dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-S- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 28,2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a computer software, business consultation, and solutions company, seeks to 
temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "software systems analyst" under the H-1 B nonimmigrant 
classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-IB program allows a U.S. employer to 
temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a position that requires both (a) the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and (b) the attainment of a 
bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for 
entry into the position. · 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had 
not established that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. In its appeal, the Petitioner 
asserts that the Director erred in her findings. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
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.P.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: 
(I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
.
Matter of A-S- Inc. 
(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). We have consistently interpreted the term "degree" 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. Cherto,[f, 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 
responsibilitie,s of a particular position"); Defensor v. Meissner , 20 I F.3d 3 84, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner states 
that the Beneficiary would be assigned to provide services to its client F-I- (the 
end-client) for whom it provides information technology support and maintenance services under a 
master services agreement. The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary would work at its office 
location in California, and that he would provide services on the end-client's " 
project." In an employment agreement provided in response to the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE), the duties of the proffered position were explained as follows: 
• Develop, modify and maintain assigned programs. Monitor the operation of 
assigned programs and responds to problems by diagnosing and correcting errors 
in logic and coding. 
• Review user requirements and needs for new software and performs analysis, 
design, implementation, installation and training related to new software 
developed and/or acquired. , 
• Analyze and plan systems based on consultations with subject matter expert 
(SME). f?ocument system plan and establishes an implementation schedule. 
• Design and document systems based on analysis results and further consultation 
with subject matter expert (SME) and team lead. 
• Develop databases, programs and procedures necessary to integrate and/or 
implement the system. Tests system fully to determine its operational reliability. 
Document system for business users conforming to institutional standards. Assist 
users and operating areas in implementing and supporting systems including 
system installation, training and troubleshooting. 
• Carry out fact finding and program analysis of problems; apply established 
procedures to bring resolution. 
2 
.
Matter of A-S- Inc. 
• Provides technical advice and support to users. This includes creating ad-hoc 
reports, data analysis and correction, training and problem solving. 
• Use the knowledge of insurance domain and extensive technical knowledge for 
developing, testing and implementing various business application systems. .. 
Further, in a letter provided in response to the RFE, the Petitioner added the following detail 
regarding the Beneficiary's duties: 
The beneficiary will be working as a Software Systems Analyst and he is responsible 
in [sic] Help Desk ticket Restoration and Resolution Support. He will also be 
involved in recovery of fatal transactions and identifying the work around to resolve 
the errors. 
He will be involved in reviewing the help desk Incidents and preliminary analysis for 
frequent incidents and logging production defects for program fixes. 
He will also be involved in analyzing and developing technical requirement document 
(TRD), unit test guidelines, code reviews, deploy the code and participate in various 
testing events ... 
He is responsible for validating the execution, making sure that the newly entered 
data are properly routed to the new System from data integrity perspective and user 
do not see any performance degradation. 
He will coordinate with other team members and will provide status report to the 
project manager using his interpersonal skills. He will work in streamlining the 
programming processes and will work closely and effectively with all levels of 
management to satisfy project/productivity requirements. 
He will also prepare contingency plan for backing any program changes that will 
have a negative impact in production. He will work with Quality Assurance team to 
prepare the test definition requirement (TDR) which will be used by the business 
users to validate the functional aspect of program changes. 
The Petitioner did not indicate what specific bachelor's degreewas required for minimum entry into 
the position. However, the Petitioqer did submit an opinion letter from a professor at 
the , stating that the proffered position requires "a BS degree in 
computer science or information system[s] or IT field or equivalent." 
3 
.
Matter of A-S- Inc. 
III. ANALYSIS 
We determine that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. Specifically, the record does not (1) describe the position's duties with 
sufficient detail, and (2) establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its 
equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 1 
The duties provided for the Beneficiary are vague and do not convey the actual day-to-day tasks to be 
performed and the knowledge required to perform them. The Petitioner submits a work order it asserts 
demonstrates the work to be performed by the Beneficiary for the requested period. The work order 
reflects that the Petitioner would be tasked with ' and 
1
error recovery and 
correction related to the end-client's '' The work order sets forth phases of 
the project and tasks to be completed within each phase. However, the duties submitted for the 
Beneficiary do not appear to relate to this project and do not indicate the specific tasks he will perform 
in the context of this stated assignment. The Petitioner's provides duties reflecting only general 
computer skills such as responsibility to "develop, modify and maintain assigned programs," "respond 
to problems by diagnosing and correcting errors in logic and coding," "review user requirements and 
needs for new software," "develop databases, programs and procedures necessary to integrate and/or 
implement the system," "provide technical advice and support to users," amongst others. The 
submitted duty description does not reference the specifics of the project or the tasks the Beneficiary 
will complete over the asserted three years, nor does it convey the knowledge required to perform these 
duties. 
