dismissed H-1B Case: Food Manufacturing

MATTER OF CJF-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 16, 2015 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a "Food Manufacturing, Bakery" firm, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a part-time 
"Business Developer" and to classify him as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition. The matter is 
now before us on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The Director found the evidence insufficient to establish that the proffered position qualifies for 
classification as a specialty occupation position. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's 
basis for denial was erroneous and contends that the Petitioner satisfied all evidentiary requirements. 
The record of proceeding before us contains: (1) the Petitioner's Form I-129 and the supporting 
documentation filed with it; (2) the Director's request for additional evidence (RFE); (3) the 
Petitioner's response to the RFE; (4) the Director's denial letter; and (5) the Form I-290B, Notice of 
Appeal or Motion, and the Petitioner's submissions on appeal. We reviewed the record in its 
entirety before issuing our decision. 1 
I. THE PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner claims in the Labor Condition Application (LCA) submitted to support the visa 
petition that the proffered position corresponds to Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 
and title 11-2021, Marketing Managers, from the Occupational Information Network (O*NET). 
In a letter submitted with the visa petition dated October 14, 2014, the Petitioner provided a chart, 
provided below, verbatim, listing the duties and responsibilities of the proffered position as well as 
the hours and percentages of time to be spent on each duty. 
1 We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). 
Matter of CJF-, Inc. 
Duties/Responsibilities Hours Spent on %of Time on 
Duty Each Week Duty Each 
Week 
Formulate marketing activities 8 hours 40% 
and policies as well as the 
evaluation of product 
development including but not 
limited to budget and research 
and development. Create 
strong trusting relationships 
with business owners and 
sales consultants by making 
regular weekly contact with 
business owners; gain an 
understanding of each 
business in the area and the 
market surrounding them; be 
involved in each of the 
businesses and be available as 
a point of contact for them. 
Provide coaching for business 6 hours 30% 
owners and sales consultants 
to ensure that they operate 
according to company policy 
by planning sessions and 
training to business owners 
and sales consultants as 
required; help interpret and 
understand financial and 
productivity reports. 
Help business owners develop 5 hours 25% 
strategies to grow their 
business cy reviewing plans 
and assisting with recruitment 
and marketing events 
Keep abreast with market and 1 hour 5% 
trends. Be an active 
contributor to [the Petitioner] 
by providing regular reports to 
the USA CEO and attend 
annual conferences, business 
owners meetings, award 
dinners, etc. 
2 
Matter of CJF-, Inc. 
As to the educational requirements of the proffered position, the Petitioner stated that it requires "at 
least a Master's degree in Business or related field." 
II. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
The issue is whether the evidence of record establishes that the Petitioner will employ the 
Beneficiary in a specialty occupation position. 
A. 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) states, in pertinent part, the following: 
Specialty occupation means an occupation which [ (1)] requires theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in fields of human 
endeavor including, but not limited to, architecture, engineering, mathematics, 
physical sciences, social sciences, medicine and health, education, business 
specialties, accounting, law, theology, and the arts, and which [(2)] requires the 
attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as 
a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualifY as a specialty occupation, a proposed position must 
meet one of the following criteria: 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent 1s normally the m1rumum 
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 
3 
Matter ojCJF-, Inc. 
(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. 
As a threshold issue, it is noted that 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must logically be read together 
with section 214(i)(1) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). In other words, this regulatory 
language must be construed in harmony with the thrust of the related provisions and with the statute 
as a whole. SeeK Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) (holding that construction 
of language which takes into account the design of the statute as a whole is preferred); see also COlT 
Independence Joint Venture v. Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989); Matter ofW­
F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). As such, the criteria stated in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) 
should logically be read as being necessary but not necessarily sufficient to meet the statutory and 
regulatory definition of specialty occupation. To otherwise interpret this section as stating the 
necessary and sufficient conditions for meeting the definition of specialty occupation would result in 
particular positions meeting a condition under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory or 
regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). To avoid this 
result, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must therefore be read as providing Sl..lpplemental criteria that 
must be met in accordance with, and not as alternatives to, the statutory and regulatory definitions of 
specialty occupation. 
