dismissed H-1B Case: Aircraft Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF VTS-A-A-, INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 14,2015 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a commercial aircraft maintenance, modification and engineering business, seeks to 
employ the Beneficiary as an aircraft technologies engineer and to classify him as a nonimmigrant 
worker in a specialty occupation. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act)§ 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) 
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The Director, 
Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. The appeal will 
be dismissed. 
The Director reviewed the record of proceeding and determined that the Petitioner did not establish 
eligibility for the benefit sought. Specifically, the Director stated that the Petitioner had not 
established that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation in accordance with the 
applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. The Director denied the petition. 
The record of proceeding contains: (1) the Petitioner's Form I-129 and supporting documentation; 
(2) the Director's request for evidence (RFE); (3) the Petitioner's response to the RFE; ( 4) the 
Director's decision; and (5) the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion and supporting 
documentation. We reviewed the record in its entirety before issuing our decision. 
1 
For the reasons that will be discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not 
established eligibility for the benefit sought. Accordingly, the Director's decision will not be 
disturbed. The appeal will be dismissed. 
I. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
The primary issue is whether the Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence to establish that it will 
employ the Beneficiary in a specialty occupation position. 
1 We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). 
Matter ~fVTS-A-A-, Inc. 
A. Legal Framework 
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. To meet its burden of proof in this 
regard, the Petitioner must establish that the employment it is offering to the Beneficiary meets the 
applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. 
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) 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, medicine 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 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; 
(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. 
2 
Matter ofVTS-A-A-, Inc. 
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)(1) 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. 281, 291 (1988) (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. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989); Matter of W-F-, 
21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). 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 interpret 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 definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 387. To avoid this result, 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must therefore be read as providing supplemental criteria that must be met in 
accordance with, and not as alternatives to, the statutory and regulatory definitions of specialty 
occupation. 
As such and consonant with section 214(i)(1) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (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, USCIS regularly approves H-1B 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 in 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-1B 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 
the petitioning entity's 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. 
3 
Matter of VTS-A-A-, Inc. 
B. Proffered Position 
In the support letter, the Petitioner provided the Beneficiary's job duties in the proffered position? 
In addition, the Petitioner stated "that a baccalaureate degree in an aviation or engineering field or its 
equivalent is normally the minimum requirement for employment as an aircraft technologies 
engineer." 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides a revised job description for the proffered position, as follows: 
The ATE is responsible for providing aircraft-related engineering advice to 
commercial aircraft design, maintenance, modification, and reconfiguration projects 
that may be worth in excess of $100 million. The ATE provides technical leadership 
and direction to activities in the operation, maintenance, inspection, troubleshooting 
and repair of aircraft avionics systems, including auto pilot, communications, 
electrical, fire warning, instruments, navigation systems and related components, and 
hydraulic/pneumatic systems. The ATE must maintain awareness of aircraft systems 
maintenance programs and project changes, implement critical FAA Airworthiness 
Directives and manufacturer Service Bulletins. The ATE interfaces with all levels of 
the company and vendor overhaul shop providers. The ATE provides on-site 
assessments of overhaul shop, hangar and line maintenance activities to anticipate 
problems and abnormal trends. The ATE must be prepared to provide technical 
assistance about the use and proper interpretation of data and technical instructions. 
The ATE reviews reported aircraft system malfunctions to analyze any undesirable 
trends and implement corrective actions. The ATE reviews the effectiveness of 
maintenance actions to identify training needs. The ATE applies his/her knowledge 
of engineering, technology and materials to ensure functionality, appearance, 
efficiency, and cost. The ATE may examine, analyze and test airframe and engine 
operating systems. The ATE creates and develops avionics integration systems and 
maintains working drawings and technical documentation. The ATE may perform 
problem diagnosis and fault isolation while assisting in the development of project 
plans. The ATE provides direct support for shop, hangar and line maintenance in 
troubleshooting and provides corrective action that can include repair development. 
Finally, the ATE performs important aircraft component and system analysis of 
reliability trends to develop proactive plans to prevent reliability problems and 
implement corrective action. 
