dismissed H-1B Case: Hospitality

MATTER OF M-, INC. 
\ \ . 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 31,2017 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a hotel services company, seeks to extend the temporary employment of the 
Beneficiary as a "general 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-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, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
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: 
(b)(6)
Matter of M-, Inc. 
(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 it is a 20-employee company. In the initial letter 
submitted in support of the petition, the Petitioner claimed it had 30 employees· and that it "owns, 
operates, and manages 2 hotels with over 101 rooms" and that the Beneficiary will be responsible for 
both hotels. 1 The Petitioner identified the two hotels as a and a 
The Petitioner submitted a description of the proffered position and stated that "due to the 
complexities of the job offered, [it] require[ s] that the applicant have at least a baccalaureate degree 
in business administration, commerce, or a closely-related field." In response to the Director's 
request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided the same description and added an allocation of 
the Beneficiary's tim~ among the duties as follows: 
• Responsible for the overall management of both hotels; (20%) 
• Prepare and interpret reports, budgets, accounts, commentaries and financial 
statements; ( 5%) 
• Perform strategic analysis and assist with strategic planning to maximize hotel 
revenue; ( 1 0%) 
1 
The Petitioner does not offer an explanation for the variance in its number of employees when the petition was filed. 
[I]t is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve the inconsistencies by independent objective evidence." Matter of Ho, 
19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA I 988). Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the 
petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. /d. at 591-92. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of M-, Inc. 
• Produce long term business plans in order to minimize expenses and increase 
hotel occupancy and average daily rates; ( 10%) 
• Conduct research· into pricing, competitors and factors affecting performance in 
order 
to set average daily rate; (5%) , 
• Control income, cash flow and expenditures; (1 0%) 
• Manage the budget and reserve accounts to purchase products and renovation 
concerns; ( 10%) 
• Develop and manage financial systems/models to help hotel efficiencies; (5%) 
• Supervise staff including scheduling, bookkeeping, payroll, customer satisfaction 
~ reports and guest scores. (25%) 
According to the Petitioner, in response to the Director's RFE, "due to the complexities of the job 
offered, [it] require[ s] that the applicant have at least a baccalaureate degree in hospitality or hotel 
management. "2 
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 (1) describe th~ 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. 3 
On the labor condition application (LCA)4 submitted in support of the H-1 B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Lodging Managers" 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 11-9081.5 Upon review of the 
2 
The Petitioner does not explain its inconsistent requirement for the proffered'position. Again, "it is incumbent upon the 
petitioner to resolve the inconsistencies by independent objective evidence." Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 
1988). 
3 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 
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, 545-46 (AAO 2015). 
5 
The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Levell wage (the lowest of four assignable wage levels) for work to 
be performed at , Virginia (the claimed ), and at a Level II wage for 
work to be performed at Virginia (the 
hotel). The Petitioner does not offer an explanation for the variance in the wages. We will consider these inconsistent 
selections in our analysis of the position. The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" issued by the DOL 
provides a description of the wage levels. We note that 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 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of M-, Inc. 
general description of duties,. the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence of what the 
Beneficiary will actually do in the proposed position so that we may analyze and ascertain the 
educational requirements required to perform those duties. 
The Petitioner's general description of duties does not place the Beneficiary's actual duties within 
the context of the Petitioner's hotel services business. Additionally, although the Petitioner claims 
that the Beneficiary will manage two hotels, the Petitioner does not include any evidence for the 
record demonstrating its ownership or management of the " ' located on 
A petitioner's unsupported statements are of very limited weight and normally will be insufficient to 
carry its burden of proof. S.ee Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing 
Matter ofTreasure Craft o.fCal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972));.see also Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). The Petitioner must support its assertions with 
relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
Nor does the Petitioner consistently set out the Beneficiary's level of responsibility. As noted above, 
the Petitioner has designated the proffered position as requiring a Level I and a Level II wage, 
depending upon his work location. Moreover, the Petitioner does not specifY the amount of time the 
Beneficiary will work at either of these locations. Additionally, the Petitioner states on the H-1 B 
petition that it employs 20 individuals but states in its letter submitted in support of the petition that 
it employs 30 individuals. Upon review of the number of inconsistencies in the record and the 
general list of duties, it is not possible to ascertain what specific duties will actually engage the 
Beneficiary on a day-to-day basis or the level of responsibility the Beneficiary will be expected to 
assume for the majority of his work. We also note that the record does not include an organizational 
chart depicting the Petitioner 's employees, their location(s), and their duties, which further limits our 
ability to understand the Beneficiary's actual role within the Petitioner's organization. Upon review 
of the totality of the record, we are unable to ascertain whether the Beneficiary in the proffered 
position will perform duties that incorporate the theoretical and practical application of a body of 
highly specialized knowledge, associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in 
the specific specialty, or its equivalent, as the minimum for entry into the occupation as required by 
section 214(i)( 1) of the Act. 
