dismissed H-1B Case: Translation Services

(b)(6)
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-T-, INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 14,2017 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a translation services company, seeks to extend the Beneficiary's employment as a 
"translation coordinator" under the H-IB 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-lB 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, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of a specialty 
occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the evidence in the record of proceedings was sufficient to 
establish its claim by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. PROFFERED POSITION 
In the H-lB petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a "translatiQn 
coordinator." 1 In its support letter, the Petitioner stated that the protlered position entails 
"coordinating [the] translation of business documents, especially complex medical and 
pharmaceutical documents." The Petitioner also stated that the Beneficiary would also "perform[ ] 
translations as necessary." 
In its response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner claimed that the proffered 
position is not a "translator" position: 
I The Petitioner explained that although it had described the proffered position as a "translation coordinator" in the H-1 B 
petition, its "internal title" would actually be "project manager: ' For purposes of issuing this 
decision we will refer to the position as it was described in the H-1 B petition. 
(b)(6)
Matter of C-T-, Inc. 
Because [the Director's] RFE repeatedly refers to the position as Translator, we want 
to reinforce that this position does not translate every-day business documents or civil 
status records. It manages the complex process of performing 
ofPRO [(patient-reported outcomes)] measures. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner described the position's duties in further detail and provided 
the percentages of time the Beneficiary would spend performing them. According to the Petitioner, 
the Beneficiary would spend 65 percent of his time performing the following tasks: 
Reconciles and edits harmonized and back translations of patient reported outcomes 
(PRO) measures and relate documents in a timely, et1icient and accurate manner. 
Review for consistency in meaning, sentence structure, grammar, punctuation, 
mechanics, formatting, and layout. 
Repeats as many times as necessary to ensure consistency between original and 
translations. Individual projects may include translations in multiple languages. 
Coordinates and communicates with translators, research specialists, in-country/client 
reviewers, and others as needed to ensure consistency of original documents and 
translations. 
It reported that the Beneficiary would spend 10 percent of his time performing the following tasks: 
Maintains accurate and up-to-date spreadsheets, database entries and other documents 
needed to ensure that there is a complete, readily retrievable overview of the current 
status of projects. Compose or generate a variety of materials (e.g., database 
reports, written reports, memos, etc.) documenting project activities and status. 
Ensures that projects are delivered to clients error-free and as specified within 
established timeframes. 
~ 
Makes sure that clients are kept regularly informed as to the status of projects and 
otherwise communicates with clients as needed to ensure client needs are met and 
issues are resolved. 
The Petitioner further stated that the Beneficiary would spend 10 percent of his time performing 
these tasks: 
Coordinates and communicates with interviewers and recruiters for the purpose of 
conducting debriefing interviews, analyzing results, .and making recommendations for 
improvements. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of C-T-, Inc. 
Coordinates with colleagues in other departments for the purpose of ensuring efficient 
workflow. 
The Petitioner reported that the Beneficiary would spend the remammg 15 percent of his time 
"[p ]erform[ing] translations of PRO measures and related documents and other pharmaceutical 
materials." 
In addition, the Petitioner stated the following: 
Virtually all of [the Petitioner's] translation and translation coordination work 
involves complex pharmaceutical and medical material. The complexity of the 
material is reinforced by the potentially significant consequences of errors if 
pharmaceutical or medical device documentation or research is mistranslated. 
Pharmaceutical and medical device testing costs millions of dollars. A voiding 
translation errors, and the inaccurate data that could result from badly translated 
questionnaires or supporting material, is essential. adds layers 
of complexity to the translation process .... 
Finally, the Petitioner stated in its support letter that the position requires a bachelor's degree in 
English or a foreign language, a closely related, or an equivalent combination of education and 
progressively responsible work experience. 
II. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
As noted, the Director denied the petition on the basis of that the Beneficiary is not qualified to 
perform the duties of a specialty occupation. However, a beneficiary's credentials to perform a 
particular job are relevant only when the job is found to qualify as a specialty occupation. U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is required to follow long-standing legal standards 
and determine first, whether the proffered position qualifies for classification as a specialty 
occupation, and second, whether the Beneficiary was qualified for the position at the time the 
nonimmigrant visa petition was filed. C.f Matter ofMichael Hertz Assocs., 19 l&N Dec. 558, 560 
(Comm'r 1988) ("The facts of a beneficiary's background only come at issue after it is found that 
the position in which the petitioner intends to employ him falls within [a specialty occupation]."). 
In this case, the record of proceedings does not establish that the proffered position 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 
2 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
3 
The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 B petition, includif!g evidence regarding the proffered 
position and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. ' 
Matter ofC-T-, Inc. 
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) 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: 
(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; 
(J) 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). 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. Chertc~ff; 
484 F .3d 13 9, 14 7 (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"); Delensor v. Meissner, 
201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
B. Analysis 
1. 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 
4 
Matter of C-T-, Inc. 
(DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses.4 
On the labor condition application (LCA)5 submitted in support of the H-1 B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category ,"Interpreters and Translators" 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 27-3091.6 The Handbook states the 
following with regard to positions located within this occupational category: 
Although interpreters and translators typically need at least a bachelor's degree, the 
most important requirement is that they be fluent in at least two languages (English 
and at least one other language). Many complete job-specific training programs. It is 
not necessary for interpreters and translators to have been raised in two languages to 
succeed in these jobs, but many grew up communicating in the languages in which 
they use for work. 
Education 
The educational backgrounds .of interpreters and translators vary widely, but it IS 
essential that they be fluent in English and at least one other language. 
High school students interested in becoming an interpreter or translator should take a 
broad range of courses that focus on English writing and comprehension, foreign 
languages, and computer proficiency. Other helpful pursuits for prospects· include 
4 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 
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 eviderice to support a finding that its particular position 
would normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
5 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to USC IS to demonstrate that it will pay an H-I 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 o(Simeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 545-546 (AAO 20 15). 
6 The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level I wage (the lowest of four assignable wage levels). We will 
consider this selection 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 of the 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. /d. 
5 
--------------
Matter of C-T-, Inc. 
spending time in a foreign country, engaging in direct contact with foreign cultures, 
and reading extensively on a variety of subjects in English and at least one .other 
language. Through community organizations, students interested in sign language 
interpreting may take introductory classes in American Sign Language (ASL) and 
seek out volunteer opportunities to work with people who are deaf or hard of hearing. 
Beyond high school, people interested in becoming interpreters or translators have 
numerous educational options. Although many jobs require a bachelor's degree, 
majoring in a language is not always necessary. Rather, an educational background 
in a particular field of study can provide a natural area of subject-matter expertise. 
Training 
Interpreters and translators generally need specialized training on how to do their 
work. Formal programs in interpreting and translating are available at colleges and 
universities nationwide and through nonuniversity training programs, conferences, 
and courses. 
Many people who work as interpreters or translators in more technical areas-such as 
software localization, engineering, or finance-have a master's degree. Those 
working in the community as court or medical interpreters or translators are more 
likely to complete job-specific training programs or certificates. 
U.S. Dep't Of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., 
"Interpreters and Translators," http://www.bls.gov/ooh/media-and-communication/interpreters-and­
translators.htm#tab-4 (last visited Feb. 13, 20 17). 
The Handbook does not indicate that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the 
equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into this occupation. While it states that 
a bachelor's degree is typically required, it does not require that the degree be in any particular 
specialty. Rather, the Handbook states that the educational backgrounds of interpreters and 
translators vary widely and it is essential to be fluent in English and at least one other language, 
regardless of how the fluency was obtained. 