2 In response to the RFE, the Petitioner also submitted a document entitled "Job Title: Aircraft Technologies Engineer," 
which included a breakdown of the duties and the approximate percentage of time the Beneficiary will spend performing 
each duty. However, the percentages of time allocated to each duty are not probative evidence as the document was not 
prepared on the Petitioner's letterhead or otherwise endorsed by the Petitioner. The record of proceeding does not 
indicate the source of the percentages of time allocated to each duty attributed to the proffered position by this document. 
4 
Matter of VTS-A-A-, Inc. 
In addition, the Petitioner states that the proffered position requires "a Bachelor's degree in 
Engineering, Aircraft Technology, Aircraft Maintenance or similar aircraft-related field or an 
equivalent combination of education and aircraft industry experience or aircraft industry experience, 
which may include training education and experience gained through military service." 
C. Material Fin dings 
The primary issue is whether the Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence to establish that it will 
employ the Beneficiary in a specialty occupation position. Based upon a complete review of the 
record of proceeding, we will make preliminary findings that are material to the determination of the 
merits of this appeal. 
Upon review of the record, we find that the Petitioner has provided inconsistent information 
regarding the requirements for the proffered position. For instance, in the letter of support, the 
Petitioner stated "that a baccalaureate degree in an aviation or engineering field or its equivalent is 
normally the minimum requirement for employment as an aircraft technologies engineer." However, 
on appeal, the Petitioner states that the proffered position requires "a Bachelor's degree in 
Engineering, Aircraft Technology, Aircraft Maintenance or similar aircraft-related field or an 
equivalent combination of education and aircraft industry experience or aircraft industry experience, 
which may include training education and experience gained through military service." No 
explanation for this inconsistency was provided by the Petitioner. 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 1988). 
Further, upon review of the Petitioner's descriptions of the duties of the proffered position, we find 
that the Petitioner did not provide any information with regard to the order of importance and/or 
frequency of occurrence with which the Beneficiary will perform the functions and tasks. Thus, the 
record does not include which tasks are major functions of the proffered position and the frequency 
with which each of the duties would be performed (e.g., regularly, periodically or at irregular 
intervals). As a result, the Petitioner has not established the primary and essential functions of the 
proffered position. 
Moreover, we find that the Petitioner described the proposed duties in terms of generalized and 
generic functions that do not convey sufficient substantive information to establish the relative 
complexity, uniqueness and/or specialization of the proffered position or its duties. The abstract 
level of information provided about the proffered position and its constituent duties is exemplified 
by the Petitioner's assertion that the Beneficiary "provides technical leadership and direction to 
activities in the operation, maintenance, inspection, troubleshooting and repair of aircraft avionics 
systems, including auto pilot, communications, electrical, fire warning, instruments, navigation 
systems and related components, and hydraulic/pneumatic systems." However, the statement does 
Matter ofVTS-A-A-, Inc. 
not provide any insight into the Beneficiary's actual duties, nor does it include any information 
regarding the specific tasks that the Beneficiary will perform. 
Further, the Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary "interfaces with all levels of the company and 
vendor overhaul shop providers" and "provides on-site assessments of overhaul shop, hangar and 
line maintenance activities to anticipate problems and abnormal trends." Notably, the Petitioner 
does not demonstrate how the performance of these 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 also claimed the Beneficiary's work includes "review[ing] reported aircraft system 
malfunctions to analyze any undesirable trends and implement corrective actions" and "review[ing] 
the effectiveness of maintenance actions to identify training needs." The Petitioner's statements do 
not convey any pertinent details as to the actual work involved in these tasks. The Petitioner does 
not explain the Beneficiary's specific role and how his work will be conducted and/or applied within 
the scope of the Petitioner's business operations. Furthermore, the Petitioner does not convey how a 
baccalaureate level of education (or higher) in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, would be 
required to perform these tasks. Thus, the overall responsibilities for the proffered position contain 
generalized functions without providing sufficient information regarding the particular work, and 
associated educational requirements, into which the duties would manifest themselves in their day­
to-day performance within the Petitioner's business operations. 
