dismissed H-1B Case: Automotive Repair

(b)(6)
DATE: 
IN RE: 
MAR 2 0 2015 OFFI CE: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave .. N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)( 15)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immig ration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish 
agency policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or 
policy to your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider 
or a motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form 
l-290B) within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
lVDN-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director (hereinafter "director") denied the nonimmigrant visa 
petition, and the matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will 
be dismissed. The petition will be denied. 
I. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND 
On the Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129), the petitioner states that it has four 
employees and was established in: . On the Labor Condition Application (LCA) submitted with 
the petition, the petitioner designated its business operations under the North American Industry 
Classification System (NAICS) code 81111. 1 This NAICS code is designated for "Automotive 
Mechanical and Electrical Repair and Maintenance." The U.S. Department of Commerce, Census 
Bureau website describes this NAICS code by stating the following: 
This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing mechanical 
or electrical repair and maintenance services for automotive vehicles, such as 
passenger cars, trucks, and vans, and all trailers. These establishments may specialize 
in a single service or may provide a wide range of these services. 
U.S. Dep't of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, 2 012 NAICS Definition, 81 111 - Automotive 
Mechanical and Electrical Repair and Maintenance, http://www .census.gov/cgi­
bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch (last visited Mar. 11, 2015). In order to employ the beneficiary in what it 
designates as an "Engineering Management" position,2 the petitioner seeks to classify him as a 
1 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) is used 
to classifY business establishments according to type of economic activity and each establishment is 
classified to an industry according to the primary business activity taking place there. See 
http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/ (last visited Mar. ll, 20 15). 
It is noted that the petitioner designated a different NAICS code in the H-IB Data Collection and Filing Fee 
Exemption Supplement at Part A.6. The petitioner designated the code as 541330 which is the NAJCS code 
for "Engineering Services." The U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau website describes this 
NAICS code by stating the following: This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in applying 
physical laws and principles of engineering in the design, development, and utilization of machines, 
materials, instruments, structures, processes, and systems. The assignments undertaken by these 
establishments may involve any of the following activities: provision of advice, preparation of feasibility 
studies, preparation of preliminary and final plans and designs, provision of technical services during the 
construction or installation phase, inspection and evaluation of engineering projects, and related services. 
It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective 
evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner 
submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591-
92 (BIA 1988). 
2 On the other hand, the petitioner states that the "Job Title" is "Mechanical Engineer" on the LCA. Again, it 
is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to establish that it would employ 
the beneficiary in a specialty occupation position. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director's 
basis for denial was erroneous and contends that the petitioner satisfied all evidentiary requirements. 
The LCA submitted to support the visa petition states that the proffered position is a "Mechanical 
Engineer" position, and that it corresponds to Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code and 
title 17-3027, Mechanical Engineering Technicians, from the Occupational Information Network 
(O*NET). The LCA further states that the proffered position is a Level I, entry-level, position. 
With the visa petition, counsel submitted evidence that the beneficiary has a high school diploma, 
evidence pertinent to the beneficiary's employment history, and evidence pertinent to training the 
beneficiary has received. A credential evaluation in the record states that the beneficiary's education 
and experience, considered together, are equivalent to a ''Bachelor's Degree of Engineering 
Management and Leadership." 
The evidence pertinent to the beneficiary's employment history shows that he has extensive 
experience in maintenance and repair of engines and managing mechanics. 
On February 13, 2014, the service center issued an RFE in this matter. The service center requested, 
inter alia, evidence that the petitioner would employ the beneficiary in a specialty occupation. The 
service center provided a non-exhaustive list of items that might be used to satisfy the specialty 
occupation requirements. 
In response, the petitioner submitted: (1) a print-out of an article from the 
website pertinent to the requirements of Auto Shop Manager positions; (2) a letter, dated March 7, 
2014, on the petitioner's letterhead signed by and (3) counsel's own letter, dated 
April 23, 2014. 
The diplomaguide.com article about the requirements of Auto Shop Manager positions states, inter 
alia: "At least ten years of experience as a mechanic or a combination of education and experience 
is required. An associate's degree in Automotive Repair or a related field is preferred." 
We note that March 7, 2014 letter does not specify Mr. , _ position in the 
petitioner's operation. Mr. states that the beneficiary would be involved in motorcycles, 
automobiles, buses, and trucks "with special emphasis on the building and rebuilding of [their] 
engines." He states the following as the duties of the proffered position: 
evidence. Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the 
reliability and sufficiency of the remain ing evidence offered in support of the visa petition. !d. 
