dismissed H-1B Case: Management Analysis

MATTER OF D-W-I-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN.31,2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a company engaged in the design, manufacture, and distribution of private logos, 
labeling, packaging and chemically treated wipes, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"management/operation planning analyst" under the H-1 B nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-1B program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a 
qualified foreign worker in a position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application 
of a body of highly specialized knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in 
the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director, California Service Center, denied the· petition. The Director corlcluded the Petitioner 
did not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in 
denying the petition. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U .S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: · 
Matter of D-W-1-, Inc. 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that 
knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has consistently 
interpreted the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any 
baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed 
position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Cherto[f, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree 
requirement in a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a 
particular position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
In the H-lB petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a "management/operation 
planning analyst." In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided 
the following job duties for the position: 
• Meet with management to review past and current data information affecting 
company's overall operations and analyze the funding and costs for the various 
operations including production, procurement, administration, human resources, 
staff development, and logistics support (15% ). 
• Identify and analyze the primary issues affecting company's operations in areas of 
logistics control, inventory control, communication methods, cost analysis, 
shipment effectiveness, international order routing procedures and coordination, 
and recommend ways to improve organization structure & operations in these 
areas (15% ). 
• Prepare and compile the Company's operation planning reports for Chief 
Financial Officer's review and submit for Management review, approval, and 
implementation (1 0% ). 
• Gather and analyze data re company's business and operating procedures for 
evaluation and estimation of costs and scope involved with company's plann~d 
operation expansion and additional staffing requirements and methods of 
operation improvement (15%). 
2 
Matter of D-W-1-, Inc. 
• Analyze changes in organization structure and operating procedures in order to 
identify and research solutions to intra-company communications, chain of 
command, management system & procedure, and information t1ow; and gather 
and analyze management data relating to production, labor, departmental 
coordination, and prepare reports of findings for Management review (15% ). 
• Review and plan staff development and training, analyze, the Company's 
manufacture technology development and the need for continuing training of 
technical and quality assurance personnel and supporting staff ( 15% ). 
• Conduct data analysis and strategic analysis including needs assessment, business 
process analysis, management communications analysis, cost/benefit analysis, 
root cause analysis, modeling, variance analysis, and system design, development 
and testing; and then prepare business operations efficiency reports for review by 
top management (15% ). 
According to the Petitioner, the position requires a bachelor's degree in business administration, 
management, or a business related field. 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 1 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or 
its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation? 
As a preliminary matter, the Petitioner's claim that a bachelor's degree in business administration 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. Since there must be a close correlation between the required specialized 
studies and the position, the requirement of a degree with a generalized title, such as business or 
business administration, without further specification, does not establish the position as a specialty 
occupation. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). 
To prove that a job requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge as required by section 214(i)(l) of the Act, a petitioner must establish that the position 
requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specialized field of study or its 
equivalent. As discussed supra, USCIS interprets the degree requirement at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A) to require a degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed 
1 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation in support of the H-1 B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
3 
Matter of D-W-1-, Inc. 
position. Although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business or business 
administration, may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, 
without more, will not justify a finding that a particular position qualifies for classification as a 
specialty occupation. Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147.3 
Again, the Petitioner claims that the duties of the pro±Iered positiOn can be performed by an 
individual with only a general-purpose bachelor's degree, i.e., a bachelor's degree in business 
administration. Without more, this assertion alone indicates that the proffered position is not in fact 
a specialty occupation.4 
I 
Moreover, it also cannot be found that the proffered position is a specialty occupation because the 
Petitioner has not satisfied any of the supplemental, additional criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
A. First Criterion 
We tum first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), 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. To inform this inquiry, we recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's 
(DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 5 
3 Specifically, the judge explained in Royal Siam that: 
The courts and the agency consistently have stated that, although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, 
such as a business administration degree, may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, 
requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify the granting of a petition for an H-1 B specialty 
occupation visa. See, e.g., Tapis lnt 'I v. INS, 94 F.Supp.2d 172, 175-76 (D. Mass. 2000); Shanti, 36 F. 
Supp. 2d at 1164-66; cf Matter ofMichael Hertz Assocs., 19 I & &N Dec. 558,560 ([Comm'r] 1988) 
(providing frequently cited analysis in connection with a conceptually similar provision). This is as it 
should be: elsewise, an employer could ensure the granting of a specialty occupation visa petition by 
the simple expedient of creating a generic (and essentially artificial) degree requirement. 
