dismissed H-1B Case: Accounting

MATTER OF H-R-D- LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 26,2016 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a motel, seeks to extend the Beneficiary's temporary employment as an "accountant" 
under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). The H-IB 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 has not demonstrated that: ( 1) the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation; 
and (2) the Petitioner is paying the Beneficiary at least the prevailing wage. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and copies of 
previously submitted evidence, and asserts that the Director erred in her decision. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. IMPROPER FILING OF PETITION 
As a preliminary matter, even if the Petitioner were to overcome the grounds for the Director's 
denial of the petition (which it has not), it could not be found eligible for the benefit sought. That is, 
upon review of the record, we find that another issue, not addressed by the Director, precludes the 
approval of the H-1B petition. As will be explained below, the Form 1-129, Petition for a 
Nonimmigrant Worker, was not properly signed by the Petitioner. More specifically, the Petitioner 
did not certify that it would be liable for the reasonable costs of return transportation if the 
Beneficiary is dismissed from its employment prior to the period of authorized stay. 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(a)(l) states, in pertinent part, the following: 
Every benefit request or other document submitted to DHS must be executed and 
filed in accordance with the form instructions, notwithstanding· any provision of 
Matter of H-R-D- LLC 
8 CFR chapter 1 to the contrary, and such instructions are incorporated into the 
regulations requiring its submission. 
The instructions for Form I-129 state that the petition must be properly signed. The instructions 
further indicate that a petition that is not properly signed will be rejected. Moreover, according to 
the instructions, a petitioner that fails to completely fill out the form will not establish eligibility for 
the benefit sought and the petition may be denied. 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(a)(2), which concerns the requirement of a signature on 
applications and petitions, states the following: 
An applicant or petitioner must sign his or her benefit request. . . . By signing the 
benefit request, the applicant or petitioner ... certifies under penalty of perjury that 
the benefit request, and all evidence submitted with it, either at the time of filing or 
thereafter, is true and correct. Unless otherwise specified in this chapter, an 
acceptable signature on a benefit request that is being filed with the [U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS)] is one that is either handwritten or, for benefit 
requests filed electronically as permitted by the instructions to the form, in electronic 
format. 
Pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(a)(7)(i) and (iii), an application or petition which is not properly signed 
shall be rejected as improperly filed, and will not retain a filing date. 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(l) provides, in pertinent part, the following: 
An applicant or petitioner must establish that he or she is eligible for the requested 
benefit at the time of filing the benefit request and must continue to be eligible 
through adjudication. Each benefit request must be properly completed and filed with 
all initial evidence required by applicable regulations and other USCIS instructions. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of establishing eligibility for the benefit sought. A petitioner must 
establish that it is eligible for the requested benefit at the time of filing the petition. All required 
petition forms must be properly completed and filed with any initial evidence required by applicable 
regulations and the form instructions. See 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(1). 
In the instant case, the Petitioner did not comply with the signature requirement. More specifically, 
the Form I-129 (page 14) contains a signature block that is devoid of any signature from the 
petitioning employer. This section ofthe form reads as follows: 
As an authorized official of the employer, I certify that the employer will be liable for 
the reasonable costs of return transportation of the alien abroad if the alien is 
dismissed from employment by the employer before the end of the period of 
authorized stay. 
2 
Matter of H-R-D- LLC 
By failing to sign this signature block of t~e Form I -129, the Petitioner did not attest that it will 
comply with§ 214(c)(5) ofthe Act, which states the following: 
In the case of an alien who is provided nonimmigrant status under section 
101 ( a)(15)(H)(i)(b) or 101 ( a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) and who is dismissed from employment 
by the employer beforerthe end of the period of authorized admission, the employer 
shall be liable for the reasonable costs of return transportation of the alien abroad. 
The regulation at 8 CFR § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(E) further states, in pertinent part, the following: 
The employer will be liable for the reasonable costs of return transportation of the 
alien abroad if the alien is dismissed from employment by the employer before the 
end of the period of authorized admission pursuant to section 214(c)(5) of the 
Act. ... Within the context of this paragraph, the term "abroad" refers to the alien's 
last place of foreign residence. This provision applies to any employer whose offer of 
employment became the basis for an alien obtaining or continuing H-1B status. 