We acknowledge the Handbook's statement that "many people" who work "in more technical areas" 
of this occupational category possess a master's degree. However, the Handbook does not indicate 
that such degree must in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Moreover, the Petitioner has not 
established that the duties proposed for the Beneficiary fall within one of those "more technical 
areas." The Petitioner has stated that it will pay the Beneficiary a Level I wage, which indicates that 
the Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of 
judgment; that he will be closely supervised and his work closely monitored and reviewed for 
accuracy; and that he will receive specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. Given 
the Handbook's implication that typical positions located within this occupational category do not 
6 
Matter of C-T-, Inc. 
require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, it appears unlikely that an entry-level position 
with these characteristics would have such a requirement. 7 
For all of these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the proffered position falls within an 
occupational category for which the Handbook, or any other relevant, authoritative source, indicates 
that the normal minimum entry requirement is at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
the equivalent. Consequently, the evidence of record does not support a finding that the particular 
position proffered here, an entry-level position located within the interpreters and translators 
occupational category, would normally have such a minimum specialty degree requirement, or the 
equivalent. The duties and requirements of the position as described by the Petitioner do not 
indicate that it is one for which a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or the 
equivalent, is normally required. The Petitioner therefore has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J). 
2. 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. 
a. 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 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)). 
7 Given the Petitioner's assertions regarding the proffered position and the evidence it submits in their support, its wage­
level designation on the LCA raises questions as to whether the LCA actually corresponds to and supports the H-1 B 
petition. As indicated above, the organization chart implies that the Beneficiary would perform at least some 
management duties, and the Petitioner emphasizes the complex nature and high stakes of the Beneficiary's work. While 
we will not explore the issue of the LCA in depth here, the Petitioner should be prepared to address it in any future H-1 B 
filings because it appears to constitute an additional ground of ineligibility. 
7 
Matter of C-T-, Inc. 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook, or another authoritative source, reports a 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. 
The Petitioner submitted several job vacancy announcements. For the Petitioner to establish that an 
organization in its industry is similar, it must demonstrate that it shares the same general 
characteristics with the advertising organization, which may be demonstrated by factors such as the 
nature or type of organization, the particular scope of operations, as well as the level of revenue and 
staffing (to list just a few elements that may be considered). Here, the Petitioner did not supplement 
the record with evidence to establish that it shares the same general characteristics. 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. A petitioner's unsupported statements are of very 
limited weight and normally will be insufficient to carry its burden of prooL See Matter of So.ffici, 
22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Cra.ft ofCal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 
(Reg'l Comm'r 1972)); see also Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). The 
Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. Chawathe, 25 
I&N Dec. at 376. 
Nor has the Petitioner demonstrated that the advertised positions "parallel" the one proffered here.8 
As indicated, in classifying the proffered position at a Level I (entry-level) wage, the Petitioner 
effectively attested to DOL that the Beneficiary would perform routine tasks that require limited 
exercise of judgment. However, the advertised positions appear to be at more senior level. For 
example, several job postings require work experience. Two job postings state that a successful 
candidate would "own[ ] the project from initial planning to delivery," which does not parallel the 
Petitioner's Level I wage designation. The same is true of some other job postings, which include 
phrases such as "[t]raining, [s]upervising and [m]entoring"; "[a]ssembling teams"; "[m]anage the 
entire life-cycle of multiple localization projects in a fast -paced environment"; "[ w ]orks 
independently to research and resolve complex technical issues"; and "[ c ]oordinates the assigning 
and completion of client projects among pool of translators and debriefers." 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 
8 One of the job postings was for an information technology help desk technician, which appears to have been submitted 
in 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 ofjob advertised. As the advertisements are only solicitations for 
hire, they are not evidence of the actual hiring practices of these employers. 
Further, the Petitioner does not demonstrate what inferences, if any, can be drawn from these advertisements with regard 
to determining the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. See 
generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 (7th ed. 1995). As such, even if the job announcements 
supported the finding that the position required a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty; or its equivalent (for 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter of C-T-, Inc. 
Nor do the letters and evidence from companies that the Petitioner claims conduct business within 
the same industry satisfy this prong. Again, to establish that an organization in its industry is 
similar, the Petitioner must demonstrate that it shares the same general characteristics with the 
organization, which may be demonstrated by factors such as the nature or type of organization, the 
particular scope of operations, as well as the level of revenue and staffing (to list just a few elements 
that may be considered). There is not enough evidence regarding 
and to establish (1) that they are similar to the Petitioner, and (2) 
that parallel positions located within any of these companies require a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or the equivalent. 
