dismissed H-1B Case: Software Development

MATTER OF A-S-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 10,2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a software product development company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "consultant - quality assurance analyst" under the H-1B 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 imd 
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 concluding that the Petitioner had not 
established 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's basis 
for denial of the petition was erroneous and contends that the evidence of record establishes that the 
proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
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 A-S-, Inc. 
(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. 
' 
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. 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"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
In the H-IB petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a "consultant- quality 
assurance analyst" at its offices located in Illinois and California. In the letter of support, the 
Petitioner provided the Beneficiary's job duties in the proffered position. 1 In addition, the Petitioner 
stated that the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree in computer science, engineering, 
math, or a related field. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided a revised job 
description for the position, along with the approximate percentage of time the Beneficiary will 
spend on each duty: 
• Develop, implement and maintain detailed project schedule to coordinate multiple 
activities 
• Requirement gathering, analyzing and understanding 
• Identify multiple automation solutions and provide best solution for the problem 
• Identify the testing (functional & performance) approach to suit the requirements 
1 
We observe that the wording ofthe duties provided by the Petitioner for the proffered position in the letter of support is 
taken almost verbatim from the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) OnLine's list of tasks associated with the 
occupation category "Software Quality Assurance Engineers and Testers." 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-S-, Inc. 
• Preparing test plans, estimates, delivery milestones and resource mapping 
• Manage risks, issues, quality 
• Track and review the progress on daily basis and ensure best practices are followed 
during development/execution 
• Designing framework for automation and performance testing 
• Developing automation test scripts for AUT 
• Involved in Functional Testing and performing peer reviews for the test automation 
scripts 1 
• Setup environment for continuous integration and configure workflow 
• Analyzing results from continuous integration, finding the root cause for script 
failures and fixing them 
• Provide technical support for production implementation team in deployment and 
maintenance 
• Troubleshooting production issues and verification of fixes 
• Facilitate multiple Serum teams as Serum Master 
• Complete responsibility of all QA deliverables for QA and Processing teams 
Roles and Responsibilities 
• Technical- 50% 
o Analyze the requirements from business as well as technical perspective 
o Develop test management plans for the product release 
o Understand the requirements and create test plans 
o Involved in requirement understanding of new products and provided 
knowledge transfer to the team 
o Involved in providing technical solutions 
o Core part of the team that build Test Automation Framework 
o Explore and solve issues identified and provide solutions 
• Project Execution- 5% 
o Gathering product requirements 
o Creating test management plan for the project 
o Analyzing various risks and coming with appropriate mitigation plan 
o Time estimation for the tasks and getting approval from the respective 
managers before committing the same to the client 
o Stick to the committed schedule of the assigned tasks 
o Review 
• Project Management- 5% 
o Managing the project schedule 
o Track and monitor schedule, scope and effort 
o Perform estimation and scheduling 
o Reviewing team. work products 
3 
Matter of A-S-, Inc. 
o Coordinate/communicate with Project Manager 
o Maintaining process documents 
• Test Automation- 30% 
o Developed framework for test automation for project 
o Automated around 1500 Test Cases in various projects 
• Quality Assurance- 10% 
o Develop standards to ensure that quality levels and customer specifications are 
met without compromise 
o Adhere to the process and standards defined and mentor the team to 
implement process 
o Work along with. the Quality Assurance team to comply with the testing 
standards of the company 
o Facilitate implementation of [the Petitioner's] Quality Management System in 
projects 
The Petitioner also stated that the positiOn requires a bachelor's degree in computer science, 
electronics engineering, computer information systems, or a closely related field. 
II. 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 satisfies any of the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) and, therefore, qualifies as a specialty occupation.2 Specifically, the 
record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, 
commensurate with a specialty occupation. 3 
As a preliminary matter, we find that the Petitioner has provided inconsistent information regarding 
the minimum requirements for the proffered position. The Petitioner initially stated that the 
proffered position requires a bachelor's degree in computer science, engineering, math, or a related 
field. However, in response to the RFE, the Petitioner stated that the position requires a bachelor's 
degree in computer science, electronics engineering, computer information systems, or a closely 
related field. No explanation for these variances in the requirements was provided by the Petitioner.
4 
2 In the decision denying the petition, the Director noted that the Petitioner had not established eligibility at the time of 
filing and noted that the Petitioner did not provide valid, unexpired statements of work or work orders to substantiate that 
it has sufficient work for the Beneficiary for the requested period of intended employment. We agree with the Director 
that the record does not establish that there will be sufficient work through the entire requested H-1 B validity period for 
the Beneficiary. Nevertheless, even assuming that the Petitioner had adequately addressed the discrepancy, the petition 
could not be approved because the Petitioner has not established that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. 