Thus, the petition has not been properly filed because the petitioning employer did not sign the 
signature block certifying that it would be liable for the reasonable costs of return transportation if 
the beneficiary is dismissed from its employment prior to the period of authorized stay. Pursuant to 
8 C.P.R. § 103.2(a)(7)(i), an application or petition which is not properly signed shall be rejected as 
improperly filed, and no receipt date can be assigned to an improperly filed petition. While the 
Service Center did not reject the petition, we are not bound by service center decisions. La. 
Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 44 F. Supp. 2d 800, 803 (E.D. La. 1999). The integrity of the 
immigration process depends on the employer signing the official immigration forms. We conduct 
appellate review on a de novo basis, and it was in the exercise of this function that we identified this 
additional ground for dismissing the petition. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 145. Thus, for this 
reason as well, the petition may not be approved. 
The appeal must be dismissed, thus rendering the remammg issues in this proceeding 
moot. Accordingly, we do not need to examine the Director's bases for denial of the 
petition. However, we note that, in any event, we reviewed the record of proceedings and, based 
upon that review, hereby endorse the Director's decision. That is, we agree with the Director's 
findings that: (1) the Petitioner did not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation; and (2) the Petitioner is n?t paying the Beneficiary at least the prevailing wage. 
II. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
A. Legal Framework 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
3 
Matter of H-R-D- LLC 
(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; 
(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). 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 
§Pecific 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). 
To determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCIS does not simply 
rely on a position's title. The specific duties of the proffered position, combined with the nature of 
the petitioning entity's business operations, are factors to be considered. USCIS must examine the 
ultimate employment offered to the beneficiary, and determine whether the position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. See id. The critical element is not the title of the position nor an employer's 
self-imposed standards, but whether the position actually requires the theoretical and practical 
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment of a baccalaureate or 
higher degree in the specific specialty as the minimum for entry into the occupation, as required by 
the Act. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of H-R-D- LLC 
B. Proffered Position 
The Petitioner indicated on the Form I-129 that it is a IS-employee hospitality business established 
in 1999. In its initial letter of support, the Petitioner explained that it does business as 
and "offers attractive room accommodations and great service all year long." The 
Petitioner stated that its facility "is equipped with 118 newly renovated guest rooms, 10 Executive 
Suites with a large work area and Modem facilities such as an outdoor heated pool, and a 
Conference room which seats up to 400 people." The Petitioner further stated that it continues to 
need the services of the Beneficiary, who has worked for the Petitioner in H-IB status since 
September 2003, to perform the following job duties in her proffered "accountant" position 
(verbatim): 
The assigned duties in this position requires her 
to maintain accounting records of our 
operations, advises the costs of each projects to the management for decisions 
making. The incumbent is required to suggest ways to finance the budget for them by 
leasing equipment or funding from banks. She is responsible for analyzing our 
operation costs, maintenance cost of each property, depreciation, rental income etc. 
and estimating the revenues and possible expenses for each projects or management 
of property and ensure that we have sufficient cash-flow at all times. To have control 
over the expenses she will prepare the cost analysis and maintain budgeting systems. 
She will be responsible to train the employees for maximum utilization of available 
resources, room facilities by using computer programming. Her duties also include 
advising the management on efficient use of funds and cost of borrowing by selecting 
the right source of funding the projects. 
