dismissed H-1B Case: Language Education

(b)(6)
FEB 0 3 2Ul5 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: OFFICE: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish 
agency policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or 
policy to your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider 
or a motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion 
(Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
;) /Jtkd.aL -;: � 
f t:JV' Ron Rosenberg / (/ 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director (hereinafter the "director") denied the nonimmigrant visa 
petition, and the matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. The petition will be denied. 
On the Form I -129 visa petition, the petitioner describes itself as a Japanese language 
school1 established in In order to employ the beneficiary in what it designates as a part-time 
"Japanese Language Instructor" at a salary of $32.50 per hour, the petitioner seeks to classify her as 
a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to section 10l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the evidence of record does not demonstrate that 
the proffered position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. 
The record of proceeding contains the following: (1) the Form I-129 and supporting documentation; 
(2) the director's request for additional evidence (RFE); (3) the petitioner's response to the RFE; (4) 
the director's letter denying the petition; and (5) the Form I-290B, a brief, and supporting 
documentation. 
We find that, upon review of the entire record of proceeding, the evidence of record does not 
overcome the director's grounds for denying this petition. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed, 
and the petition will be denied. 
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
As indicated above, the petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary in a position that it describes as a 
"Japanese Language Instructor" on a part-time basis. The Labor Condition Application (LCA) that 
the petitioner submitted in support of the petition was certified for use with a job prospect within the 
"Self-Enrichment Education Teachers" occupational classification, SOC (O*NET/OES) Code 25-
3021.00, and a Level III prevailing wage rate. The LCA also reflects that, as mentioned above, the 
petitioner assigned "Japanese Language Instructor" as the position's job title. 
In a letter dated March 26, 2014, the petitioner indicated that the beneficiary's specific duties were 
as follows: 
• Instruct students, using various teaching methods, such as lectures and 
dialogues. She uses audio, on-line and visual aids, textbooks and workbooks 
to supplement her lectures and in-class dialogues with students. 
• Prepare course objectives and outlines (i.e., course syllabi) following 
curriculum guidelines and requirements of [the petitioning entity]. 
1The petitioner provided a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code of 611630, 
"Language Schools." U.S. Dep't of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, North American Industry Classification 
System, 2012 NAlCS Definition, "611630 Language Schools," https://www.census.gov/cgi­
bin/sssd/n aics/naics rch (last visited Jan. 20, 2015). 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
• Assign lessons and correct homework. 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
• Administer tests to evaluate students' progress, record results, and 
recommend the issuance of certificates to show successful completion of 
courses objectives. 
• Meet with students to discuss their progress and make suggestions to help 
them improve. 
• Participate in faculty and professional meetings, educational conferences, and 
teacher training workshops. 
• Assist students in selecting course of study and counsel them. 
[The beneficiary] will apply her professional Japanese language teaching skills, 
knowledge and experience to independently accomplish these job duties with 
little or no supervision from the school's Board members and other faculty. 
The petitioner went on to state that "Japanese language teachers have extremely specialized and 
complex teaching duties which require attainment of at least a Bachelor's degree and usually a 
Master's degree." 
The director found the initial evidence insufficient to establish eligibility for the benefit sought, and 
issued an RFE on May 9, 2014. The petitioner was asked to submit additional evidence to establish 
that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The director outlined some of the 
types of specific evidence that could be submitted. 
In response to the director's RFE, the petitioner provided the following information regarding the 
duties inherent in the proffered position and associated percentages of time involved in their 
performance: 
This position requires [the beneficiary] to teach Intermediate and Beginning 
Japanese language classes to non-Japanese speaking students. She is responsible 
for 9 hours of classroom teaching per week. She spends time preparing teaching 
materials, reviewing and correcting homework and exams, meeting with students 
to counsel and assisting them with their studies, attending faculty meetings, and 
attending training workshops. [The beneficiary] is also expected to participate in 
school programs and functions. [The beneficiary's] job duties and the percentage 
of time she spends on each are roughly as follows: 
• Instruct students, using various teaching methods, such as lectures and 
dialogues. She uses audio, on-line and visual aids, textbooks and workbooks 
to supplement her lectures and in-class dialogues with students. 40% 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
• Prepare course objectives and outlines following curriculum guidelines and 
requirements of [the petitioning entity]. 5% 
• Assign lessons and correct homework. 15% 
• Administer tests to evaluate students' progress, record results, and 
recommend the issuance of certificates to show successful completion of 
courses objectives. 5% 
• Meet with students to discuss their progress and make suggestions to help 
them improve. 20% 
• Participate in faculty and professional meetings, educational conferences, and 
teacher training workshops. 10% 
• Assist pupils in selecting course of study and counsel them. 5% 
[The beneficiary] applies her superb education and professional experience to 
independently accomplish these job duties with little or no supervision from the 
school's Board members and other faculty. She works at the same level as our 
other faculty members, each of whom hold a Master's degree. Japanese 
language teachers much have at least a Bachelor's degree or equivalent education 
and experience to successfully accomplish these job duties. 
