dismissed H-1B Case: Hospitality Management

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of prad privacy 
PUBLIC copp 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: EAC 04 040 52453 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: Age 1 8 2006 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101(a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 04 040 52453 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and the matter is now before 
the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. The petition will be denied. 
The petitioner is a motel that seeks to employ the beneficiary as a manager. The petitioner endeavors to 
classify the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to 8 10 1 (a)( 1 5)(H)(i)(b) of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition because the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. On appeal, 
counsel submits a brief. 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 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. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, the position must meet one of 
the following criteria: 
(I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum requirement 
for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its particular position is 
so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
(4) The nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that knowledge required to 
perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher 
degree. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) interprets the term "degree" in the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(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. 
The record of proceeding before the AAO contains: (1) Form 1-129 and supporting documentation; (2) the 
director's request for additional evidence; (3) the petitioner's response to the director's request; (4) the 
director's denial letter; and (5) Form I-290B and supporting documentation. The AAO reviewed the record in 
its entirety before issuing its decision. 
The petitioner is seeking the beneficiary's services as a manager. Evidence of the beneficiary's duties 
includes: the 1-129 petition; the petitioner's November 12, 2003 letter in support of the petition; and the 
petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence. According to this evidence, the beneficiary would 
EAC 04 040 52453 
Page 3 
perform duties that entail: managing motel to ensure efficient and profitable operation; establishing standards 
for personnel administration and performance, service to patrons, room rates, advertising, publicity, credit, 
and type of patronage to be solicited; allocating funds, authorizing expenditures, and assisting the owner in 
planning budgets; interviewing, hiring, and evaluating personnel; answering patrons' complaints and 
resolving problems; delegating authority and assigning responsibilities to employees; inspecting guests' 
rooms, public access areas, and outside grounds for cleanliness and appearance; and processing reservations 
and adjusting guests' complaints. The petitioner indicated that a qualified candidate for the job would possess 
a bachelor's degree in business, tourism, management, accounting, or a related field. 
The director found that the proffered position was not a specialty occupation because the proposed duties are 
not so complex as to require a bachelor's degree in a specific field. Citing to the Department of Labor's 
(DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook), the director noted that the minimum requirement for 
entry into the position was not a baccalaureate degree or its equivalent in a specific specialty. The director 
found further that the petitioner failed to establish any of the criteria found at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
On appeal, counsel states, in part, that the proffered position, which comprises entirely management duties, is 
a specialty occupation. Counsel states further that the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (007) makes clear 
that the duties of a motel manager are management functions. Counsel cites to Matter of Sun, 12 I&N Dec. 
535 (D.D. 1966), to state that a hotel manager position qualifies as a member of the professions, and states 
further that CIS has more recently approved a similar petition. Counsel also states that the record contains 
expert testimony as supporting documentation. 
Upon review of the record, the petitioner has established none of the four criteria outlined in 
8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Therefore, the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 
The AAO turns first to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l) and (2): a baccalaureate or higher 
degree or its equivalent is the normal minimum requirement for entry into the particular position; a degree 
requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations; or a particular 
position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree. 
Factors ofien considered by CIS when determining these criteria 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 115 1, 11 65 (D. 
Minn. 1999)(quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Suva, 712 F. Supp. 1095,1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
The AAO routinely consults the Handbook for its information about the duties and educational requirements 
of particular occupations. The AAO does not concur with counsel that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation. No evidence in the Handbook, 2006-2007 edition, indicates that a baccalaureate or higher degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required for lodging manager jobs. Moreover, no evidence in the 
Handbook indicates that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally 
required for advertising, marketing, promotions, public relations, and sales managers jobs. 
Counsel's reference to the DOT is noted. The DOT'S SVP rating, however, does not indicate that a particular 
occupation requires the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree, or its equivalent, in a specific specialty 
as a minimum for entry into the occupation. An SVP rating is meant to indicate only the total number of years 
EAC 04 040 52453 
Page 4 
of vocational preparation required for a particular position. The classification does not describe how those 
years are to be divided among training, formal education, and experience, nor specifies the particular type of 
degree, if any, that a position would require. 
