dismissed H-1B Case: Mortgage Brokerage

identifying data deleted to 
preveni clear' : mw amted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC Copy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: EAC 05 063 52776 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: AUG 0 7 2006 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 l(a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 05 063 52776 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director denied the nonimrnigrant visa petition and the matter is now before 
the Administrative Appeals Of'fice (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. The petition will be denied. 
The petitioner is a mortgage brokerage business that seeks to employ the beneficiary as a paralegal. The 
petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to 
tj 10 l(a)( 1 5)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 1 (a)(l S)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition because the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. On appeal, 
counsel submits a brief and additional evidence including copies of a previously approved petition, the 
beneficiary's transcripts, and a resume. Counsel states that the correct job title of the proffered position is 
public administrator, as opposed to paralegal. 
On appeal, a petitioner cannot offer a new position to the beneficiary, or materially change a position's title, 
its level of authority within the organizational hierarchy, or the associated job responsibilities. The petitioner 
must establish that the position offered to the beneficiary when the petition was filed merits classification as a 
managerial or executive position. Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248, 249 (Reg. Comm. 1978). 
A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to 
CIS requirements. See Matter of Zzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm. 1998). In this case, the 
proffered position, as reflected on the petition and on the labor condition application, is that of a paralegal, 
with a job description of generalized duties for that of a paralegal. 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an occupation 
that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) 
as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, the position must meet one of 
the following criteria: 
(I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum requirement 
for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its particular position is 
so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
(4) The nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that knowledge required to 
perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher 
degree. 
EAC 05 063 52776 
Page 3 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) 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. 
The record of proceeding before the AAO contains: (1) Form 1-129 and supporting documentation; (2) the 
director's request for additional evidence; (3) the petitioner's response to the director's request; (4) the 
director's denial letter; and (5) Form I-290B and supporting documentation. The AAO reviewed the record in 
its entirety before issuing its decision. 
The petitioner is seeking the beneficiary's services as a paralegal. Evidence of the beneficiary's duties 
includes: the 1-129 petition; the petitioner's undated letter in support of the petition; and the petitioner's 
response to the director's request for evidence. According to this evidence, the beneficiary would perform 
duties that entail: assisting in the preparation of real estate closings; retrieving, organizing, and indexing 
various legal materials; assisting the petitioner's attorneys with the drafting of contracts, mortgages, and 
deeds; preparing bank documents for lender representation; identifying appropriate laws and materials that are 
relevant to assigned cases; coordinating the activities of other office employees; maintaining client 
relationships; monitoring and reviewing government regulations; and utilizing her Russian and Hungarian 
language skills. The petitioner indicated that a qualified candidate for the job would possess a bachelor's 
degree and a paralegal certificate. 
The director found that the proffered position was not a specialty occupation because the proposed duties are 
not so specialized and complex as to require a baccalaureate or higher degree. Citing to the Department of 
Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook), the director noted that the minimum 
requirement for entry into the position was not a baccalaureate degree or its equivalent in a specific specialty. 
The director found further that the petitioner failed to establish any of the criteria found at 
8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
On appeal, counsel states, in part, that the beneficiary has previously been granted H-IB nonimmigrant status 
to work as a paralegal with a former employer. Counsel states further that the proffered position, which 
entails coordinating the activities of other office employees, maintaining financial records, and utilizing 
computer, writing, and technical skills, requires a bachelor's degree in public administration. 
Upon review of the record, the petitioner has established none of the four criteria outlined in 
8 C.F.R. tj 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Therefore, the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 
The AAO turns first to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I) and (2): a baccalaureate or higher 
degree or its equivalent is the normal minimum requirement for entry into the particular position; a degree 
requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations; or a particular 
position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree. 
Factors often considered by CIS when determining these criteria include: whether the Handbook reports that the 
industry requires a degree; whether the industry's professional association has made a degree a minimum entry 
requirement; and whether letters or affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms 
"routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1 15 1, 1 165 (D. 
