dismissed H-1B Case: Business Administration

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 15874106 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR . 25, 2021 
The Petitioner, a filling station and convenience store management company, seeks to employ the 
Beneficiary temporarily as an "business administrator /analyst" under the H-lB nonimmigrant 
classification for specialty occupations .1 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 of the Vermont Service Center denied the H-1 B petition, concluding that the record did 
not establish that the proffered position qualified as a specialty occupation. On appeal, the Petitioner 
asserts that the Director committed an error in denying the petition . In these proceedings, it is the 
Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a preponderance of the 
evidence . 2 
Upon de nova review , we will dismiss the appeal. 3 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Act defines an H-lB nonimmigrant as a foreign national "who is 
coming temporarily to the United States to perform services ... in a specialty occupation described in 
section 214(i)(l) ... "(emphasis added). Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § l 184(i)(l), defines the 
term "specialty occupation" as an occupation that requires "theoretical and practical application of a 
body of highly specialized knowledge, and 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 section 214(i)(l) of the Act but adds a 
non -exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) provides that the 
proffered position must meet one of four criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation position . 4 Lastly, 
1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) , 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). 
2 See Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofChawath e, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
3 See Matter of Christo 's Inc ., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . 
4 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must be read with the statutory and regulatory definitions ofa specialty occupation under 
section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). We construe the term "degree" to mean not just any 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(]) states that an H-lB classification may be granted to a foreign national 
who "will perform services in a specialty occupation ... " ( emphasis added). 
Accordingly, to determine whether the Beneficiary will be employed in a specialty occupation, we 
look to the record to ascertain the services the Beneficiary will perform and whether such services 
require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge attained 
through at least a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty or its equivalent. Without 
sufficient evidence regarding the duties the Beneficiary will perform, we are unable to determine whether 
the Beneficiary will be employed in an occupation that meets the statutory and regulatory definitions of 
a specialty occupation and a position that also satisfies at least one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). This is because the services the Beneficiary will perform in the position determine: 
(1) 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. 5 
By regulation, the Director is charged with determining whether the petition involves a specialty 
occupation as defined in section 214(i)(l) of the Act.6 The Director may request additional evidence 
in the course of making this determination. 7 In addition, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the 
time of filing the petition and must continue to be eligible through adjudication. 8 
II. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality, we conclude that the Petitioner has not adequately established 
the services the Beneficiary will perform, which precludes a determination of whether the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation under sections 101 ( a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b ), 214(i)(l) of the Act; 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(l), 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) and (iii)(A). In addition, the record contains 
inconsistencies, which further undermines the Petitioner's claims regarding the nature of the proffered 
position. 9 
The Petitioner describes itself as "a filling station and convenience store management company" serving 
the "motoring public." 10 The Petitioner states the Beneficiary will be employed as a "business 
baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal 
Siam Co1p. 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."). 
5 See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
6 See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(2). 
7 See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8). 
8 See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
9 The Petitioner submitted documentation to suppmt the H-1 B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered position 
and its business operations. Although we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered 
each one. 
10 The Petitioner's April 7, 2020 letter of support. 
2 
administrator/analyst" and in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) provides the 
following job duties: 
• 25% of the position's time is spent: 
o researching, analyzing, and directing the marketing of thel l's 
stations and retail stores; 
o directing data collection to forecast customer patterns and utilizing analysis to 
coordinate functions and activities scheduling for market and sales; and 
o obtaining and analyzing market prices locally, regionally, and nationally and 
tracking all competitors' prices, sales, and methods of marketing distribution. 
• 25% of the position's time is spent: 
o researching regional market conditions to determine potential marketing 
strategies; and 
o researching regional market conditions to determine new locations for retail 
projects. 
• 30% of the position's time is spent formulating a marketing strategy that will target the 
best potential clients for each specific local region and to determine which additional 
regions to target. 