In lay terms, [the Beneficiary] is responsible for all aspects of accounting and 
financial control of the company including preparation of all federal, state and local 
tax returns, payroll returns, preparation of all financial statements including sales, 
profit and loss statements, accounts payable and accounts receivable. She also 
advises the company of the tax consequences of its transactions, implement a 
computerized accounting system control the company's accounting and financial 
data, introduces methods of financial control. Additionally, she is responsible for 
conducting internal audits of the company and for the introduction of systems to 
control costs and eliminate fraud. [The Beneficiary] reports to the President of the 
company concerning the financial out-look and current position of the company and . 
prepares for management reports based on financial statement analysis and cost 
analysis. Additionally, beneficiary assists the company in long-term financial 
planning by computerized projection by preparing gross income, net income and 
expense statements. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided the following list of 
job duties for the Beneficiary (verbatim):· 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of H-R-D- LLC 
• Applies principles of accounting to analyze financial information 
• Prepare financial reports 
• Compiles and analyze financial information. 
• Prepare Balance sheet, profit and loss statement 
• Summarize company financial position 
• Establish 
design and coordinate implementation of accounting control procedures. 
• Devise and implement 'computer-based system for general accounting from 
manual system 
• Monitor flow of cash on a seasonal nature of oversee all financial documents for 
mortgages, loans, business leases, contracts with occupancy fill up companies 
such as and etc. 
• Monitor extension of credit 
• Complying with tax and regulatory requirement 
• Raise capital from private sources and banks 
• Communicate with all shareholder/owners 
• Help owners to develop financial and economic policy 
• Help owners to decide to buy/lease other properties to operate or develop. 
• Communicate with banks, lessor/lessee, and our tax preparer (C.P.A.) etc. 
• Help the management to minimize risk or losses on various projects 
The Petitioner also provided another list of the Beneficiary's job duties, as well as the percentage of 
time devoted to each duty as follows (verbatim): 
• Supervise and direct the flow of cash receipts and disbursements to meet the 
business and investment needs of the company. (10%) 
• Prepare financial reports summarize and forecast company's financial position, 
such as income statements, balance sheets, and analysis of future earnings or 
expenses. (45%) 
• Evaluate financial details for new businesses before making financial dec,isions. 
(10%) 
• Compile and analyze financial information to prepare entries to accounts, such as 
general ledger accounts, documenting business transactions. (5%) 
• Analyze financial information detailing assets, liabilities, and capital, and prepare 
balance sheet, profit and loss statement, and other reports to summarize current 
and projected company financial position, using computers. (10%) 
• Audit contracts, orders, and vouchers, and prepares reports to substantiate 
individual transactions prior to settlement. (5%) 
• Establish, modify, document, and coordinate implementation of accounting 
control procedures. ( 1 0%) 
• Supports and enhances the ongoing audit process and management of business 
unit for both profitability and operational improvements. ( 5%) 
6 
Matter of H-R-D- LLC 
According to the Petitioner, the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree in accounting or a 
related field, or the equivalent. 
C. Analysis 
Upon review of the record, we find that the Petitioner has provided insufficient and inconsistent 
descriptions of the proffered position and its constituent job duties, which subsequently precludes us 
from finding that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
To ascertain the intent of a petitioner, USCIS must look to the Form 1-129 and the documents filed 
in support of the petition. It is only in this manner that the agency can determine the exact position 
offered, the location of employment, the proffered wage, and other salient aspect of the proposed 
employment. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(9)(i), the director has the responsibility to consider all 
of the evidence submitted by a petitioner and such other evidence that he or she may independently 
require to assist his or her adjudication. Further, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iv) 
provides that "[a]n H-lB petition involving a specialty occupation shall be accompanied by 
[ d]ocumentation ... or any other required evidence sufficient to establish ... that the services the 
beneficiary is to perform are in a specialty occupation." 
Thus, a crucial aspect of this matter is whether the petitioner has adequately described the duties of 
the proffered position, such that USCIS may discern the nature of the position and whether the 
position indeed requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge attained through attainment of at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific discipline. 
The Petitioner has not done so here. 