Minn. 1999)(quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 7 12 F. Supp. 1095, 1 102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
EAC 05 063 52776 
Page 4 
The AAO routinely consults the Handbook for its information about the duties and educational requirements of 
particular occupations. The AAO does not concur with counsel that the proffered position, which combines the 
duties of a paralegal and an office and administrative support worker supervisor/manager, is a specialty 
occupation. A review of the Paralegals and Legal Assistants and the Office and Administrative Support Worker 
Supervisors and Managers occupational categories in the Handbook, 2006-2007 edition, finds no evidence 
indicating that a baccalaureate or higher degree, or its equivalent, is normally required for a paralegal or an office 
and administrative support worker supervisor/manager. Further, the petitioner has not identified methodologies 
or applications of specialized knowledge that actual performance of the position's functions would involve, 
has not provided details of concrete matters upon which the beneficiary would work. Nor has the petitioner 
explained or provided documentary evidence to establish how the beneficiary's actual substantive work 
would require at least a bachelor's degree level of knowledge in a specific specialty. Moreover, the petitioner 
has not established that the beneficiary's translation duties are of such complexity that a baccalaureate degree 
in a specific specialty, as distinguished from fluency in the Russian and Hungarian languages, is necessary for 
the successful completion of its duties. It is also noted that the record contains no evidence in support of the 
petitioner's claim of 160 employees and a gross annual income of $8 million, such as quarterly wage reports 
and federal income tax returns. Simply going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for the purpose of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 
158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 
1972)). 
Counsel asserts that CIS has already determined that the proffered position is a specialty occupation since CIS 
has approved another, similar petition in the past. This record of proceeding does not, however, contain all of 
the supporting evidence submitted to the service center in the prior case. In the absence of all of the 
corroborating evidence contained in that record of proceeding, the documents submitted by counsel are not 
sufficient to enable the AAO to determine whether the position offered in the prior case was similar to the 
position in the instant petition. 
Each nonimmigrant petition is a separate proceeding with a separate record. See 8 C.F.R. tj 103.8(d). In 
making a determination of statutory eligibility, CIS is limited to the information contained in the record of 
proceeding. See 8 C.F.R. tj 103.2(b)(16)(ii). Although the AAO may attempt to hypothesize as to whether the 
prior case was similar to the proffered position or was approved in error, no such determination may be made 
without review of the original record in its entirety. If the prior petition was approved based on evidence that 
was substantially similar to the evidence contained in this record of proceeding, however, the approval of the 
prior petition would have been erroneous. CIS is not required to approve petitions where eligibility has not 
been demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g., Matter of 
Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm. 1988). Neither CIS nor any other agency 
must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 
(6th Cir. 1987), cert denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
The record does not include any evidence regarding parallel positions in the petitioner's industry. The record 
also does not include any evidence from firms, individuals, or professional associations regarding an industry 
standard, or documentation to support the complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position; and the duties 
that comprise the proffered position are described in generalized terms that do not establish the position as 
sufficiently unique or sufficiently complex to require a bachelor's degree level of knowledge in a specific 
specialty. 
EAC 05 063 52776 
Page 5 
The petitioner, therefore, has not established the criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I) or (2). 
The AAO now turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3) - the employer normally requires a 
degree or its equivalent for the position. As counsel does not address this issue on appeal, it will not be discussed 
further. The evidence of record does not establish this criterion. 
Finally, the AAO turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4) - the nature of the specific duties is 
so specialized and complex that knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. 
To the extent that they are depicted in the record, the duties do not appear so specialized and complex as to 
require the highly specialized knowledge associated with a baccalaureate or higher degree, or its equivalent, 
in a specific specialty. Therefore, the evidence does not establish that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation under 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). The information in the record about the proposed duties 
does not establish that they exceed in scope, specialization, or complexity those usually performed by 
paralegals and office and administrative support worker supervisors and managers, occupational categories for 
which the Hundbook indicates no requirement for or usual association with a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty. 
As related in the discussion above, the petitioner has failed to establish that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation. Accordingly, the AAO shall not disturb the director's denial of the petition. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.