dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Science

(b)(6)
DATE: 
IN RE: 
PETITION: 
MAY 2 6 2015 
Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service� 
Administrative Appeals Office 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION RECEIPT #: 
Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101( a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. 
If you believe we incorrectly decided your case, you may file a motion requesting us to reconsider our 
decision and/or reopen the proceeding. The requirements for motions are located at 8 C.P.R. § 103.5. 
Motions must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this 
decision. The Form I-290B web page (www.uscis.gov/i-290b) contains the latest information on fee, filing 
location, and other requirements. Please do not mail any motions directly to the AAO. 
g 
nistrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center (hereinafter the "director") denied the 
nonimmigrant visa petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. 
The appeal will be dismissed. 
On the Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129), the petitioner describes itself as a 
"Software Company" with 133 employees established in In order to employ the beneficiary 
as a "Software Engineer," the petitioner seeks to classify her as a 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 expressly specified two separate and independent grounds for denying the petition, 
namely: (1) that the evidence of record does not demonstrate the existence of an employer­
employee relationship between the petitioner and the beneficiary; and (2) that the evidence of record 
does not establish that the proffered position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation and 
that the petitioner has sufficient work for the requested period of intended employment. On appeal, 
the petitioner asserts that the director's basis for denial was erroneous and contends that it has 
satisfied all evidentiary requirements. 
The record of proceeding contains the following: (1) the Form I-129 and supporting documentation; 
(2) the director's request for additional evidence (RFE); (3) the petitioner's response to the RFE; 
( 4) the director's letter denying the petition; and (5) the Form I-290B, a brie ( and supporting 
documentation. 
We find that, upon review of the entire record of proceeding, the evidence of record does not 
overcome the director's grounds for denying this petition. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed, 
and the petition will be denied. 
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
As indicated above, the petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary in a position that it describes as a 
"Software Engineer" on a full-time basis. The Labor Condition Application (LCA) that the 
petitioner submitted in support of the petition was certified for use with a job prospect within the 
"Computer Systems Analysts" occupational classification, SOC (O*NET/OES) Code 15-1121, and 
a Level II prevailing wage rate. The LCA also reflects that, as mentioned above, the petitioner 
assigned "Software Engineer" as the position's job title. 
In an attachment to the Form 1-129, the beneficiary's specific duties were provided as follows: 
The duties of the position are to provide application design, development, 
implementation, integration, testing, and production support of systems. The 
Software Engineer will also be tasked with development, testing and technical 
support of complex application services that are developed and virtualized in either 
both synchronous or asynchronous formats and provides communication between 
different backend systems. The applications will use technologies including Java, 
J2EE, .NET, apache Axis, Rampart, CXF frameworks, Websphere, and related tools 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
to allow communication to be consumed by different application channels. The 
duties also include configuring application services, implementing the security 
policies, deployment of code, support for unit testing, system, integration testing, and 
performance tests. The Software Engineer will also be responsible for performance 
tuning devices, technicalsupport, and documentation during all phases of the SDLC. 
The Software Engineer applies the theories and principles of computer science and 
mathematical analysis to create, test, and evaluate software applications and systems. 
The engineer analyzes and defines system requirements and then converts those 
requirements into technical specifications. The engineer prepares and maintains 
complete programming specifications, functional design and technical design 
documents. The engineer analyzes, codes, tests and debuts the programs. 
The director found the initial evidence insufficient to establish eligibility for the benefit sought, and 
issued an RFE on June 6, 2014. The director requested, inter alia, evidence that, if the visa petition 
were approved, the petitioner would have an employer-employee relationship with the beneficiary 
and that it would have sufficient specialty occupation work available to which it could assign the 
beneficiary throughout the entire period of requested employment. The director outlined some of 
the types of specific evidence that could be submitted. 
