dismissed H-1B Case: Business Development

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: WAC 04 034 50646 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 2 & 2005 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficia 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section lOl(a)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1 10l(a)(l S)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 04 034 50646 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and the matter is now 
before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner is a corporation that owns and operates a chain of fast food restaurants. In order to employ the 
beneficiary as an area business development analyst, the petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a 
nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to section lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 llOl(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). The director denied the petition on the basis that the 
petitioner had failed to establish that the proffered position meets the definition of a specialty occupation as 
set forth at 8 C.F.R. $214.2@)(4)(iii)(A). 
On January 16, 2004, counsel submitted a Form I-290B (Notice of Appeal) without a brief or evidence. 
Although counsel entered a check mark at the box at section 2 of the Form I-290B that indicates that he would 
send a brief and/or evidence within 30 days, the AAO has received neither. Counsel has not responded to an 
October 5, 2005 AAO facsimile transmission notifyng him that the AAO has no record of receipt of a brief 
and/or evidence for the appeal, and extending counsel five business days to submit to the AAO a copy of any 
additional evidence and/or brief that may have been filed on appeal. Accordingly, the AAO deems the record 
complete and ready for adjudication. 
Section 101 (a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101 (a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b), provides a nonimmigrant 
classification for aliens who are coming temporarily to the United States to perform services in a specialty 
occupation. 
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. 
Thus, it is clear that Congress intended this visa classification only for aliens who are to be employed in an 
occupation that requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge 
that is conveyed by at least a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty. 
Consonant with section 214(i)(l) of the Act, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2@)(4)(ii) states that a specialty 
occupation means an occupation: 
which [I] 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. (Italics added.) 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, the position must meet one of the 
following criteria: 
WAC 04 034 50646 
Page 3 
(I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum requirement 
for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its particular position is 
so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
(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. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) has consistently interpreted the term "degree" in the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(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. Applying this standard, CIS 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 professions. These occupations all require a baccalaureate 
degree in the specific specialty as a minimum for entry into the occupation and fairly represent the types of 
professions that Congress contemplated when it created the H-1B visa category. 
To determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, CIS does not simply rely on a 
position's title or generalized descriptions of duties. It looks primarily for evidence about the specific duties, 
and about the nature of the petitioning entity's business operations. CIS must examine the ultimate 
employment of the alien, and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. CJ: Defensor 
v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384 (5th Cir. 2000). Neither the title of the position, abstract descriptions of its duties, 
nor an employer's self-imposed standards are persuasive in the critical assessment that CIS must make: 
whether the evidence of record establishes that 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. 
An officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal when the party concerned fails to 
identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. 8 C.F.R. 
9 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
The only information that the petitioner submits about the basis of the appeal is this statement at section 3 of the 
Form I-290B: 
One of the reasons why the H-1B application was denied was that there is no need for the 
petitioner to hire such a person in the offered position. However, another similar H-1B petition 
filed by the Petition[er] was approved. We will be submitting a brief within 30 days providing 
detailed reasons and documents. 
By asserting that a similar petition was approved by CIS, counsel has not specified error by the director as 
required by 8 C.F.R. 9 103.3(a)(l)(v). Each nonimrnigrant petition is a separate proceeding with a separate 
record. See 8 C.F.R. 3 103.8(d). In making a determination of statutory eligibility, CIS is limited to the 
information contained in the record of proceeding. See 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(16)(ii). CIS is not required to 
approve petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may 
WAC 04 034 50646 
Page 4 
have been erroneous. See, e.g., Matter of Church Scientoloa International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm. 
1988). Neither CIS nor any other 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). Further, counsel 
provides no documentation in support of his assertion of favorable treatment in a similar case, and therefore 
no evidence for AAO review. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of 
Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of 
Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503,506 (BIA 1980). 
Counsel fails to specify how the director made any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in denylng 
the petition. As neither the petitioner nor counsel presents additional evidence on appeal to overcome the 
decision of the director, the appeal will be summarily dismissed in accordance with 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
The burden of proof in this proceeding rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.