dismissed H-1B Case: Aircraft Engineering

(b)(6)
MATTER OF 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 7, 2016 
PETITION: FORM 1~129 , PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a commercial aircraft maintenance , modification, and engineering business, seeks to 
extend the Beneficiary's employment as an "aircraft technologies engineer" 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)(l5)(H)(i)(b). The H-lB 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 Petitioner 
had not established the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner attaches a statement to the Form 
I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, asserting that the Director erred when determining 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: 
(b)(6)
Matter of 
(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. Citizenship 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 
The Petitioner initially submitted a lengthy narrative describing the duties of its aircraft technologies 
engineer (ATE). The Petitioner asserted that it "required the ATE to have a university degree in an 
engineering, maintenance technology or other aircraft technical field or its equivalent combination of 
education and experience." In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner 
summarized the duties of the proffered position as follows (bullet points added): 
• Provide engineering and technical support for problems encountered during 
maintenance and modification of transport category aircraft. 
• Analyze, repair, test and certify aircraft systems and structures , including 
prototype designs ; ensure system functional and structural integrity for high 
performance , safety and conformity to aircraft type design. 
• Deployed to liaison with engineering project manager, qwility control manager 
and mechanics/technicians focused on aircraft structures , aircraft mechanical 
systems, or aircraft electronics systems []. 
• Focuses on trouble shooting those engineering issues that will delay projects[.] 
The Petitioner added that the essential responsibilities of the proffered position included (bullet 
points added): 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of 
• Conducts engineering and technical research data and coordinates activities to 
investigate technical problems reported by customers related to different aircraft 
systems. 
• Inspect, analyze, modify and rectify aircraft systems and structures in accordance 
with engineering data, the manufacturer's maintenance and repair instructions, 
and or with data approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 
• Obtain FAA approved/accepted repair documentation and substantiation data for 
aircraft 
defects beyond the scope of existing repair documentation . 
The Petitioner also provided a breakdown of the major duties of the position and allocated the 
percentage of time spent on these duties as follows (bullet points added): 1 
• Conduct research for valid reference/manual and drawings to address defect(s) in 
aircraft I 0% 
• Read and interpret engineering drawings , blueprints used for particular aircraft 
repair, alteration , and modification 10% 
• Research parts options (manufacturer , customer, FAA) 5
% 
• Initiate fault isolation and related troubleshooting vis a vis contract and in 
consultation with project manager or customer or manufacturer 15% 
• Formulate work instructions to deal with specific problem(s) in coordination with 
project manager, manufacturer, and or customer 10% 
• Monitor and document system component and assembly removal and installation 
vis a vis engineering documents to go to FAA, customer or for internal records 
concerning work done and variance with contract 15% 
• Oversee system calibration and functional testing to satisfy engineering 
specifications 15% 
• Verify structural integrity through data analysis 10% 
• Documentation of work to include deviations for repair vs replacement options 
10% 
According to the Petitioner , "it has established that a baccalaureate degree in an engineering or 
technology aviation field or its equivalent in terms of post-secondary education and experience is 
normally the minimum requirement for employment in an aircraft technologies engineer position" 
and that the degree requirement is common in the industry. 
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. 
Specifically, the record (1) does not describe the position's duties with sufficient detail; and (2) does not 
1 The Petitioner noted that the duties of the position may vary if a particular contract focuses on structural repairs and/or 
modifications versus mechanical systems or electronic systems . 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of 
establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a 
specialty occupation. 2 . 
The Petitioner in this matter described the proposed duties in teims of generalized and generic 
functions. For example, the Petitioner 
indicated that the Beneficiary would be deployed to liaison with 
the engineering project manager, the quality control manager, and the mechanics and technicians and 
would focus on troubleshooting engineering projects that would delay projects. We cannot ascertain 
from this general description what specific tasks the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to perfom1 in this 
role. While the Petitioner also indicated that the Beneficiary would 
spend 25 percent of his time in 
consultation with the project manager, manufacturer, and/or customer and in conjunction with a 
contract on isolating faults, troubleshooting, and formulating work instructions to deal with specific 
problems, these statements also do not provide any insight into the Beneficiary's actual duties or the 
specific tasks the Beneficiary will perform. 