In response, the petitioner submitted, inter alia, (1) a document entitled "Summary of Terms of 
Agreement Under Which Beneficiary Will be Employed"; (2) a document entitled "Itinerary of 
Service Covering H-B Employment of [the beneficiary] "; a document entitled "Task Order"; a 
previously submitted copy of the offer of employment letter from the petitioner's managing director 
to the beneficiary, dated March 21, 2014; a previously submitted lease agreement pertaining to the 
petitioner; and a Master Consulting Services Agreement between the petitioner and 
The director denied the petition on October 3, 2014, finding, as was noted above, (1) that the 
evidence of record does not demonstrate the existence of an employer-employee relationship 
between the petitioner and the beneficiary; and (2) that the evidence of record does not establish that 
the proffered position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the petitioner submitted, inter alia, the following: a brief from the petitioner's counsel; 
duplicate copies of documents previously submitted; an October 23, 2014 employment verification 
letter for the beneficiary from HR Manager, an 
October 23, 2014 letter from the petitioner's managing director requesting H-1B approval for the 
petitioner and further noting that he is "willing to accept a one-year H-1B Visa Approval"; two 
blank time reports pertaining to the petitioner; the petitioner's blank "Performance Management 
Process Key Job Elements"; the petitioner's organizational chart; excerpts from the Occupational 
Outlook Handbook and O*Net Online pertaining to "Software Developers"; job postings for the 
position of Software Engineer; and "copies of the degree of current and prospective employees who 
perform in the same or similar job position ... also attached are copies of recent pay stubs as 
evidence of their employment (for those currently employed with the Petitioner"; copies of select H-
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
lB approval notices issued to the petitioner1; and a letter from the petitioner describing the role and 
responsibilities of the proffered position. 
We note that the beneficiary's duties have been expanded by the petitioner on appeal. The 
following duties of the proffered position were provided: 
• Validate business requirements, review technical designs, and 
develop test cases 
• Participate in object oriented analysis and design using UML and 
RUP tools 
• Develop and support multi-tier web applications using J2EE 
• Configure contact center modules and applications 
• Develop interfaces for enterprise wide integration of heterogeneous 
systems using XML and related technologies 
• Utilize expertise in software engineering for solving problems and 
troubleshooting issues 
• Design, develop, implement, integrate, test and provide production 
support for software applications 
• Develop, test and provide technical support for complex application 
services 
• Configure application services 
• Implement security policies 
• Deploy code 
1 We are not required to approve petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely because of 
prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g., Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N 
Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). If any of the previous nonimmigrant petitions were approved based on the 
same unsupported assertions that are contained in the current record, they were approved in error. It would 
be "absurd to suggest that [USCIS] or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent." 
Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). A 
prior approval does not compel the approval of a subsequent petition or relieve the petitioner of its burden to 
provide sufficient documentation to establish current eligibility for the benefit sought. 55 Fed. Reg. 2606, 
2612 (Jan. 26, 1990). 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
• Support unit, system, integration and performance testing as well as 
assurance testing scenarios 
• Analyze and define system requirements and convert requirements 
into technical specifications 
• Prepare and maintain complete programming specifications, 
functional design and technical design documents 
• Analyze, code, test and debug programs 
• Assist in requirements gathering and documentation of application 
needs from business stakeholders 
• Assist in application design sessions, application architecture 
sessions, development of enterprise applications and development of 
quality front end, middle tier and application integration code 
• Participate in workflow and application modeling meetings 
• Assist in documenting database requirements, database design 
sessions, database architecture sessions and development of quality 
back end database code 
In addition to expanding the beneficiary's duties on appeal, as detailed above, counsel made the 
following statement on appeal: 
The Beneficiary's position is that of a Software Engineer [O*Net 15-1132.00 -
Software Developers, Applications.] 
We find that, upon review of the entire record of proceeding, the evidence of record does not overcome 
the director's grounds for denying this petition. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed, and the 
petition will be denied. 
II. EVIDENTIARY STANDARD ON APPEAL 
As a preliminary matter, we affirm that, in the exercise of our appellate review in this matter, as in 
all matters that come within its purview, we follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as 
specified in the controlling precedent decision, Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-376 
(AAO 2010). In pertinent part, that decision states the following: 
Except where a different standard is specified by law, a petitioner or applicant in 
administrative immigration proceedings must prove by a preponderance of evidence 
that he or she is eligible for the benefit sought. 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
I d. 
. * * * 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
The "preponderance of the evidence" of "truth" is made based on the factual 
circumstances of each individual case. 
* * * 
Thus, in adjudicating the application pursuant to the preponderance of the evidence 
standard, the director must 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. 