Likewise, the tasks listed in the work order also use generic terms that do not adequately describe the 
duties of the proffered position. For example, the tasks include "understand and establish a new 
strategy to strengthen the current business processes," "coordinate with various teams and ra.ise 
tickets for all issues," and "monitoring and responding to production alerts." Such general 
description does not convey either the substantive nature of the work that the Beneficiary would 
actually perform, any particular body of highly specialized knowledge that would have to be 
theoretically and practically applied to perform it, or the. educational level of any such knowledge 
that may be necessary. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not established the substantive nature of the work to be performed by 
the Beneficiary, which 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 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 
1 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 8 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 
Matter of A-S- Inc. 
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. 
In addition, as we have noted, the Petitioner did not indicate that the proffered position requires a 
bachelor's degree in a specific .specialty. To prove that a job requires the theoretical and practical 
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge as required by section 214(i)(l) of the Act, a 
petitioner must establish that the position requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in 
a specialized field of study or its equivalent. As explained above, we interpret the degree 
requirement at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to require a degree in a specific specialty that is directly 
related to the proposed position. However, the Petitioner has not specifically articulated a minimum 
bachelor's degree requirement for the position. For this additional reason, the appeal must be 
dismissed. 
While these deficiencies preclude approval of the petitiOn, for the purpose of providing a 
comprehensive analysis, we will perform a complete specialty occupation analysis under each of the 
four, alternative criteria at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A) assuming that the Beneficiary will be 
employed as a computer systems analyst as certified on the labor condition application (LCA).2 
A. First Criterion 
We tum first to the criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J), 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 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 
On the LCA 4 the Petitioner presented .in support of this petition, it classified the proffered position 
under the occupational title "Computer Systems Analysts," corresponding to the Standard 
Occupational Classification code 15-1121 at a Level I wage rate.5 
2 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to USC IS to demonstrate that it will pay an H-I 8 worker the 
higher of either the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the "area of employment" or the actual wage 
paid by the employer to other employees with similar experience and qualifications who are performing the same 
services. See Matter ofSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542,545-546 (AAO 2015). 
3 All of our references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet /~ite 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not, however, maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant 
information. That is, the occupational catego~y designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the 
general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered position, and we regularly review 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 
The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to 
demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 8 worker the higher of either the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in 
the "area of employment" or the actual wage paid by the employer to other employees with similar experience and 
5 
.
Matter of A-S- Inc. 
The Handbook's subchapter entitled "How to Become a Computer Systems Analyst" states that "[a] 
bachelor's degree in a computer or information science field is common, although not always a 
requirement. Some firms hire analysts with business or liberal arts degrees who have skills in 
information technology or computer programming." 6 The Handbook also states that "[a]lthough 
many computer systems analysts have technical degrees, such a degree is not always a requirement. 
Many analysts have liberal arts degrees and have gained programming or technical expertise 
elsewhere." 7 
The Handbook does not indicate that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its 
equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for these positions. As noted, the Handbook states 
that a bachelor's degree in a computer-related field is "not always a requirement." Rather, the 
Handbook states that many computer systems analysts may only have liberal arts degrees and 
programming or technical experience, but does not further specify the amount of experience needed. 
It also notes that many analysts have technical degrees, but does not specify a degree level (e.g., 
associate's degree) for these degrees, and indicates that such a technical degree is not always a 
requirement. Thus, the Handbook reports that there are several paths for entry into the occupation. 8 
In support of the petition, the Petitioner submitted an opinion letter from a professor at 
the states that the proffered position requires "a BS 
qualifications who are performing the same services. See Matter of Simeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 545-546 
(AAO 2015). 
5 The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level I wage (the lowest of four assignable wage levels). We will 
consider this selection in our analysis of the position. The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" issued by 
the DOL provides a description of the wage levels. A Levell wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which 
the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding ofthe occupation. This wage rate indicates: (I) that 
the Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that he 
will be closely supervised and his work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that he will receive 
specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing 
Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised_ II_ 2009.pdf A prevailing wage determination starts 
with an entry level wage and progresses to a higher wage level after considering the experience, education, and skill 
requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. !d. 
6 
See Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook. Computer Systems Analysts 
(20 16-17 ed.). 