Additionally, the Petitioner noted that the individual in the proffered position would conduct 
engineering and technical research, coordinate activities to investigate technical problems, provide 
engineering and technical support for problems encountered during maintenance and modification of 
aircraft, and inspect, monitor, analyze, modify, and rectify aircraft systems and structures in accordance 
with engineering data, the manufacturer's maintenance and repair instructions, and FAA approved 
repair documentation. The Petitioner allocated 55 percent of the Beneficiary's time to duties that appear 
to fall within the parameters of these broadly stated functions. However, the Petitioner did not provide 
sufficient information to 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. 
Such generalized descriptions do not establish a correlation between 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. 
Upon review, the Petitioner's statements do not convey pertinent details of the actual work involved in 
these tasks. The Petitioner does not explain the Beneficiary's specific role and how it expects his work 
to be conducted within the scope of the Petitioner's business operations. To the extent they are 
described, the proposed duties do not convey the substantive matters that would engage the beneficiary 
on a 
day-to-day basis. Without a meaningful job description, the record lacks evidence sufficiently 
concrete and informative to demonstrate that the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree, or 
higher, in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
This lack of probative evidence therefore 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 entry into the particular position, 
which is the focus of criterion 1; (2) industry positions which are parallel to the proffered position and 
2 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. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of 
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. 
Accordingly, as the Petitioner has not established that it has satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it cannot be found that the proffered position qualifies for classification as a 
specialty occupation. The appeal will be dismissed and the petition denied for this reason. 
Even assuming for the sake of argument that the proffered duties as .generally described by the 
Petitioner are the duties the Beneficiary will be expected to perform, we do not find the duties to 
correspond to the duties of an aerospace engineer as designated on the labor condition application 
(LCA) submitted in support of the petition. We recognize the U.S. Department of 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.3 
In that regard, we 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.4 As noted 
above, the Petitioner's description of the proffered position does not include sufficient 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's general description does not 
include 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. 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 dates. The Petitioner also does 
not claim that the Beneficiary will develop new technologies for 
use in aviation, defense systems, and 
3 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. . 
4 For additional information on the occupation of "Aerospace Engineers" see U.S. Dep't of Labor , Bureau of Labor 
Statistics , Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., "Aerospace Engineers ," http://www.bls .gov/ooh/architecture­
and-engineering /aerospace-engineers .htm#tab-2 (last visited Nov . 16, 20 16). 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of 
spacecraft. The duties of the proffered position, to the extent that they are depicted in the record of 
proceedings, 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 engineer 
position, and not that they would require 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. 
Upon review of the Handbook and the Petitioner's descriptions of duties, the Petitioner has described 
duties that most closely correspond to the occupation of "Aircraft and Avionics Equipment Mechanics 
and Technicians." 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 electronic instruments, using circuit testers, oscilloscopes, and voltmeters 
• Interpret flight test data to diagnose malfunctions and performance problems 
• Assemble components, such as electrical control~ 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 
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 
(b)(6)
Matter of 
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 di±Ierent 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. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., 
"Aircraft and Avionics Equipment Mechanics and Technicians," http://www.bls.gov/ooh/installation­
maintenance-and-repair/aircraft-and-avionics-equipment-mechanics-and-technicians.htm#tab-2 (last 
visited Nov. 16, 2016). 