Even if the director has some doubt as to the truth, if the petitioner submits relevant, 
probative, and credible evidence that leads the director to believe that the claim is 
"more likely than not" or "probably" true, the applicant or petitioner has satisfied the 
standard of proof. See INS v. Cardoza-Foncesca, 480 U.S. 421, 431 (1987) 
(discussing "more likely than not" as a greater than 50% chance of an occurrence 
taking place). If the director can articulate a material doubt, it is appropriate for the 
director to either request additional evidence or, if that doubt leads the director to 
believe that the claim is probably not true, deny the application or petition. 
We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004). Applying the preponderance of the evidence standard as stated in Matter of Chawathe, we 
find that upon review of the entire record of proceeding, and with close attention and due regard to 
all of the evidence submitted in support of this petition, we find that the record does not contain 
sufficient relevant, probative, and credible evidence to lead us to believe that it is "more likely than 
not" or "probably" true that the proffered position qualifies for classification as a specialty 
occupation and that a valid employer-employee relationship will exist between the petitioner and 
the beneficiary. 
III. FINDINGS MADE BEYOND THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION 
Upon review of the file, we note that there are obvious inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the 
information provided by the petitioner that call into question the accuracy of the petitioner's 
assertions overall. Moreover, we note substantive inconsistencies in the information that the 
petitioner has provided about the nature of the work that the petitioner claims that the beneficiary 
would perform. We therefore make the following findings: 
A. The LCA does not Correspond to the Proffered Position 
Upon review of the record of proceeding and beyond the decision of the director, we find that the 
petitioner (1) did not submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) that corresponds to the petition; 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
and (2) has not established that it would pay an adequate salary for the beneficiary's work, as 
required under the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. The petition cannot be approved 
for these reasons, and they will be considered independent and alternative bases for denial of the 
petition. 
General requirements for filing immigration applications and petitions are set forth at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 103.2(a)(1) in pertinent part as follows: 
Every benefit request or other document submitted to DHS must be executed and 
filed in accordance with the form instructions . . . and such instructions are 
incorporated into the regulations requiring its submission. 
The regulations require that before filing a Form I-129 petition on behalf of an H-1B worker, a 
petitioner obtain a certified LCA from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) in the occupational 
specialty in which the H-1B worker will be employed. See 8 C.P.R. §§ 214. 2(h)(4)(i)(B) and 
214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(B)(l). The instructions that accompany the Form I-129 also specify that an H-1B 
petition must be filed with evidence that an LCA has been certified by DOL. 
Moreover, while DOL is the agency that certifies LCA applications before they are submitted to 
USCIS, DOL regulations note that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (i.e., its 
immigration benefits branch, USCIS) is the department responsible for determining whether the 
content of an LCA filed for a particular Form I-129 actually supports that petition. See 20 C.P.R. 
§ 655.705(b), which states, in pertinent part (emphasis added): 
For H-1B visas ... DHS accepts the employer's petition (DHS Form 1-129) with the 
DOL certified LCA attached. In doing so, the DHS determines whether the petition 
is supported by an LCA which corresponds with the petition, whether the occupation 
named in the [LCA] is a specialty occupation or whether the individual is a fashion 
model of distinguished merit and ability, and whether the qualifications of the 
nonimmigrant meet the statutory requirements of H-1B visa classification. 
The regulation at 20 C.P.R. § 655.705(b) therefore requires that USCIS ensure that an LCA actually 
supports the H-1B petition filed on behalf of the beneficiary. 
More specifically, with the initial Form 1-129, the petitioner submitted an LCA certified for a job 
prospect located within the occupational category of "Computer Systems Analysts" - SOC 
(ONET/OES) code 15-1121. 2 On appeal, counsel for the petitioner maintains that the proffered 
2 It must be noted that the petitioner has designated the proffered position as a Level II position on the 
submitted Labor Condition Application (LCA), indicating that it is a position for an employee who has a 
good understanding of the occupation but who will only perform moderately complex tasks that require 
limited judgment. 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. Therefore, it does 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
positiOn of Software Engineer falls under the occupational category of "Software Developers, 
Applications"- SOC (ONET/OES) code 15-1132. In support, counsel submitted a copy of the 
O*NET Online Summary Report for the occupational category "Software Developers, 
Applications" as well as the Occupational Outlook Handbook's excerpt regarding Software 
Developers, and claimed that both excerpts are relevant in this matter. 