Such generalized information does not in itself establish a necessary correlation between any 
dimension of the proffered position and a need for a particular level of education, or educational 
equivalency, in a body of highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. 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, so as to 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. 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient details regarding the nature and scope of the Beneficiary's 
employment or substantive evidence regarding the actual 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 a specialty occupation's level of 
knowledge in a specific specialty. The tasks as described do not communicate (1) the actual work 
that the beneficiary would perform; (2) the complexity, uniqueness and/or specialization of the tasks; 
and/or (3) the correlation between that work and a need for a particular level education of highly 
specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. For this reason alone, the petition may not be 
approved. 
Matter ofVTS-A-A-, Inc. 
D. Analysis 
We now tum to the criteria at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A). As explained above, the Petitioner has 
not established the nature of the proffered position and in what capacity the Beneficiary will actually 
be employed within the Petitioner's business operations. As the Petitioner has not established the 
substantive nature of the work to be performed by the Beneficiary, this 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 I; (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. 
A baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is 
normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position 
Nevertheless, assuming, for the sake of argument, that the Petitioner had adequately and accurately 
described the duties of the proffered position, we will now discuss the proffered position in relation 
to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which requires that a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into 
the particular position. 
USCIS recognizes the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL's) Occupational Outlook Handbook 
(Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety 
of occupations that it addresses. 3 The Petitioner asserted in the Labor Condition Application (LCA) 
that the proffered position falls under the "Aerospace Engineers" occupational category.4 We 
3 All of the references are to the 2014-15 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
http://www.bls.gov/OCO/. The excerpts of the Handbook regarding the duties and requirements of the referenced 
occupational categories are hereby incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
4 The Petitioner designated the proffered position as a Level I (entry level) position. The "Prevailing Wage 
Determination Policy Guidance" issued by DOL provides a description of the wage levels. A Level I wage rate is 
described by DOL as follows: 
Level I (entry) wage rates are assigned to job offers for beginning level employees who have only a 
basic understanding of the occupation. These employees perform routine tasks that require limited, if 
any, exercise of judgment. The tasks provide experience and familiarization with the employer's 
methods, practices, and programs. The employees may perform higher level work for training and 
developmental purposes. These employees work under close supervision and receive specific 
instructions on required tasks and results expected. Their work is closely monitored and reviewed for 
accuracy. Statements that the job offer is for a research fellow, a worker in training, or an internship 
are indicators that a Levell wage should be considered . 
..., 
Matter ofVTS-A-A-, Inc. 
reviewed the chapter of the Handbook entitled "Aerospace Engineers" but did not find that the duties 
of the proffered position correspond to this occupational classification. 5 The Handbook describes 
the duties of "Aerospace Engineers" in the subsection entitled "What Aerospace Engineers Do" and 
states the following about the duties of this occupation: 
Aerospace engineers design aircraft, spacecraft, satellites, and missiles. In addition, 
theytest prototypes to make sure that they function according to design. 
Duties 
Aerospace engineers typically do the following: 
• Direct and coordinate the design, manufacture, and testing of aircraft and 
aerospace products 
• Assess proposals for projects to determine if they are technically and financially 
feasible 
• Determine if proposed projects will result in safe aircraft and parts 
• Evaluate designs to see that the products meet engineering principles, customer 
requirements, and environmental challenges 
• Develop acceptance criteria for design methods, quality standards, sustainment 
after delivery, and completion dates 
• Ensure that projects meet quality standards 
• Inspect malfunctioning or damaged products to identify sources of problems and 
possible solutions 
Aerospace engineers may develop new technologies for use in aviatiOn, defense 
systems, and spacecraft. They often specialize in areas such as aerodynamic fluid 
flow; structural design; guidance, navigation, and control; instrumentation and 
communication; robotics; and propulsion and combustion. 
Aerospace engineers can specialize in designing different types of aerospace 
products, such as commercial and military airplanes and helicopters; remotely piloted 
aircraft. and rotorcraft; spacecraft, including launch vehicles and satellites; and 
military missiles and rockets. 
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_I 1_2009.pdf. 
5 
For additional information regarding the occupational category "Aerospace Engineers," see U.S. Dep't of Labor, 
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., Aerospace Engineers, available at 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-engineering/aerospace-engineers.htm#tab-1 (last visited Oct. 7, 20 15). 