3 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
"[I]t is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve the inconsistencies by independent objective evidence." Matter of Ho, 
4 
}.Jatter of A-S-, Inc. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner's claim that a bachelor's degree in computer science, engineering, math, 
electronics engineering or computer information systems is a sufficient minimum requirement for 
entry into the proffered position is inadequate to establish that the proposed position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. In general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., sales and 
marketing, a minimum of a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty is recognized as 
satisfying the "degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)" requirement of section 
214(i)(l)(B) of the Act. In such a case, the required "body ofhighly specialized knowledge" would 
essentially be the same. Since there must be a close correlation between the required "body of 
highly specialized knowledge" and the position, however, a minimum entry requirement of degrees 
in disparate fields, such as engineering and math, would not meet the statutory requirement that the 
degree be "in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)," unless the Petitioner establishes how each 
field is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of tl)e particular position such that the 
required "body of highly specialized knowledge" is essentially an amalgamation of these different 
specialties. 5 Section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Ad (emphasis added). The Petitioner has not made this 
showing. 
On the basis of the proffered position's educational requirement alone, we cannot find that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
We also cannot find that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, as the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that the proffered positiOn satisfies any of the criteria at 
8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) for the reasons set out below.6 
A. First Criterion 
We turn first to the criterion at 8 C.P.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. 7 
19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the 
Petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. !d. at 591-92. 
5 While the statutory "the" and the regulatory "a" both denote a singular "specialty," we do not so narrowly interpret 
these provisions to exclude positions from qualifying as specialty occupations if they permit, as a minimum entry 
requirement, degrees in more than one closely related specialty. See section 214(i)( 1)(8) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(ii). This also includes even seemingly disparate specialties providing, again, the evidence of record 
establishes how each acceptable, specific field of study is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
particular position. 
6 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
7 
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 USC IS regularly reviews the Handbook on the duties and 
5 
Matter of A-S-, Inc. 
On the labor condition application (LCA) 8 submitted in support of the H-1 B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Computer Occupations, All 
Other" corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 15-1199 at a Level I wage. 9 
We note that there are occupational categories which are not covered in detail by the Handbook, as 
well as occupations for which the Handbook does f10t provide any information. The Handbook 
states the following about these occupations: · 
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 
2014 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. 4, 2017). 
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. 10 The Handbook suggests that 
for at least some of the occupations, little meaningful information could be developed. 
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. . 
8 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to USCIS to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B worker the 
higher of either the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the "area of employment" or the actual wage 
paid by the employer to other employees with similar experience and qualifications who are performing the same 
services. See Matter ofSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 545-546 (AAO 20 15). 
9 
We will consider the Petitioner's classification of the proffered position at a Level I wage (the lowest of four assignable 
wage levels) in our analysis of the position. The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" issued by the DOL 
provides a description of the wage levels. A Level I wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which the 
Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding ofthe occupation. This wage rate indicates: (I) that the 
Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that he will be 
closely supervised and his work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that he will receive specific 
instructions on required tasks and expected results. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage 
Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://tlcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC_Guidance_Revised_ll_2009.pdf. A prevailing wage determination starts 
with an entry level wage and progresses to a higher wage level after considering the experience, education, and skill 
requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. ld A Levell wage should be considered for research fellows, workers 
in training, or internships. /d. 
10 
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; 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-S-, Inc. 
Accordingly, 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 the statutory and regulatory 
provisions, including this or one of the other three criteria, notwithstanding the absence of the 
Handbook's, support/on the issue. In such cases, it is the Petitioner's responsibility to provide 
probative evidence (e.g., documentation from other objection, authoritative sources) that indicates 
whether the particular position in question qualifies as a specialty occupation. Whenever more than 
one authoritative source exists, we will consider and weigh all of the evidence presented to 
determine whether the particular position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted a letter from In his 
letter, (1) describes the credentials that he asserts qualify him to opine upon the nature 
of the proffered position, (2) lists the duties proposed for the Beneficiary, and (3) states that these 
duties require at least a bachelor's degree in computer science, electronics engineering, computer 
information systems, or a closely related field. We carefully evaluated asse1iions in 
support of the instant petition but, for the following reasons, we have determined his letter does not 
have significant weight in this matter.11 
First, expertise, regarding current industry degree requirements for consultants -
quality assurance analyst positions is not established in the record. His supporting documentation 
indicates that most of his experience over the past 30 years has been in an academic setting as a 
faculty member within a university's school of engineering. 