The director reviewed the documentation and found it insufficient to establish eligibility for the 
benefit sought. The director denied the petition on August 4, 2014. 
II. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
We will now address the director's determination that the proffered position is not a specialty 
occupation. Based upon a complete review of the record of proceedi ng, we find that the evidence of 
record fails to establish that the position as described constitutes a specialty occupation. 
A. Law 
To meet the petitioner's burden of proof with regard to the proffered position's classification as an 
H-lB specialty occupation, the petitioner must establish that the employment it is offering to the 
beneficiary meets the following statutory and regulatory requirements. 
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)(6)
Page 5 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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 also meet one of the following criteria: 
(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. 
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 of W-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 supplemental criteria that must be met in accordance with, and not as alternatives 
to, the statutory and regulatory definitions of specialty occupation. 
(b)(6)
------- -------- -···--·· ..... . 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
As such and consonant with section 214(i)(1) 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-1B 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-1B 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. 
B. Analysis 
As a preliminary matter, the petitioner's claim that a bachelor's degree is a sufficient minimum 
requirement for entry into the proffered position is inadequate to establish that the proposed position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. A petitioner must demonstrate that the proffered position 
requires a precise and specific course of study that relates directly and closely to the position in 
question. There must be a close correlation between the required specialized studies and the 
position; thus, the mere requirement of a degree, without further specification, does not establish the 
position as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Associates, 19 I&N Dec. 558 
(Comm'r 1988) (" The mere requirement of a college degree for the sake of general education, or to 
obtain what an employer perceives to be a higher caliber employee, also does not establish 
eligibilit y. "). Thus, while a general-purpose bachelor's degree may be a legitimate prerequisite for a 
particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify a finding that a particular 
position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 
F.3d at 147 (1st Cir. 2007). 
Accordingly, the petitioner's assertion that its minimum requirement for the proffered position is 
only a bachelor's degree, without further requiring that that degree be in any specific specialty, is 
tantamount to an admission that the proffered position is not in fact a specialty occupation. The 
director's decision must therefore be affirmed and the petition denied on this basis alone. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
Having made the above preliminary finding, we turn now to the application of each supplemental, 
alternative criterion at 8 C. F.R. § 214. 2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) to the evidence in this record of proceeding. 
We will first discuss the criterion at 8 C. F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which is satisfied by 
establishing that a baccalaureate or higher degree, or its equivalent, in a specific specialty is 
normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position that is the subject of the 
petition. 
We recognize the Handbook as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of 
the wide variety of occupations that it addresses ? We reviewed the information in the Handbook 
regarding the occupational category "Self-Enrichment Education Teachers" and note that this 
occupation is one for which the Handbook does not provide detailed data. The Handbook states the 
following about these occupations: 
Data for Occupations Not Covered in Detail 
Although employment for hundreds of occupations are covered in detail in the 
Occupational Outlook Handbook, this page presents summary data on additional 
occupations for which employment projections are prepared but detailed 
occupational information is not developed. For each occupation, the Occupational 
Information Network (O*NET) code, the occupational definition, 2012 employment, 
the May 2012 median annual wage, the projected employment change and growth 
rate from 2012 to 2022, and education and training categories are presented. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., 
"Data for Occupations Not Covered in Detail," http://www.bls .gov/ooh/about/data-for-occupations­
not-covered-in-detail.htm (last visited Jan. 20, 2015). 