Matter ofVTS-A-A-, Inc. 
Aerospace engineers often become experts in one or more related fields: 
aerodynamics, thermodynamics, celestial mechanics, flight mechanics, propulsion, 
acoustics, and guidance and control systems. 
Aerospace engineers typically specialize in one of two types of engmeenng: 
aeronautical or astronautical. 
Aeronautical engineers work with aircraft. They are involved primarily in designing 
aircraft and propulsion systems and in studying the aerodynamic performance of 
aircraft and construction materials. They work with the theory, technology, and 
practice of flight within the earth's atmosphere. 
Astronautical engineers work with the science and technology of spacecraft and how 
they perform inside and outside the earth's atmosphere. 
Aeronautical and astronautical engineers face different environmental and operational 
issues in designing aircraft and spacecraft. However, the two fields overlap a great 
deal because they both depend on the basic principles of physics 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., 
Aerospace Engineers, available at http://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-engineering/aerospace­
engineers.htm#tab-2 (last visited Oct. 7, 20 15). 
We reviewed the record of proceeding, but are not persuaded by the Petitioner's claim that the 
proffered position falls under the "Aerospace Engineers" occupational category. In the instant case, 
the Petitioner submitted a description of the proffered position, but the statements do not include 
information regarding the day-to-day tasks of the position and do not delineate the actual work that 
the Beneficiary will perform. Nevertheless, upon review of the record of proceeding and the chapter 
regarding "Aerospace Engineers" in the Handbook, we find that the Petitioner has not provided 
sufficient evidence to demonstrate that its aircraft technologies engineer position has the same or 
similar duties, tasks, knowledge, work activities, etc. that are generally associated with "Aerospace 
Engineers." For example, the Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary will design aircraft, 
spacecraft, satellites, and missiles. In addition, the Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary will 
assess proposals for projects to determine if they are technically and financially feasible. 
Additionally, the Petitioner does not assert that the Beneficiary will evaluate designs to see that the 
products meet engineering principles, customer requirements, and environmental challenges. 
Further, the Petitioner does not assert that the Beneficiary will develop acceptance criteria for design 
methods, quality standards, sustainment after delivery, and completion d~tes. The Petitioner also 
does not claim that the Beneficiary will develop new technologies for use in aviation, defense 
systems, and spacecraft. The duties of the proffered position, to the extent that they are depicted in 
the record of proceeding, indicate that the Beneficiary may perform a few general tasks in common 
with this occupational group, but not that the Beneficiary's duties would constitute an aerospace 
9 
Matter ofVTS-A-A-, Inc. 
engineer positiOn, and not that they would reqmre the range of specialized knowledge that 
characterizes this occupational category. 
As the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered positiOn falls under the "Aerospace 
Engineers" occupational category, we will not further address this occupational category as it is not 
relevant to this proceeding. 
The Director reviewed the job description provided by the Petitioner and found that the proffered 
position falls under the "Aircraft and Avionics Equipment Mechanics and Technicians" occupational 
category.6 The Handbook states the following about this occupational category: 
Aircraft and avionics equipment mechanics and technicians repair and perform 
scheduled maintenance on aircraft. They also perform aircraft inspections as required 
by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 
Duties 
Aircraft mechanics typically do the following: 
• Examine replacement aircraft parts for defects 
• Diagnose mechanical or electrical problems 
• Read maintenance manuals to identify repair procedures 
• Repair wings, brakes, electrical systems, and other aircraft components 
• Replace defective parts using hand tools or power tools 
• Test aircraft parts with gauges and other diagnostic equipment 
• Inspect completed work to ensure that it meets performance standards 
• Keep records of maintenance and repair work 
Avionics technicians typically do the following: 
• Test Glectronic instruments, using circuit testers, oscilloscopes, and voltmeters 
• Interpret flight test data to diagnose malfunctions and performance problems 
• Assemble components, such as electrical controls and junction boxes, and install 
software 
• Install instrument panels, using hand tools, power tools, and soldering irons 
• Repair or replace malfunctioning components 
• Keep records of maintenance and repair work 
6 For additional information regarding the occupational category "Aircraft and Avionics Equipment Mechanics and 
Technicians," see U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., 
Aircraft and Avionics Equipment Mechanics and Technicians, available at http://www.bls.gov/ooh/installation­
maintenance-and-repair/aircraft-and-avionics-equipment-mechanics-and-technicians.htm#tab-l (last visited Oct. 7, 
2015). 