As such and consonant with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) consistently interprets the 
term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered position. 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"). Applying this standard, USCIS regularly approves H -1 B petitions for qualified aliens 
who are to be employed as engineers, computer scientists, certified public accountants, college 
professors, and other such occupations. These professions, for which petitioners have regularly been 
able to establish a minimum entry requirement in the United States of a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, directly related to the duties and responsibilities of 
the particular position, fairly represent the types of specialty occupations that Congress contemplated 
when it created the H-lB visa category. 
To determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCIS does not simply 
rely on a position's title .. The specific duties of the proffered position, combined with the nature of 
the petitioning entity's business operations, are factors to be considered. users must examine the 
ultimate employment of the alien, and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. The critical element is not the title 
of the position nor an employer's self-imposed standards, but whether the position actually requires 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty as the minimum for entry into 
the occupation, as required by the Act. 
4 
Matter ofCJF-, Inc. 
B. Analysis 
The Petitioner asserts that a master's degree in business is sufficient for entry into the proffered 
position, without further requiring that the degree be in any specific specialty within that general 
field. A degree with a generalized title, such as business administration, without further 
specification, is not a degree in a specific specialty. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N 
Dec. 558 (Comm'r 1988). As such, an educational requirement that may be satisfied by an 
otherwise undifferentiated degree in business is not a requirement of a minimum of a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 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. 
Nevertheless, for the purpose of performing a comprehensive analysis of whether the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation, we will discuss the record of proceeding in relation to 
the four criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
A baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is 
normally the minimum requirementfor entry into the particular position 
We will first discuss the record of proceeding in relation 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. As 
noted above, the Petitioner claimed in the LCA that the proffered position corresponds to SOC code 
and title 11-2021, Marketing Managers, from O*NET. 
We recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook), 
cited by the Petitioner, as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of the 
wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 2 In the chapter pertinent to Advertising, Promotions, 
and Marketing Managers, the Handbook states, in pertinent part, the following with regard to the 
educational requirements of such positions: 
A bachelor's degree is required for most advertising, promotions, and 
marketing management positions. For advertising management positions, some 
employers prefer a bachelor's degree in advertising or journalism. A relevant course 
of study might include classes in marketing, consumer behavior, market research, 
sales, communication methods and technology, visual arts, art history, and 
photography. 
2 The Handbook, which is available in printed form, may also be accessed on the Internet, at http://www.bls.gov/oco/. 
Our references to the Handbook are to the 2014-2015 edition available online. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of CJF-, Inc. 
U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook), 2014-15 ed., 
"Advertising, Promotions, and Marketing Managers," http://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/ 
advertising-promotions-and-marketing-managers .htm#tab-4 (last visited Oct. 15, 20 15). 
More specifically, as to marketing managers, the Handbook states: 
I d. 
Most marketing managers have a bachelor 's degree. Courses in business law, 
management, economics, finance, computer science, mathematics, and statistics are 
advantageous. For example, courses in computer science are helpful in developing an 
approach to maximize traffic through online search results, which is critical for digital 
advertisements and promotions. In addition, completing an internship while in school 
is highly recommended. 
While the Handbook indicates that most marketing managers have a bachelor's degree, it does not 
state that a bachelor's degree is a minimum requirement. Further, it does not indicate that marketing 
manager positions require a minimum of a bachelor's degree or the equivalent in a specific specialty. 
That courses in business law, management, economics, finance, computer science, mathematics, and 
statistics are advantageous does not indicate that such positions require a bachelor's degree in a 
specific subject, or even any bachelor's degree at all. 
In certain instances, the Handbook is not determinative. 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 provide persuasive evidence that the 
proffered 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 case, it is the 
Petitioner's responsibility to 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. Whenever more than one authoritative source exists, an adjudicator will 
consider and weigh all of the evidence presented to determine whether the particular position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
We have reviewed the evaluation of the proffered position prepared by a 
professor of marketing at stated that, based on the duty 
description provided by the Petitioner, "[A]t least a Bachelor's Degree (or foreign equivalent) in 
Business Administration, Management, Marketing, or a related field, MBA preferred, is required to 
perform the responsibilities of [the proffered position]." 