Here, for instance, although the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary has been and will continue to 
perform the duties of an "accountant," we find that several of her job duties are bookkeeping duties. 1 
According to the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) and the Occupational Outlook 
Handbook (Handbook) - both of which we consider as authoritative sources on the duties of the wide 
variety of occupations that they aqdress - bookkeepers compile and produce routine financial reports 
such as balance sheets, accounts payable and receivable, profit and loss, and expenditures. More 
specifically, O*NET lists the core duties of bookkeepers, accounting, and auditing clerks as including 
"[ c ]ompile statistical, financial, accounting, or auditing reports and tables pertaining to such matters as 
cash receipts, expenditures, accounts payable and receivable, and profits and losses."2 Likewise, the 
Handbook states that bookkeeping, accounting, and auditing clerks perform duties such as "[p ]roduce 
1 The Labor Condition Application (LCA) submitted to support the visa petition states that the proffered position is an 
"accountant" under the "Accountants and Auditors" occupational classification, corresponding to Standard Occupational 
Classification (SOC) code 13-2011. The bookkeeper duties we reference correspond to SOC code and title 43-3031, 
"Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks." 
2 O*NET Details Report for "Bookkeepers, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks," 
http:/ /www.onetonline.org/link/details/43-3031.00 (last visited Oct. 25, 20 16). 
Matter of H-R-D- LLC 
reports, such as balance sheets (costs. com bared with income), income statements, and totals by 
account" and "[r]econcile or note and report any differences they find in the records."3 Specific to 
bookkeeping clerks or bookkeepers, the Handbook states that they "are responsible for some or all of 
an organization's accounts, known as the general ledger," "record all transactions and post debits 
(costs) and credits (income)," and "produce financial statements and other reports for supervisors 
and managers."4 
Several of the Petitioner's descriptions of the proffered duties directly correspond with a 
bookkeeper's typical duties, as described in both O*NET and the Handbook. For example, the 
Petitioner specifically stated in its initial support letter that the Beneficiary's duties include 
"preparation of all financial statements including sales, profit and loss statements, accounts payable 
and accounts receivable." The Petitioner also stated in the same letter that the Beneficiary "will be 
maintaining the accounting records for our business," which includes "[a]ccounts receivable and 
payable [which she] will have to maintain daily." In response to the RFE, the Petitioner indicated 
that these duties involving preparing financial reports comprise a significant percentage of the 
Beneficiary's time. Based on the Petitioner's own stated job duties, we are not persuaded that the 
Beneficiary is "not engaged [in] providing services such as bookkeeping, maintenance of records or 
other clerical functions, for which bachelor degrees are not required."5 
On its face, some of the stated duties appear to be accountant duties properly falling under the 
"Accountants and Auditors" occupational classification.6 However, we have reason to question 
3 U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 Edition, "Bookkeeping, 
Accounting, and Auditing Clerks," http://www.bls.gov/ooh/office-and-administrative-support/print/bookkeeping­
accounting-and-auditing-clerks.htm (last visited Oct. 25, 20 16). 
4 Jd. 
5 The Petitioner relies on information about the "Accountants" occupational category as found in the Dictionary of 
Occupational Titles (DOT). DOT states, in pertinent part, that an accountant "prepares balance sheet, profit and loss 
statement, and other reports." This differs significantly from O*NET and the Handbook, both of which indicate that 
bookkeepers perform these same duties. 
To the extent that this and any other information found in the DOT differs from O*NET and the Handbook, we defer to 
the O*NET and the Handbook as authoritative sources. O*NET and the Handbook are sponsored or published by the 
Department of Labor (DOL) and updated regularly, whereas DOT' (fourth edition) was last revised in 1986. For more 
information about DOT, see the Dictionary of Occupational Titles Introduction, 
http://www.occupationalinfo.org/front_148.html (last visited Oct. 25, 2016). 
6 The Petitioner describes some of the proffered duties in substantially the same general terms as those found in DOT for 
the "Accountants" occupation. For example, the proffered job duties of "[a]pplies principles of accounting to analyze 
financial infonnation,'" "[c]ompiles and analyzes financial information to prepare entries to accounts, such as general 
ledger accounts, documenting business transactions," and "[d]evise and implement computer-based system for general 
accounting from manual system" are identical or almost identical to those found in DOT, a copy of which the Petitioner 
provided in support of the instant petition. 