10 
Matter ojVTS-A-A-, Inc. 
Today's airplanes are highly complex machines that require reliable parts and service 
to fly safely. To keep an airplane in peak operating condition, aircraft and avionics 
equipment mechanics and technicians perform scheduled maintenance, make repairs, 
and complete inspections. They must follow detailed federal regulations set by the 
FAA that dictate maintenance schedules for a variety of different operations. 
Many mechanics are generalists and work on many different types of aircraft, such as 
jets, piston-driven airplanes, and helicopters. Others specialize in one section of a 
particular type of aircraft, such as the engine, hydraulics, or electrical system of a 
particular aircraft. In independent repair shops, mechanics usually inspect and repair 
many different types of aircraft. 
Most mechanics who work on civilian aircraft have either one or both of the FAA's 
Airframe and Powerplant (A&P) certificates. Mechanics who have these certificates 
are authorized to work on most parts of the aircraft, excluding flight instruments and 
major work on propellers. Maintaining a plane's electronic flight instruments is 
typically the job of specialized avionics technicians. 
The following are examples of types of aircraft and avionics equipment mechanics 
and technicians: 
Airframe and Powerplant (A&P) mechanics are certified generalist mechanics who 
can independently perform many maintenance and alteration tasks on aircraft. A&P 
mechanics repair and maintain most parts of an aircraft, including the engines, 
landing gear, brakes, and air conditioning systems. Some specialized activities require 
additional experience and certification. 
Maintenance schedules for aircraft may be based on hours flown, days since the last 
inspection, trips flown, or a combination of these factors. Maintenance also may need 
to be done to address specific issues recognized by manufacturers. To complete 
maintenance, mechanics use precision instruments to measure wear and identify 
defects. They may use x rays, magnetic, or ultrasonic inspection equipment to 
discover cracks that cannot be seen on a plane's exterior. They check for corrosion, 
distortion, and cracks in the aircraft's main body, wings, and tail. They then repair the 
metal, fabric, wood, or composite materials that make up the airframe and skin. 
After completing all repairs, mechanics must test the equipment to ensure that it 
works properly. Aircraft equipped with digital monitoring systems can provide 
mechanics with valuable diagnostic information from electronic consoles. Mechanics 
must also keep records of all maintenance that they do on an aircraft. 
The A&P ratings are generally considered the initial and most basic ratings needed to 
be a professional mechanic. Many additional certifications and specializations can be 
11 
Matter ofVTS-A-A-, Inc. 
pursued to expand the ability of a mechanic to perform additional duties. Some of 
these specializations are as follows: 
Avionics technicians are specialists who repair and maintain a plane's electronic 
instruments, such as radio communications, radar systems, and navigation aids. As 
the use of digital technology increases, more time is spent maintaining computer 
systems. The ability to repair and maintain many avionics and flight instrument 
systems is granted through the Airframe rating, but other licenses or certifications 
may be needed. 
Designated airworthiness representatives (DARs) examine, inspect, and test aircraft 
for airworthiness. They issue airworthiness certificates, which aircraft must have to 
fly. There are two types ofDARs, manufacturing DARs and maintenance DARs. 
Inspection Authorized (IA) mechanics are mechanics who have both Airframe and 
Powerplant licenses and who may perform inspections on aircraft and return them to 
service. IA mechanics are able to do a wider variety of maintenance and alterations 
than any other type of maintenance personnel, such as comprehensive annual 
inspections or returning aircraft to service after a major repair. 
Repairmen certificate holders may or may not have the A&P or other certificates. 
Repairmen certificates are issued by certified repair stations to aviation maintenance 
personnel and the certificates allow them to do very specific duties. Repairmen 
certificates are valid only while the mechanic works at the issuing repair center and 
are not transferable to other employers. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., 
Aircraft and Avionics Equipment Mechanics and Technicians, available at 
http://www. bls. gov I ooh/installation-maintenance-and- repair/ aircraft -and -avionics-equipment­
mechanics-and-technicians.htm#tab-2 (last visited Oct. 7, 2015). 