Although indicated that he based his opinion on the duty description provided by 
the Petitioner, he did not discuss the duties of the proffered position in any substantive detail. 
Fm1her, while he noted that the Petitioner is a subsidiary of _ and listed other holdings 
of he did not demonstrate or assert in-depth knowledge of the specific business 
(b)(6)
Matter of CJF-, Inc. 
operations of the Petitioner itself or how the duties of the position would actually be performed in 
the context of the Petitioner's business enterprise. For instance, there is no evidence that 
visited the Petitioner's business, observed the Petitioner's employees, interviewed them about 
the nature of their work, or documented the knowledge that they apply on the job. 
asserted a general industry educational standard for business developer positions 
without referencing any supporting authority or any empirical basis for the pronouncement. 
Likewise, he did not provide a substantive, analytical basis for his conclusion. He did not relate his 
conclusion to specific, concrete aspects of the Petitioner's business operations to demonstrate a 
sound factual basis for the conclusion about the educational requirements for the particular position 
here at issue. Accordingly, the very fact that he attributes a degree requirement to such a generalized 
treatment of the proffered position undermines the credibility of his opinion. 
Furthermore, there is no indication that the Petitioner advised that the Petitioner 
characterized the proffered position as a low, entry-level marketing manager position, for a 
beginning employee who has only a basic understanding of the occupation (as indicated by the 
wage-level on the LCA) relative to other positions within the occupational category.3 It appears that 
would have found this information relevant for his opinion letter. Moreover, 
without this information, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that possessed the 
requisite information necessary to adequately assess the nature of the Petitioner's position and 
appropriately determine parallel positions based upon job duties and responsibilities. 
3 The wage levels are defined in DOL's "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance." A Level I wage rate is 
described as follows: 
Levell (entry) wage rates are assigned to job offers for beginning level employees who have 
only a basic understanding of the occupation. These employees perform routine tasks that require 
limited, if any, exercise of judgment. The tasks provide experience and familiarization with the 
employer's methods, practices, and programs. The employees may perform higher level work for 
training and developmental purposes. These employees work under close supervision and receive 
specific instructions on required tasks and results expected. Their work is closely monitored and 
reviewed for accuracy. Statements that the job offer is for a research fellow, a worker in training , or an 
internship are indicators that a Level I wage should be considered. 
See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin. , Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. 
Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009) , available at 
http://www. foreignlaborcett.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _I I_ 2009 .pdf. 
Thus, in designating the proffered position at a Level I wage, the Petitioner has indicated that the proffered position is a 
comparatively low, entry-level position relative to others within the occupation. That is, in accordance with the relevant 
DOL explanatory information on wage levels , this wage rate indicates that the Beneficiary is only required to have a 
basic understanding of the occupation and carries expectations that the Beneficiary perform routine tasks that require 
limited exercise of judgement. 
(b)(6)
Matter of CJF-, Inc. 
In summary, and for each and all of the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the opinion letter 
rendered by does not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. The conclusion reached by is not supported by independent, objective 
evidence demonstrating the manner in which he reached such conclusions. There is an inadequate 
factual foundation established to support the opinion and we find that the opinion is not in accord 
with other information in the record. We may, in our discretion, use as advisory opinions statements 
submitted as expert testimony. However, where an opinion is not in accord with other information 
or is in any way questionable, we are not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. 
Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988). As a reasonable exercise of our 
discretion, we find that the professor's opinion letter does not satisfy any criterion of the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 4 For efficiency's sake, we hereby incorporate the above discussion 
and analysis regarding the opinion letter into each of the bases in this decision for dismissing the 
appeal. 
The Handbook does not support the claim that the occupational category of marketing managers is 
one for which normally the minimum requirement for entry is a baccalaureate degree (or higher) in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. Even if it did, the record lacks sufficient evidence to support a 
finding that the particular position proffered here, an entry-level marketing manager position (as 
indicated on the LCA), would normally have such a minimum, specialty degree requirement or its 
equivalent. The duties and requirements of the position as described in the record of proceeding do 
not indicate that this particular position proffered by the Petitioner is one for which a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
The requirement of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a spec(fic specialty, 
or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel 
positions among similar organizations 
Next, we will review the record regarding the first of the two alternative prongs of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). This prong alternatively calls for a petitioner to establish that a requirement 
of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common for positions 
that are: (1) in the petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered position, and also (3) located in 
organizations that are similar to the petitioner. 