(b)(6)
Page4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECIS/01\ 
• Decide on the most appropriate materials for component production; 
• Apply mechanical, thermodynamic, pneumatic, hydraulic and electrical principles 
to resolve engineering problems and find appropriate solutions; 
• Build and rebuild prototypes of components, develop test procedures and 
conducting tests using software packages and physical testing methods; 
• researching, designing and developing machinery and systems for automobiles; 
• preparing material, cost and timing estimates, reports and design specifications; 
• studying the energy, environmental and safety aspects of the planned work; 
• supervising and inspecting the installation, modification and commissioning of 
mechanical systems in industrial facilities or plants; 
• investigating mechanical failures or unexpected maintenance problems; 
• Supervising technicians, technologists and other engineers, and reviewing and 
approving designs, calculations and cost estimates; 
• liaising with suppliers and handling supply chain management issues; 
• taking responsibility for individual projects, managing associated budgets, 
production schedules and resources (including staff), and supervising quality 
control; 
In his April 23, 2014 letter, counsel stated: 
The first inquiry centers of the fact of whether the position in the case at bar involves 
that of a specialty occupation. While it is conceded that an autobody repair business 
would not historically require a specialty occupation that is not true in this instance. 
Attached hereto as a detailed letter from the petitioner .. . indicating the exact and 
detailed nature of the case. The letter speaks for itself but in short, [the beneficiary] 
is functioning as an engineering in rebuilding engines and perfmming high level and 
sophisticated work involving the design, re-manufacturing and rebuilding of engines. 
Reference is made to exhibit A to establish this position as a specialty occupation. 
[Verbatim.] 
The director denied the petition on May 30, 2014, finding, as was noted above, that the petitioner 
had not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a position in a specialty occupation by 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
virtue of requiring a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. More 
specifically, the director found that the petitioner had satisfied none of the supplemental criteria set 
forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h )(4)(iii)(A). 
In an addendum to the Form I-290B, the petitioner stated: 
This appeal is premised upon the proposition that the USCIS erred in reaching the 
instant decision. The USCIS premised its denial upon the fact [the beneficiary] was in 
short working more akin to that of an auto mechanic rather than that of an automotive 
engineer. The evidence of record suggest the contrary decision should have been 
reached. The record of evidence established that the petitioner is engaged in automotive 
engineering. The record of evidence established that the petitioner is has automotive 
engineers as part of its business practice and further that [the beneficiary] presents a 
bachelor's degree in a specialized field with a nexus to the instant job of automotive 
engineering. The USCIS was premised upon mere speculation that the job was more 
mechanic than engineering but the entire users case was premised upon supposition 
and not upon the record. The record was quite the opposite in fact and was premised 
supposition and not upon the substantial and credible evidence of record. 
A full and complete brief will be supplemented in this instance in a timely fashion. 
[Verbatim.] 
The petitioner asserts in the brief referenced above that the evidence of record establishes that the 
beneficiary would develop and engineer new and repaired engines, and that the proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation position. 
As will be discussed below, we have determined that the director did not err in her decision to deny 
the petition on the specialty occupation issue. Accordingly, the director's decision will not be 
disturbed. The appeal will be dismissed, and the petition will be denied. 
We base our decision upon our review of the entire record of proceeding, which includes: (1) the 
petitioner's Form I-129 and the supporting documentation filed with it; (2) the service center's 
request for additional evidence (RFE); (3) the petitioner's response to the RFE; ( 4) the director's 
denial letter; and (5) the Form I-290B and counsel's submissions on appeal. 
II. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
The issue before us is whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies 
as a specialty occupation. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISIO!v 
Page 6 
A. Law 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the tenn "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) states, in pertinent part, the following: 
Specialty occupation means an occupation which [ (1)] requires theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in fields of human 
endeavor including, but not limited to, architecture, engineering, mathematics, 
physical sciences, social sciences, medicine and health, education, business 
specialties, accounting, law, theology, and the arts, and which [(2 )] requires the 
attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as 
a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, a proposed position 
must also meet one of the following criteria: 
(I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated Vv'ith the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
As a threshold issue, it is noted that 8 C.F.R. § 214. 2( h)(4)(iii)(A) must logically be read together 
with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(ii). In other words, this regulatory 
language must be construed in harmony with the thrust of the related provisions and with the statute 
as a whole. SeeK Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) (holding that construction 
of language which takes into account the design of the statute as a whole is preferred); see also 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
COlT Independence Joint Venture v. Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989); Matter 
of W-F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). As such, the criteria stated in 8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A) 
should logically be read as being necessary but not necessarily sufficient to meet the statutory and 
regulatory definition of specialty occupation. To otherwise interpret this section as stating the 
necessary and sufficient conditions for meeting the definition of specialty occupation would result 
in particular positions meeting a condition under 8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory 
or regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). To avoid this 
result, 8 C.F.R. § 214. 2( h)(4)(iii)(A) must therefore be read as providing supplemental criteria that 
must be met in accordance with, and not as alternatives to, the statutory and regulatory definitions of 
specialty occupation. 
As such and consonant with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 21 4. 2(h)(4)(ii), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) consistently interprets the 
term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii )(A) to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered position. 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''). Applying this standard, USCIS regularly approves H-lB petitions for qualified aliens 
who are to be employed as engineers, computer scientists, certified public accountants, college 
professors, and other such occupations. These professions, for which petitioners have regularly 
been able to establish a minimum entry requirement in the United States of a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
particular position, fairly represent the types of specialty occupations that Congress contemplated 
when it created the H -1 B visa category. 
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 of the alien, and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. 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. 
B. Analysis 
The evidence points to the petitioner's business as being an automobile body repair shop. In his 
April 23, 2014 letter, counsel characterized the petitioner as "an autobody repair business." That the 
petitioner also rebuilds engines suggests that it performs other types of automobile repairs, in 
addition to body work. A review of the petitioner's website supports a finding that the petitioner is, 
as claimed by counsel, an auto body repair business. 
(b)(6)
NO)V-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
The only evidence in the record that the petitioner performs any services beyond general automobile 
repairs is the description of the duties of the proffered position. The petitioner has not provided 
evidence to corroborate its claims that it has the kind of work it claims the beneficiary will perform 
such as "Apply[ing] mechanical, thermodynamic, pneumatic, hydraulic and electrical principles to 
resolve engineering problems," and "Build[ing] and rebuild[ing] prototypes of components." Also, 
there is no explanation of the following duty which indicates that the beneficiary will be working in 
an industrial facility or plant: "(S]upervising and inspecting the installation, modification and 
commissioning of mechanical systems in industrial facilities or plants." The petitioner has failed to 
demonstrate that its business has employees who perform such functions. The petitioner has also 
failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary's "[involve]ment" with "motorcycles, automobiles, buses[,] 
and trucks," "with special emphasis on the building and rebuilding of engines" for such vehicles 
involves any of those duties. Because the petitioner has not demonstrated that it has such work for 
the beneficiary to perform and that the beneficiary would, indeed, perform the duties it described, it 
has not established the substantive nature of the duties the beneficiary would actually perform if the 
visa petition were approved. 
The failure to establish the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the beneficiary 
precludes a finding that the proffered position is a specialty occupation under any criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), because it is the substantive nature of that work that determines 
(1) the normal minimum educational requirement for 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 note, further, that the LCA submitted is certified for a position categorized under SOC code and 
title 17-3027, Mechanical Engineering Technicians, from O*NET. We recognize the U.S. 
Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on 
the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 3 The 
Handbook states the following about such positions: 
What Mechanical Engineering Technicians Do 
Mechanical engineering technicians help mechanical engineers design, develop, test, 
and manufacture mechanical devices, including tools, engines, and machines. They 
may make sketches and rough layouts, record and analyze data, make calculations 
and estimates, and report their findings. 
3 The Handbook, which is avail able in printed fonn, may also be accessed on the Internet, at http: 
www.stats.b1s.gov/oco/. Our references to the Handbook are to the 2014 -2015 edition available online. 
We hereby incorporate into the record of proceeding the excerpt of the Handbook regarding the duties and 
requirements of the occupational category "Mechanical Engineering Technicians." 
(b)(6)
Page 9 
NON-PRECEDENT DECJS!Ol-.. 
