dismissed H-1B Case: Business Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 5917962 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 9, 2020 
The Petitioner, a product development firm, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as its "vice 
president, global services" 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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that 
the Director erred in denying the petition . 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 2 
I. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the entire record, for the reasons set out below, we have determined that the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation . 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that the offered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation . In her decision, the Director thoroughly discussed the Petitioner's failure to 
meet any of the four regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)(I)-( 4). Upon consideration 
of the entire record , including the evidence submitted and arguments made on appeal , we adopt and 
affirm the Director's decision with the comments below. 3 
1 Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) , 8 U.S.C. § l 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) . 
2 The Petitioner must establish eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 
375-76 (AAO 2010). While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 See Matter of P. Singh, Attorney, 26 I&N Dec. 623 (BIA 2015) (citing Matter of Burbano , 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 
1994)); see also Chen v. INS , 87 F.3d 5, 7-8 (1st Cir. 1996) ("[I]fa reviewing tribunal decides that the facts and evaluative 
judgments prescinding from them have been adequately confronted and correctly resolved by a trial judge or hearing 
officer, then the tribunal is free simply to adopt those findings" provided the tribunal 's order reflects individualized 
attention to the case). 
Regarding the Director's discussion of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), we would 
add that the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (the Handbook) 
does not report that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is required to perform the duties of a 
marketing manager. While the Handbook notes that a variety of courses may be "advantageous," it 
does not specify that a marketing manager requires those courses, or that such courses cumulatively 
lead to a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. Therefore, the Handbook does not support the 
assertion that a baccalaureate degree in a specific discipline is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into occupations falling with the Marketing Managers category. 
Moreover, we observe an evidentiary anomaly that severely undermines the Petitioner's eligibility 
claims. We begin agreeing with the Director's determination that even though the Petitioner presented 
a lengthy bulleted list of the proffered position's duties, it crafted those functions in an overly general 
and abstract manner. More concerning is that a large number of the initially offered duties appear to 
be duplicated from online resources that existed prior to the petition filing date, and the Petitioner 
made a material change to the position prerequisites within its response to the Director's request for 
evidence (RFE). 
On the issue of the duplicated duties, we discovered that approximately 58 percent, or at least 16 of 
the 28 duties the Petitioner initially submitted were copied. 4 It is possible that the Petitioner copied 
more than the 16 duties, but such a large quantity of unoriginal material significantly undermines the 
Petitioner's eligibility claims such that farther inquiry on our part was unnecessary. On this issue, 
while a general description may be appropriate when defining the range of duties that one may perform 
within an occupation, such a generic description generally cannot be relied upon by the Petitioner when 
discussing the duties attached to specific employment for H-lB approval. 
In establishing such a position as a specialty occupation, the proffered position's description must include 
sufficient details to substantiate that the Petitioner has H-lB caliber work for the Beneficiary, and must 
adequately convey the substantive work that the Beneficiary will perform on a day-to-day basis within 
the Petitioner's business operations. 5 Here, the job description from the Petitioner does not sufficiently 
communicate: (1) the actual work that the Beneficiary would perform; (2) the complexity, uniqueness 
4 See the following Google searches and the resulting hits: 
( 1) https ://www.google.com/ search? q=%22develop+and+coordinate+sales+selling+cycle+and+methodology%22&sourc 
e=lnt&tbs=cdr%3Al %2Ccd_min%3Al %2Fl %2F2015%2Ccd max%3A4%2Fl %2F2018&tbm= resulting m 
http://www.arqueirotelecom.com/work-with-us.html; and 
(2) https://www.google.com/search?q=%22preparing+and+completing+action+plans%3B+implementing+production%2 
C+productivity%2C+quality%2C+and%22&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3 A I %2Ccd _ min%3A I %2F I %2F20 I 0%2Ccd _ max% 
3A3%2F I %2F20 l 8&tbm= resulting in https://hiring.monster.com/employer-resources/job-description­
templates/marketing-and-sales-manager-job-description-sample/each accessed on Jan. 3, 2020, and incorporated into the 
record of proceeding. 
5 DOL guidance states that for a wage level determination, it is important that the job description include "sufficient 
information to determine the complexity of the job duties, the level ofjudgment, the amount and level of supervision, and 
the level of understanding required to perform the job duties." 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 
2 
and/or specialization of the tasks; and/or (3) the correlation between that work and a need for a particular 
level of knowledge in a specific specialty. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner made a material change to the qualifications necessary to perform in the 
offered position. The Petitioner initially claimed that in order to qualify, it required at least a bachelor's 
degree in engineering or a related field along with relevant work experience in the information technology 
field. We note that the Petitioner's indication of general information technology experience, without 
greater detail relating to the type and the amount of required experience has an undermining effect on its 
eligibility, as this account does not meet its burden of proof 
Subsequently, in response to the RFE the Petitioner amended its position prerequisites without an 
explanation. Within the RFE response it indicated the position required a bachelor's degree or an 
equivalent combination of education and work experience in business administration, management, or 
marketing, or a related field. The Petitioner also changed its required experience to a background in 
leading global business development, and managing customer acquisition strategies, and working with 
managing large enterprise customers in information technology or digital technology consulting. Again, 
it did not identify the amount of required experience in these areas. 
These education and experiential changes constitute a material change to the Petitioner's original 
requirements, as it has not explained how the initial required experience was sufficiently similar to the 
amended type. A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition that has already been filed in an 
effort to make an apparently deficient petition conform to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
requirements. 6 Likewise, the Petitioner did not provide an explanation for the variances in the 
requirements, and as a result has not satisfied its burden of proof 7, 8 
II. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 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. The Petitioner 
has not met that burden here, and the petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6 See Matter of Izummi, 22 T&N Dec. 169, 175 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). 
7 See 2233 Paradise Rd., LLCv. Cissna, No. 17-CV-01018-APG-VCF, 2018 WL 3312967, at *3 (D. Nev. July 3, 2018) 
(finding a petitioner's requirements as inconsistent when it changes the degree prerequisites after an RFE). 
8 As the lack of probative and consistent evidence in the record precludes a conclusion that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation and is dispositive of the appeal, we will not discuss the Petitioner's assertions on appeal. 
3