dismissed H-1B Case: Import/Export

identlftrtag dPta dekkd Q 
prevent dearly wwiwniQ@d 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: WAC 04 255 50827 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: A?R 2 5 20g6 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
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 
WAC 04 255 50827 
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 an importer and distributor of gift and home decoration items and handicrafts. It seeks to 
employ the beneficiary as a bilingual business contract administrator and advisor. The petitioner endeavors to 
classify the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to 5 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 8 1 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition because the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. On appeal, the 
petitioner submits a brief. 
The record contains a G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative, signed by 
Benjamin Pan of the University of Pennsylvania Law School. A review of the Recognized Organizations and 
Accredited Representatives Roster, dated January 3,2006, of the Department of Justice's Executive Office for 
Immigration Review, at httr>://www.usdoi.gov/eoir/stats~ub/AC30405.~df, does not find the University of 
Pennsylvania Law School or Benjamin Pan listed as a recognized organization or an accredited 
representative. Accordingly, the AAO shall treat the petitioner as self-represented and a copy of this decision 
shall not be forwarded to Mr. Pan. 
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. 5 214.2(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. 5 214.2(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. 
WAC 04 255 50827 
Page 3 
The record of proceeding before the AAO contains: (I) 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 bilingual business contract administrator and advisor. 
Evidence of the beneficiary's duties includes: the 1-129 petition; the petitioner's September 13, 2004 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 perform duties that entail: coordinating the purchase orders and expedites of 
the petitioner's products and generating progress reports; assisting the general manager in establishing 
contracts with suppliers and vendors in Europe or China; preparing drafts of contracts, subcontracts, and 
agreements in Chinese and German; analyzing and reviewing the terms and conditions of each contract; 
analyzing, resolving, and negotiating solutions to issues related to production, delivery, quality, and payment; 
preparing reports for executive management related to contract administration; contacting potential business 
partners and compiling and retrieving the information of future investors; performing profile analysis and risk 
assessment to seek the best business opportunities; collecting sales and market information related to the gift 
and decoration industry; assisting the general manager in developing a marketing plan; assisting in the 
preparation and drafting of the petitioner's standard operational procedures and expansion plan; and assisting 
the CEO in tracking small business trends. The petitioner indicated that a qualified candidate for the job 
would possess a bachelor's degree in business administration, marketing, management, or finance. 
The director found that the proffered position, which is similar to that of a financial manager, was not a 
specialty occupation. Citing to the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook), 
2004-2005 edition, 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). The director also found that the 
petitioner's quarterly wage reports reflect that the petitioner has only three employees, as opposed to the 23 
employees that are reflected on its organizational chart. 
On appeal, the petitioner states, in part, that the director misinterpreted the evidence. The petitioner states that 
the evidence reflects that the petitioner has three employees, while its parent company has 23 employees. The 
petitioner states further that the proffered position combines the duties of a bilingual contract specialist with a 
businesslfinance advisor. The petitioner submits three approved petitions as evidence that the degree 
requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
The AAO finds that the appeal has resolved in the petitioner's favor the issue of the discrepancy regarding the 
number of employees caused by inclusion of the parent company's organizational chart. 
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)(I) 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. 
WAC 04 255 50827 
Page 4 
Factors often 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, 1165 (D. 