The Petitioner's generally described duties of analyzing, repamng, testing, and certifying aircraft 
systems and structures and ensuring system functional and structural integrity fall within the above 
description. Moreover, the Petitioner indicated that Beneficiary would conduct research of 
reference/manual drawings, read and interpret drawings and blueprints, research the manufacturer, 
customer and FAA part options, monitor and document work for the FAA or internal records, and use 
data analysis to verify structural integrity, as well as oversee system calibration and functional testing to 
satisfY engineering specifications. These duties also generally correspond to the aircraft/avionics 
mechanic's duties of diagnosing problems, reading maintenance manuals to identify repair procedures, 
testing parts with diagnostic equipment, inspecting the work, and keeping records of maintenance and 
repair work. While we recognize that this occupational category as described in the Handbook 's report 
does not fully encompass the duties of the proffered position, when viewed within the context of the 
Petitioner's operations, it appears that the vaguely described duties are more likely than not the duties of 
an aircraft/avionics equipment mechanic or technician occupation. Accordingly, we wiH analyze the 
evidence of record to determine whether the proffered position as described would qualify for 
classification as a specialty occupation. To that end and to make our determination as to whether the 
employment described above qualifies as a specialty occupation, we turn to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A).5 
5 Although some aspects ofthe regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
(b)(6)
Matter of 
A. First Criterion 
We tum first 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. To inform this inquiry, we first consider the subchapter of the Handbook 
entitled "How to Become an Aircraft and Avionics Equipment Mechanic or Technician" which states, 
in part, the following about this occupation: 
Many aircraft and avionics equipment mechanics and technicians Jearn 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 
typically are certified by the FAA. See Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(14 CFR) part 65, subparts D and E, for the most current requirements for becoming a 
certified mechanic. 
Education and Training 
Aircraft mechanics and service technicians often enter the occupation after attending a 
Part 147 FAA-approved aviation maintenance technician school. These schools award a 
certificate of completion that the FAA recognizes as an alternative to the experience 
requirements stated in regulations. The schools also grant holders the right 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. Other 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, 2016-17 ed., 
"Aircraft and Avionics Equipment Mechanic or Technician,"http://www.bls.gov/ooh/installation­
maintenance-and-repair/aircraft-and-avionics-equipment-mechanics-and-technicians.htm#tab-4 (last 
visited Nov. 16, 2016). 
Upon review, the Handbook does not report 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 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter of 
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. 
When the Handbook does not provide support that a pro tiered position is one that meets the statutory 
and regulatory provisions of a specialty occupation, it is incumbent upon the Petitioner to provide 
persuasive evidence that the proffered position more likely than not satisfies this or one of the other 
three criteria, notwithstanding the absence of the Handbook 's ~upport on the issue. In such case, it is the 
Petitioner's responsibility to provide probative evidence (e.g., documentation from other objective, 
authoritative sources) that supports a finding that the particular position in question qualities as a 
specialty occupation. Whenever more than one authoritative source exists, an adjudicator will consider 
and weigh all of the evidence presented to determine whether the particular position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. Here, the Petitioner has not provided evidence from other authoritative sources in 
support of a finding that the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, as the normal minimum requirement for entry into the occupation. 
The Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J). 
B. Second 
Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs: "The degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show 
that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a 
degree[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong focuses 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)). 
Here and as already discussed, the Petitioner has not established that the proffered position is one for 
. which the Handbook (or other independent, authoritative sources) reports an 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 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter of 
professional associatiOn indicating that it has made a degree a mm1mum 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 fi1ms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed 
individuals." 
In support of its assertion that the degree requirement is common to the Petitioner's industry in parallel 
positions among similar organizations, the Petitioner submitted copies of a number of advertisements 
for aircraft liaison or maintenance engineers. The submitted advertisements all require one to five years 
of experience in addition to a bachelor's degree in several different engineering disciplines. The 
advertisements are from major airlines and two independent airline maintenance providers. While the 
advertisers appear to be in the airline industry, none of the advertisements provide sufficient 
information to establish that the advertising organizations are similar to the Petitioner in size and scope. 
Moreover, as discussed above, the Petitioner has not submitted a sufficiently detailed description 
regarding the Beneficiary's actual role in its organization, so it is not clear that any of the advertised 
positions could be considered "parallel" to the one proffered here. 
Upon review, the evidence of record does not establish that a requirement of a bachelor's or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common in parallel positions with organizations that 
are in the Petitioner's industry and otherwise similar to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has not, therefore, 
satisfied the criterion of 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. 