The subchapter of the Handbook entitled "How to Become an Aircraft and Avionics Equipment 
Mechanic or Technician" states, in part, the following about this occupation: 
Most aircraft and avionics equipment mechanics and technicians learn their trade at 
an FAA-approved Aviation Maintenance Technician School. Others enter with a high 
school education or equivalent and are trained on the job. Some workers enter the 
occupation after getting training in the military. Aircraft mechanics and avionics 
technicians are typically certified by the FAA. See the Title 14 of the Code ofF ederal 
Regulations (14 CFR) part 65, subpart D and E, for the most current requirements for 
becoming a certified mechanic. 
Education and Training 
12 
(b)(6)
Matter of VTS-A-A-, Inc. 
Aircraft mechanics and service technicians typically enter the occupation after 
attending a Part 147 FAA-approved Aviation Maintenance Technician School. These 
programs award a certificate of completion that the FAA recognizes as an alternate to 
the experience requirements stated in the regulations, and grants holders the ability to 
take the relevant FAA exams. 
Some aircraft mechanics and service technicians enter the occupation with a high 
school diploma or equivalent and receive on-the-job training to learn their skills and 
to be able to pass the FAA exams. Some workers enter the occupation after getting 
training in the military. Aviation maintenance personnel who are not certified by the 
FAA work under supervision until they have enough experience and knowledge and 
become certified. 
Avionics technicians typically earn an associate's degree before entering the 
occupation. Aircraft controls, systems, and flight instruments have become 
increasingly digital and computerized. Maintenance workers who have the proper 
background in aviation flight instruments or computer repair are needed to maintain 
these complex systems. · 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., 
Aircraft and Avionics Equipment Mechanics and Technicians, available at 
http://www.bls .gov/oohlinstallation-maintenance-and-repair/aircraft-and-avionics-equipment­
mechanics-and-technicians.htm#tab-4 (last visited Oct. 7, 20 15). 
The typical duties of positions within the "Aircraft and Avionics Equipment Mechanics and 
Technicians" occupational category as described in the Handbook contain some aspects in common 
with the Beneficiary's duties as described by the Petitioner. However, we find that the occupational 
category as described in the Handbook does not fully encompass the duties of the proffered position. 
It is further noted that the Handbook does not state that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation. 
More specifically, the Handbook states that an FAA certificate, high school diploma, or an 
associate's degree is acceptable for the occupation. Thus, for this occupation, a baccalaureate or 
higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is not normally the minimum requirement for 
entry. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submitted an opmwn letter prepared by 
lists the duties of the proffered position as described by the Petitioner in 
the letter of support, and concludes that the proffered position is a specialty occupation that requires 
a bachelor's degree in aeronautical technology, or a closely related field. 
Upon review of the opinion letter, there is no indication that possesses any knowledge 
of the Petitioner's proffered position and its business operations beyond that which was provided in 
the Petitioner's letter of support. There is no evidence that has visited the Petitioner's 
13 
(b)(6)
Matter of VTS-A-A-, Inc. 
business, observed the Petitioner's employees, interviewed them about the nature of their work, or 
documented the knowledge that they apply on the job. He does not demonstrate or assert in-depth 
knowledge of the Petitioner's specific business operations or how the duties of the position would 
actually be performed in the context of the Petitioner's business enterprise. 
Furthermore, it does not appear that is aware that the Petitioner designated the 
proffered position as a Level I (entry) position (the lowest out of four assignable wage-levels) in the 
LeA. As previously discussed, 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. It appears that would have found 
this information relevant for the opinion letter. Without this information, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that possessed the requisite information necessary to adequately assess 
the nature of the Petitioner's position. 
We may, in our discretion, use an advisory opinion or statement submitted as expert testimony. 
However, where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, 
users is not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Matter of Caron 
International, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (eomm'r 1988). As a reasonable exercise of our discretion, we find 
that the advisory opinion letter is not probative evidence of any criterion of 8 e.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). For efficiency's sake, we hereby incorporate the above discussion regarding 
the opinion letter into our analyses of each criterion at 8 e.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). 