We note that this type of generalized description is insufficient to adequately convey the substantive work that the 
Beneficiary will perform within the Petitioner's business operations. Nevertheless, as we question whether the 
Beneficiary will actually be performing these stated job duties, we will not further discuss the deficiencies of providing 
generalized and non-specific job descriptions. 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter of H-R-D- LLC 
whether the Beneficiary will actually perform these claimed accountant duties. 
In particular, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's duties will include "preparation of all 
federal, state and local tax returns." However, the Petitioner then submitted a letter from its certified 
public accountant, ~ttesting that since 2006 to present, he is "still responsible for 
preparing and filing the [Petitioner's] business returns." The Petitioner's 2014 IRS Forms 940, 
Employer's Annual Federal Unemployment (FUTA) Tax Return, and Forms 941, Employer's 
Quarterly Federal Tax Return, are all marked as a "client copy," thus also demonstrating that the 
Petitioner utilizes an outside tax preparer. The Petitioner has not sufficiently explained why it has 
utilized and will continue to utilize an outside accounting service to prepare its tax returns while the 
Petitioner also claims to have employed the Beneficiary since 2003 as an "accountant" to perform 
duties specifically including preparing the company's tax returns. We note that, on the Form I-129, 
the Petitioner marked that this extension petition is for "[ c ]ontinuation of previously approved 
employment without change with the same employer." 
We highlight the contents of 
aspects: 
letter in its entirety, as it is revealing in several other 
I am the tax accountant for [the Petitioner] since 2006 and state that during the period 
2006 thru and until 2011; I was not only handling the 
tax returns but also their Book 
keeping, write up and all other accounting matters. This involved all the business 
aspects like account payables, accounts receivable, general ledger, etc[.] 
Since 2012 on account of our internal changes, I stopped handling their accounting 
work and recommended to have their own full time employee to handle the books of 
accounts. Based on information available to me, they have hired [the Beneficiary] to 
do all their accounting work. I am still responsible for preparing and filing the 
business returns. 
Any questions regarding the above shall be directed to my attention[.] 
letter is also revealing in that it confirms the Beneficiary's duties of preparing the 
general ledger and routine financial reports (e.g., balance sheets, profit and loss statements, accounts 
payable and receivable) as bookkeeping duties. Consistent with the information found in O*NET 
and the Handbook, letter states that he performed "Book keeping" duties including "all 
the business aspects like account payables, accounts receivable, general ledger, etc[.]" Thus, despite 
the Petitioner's use of the title "accountant" to describe the proffered position, we find that several of 
the proffered duties are more appropriate for a bookkeeper position than an accountant position. As 
previously stated, USCIS does not simply rely on a position's title to determine the nature of a 
proffered position~ 
Further, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary has served in the proffered "accountant" position 
since 2003. But states that he has been "handling [the Petitioner's] accounting work" from 
9 
Matter of H-R-D- LLC 
2006 to 2012, when the Petitioner purportedly "hired [the Beneficiary] to do all their accounting 
work." The Petitioner similarly stated in its initial support letter that "[the Beneficiary] is working 
with us as Accountant since May 2012 (> 3 years). Prior to that our C.P.A.'s accounting firm were 
working on our financial matters as Accountant [sic]." We thus must question what actual duties the 
Beneficiary has been performing for the Petitioner since 2003, when she started working for the 
Petitioner in H-1B status as an "accountant." We again note the Petitioner's representation on the 
Form I-129 that the instant extension petition is for "[c]ontinuation of previously approved 
employment without change with the same employer." 
The questionable nature of the Beneficiary's past duties gives us additional reason to question 
whether the Beneficiary will actually perform accountant duties consistent with the "Accountants 
and Auditors" occupational classification selected here. 7 "[I]t is incumbent upon the petitioner to 
resolve the inconsistencies by independent objective evidence." Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 
591 (BIA 1988). "Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a 
reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the 
visa petition." !d. 