The Petitioner's generic description of its general manager's position 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 
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), ayailable at 
http://tlcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance _ Revised _II_ 2009.pdf A prevailing wage determination starts 
with an entry level wage and progresses to a higher wage level after considering the experience, education, and skill 
requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. !d. A Level II wage indicates that the position is for an employee who 
has a good understanding of the occupation but who will only perform moderately complex tasks that require limited 
judgment. 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.foreignlaborcert .doleta .gov/pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _II-'- 2009.pdf 
4 
Matter of M-, Inc. 
entry into the particular position, which is the focus of criterion 1; (2) industry positions which are 
parallel to the proffered position and thus appropriate for review for a common degree requirement, 
under the first alternate prong of criterion 2; (3) the level of complexity or uniqueness of the 
proffered position, which is the focus of the second alternate prong of criterion 2; ( 4) the factual 
justification for a petitioner normally requiring a 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. 
Accordingly, as the Petitioner has not established that it has satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A), it cannot be found that the proffered position qualifies for classification as a 
specialty occupation and the appeal must be dismissed on this basis alone. 
j 
We will nevertheless perform a complete specialty occupation analysis under each of the four, 
alternative criteria at 8 C.F.R.-§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A).6 
A. First Criterion 
The criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l) requires that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the 
particular position. To inform this inquiry, we recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) 
Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 7 
As noted above, the Petitioner designated the proffered position under the occupational category 
"Lodging Managers" on the LCA. The Handbook's chapter on "Lodging Managers" begins by 
stating that a high school' diploma or equivalent is the typical entry-level education for these 
positions.8 The subchapter entitled "How to Become a Lodging Manager" further clarifies: "[m]any 
applicants can qualify as a lodging manager by having a high school diploma and several years of 
experience working in a hotel." See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational 
Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., "Lodging Managers," 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/lodging-managers.htm#tab-4 (last visited Jan. 25, 2017). 
While the Handbook states that "most large, full-service hotels require applicants to have a 
6 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
7 
All of our references are to the 2016-2017 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 USC IS 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, for entry. 
8 
For additional information regarding the occupational category "Lodging Managers," see U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau 
of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., Lodging Managers, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/lodging-managers.htm#tab-2 (last visited Jan 25, 20 17). 
5 
Matter of M-, Inc. 
bachelor's degree," it further clarifies that "[h]otels that provide fewer services generally accept 
applicants who have an associate's degree or certi ticate in hotel management or operations." !d. It 
also reports: "[m]ost full-service hotel chains hire candidates with a bachdor's degree in hospitality 
or hotel management." Upon review, the Handbook does not support a claim that a bachelor's 
degree in hotel or hospitality management is required for entry into this occupation. Rather, the 
Handbook reports that a high school diploma and an undetermined amount of experience, an 
associate's degree., a certificate, or a baccalaureate may be sufficient for entry into lodging manager 
positions. 
Additionally, the Petitioner initially stated that the proffered position could be performed with a 
business administration degree.9 While 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. See Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147. That is, USCIS interprets the degree 
requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to require a degree in a specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) that is directly related to the proposed position. 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 Dec. 558, 560 
(Comm'r 1988).10 
In this' case, the Petitioner has not established that the proffered position falls under 'an occupational 
category for which the Handbook, or other authoritative source, indicates that normally the 
minimum requirement for entry is at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, 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. 