• 20% of the position's time is spent performing project management and analysis, 
including quantitative analysis, technical and financial analysis of competitors and 
market share analysis. 11 
According to the Petitioner, the above duties are performed using different software tools such as "MS 
Office, Windows, Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Access and Networking, with additional software 
utilization as needed" and analytical software such as "Simstat, CPM, TNS Miriad, and/or WinCross 
software." In addition, the position requires use of "Customer Relationship Management (CRM) 
software as well as interface and query software in particular, Microsoft Access, as well as Microsoft 
Project, and project management software." 12 
The duties listed in the initial support letter are generically stated and appear to closely mirror the 
duties listed in the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook's (Handbook) report 
for positions located within the "Market Research Analysts" occupation category, with little additional 
detail provided. 13 While the Handbook indicates the "typical" duties of positions in the occupation 
(broadly written to encompass a number of positions) 14 it is the specific duties of the proffered position 
and the nature of the petitioning entity's business operations, that must be considered together to 
11 We note that the Petitioner provided a different set of duties with different percentage breakdown with its initial petition. 
While we acknowledge that there is some overlap in the two versions of the duties, the difference between the two versions 
creates ambiguity regarding the substantive nature of the proffered position. The Petitioner does not offer an explanation 
for the different versions of the position's duties and the different allocation of the Beneficiary's time to those duties. A 
petitioner must resolve these inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter 
of Ho, 19 T&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Unresolved material inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the reliability 
and sufficiency of other evidence submitted in support of the requested immigration benefit. Id. 
12 See supra note 10. 
13 See Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Market Research Analysts, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/market-research-analysts.htm (last visited March 16, 2021 ). 
14 Id. 
3 
establish the substantive nature of the position. Therefore, we examine the ultimate employment of 
the individual, and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 15 
In general, providing generically-stated duties that closely mirror those stated in the Handbook will 
not provide the context needed to understand the nature of the position and whether it requires the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge necessary to establish 
the position as a specialty occupation. In other words, without a more detailed understanding of the 
substantive nature of the proffered position, we are unable to ascertain whether the position qualifies 
as a specialty occupation and whether the Petitioner's educational requirements are necessary to carry 
out the duties of the position. 
The Petitioner provides little context and substantive detail to establish the duties and substantive 
nature of the proffered position. In addition, as we will discuss further in the decision, many of the 
documents submitted lack probative value and taken together, do not provide sufficient, consistent 
evidence to establish the substantive nature of the position. The Petitioner is comprised of sixteen 
employees, presumably spread out among its several locations. However, the record does not provide 
information on the company's staffing levels at its various locations or the role of the proffered 
position in the overall day-to-day operations of the filling stations and stores or in its headquarters. In 
addition, because the duties are so broadly stated, we are unable to ascertain the level of responsibility 
of the position and whether the Beneficiary works independently or obtains assignments from and 
reports to an individual within the Petitioner's organization. 
Without a more meaningful job description, we are also unable to ascertain the level of education and 
knowledge necessary to perform the duties of the position. According to the Petitioner, the position 
requires at least a bachelor's degree in business administration, 16 business management, finance or 
15 See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384,387 (5th Cir. 2000) . 
16 Even if the record as currently constituted had been sufficient to establish the substantive nature of the proffered position, 
the petition would still not be approved because the Petitioner states that a bachelor's degree in business administration, 
with no further specialization, would adequately prepare an individual to perform the duties of the proffered position. 
However, a general-purpose bachelor's degrees in business or business administration with no additional specialization is 
not a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, and the fact that the Petitioner would accept such a degree would preclude 
a determination that either the statutory or regulatory definitions of the term "specialty occupation" had been satisfied. 
