dismissed H-1B Case: Finance

MATTER OF M-A-P-H-E-I-, LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 12, 2017 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a 20-employee "economy-lodging brand" hotel company, seeks to temporarily 
employ the Beneficiary as a financial manager 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-1B 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, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded the Petitioner 
did not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in 
denying the petition. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
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 M-A-P-H-E-1-, LLC 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the 'specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that 
knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has consistently 
interpreted the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any 
baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the 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 
In the H -1 B petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a "financial manager." 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided the following job 
duties for the position: 
One of the main responsibilities of the Financial Manager is to prepare internal 
financial statements and reports: All financial reports such as income-expense 
statement, balance sheet, expense report, daily revenue details report, daily hotel 
transactions report, daily ledger balance report, banking report, occupancy charts, 
revenue charts, average daily rate charts, payment methods allocations reports, 
comparison of current financial data with past data are required in order to keep the 
management aware about the financial health of the company. Without these reports, 
our company will 110t be able to make well informed decisions. With competition 
being so fierce, it is . important for our financial manager to be experienced in 
preparing these budgets on a timely basis. This comprises on [sic] 25% of the 
position. 
Another important duty of the Financial Manager is to oversee accounting activities 
such as pavables and receivables: the financial manager will analyze & process 
payment to accounts payable including utility companies and suppliers, monitor and 
manage daily cash flows for accurate cash management, analyze statements from our 
2 
Matter of M-A-P-H-E-1-, LLC 
company accountant in order to inform management on the hotel's current financial 
situation. Again, without the~e functions, our company is at risk of losing funds 
which can lead to a huge loss in our company profits. This comprises of [sic] 20% 
of the position. 
Another important duty of the Financial Manager is to monitor and control the {low 
of cash receipts: In this industry it is mandatory for any successful hotel to keep 
track of incoming fees, including utilities, supplier invoices, and customer payments. 
He is also responsible for negotiating and resolving issues with credit card payments 
and other banking issues. Our Financial Manager is instrumental in processing timely 
payments to state, county & city for different taxes, licenses, and permits, participates 
in rate & commission negotiations with third party booking and travel agents, and 
processes commission payments to them. It is very important that we have an 
individual who is able to manage financial crises situations with professionalism and 
accuracy. Also, the financial manager conducts cost analysis based on expenditure by 
all departments, and profitability analysis from all revenue avenues, and suggests 
corrective actions to achieve management goals. This comprises of [sic] 30% of the 
position. 
Finally our financial manager performs data analysis {or the management team: 
This involves performing Revenue per available rooms (rev par) analysis, revenue per 
rented rooms analysis, expenses per available room analysis, and expenses per rented 
rooms analysis [sic], and also analyzing room revenue trends across the market area 
and segment in competition. He is also responsible for forecasting monthly revenue 
and guiding the management in setting up the room rates to increase revenue. This 
comprises of [sic] 25% of the position. 
In its RFE response letter, the Petitioner stated that the position requires "at least a Bachelor's 
Degree as well as at least 5 years of relevant experience." 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or 
its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation.' 
As a preliminary matter, the Petitioner's claim that a bachelor's degree is a sufficient minimum 
requirement for entry into the proffered position is inadequate to establish that the proposed position 
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. 
3 
Matter of M-A-P-H-E-1-, LLC 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. A petitiOner must demonstrate that the proffered position 
requires a precise and specific course of study that relates directly and closely to the position in 
question. There must be a close correlation between the required specialized studies and the 
position; thus, the mere requirement of a degree, without further specification, does not establish the 
position as a specialty occupation. C.f Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 
(Comm'r 1988) ("The mere requirement of a college degree for the sake of general education, or to 
obtain what an employer perceives to be a higher caliber employee, also does not establish 
eligibility."). Thus, while a general-purpose bachelor's degree may be a legitimate prerequisite for a 
particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify a finding that a particular 
position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. 
