dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Science

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 "quality assurance engineer" 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: 
.
Matter of A-S- Inc. 
(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. 
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.ff, 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-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 perform 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: 
• Define, Develop and implement quality assurance 
practices, procedures, test plans 
and other QA assessments. . 
• Evaluate and tests the application according to the business and functional 
requirements. 
• Develop the automated testing tools using scripts, datasets, commercial tools. 
Ensure all the items follow the change management process and are entered thru 
change management software. Perform API level testing, 
Systems testing, Black 
box functional testing, UI Testing and White box testing~ 
• Develop testing programs that address areas such as data base impacts, software 
scenarios, regression testing, negative testing, error or bug retests or usability 
• Monitor 
defect resolution efforts and success. 
• Track and report defects using appropriate tools such as Mercury Test 
Director/Rational Clear Quest. 
2 
.
Matter of A-S- Inc. 
• Identify program deviation from standards and suggest modifications to ensure 
compliances. 
• Monitor performance to ensure efficient and problem-free operations. 
• Record and report on testing metrics. 
• Coordinate user/third party testing. 
• Work closely with development team on all stages of testing and provide the 
progress on testing. 
Further, in response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner provided the following additional detail 
regarding the Beneficiary's duties: 
The beneficiary will be working as a Quality Assurance Engineer 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 analysis 
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 h[is] 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 
baccalaureate in computer science or information systems or IT field or equivalent." 
.
Matter of A-S- Inc. 
III. ANALYSIS 
I 
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 and providing 
j maintenance and support on the end-client's '' ' 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. rThe Petitioner's provides duties reflecting only 
general computer skills such as his responsibility to "define, develop and implement quality assurance 
practices, procedures, test plans and other QA assessments," "evaluate and tests the application 
according to the business and functional requirements," "develop the automated testing tools using 
scripts, datasets, commercial tools," "monitor defect resolution efforts and success," "identify 
program deviation from standards and suggest modifications to ensure compliances," 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 "understand and establish a new 
strategy to strengthen the current business processes," "coordinate with various teams and raise 
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, 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 
1 
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 
Matter of A-S- Inc. 
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. 
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 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 quality assurance engineer 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)(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. 
On the LCA3 submitted in support of the H-1B petition, the Petitioner designated the proffered 
position under the occupational category "Computer Occupations, All Other" corresponding to the 
Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 15-1199, which includes "Software Quality 
Assurance Engineers and Testers" SOC code 15.1199.01.4 
2 
The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to USCIS to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B 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 20 15). 
3 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to USCIS to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B 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 I&N Dec. 542, 545-546 (AAO 20 15). 
4 
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 Level I wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which 
the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the 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 
5 
.
Matter of A-S- Inc. 
We often look to 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.5 However, there are some occupations for which occupational profiles have not been 
developed, such as for the occupational category "Computer Occupations, All Other."6 Since the 
Handbook does not provide sufficient information regarding the designated occupational category 
for the proffered position, it is incumbent upon the Petitioner to provide probative evidence (e.g., 
documentation from other objective, authoritative sources) that supports a finding that the particular 
position qualifies as a specialty 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 baccalaureate 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 reflectspecifics 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 provide sufficient information regarding the designated 
occupational category for the proffered position. As such, reliance of the Handbook in 
this matter undermines the authority of his conclusions. Further, references the 
Occupational Information Network (O*NET) summary report for 15-1199.01 - Software Quality 
Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC_Guidance_Revised_ll_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. 
5 
All of our references are to the 20)6-20 17 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. To satisfy the first criterion, 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. 
6 
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational~mployment Statistics: Occupational Employment and 
Wages, May 2016 Computer Occupations, All Other, https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes 151199.htm (last visited July 
28, 2017). 
6 
.
Matter of A-S- Inc. 
Assurance Engineering and Testers. The summary report provides general information regarding the 
occupati~n; however, it does not support the Petitioner's assertion regarding the educational 
requirements for these positions. The O*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 quality assurance engineers 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 
quality assurance engineer 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). Matter of Caron lnt'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)(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. 
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 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 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 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). 
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 pos1t1on 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 Occupations, All Other" 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.7 
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. Here, 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. 
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.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 work orders, including the 
educational requirements for these employees, and that these details are set forth in proposals and 
written work orders. 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, including a 
referenced quality assurance engineer. On appeal, the Petitioner submits several examples of 
previous H-IB petitions approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) pursuant 
its provision of services for the end-client, including some quality assurance engineer 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 
bachelor's degree requirement exists for these positions. In short, the Petitioner did not submit any 
7 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 1of section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 
9 
Matter of A-S- Inc. 
evidence of previous or current employees in the same pos1t10n as the Beneficiary's proffered 
position. 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 quality assurance 
engineer positions. 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 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 some quality assurance engineer 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). 
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 (Ja~. 26, 1990) (to be codified at 8 C.F.R. pt. 214). A prior approval 
10 
Matter of A-S- Inc. 
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# 541904 (AAO July 28, 20 17) 
II