Upon review of the totality of the record, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
9 The Petitioner's amendment to its requirements to perform the duties of position in response to the Director's RFE, is 
without explanation. A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition 
-conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter of lzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998. 
10 
A general degree in business or business administration alone is insufficient to quality a beneficiary to perform the 
services of a spe,cialty occupation, unless the academic courses pursued and knowledge gained is a realistic prerequisite 
to a particular bccupation in the field. See Matter of Ling, 13 I&N Dec. 35 (Reg'! Comm'r 1968) (finding that 
'"Business administration' is a broad field, a field which contains various occupations and/or professions, all of which 
are related to the world of business but each requiring a different academic preparation and experience peculiar to its 
needs"). 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of M-, Inc. 
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.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong 
concentrates upon the common industry 
practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
When 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 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 sources) 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. 
In support of its assertion that the degree requirement is common to the Petitioner's industry in 
parallel positions among similar organizations, the Petitioner submitted copies of advertisements 
from three companies who operate or manage hotels. Although the advertisements included position 
descriptions for a general manager, it is not possible to conclude that the advertised positions are 
parallel to the Petitioner's proffered position. As found above, the Petitioner has submitted an 
overview of the duties of its position and thus there is insufficient information in the record to 
analyze and Fompare the positions. 
Moreover, of the three advertisements submitted, each includes different requirements to perform the 
positions advertised. For example, the advertisement states that it requires a 
bachelor's degree in hotel/restaurant management or a business degree or an undefined equivalent 
combination of education and experience and a minimum of 5 years of experience. As stated above, 
acceptance of a general degree in business, without more, does not establish a position as a specialty 
occupation. The advertisement requires a bachelor's degree in hotel 
7 
(b)(6)
Matter of M-, Inc. 
management or an undefined equivalent with at least 5 years of general manager experience in a full 
service hotel. Both the and the advertisements accept an 
undefined amount of hotel experience in lieu of a bachelor's degree. Without information 
establishing the equivalency methodology used by the companies, we cannot find that the experience 
required is equal to a bachelor's degree in a 1specific discipline. The 
advertisement requires 5 years of hotel management experience and finds that a bachelor's degree in 
hospitality management would be a plus. Thus, this advertiser does not require a bachelor's degree 
and appears to accept an amount of experience that has not been established to be equivalent to a 
bachelor's degree. 
Upon review of the advertisements submitted, the advertisements are insufficient to demonstrate 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 Petitioner's industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations. There is insufficient information within the advertisements to establish this prong of 
the criterion. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 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. 
The evidence of record does not distinguish the proffered position as unique from or more complex 
than other lodging manager positions that can be performed by persons without at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. As determined above, the record does not credibly 
demonstrate exactly what the Beneficiary will do on a day-to-day basis such that complexity or 
uniqueness can even be determined. That is, the evidence of record does not establish that this 
position is significantly different from other lodging manager positions such that it refutes the 
Handbook's information to the effect that there are many paths to entering into this occupation, 
including a high school education. 
Although the Petitioner claims that the duties are complex, the Petitioner does not detail the specific 
duties it believes are complex in the context of its business operations. Additionally, as noted above, 
the Petitioner does not support its assertion that it owns, operates, or manages two hotels. Again, it 
appears that the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to perform routine tasks and at most moderately 
complex tasks which require limited exercise of judgment as set out by its selection of a Level I and 
Level II wage on the LCA. However, without further evidence, the record does not demonstrate that 
the proffered position is 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. 
8 
Matter of M-, Inc. 
We reiterate that the Petitioner does not demonstrate how its general manager's duties 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, 
the Petitioner did not submit information relevant to a detailed course of study leading to a specialty 
degree and did not est~blish how such a curriculum is necessary to perform the duties it claims are so 
complex and unique. While a few related courses may be beneficial in performing certain duties of 
the position, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how an established curriculum of such courses 
leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to 
perform the duties of the proffered position. 
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. Thus, 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). 