Minn. 1999)(quoting HirdIBlaker Corp. v. Suva, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1 102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
At the outset, the AAO notes an inconsistency regarding the number of people that the petitioner employed at 
the time that the petition was filed. The record contains an inconsistency between the number of employees 
that is reflected on the petitioner's organizational chart - five - and the number of employees that is reflected 
on the petitioner's quarterly wage reports - three. Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of 
course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of 
the visa petition. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by 
independent objective evidence, and attempts to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies, absent competent 
objective evidence pointing to where the truth, in fact, lies, will not suffice. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 
591-92 (BIA 1988). The petitioner's general manager asserts on appeal that the organizational chart reflects 
five employees while the quarterly wage reports reflect only three employees because two of the employees 
are commission-based and, therefore, "all evidence submitted with the 1-129 HB [sic] petition was true and 
correct." The petitioner's general manager, however, provides no evidence in support of his assertion. Simply 
going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for the purpose of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter 
of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). Further, a review of the petitioner's 
list of employees and educational backgrounds finds that the petitioner's ownerlgeneral manager holds an 
associate degree in arts and the petitioner's retail store manager holds a bachelor's degree in 
music/composing. As the proffered position is newly created, it is presumed that either the ownerlgeneral 
manager or the retail store manager is currently performing the contract-related duties; yet neither employee 
holds a business-related bachelor's degree. Moreover, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary's 
translation duties are of such complexity that a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty, as distinguished 
from fluency in the German and Chinese languages, is necessary for the successful completion of its duties. 
The AAO routinely consults the Handbook for its information about the duties and educational requirements 
of particular occupations. The AAO does not concur with the petitioner that the proffered position, which 
appears to be an assistant to the general manager, is a specialty occupation. As reflected in the listing of 
proposed duties at page two of this decision, the petitioner has described those duties in exclusively generic 
terms. They neither relate specific work that the beneficiary would perform, elucidate concrete business 
matters of this particular petitioner that would be the focus of that work, nor exemplify how performance of 
that work upon those matters would require the theoretical and practical application of at least a bachelor's 
level of a highly specialized body of knowledge. Consequently, as so generally described, the proposed duties 
do not comprise a position that meets the first criterion of 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), that is, one for which 
the normal minimum entry requirement is at least a bachelor's degree, or the equivalent, in a specific 
specialty. 
Regarding parallel positions in the petitioner's industry, the petitioner submits three approved cases, stating 
that CIS has already determined that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. One of the positions is 
that of an "information architecdjava developer" for a computer services business. Another position is that of 
a "marketing coordinator" for a leading distributor and manufacturer of audio, video, and CDJDVD blank 
media. The petitioner has not shown that the proffered position is similar to these positions. The third position 
WAC 04 255 50827 
Page 5 
is that of a "bilingual contract specialist or contract administrator/advisor" for an importer and exporter of 
gifts and housewares. A review of the supporting documentation of this approved petition finds that some of 
the language of the correspondent June 9,2004 letter is nearly identical to the language of the September 13, 
2004 letter submitted in support of the instant petition. For example, the June 9, 2004 letter states as follows: 
Due to the business fast growing in the past three years and due to the business need of 
expansion plan, we are experiencing an increased work load recently, and we have also notices 
[sic] discrepancies in the accountinglfinancial and business expansion plan related matters 
within the company. Therefore, there is an intensifying need focus [sic] to offer a financial 
Controller & Business AdvisorIAdministrator to meet this business need. 
In a letter, dated September 13, 2004, submitted with the instant petition, the petitioner's general manager 
states: 
Since our establishment, our company has experienced steady growth. We are experiencing an 
increased workload recently, and we have also notices [sic] discrepancies in the business 
contract's preparation & analysis related matters within the company. Therefore, there is an 
intensifying need focus [sic] to offer a Bilingual Business Contract Administrator to meet this 
business need. 
As the above text of the letters is nearly identical with identical grammatical errors, the AAO must question 
whether the opinions expressed in each letter are the views of each author and whether there is a factual basis 
for the assertions in the letters. As already noted, doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of 
course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of 
the visa petition. Matter of Ho. 
Each nonirnmigrant petition is a separate proceeding with a separate record. See 8 C.F.R. $ 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. $ 103.2(b)(16)(ii). 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). Further, the AAO is never bound by a decision of a 
service center or district director. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), 
affd 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
The record also does not include any evidence from fm, individuals, or professional associations regarding 
an industry standard, or documentation to support the complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position. 
The petitioner, therefore, has not established the criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l) or (2). 
The AAO now turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. $ 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. 
WAC 04 255 50827 
Page 6 
Finally, the AAO turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(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. Therefore, the evidence does not establish that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation under 8 C.F.R. !j 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. !j 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.