USCIS has longstanding concerns regarding general -purpose bachelor 's degrees in business or business administration 
with no additional specialization. For example, in Matter ofLing, 13 I. & N. Dec. 35 (Reg'! Comm'r 1968), the agency 
stated that attainment of a bachelor's degree in business administration alone was insufficient to qualify a foreign national 
as a member of the professions pursuant to section 10l(a)(32) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(32) . Twenty years later, 
USC IS looked to the nature of the position itself and clarified that a requirement for a degree with a generalized title, such 
as business administration , without further specification, was insufficient to qualify the position as one that is professional 
pursuant to section 10l(a)(32) of the Act. Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. at 560. See also Matter of Caron Int '!, 
Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988) (vice president for manufacturing in a textile company was not a profession al 
position because individual holding general degree in business, engineering or science could perform its duties). 
Congress created the modem H-lB program as part of the Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649, 104 Stat. 4978. 
In doing so, it pivoted away from the prior H-1 standard of whether a position was "professional." Instead , petitioners 
were now required to demonstrate that a proffered position qualified as a "specialty occupation. " Section 
101 (a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b) of the Act. In the final rule setting forth the requirements for the revamped H-lB program , the agency, 
responding to commenters suggesting that the proposed regulatory "specific specialty" requirement "was too severe and 
would exclude certain occupations from classifications as specialty occupations ," stated that "[t]he definition of specialty 
4 
marketing, or a closely related field. 17 However , the Petitioner does not sufficiently relate the duties 
to its stated degree requirement. For example, the Petitioner does not describe with sufficient 
specificity the scope of the Beneficiary's market research, analysis, and what that information is used 
for. 18 It is not clear, for instance, why the Beneficiary's position would require him to obtain and 
analyze regional and national prices and to track all competitor's prices, sales, and methods of 
marketing distribution. The record does not make clear the scope of these duties. Who does the 
Petitioner consider a competitor? For instance, are filling stations in New York or other neighboring 
states encompassed within the Petitioner's definition of a competitor? If so, the scope of the position 
is all encompassing and would likely require that the Beneficiary work with other employees on a 
team. Indeed, filling stations and convenience stores are found all over the United States, and the 
scope of the duties, as described, does not have a rational relationship to the Petitioner's actual business 
(which appears to only be located in Pennsylvania) or its current market share. Without a detailed 
explanation and context for how the duties relate to the Petitioner's business, we are unable to 
determine what, if any, specialized knowledge attained through a bachelor's or higher degree in a 
specific specialty would be required as a minimum for entry into the occupation. 
The Petitioner submits an opinion letter dated August 3, 2020 and a separate undated letter (with this 
appeal), both authored byl ~ 19 For different but related reasons, the 
professor's letters are insufficient to establish the substantive nature of the position . In his August 3, 
2020 letter, the professor first describes his educational background and professional experience, and 
then he states he examined the responsibilities of the position in detail and that in forming his opinion, 
he reviewed the Director's RFE, the Handbook, the O*NET, and the Petitioner's April 7, 2020 support 
letter. 20 The professor then summarily states the background required for the proffered position 
occupation contained in the statute contains this requirement. " Temporary Alien Workers Seeking Classification Under 
the Immigration and Nationality Act, 56 Fed. Reg. 61111, 61112 (Dec. 2, 1991). USCIS's concerns regarding a 
general-purpose , non-specific degree in business, or business administration, continued under the revamped H-lB 
program . See, e.g., Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151 (D. Minn. 1999); Royal Siam , 484 F.3d at 147; 2233 Paradise 
Road, LLCv . Cissna , No. 17-cv- 01018- APG-VCF, 2018 WL 3312967 (D. Nev., July 3, 2018);XiaoTong Liu v. Baran, 
No. 18-00376-NS, 2018 WL 7348851 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 21, 2018); Parzenn Partners v. Baran, No. 19-cv-11515-ADB, 
2019 WL 6130678 (D. Mass., Nov. 19, 2019); Vision Builders , LLCv. USCIS, No. 19-3159, 20 WL 5891546 , at *4 (D.D.C. 
Oct. 5, 2020). 
