dismissed H-1B Case: Law

,---------------------------------------------
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF R-M-H-
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 8, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a law firm, seeks to continue to employ the Beneficiary as a part-time "Administrative 
Assistant" under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act)§ 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). The Director, Vermont Service Center, 
denied the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
I. ISSUE 
The issue before us is whether the proffered pos1t10n qualifies as a specialty occupation in 
accordance with the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. Beyond the decision of the 
Director, we will also address whether the Petitioner submitted a Labor Condition Application 
(LCA) for the proper occupational classification. 1 
II. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
A. Legal Framework 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) states, in pertinent part, the following: 
1 We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. Matter ofSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542 (AAO 2015); see 
also 5 U.S.C. § 557(b) ("On appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would 
have in making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 
1002 n.9 (2d Cir. 1989). 
--------------------------------------
Matter of R-M-H-
Specialty occupation means an occupation which [ ( 1)] requires theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in fields of human 
endeavor including, but not limited to, architecture, engineering, mathematics, 
physical sciences, social sciences, medicine and health, education, business 
specialties, accounting, law, theology, and the arts, and which [(2)] requires the 
attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as 
a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, a proposed position 
must meet one of the following criteria: 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent 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)(l) 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 
oflanguage which takes into account the design of the statute as a whole is preferred); see also COlT 
Independenc·e Joint Venture v. Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989); Matter ofW­
F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). As such, the criteria stated in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) 
should logically be read as being necessary but not necessarily sufficient to meet the statutory and 
regulatory definition of specialty occupation. To otherwise interpret this section as stating .the 
necessary and sufficient conditions for meeting the definition of specialty occupation would result in 
particular positions meeting a condition under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory or 
regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). To avoid this 
result, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must therefore be read as providing supplemental criteria that 
must be met in accordance with, and not as alternatives to, the statutory and regulatory definitions of 
specialty occupation. 
As such and consonant with section 214(i)(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 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of R-M-H-
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. Chertojf, 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-IB 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-IB 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. USCIS 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. The Proffered Position 
The Petitioner stated on the Form I-129 that the Beneficiary will work part-time (10 hours per week) 
as an administrative assistant and claimed in the LCA submitted to support the visa petition that the 
proffered position corresponds to Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code and title 
23-1012, Judicial Law Clerks, from the Occupational Information Network (O*NET). 
In a letter, dated March 24, 2014, the Petitioner described the duties of the proffered position as 
follows: 
The job duties of my Administrative Assistant continue to have a significant level of 
responsibility as I am frequently out of the office because of my teaching duties at 
as well as independent lecturing to lawyers on ethics and to CP As on legal 
issues. [The Beneficiary] effectively manages my office, overseeing initial client 
contact and intake and performing general drafting and recordkeeping, as well as 
calendar oversight. She also drafts non-legal documents, as necessary, and performs 
court filings which may require direct resolution of issues with various court clerks 
and other functionaries. She also prepares and drafts correspondence and emails, 
subject to my approval and signature. She assists in my meeting and interviewing 
clients in order to make preliminary determinations as to legal needs. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of R-M-H-
In a letter, dated October 9, 2014, submitted in response to the Director's request for evidence, the 
Petitioner provided the following duty description: 
Client Interface (5% ): Handling initial case intake by providing the client with 
relevant documentation and receiving and synthesizing initial fact patterns (for 
litigation matters) to make preliminary determinations as to the client's legal needs as 
well as managing client expectations as the matter progresses (i.e., explaining 
potential timeline, notifying of an explaining developments such as activity from 
opposing counsel, etc.). 
Research (35% ): Conducting both business-related and legal research through the 
Internet or electronic databases, particularly , and subsequently drafting 
reports of her findings and analyses for application to the relevant case for my review. 
Drafting (40%): Writing a myriad of documents over the course of my firm's 
business, including but not limited to business-related memoranda for commercial 
clients that request consulting on their business patterns that I subsequently refine into 
pleadings; and basic initial drafts of responsive pleadings, subject to my approval and 
signature. 
Office Management (15%): Handling the firm's recordkeeping and calendar 
oversight as well as its correspondence, ·through phone, e-mail and letter drafting 
(with the last subject to my approval and signature). 
Court Filing and Management (5%): Filing of pleadings and documents with 
various courts in the New York metropolitan area, frequently requiring direct 
interface with court clerks and other functionaries in person. 
C. Analysis 
As a preliminary matter, we find that the SOC code and title of23-1012, Judicial Law Clerks, is not 
appropriate for the proffered position. We make this finding based upon the nature of the Petitioner 
as a private law firm. As is self-evident from the title of the occupational classification, a "Judicial 
Law Clerk" is a position within the judiciary branch of government. According to the O*NET 
OnLine Summary Report for the occupation 23-1012.00, Judicial Law Clerks, the primary duty of a 
"Judicial Law Clerk" is to "[a]ssist judges in court or by conducting research or preparing legal 
documents." O*NET Summary Report, 23-1012.00, Judicial Law Clerks, http://www.onetonline. 
org/link/summary/23-1012.00 (last visited Jan. 7, 2016). There is insufficient evidence in the record 
to establish that the "Judicial Law Clerks" occupational classification can reasonably be expanded to 
include positions within private law firms such as the Petitioner. 