We also musr question what duties the Beneficiary will actually be performing when we consider the 
unclear scope and nature of the Petitioner's business operations. In this matter, the Petitioner has 
demonstrated that it employs 15 to 22 employees to run its entire motel operations. But the 
Petitioner has not identified and documented which of its employees, if any, perform the 
bookkeeping and other related non-qualifying duties to relieve the Beneficiary from performing such 
duties. "[G]oing on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes 
of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings." Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 
(Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter ofTreasure Craft of Cal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
Contrary to the Petitioner's assertions that its size and scope are "irrelevant," it is reasonable to 
assume that these factors have an impact on the claimed duties of a particular position. See EG 
Enters., Inc. v. Dep 't of Homeland Sec., 467 F. Supp. 2d 728 (E.D. Mich. 2006). The size and scope 
of a petitioner may reasonably be considered as a component of the nature of the petitioner's 
business, as the size and scope impact upon the actual duties of a particular position. Here, the 
Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary has been and will only be performing qualifying accounting 
duties, and will not perform non-qualifying bookkeeping or other "clerical functions. "8 Yet the 
record lacks sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Petitioner's organization can support the 
7 There is no provision in the law for specialty occupations that permits the performance of non-qualifying (i.e., 
bookkeeping) duties. Where a petitioner seeks to employ a beneficiary in two distinct occupations, the petitioner should 
file two separate petitions, requesting concurrent, part-time employment for each occupation. While it is not the case 
here, if a petitioner does not file two separate petitions and if only one aspect of a combined position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation, USCIS would be required to deny the entire petition as the pertinent regulations do not permit the 
partial approval of only a portion of a proffered position and/or the limiting of the approval of a petition to perform only 
certain duties. See generally 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h). 
8 The Petitioner expressly acknowledges that bookkeeping duties do not require at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty. 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter of H-R-D- LLC 
Beneficiary in this capacity, i.e., to perform only qualifying accounting duties. For instance, the 
Petitioner's business plan only identifies the Petitioner's two owners as its "management team," and 
one other employee as its general manager. It does not, however, identify the titles, job duties, or 
roles within the organizational hierarchy of all its other employees. The record thus lacks probative 
evidence that the Petitioner employs other individuals who perform the bookkeeping and other 
related routine tasks necessary to the operation of the Petitioner's business, in order to relieve the 
Beneficiary of such duties. Collectively, this brings into question how much of the Beneficiary's 
time can actually be devoted to accounting duties. 
,f'i.rrthermore, the ~etitioner has not consistently described its business operations and the 
Beneficiary's exact role within its operations. The Petitioner initially described itself as a 
"hospitality" company doing business as The Petitioner's initial support 
letter, website print-outs, business plan, and other documentation submitted with the petition all 
reflect that the Petitioner's operations are limited to the operation of a motel offering, at most, a 
conference room and free continental breakfast onsite.9 The Petitioner's initial job descriptions 
likewise indicate that the Beneficiary will only work within the context of the Petitioner's motel 
operations. 
But in response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner claimed that its operations encompass a "motel 
business and in house restaurant." The Petitioner's RFE expanded upon the proffered duties as 
encompassing "accurate budgeting and forecasting systems to aid discounting decisions with respect 
to room rates and restaurant menu prices," and similarly, "[a]ccurate restaurant forecasting." The 
Petitioner also highlighted "[t]he absolute perishability of rooms, conference and banquet facilities 
and the relative perishability of food." The Petitioner additionally submitted a leaflet for an Indian 
restaurant, as well as the profit and loss statement for the same restaurant (which is 
located next to the Petitioner's motel) with its RFE response. Yet the Petitioner has not explained its 
evolving descriptions regarding its business operations and the proffered position.10 Again, "it is 
9 The Petitioner's initial support letter stated that "[i]n addition to ownership and maintenance of we eye upon 
various properties at prime locations to buy or construct them ." However , this letter makes no explicit reference to 
or any other restaurant as part of the Petitioner's existing operations. 