To the extent the Petitioner is arguing that a bachelor's degree in business administration (with no further specialization) 
or the equivalent, is a bachelor 's degree in a specific specialty, then consistent with USCIS hist01y and federal case law, 
we must disagree. 
17 The record establishes that the Beneficiary holds the U.S. equivalent of a bachelor 's degree in business administration 
based on the October 3, 2014 educationa l evaluation of his foreign degrees provided b~ I 
18 Though the Petitioner describes itself as a growing company, that statement is insufficient to establish the scope of the 
Petitioner 's business operations and how the proffered position fits into the Petitioner's expected or planned current, prior 
or future expansion or acquisition of new stores and filling stations. 
19 On a:peal, the Petitioner provides a second position evaluation letter dated September 30, 2020 and prepared bye=] 
I ~ Professor of Marketing atl I University who opines that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation as defined by INA 214(i)(l). For several reasons, we decline to give! Is opinion any probative 
value. First, his opinion contains template language such as "Spoken With" and "INSERT DATE," which indicates he did 
not perform an independent evaluation of the proffered position. We may, in our discretion , use opinion statements 
submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron Int'l , Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm 'r 1988). However , 
where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable , we are not required to accept or 
may give less weight to that evidence . Id. Due to the discrepancies in the professor 's opinion letter, we decline to afford 
the professor 's opinion probative weight in establishing the substantive nature of the proffered position . 
20 The professor states that a candidate for this position must have a "strong foundation in the field of Business 
5 
stating, "it becomes apparent that a mm1mum of a Bachelor's degree, or higher, in Business 
Administration, 21 Business Management, Finance, or closely related fields provide the student with 
the core competencies and skills needed to execute the specialized duties of the Business 
Administrator/ Analyst." Within this conclusory statement, the professor rules out any other means one 
could utilize to attain the requisite knowledge, undermining the evidentiary weight of his statements. 
Furthermore, the professor adds, 
The skills required to obtain and analyze market prices and customer patterns, analyze 
the marketing and strategy methods for competitors, and formulate and direct a market 
strategy, are learned and refined through courses of Business Administration, Business 
Management, Finance, or closely related fields including Business Communication, 
Project Management, Economics of Business Organization, International Business 
Management, Business Strategy, Consumer Behavior, Project Risk and Cost 
Management, International Finance and Quantitative and Qualitative 
Decision-Making. 
However, the titles of courses do not in and of themselves identify what specialized knowledge they 
would impart to perform the position's tasks or explain their relevance to the job duties. While the 
professor may draw inferences that certain courses or knowledge obtained through a bachelor's degree 
program in the mentioned fields may be beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, his 
opinion is insufficient to establish that such a degree is required in order to perform them. 22 
In addition, the professor has not sufficiently explained or documented why the duties are so highly 
specialized such that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, is required. Thus, 
the opinion letter presented has little probative value as it does not include sufficient specific analysis 
of the duties of the particular position nor does it sufficiently relate those duties to the stated 
educational qualifications required to perform them. The professor's summary statements are 
unsupported by explanations, references to the record, or citations to studies, surveys, industry 
publications, authoritative publications, or other sources of empirical information. We are not required 
to accept cursory or primarily conclusory statements as demonstrating eligibility. 23 
Administration, Business Management, Finance, or closely related fields." The professor's description of the minimum 
qualifications for the position conflicts with the Petitioner's minimum qualifications for the position in that the professor 
omits the degree in marketing as an acceptable and related degree field. This discrepancy leads to further questions about 
the substantive nature of the proffered position and undermines the probative value of the professor's opinion because it 
appears he is not familiar with the Petitioner's educational requirements, despite stating that he had reviewed all pertinent 
material prior to evaluatin~ the position. 