Moreover, has not provided sufficient information to establish his expertise on the 
practices of organizations seeking to hire consultants - quality assurance analysts. Without further 
clarification, it is unclear how his education, training, skills or experience would translate to 
expertise regarding the current recruiting and hiring practices of an enterprise engaged in "software 
product development" (as designated by the Petitioner in the petition) or similar organizations for 
consultants- quality assurance analysts (or parallel positions). 
states that his assessment is based upon a description provided by the Petitioner of the 
company and the offered position. While provides a brief, general description of the 
Petitioner's business activities, he does not demonstrate in-depth knowledge of its operations or how 
the duties of the position would actually be performed in the context of its business enterprise. 
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. 
11 
It must be noted that references another individual in his opinion letter. The record provides no 
explanation for this inconsistency. Thus, we must question the accuracy of letter and whether the 
information provided is correctly attributed to this particular position and this Beneficiary. 
7 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-S- , I!Jc. 
Further, does not mention that the Beneficiary's assignments are not limited to one 
particular client or project. 
Moreover, opinion letter does not cite specific instances in which his past opinions 
have been accepted or recognized as authoritative on this particular issue. There is no indication that 
he has conducted any research or studies pertinent to the educational requirements for such positions 
(or parallel positions) in the Petitioner's industry for similar organizations, and no indication of 
recognition by professional organizations that he is an authority on those specific requirements. His 
curriculum vitae does not reflect that he has published any works on the academic/experience 
requirements for consultants- quality assurance analysts (or related issues). 
Even assuming possessed expertise on the degree requirements for consultants- quality 
assurance analysts, his opinion letter does not substantiate his conclusions, such that we can 
conclude that the Petitioner has met its burden of proof. First, does not reference, cite, 
or discuss any studies, surveys, industry publications, authoritative publications, or other sources of 
empirical information which he may have consulted to complete his evaluation. Second, 
does not indicate that he considered, or was even aware of, the facl that the Petitioner 
submitted an LCA for a Level 1, entry-level position. Through this designation, the Petitioner 
jndicated that the position is a comparatively low, entry-level position relative to others within its 
occupation. We consider this a significant omission, in that it suggests an incomplete review of the 
position in question and a faulty factual basis for ultimate conclusion as to the 
educational requirements of the position upon which he opines. 
For the reasons discussed, we find that opinion letter lends little probative value to the 
matter here. Matter o,[Caron Int 'l, 19I&N Dec. 791,795 (Comm'r 1988) (The service is not 
required to accept or may give less weight to an advisory opinion when it is "not in accord with 
other information or is in any ~ay questionable."). 
The Petitioner has not provided documentation from a probative source to substantiate its assertion 
regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. Thus, the Petitioner has 
not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J). 
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 
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. 
8 
Matter of A-S-, Inc. 
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 specific 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 \vhether 
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)). 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook, or other authoritative source, reports a standard 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 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 the Petitioner's 
industry attesting that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." Nor is 
there any other evidence relevant to this prong. Thus, based upon a complete review of the record of 
proceeding, we find that the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F:R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
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. 
We reviewed the Petitioner's statements regarding the proffered position; however, in the record of 
proceedings, the Petitioner does not assert that it satisfies this prong of the second criterion. Further, 
the Petitioner has not sufficient)y developed relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the 
proffered position. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 ~.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. 
9 
Matter of A-S-, Inc. 
Upon review of the record, we find that the Petitioner did not submit information regarding 
employees who currently or previously held the position. The record does not establish that the 
Petitioner normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, 
directly related to the duties of the position. Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
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 the instant case, relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by 
the Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. The Petitioner does not establish how the 
generally described duties of its consultant- quality assurance analyst elevate the proffered position 
to a specialty occupation. We again refer to our comments regarding the implications of the 
Petitioner's designation of the proffered position at a Level I wage level.12 
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 degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. For the reasons discussed above, the evidence of record does not satisfy the fourth 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 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. 
12 
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 
lav.')'ers), 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 its equivalent. That is, a position's wage-level designation may be a relevant factor but is not 
itself conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets tne requirements of section 214(i)( I) of the Act. 
10 
Matter of A-S-, Inc. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-S-, Inc., ID# 163420 (AAO Jan. 10, 2017) 
II