We will only consider the Petitioner's operations as they existed at the time of filing. USCIS regulations affirmatively 
require a petitioner to establish eligibility for the benefit it is seeking at the time the petition is filed. 8 C.F.R. 
103.2(b)(l). A visa petition may not be approved based on speculation of future eligibility or after the Petitioner or 
Beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg' I 
Comm'r 1978). ' 
10 In response to an RFE or thereafter, the Petitioner cannot offer a new position to the Beneficiary, or materially change 
a position's title, its level of authority within the organizational hierarchy, the associated job responsibilities, or the 
requirements of the position . Again, the Petitioner must establish that the position offered to the Beneficiary when the 
petition was 
filed merits classification for the benefit sought. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l) ; Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 
l&N Dec. at 249. A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition 
conform to USCIS requirements . See Matter oflzummi , 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc . Comm'r 1998). 
II 
(b)(6)
Matter of H-R-D- LLC 
incumbent upon the. petitioner to resolve the inconsistencies by independent objective evidence." 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. 
Moreover, the Petitioner has not submitted objective, reliable evidence to corroborate its claim that 
its operations also include the operation of a restaurant and banquet facilities. Again, while the 
Petitioner submitted evidence that is located next to its motel, the Petitioner has not 
submitted reliable evidence that it owns and operates this restaurant as well. The lack of an 
explanation and corroboniting evidence reconciling the Petitioner's claimed operations is significant, 
in that the P,etitioner's RFE response highlights both the motel and restaurant operations to 
demonstrate the level of knowledge required to perform the proffered duties. 
Overall, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient and consistent details regarding the nature and 
I 
scope of the Beneficiary's employment. Without a meaningful job description, the record lacks 
evidence sufficiently concrete and informative to demonstrate that the proffered position requires a 
specialty occupation's level of knowledge in a specific specialty.' The tasks as described do not 
sufficiently communicate (1) the actual work that the Beneficiary will perform; (2) the complexity, 
uniqueness and/or specialization of ·the tasks; and/or (3) the correlation between that work and a 
need for a particular level education of highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. 
The Petitioner thus has not established the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the 
Beneficiary, which therefore precludes a finding that the proffered position satisfies any criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), because it is the substantive nature of that work that determines (I) 
the normal minimum educational requirement for entry into the particular position, which is the 
focus of criterion 1; (2) industry positions which are parallel to the proffered position and thus 
appropriate for review for a common degree requirement, under the first alternate prong of criterion 
2; (3) the level of complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position, which is the focus of the 
second alternate prong of criterion 2; ( 4) the factual justification for a petitioner normally requiring a 
degree or its equivalent, when that is an issue under criterion 3; and (5) the degree of specialization 
and complexity of the specific duties, which is the focus of criterion 4. We therefore find the 
evidence of record insufficient to demonstrate that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. 
We realize that this is an extension petition. However, we an~ not required to approve petitions 
where eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been 
erroneous. See Matter of Church Scientology Int 'l, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). If any of 
the previous nonimmigrant petitions were approved based on the same conflicting and unsupported 
assertions that are contained in the current record, they would constitute material and gross error on 
the part of the Director. 
III. PAYMENT OF PROPER WAGE 
' 
Because the Petitioner has not demonstrated the substantive nature of the proffered position, we 
cannot reach a conclusion regarding whether the Petitioner is paying the Beneficiary a wage equal to 
12 
(b)(6)
Matter of H-R-D- LLC 
l 
or greater than that required by law. Section 212(n)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(n)(l)(A), 
states that the Petitioner must offer wages that are at least "the actual wage level paid by the 
employer to all other individuals with similar experience and qualifications for the specific 
employment in question" or "the prevailing wage level for the occupational classification in 
the area 
of employment, whichever is greater." 
But even if the Petitioner were able to demonstrate that the proffered position is properly classified 
under the "Accountants and Auditors" occupational classification corresponding to SOC code 13-
2011 (which it has not demonstrated), then we would agree with the Director that the record is 
insufficient to establish that the Petitioner is paying the Beneficiary at least the prevailing wage for 
positions within this occupational classification. 