We find that many of the proffered duties are consistent with those of a paralegal or legal assistant 
position. For instance, the proffered duties of handling initial client intake, synthesizing initial fact 
4 
Matter of R-M-H-
patterns, conducting business-related and legal research, writing memoranda, drafting basic initial 
drafts of responsive pleadings, handling correspondence, and filing pleadings, are all comparable to 
the duties generally performed by paralegals and legal assistants. Further, on appeal, the Petitioner 
confirms that "paralegal" is the "most closely related position herein .... " The U.S. Department of 
Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) describes the duties of paralegals and legal 
assistants as follows: 
What Paralegals and Legal Assistants Do 
Paralegals and legal assistants do a variety of tasks to support lawyers, including 
maintaining and organizing files, conducting legal research, and drafting documents. 
Duties 
Paralegals and legal assistants typically do the following: 
• Investigate and gather the facts of a case 
• Conduct research on relevant laws, regulations, and legal articles 
• Organize and maintain documents in paper or electronic filing systems 
• Gather and arrange evidence and other legal documents for attorney 
review and case preparation 
• Write or summarize reports to help lawyers prepare for trials 
• Draft correspondence and legal documents, such as contracts and 
mortgages 
• Get affidavits and other formal statements that may be used as 
evidence in court 
• Help lawyers during trials by handling exhibits, taking notes, or 
reviewing trial transcripts 
• File exhibits, briefs, appeals and other legal documents with the court 
or opposing counsel 
• Call clients, witnesses, lawyers, and outside vendors to schedule 
interviews, meetings, and depositions 
Paralegals and legal assistants help lawyers prepare for hearings, trials, and corporate 
meetings. 
Paralegals use technology and computer software for managing and organizing the 
increasing amount of documents and data collected during a case. Many paralegals 
use computer software to catalog documents, and to review documents for specific 
keywords or subjects. Because of these responsibilities, paralegals must be familiar 
with electronic database management and be current on the latest software used for 
electronic discovery. Electronic discovery refers to all electronic materials obtained 
by the parties during the litigation or investigation. These materials may be emails, 
data, documents, accounting databases, and websites. 
5 
Matter of R-M-H-
Paralegals' specific duties often vary depending on the area of law in which they 
work. 
Corporate paralegals, for example, often help lawyers prepare employee contracts, 
shareholder agreements, stock-option plans, and companies' annual financial reports. 
Corporate paralegals may monitor and review government regulations to ensure that 
the corporation is aware of new legal requirements. 
Litigation paralegals maintain documents received from clients, conduct research for 
lawyers, retrieve and organize evidence for use at depositions and trials, and draft 
settlement agreements. Some litigation paralegals may also help coordinate the 
logistics of attending a trial, including reserving office space, transporting exhibits 
and documents to the courtroom, and setting up computers and other equipment. 
Paralegals may also specialize in other legal areas, such as personal injury, criminal 
law, employee benefits, intellectual property, bankruptcy, immigration, family law, 
and real estate. 
Specific job duties may also vary by the size of the law firm. 
In small firms, paralegals' duties tend to vary more. In addition to reviewing and 
organizing documents, paralegals may prepare written reports that help lawyers 
determine how to handle their cases. If lawyers decide to file lawsuits on behalf of 
clients, paralegals may help draft documents to be filed with the court. 
In large organizations, paralegals may work on a particular phase of a case, rather 
than handling a case from beginning to end. For example, paralegals may only review 
legal material for internal use, maintain reference files, conduct research for lawyers, · 
or collect and organize evidence for hearings. After gaining experience, a paralegal 
may become responsible for more complicated tasks. 
Paralegals and legal assistants often work in teams with attorneys, fellow paralegals, 
and other legal support staff. 
Unlike the work of other administrative and legal support staff employed in a law 
firm, the paralegal's work is billed to the client. 
Paralegals may have frequent interactions with clients and third-party vendors. In 
addition, experienced paralegals may assume supervisory responsibilities, such as 
overseeing team projects or delegating work to other paralegals. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., 
"Paralegals and Legal Assistants," http://www.bls.gov/ooh/legal/paralegals-and-legal-
6 
Matter of R-M-H-
assistants.htm#tab-2 (last visited Jan. 7, 2016).2 
We find that the duties described by the Petitioner are consistent with the Handbook's description of 
a paralegal or legal assistant position. We find, on the balance, that the proffered position is more 
likely than not a paralegal or legal assistant position. 
A baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is 
normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position 
Turning to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), we will first discuss the record of 
proceedings in relation to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J), which requires that a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position. 
The Handbook states the following about the educational requirements of paralegal and legal 
assistant positions: 
There are several paths a person can take to become a paralegal. Candidates can 
enroll in a community college paralegal program to earn an associate's degree. 
However, many employers prefer, or even require, applicants to have a bachelor's 
degree. 
Because only a small number of schools offer bachelor's and master's degrees in 
paralegal studies, applicants typically have a bachelor's degree in another subject and 
earn a certificate in paralegal studies. 
Associate's and bachelor's degree programs in paralegal studies usually offer 
paralegal training courses in legal research, legal writing, and the legal applications of 
computers, along with courses in other academic subjects, such as corporate law and 
international law. Most certificate programs provide intensive paralegal training for 
people who already hold college degrees. 
Employers sometimes hire college graduates with no legal experience or legal 
education and train them on the job. In these cases, the new employee may have 
experience in a technical field that is useful to law firms, such tax preparation, 
nursing, or criminal justice. 
ld. at http://www.bls.gov/oohllegal/paralegals-and-legal-assistants.htm#tab-4 (last visited Jan. 7, 
2016). 
2 We recognize the Handbook as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of 
occupations that it addresses. The Handbook, which is available in printed form, may also be accessed on the Internet, at 
http://www.bls.gov/oco/. All of our references to the Handbook are to the 2016-17 edition available online. 
7 
Matter of R-M-H-
The Handbook makes clear that paralegal and legal assistant positions do not normally require a 
minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. It indicates that some such 
positions are available to people with only an associate's degree. It further indicates that some such 
positions that may require a bachelor's degree do not require that the degree must be in a specific 
specialty. 
In certain instances, the Handbook is not determinative. When the Handbook does not support the 
proposition that a proffered position is one that meets the statutory and regulatory provisions of a 
specialty occupation, it is incumbent upon the Petitioner to provide persuasive evidence that the 
proffered position more likely than not satisfies this or one of the other three criteria, 
notwithstanding the absence of the Handbook's support on the issue. In such case, it is the 
Petitioner's responsibility to provide probative evidence-( e.g., documentation from other objective, 
authoritative sources) that supports a finding that the particular position in question qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. Whenever more than one authoritative source exists, an adjudicator will 
consider and weigh all of the evidence presented to determine whether the particular position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The record of proceedings, however, does not contain sufficient persuasive documentary evidence 
from any relevant authoritative source establishing the proffered position as, in the words of this 
criterion, a "particular position" for which "[a] baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is 
normally the minimum requirement for entry." While the Petitioner claims on appeal that it is 
necessary to "hire someone with a Bachelor's degree in Business Management," it did not submit 
sufficient evidence supporting this claim. 
Further, we find that, to the extent that they are described in the record of proceedings, the numerous 
duties that the Petitioner ascribes to the proffered position indicate a need· for a range of knowledge 
of drafting, office procedure, and legal matters, but do not establish any particular level of formal, 
postsecondary education leading to a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty as minimally 
necessary to attain such knowledge. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
The requirement of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel 
positions among similar organizations 
Next, we will review the record regarding the first of the two alternative prongs of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). This prong alternatively calls for a petitioner to establish that a requirement 
of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common for positions 
that are: (1) in the petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered position, and also (3) located in 
organizations that are similar to the petitioner. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by 
USCIS include: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the 
industry's professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether 
8 
Matter of R-M-H-
letters or affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms "routinely employ 
and recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 
1999) (quoting Hird!Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
Here and as already discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for 
which the Handbook (or other independent, authoritative source) reports an industry-wide 
requirement for at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. Thus, we 
incorporate by reference the previous discussion on the matter. Also, there are no submissions 
indicating that any professional association of paralegal and legal assistants has made a degree a 
minimum entry requirement. Furthermore, the record of proceedings does not contain any letters or 
affidavits from similar firms or individuals in the Petitioner's industry attesting that such firms 
"routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals" in parallel positions. 
Thus, the evidence of record does not establish that a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to parallel positions with organizations that are in 
the Petitioner's industry and otherwise similar to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has not, therefore, 
satisfied the criterion ofthe first alternative prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by 
an individual with a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent 
The evidence of record also does not satisfy the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which provides that "an employer may show that its particular position is so 
complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree." A review of the 
record of proceedings indicates that the Petitioner has not credibly demonstrated that the duties the 
Beneficiary will be responsible for or perform on a day-to-day basis constitute a position so complex 
or unique that it can only be performed by a person with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. 
The evidence of record does not demonstrate that the duties that collectively constitute the proffered 
position 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 establish how such a curriculum is necessary to 
perform the duties of the proffered position. While a few related courses may be beneficial, or even 
required, in performing certain duties of the proffered 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 perfomi the duties of the particular position here. 