Thus, the narrative of the Handbook indicates that there are many occupations for which only brief 
summaries are presented. That is, detailed occupational profiles for these occupations are not 
developed? The Handbook continues by stating that approximately five percent of all employment is 
not covered either in the detailed occupational profiles or in the summary data. The Handbook 
suggests that for at least some of the occupations, little meaningful information could be developed. 
2 The Handbook, which is available in printed form, may also be accessed online at 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh. This office's references to the Handbook are from the 2014-15 edition available 
online. 
3 We note that occupational categories for which the Handbook only includes summary data includes a range 
of occupations, including for example, postmasters and mail superintendents; agents and business managers 
of artists, performers, and athletes; farm and home management advisors; audio visual and multimedia 
collections specialists; clergy; merchandise displayers and window trimmers; radio operators; first-line 
supervisors of police and detectives; crossing guards; travel guides; agricultural inspectors, as well as others. 
(b)(6)
- --- ------- -------- ------ ---------
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
We observe that the Handbook does not indicate that self-enrichment education teacher positions 
comprise an occupational group for which normally the minimum requirement for entry is at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The full-text of the Handbook regarding 
this occupational category is as follows: 
Self-Enrichment Education Teachers 
(O*NET 25-3021.00) 
Teach or instruct courses other than those which normally lead to an occupational objective 
or degree. Courses may include self-improvement, nonvocational, and nonacademic 
subjects. Teaching may or may not take place in a traditional educational institution. 
Exc ludes "Fitness Trainers and Aerobics Instru ctors" (39-9031 ). Flight instructors are 
included with "Aircraf-t Pilots and Flight En gineers" (53-2010). 
• 2012 employment: 316,200 
• May 2012 median annual wage: $35,320 
• Projected employment change, 2012-22: 
Number of new jobs: 43,900 
Growth rate: 14 percent (about as fast as average) 
• Education and training: 
Typical entry-level education: High school diploma or equivalent 
Work experience in a related occupation: Less than 5 years 
Typical on-the-job-training: None 
!d. (last visited Jan. 20, 2015). 
The Handbook summary data provides "education and training categories" for occupations. The 
occupational category "Self-Enrichment Education Teachers " falls into the group of occupations for 
which a high school diploma or equivalent is the typical entry-level education. Accordingly, the 
Handbook does not support the assertion that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is 
normally the minimum requirement for entry into this occupational category. 
Accordingly, as the Handbook indicates that entry into the Self-Enrichment Education Teachers 
occupational category does not normally require at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty 
or its equivalent, it does not support the proffered position as satisfying this first criterion at 8 
C. F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i ii)(A). 
. 
When, as here, the Handbook does not support the proposition that the proffered position satisfies 
this first criterion of 8 C. F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it is incumbent upon the petitioner to provide 
persuasive evidence that the proffered position otherwise satisfies the criterion, 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 authoritative sources) that supports a 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
favorable finding with regard to this criterion. The regulation at 8 C. P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iv) provides 
that "[a]n H-lB petition involving a specialty occupation shall be accompanied by [d]ocumentation 
... or any other required evidence sufficient to establish ... that the services the beneficiary is to 
perform are in a specialty occupation. " 
In this case, the petitioner has not established that the proffered position falls within an occupational 
category for which the Handbook (or other objective, authoritative source) indicates that at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is the minimum requirement for entry. 
Furthermore, the duties and requirements of the proffered position as described in the record of 
proceeding do not indicate that this particular position 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 failed to satisfy the criterion at 8 C. F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
Next, the petitioner has not satisfied 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 sharing all three characteristics of being (1) within the petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to 
the proffered position, and also (3) located in organizations that are similar to the petitioner. 
As stated earlier, in determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often 
considered by USCIS include: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; 
whether the industry's professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and 
whether letters or affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms "routinely 
employ and recruit only degreed individuals. " See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d at 1165 
(quotingHird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. at 1102). 
Here and as already discussed, the petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for 
which the Handbook reports an industry-wide requirement for at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent. Also, there are no submissions from professional associations, individuals, 
or similar firms in the petitioner's industry attesting that individuals employed in positions parallel to 
the proffered position are routine! y required to have a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent for entry into those positions. 