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. We 
note here that the Petitioner previously employed the Beneficiary as its general manager. The 
Petitioner specifically points out that USCIS approved the Petitioner's employment of the 
Beneficiary in an H-1B capacity. The Petitioner notes that it has not received any information on 
why the first approval(s) were in error and asserts that as USCIS did not appeal the approvals and the 
facts of the case have not changed, this petition should also be approved. We note that there is no 
procedure for USCIS to appeal its own approvals. We acknowledge that as of this date, USCIS has 
not taken action to revoke the prior approvals, but do not find this lack of action to preclude a 
determination by USCIS that the record in this matter does not support eligibility. 11 
. Moreover, 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 
lnt 'I, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). If any of the previous nonimmigrant petitions were 
approved based on the same unsupported and inconsistent assertions that are contained in the current 
record, they would constitute material and gross error on the part of the Director. 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 
11 
Each petition filing is a separate proceeding with a separate record. Hakimuddin v. DHS, Civ No. 4:08-cv-1261, 2009 
WL 497141, at *6 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2009); see also Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d I 092, I 096 (9th Cir. 2000) 
(stating that the "record of proceedings" in an immigration appeal includes all documents submitted in support of the 
appeal). In making a determination of statutory eligibility, USC IS is limited to the information contained in the record of 
proceedings. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l6)(ii). As the Director properly reviewed the record before her and as that record 
did not include the records of the prior approvals, it was impracticable for the Director to provide the Petitioner with an 
explanation as to why the prior approvals were erroneous. 
9 
Matter of M-, Inc. 
to provide sufficient documentation to establish current eligibility for the benefit sought. Temporary 
Alien Workers Seeking Classification Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 55 Fed. Reg. 
2,606, 2,612 (Jan. 26, 1990) (to be codified at 8 C.F.R. pt. 214). A prior approval also does not 
preclude USCIS from denying an extension of an original visa petition based on a reassessment of 
eligibility for the benefit sought. See Tex. A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 F. App'x 556 (5th Cir. 
2004). Furthermore, our authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between 
a court. of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director had approved 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). 
Further, to satisfy this specific criterion, the record must include evidence that the performance 
requirements of the position generated the recruiting and hiring history. A petitioner's perfunctory 
declaration of a particular educational requirement will not mask the fact that the position is not a 
specialty occupation. USCIS must examine the actual employment requirements and, on the basis of 
that examination, determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. See generally 
Defensor, 201 F.3d 384. The critical element is not the title of the position, or the fact that an 
employer has routinely insisted on certain educational standards, but whether performance of 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, or its 
equivalent, as the minimum for entry into the occupation as required by section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 
According to the Court in Defensor, "To interpret the regulations any other way would lead to an 
absurd result." !d. at 388. If USCIS were constrained to recognize a specialty occupation merely 
because the petitioner has an established practice of demanding certain educational requirements for 
the proffered position - and without consideration of how a beneficiary is to be specifically 
employed - then any beneficiary with a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty could be brought 
into the United States to perform non-specialty occupations, so long as the employer required all 
such employees to have baccalaureate or higher degrees. See id. 
Upon review of the totality of the record, 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. 
The Petitioner asserts that the job duties of the proffered position are specialized and complex and 
repeats the description of duties previously submitted. On appeal, the Petitioner claims that in 
addition to "managing all aspects of the hotel," the Beneficiary will also handle budgeting and 
financial planning for the company. As stated above, however, the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
developed relative specialization and complexity as an aspect of the proffered position. In other 
10 
Matter of M-, Inc. 
words, the proposed duties have not been described with sufficient specificity to show that they are 
more specialized and complex than lodging/general manager positions that are not usually associated 
with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 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 and/or a Level II position relative to others within the 
same occupational category. 12 
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). 
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. CONCLUSION 
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-, Inc.,, ID# 181153
1 
(AAO Jan. 31, 20 17) 
12 
The Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position, or a Level II, qualified position, 
undermines its claim that the position is particularly complex, specialized, or-.unique compared to other positions within 
the same occupation. Nevertheless, these wage-designations do not preclude a proffered position from classification as a 
specialty occupation, just as a Level IV wage-designation does not definitively establish such a classification. In certain 
occupations (e.g., doctors or lawyers), a Level I, entry-level position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designation would not 
reflect that an occupation qualifies as a specialty occupation if that higher-level position does not have an entry 
requirement of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. That is, a position's wage level 
designation may be a relevant factor but is not itself conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements 
of section 214( i)( I) of the Act. 
II