The Petitioner asserts that its minimum requirement for the proffered position is only a bachelor's 
degree, without further requiring that that degree be in any specific specialty. Without more, the 
Petitioner's statement alone indicates that the proffered position is not in fact a specialty 
occupation. The Director's decision must therefore be affirmed and the appeal dismissed on this 
basis alone. 
Further, we find that the evidence of the Petitioner's operations and the Beneficiary's stated duties 
undermines the Petitioner's assertion that the Beneficiary will be working primarily as a financial 
manager. The Petitioner indicated on the Form I-129 that it employs 20 individuals at its hotel. In 
the RFE, the Director requested that the Petitioner submit evidence to substantiate that the 
Beneficiary would be relieved from performing functions unrelated to the duties of the proffered 
position, including employee paystubs or IRS Forms W-2, W-3, or 1099. In response, the Petitioner 
submitted internal financial reports projecting that it would pay $52,823 in "administrative" wages, 
$125,798 to front desk employees, $168,178 to housekeeping employees, and $17,634 to 
maintenance employees. However, the Petitioner did not submit supporting documentation to 
substantiate the payment of thes~ salaries to its employees, such as evidence of actual salary 
payments or tax documentation. Failure to submit requested evidence which precludes a material 
line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the [petition]." 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14). A petitioner's 
unsupported statemeqts are of very limited weight and normally will be insufficient to carry its 
burden of proof, particularly when supporting documentary evidence would reasonably be 
available. See Matter ofSo.ffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter ofTreasure 
Craft ofCal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)); see also Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 
369, 376 (AAO 201 0). The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and 
credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376. 
The Petitioner also provided an organizational chart reflecting that the Beneficiary acts in an 
advisory role to a president and a general manager. The chart indicated that the general manager 
would oversee a director of sales, a supervisor, and a facilities manager, while the supervisor and 
facilities manager would supervise "janitorial associates." However, this asserted organizational 
structure contradicts the Petitioner's projected payroll. For instance, the organizational chart does 
not reflect that it employs any front desk personnel, whereas its projected payroll indicates that it 
will pay $125,798 to these employees in 2016. Likewise, the organizational chart shows that the 
4 
Matter of M-A-P-H-E-1-, LLC 
company employs several other employees not fitting in the classification . of front desk, 
housekeeping, and maintenance, including its president, a general manager, a director of sales, and a 
supervisor. However, the projected payroll only accounts for $52;823 in "administrative" wages 
outside that paid to front desk, housekeeping, and maintenance employees. 
In addition, the Beneficiary's duty description states that he. will devote 25 percent of his time to 
"perform[ing] data analysis for the management team," but the company's payroll does not indicate 
that the Petitioner employs a management team. Further, the Beneficiary's duty description 
indicates that he will "analyze statements from our company accountant," an employee not reflected 
in its organizational chart or otherwise substantiated with supporting documentary evidence. It is 
also noteworthy that the submitted organizational chart includes no employee names and is not 
consistent with the Petitioner's assertion that it employs 20 individuals. The Petitioner has also 
provided only internal financial reports to corroborate its level of operations and revenue, as opposed 
to tax or other objective documentation. In sum, these insufficiencies and discrepancies leave 
significant question as to whether the company ha~ sufficient operations and employees as of the 
date of the petition to support the proffered position and its asserted duties. The Petitioner has not 
resolved these inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Furthermore, the Petitioner also contends that the proffered position requires "5 years of relevant 
experience." However, the Petitioner has designated the proffered position on the labor condition 
application (LCA) as a Level I wage.2 Designation ,as a Level I wage indicates that the position 
involves only a basic understanding of the position and the performance of routine tasks exercising 
limited judgement. As such, the Petitioner's assignment of the position to the Level I wage category 
in the LCA is in direct contradiction to its assertion that the position requires 5 years of relevant 
experience. Again, the Petitioner has not resolved these inconsistencies with independent, objective 
evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Afatter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 582, 591-92. 