According to the Form I -129, the Petitioner represented that it will pay the Beneficiary $22 per hour. 
On the LCA submitted to support this petition, the Petitioner attested that it will pay the Beneficiary 
the relevant prevailing wage for a Level II position under the "Accountants and Auditors" 
occupational classification, which is $21.45 per hour. 11 The Petitioner's prior LCA for the 
Beneficiary (for the period April 14, 2012, to April 13, 2015) attested that the Beneficiary will 
receive the prevailing wage of $20.80 per hour. The Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary has 
and will continue to work full-time at 35 hours per week. 
However, the Petitioner's bi-weekly earnings 
statements to the Beneficiary specifically state her rate 
of pay as $18.27 per hour for 80 hours of work ( 40 hours per week). These statements range from 
August to November of 2014, at a time when the Petitioner was purportedly paying the Beneficiary 
the prevailing wage of $20.80 per week. The Petitioner's earnings statements thus directly 
undermine the Petitioner's assertions that it has been paying the Beneficiary the required prevailing 
wage of $20.80 per hour for 35 hours of full-time work per week. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that "W -2 and tax returns are government regulated legally binding 
documents. They carry more weightage than a pay-slip which is a[ n] internal document, less reliable 
and subject to error." We are not persuaded by the Petitioner's assertions. That is because W-2 
statements and tax returns do not show the number of hours an employee worked per pay period, and 
accordingly, do not accurately reflect an employee's hourly rate of pay. Consequently, even though 
the Beneficiary's total yearly wages (as reflected by her tax returns and W-2 forms) are equal to the 
amount she should have received if she were paid the prevailing wage for 35 hours of work, her 
earnings statements nevertheless reflect that she was paid a lower hourly rate of pay for more hours 
worked per week. 
11 For more information regarding wages for "Accountants and Auditors," SOC code 13-20 II, in the Northeastern 
Pennsylvania nonmetropolitan area for the period 7/2014- 6/2015, see the Foreign Labor Certification Data Center 
Online Wage Library, http://www. tlcdatacenter.com /OesQuickResults.aspx?code= 13-
201l&area~ &year=l5&source=l (last visited Oct. 25, 2016). 
13 
Matter of H-R-D- LLC 
While the Petitioner implies that its internal pay slips or earnings statements are inaccurate, the 
Petitioner does not submit additional objective evidence corroborating its assertions regarding the 
claimed inaccuracies. More specifically, the Petitioner does not submit objective evidence 
demonstrating the Beneficiary's and other employees' full-time hours, i.e., whether she and other 
full-time employees work 35 or 40 hours per week. See 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(c)(7) (stating that a 
full-time week is considered to be "40 hours or such other number of hours as the employer can 
demonstrate to be full-time employment for hourly employees"). Again, "going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in 
these proceedings." Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
Therefore, even if the Petitioner were to overcome the Director's other ground for denial, the 
petition still could not be approved because the Petitioner has not demoqstrated that it is paying the 
Beneficiary a wage that is equal to or greater than the prevailing wage. Section 212(n)(l )(A) of the 
Act. ~ 
IV. CONCLUSION 
j 
We may deny an application or petition that does not comply with the technical requirements of the 
law even if the Director does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enters., Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001). 
Moreover, when we deny a petition on multiple alternative grounds, a plaintiff can succeed on a 
challenge only if it shows that we abused our discretion with respect to all of the enumerated 
grounds. See Spencer Enters., Inc. v. Unit~d States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1037; see also_ BDPCS, Inc. 
v. FCC, 351 F.3d 1177, 1183 (D.C. Cir. 2003) ("When an agency offers multiple grounds for a 
decision, we will affirm the agency so long as any one of the grounds is valid, unless it is 
demonstrated that the agency would' not have acted on that basis if the alternative grounds were 
unavailable."). 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each 
considered as an independent and alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is 
the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofH-R-D- LLC, ID# 12070 (AAO Oct. 26, 2016) 
14