Duties 
Mechanical engineering technicians typically do the following: 
• Evaluate design drawings for new or changed tools by measuring dimensions 
on the drawings and comparing them with the original specifications 
• Prepare layouts and drawings of parts to be made and of the process for 
putting them together 
• Discuss changes with coworkers-for example, in the design of the part, in 
the way it will be made and put together, and in the techniques and process 
they will use 
• Review instructions and blueprints for the project to ensure the test 
specifications and procedures are followed and objectives are met 
• Plan, produce, and assemble new or changed mechanical parts for products, 
such as industrial machinery or equipment 
• Set up and conduct tests of complete units and of parts as they would actually 
be used, as a way to investigate proposals for improving equipment 
perfom1ance 
• Record test procedures and results, numerical and graphical data, and 
recommendations for changes in products or test methods 
• Compare test results to design specifications and test objectives 
Mechanical engineering technicians also estimate labor costs, equipment life, and 
plant space. Some test and inspect machines and equipment or work with engineers 
to eliminate production problems. They may assist in testing products by, for 
example, setting up instrumentation for vehicle crash tests. 
See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., 
"Mechanical Engineering Technicians," http://www.bls. gov/ooh/architecture-and­
engineering/mechanical-engineering-technicians.htm#tab-2 (last visited Mar. 11, 2015). 
The duties that the petitioner claims the beneficiary will perform are not the duties typically 
performed by mechanical engineering technicians. The Handbook states that "[m]echanical 
engineering technicians help mechanical engineers design, develop, test, and manufacture 
mechanical devices, including tools, engines, and machines." The petitioner makes no mention of 
mechanical engineers that the beneficiary will assist and there is no evidence of the mechanical 
devices that the beneficiary will assist in designing, developing, testing, and manufacturing. Also, 
that the petitioner is an auto body repair business leaves us to question the claimed duties that the 
beneficiary will perform such as "supervising and inspecting installation, modification and 
commissioning of mechanical systems in industrial facilities or plants." Doubt cast on any aspect of 
the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 
(BIA 1988). 
In any event, the Handbook makes clear that mechanical engineering technician positions do not, as 
a category, require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent, as it 
states that an associate's degree is an acceptable educational qualification for such positions.4 
Further still, the LCA in this case was certified for a wage Level I mechanical engineering 
technician position, which indicates that it is an entry-level position for an employee who has only 
basic understanding of the occupation.5 Even if some mechanical engineering technician positions 
may require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent, a wage Level 
I mechanical engineering technician position likely would not, as such positions are at the very 
lowest level of mechanical engineering technician positions. Thus, if we were to accept the 
petitioner characterization of the proffered position as a wage Level I mechanical engineering 
technician position, we would still find that the proffered position has not been demonstrated to 
qualify as a specialty occupation position, as it would not have been shown to require a minimum of 
a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent.6 
For both reasons, the petitioner has failed to establish that the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. The appeal will be dismissed and the petition denied for this reason. 
III. BENEFICIARY QUALIFICATIONS 
We do not need to examine the issue of the beneficiary's qualifications, because the petitioner has 
not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
In other words, the beneficiary's credentials to perform a particular job are relevant only when the 
job is found to be a specialty occupation. 
As discussed in this decision, the petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence regarding the 
proffered position to determine whether it will require a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent. Absent this determination that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty or its equivalent is required to perform the duties of the proffered position, it also 
4 See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., 
"Mechanical Engineering Technicians," http://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-engineering/mechanical­
engineering-technicians.htm#tab-4 (last visited Mar. 11, 20 15). 
5 See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, 
Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta. 
gov/pdf/NPWHC_Guidance_Revised_11_2009.pdf. 
6 If, on the other hand, we were to find that the proffered position is not a wage Level I mechanical 
engineering technician position, as characterized, then the visa petition would not be supported by a 
corresponding LCA, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 2l4.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(I), and \Ve would be obliged to deny the 
visa petition pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISIOJ'·/ 
Page 11 
cannot be determined whether the beneficiary possesses that degree or its equivalent. Therefore, we 
need not and will not address the beneficiary's qualifications further, except to note that, in any 
event, the record contains insufficient competent evidence to demonstrate that the beneficiary has 
the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in any specific specialty. The petitioner relies, in part, on the 
beneficiary's employment experience to show that he has the equivalent of a bachelor's degree. If a 
petitioner will rely on the beneficiary's employment experience, even in part, to show that 
equivalence, it must provide an evaluation of the beneficiary's credentials produced by "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." See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(D)(l). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The director's decision will be affirmed and the petition will be denied. 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 of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). 
Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.