In addition, in its RFE response letter, the Petitioner detailed several courses completed by the 
Beneficiary which will assist him in completing the duties of the proffered position, including 
corporate finance, economics, accounting, quantitative reasoning for businesses, strategic planning 
and implementation, applied business research and statistics, operations management, human capital 
1 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: ( 1) 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:/ /tlcdatacenter .com/ down load/N P W H C _Guidance_ Revised _11_ 2009. pdf. A prevai I ing 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 
Matter of M-A-P-H-E-1-, LLC 
management, and marketing, suggesting that this body of knowledge is required for the position and 
that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is required for the position. However, the 
Beneficiary's resume indicates that he was hired to the proffered position in 2011, while his 
transcript reflects that these courses were completed from October 2012 to February 2014. As such, 
the Petitioner's assertion that the knowledge attained from these courses is required for the position 
is not credible. 
Moreover, it also cannot be found that the proffered position is a specialty occupation because the 
Petitioner has not satisfied any of the supplemental, additional criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
1. First Criterion 
We turn 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. To inform this inquiry, we recognize the U.S. Department ofLabor'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 "Financial Managers" corresponding to the Standard Occupational 
Classification code i 1-3031. 
The Director stated in her decision that a financial manager position is normally considered a 
specialty occupation. We do not concur with this assessment. The Handbook states the following 
about the educational requirements of financial manager positions: 
A bachelor's degree in finance, accounting, economics, or business administration is 
often the minimum education needed for financial managers. However, many 
employers now seek candidates \vith a master's degree, preferabfy in business 
administration, finance, or economics. These academic programs help students 
develop analytical skills and learn financial analysis methods and software. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook. 2016-17 ed., 
"Financial Managers," http://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/financial-managers.htm#tab-4 (last 
visited Jan. 11, 2017). 
3 
All of our references are to the 20 16-20 J7 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. 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 USCIS regularly reviews 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, fo'r entry. 
6 
J 
Matter of M-A-P-H-E-1-, LLC 
The Handbook states that a bachelor's degree in business administration, without further 
specialization, would provide sufficient educational preparation for a financial manager position. 
However, as noted, a petitioner must demonstrate that the proffered position requires a precise and 
specific course of study that relates directly and closely to the position in question. Since there must 
be a close correlation between the required specialized studies and the position, the requirement of a 
degree with a generalized title, such as business administration, without further specification, does 
not establish the position as a specialty occupation. C.f Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N at 
Dec. 558, 560. 
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 discussed supra, USCIS interprets 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. Although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business administration, 
may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will 
not justify a finding that a particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. 
Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147.4 
When the Handbook does not support the proposition that a proffered position is one that meets the 
statutory and regulatory provisions of a specialty occupation, it is incumbent upon the Petitioner to 
4 Specifically, the First Circuit explained in Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147, that: 
The courts and the agency consistently have stated that, although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, 
such as a business administration degree, may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, 
requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify the granting of a petition for an H-1 B specialty 
occupation visa. See. e.g., Tapis lnt'lv. INS, 94 F.Supp.2d 172, 175-76 (D. Mass. 2000); Shanti, 36 F. 
Supp. 2d at 1164-66; cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I & &N Dec. 558,560 ([Comm'r] 1988) 
(providing frequently cited analysis in connection with a conceptually similar provision). This is as it 
should be: elsewise, an employer could ensure the granting of a specialty occupation visa petition by 
the simple expedient of creating a generic (and essentially artificial) degree requirement. 
A general degree requirement does not necessarily preclude a proffered position from qualifying as a specialty 
occupation. For example, an entry requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in business administration with a 
concentration in a specific field, or a bachelor's or higher degree in business administration combined with relevant 
education, training, or experience may, in certain instances, qualify the proffered position as a specialty occupation. In 
either case, it must be demonstrated that the entry requirement is equivalent to a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific 
specialty that is directly related to the proffered position. See id. 
