dismissed H-1B Case: Clinical Research

Pmuc COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1 10 l(a)( 15)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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 04 091 51394 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION. The service center director denied the nonirnmigrant visa petition and the matter is now before 
the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. The petition will be denied. 
The petitioner is a staffing company that seeks to employ the beneficiary as a clinical research associate. The 
petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a nonirnrnigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to 
section 101 (a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 1 101 (a)(lS)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition because the petitioner did not establish that the proffered position was a 
specialty occupation or that there is an employer-employee relationship. On appeal, the petitioner submits a 
statement. 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (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. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, the 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. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) 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. 
The record of proceeding before the AAO contains: (1) Form 1-129 and supporting documentation; (2) the 
director's request for additional evidence; (3) the petitioner's response to the director's request; (4) the 
director's denial letter; and (5) Form I-290B and supporting documentation. The AAO reviewed the record in 
its entirety before issuing its decision. 
WAC04091 51394 
Page 3 
The petitioner is seeking the beneficiary's services as a clinical research associate. Evidence of the 
beneficiary's duties includes: the 1-129 petition; the petitioner's February 3, 2004 letter in support of the 
petition; and the petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence. According to this evidence, the 
beneficiary would perform duties that entail: initiating and conducting clinical trials throughout the stages; 
performing on-site clinical trial monitoring; performing clinical trial closeouts; attending principal 
investigators' meetings; participating in field monitoring training; assisting investigators in running trials or 
research on-site; and assisting in the screening of patients, data collection and documentation of patients' 
improvements and the results of medication. The petitioner indicated that a qualified candidate for the job 
would possess a bachelor's degree in medicine, health sciences, nursing or pharmacy. 
The director found that the proffered position was not a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the petitioner states that it would be the actual employer of the beneficiary. The petitioner also 
states that its record of filing numerous petitions relates to its business of staffing other organizations, and that 
it has a high turnover rate. The petitioner states that a bona fide position exists. The petitioner further asserts 
that previous petitions, which were identical to the current petition, were approved. 
Upon review of the record, the petitioner has established none of the four criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. 
5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Therefore, the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 
The AAO turns first to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2 (h)(4)(iii)(A)(l) and (2): a baccalaureate or higher 
degree or its equivalent is the normal minimum requirement for entry into the particular position; a degree 
requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations; or a particular 
position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree. 
Factors often considered by CIS when determining these criteria include: whether the Department of Labor's 
Occupational Outlook Handbook (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 
fm 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 HiraYBEaker COT. v. Suva, 712 F. 
Supp. 1095,1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
The AAO routinely consults the Handbook for its information about the duties and educational requirements of 
particular occupations. There is no specific entry for clinical research associates; therefore, the AAO must rely on 
the other factors. 
Although the record contains a staffing agreement between the petitioner and its client, the site where the 
beneficiary will work, the record does not contain a comprehensive description of the beneficiary's proposed 
duties from an authorized representative of the client. The description in the staffing agreement is identical to 
the general one provided in the letter of support; therefore, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the work 
that the beneficiary will perform for the client is a clinical research associate or that it will quaIify as a 
specialty occupation. In Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384 (5th Cir. 2000), the court held that the Immigration 
and Naturalization Service, now CIS, reasonably interpreted the statute and the regulations when it required the 
WAC 04 091 5 1394 
Page 4 
petitioner to show that the entities ultimately employing the alien beneficiaries require a bachelor's degree for all 
employees in the position. The court found that the degree requirement should not originate with the employment 
agency that brought the alien beneficiaries to the United States for employment with the agency's clients. Thus, 
the petitioner has not established the fust criterion. 
While the petitioner did not submit information about the industry's professional association, a review of the 
Internet site for the Association of Clinical Research ~rofessionals,~ which certifies clinical research coordinators, 
as well as others in the field, is instructive. In order to take the Clinical Research Coordinator certification exam, 
one must have a high school diploma or equivalent, and have two years of full-time experience, or four years of 
part-time experience as a clinical research coordinator. Clearly, this association has not made a bachelor's degree 
a requirement for certification in this field. 
Regarding parallel positions in the petitioner's industry, the petitioner submitted Internet job postings for 
clinical research associates. There is no evidence, however, to show that the employers issuing those postings 
are similar to the petitioner's client, or that the advertised positions are parallel to the instant position. Thus, 
the advertisements have little relevance. No evidence, such as letters or affidavits, was submitted by others in 
the industry attesting that they only employ degreed individuals, nor was any evidence submitted to support the 
complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position. The petitioner has, thus, not established the criteria set 
forth at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l) or (2). 
The AAO now turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3) - the employer normally requires a 
degree or its equivalent for the position. It is the petitioner's client's hiring practices, rather than the petitioner's, 
that must be considered. There is no evidence in the record regarding the petitioner's client's past hiring 
practices. As noted above, in Defensor v. Meissner, the court held that the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service, now CIS, reasonably interpreted the statute and the regulations when it required the petitioner to show 
that the entities ultimately employing alien beneficiaries require a bachelor's degree for all employees in that 
position. The court found that the degree requirement should not originate with the employment agency that 
brought the alien beneficiaries to the United States for employment with the agency's clients. 
Finally, the AAO turns to the criterion 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(iii)(A)(#) - 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. 
To the extent that they are depicted in the record, the duties do not appear so specialized and complex as to 
require the highly specialized knowledge associated with a baccalaureate or higher degree, or its equivalent, 
in a specific specialty. Therefore, the evidence does not establish that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation under 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(#). 
As related in the discussion above, the petitioner has failed to establish that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation. Accordingly, the AAO shall not disturb the director's denial of the petition. 
htt~://www.acrpnet.org, accessed September 22,2005 
WAC 04 091 51394 
Page 5 
Regarding the petitioner's assertion that identical petitions were previously approved, the record of proceeding 
does not contain copies of the visa petitions that the petitioner claims were approved. If the previous 
nonimmigrant petitions were approved based on the same unsupported and contradictory assertions that are 
contained in the current record, the approvals would constitute clear and gross error on the part of CIS. CIS is 
not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely because 
of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g. Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 
I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Cornm. 1988). It would be absurd to suggest that CIS 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, the AAO's authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between the court of 
appeals and the district court. Even if a service center director had approved the nonimmigrant petitions on 
behalf of the beneficiary, the AAO would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of a service 
center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), afd 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 
2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
An H-1B alien is coming temporarily to the United States to perform services in a specialty occupation. 
Section lOl(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b). 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(h)(l)(ii)(B). In this 
case, the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary would be coming to the United States to perform 
services in a specialty occupation. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.