In the instant case, the duties and requirements of the position as described in the record of 
proceeding do not indicate that this particular position proffered by the Petitioner 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 has not satisfied the criterion at 8 e.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
The requirement of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel 
positions among similar organizations 
Next, we will review the record regarding the first of the two alternative prongs of 8 e.F.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 for positions 
that are identifiable as being (1) in the petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered position, and 
also (3) located in organizations that are similar to the petitioner. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by 
USers 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 
14 
Matter ofVTS-A-A-, Inc. 
and recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 
1999)(quotingHird/BlakerCorp. v. Sava, 712F. 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 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. Also, there are no submissions from the industry's professional 
association indicating that it has made a degree a minimum entry requirement. Furthermore, the 
Petitioner did not submit any letters or affidavits from similar firms or individuals in the Petitioner's 
industry attesting that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." Thus, 
based upon a complete review of the record of proceeding, we find that the Petitioner has not 
satisfied the first alternative prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by 
an individual with a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent 
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. 
In support of its assertion that the proffered pos1t10n qualifies as a specialty occupation, the 
Petitioner described the proffered position and its business operations. Upon review, we conclude 
that the Petitioner has not sufficiently developed relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of 
the proffered position. 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 it may believe are so complex and unique. While a few related 
courses may be beneficial in performing certain duties of the 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 proffered 
position. The description of the duties does not specifically identify any tasks that are so complex or 
unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. The record does not establish 
which of the duties, if any, of the proffered position would be so complex or unique as to be 
distinguishable from those of similar but non-degreed or non-specialty degreed employment. 
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. As previously mentioned, the wage-level of the proffered position indicates that 
(relative to other positions falling under this occupational category) 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 
15 
Matter of VTS-A-A-, Inc. 
closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and that he will receive specific instructions on 
required tasks and expected results. 
Without further evidence, it is not credible that the Petitioner's 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. 7 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." 8 
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 has not satisfied the second 
alternative prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The employer normally requires a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent,for the position 
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 review the petitioner's past recruiting and hiring practices, as well as information 
regarding employees who previously held the position, and any other documentation submitted by a 
petitioner in support of this criterion of the regulations. 
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. Were USCIS limited solely to reviewing a 
petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, then any individual with a bachelor's degree could 
7 The issue here is that the Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position undermines its claim 
that the position is particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same 
occupation. Nevertheless, it is important to note that a Level 1 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)( 1) ofthe Act. 
8 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.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _II_ 2009.pdf 
16 
Matter ofVTS-A-A-, Inc. 
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-1B 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 section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty occupation"). 
To satisfy 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. 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 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 USCIS 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. 
The Petitioner claims that all of its aircraft technologies engineers possess a bachelor's degree. In 
response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted the academic credentials and Wage and Tax 
Statements (Forms W-2) for 2013 for 19 individuals. Upon review, we find that the Forms W-2 
indicate that many of the individuals were paid significantly higher than the offered salary to the 
beneficiary. Thus, it appears that these individuals are employed in more senior or different 
positions. Nor did the Petitioner explain by what objective criteria it determined these foreign 
diplomas to be equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted copies of 18 of the 19 individuals' H -1 B approval notices as 
evidence that USCIS has previously approved H-lB cases submitted by the Petitioner for the 
proffered position. However, the Petitioner did not submit copies of the petitions and supporting 
documents. The documentation provided by the Petitioner does not contain key information 
regarding the referenced positions, including the job titles, day-to-day duties, complexity of the job 
duties, supervisory duties (if any), independent judgment required, or the amount of supervision 
received to make a legitimate comparison of the referenced positions to the proffered position. 
Matter ofVTS-A-A-, Inc. 
If a petitioner wishes to have unpublished service center or AAO decisions considered by USCIS in 
its adjudication of a petition, the petitioner is permitted to submit copies of such evidence that it 
either obtained itself and/or received in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed in 
accordance with 6 C.P.R. Part 5. Otherwise, "[t]he non-existence or other unavailability of required 
evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility." 8 C.P.R.§ 103.2(b)(2)(i). 