For all of these reasons, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
b. 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 discussed the Handbook's findings regarding the occupational category into which the Petitioner 
placed the protiered position above. As noted, the Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, is normally required. The Petitioner's generalized 
claims that the knowledge and associated entry requirements associated with the proffered position 
exceed those of other positions located within the occupational category are acknowledged, as is the 
evidence it submits in support of those assertions. But the Petitioner's Level I wage designation 
undercuts those assertions and evidence. 10 In other words, if typical positions located within the 
occupational category do not require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, 
then it is unclear how a position with the Level I characteristics described above would, regardless of 
the Petitioner's assertions. 
organizations in the same industry that are similar to the Petitioner), it cannot be found that such a limited number of 
' postings that appear to have been consciously selected could credibly refute the findings of the Handbook published by 
the Bureau of Labor Statistics that such a position does not normally require at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
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 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 the requirements of section 214(i)( I) of the Act. 
9 
Matter of C-T-, Inc. 
Consequently, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
3. 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. The 
record must establish that a petitioner's stated degree requirement is not a matter of preference for 
high-caliber candidates but is necessitated instead by performance requirements of the position. 
Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. Were USCIS limited solely to reviewing the 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 created a token degree 
requirement. !d. Evidence provided in support of this criterion may include, but is not limited to, 
documentation regarding the Petitioner's past recruitment and hiring practices, as well as 
information regarding employees who previously held the position. 
We acknowledge the Petitioner's claim that the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree in 
English .or a foreign language, a closely related, or an equivalent combination of education and 
progressively responsible work experience. The record contains resumes of several employees, and 
we acknowledge that some resumes do indicate that the referenced individuals meet this 
requirement. However, a resume represents a claim made by an individual rather than evidence to 
support that claim, and the record lacks documentary evidence to corroborate the education 
credentials. Again, a petitioner's unsupported statements are of very limited weight and normally 
will be insufficient to carry its burden of proof. So.ffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. Nor does the record 
contain copies of common business documents such as payroll records to verify that any of these 
individuals actually work, or have worked, for the Petitioner. See id. Further, we observe even 
among this limited sample, not all of the employees possess the credential claimed by the Petitioner 
as a minimum entry requirement - again, a bachelor's degree in English or a foreign language, a 
closely related, or an equivalent combination of education and progressively responsible work 
experience. One employee has a bachelor's degree in finance/political science, one has a bachelor's 
degree in history, and another has a bachelor's degree in international studies. Further, this indicates 
that the Petitioner does not require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. Thus, the Petitioner 
has not established that it meets this claimed requirement. 
In addition, we note that the Petitioner claims it has been conducting business since 1990 and that it 
has 100 employees. We cannot be determined how representative the Petitioner's sampling is of its 
normal recruiting and hiring practices for 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 the third 
criterion of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
10 
Matter ofC-T-, Inc. 
4. 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. 
We acknowledge the Petitioner's assertions regarding the specialization and complexity of the 
position's duties. However, as above, those claims are undermined by the Petitioner's Level I wage 
designation. Again, in classifying the proffered position at a Level I (entry-level) wage, the 
Petitioner effectively attested to DOL that the Beneficiary would perform routine tasks that require 
limited, if any, exercise of judgment, that he would be closely supervised and his work closely 
monitored and reviewed for accuracy, and that he would receive specific instructions on required 
tasks and expected results. 11 The DOL guidance referenced above states that an employer should 
consider a Level I wage designation when the job offer is for a research fellow, a worker in training, 
or an internship. The Petitioner has not demonstrated in the record that its proffered position is one 
with duties sufficiently specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214'.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
5. Prior H-1B Approvals 
The Petitioner points out the fact that this H-1 B petition is an extension petition, and that USCIS 
therefore approved a similar petition filed on behalf of the Beneficiary in the past. The Petitioner 
also states that USCIS has approved similar petitions tiled by other companies. However, 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 petition were approved 
based on the same description of duties and assertions that are contained in the current record, then 
the Director's prior approvals would constitute material and gross error. 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 Cla,ssification 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). 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one ofthe 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. 