4 
A general degree requirement does not necessarily preclude a proffered position from qualifying as a specialty 
occupation. For example, an entry requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in business administration with a 
concentration in a specific field, or a bachelor's or higher degree in business administration combined with relevant 
education, training, and/or experience may, in certain instances, qualify the proffered position as a specialty 
occupation. In either case, it must be demonstrated that the entry requirement is equivalent to a bachelor's or higher 
degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered position. See Royal Siam, 484 F .3d at 14 7. 
5 All of our references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not, however, maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant 
information. That is, the occupational category designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the 
general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered position, and USCIS regularly reviews the Handbook on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. To satisfy the first criterion, however, the 
burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position 
would normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
4 
Matter of D-W-1-, Inc. 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-1B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Business Operations Specialists, 
All Other" corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 13-1199. We reviewed 
the information in the Handbook regarding the occupational category "Business Operations 
Specialists, All Other" and note that this occupation is one for which the Handbook does not provide 
detailed data. More specifically, the Handbook does not provide the typical duties and 
responsibilities for this category. Moreover, the Handbook does not provide any information 
regarding the academic and/or professional requirements for these positions. The Handbook states 
the following about these occupations: 
Data for Occupations Not Covered in Detail 
Although employment for hundreds of occupations is 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, 2014 employment, the May 
2015 median annual wage, the projected employment change and growth rate from 
2014 to 2024, and education and training categories are presented. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 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. 25,120 17). 
Thus, the narrative of the Handbook reports that there are some occupations for which only summary 
data is prepared but detailed occupational profiles are not developed. It appears that for at least 
some of the occupations, little meaningful information could be developed. 
Accordingly, in certain instances, the Handbook is not determinative. 6 When the Handbook does not 
support the proposition that a proffered position is one that meets the statutory and regulatory 
6 While the Handbook is not determinative in this matter, we nevertheless note that the Handbook does not indicate that 
"Business Operations Specialists, All Other" 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: 
All business operations specialists not listed separately. 
• 2014 employment: 998,000 
• May 20 15 median annual wage: $68, 170 
• Projected employment change, 2014-24: 
Number of new jobs: 48,000 
Growth rate: 5 percent (As fast as average) 
• Education and training: 
Typical entry-level education: Bachelor's degree 
Work experience in a related occupation: None 
5 
Matter of D-W-1-, Inc. 
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 occup~tion. 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. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner 1\eferenced the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) 
Summary Report for business operations specialists and states that this occupation has been assigned 
Job Zone 4 "confirming that considerable preparation is needed" for the occupation and that "most 
of the occupations require a four-year bachelor's degree." However, the O*NET summary for 
business operations. specialists does not demonstrate that a bachelor's degree in any specific 
specialty is required, and does not, therefore, demonstrate that a position so ·designated is in a 
specialty occupation as defined in section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R § 214.2(h)(4)(ii): 
Further, O*NET OnLine Help's discussion of Job Zone 4 does not indicate specific requirements for 
particular majors or academic concentrations. !d. Therefore, despite the Petitioner's assertions to 
the contrary, the O*NET information is not probative of the proffered position qualifying as a 
specialty occupation. 
Otherwise, the Petitioner provides no other documentation from other objective, authoritative 
sources to support a finding that the particular position in question qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
B. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs: "The degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may 
Typical on-the-job training: None 
• O*NET: 
13-1199.00- Business Operations Specialists, All Other 
13-1199.01 -Energy Auditors 
I 3-1 I 99.02 - Security Management Specialists 
I 3- I I 99.03 - Customs Brokers 
I 3- I I 99.04 - Business Continuity Planners 
I 3- I I 99.05 - Sustainability Specialists 
13-1199.06- Online Merchants 
U.S. Dep 't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 20 I 6- I 7 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. 25, 20 I 7). 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of D-W-1-, Inc . 
show that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong 
casts its gaze upon the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a spe~ific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
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 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. In addition, there are no submissions from the 
industry's professional association indicating that it has made a degree a minimum entry requirement. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner did not submit any letters or affidavits from similar firms or individuals in I . 
the Petitioner's industry attesting that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed 
individuals." 
v 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner submitted copies of job announcements placed by other 
employers. However, upon review of the documents, we find that the Petitioner's reliance on the job 
announcements is misplaced. First, we note that some of the job postings do not appear to involve 
organizations similar to the Petitioner. For example, the Petitioner is a 223-person business engaged in 
the design, manufacture, and distribution of private logos, labeling, packaging and chemically treated 
wipes, whereas the advertising organizations include: 
• - a scientific research, engmeenng and technology 
company; 
• -
a supplier of wafer fabrication equipment and services to the 
semiconductor industry; 
• - an online pet specialty retailer; and 
• -
a company that provides strategic, research and analysis 
support to senior officials. 