Next, we find that the job-vacancy announcements submitted by counsel do not satisfy this 
alternative prong of 8 C. F.R. § 214.2(h )(4)(iii)(A)(2), either. That is, neither the job-vacancy 
announcements themselves nor any other evidence within the record of proceeding establish that 
those advertisements pertain to positions that are parallel to the proffered position, as required for 
evidence to merit consideration under the first alternative prong is position. In this regard, we make 
several specific findings. 
First, we note that under 8 C. P.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), the petitioner must establish that "the 
degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations 
(emphasis added). " For the petitioner to establish that an organization is similar, it must demonstrate 
that the petitioner and the organization share the same general characteristics. Without such 
evidence, documentation regarding other organizations is generally outside the scope of 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
consideration for this criterion, which encompasses only organizations that are similar to the 
petitioner. When determining whether the petitioner and the organization share the same general 
characteristics, such factors may include information regarding the nature or type of organization, 
and, when pertinent, the particular scope of operations, as well as the level of revenue and staffing 
(to list just a few elements that may be considered). It is not sufficient for the petitioner to claim 
that the organizations are similar and in the same industry without providing a legitimate basis for 
such an assertion. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 
165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm'r 
1972)). 
In addition, the petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how representative these job 
advertisements are of the particular advertising employers' recruiting and actual hiring history for 
the type of jobs advertised, let alone how representative they are of the industry practice in those 
areas. 
We also see that the extensive experience that some of the job advertisements specify as hiring 
requirements suggests that they involve the application of greater occupational knowledge than the 
proffered position.4 So, the job-vacancy advertisements do not establish that the advertised 
positions are "parallel" to the proffered position. 
In addition, two of the submitted advertisements do not specify a requirement for a bachelor's or 
higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. The advertisement for a "Part-Time 
Language Instructor" only states "Bachelor's degree or the equivalent" without any specification of 
any particular academic major. Likewise, the 
advertisement for a "Japanese/English ELD Teacher" specifies a "BA degree" with no indication 
that the bachelor's degree must be in any particular area or equivalent to a bachelor's or higher 
degree in a specific specialty. 
(As the submitted vacancy-announcements are not probative evidence towards satisfying this 
criterion, further analysis of their content is not necessary.) 
Thus, the petitioner has not satisfied the first of the two alternative prongs of 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2), as 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 for positions sharing 
all three characteristics of being (1) within the petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered 
position, and also (3) located in organizations that are similar to the petitioner. 
4 By way of example, the advertisement for a "Japanese Immersion Elementary 
Teacher" states "At least 1 year of professional teaching experience in a language immersion classroom. " 
The advertisement for a "High School Japanese Teacher" states "A t 
least five years of high school Japanese language teaching experience." The 
advertisement for "Japanese Language Lecturers" states "At least three years of Japanese-language teaching 
experience." The extensive experience that these job advertisements specify as hiring requirements suggests 
that they involve the application of greater occupational knowledge than the proffered position. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
Next, we find that the evidence of record 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." 
We observe that the petitioner has indicated that the beneficiary's educational background and 
extensive experience in the industry will assist her in carrying out the duties of the proffered 
position, and takes particular note of her work as a Japanese Language Teacher for the petitioner in 
valid F-1 OPT status. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the 
skill set or education of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge obtained by at least 
baccalaureate-level knowledge in a specialized area. 
The record of proceeding does not include any discussion and documentation of the proffered 
position sufficient to show that the proposed duties, or any aspects of the particular position here 
proffered, constitute a position so complex or unique as to require the services of a person with at 
least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 
Further, as discussed in detail above, the petitioner's assertion that its minimum requirement for the 
proffered position is only a bachelor's degree, without further requiring that that degree be in any 
specific specialty, evidences that the proffered position is not in fact a specialty occupation. 
As the evidence of record therefore fails to establish how the beneficiary's responsibilities and day­
to-day duties comprise a position so complex or unique that the position can be performed only by 
an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent, the petitioner 
has not satisfied the second alternative prong at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) either. 
We turn next to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)( 3), which entails an employer 
demonstrating that it normally requires a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty or its 
equivalent for the position. 
To satisfy this criterion, the record must establish that the specific 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. users 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 v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384. In this pursuit, 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)(1) of the Act. As recognized by the Court in Defensor, "To interpret the regulations 
any other way would lead to an absurd result." !d. at 388. If users 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 alien with a bachelor's degree in specific 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
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. 