As the record of proceeding does not contain copies of the petitions, there were no underlying facts 
to be analyzed and, therefore, no prior, substantive determinations could have been made to 
determine what facts, if any, were analogous to those in this proceeding. While 8 C.P.R. § 103.3(c) 
provides that AAO precedent decisions are binding on all USCIS employees in the administration of 
the Act, unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. 
When any person makes an application for a "visa or any other document required for entry, or 
makes an application for admission [ ... ] the burden of proof shall be upon such person to establish. 
that he is eligible" for such relief. 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofTreasure Craft ofCal., 14 I&N Dec. 
190 (Reg'l Comm. 1972). Furthermore, any suggestion that USCIS must review unpublished 
decisions and possibly request and review each case file relevant to those decisions, while being 
impractical and inefficient, would also be tantamount to a shift in the evidentiary burden in this 
proceeding from the Petitioner to USCIS, which would be contrary to section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. Accordingly, we were not required to request and/or obtain a copy of the petitions 
cited by the Petitioner. 
Nevertheless, if the previous nonimmigrant petitions were approved based on the same unsupported 
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 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 Int 'l, 19 I&N Dec. 597. It would be absurd to 
suggest that USCIS or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex 
Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Furthermore, our authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a court 
of appeals and a district court. Even if a director had approved the nonimmigrant petition, we would 
not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of a service center. La. Philharmonic Orchestra v. 
INS, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), affd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 
(2001). 
The Petitioner also submitted a copy of its newspaper advertisement for the proffered position, 
which was posted on June 16, 2013. The advertisement states that the position "[r]equires degree or 
equivalent combination of education and experience equal to a degree in engineering (aeronautical, 
aircraft technology, mechanical, electrical or aircraft maintenance)." Notably, the announcement 
does not indicate the degree level (e.g., associate's degree, vocational degree, baccalaureate, 
master's degree) for the position. 
18 
(b)(6)
Matter of VTS-A-A-, Inc . 
Moreover, the Petitioner stated on the Form I-129 petition that it has 758 employees and that it was 
established in (approximately 12 years prior to the filing of the H-1B petition). The Petitioner 
did not provide any further information or evidence regarding its recruiting history for the position 
advertised. Consequently, it cannot be determined how representative the Petitioner's claim 
regarding 19 individuals and one announcement over a 12 year period is the Petitioner's normal 
recruiting and hiring practices. The Petitioner has not persuasively established that it normally 
requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. 
The Petitioner has not provided probative 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.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
The nature of the spec(fic 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 in a specific specialty, or its equivalent 
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 probative 
evidence to satisfy this criterion of the regulations. In the instance case, relative specialization and 
complexity have not been sufficiently developed by the Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered 
position. That is, the proposed duties have not been described with sufficient specificity to establish 
that they are more specialized and complex than positions in the occupational category that are not 
usually associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
We further incorporate our earlier discussion and analysis regarding the duties of the proffered 
position, and the designation of the proffered position in the LCA as a Level I position (of the lowest 
of four assignable wage-levels) relative to others within the occupational category. Without more, 
the position is one not likely distinguishable by relatively specialized and. complex duties. That is, 
without fmiher evidence, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that its proffered position is one with 
specialized and complex duties as such a position would likely be classified at a higher-level , such as 
a Level III (experienced) or Level IV (fully competent) position, requiring a substantially higher 
prevailing wage. 9 
9 As previously discussed , 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 " and requires a significantly higher 
wage. 
19 
Matter ojVTS-A-A-, Inc. 
The Petitioner has submitted inadequate probative evidence to satisfy this criterion of the 
regulations. Thus, the Petitioner has not established that the duties of the positic,m 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. We 
therefore, conclude that the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.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.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) and, therefore, it cannot be found that 
the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The appeal is dismissed and the petition 
denied. 
II. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 
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 ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 10 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofVTS-A-A-, Inc., ID# 13775 (AAO Oct. 14, 2015) 
10 As the identified grounds for denial are dispositive of the Petitioner's continued eligibility, we need not address any 
additional issues in the record of proceeding. 
20