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 "computer programmer analyst" under the H-1 B 
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)(15)(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 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.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: 
(1) 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. 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 states that the Beneficiary would be assigned to provide services to its client F-1-
(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 perform services on a ' 
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: 
• Develops and maintains applications and databases by evaluating client needs; 
analyzing requirements; developing software systems. 
• Enhances staff accomplishments and competence by planning delivery of 
solutions; answering technical and procedural questions for less experienced team 
members; teaching improved processes; mentoring team members. 
• Identifies requirements by establishing personal rapport with potential and actual 
clients and with other persons in a position to understand service requirements. 
• Arranges project requirements in programming sequence by analyzing 
requirements; preparing a work flow chart and diagram using knowledge of 
computer capabilities, subject matter, programming language, and logic. 
• Programs the computer by encoding project requirements in computer language; 
entering coded information into the computer. 
• Confirms program operation by conducting tests; modifying program sequence 
and/or codes. 
• Provides reference for use of prime and personal computers by writing and 
maintaining user documentation; maintaining a help desk. 
2 
.
Matter of A-S- Inc. 
• Maintains computer systems and programming guidelines by vvriting and 
updating policies and procedures. 
• Maintains professional and technical knowledge by attending educational 
workshops; reviewing professional publications; establishing personal networks; 
participating in professional societies. 
• Keeps equipment operational by calling for repairs; following manufacturer's 
instructions and established procedures; evaluating new equipment. 
• Protects operations by keeping information confidential. 
• Contributes to team effort by accomplishing related results as needed. 
Further, in a response 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 Computer Programmer Analyst and he is 
responsible in [sic] Help Desk ticket Restoration and Resolution Support. His 
main job would be to make sure that the changes that are getting migrated are not 
negatively impacting the existing system. 
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 degree was required for minimum entry into 
the position. However, the Petitioner did submit an opinion of professor of computer 
science at .stating that the proffered position requires "a bachelor's 
· degree in computer science or information systems 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 
is relevant to the work to be performed by the Beneficiary for the requested period. The work order 
reflects that the Petitioner would be tasked with ' 
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 his responsibility to "develop and 
maintain applications and databases by evaluating client needs," "developing software systems," 
. "identif[ying] requirements by establishing personal rapport with potential and actual clients and 
with other persons in a position to understand service requirements," "arrange project requirements 
in programming sequence by analyzing requirements ," "program[ming] the computer by encoding 
project requirements in computer language," amongst other similar duties. 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 "help desk ticket restoration and 
resolution support," "recovery of fatal transactions," "identify work around to resolve the errors," 
and "monitor and respond 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, we find that 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 criterion 2; (4) the factual justification for a petitioner normally requiring a 
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. 
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.F.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 petltwn, for the purpose of providing a 
comprehensive analysis, we will perform ~ 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 programmer analyst as certified on the labor condition application (LCA).2 
A. First Criterion \ 
We tum first to the criterion at 8 C.F.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. Departm~nt 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 submitted in support of the H-1 B petition, the Petitioner designated the proffered 
position under the occupational category "Computer Programmers" corresponding to the Standard 
Occupational Classification code 15-1131.4 
2 
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-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 of Simeio Solutions. LLC, 26 l&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 site 
http://www.b1s.gov/ooh/. We do not, however, maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive sourcec 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 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 classified the proffered position at a Levell 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 Level I wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which 
5 
.
Matter of A-S- Inc. 
The subchapter of the Handbook entitled "How to Become a Computer Programmer" states, in 
pertinent part, that "most computer programmers have a bachelor's degree; however, some 
employers hire workers who have an associate's degree." Most programmers get a degree in 
computer science or a related subject." Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, 
Occupational Outlook Handbook, Computer Programmers, (20 16-17 ed. ). According to the 
Handbook, the requirements to perform the duties of the computer programmer occupation 
incorporate a wide spectrum of educational credentials, including less than a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty. Furthermore, while the Handbook 's narrative indicates that most computer 
programmers obtain a degree (either a bachelor's or associate's degree) in computer science or a 
related field, the Handbook does not report that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation. 
As previously mentioned , the Petitioner submitted in support of the petition the opinion of 
a professor of computer science at As noted, 
concludes that the proffered position requires a "bachelor's degree in ·computer science or 
information systems or IT field or equivalent." We carefully evaluated assertions in 
support of the instant petition but, for the following reasons, determined his opinion lent little 
probative value. 
states that his assessment is largely based upon a description of the duties of the 
proffered position provided by the Petitioner in support of the petition. 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. 
Beyond this, indicates that he consulted both the Handbook and the "O*Net catalog of 
careers" in evaluating whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. First, as we 
have discussed, the Handbook does not demonstrate that computer programmer positions require a 
specific bachelor's degree for minimum entry. Further, reference to the Occupational 
Information Network (O*NET) summary report for 15-1131 -Computer Programmer also does not 
establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the occupation. This wage rate indicates: ( l) that 
the Beneficiary will be expected to perfonn 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 instruction s on required tasks and expected results. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing 
Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric . Immigration Program s (rev. Nov. 2009) , available at 
http://flcdatacenter .com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_Revised _ ll _2009 .pdf A prevailing wage detennination starts 
with an entry level wage and progresses to a higher wage level after considering the experi ence, education , and skill 
requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity . !d. 
6 
.
Matter of A-S- Inc. 
The summary report provides general information regarding the occupation; however, it does not 
support assertion regarding the educational requirements for these positions. The 
Q*NET assigns this occupational category a Job Zone "Four" rating, which states only that most but 
not all of the occupations within it require a bachelor's degree. Further, O*NET does not indicate 
that four-year bachelor's degrees required by Job Zone Four occupations must be in a specific 
specialty directly related to the occupation. Therefore, despite the assertion to the 
contrary, the O*NET information is not probative of the proffered position qualifying as a specialty 
occupation. 
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, 
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 programmers or other similar positions (or related 
issues). 
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 programmer 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. 
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). }vfatter of Caron Int'l, 
19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (providing that an adjudicator is not required to accept, or 
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)(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 
concentrates upon the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
7 
Matter of A-S- Inc. 
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 hig)ler degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
We generally consi'der the following sources of evidence 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 ~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.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
In support of its assertion that the proffered pos1t10n qualifies as a specialty occupation, the 
Petitioner 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 Programmers" 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 
8 
Matter of A-S- Inc. 
relative to other software systems analyst positions requiring a significantly higher prevailing wage, 
as such a Level III (experienced) or Level IV (fully competent) wage level.5 
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 programmer 
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 
proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. 
The Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it 
normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. 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 educational requirements for the position. Further, the Petitioner 
indicates that it formulates the personnel required for end-client, including the educational 
requirements for these employees, and that these details are set forth in proposals and written work 
orders. However, the Petitioner does not provides 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 for the project, including a referenced 
5 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(1)(1) of the Act. 
9 
Matter of A-S- Inc. 
computer programmer analyst. On appeal, the Petitioner submits several examples of previous H-1B 
petitions approved by USCIS pursuant its provision of services for the end-client, including several 
computer programmer 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 there is specific bachelor's degree requirement 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.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
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 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 other computer programmer 
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. 
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 .Petitio.ner 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-1B 
petitions for information technology positions related to its provision of services for the end-client 
referenced on the record, including several computer programmer 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 contained 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'l, 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). 
10 
Matter of A-S- Inc. 
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# 546870 (AAO July 28, 2017) 
I I