Counsel asserts that CIS has already determined that the proffered position is a specialty occupation since CIS 
has approved another, similar petition in the past. This record of proceeding, however, does not contain all of 
the supporting evidence submitted to the service center in the prior case. In the absence of all of the 
corroborating evidence contained in that record of proceeding, the documents submitted by counsel are not 
sufficient to enable the AAO to determine whether the position offered in the prior case was similar to the 
position in the instant petition. 
Each nonimmigrant petition is a separate proceeding with a separate record. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.8(d). In 
making a determination of statutory eligibility, CIS is limited to the information contained in the record of 
proceeding. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(16)(ii). Although the AAO may attempt to hypothesize as to whether the 
prior case was similar to the proffered position or was approved in error, no such determination may be made 
without review of the original record in its entirety. If the prior petition was approved based on evidence that 
was substantially similar to the evidence contained in this record of proceeding, however, the approval of the 
prior petition would have been erroneous. CIS is 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 International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm. 1988). Neither CIS nor any other agency 
must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 
(6th Cir. 1987), cert denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
The petitioner's citation to the Matter of Sun is also noted. This 1966 decision, however, dealt with 
membership in the professions, not membership in a specialty occupation. While these terms are similar, they 
are not synonymous. The term "specialty occupation" is specifically defined in section 214(i) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 5 1 184(i). That statutory language effectively supersedes Matter of Sun. 
The record contains an academic opinion from a college professor who asserts that the proffered position 
requires no less than a bachelor's degree in hospitality management, hotel management, or a closely related 
field. The opinion rendered by the professor is not probative. First, despite his self-endorsement, neither the 
professor's letter nor any other evidence of record substantiates that he is qualified as an expert on recruiting 
and hiring practices in the hospitality industry. Second, the record does not indicate that the professor has 
adequate knowledge of the particular issue here. The professor describes the duties in exclusively general and 
generic terms that reveal nothing about the actual work that the beneficiary would perform within the context 
of this particular petitioner's business. The professor does not demonstrate knowledge of the petitioner's 
particular business operations. He does not relate any personal observations of those operations or of the work 
that the beneficiary would perform, nor does he state that he has reviewed any projects or work products 
related to the proffered position. Third, the professor's opinion does not relate his conclusions to specific, 
concrete aspects of this petitioner's business operation to demonstrate a sound factual basis for his 
conclusions about the educational requirements for the particular position here at issue. CIS may, in its 
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, CIS is not required to accept or may give 
less weight to that evidence. Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm. 1988). 
EAC 04 040 52453 
Page 5 
The record does not include any evidence regarding parallel positions in the petitioner's industry. The record 
also does not include any evidence from firms, individuals, or professional associations regarding an industry 
standard, or documentation to support the complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position. Further, the 
record of proceeding contains no information about the proffered position that distinguishes it as unique from 
or more complex than the general occupational category of lodging manager, for which the Handbook does 
not report a normal requirement for at least a bachelor's degree, or the equivalent, in a specific specialty. 
The petitioner, therefore, has not established the criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. 8 214,2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I) or (2). 
The AAO now turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3) - the employer normally requires a 
degree or its equivalent for the position. As counsel does not address this issue on appeal, it will not be discussed 
further. The evidence of record does not establish this criterion. 
Finally, the AAO turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(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. 
To the extent that they are depicted in the record, the duties do not appear so specialized and complex as to 
require the highly specialized knowledge associated with a baccalaureate or higher degree, or its equivalent, 
in a specific specialty. As described, the proposed duties appear no more specialized and complex than those 
general duties which the Handbook attributes to the general occupational category of lodging managers, for 
which the Handbook does not indicate a normal requirement for usual association with at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty. Therefore, the evidence does not establish that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation under 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
As related in the discussion above, the petitioner has failed to establish that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation. Accordingly, the AAO shall not disturb the director's denial of the petition. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.