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 
4 In any event, conclusion does not support the proposition that the proffered position requires a 
minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. That is, stated that the 
proffered position requires "at least a Bachelor's Degree (or foreign equivalent) in Business Administration, 
Management, Marketing, or a related field," and that an MBA would be preferred for the position. That conclusion does 
not assert that the proffered position requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
As was explained above , a requirement of a degree in business administration , with no further specificity , is not a 
requirement of a bachelor 's degree in a specific specialty . 
Matter ofCJF-, Inc. 
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 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)). 
Here and as already discussed, 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. Also, 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 
de greed individuals." 
Instead, the Petitioner provided a letter from the regional manager of a restaurant chain. That letter 
states: "[W]e require a Business Developer to have at least a Bachelor's Degree with a preference 
for a Master's Degree." Even if the restaurant chain were considered to be in the same industry as 
the Petitioner, a self-described "Food Manufacturing, Bakery" firm, that restaurant's letter would not 
demonstrate that the proffered position requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent. First, it represents, at most, the policy of one company, rather than a 
consensus that a requirement of a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, is common in the industry. Further, the letter does not indicate that the company has a 
requirement of a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for such 
positions. 
The vacancy announcements also do not show that similar companies in the Petitioner's industry 
commonly require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for 
positions similar to the position proffered in the instant case. 
First, most of the vacancy announcements appear to be for positions clearly not in the Petitioner's 
industry. Although one of the vacancy announcements was placed by a food and beverage 
manufacturer, others were placed by a pharmaceutical research service, a computer hardware firm, a 
musical instrument and audio equipment manufacturer, a retirement community, an internet 
insurance broker, and a health care management company. The industries of some of the 
organizations that placed those vacancy announcements were not specified. 
Further, the job offered by the pharmaceutical research service is based in India, with travel to the 
United States as needed. Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, makes explicit that it is concerned with the 
requirements for entry into positions in the United States. The requirements for positions in India 
are not directly relevant to that inquiry. 
Further still, although each of the vacancy announcements contains a brief duty description, most are 
insufficient to show that the position offered is similar to the position proffered in the instant case. 
9 
Matter ofCJF-, Inc. 
Yet further, some of the vacancy announcements state a requirement of a bachelor's degree, butnot 
that the degree must be in any specific specialty. Some indicate that a degree in business 
administration would be a sufficient qualification for the positions they announce. As was explained 
above, a requirement of a degree in business administration, absent any additional specification, is 
not a requirement of a degree in a specific specialty. One vacancy announcement states that a degree 
is preferred, rather than required. 
Additionally, most of the vacancy announcements state an experience requirement, whereas the 
proffered position is an entry-level position. As those positions do not appear to be entry-level 
positions, they do not appear to be positions similar to the proffered position. 
Finally, even if all of the vacancy announcements were for parallel positions with organizations 
similar to the Petitioner and in the Petitioner's industry and required a minimum of a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent, the Petitioner has not demonstrated what statistically 
valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from such a limited number of announcements with regard to 
the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. 
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.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by 
an individual with a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
spec~fic specialty, or its equivalent 
The evidence of record also does not satisfy the second alternative prong of 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which provides that "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." A review of the 
record of proceeding indicates that the Petitioner has not credibly demonstrated that the duties the 
Beneficiary will be responsible for or perform on a day-to-day basis constitute a position so complex 
or unique that it can only be performed by a person with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. Even when considering the Petitioner's general descriptions of the 
proffered position's duties, the evidence of record does not establish why a few related courses or 
industry experience alone is insufficient preparation for the proffered position. While a few related 
courses may be beneficial, or even required, 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. The description of the duties does not specifically identify any tasks 
that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. The 
record lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish the proffered position as more complex 
10 
Matter of CJF-, Inc. 
or unique from other positions that can be performed by persons without at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
This is further evidenced by the LCA submitted by the Petitioner in support of the instant petition. 