It is also important to note that a position may not qualify as a specialty occupation based solely on either a preference 
for certain qualifications for the position or the claimed requirements of a petitioner. See Delensor, supra, 20 I F.3d at 
387. Instead, the record must establish that the performance of the duties of the proffered position requires both the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and the attainment of a baccalaureate or 
higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as the minimum for entry into the occupation. See section 
214(i)(l) ofthe Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty occupation"). 
Matter of M-A-P-H-E-1-, LLC 
provide persuasive evidence that the protiered position more likely than not satisfies this or one of 
the other three criteria, notwithstanding the absence of the Handbook's support on the issue. In such 
cases, the Petitioner must provide probative evidence (e.g., documentation from other objective, 
authoritative sources) that supports a finding that the particular position in question qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. Here, the Petitioner did not reference any other authoritative source pertinent 
to the educational requirements of financial manager positions. 
It is also noteworthy that the O*NET OnLine Summary Report for financial manager positons also 
does not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is required for entry into these 
positions. It does not state that such positions require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or the equivalent. Rather, it assigns this occupation a Job Zone "Four" rating, which 
groups it among occupations for which "most ... require a four-year bachelor's degree, but some do 
not." O*NET OnLine Summary Report for "11-3031.02 - Financial Managers, Branch or 
Department," http://www.onetonline.m:g/link/summary/11-3031.02 (last visited Jan. 11, 2017). 
Further, O*N_ET does not indicate that when a four-year bachelor's degree is required, it must be in a 
specific specialty directly related to the occupation, or the equivalent. Therefore, the information 
from O*NET is not persuasive in demonstrating that the proffered position i~ a specialty occupation. 
In addition, we also find that, to the extent that they are described in the record of proceedings, the 
duties that the Petitioner ascribes to the proffered position indicate a Ifeed for a range of knowledge 
of keeping and analyzing financial records and presenting financial data, but they do not establish 
any particular level of formal, postsecondary education leading to a bachelor's or higher degree in a 
specific specialty as minimally necessary to attain such knowledge. 
For all of these reasons, 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 
casts its gaze 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. 
8 
Matter of M-A-P-H-E-1-, LLC 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by 
USCIS include: 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 attest that such firms "routinely employ 
and recruit only de greed 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)). 
The Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which the Handbook (or other 
independent, authoritative source) reports an industry-wide requirement for at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty or its equivalent. Thus, we incorporate by reference the previous discussion on 
the matter. In addition, there are no submissions from the industry's professional association indicating 
that it has made a degree a minimum entry requirement. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not submit any 
letters or affidavits from similar firms or individuals in the Petitioner's industry attesting that such firms 
"routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." 
Thus, the evidence of record does not establish that a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to parallel positions with organizations that are in 
the Petitioner's industry and otherwise similar to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has not, therefore, 
satisfied the criterion ofthe 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 this matter, the evidence of record does not distinguish the proffered position as unique from or 
more complex than other financial manager positions that can be performed by persons without at 
least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Rather, the evidence of record 
does not distinguish the proffered position from other positions falling within the "Financial 
Manager" occupational category, which the Handbook indicates do not necessarily require a person 
with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent to enter those positions. 
More specifically, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the duties described require the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge such that a bachelor's 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform them. For instance, 
as we have stated previously, the Petitioner provided a listing of several courses completed by the 
Beneficiary, suggesting that the knowledge attained from them is required to perform the duties of 
the proffered position. However, as discussed earlier, the evidence reflects that the Beneficiary was 
employed in the proffered position well before the completion of these courses, leaving question as 
to the assertion that this body of knowledge is required as a prerequisite. While these courses may 
be beneficial, or even essential, in performing certain duties of the financial manager position, the 
9 
( 
Matter of M-A-P-H-E-1-, LLC 
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. 