211s determination that the duties of the proffered position can be performed by an individual with 
a bachelor's degree in business administration with no further specialization - which, again, is not a degree in a specific 
specialty - is yet further evidence that the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 
22 See I 756, Inc. v. Att'y Gen, 745 F. Supp. 9, 17 (D.D.C. 1990) (finding USCTS acted properly in not crediting petitioner's 
conclusory assertions); see also Xiaotong Liu, No. SACV1800376JVSKESX, 2018 WL 7348851, at *10 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 
21, 2018) (finding USCTS acted properly when it determined that such generalizations do not explain how the author came 
to their conclusion, which is insufficient to meet the regulatory requirements). 
23 See Caron Int'/, l 9 l&N Dec. at 795 (finding the service is not required to accept or may give less weight to an advisory 
opinion when it is "not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable.") 
6 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits an undated letter froml I which does not appear 
to relate to the record. In the first paragraph, the professor references the position as that of a "software 
engineer." In the second paragraph, the professor mentions his affiliation with niversity, an 
apparent mistake ( or misstatement) given that he prepared the letter o-~---~University letterhead. 
These discrepancies, as well as the fact that this letter was submitted for the first time on appeal, create 
further ambiguity in the record and add no probative value to our evaluation of the substantive nature of 
the proffered position. 
The record contains numerous examples of work product and letters of reference from the 
Beneficiary's coworkers and individuals outside the Petitioner's organization, which we have 
carefully examined to ascertain the substantive nature of the proffered position. 24 Under the 
preponderance standard, the evidence must demonstrate that the petitioner's claim is "probably true" 25 
and we examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both 
individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be 
proven is probably true. After careful examination, several of the documents purporting to be the 
Beneficiary's work product appear to be copied from public websites. 26 Eleven emails were examined 
however, they all lack the detail necessary to establish the substantive nature of the position. 27 We 
note that pay stubs submitted with the petition show that the Beneficiary's hourly wage is $22.00, 
which is significantly below the salary indicated on the petition and labor condition application 
(LCA). 28 
According to two undated letters provided by a vendorl ,I, the Beneficiary is responsible for 
executing prjects retted to increasing candy and snack food sales at Petitioner's convenience stores. 
In one letter states that the Beneficiary did an "amazing job following the guidelines, rotating 
promotions, and displaying the POS .... " In the other letter,! I states the Beneficiary has 
24 USCIS records indicate the Beneficiary has held H-lB status through the Petitioner since March 18, 2015. 
25 See Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
26 Specifically. the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary wrote a document titled "In-store Marketing in Gas Stations / 
Convenience Stores," however public source information shows the documents contents were copied from the website, 
https://blogs.spectrio.com/a-guide-for-using-in-store-marketing-in-convenience-stores (last visited March 16, 2021 ). 
Similarly, the Petitioner submitted a document it contends the Beneficiary wrote titled "Retail Marketing strategy in the 
convenience store market," but public source information shows that the contents of this document were copied from the 
website 
https://www.tefen.com/insights/industries/Retail/convenient_ for_ all_ marketing_strategy _in_ the_ convenience _store_ ma 
rket (last visited March 16, 2021). A third document purportedly written by the Beneficiary titled "SKUPOS loyalty 
programs performance report," was copied from the website https://www.convenience.org/Media/Daily/2020/Jan/l 7/3-C­
Store-Loyalty-Programs-Will-Change_Marketing (last visited March 16, 2021). In all three documents, the cover page 
used shows the Petitioner's name in an attempt to disguise the document as proprietary work product. Not only does the 
plagiarism undermine the probative value of the individual documents submitted, but the sheer quantity of the plagiarized 
material submitted. undermines the overall credibility of the documentation submitted and leads us to further question the 
substantive nature of the proffered position. 
27 In many of these emails, the Beneficiary appears to be attaching sales reports to vendors and/or providing follow-up on 
questions related to vendor sales. The emails display the Beneficiary engaged in administrative tasks and do not provide 
any substantive details regarding the claimed specialized nature of the duties of the proffered position. 