Satisfaction of this requirement - that is, by substantiating that the particular position's actual 
performance requirements necessitate a petitioner's practice of hiring only persons with certain 
minimum educational credentials - cannot be assumed, when, as here, the proffered position falls 
within an occupational group (here, Self-Enrichment Education Teachers) for which neither the 
Handbook nor any other reliable authority establishes that entry normally requires at least a 
bachelor's degree, or the equivalent, in a specific specialty. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner explained that it hires its faculty members through contacts at 
without the need to advertise, and that therefore, there are no 
position announcements. Alternative! y, the petitioner has submitted a list of 15 faculty, their 
position, and the highest educational attainment was submitted. However, we note that the 
petitioner's list of faculty represents a claim regarding the individuals' educational credentials, rather 
than evidence to support that claim. Notably, the petitioner did not submit probative evidence 
establishing the teachers are employed by the petitioner (e.g., pay records, wage reports) and 
documentation regarding their academic credentials (e.g., transcripts). Moreover, the petitioner has 
not provided any evidence to substantiate that the teachers possess degrees in fields of study or 
disciplines directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the position. 
Moreover, the petitioner failed to provide the job duties and day-to-day responsibilities of the 
positions that it claims are the same or similar as the proffered position. The petitioner did not 
provide any information regarding the complexity of the job duties, supervisory duties (if any), 
independent judgment required or the amount of supervision received. It is unclear whether the 
duties and responsibilities of these individuals are the same or related to the proffered position. We 
observe that the petitioner did not submit any documentation regarding its recruiting practices. 
Thus, the submission is not probative in establishing this criterion of the regulations. 
As the record of proceeding does not demonstrate that the petitioner normally requires at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for the proffered position, it does not 
satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
Next, we find that the evidence of record does not satisfy the , criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)( 4), which requires the petitioner to establish that the nature of the 
proffered position's 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 the specific specialty or 
its equivalent. 
We find that, to the extent that they are described in the record of proceeding, the duties that the 
petitioner ascribed to the proffered position do not establish the relative specialization and 
complexity required to satisfy this particular criterion. Rather, we find that, while the duties as 
described indicate generic functions associated with teaching in general, they do not provide 
evidence that demonstrates that, in the context of this particular proffered position, the substantive 
nature or performance requirements of those functions are so specialized and complex as to require 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
the application of a body of highly specialized knowledge that is usually associated with attainment 
of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. Further, we reiterate our earlier discussion 
regarding the Handbook's entries for positions falling within the "Self-Enrichment Education 
Teacher" occupational category. Again, the Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, is a standard, minimum requirement to perform the 
duties of such position. For all of these reasons, the evidence in the record of proceeding fails to 
establish that the proposed duties meet the specialization and complexity threshold at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
As the petitioner has not satisfied at least one of the criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A), it 
cannot be found that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. According! y, the appeal will 
be dismissed, and the petition will be denied. 
III. PRIOR H-lB APPROVALS 
Counsel for the petitioner noted on appeal that USCIS approved other petitions that had been 
previously filed by the petitioner for Japanese language teachers. The director's decision does not 
indicate whether she reviewed the prior approvals of the other nonimmigrant petitions. If the 
previous nonimmigrant petitions were approved based on the same unsupported and contradictory 
assertions that are contained in the current record, the approvals would constitute material and gross 
error on the part of the director. The AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where 
eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been 
erroneous. See, e.g. Matter of Church Scientology International, 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 Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. 
denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
A prior approval does not compel the approval of a subsequent petition or relieve the petitioner of 
its burden to provide sufficient documentation to establish current eligibility for the benefit sought. 
55 Fed. Reg. 2606, 2612 (Jan. 26, 1990). A prior approval also does not preclude USCIS from 
denying an extension of an original visa petitio n based on a reassessment of eligibility for the 
benefit sought. See Texas A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556, 2004 WL 1240482 (5th Cir. 
2004). Furthermore, the AAO's 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, the AAO would not be bound to follow the 
contradictory decision of a service center. 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). 
IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 
For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the evidence of record does not establish that the 
proffered position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. Thus, the appeal will be 
dismissed, and the petition will be denied. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
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 of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.