The lack of complexity and uniqueness of the position is further evidenced by the LCA submitted by 
the Petitioner in support of the petition. Again, the LCA indicates that, relative to other positions 
located within the "Financial Manager" occupational category, the Beneficiary would perform 
routine tasks requiring limited judgement under close supervision. Without further evidence, the 
evidence does not demonstrate that the proffered position is relatively complex or unique as such a 
position falling under this occupational category would likely be classified at a higher-level, such as 
a Level III (experienced) or Level IV (fully competent) position, requiring a significantly higher 
prevailing wage.5 For example, a Level IV (fully competent) position is designated by DOL for 
employees who "use advanced skills and diversified knowledge to solve unusual and complex 
problems." The evidence of record does not establish that this position is significantly different from 
other positions in the occupational category such that it refutes the Handbook's information that a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is not required for the proffered position. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position, and references his 
qualifications. 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 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. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.P.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 states that a bachelor's degree and 5 years of related experience is required for the 
position. While a petitioner may assert that a proffered position requires a degree in a specific 
specialty, that statement alone without corroborating evidence cannot establish the position as a 
5 The issue here is that the Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I position undermines its claim that the 
position is particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same 
occupation. Nevertheless, it is important to note that a Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position 
from classification as a specialty occupation. In certain occupations (doctors or lawyers, for example), such a 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 consideration but is not a substitute for a determination 
of whether a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 
10 
Matter of M-A-P-H-E-1-, LLC 
specialty occupation. If USCIS were limited solely to reviewing a petitioner's claimed self-imposed 
requirements, then any individual with a bachelor's degree could be brought to the United States to 
perform any occupation as long as the employer artificially created a token degree requirement, 
" whereby all individuals employed in a particular position possessed a baccalaureate or higher degree 
in the specific specialty, or its equivalent. See Defensor, 201 F. 3d at 387. In other words, if a 
petitioner's degree requirement is only symbolic and the proffered position does not in fact require 
such a specialty degree, or its equivalent, to perform its duties, the occupation would not meet the 
statutory or regulatory definition of a specialty oc~upation. See section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 
C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(ii) (defining the term "specialty occupation"). Here, the Petitioner has not 
established the referenced criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3) based on its normal hiring 
practices. 
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. 
Relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by the Petitioner as an 
aspect of the proffered position's duties. In other words, the proposed duties have not been 
described with sufficient specificity to show that their nature is more specialized and complex than 
financial manager positions whose duties are not of a nature so specialized and complex that their 
performance requires knowledge usually associated with a degree in a specific specialty. In 
reviewing the record of proceeding under this criterion, we reiterate our earlier discussion regarding 
the Handbook's findings for positions located within the "Financial Managers" occupational 
category. Again, the Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
the equivalent, is a standard, minimum requirement to perform the duties of such positions (to the 
contrary, it indicates precisely the opposite), and the record indicates no factors that would elevate 
the duties proposed for the Beneficiary above those discussed for similar positions in the Handbook. 
With regard to the specific duties of the position proffered here, we find that the record of 
proceeding lacks' sufficient, credible evidence establishing that they are so specialized and complex 
that the knowledge required to perform them is usually associ~ted with the attainment of a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent. 
We also incorporate our earlier discussion and analysis regarding the duties of the proffered position, 
and the designation of the position in the LCA as a Level I position (the lowest of four assignable 
wage-levels) relative to others within the same occupational category~ The Petitioner has not 
demonstrated in the record 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). 
II 
Matter of M-A-P-H-E-1-, LLC 
,E. Prior Approvals 
The Petitioner emphasizes on appeal that there has been no change in circumstances from two 
previously approved H-1 B petitions filed on behalf of the Beneficiary. The Petitioner references an 
April 23, 2004, memorandum authored by William R. Yates (Yates memo) and asserts that USCIS' 
prior approvals "strongly support continued approval of this case." Memorandum from William R. 