7 !d. 
8 In addition, the Handbook indicates that baccalaureate degrees in various fields (e.g. computer or information science, 
or liberal arts) may be adequate for entry into this occupation. In general, provided the specialties are closely related 
(e.g., chemistry and biochemistry), a minimum of a bachelor's of higher degree in more than one specialty is recognized 
as satisfYing the "degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)" requirement of section 214(i)( I )(B) of the Act. In 
such a case, the required '"'body of highly specialized knowledge" would essentially be the same. 
Since there must be a close correlation between the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" and the position, 
however, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in disparate fields would not meet the statutory requirement that the 
degree be "in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)," unless the Petitioner establishes how each field is directly related 
to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position such that the required body of highly specialized knowledge is 
essentially an amalgamation of these different specialties. Section 214(i)( I )(b) of the Act. 
.
Matter of A-S- Inc. 
degree in computer science or information system[s] or IT field or equivalent." We carefully 
evaluated assertions in support of the instant petition, but for the following reasons, 
determined his opinions lent little probative value. 
states that his assessment is based upon a description of the duties provided by the 
Petitioner dated in October 2016, which are generally consistent with the duties set forth herein. 
However, as we have stated previously, these duties do ·not reflect specifics of the Beneficiary's 
proposed assignment to the end-client nor the Petitioner's business activities. Therefore, 
opinion does not demonstrate in-depth knowledge of the Petitioner's operations or how the duties of 
the position would actually be performed in the context of its business enterprise. refers to 
few specifics related to the proffered position, such as the nature of the Beneficiary's project, the 
technology involved, or the specific knowledge required for the position. Accordingly, we find the 
record does not demonstrate that is, as claimed, an expert on the current requirements for 
the proffered position. 
Further, opinion letter does not cite specific instances in which his past opinions have 
been accepted or recognized as authoritative on this particular issue. There is no indication that he 
has conducted any research or studies pertinent to the educational requirements for such positions (or 
parallel positions) in the Petitioner's industry for similar organizations, and no indication of 
recognition by professional organizations that he is an authority on those specific requirements. His 
curriculum vitae does not reflect that he has published any works on the academic/experience 
requirements for computer systems analysts or other similar positions (or related issues). 
Even assuming was an expert on degree requirements for computer systems analysts, his 
letter testimony does not substantiate his conclusions, such that we can conclude that the Petitioner has 
shouldered its burden of proof. We acknowledge that lists courses that the Beneficiary 
completed while completing his degree abroad and indicates that these demonstrate the knowledge 
required for a computer systems analyst position. However, does not reference, cite, or 
discuss any studies, surveys, industry publications, authoritative publications, or other sources of 
empirical information which he may have consulted to complete his evaluation. As we have noted, 
does not discuss the duties of the proffered position in any substantive detail. To the 
contrary, he simply listed the tasks in bullet-point fashion without discussion. 
In addition, the record does not indicate whether was aware that, as indicated by the Level 
I wage on the LCA, the Petitioner considered the proffered position to be an entry-level computer 
systems analyst position for an employee who has only a basic understanding of the occupation. In 
other words, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that possessed the requisite information 
to adequately assess the nature of the position and appropriately determine parallel positions based 
' ' 
upon the job duties and level of responsibilities. 
As such, we find that opinion letter lends little probative value, and thus the Petitioner has 
not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). Matter of Caron Int'l, 
19 I&N Dec. 791, 7?5 (Comm'r 1988) (providing that an adjudicator is not required to accept, or 
7 
Matter of A-S- Inc. 
may give less weight to, an advisory opinion when it is "not in accord with other information or is in 
any way questionable."). 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation to substantiate its assertion regarding the 
minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. The Petitioner has not satisfied the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
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 
concentrates 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. 
We generally consider the following sources of evidenci'to determine if there is such a common 
degree requirement: 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 establish 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) 
(considering these "factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook, or another authoritative source, reports a requirement for at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. We incorporate by reference the previous discussion on the 
matter. 
Otherwise, the record does not include any other probative evidence that a "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. As such, the Petitioner 
has not satisfied the first alternative prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
8 
Matter of A-S- Inc. 
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. 
In support of its assertion that the proffered positiOn qualifies as a specialty occupation, the 
Petitioner submitted a job description for the proffered position and information regarding its 
business operations. However, as discussed, the Beneficiary's duties were vague, general tasks, not 
specific to his proposed assignment to the end-client. Therefore, the Petitioner did not sufficiently 
develop relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position, and it did not 
identify any tasks that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could 
perform them. 