28 Based on his $22.00 hourly wage, it appears the Beneficiary is paid below the level TT wage of $25.59 per hour that is 
designated on the labor condition application (LCA). This discrepancy raises significant questions regarding the proffered 
position's substantive nature because the Petitioner is compensating the Beneficiary according to a Level I wage. 
Additionally, this information strongly suggests the Petitioner is not complying with the wage designated on the certified 
LCA. 
7 
provided a "tremendous amount of value to the business by being able to understand the Marketing 
[sic] and analytical side of operations along with the customer service side." While these letters help 
establish that the Beneficiary is a respected employee ( a proposition we do not dispute), the letters do 
not provide any substantive details regarding the actual substantive nature of the work to be performed 
in the proffered position. Furthermore, the letters contain internal contradictions which undermine 
their probative value. 29 
Other work product submitted also does not establish the substantive nature of the proffered position. 
One document involves a "SUNOCO Credit and Fleet Card Program" (Sunoco) and another involves 
a "Refreshed Coffee Program" (coffee). Both of these documents are undated and purport to have 
been prepared or written by the Beneficiary. The Sunoco document is a printout of the credit card 
program and contains no market analysis, therefore, it is unclear how this document is relevant to the 
duties of the proffered position or what part (if any) of the document was prepared by the Beneficiary. 
Similarly, the coffee program has charts showing various coffee brands and their prices (purportedly 
offered at the Petitioner's locations) however it does not contain analysis or any details that would 
support finding that in order to carry out the proffered duties, a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty is needed. In addition, neither document establishes the substantive nature of the 
position because they lack details and context to understand how the documents relate to the duties as 
outlined by the Petitioner. 
The Petitioner submitted a document with information regarding the Beneficiary's work rebranding 
one of its websites. The document is undated and is lacking in consistency or the details needed to 
establish the substantive nature of the position. 30 We also question the relevance of this document in 
that none of the duties of the proffered position involve rebranding. Furthermore, the document is a 
description of a project the Beneficiary was involved in, however it does not contain sufficient 
evidence to illustrate the substantive duties of the position or why the project would require an 
individual with a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty to perform this work. 
We examined a document titled "Project: Revitalizing of snack and candy category," which the 
Petitioner claims was a project assigned to the Beneficiary. The document shows an increase in sales 
29 The letters describe the Beneficiary's contribution towards increasing the sales of candy, however it is unclear how the 
described candy project relates to the duties of the proffered position. In addition, the letter includes a chait that tracks the 
sales of the vendor candy products and the writer claims the Beneficiary's work contributed to the increase. However, 
while the chart shows that there was growth since Quarter 2, 2019 (highlighted cells) the growth was not consistent. For 
instance, candy sales dropped from a high of 58,538.64 to 44,446.87 during the time the writer describes that the 
Beneficiary's eff011s only led to growth and the writer does not attempt to resolve this inconsistency. Therefore, the 
probative value of I I• s letters are undermined by these inconsistencies and again do not help to establish the 
substantive nature of the proffered position. 
3° For instance, the document states that the Beneficiary's rebranding effoits were successful and includes a chart that 
purports to show growth in sales since the site switched to Sunoco. However, the record does not establish when the 
Sunoco transfer occurred, therefore it is impossible to reconcile the purpoited growth in sales with the onset of the Sunoco 
transfer. Fuithermore, the document shows that the growth was not consistent because during several months, there was 
a drop in sales from year to year, contradicting the Petitioner's claims. (Specifically, from 2018 to 2019, the months of 
January, February, March, and November show a drop in receipts; from 2017 to 2018, all months show increase in sales; 
however from 2016 to 2017, May and September show decreased sales.) More importantly, because the document does 
not contain a detailed description of the duties carried out by the Beneficiary during the course of this project, the document 
lacks probative value to demonstrate the substantive nature of the position or why an individual carrying out the duties of 
the position would require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 
8 
for candy and snack categories, and claims that the Beneficiary conducted a "[r]eal time survey from 
customers, their purchase habits and analyzed all the data to boost the sales of Snack & Candy 
Category & came up with a strategy to introduce "Prime Promotions." This document provides a 
somewhat more comprehensive view of the proffered position, however it does not contain sufficient 
details to establish the substantive nature of the position. For instance, the document does not explain 
what technologies and methodologies the Beneficiary used to carry out the market research, surveys, 
and purported success of this program. The document does not detail when the project started and/or 
if it ended. We do not know from this document if the Beneficiary supervised others or carried out 
this work on his own. In addition, because the Beneficiary has worked for the Petitioner since March 
2015, one document (among seven submitted) is not sufficient to establish the substantive nature of 
the proffered position as it does not meet the preponderance standard. 