Upon review, 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.6 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 de greed 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 
6 We have reviewed the information regarding U.S. university bachelor degree programs in aircraft/aviation maintenance 
and technology engineering. However, the fact that a degree is offered in this specialty does not establish that the 
position proffered here is a specialty occupation . Again , upon review of the description of duties , the Petitioner has not 
established the Beneficiary ' s actual role in its organization . 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter of 
similar but non-degreed or non-specialty degreed employment. Rather, the Petitioner appears to rely 
on the Beneficiary's work experience to support its claim that the proffered position is complex. 
However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education or experience of a 
proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 
8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it normally 
requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. Here, 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 and experience credentials and Wage and Tax 
Statements (Forms W-2) for various years for 46 individuals. We note here that the individuals do not 
have U.S. bachelor's degrees and while the Petitioner has submitted credential evaluations for these 
individuals, many of the credential evaluations are based on the individuals' technical training and work 
experience.. However, the record here does not include evidence that each of the credential evaluators 
used had authority to grant college-level credit for training and/or experience in the specialty at an 
accredited college or university which has a program for granting such credit based on an individual's 
training and/or work experience. 
Further, the information in the record does not establish that each of the Petitioner's employees had 
recognition of expertise in the specialty through progressively responsible positions directly related to 
the specialty. See 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4) and (D){l). Accordingly, the record does not 
include sufficient evidence to establish that these employees possessed sufficient academic and work 
experience to be equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
Moreover, 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. 
The Petitioner also submitted copies of several of its newspaper advertisements for the proffered 
position. The advertisements include a version of the statement that the position "[r]equires bachelor 
degree or any combination of education and experience in aircraft or aeronautical technology or 
engineering equivalent to a bachelor's degree." The advertisements do not set out the parameters of 
how the equivalency will be determined. Moreover, the Petitioner stated on the Form 1-129 petition that 
it has 758 employees and that it was established in 2002 (approximately 13 years prior to the tiling of 
the H-IB 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 the 
Petitioner's claim regarding 46 individuals is representative of its normal recruiting and hiring practices 
over a 13-year period. 
II 
(b)(6)
Matter of 
We also point out that while a petitioner may a~sert that a proffered position requires a degree in a 
specific specialty, 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 be brought to the United States to 
perform any occupation as long as the employer 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 , 20 I F. 3d at 387. In other words, if a 
petitioner's degree requirement is only symbolic and 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)( I) of the Act; 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty occupation"). 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. Thus, it has not established the referenced criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J) 
based on its normal hiring practices. 
D. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature of 
the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is usually 
associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a spycific 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. Again, 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 o<;cupational category that are not usually associated with 
at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. While we understand that the 
Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a technical background to perform the duties it generally 
described, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how these duties require 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 into1the occupation in 
the United States. The Petitioner has not distinguished the duties of the proffered position as more 
specialized and complex than the duties of an aircraft and avionics equipment mechanic/technician, a 
position that does not require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 
Upon review ofthe totality of the record, the record does not include consistent probative evidence that 
the duties require more than vocational study, a FAA certificate, or undefined amount of experience. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated for the record that its proffered position is a position 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 of the 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. 
12 
(b)(6)
Matierof 
We recognize that USCIS approved other petitions that had been previously filed· on behalf of the 
Beneficiary and the Petitioner is requesting only a six-week extension so that the Beneficiary could 
complete his six years in H-lB classification. However, we emphasize that 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 petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely because of 
prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See Matter of Church Scientology In! '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. 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). 
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 
that precludes the extension of this petition. 7 
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. The 
evaluation submitted bases the claimed equivalency in part on the Beneficiary's experience. 
However, 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)(J). 
7 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), affd , 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 
2003) ("The AAO may deny an application or petition on a ground not identified by the Service Center. "). 
13 
(b)(6)
Matter of 
. V. 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 ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden 
has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed . 
Cite as Matter of ____ ID# 68259 (AAO Dec. 7, 2016) 
14