this position as a Levell, entry-level position undermines its claim 
that the position is particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same 
occupation. Nevertheless, it is important to note that a Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position 
from classification as a specialty occupation. In certain occupations (doctors or lawyers, for example), an entry-level 
position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for 
entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designation would not reflect that an occupation qualifies as a specialty 
occupation if that higher-level position does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent. That is, a position's wage level designation may be a consideration but is not a substitute for 
a determination of whether a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 
11 For additional information regarding wage levels as defined by DOL, 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.tlcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _11_ 2009.pdf 
15 
Matter of 1-E- LLC 
perform them. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
D. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it 
normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. To 
this end, we usually review the Petitioner's past recruiting and hiring practices, information 
regarding employees who previously held the position, and any other documentation submitted by a 
petitioner in support of this criterion of the regulations. 12 
Although the Petitioner states on appeal that the position has always been filled by individuals with 
the same minimum requirements as specified in this petition, it has not provided any supporting 
evidence that it has previously employed or recruited anyone as an accountant to perform the 
proffered duties. Nor has it submitted any information to establish that the duties of those positions 
mirrored the ones proposed for the Beneficiary. Again, going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J). 
E. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature 
of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. 
Upon review of the record of the proceeding, we find that the Petitioner has not provided sufficient 
evidence to satisfy this criterion of the regulations. In the instant case, relative specialization and 
complexity have not been credibly developed by the Petitioner as· an aspect of the proffered position. 
12 To satisfY this criterion, the record must establish that the specific performance requirements of the position generated 
the recruiting and hiring history. 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, or its equivalent, as the minimum for entry into the occupation as required by section 2l4(i)(l) of 
the Act. According to the Court in Defensor, "To interpret the regulations any other way would lead to an absurd result." 
/d. at 388. IfUSCIS were constrained to recognize a specialty occupation merely because a 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 beneficiary 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. 
16 
Matter of 1-E- LLC 
That is, the proposed duties have not been described with sufficient specificity to establish that they 
are more specialized and complex than positions that are not usually associated with at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Therefore, the evidence of record does 
not establish that the duties which collectively constitute this position are significantly different from 
those of other positions located within the purchasing manager occupational category such that it 
refutes the Handbook's finding that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, is 
not required. 
We also incorporate our earlier discussion and analysis regarding the duties of the proffered position, 
and the designation of the position in the LCA as a Level I position (the lowest of four assignable 
wage-levels) relative to others within the same occupational category. The Petitioner has not 
demonstrated in the record that its proffered position is one with duties sufficiently specialized and 
complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one ofthe criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
IV. BENEFICIARY'S QUALIFICATIONS 
As the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the proffered position is a specialty occupation, we need 
not fully address other issues evident in the record. That said, we wish to identify an additional issue 
to inform the Petitioner that this matter should be addressed in any future proceedings. 13 
Specifically, the record does not currently demonstrate that the Beneficiary's combined education 
and work experience is the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. While the 
claimed equivalency is based in part on experience, the record does not establish (1) that the 
evaluator has authority to grant college-level credit for training and/or experience in the specialty at 
an accredited college or university with a program for granting such credit, or (2) that the 
Beneficiary's expertise in the specialty is recognized through progressively responsible positions 
directly related to the specialty. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4) and (D)(l). 
V. PRIOR APPROVALS 
As noted, the Petitioner references prior H-lB approvals granted to the Beneficiary. The Director's 
decision does not indicate whether the prior approvals of the other nonimmigrant petitions were 
reviewed. If the previous nonimmigrant petitions were approved based on the same assertions that 
are contained in the current record, the approvals would constitute material and gross error on the 
part of the Director. We are not required to approve petitions where eligibility has not been 
demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See Matter of 
13 In reviewing a matter de novo, we may identify additional issues not addressed below in the Director's decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises. Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), aff'd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 
2003) ("The AAO may deny an application or petition on a ground not identified by the Service Center."). 
17 
Matter ofl-E- LLC 
Church Scientology Int 'l, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). It would be "absurd to suggest 
that [USCIS] or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent." Sussex Eng 'g, 
Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F .2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987). · 
A prior approval does not compel the approval of a subsequent petition or relieve the Petitioner of its 
burden to provide sufficient documentation to establish current eligibility for the benefit 
sought. 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). A. prior approval 
also does not preclude USCIS from denying an extension of an original visa petition based on a 
reassessment of eligibility for the benefit sought. See Tex. A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 F. App'x 
556 (5th Cir. 2004). Furthermore, our authority over the service centers is comparable to the 
relationship between a court of appeals and a 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. See La. Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 44 F. Supp. 
2d 800, 803 (E.D. La. 1999). 
VI. CONCLUSION 
The burden is on the Petitioner to show 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. 
Cite as Matter of I-E- LLC, ID# 17648 (AAO Aug. 2, 2016) 
18