Yates, Associate Director for Operations, The Sign?ficance of a Prior CIS Approval of a 
Nonimmigrant Petition in the Context of a Subsequent Determination Regarding Eligibility for 
Extension of Petition Validity, HQOPRD 72/11.3 (Apr. 23, 2004). 
Significantly, the Yates memo specifically states as follows: 
Adjudicators are not bound to approve subsequent petitions or applications seeking 
immigration benefits where eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely because of 
a prior approval which may have been erroneous. Matter of Church Scientology 
International, 19 I&N 593, 597 (Comm. 1988). Each matter must be decided 
according to the evidence of record on a case-by-case basis. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.8(d). 
Material error, changed circumstances, or new material information must be clearly 
articulated in the resulting request for evidence or decision denying the benefit 
sought, as appropriate. 
Thus, the Yates memo does not advise adjudicators to approve an extension petition when the facts 
of record do not demonstrate eligibility for the benefit sought. On the contrary, the memorandum's 
language quoted immediately above acknowledges that a petition should not be approved where, as 
here, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the petition should be granted. 
Again, as indicated in the Yates memo, we are not required to approve applications or petitions 
where eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been 
erroneous. See, e.g., Matter of Church Scientology Int 'l, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). If 
the two previous nonimmigrant petitions were approved based on the same description of duties and 
assertions that are contained in the current record, they would constitute material and gross error on 
the part of the Director. It would be unreasonable for USCIS or any agency to treat acknowledged 
errors as binding precedent. Sussex Eng'g, Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 
1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 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 b~nefit 
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 
/ 
12 
Matter of M-A-P-H-E-1-, LLC 
district court. Even if a service center director had approved 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). 
Additionally, the memorandum clearly states that each matter must be decided according to the 
evidence of record. Copies of these petitions, however, were not included in the record and, 
therefore, this claim is without merit. If the Petitioner wished to have prior decisions considered by 
USCIS in its adjudication of a petition, it is permitted to submit copies of such evidence that it either 
obtained itself and/or received in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed in 
accordance with the applicable regulations. Otherwise, "[t]he non-existence or other unavailability 
of required evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility." 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(i). 
When "any person makes application for a visa or any other document required for entry, or makes 
application for admission, ... the burden of proof shall be upon such person to establish that he is 
eligible" for such benefit. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; see also Matter of Treasure 
Crafi o.fCal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972). Each nonimmigrant and immigrant petition 
is a separate record of proceedings with a separate burden of proof. Each petition must stand on its 
own-individual merits. There is no requirement either in the regulations or in USCIS procedural 
documentation requiring nonimmigrant petitions to be combined in a single record of proceedings. 6 
Accordingly, the Director was not required to request and obtain a copy of the prior H-1 B petitions. 
Again, the Petitioner in this case has not submitted copies of the prior H-1B petitions and their 
respective supporting documents and approval notices. As the record of proceedings does not 
contain any evidence of these petitions, there were no underlying facts to be analyzed and, therefore, 
no prior, substantive reasons could have been provided to explain why deference to the approvals of 
the prior two H-1B petitions was not warranted. The burden of proving eligibility for the benefit 
sought remains entirely with the Petitioner. Section 291 of the Act. For this additional reason, the 
Yates memo does not apply in this instance. 
6 USCIS does not engage in the practice of reviewing previous nonimmigrant petitions when adjudicating extension 
petitions. Given the various and changing jurisdiction over various nonimmigrant petitions and applications, requiring 
previously adjudicated nonimmigrant petitions to be reviewed before any newly filed application or petition could be 
adjudicated would result in extreme delays in the processing of petitions and applications. Furthermore, such a 
suggestion, while being impractical and inefficient, would also be a shift in the evidentiary burden in this proceeding 
from the Petitioner to USCIS, which would be contrary to section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 
13 
Matter of M-A-P-H-E-1-, LLC 
IV. CONCLUSION 
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. The burden is on the 
Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 
1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of M-A-P-H-E-1-, LLC, ID# 200733 (AAO Jan. 12, 2017) 
14