Finally, and as stated earlier, we are unable to ascertain the Beneficiary's level ofresponsibility, which 
is particularly important in determining if the certified LCA corresponds to and supports the position. 31 
For instance, we are unable to determine if the Level II wage designated on the LCA is appropriate 
given the lack of information about the substantive nature of the position. 32 The totality of the 
evidence is insufficient to establish the substantive nature of the position, therefore, we cannot 
determine if a Level II wage is appropriate and whether the LCA corresponds to and supports the 
petition as required by 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b). 
31 While Department of Labor (DOL) certifies the LCA, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) determines 
whether the LCA's attestations and content corresponds with and supports the H-lB petition. See 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b) 
("DHS determines whether the petition is supported by an LCA which corresponds with the petition .... "). See also 
Matter of Simeio Solutions, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 546 n.6 (AAO 2015). When comparing the wage level or the standard 
occupation classification (SOC) code indicated on the LCA to the claims associated with the petition, USCTS does not 
purport to supplant DOL's responsibility with respect to wage determinations. There may be some overlap in 
considerations, but USCTS' responsibility at its stage of adjudication is to ensure that the content of the DOL-certified 
LCA "corresponds with" the content of the H-1 B petition. Further, USCTS may consider DOL regulations when 
adjudicating H-IB petitions. See Int'/ Internship Programs v. Napolitano, 853 F. Supp. 2d 86, 98 (D.D.C. 2012), aff'd 
sub nom. Int'l Jnternship Program v. Napolitano, 718 F.3d 986 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 
32 It is unclear from the record whether the Petitioner established that the Level II wage rate designated on the LCA 
sufficiently represents the correct wage level based on DOL's five-step process contained within the DOL guidance and 
the Office of Foreign Labor Certification's (OFLC) Frequently Asked Questions and Answers. See DOL, Emp't & 
Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009) 
(DOL guidance), available at http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised_ 11 _ 2009 .pdf; OFLC 
Frequently Asked Questions and Answers, Foreign Labor Certification (Dec. 11, 2019), 
https://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/faqsanswers.cfm. These sources instruct the public on selecting the correct wage 
level evaluating various aspects such as any atypical duties across SOC codes that an employer's job may include. Overall, 
however, because the record lacks details regarding the substantive nature of the proffered position, we are unable to 
determine if the certified LCA corresponds and supports the position. As noted earlier, the Beneficiary's paystubs show 
he is paid a Level I wage, which demonstrates the Petitioner's non-compliance with the certified LCA, which would 
constitute an additional basis upon which this petition cannot be approved. Since the proffered position is not a specialty 
occupation, we will not address this additional ground of ineligibility further, but the Petitioner should be prepared to 
address it in any future H- IB filings. 
9 
III. CONCLUSION 
Upon review of the totality of the evidence submitted, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient 
substantive detail regarding the duties the Beneficiary will perform, and the record has inconsistencies 
that undermine the Petitioner's claims regarding the proffered position. Therefore, we are unable to 
determine the substantive nature of the work and whether the Beneficiary will be employed in a position 
that satisfies at least one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) and in a position that meets the 
statutory and regulatory definitions of a specialty occupation as defined by section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii), and (iii)(A). In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. 33 The Petitioner has not 
met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
33 See Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 
10