Moreover, the Petitioner's designation of the proffered position as a Level I entry-level position 
within the "Computer Systems Analyst" occupational category does not support its claim that the 
position is particularly complex, specialized, unique compared to other positions within the same 
occupation. Therefore, it does not appear that the position is one with complex or unique duties 
relative to other software systems analyst positions requiring a significantly higher prevailing wage, 
. 9 
as such a Level III (experienced) or Level IV (fully competent) wage level. 
We note that 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. Upon review, the record lacks sufficiently detailed information 
to distinguish the proffered position as more complex or unique than other computer systems analyst 
positions that can be performed by persons without at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the positiOn, and references his 
education and experience as evidence that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. However, 
the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education or experience of a 
9 The Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position undermines its claim that the position is 
particularly complex, unique, and specialized compared to other positions within the same occupation. Nevertheless, a 
Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty occupation, just as a 
Level IV wage-designation does not definitively establish such a classification. In certain occupations (e.g., doctors or 
lawyers), a Level I, 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 relevant factor but is not 
itself conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)( I) of the Act. 
9 
Matter of A-S-Inc. 
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 of 8 C.F .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. The 
Petitioner did not submit any evidence of previous or current employees in the same position as the 
Beneficiary's proffered position. 
Notably, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary was selected for the proffered position following 
his response to a job advertisement. However, the Petitioner does not submit this advertisement to 
substantiate any minimum education requirement for the position. Further, the Petitioner indicates 
that it formulates the personnel required for end-client work orders, including the educational 
requirements for these employees, and notes that these details are set forth in proposals and written 
work orders. However, the Petitioner does not provide the referenced proposal relevant to the 
Beneficiary's assignment and the submitted work order includes no mention of any minimum 
educational requirements for any of the proposed positions assigned to the project. On appeal, the 
Petitioner submits several examples of previous H -1 B petitions approved by USCIS pursuant its 
provision of services for the end-client, including several computer systems analyst positions. 
However, the Petitioner does not submit any evidence related to these positions, including the 
educational requirements and credentials of these beneficiaries to substantiate that a specific degree 
requirement exists for these positions. In short, the Petitioner did not submit any evidence of 
previous or current employees in the same position as the Beneficiary's proffered position. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
D. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.P.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. 
Again, as previously mentioned, the Beneficiary's duties were vague, general tasks, not specific to 
his proposed assignment to the end-client. Therefore, the job description submitted by the Petitioner 
does not establish that the duties are more specialized and complex than positions that are not 
usually associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. We refer 
to our earlier comments and findings with regard to the implication of the Petitioner's designation of 
the proffered position in the LCA as a Level I wage, and hence one not likely distinguishable by 
relatively specialized and complex duties. 
10 
Matter of A-S- Inc. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that its proffered position is one with duties sufficiently 
specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one 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. 
IV. PRIOR APPROVALS 
Lastly, on appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that USCIS has previously approved several H-1 B 
petitions for information technology positions related to its provision of services for the end-client, 
including several computer systems analyst positions. The Director's decision does not indicate 
whether the prior approvals of the other nonimmigrant petitions were reviewed. Further, if these 
previous nonimmigrant petitions were approved based on the same evidence conta,ined in the current 
record, the approvals would, constitute 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 Int 'I, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 
' 1988). It would be "[unreasonable] to suggest that [USCIS] or any agency must treat acknowledged 
errors ·as binding precedent." Sussex Eng 'g, Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F .2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 
1987). 
A prior approval does not compel the approval of a subsequent petition or relieve the Petitioner of its 
burden to provide sufficient documentation to establish current eligibility for the benefit 
sought. Temporary Alien Workers Seeking Classification Under\ the Immigration and Nationality 
Act, 55 Fed. Reg. 2,606, 2,612 (Jan. 26, 1990) (to be codified at 8 C.F.R. pt. 214). A prior approval 
also does not preclude USCIS from denying an extension of an original visa petition based on a 
reassessment of eligibility for the benefit sought. See Tex. A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 F. App'x 
556 (5th Cir. 2004). Furthermore, our authority over the service centers is comparable to the 
relationship between a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director had 
approved the nonimmigrant petitions on behalf of a beneficiary, we would not be bound to follow 
the contradictory decision of a service center. See La. Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 44 F. Supp. 
2d 800, 803 (E.D. La. 1999). 
! 
V. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-S- Inc., ID# 541492 (AAO luly 28, 2017) 
II