11 
Again, 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. 
II 
Matter of C-T-, Inc. 
III. BENEFICIARY QUALIFICATIONS 
Having found that the proffered position is not a specialty occupation - a finding which, on its own, 
precludes approval of the petition - we will now consider the Director's decision denying the 
petition. As noted, the Director's sole ground for denial was her determination that the Beneficiary 
is not qualified to perform the duties of the proffered positon. Again, the Petitioner stated that the 
position requires a bachelor's degree in English or a foreign language, a closely related, or an 
equivalent combination of education and progressively responsible work experience. 
A. Legal Framework 
The statutory and regulatory framework that we must apply in our consideration of the evidence of 
the Beneficiary's qualification to serve in a specialty occupation follows below. 
Section 214(i)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(2), states that an individual applying for 
classification as an H-1 B nonimmigrant worker must possess: 
(A) full state licensure to practice in the occupation, if such licensure is required to 
practice in the occupation, 
(B) completion of the degree described in paragraph (1 )(B) for the occupation, or 
(C) (i) experience in the specialty equivalent to the completion of such degree, 
and 
(ii) recognition of expertise in the specialty through progressively responsible 
positions relating to the specialty. 
In implementing section 214(i)(2) of the Act, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C) states 
that a beneficiary must also meet one of the following criteria in order tq qualify to perform services 
in a specialty occupation: 
(I) Hold a United States baccalaureate or higher degree required by the specialty 
. occupation from an accredited college or university; 
(2) . Hold a foreign degree determined to be equivalent to a United States 
_)baccalaureate or higher degree required by the specialty occupation from an 
accredited college or university; 
(3) Hold an unrestricted State license, registration or certification which authorizes 
him or her to fully practice the specialty occupation and be immediately engaged 
in that specialty in the state of intended employment; or 
12 
Matter ~fC-T-, Inc. 
( 4) Have education, specialized trammg, and/or progressively responsible 
experience that is equivalent to completion of a United States baccalaureate or 
higher degree in the specialty occupation, and have recognition of expertise in 
the specialty through progressively responsible positions directly related to the 
specialty. 
In addition, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(v)(A) states: 
General. If an occupation requires a state or local license for an individual to fully 
perform the duties of the occupation, an alien (except an H -1 C nurse) seeking H 
classification in that occupation must have that license prior to approval of the 
petition to be found qualified to enter the United States and immediately engage in 
employment in the occupation. 
Therefore, to qualify a beneficiary for classification as an H-1 B nonimmigrant worker under the Act, 
the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary possesses the requisite license or, if none is 
required, that the beneficiary has completed a degree in the specialty that the occupation requires. 
Alternatively, if a license is not required and if the beneficiary does not possess the required U.S. 
degree or its foreign degree equivalent, the petitioner must show that the beneficiary possesses both 
( 1) education, specialized training, and/or progressively responsible experience in the specialty 
equivalent to the completion of such degree, and (2) recognition of expertise in the specialty through 
progressively responsible positions relating to the specialty. 
In order to equate a beneficiary's credentials to a U.S. baccalaureate or higher degree, the provisions 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D) require one or more of the following: 
(I) An evaluation from an official who has authority to grant college-level credit for 
training and/or experience in the specialty at an accredited college or university 
which has a program for granting such credit based on an individual's training 
and/or work experience; 
(2) The results of recognized college-level equivalency examinations or special 
credit programs, such as the College Level Examination Program (CLEP), or 
Program on Noncollegiate Sponsored Instruction (PONSI); 
(3) An evaluation of education by a reliable credentials evaluation service which 
specializes in evaluating foreign educational credentials; 12 
( 4) Evidence of certification or registration from a nationally-recognized 
professional association or society for the specialty that is known to grant 
12 
The Petitioner should note that, in accordance with this provision, we will accept a credential evaluation service's 
evaluation of education only, not training and/or work experience. 