As noted above, the Petitioner attested on the submitted LCA that the wage level for the proffered 
position is a Level I. Such a wage level only requires a basic understanding of the occupation and 
does not require the performance of complex duties. 5 
Therefore, the evidence of record does not establish that this position is significantly different from 
other positions in the occupation such that it refutes the Handbook's information to the effect that 
there is a spectrum of degrees acceptable for such positions, including degrees not in a specific 
specialty. In other words, the record lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish the 
proffered position as unique from or more complex than positions that can be performed by persons 
without at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. As the evidence of 
record does not demonstrate how the proffered position is so complex or unique relative to other 
positions within the same occupational category that do not require at least a baccalaureate degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for entry into the occupation in the United States, it cannot be 
concluded that the Petitioner has satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The employer normally requires a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position 
We will next address the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3), which may be satisfied if the 
Petitioner demonstrates that it normally requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, for the proffered position. 
In a letter dated January 15, 2015, submitted in response to the RFE, counsel for the Petitioner 
indicated that the Petitioner has never previously employed anyone in the proffered position. While 
a first-time hiring for a position is certainly not a basis for precluding a position from recognition as 
a specialty occupation, it is unclear how an employer that has never recruited and hired for the 
position would be able to satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3), which requires a 
demonstration that it normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its 
equivalent for the position. 
5 The issue here is that the Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level 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), an 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 consideration but is not a substitute for a 
determination of whether a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)( I) ofthe Act. 
I I 
(b)(6)
Matter of CJF-, Inc. 
We observe, however, that the Petitioner provided its job advertisement printed in 
newspaper for the week of December 12-18, 2014. It states that the proffered position requires, 
"MBA in Business or Related." 
As was explained above, an educational requirement that may be satisfied by an otherwise 
undifferentiated degree in business administration is not a requirement of a minimum of a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. See Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., supra. The 
Petitioner's own evidence does not suggest that it requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty or its equivalent for the proffered position. The evidence of record does not satisfy 
the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J). 
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 in a specific specialty , or its equivalent 
Finally, we will address the alternative criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4), which is 
satisfied if the evidence of record establishes that the nature of the specific duties is so specialized 
and complex that knowledge required to perform them is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. In the instant case, relative 
specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by the Petitioner as an aspect of 
the proffered position. We again 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 (the 
lowest of four assignable levels) wage. That is, the Level I wage designation is indicative of a low, 
entry-level position relative to others within the occupational category, and hence one not likely 
distinguishable by relatively specialized and complex duties. Upon review of the totality of the 
record, the Petitioner has not established that the nature of the specific duties is so specialized and 
complex that the knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment 
of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
For the reasons discussed above, the evidence of record does not satisfy the fourth criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
The Petitioner has not satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) and, therefore, it 
cannot be found that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The appeal will be 
dismissed and the petition denied for this reason. 
III. ADDITIONAL ARGUMENTS ON APPEAL 
The Petitioner asserts on appeal that the instant petition should be accorded deference because it is 
an extension petition. The instant record, however , contains little information pertinent to that prior 
approval. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the duties of that other position are identical to 
those of the proffered position and, as was noted above, the approved petition was filed for 
12 
Matter of CJF-, Inc. 
employment by a different company. We are not required to approve 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). It would be "absurd 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. 55 
Fed. Reg. 2606, 2612 (Jan. 26, 1990). 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 Fed. App'x 556, 2004 WL 1240482 (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 the 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). 
The Petitioner further cites various decisions in the brief on appeal. Many of those decisions were 
rendered by federal district courts. In contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case law of 
a United States circuit court, we are not bound to follow the published decision of a United States 
district court in matters arising even within the same district. See Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715 
(BIA 1993 ). Although the reasoning underlying a district judge's decision will be given due 
consideration when it is properly before us, the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of 
law. !d. at 719. In any event, it is noted that the Petitioner did not specifically explain how the facts 
of those cases are so related to the facts of the instant case that the reasoning of those cases should be 
extended to this case. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofCJF-, Inc., ID# 14008 (AAO Oct. 16, 2015) 
13