Matter of D- W-1-, Inc. 
Furthermore, some of the postings appear to be for staffing agencies and/or provide little or no 
information regarding the hiring employers. The Petitioner did not supplement the record of proceeding 
to establish that these advertising organizations are similar. 
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 an organization is similar and 
in the same industry without providing a legitimate basis for such an assertion. 
Moreover, many of the advertisements do not appear to be for parallel positions. For example, some of 
the positions appear to be for more senior positions than the proffered position. The Petitioner has not 
sufficiently established that the primary duties and responsibilities of the advertised positions are 
parallel to the proffered position. 
In addition, some of the postings do not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a directly related specific 
specialty (or its equivalent) is required.7 The job postings suggest, at best, that a bachelor's degree is 
sometimes required for management/operation planning analyst positions, but not a bachelor's degree in 
a specific specialty (or its equivalent).8 
As the documentation does not establish that the Petitioner has met this prong of the regulations, further 
analysis regarding the specific information contained in each of the job postings is not necessary.9 That 
is, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the 
first alternative prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
7 As discussed, the degree requirement set by the statutory and regulatory framework of the H-1 B program is not just a 
bachelor's or higher degree, but a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the duties of the 
position. See section 214(i)(l)(b) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). Further, a preference for a degree in a field 
is not necessarily an indication of a minimum requirement. 
8 It must be noted that even if all of the job postings indicated that a requirement of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations (which they do not), the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from the advertisements with regard to 
determining the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. See 
generally Earl Babbie, The Practice ofSocial Research 186-228 (1995). Moreover, given that there is no indication that 
the advertisements were randomly selected, the validity of any such inferences could not be accurately determined even 
if the sampling unit were sufficiently large. See id. at 195-196 (explaining that "[r]andom selection is the key to [the] 
process [of probability sampling]" and that "random selection offers access to the body of probability theory, which 
provides the basis for estimates of population parameters and estimates of error"). 
9 
The Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how representative the job postings are of the particular 
advertising employers' recruiting history for the type of job advertised. As the advertisements are only solicitations for 
hire, they are not evidence of the actual hiring practices of these employers. 
8 
Matter of D-W-1-, Inc. 
2. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
In its appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the duties of the proffered position are "complex" and that 
only candidates who have successfully completed a bachelor's degree in business administration, 
management, or closely related field can properly performed its duties. However, the Petitioner has 
not sufficiently developed relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the proffered position. 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner designated the proffered position as an entry-level position 
within the occupational category (by selecting a Level I wage). 10 
On appeal, the Petitioner makes reference to several courses that enable the Beneficiary to perform 
the duties of the position, including supply chain management, controllership, marketing 
management, management communications, applied business statistics, information technology, and 
business finance, amongst others. However, the Petitioner does not explain why these courses 
would be required to perform the duties of the proffered position. 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 it asserts are complex and unique. While a 
few related courses may be beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner has 
not demonstrated how an established curriculum of such courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the duties of the proffered 
position. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the pos1t10n, and references her 
qualifications. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education 
or experience of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative 
complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position, and it did not identify any tasks 
that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)(2). 
10 The Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position undermines its claim that the position is 
particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation. Nevertheless, a 
Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty occupation, just as a 
Level IV wage-designation does not definitively establish such a classification. In certain occupations (e.g., doctors or 
lawyers), a Level I, entry-level position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent, for entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designation would not reflect that an occupation qualifies 
as a specialty occupation if that higher-level position does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or itsequivalent. That is, a position's wage level designation may be a relevant factor but is not 
itself conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)(l) ofthe Act. 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter of D-W-1-, Inc. 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it 
normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. 