13 
Matter of C-T-, Inc. 
certification or registration to persons in the occupational specialty who have 
achieved a certain level of competence in the specialty; 
(5) A determination by the Service that the equivalent of the degree required by the 
specialty occupation has been acquired through a combination of education, 
specialized training, and/or work experience in areas related to the specialty and 
that the alien has achieved recognition of expertise in the specialty occupation as 
a result of such training and experience .... 
In accordance with 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5): 
For purposes of determining equivalency to a baccalaureate degree in the 
specialty, three years of specialized training and/or work experience must be 
demonstrated for each year of college-level training the alien lacks . . . . It must 
be clearly demonstrated that the alien's training and/or work experience included 
the theoretical and practical application of specialized knowledge required by the 
specialty occupation; that the alien's experience was gained while working with 
peers, supervisors, or subordinates who have a degree or its equivalent in the 
specialty occupation; and that the alien has recognition of expertise in the 
specialty evidenced by at least one type of documentation such as: 
(i) 
(ii) 
(iii) 
(iv) 
Recognition of expertise in the specialty occupation by at least two 
recognized authorities in the same specialty occupation; 13 
Membership in a recognized foreign or United States association or 
society in the specialty occupation; 
Published material by or about the alien in professional publications, trade 
journals, books, or major newspapers; 
Licensure or registration to practice the specialty occupation in a foreign 
country; or 
(v) Achievements which a recognized authority has determined to be 
significant contributions to the field of the specialty occupation. 
13 Recognized authority means a person or organization with expertise in a particular field, special skills or knowledge in 
that field, and the expertise to render the type of opinion requested. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). A recognized authority's 
opinion must state: (I) the writer's qualifications as an expert; (2) the writer's experience giving such opinions, citing 
specific instances where past opinions have been accepted as authoritative and by whom; (3) how the conclusions were 
reached; and (4) the basis for the conclusions supported by copies or citations of any research material used. /d. 
14 
(b)(6)
Matter of C-T-, Inc. 
It is always worth noting that, by its very terms, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5) is a matter strictly 
for USCIS application and determination, and that, also by the clear terms of the rule, experience 
will merit a positive determination only to the extent that the record of proceedings establishes all of 
the qualifying elements at 8. C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5), including , but not limited to, a type of 
recognition of expertise in the specialty occupation. 
B. The Beneficiary 's Credentials 
The record indicates that the Beneficiary earned a U.S. bachelor ' s degree with a double-major in 
finance and political science. The record contains three letters which alternatively purport to analyze 
the Beneficiary's education, work experience , and/or language skills. 
a senior lecturer in the language at the prepared the 
first letter. who did not evaluate the Beneficiary's education or work experience , 
evaluated the Beneficiary 's Urdu language skills alone and found them "at least equivalent to those 
of a student completing four years of Urdu instruction in a U.S. university." 
Next, the Petitioner submitted a letter from the president of the 
found the combination of the Beneficiary's U.S. bachelor's degree and his work 
experience in F-1 and H-IB nonimmigrant status with the Petitioner equivalent to a "U.S. degree of 
Bachelor of Arts in Translation and Interpretation Studies (concentration: Urdu)." 
The third letter, which was also submitted on appeal, was prepared by . a 
professor of premodern Korean studies at made two specific 
findings. First, he found the Beneficiary ' s Urdu language skills "at least the equivalent of a student 
who had completed a BA in Urdu at a fully accredited US university. " He also found the 
combination of the Beneficiary's Urdu language skills, his U.S. bachelor's degree, his work 
experience in F-1 and H-lB nonimmigrant status with the Petitioner , and his Chinese language 
training "commensurate to a graduate with a bachelor's degree in Tninslation Studies/Linguistics ." 
C. 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 Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of a specialty 
occupation. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(l) is satisfied if the record demonstrates that the 
Beneficiary "[h]old[s] a United States baccalaureate or higher degree required by the specialty 
occupation from an accredited college or university." Again, the Petitioner claims that the proffered 
position requires a bachelor ' s degree in English or a foreign language , or a closely related field. The 
Beneficiary earned a 
U.S. bachelor 's 'degree in finance and political science and therefore this 
requirement has not been met. 