The Petitioner has not, therefore, satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)(2). 
9 
Matter of R-M-H-
The employer normally requires a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position 
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. To 
this end, we review the Petitioner's past recruiting and hiring practices, as well as information 
regarding employees who previously held the position, and any other documentation submitted by 
the Petitioner in support of this criterion of the regulations. 
To merit approval of the petition under this criterion, the record must establish that a petitioner's 
imposition of a degree requirement is not merely a matter of preference for high-caliber candidates 
but is necessitated by performance requirements of the position. While a petitioner may assert that a 
proffered position requires a specific degree, that statement alone without corroborating evidence 
cannot establish the position as a specialty occupation. Were USCIS limited solely to reviewing a 
petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, then any individual with a bachelor's degree could 
be brought to the United States to perform any occupation as long as the petitioner artificially 
created a token degree requirement, whereby all individuals employed in a particular position 
possessed a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty, or its equivalent. See Defensor 
v. Meissner, 201 F.3d at 388. In other words, if a petitioner's stated degree requirement is only 
designed to artificially meet the standards for an H-lB visa and/or to underemploy an individual in a 
position for which he or she is overqualified and if the proffered position does not in fact require 
such a specialty degree or its equivalent, to perform its duties, the occupation would not meet the 
statutory or regulatory definition of a specialty occupation. See section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty occupation"). 
To satisfy this criterion, the evidence of record must show 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. 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 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 as the minimum for entry into the occupation as required by the Act. To interpret 
the regulations any other way would lead to absurd results: if USC IS 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 individual 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. at 388. 
10 
Matter of R-M-H-
Here, the Petitioner has alternatively claimed that "a Bachelor's degree is my minimum requirement 
for this position" and "someone with a Bachelor's degree in Business Management" is necessary for 
the proffered position, however, 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. Thus, the evidence · of record does not satisfy the third criterion of 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
The nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent 
Finally, we will address the alternative criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4), which is 
satisfied if the evidence of record establishes that the nature of the specific duties is so specialized 
and complex that knowledge required to perform them is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. In the instant case, relative 
specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by the Petitioner as an aspect of 
the proffered position. Upon review of the totality of the record, the Petitioner has not established 
that the nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to 
perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degre·e in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. For these reasons, the evidence of record does not satisfy the 
fourth criterion at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
The Petitioner has not satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) and, therefore, it 
cannot be found that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The appeal will be 
dismissed and the petition denied for this reason. 
III. NON-CORRESPONDING LCA 
Beyond the decision of the Director, the petition cannot be approved because the Petitioner has not 
provided a certified LCA that corresponds to the petition. The LCA provided in support of the 
instant petition was certified for employment of a position described at SOC Code and Title 
"23-1012, Judicial Law Clerks" in O*NET. However, we have found that the proffered position is 
not such a position, but is a "Paralegal/Legal Assistant" position. Those positions are described in 
O*NET at SOC Code and Title "23-2011.00, Paralegals and Legal Assistants." As such, the 
Petitioner was required to provide at the time of filing an LCA certified for SOC code "23-2011.00, 
Paralegals and Legal Assistants," not "23-1012, Judicial Law Clerks," in order for it to be found to 
correspond to the petition. 
While DOL is the agency that certifies LCA applications before they are submitted to USCIS, DOL 
regulations note that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (i.e., its immigration benefits 
branch, USCIS) is the department responsible for determining whether the content of an LCA filed 
for a particular Form l-129 actually supports that petition. See 20 C.P.R. § 655.705(b), which states, 
in pertinent part (emphasis added): 
11 
Matter of R-M-H-
For H-1B visas ... DHS accepts the employer's petition (DHS Form I-129) with the 
DOL-certified LCA attached. In doing so, the DHS determines whether the petition 
is supported by an LCA which corresponds with the petition, whether the occupation 
named in the [LCA] is a specialty occupation or whether the individual is a fashion 
model of distinguished merit and ability, and whether the qualifications of the 
nonimmigrant meet the statutory requirements for H-1B visa classification. 
The regulation at 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b) requires that USCIS ensure that an LCA actually supports 
the H-1B petition filed on behalf of the Beneficiary. Here, the Petitioner has not submitted a valid 
LCA that has been certified for the proper occupational classification, and the petition cannot be 
approved for this additional reason. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
We are aware that this is an extension petition. The Petitioner asserts, on appeal, that we should 
defer to the previous decision to treat the proffered position as a specialty occupation position, given 
that there has been no change in circumstances. 
However, 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 
Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). If any previous nonimmigrant petitions were approved 
based on the evidence contained in the current record, their approvals 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 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). 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
12 
Matter of R-M-H-
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of R-M-H-, ID# 15477 (AAO Jan. 8, 2016) 
13