In its appeal, the Petitioner points to the job posting for the proffered position and notes that this 
reflects that the individual filling the position 
must have the minimum of a bachelor's degree in 
business administration, management, or a business related field. As stated previously, the 
Petitioner's assertion that it would not hire anyone without a bachelor's degree in business 
administration or a related field directly indicates that the proffered position is not a specialty 
occupation. Again, since there must be a close correlation between the required specialized studies 
and the position, the requirement of a degree with a generalized title, such as business or business 
administration, without further specification, does· not establish the position as a specialty 
occupation. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. at 558, 560. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted the academic credentials of its previous management/operation 
planning analyst, along with a copy of her work product entitled " _ 
_ " Notably, the Petitioner did not provide the job duties and day-to-day 
responsibilities of this individual. For instance, the Petitioner did not submit evidence regarding the 
complexity of the job duties, supervisory duties (if any), independent judgment required, or the 
amount of supervision received. Accordingly, it is unclear whether this individual's duties and 
responsibilities were the same as the proffered position. 
Without more, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that it normally 
requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the proffered 
position. Therefore, it has not satisfied thethird criterion of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
D. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature 
of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. 
In its appeal, the Petitioner states that the proffered position is "so specialized and complex that only 
an individual with a minimum of a bachelor's degree in Business Administration, Management, or a 
business relate would be able to perform the job duties." However, relative specialization and 
complexity have not been sufficiently developed by the Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered 
position's duties. In other words, the proposed duties have not been described with sufficient 
specificity to show that their nature is more specialized and complex than other 
management/operation planning analyst positions whose duties are not of a nature so specialized and 
complex that their performance requires knowledge usually associated with a degree in a specific 
specialty. With regard to the specific duties of the position proffered here, we find that the record of 
10 
Matter of D-W-1-, Inc. 
proceeding lacks sufficient, credible evidence establishing that they are so specialized and complex 
that the knowledge required to perform them is usually associated with the attainment of a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent. 
We also incorporate our earlier discussion and analysis regarding the duties of the proffered position, 
and the designation of the position in the LCA as a Level I position (the lowest of four assignable 
wage-levels) relative to others within the same occupational category. The Petitioner has not 
demonstrated in the record that its proffered position is one with duties sufficiently specialized and 
complex to satisfy 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
IV. PRIORAPPROVAL 
"' 
The Petitioner contends on appeal that USCIS is "foreclosed" from "arguing" for the denial of the 
petition through res judicata and collateral estoppel based on USCIS' prior approval of an H-1 B visa 
for an employee previously filling the position of management/operation planning analyst. We are 
not expressing "arguments" in the current matter; rather, we are adjudicating the matter based on the 
evidence submitted on the record. 
Further, when "any person makes application for a visa or any other document required for entry, or 
makes application for admission, ... the burden of proof shall be upon such person to establish that 
he is eligible" for such benefit. Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; see also Matter o.fTreasure 
Craft of Cal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg' 1 Comm 'r 1972). Each nonimmigrant and immigrant petition 
is a separate record of proceedings with a separate burden of proof. Each petition must stand on its 
own individual merits. There is no requirement either in the regulations or in USCIS procedural 
documentation requiring nonimmigrant petitions to be combined in a single record of proceedings. 11 
Accordingly, the Director was not required to request and obtain a copy of the prior H-1 B petition 
referenced by the Petitioner. 
We are 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 Int 'l, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). If the previous nonimmigrant petitions 
were. approved based on the same description of duties and assertions that are contained in the 
current record, they would constitute material and gross error on the part of the Director. It would be 
11 USCIS does not engage in the practice of reviewing previous nonimmigrant petitions when adjudicating extension 
petitions. Given the various and changing jurisdiction over various nonimmigrant petitions and applications, requiring 
previously adjudicated nonimmigrant petitions to be reviewed before any newly filed application or petition could be 
adjudicated would result in extreme delays in the processing of petitions and applications. Furthermore, such a 
suggestion, while being impractical and inefficient, would also be a shift in the evidentiary burden in this proceeding 
from the Petitioner to USCIS, which would be contrary to section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 
II 
Matter of D-W-1-, Inc. 
unreasonable for USCIS or any agency to treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex 
Eng'g, 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. 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.P.R. pt. 
214). 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 the 
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). 
V. CONCLUSION 
The burden is on the Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of D-W-I-, Inc., ID# 283824 (AAO Jan. 31, 2017) 
12