15 
Matter ofC-T-, Inc. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(2) is satisfied if the record demonstrates that the 
Beneficiary "[h]old[s] a foreign degree determined to be equivalent to a United States baccalaureate 
or higher degree required by the specialty occupation from an accredited college or university." As 
it does not appear as though the Beneficiary earned a degree abroad, the record contains no evidence 
for our consideration under this requirement. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(3) is satisfied if the record demonstrates that the 
Beneficiary "[h ]old[ s] an ~unrestricted State license, registration or certification which authorizes him 
or her to fully practice the specialty occupation and be immediately engaged in that specialty in the 
state of intended employment." Again, the record contains no evidence for our consideration under 
this requirement. 
That leaves the regulation at 8 C.F.R. §214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4). This regulation is satisfied ifthe 
Petitioner demonstrates that the Beneficiary has "education, specialized training, and/or 
progressively responsible experience that is equivalent to completion of a United States 
baccalaureate or higher degree in the specialty occupation, and have recognition of expertise in the 
specialty through progressively responsible positions directly related to the specialty." In order to 
satisfy this requirement, one or more of the five provisions contained at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(l)-(5) must be met. 
The first provision is satisfied if the record contains an evaluation of the Beneficiary's credentials 
from an official who has authority to grant college-level credit for training and/or experience in the 
specialty at an accredited college or university which has a program for granting such credit based 
on an individual's training and/or work experience. While the record contains the three evaluations 
discussed above, the record contains no evidence (1) that any of the evaluators have the authority to 
grant college-level credit for training and/or experience in the specialty at an accredited college or 
university or (2) that any of the evaluators work at an institution that has such a program for 
awarding such credit.14 Again, a petitioner's unsupported statements are of very limited weight and 
normally will be insufficient to carry its burden of proof. Sc~ffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
The second provision is satisfied if the record contains "[t]he results of recognized college-level 
equivalency examinations or special credit programs, such as the College Level Examination 
Program (CLEP), or Program on Noncollegiate Sponsored Instruction (PONSI)." The record 
contains no evidence for our consideration under this prong. 
The third provision is satisfied if the record contains "[a]n evaluation of education by a reliable 
credentials evaluation service which specializes in evaluating foreign educational credentials." 
However, as noted, under 8.C.F.R. 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(3), we accept a credential evaluation service's 
evaluation of education only, not training and/or work experience. 
14 
In this regard, we note that granting admission into a program is not the same thing as awarding college-level credit. 
16 
Matter of C-T-, Inc. 
The fourth provision is satisfied if the record contains "[ e ]vidence .of certification or registration 
from a nationally-recognized professional association or society for the specialty that is known to 
grant certification or registration to persons in the occupational specialty who have achieved a 
certain level of competence in the specialty." As above, the record contains no evidence for our 
consideration under this prong. 
That leaves the fifth provision - a "determination by [USCIS] that the equivalent of the degree 
required by the specialty occupation has been acquired through a combination of education, 
specialized training, and/or work experience in areas related to the specialty and that the alien has 
achiev~d recognition of expertise in the specialty occupation as a result of such training and 
experience." While the record contains some information regarding the Beneficiary's work history, 
that evidence does· not establish that this work experience included the theoretical and practical 
application of specialized knowledge required by the proffered position; that it was gained while 
working with peers, supervisors, or subordinates who held a bachelor's degree or its equivalent in 
the field; and that the Beneficiary achieved recognition of his expertise in the field as evidenced by 
at least one of the five types of documentation delineated in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5)(i)-(v). 
The Petitioner therefore has not satisfied the fifth provision. 
For all of these reasons, the evidence of record does not establish that the Beneficiary is qualified to 
perform the duties of a specialty occupation. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established: (1) that the proffered position is a specialty occupation; or (2) that 
the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofC-T-, Inc., ID# 99529 (AAO Feb. 14, 2017) 
17