With respect to the LCA, the DOL provides specific guidance for selecting the most relevant 
Occupational Information Network (O*NET) classification code. The "Prevailing Wage 
Determination Policy Guidance" states the following: 
In determining the nature of the job offer, the first order is to review the 
requirements of the employer's job offer and determine the appropriate occupational 
classification. The O*NET description that corresponds to the employer's job offer 
shall be used to identify the appropriate occupational classification . . . . If the 
employer's job opportunity has worker requirements described in a combination of 
O*NET occupations, [the determiner] should default directly to the relevant O*NET­
SOC occupational code for the highest paying occupation. For example, if the 
employer's job offer is for an engineer-pilot, [the determiner] shall use the education, 
skill and experience levels for the higher paying occupation when making the wage 
level determination. 
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. 
At the time of filing this petition, the prevailing wage for the occupational category "Computer 
Systems Analysts" - SOC (ONET/OES Code) 15-1121, at a Level II was $62,525 per year. 3 
Further, the prevailing wage for the occupational category "Software Developers, Applications" 
SOC (O*NET/OES) Code 15-1132 at a Level II was $76,357 per year. 4 If the petitioner believed 
that the proffered position was a combination of occupations ("[the] work of a computer systems 
analyst is the same as that of software developer, applicatio ns"), then accor ding to DOL guidance 
the petitioner should have chosen the relevant occupational category for the highest paying 
occupation, in this case "Software Developers, Applications." 
not appear that the position is one with specialized and complex duties, as such a higher-level position would 
be classified as a Level III or Level IV position, requiring a significantly higher prevailing wage. 
3 For more information regarding the prevailing wage for "Computer Systems Analysts" - SOC (ONET/OES 
Code) 15-1121, see http://flcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResults.aspx?code=15-1121&area=16974&year= 
14&source=1 (last visited May 20, 2015). 
4 For more information regarding the prevailing wage for "Software Developers, Applications" SOC 
(ONET/OES) Code 15-1132, see http://flcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResults.aspx?code=15-1132&area= 
16974&year=14&source=1 (last visited May 20, 2015). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
When submitting an appeal, a petitioner cannot offer a new position to the beneficiary, materially 
change a position's associated job responsibilities, or alter the claimed occupational category of a 
position. The petitioner must establish that the position offered to the beneficiary when the petition 
was filed merits classification for the benefit sought. Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 
248 (Reg. Comm'r 1978). If significant changes are made to the initial request for approval, the 
petitioner must file a new petition rather than seek approval of a petition that is not supported by the 
facts in the record. 
Here, the petitioner has provided inconsistent information regarding the occupational category for 
the proffered position and, consequently, the nature of the position. The petitioner's 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 ofthat work that determines (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. Thus, the record of proceeding does not establish that the proffered position 
satisfies any of the applicable provisions. For this reason also, the petition cannot be approved. 
B. The Nature of the Employment is Speculative 
Based upon a complete review of the record of proceeding, we also find that the evidence does not 
establish that, at the time the petition was submitted, the petitioner had secured work for the 
beneficiary that would entail performing the duties as described in the petition and that was reserved 
for the beneficiary for the duration of the period requested. For this reason, the petition must also be 
denied. 
On the Form I-129, the petitioner requested H-lB classification for the beneficiary for the period of 
October 1, 2014 to September 18, 2017. In the document entitled "Task Order," signed by both the 
petitioner and the beneficiary is listed as a consultant for a project 
entitled "Data Warehouse" which has a start date of October 1, 2014 and an end date of December 
31, 2015. In an October 23, 2014 letter submitted on appeal, the HR Manager at 
stated the following regarding the project: 
fThe beneficiary l will be working at our vendor's office location at 
. as a Software Engineer. The project is 
expected to last through 2015 and we anticipate the need for her services through 
completion. 
The petitioner's managing director further noted in an October 23, 2014 letter submitted with the 
appeal that the Task Order for the company's project with . will last 
from October 1, 2014 to December 31, 2015 and that "our client expects the project to be a long 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
ongoing project. However, as [the beneficiary's] petitioner and her employer, we are willing to 
accept a one-year H-1B Visa Approval." 
The documentation provided does not establish that, at the time of the instant H-1B filing, there was 
sufficient specialty occupation work to be done by the beneficiary were the H-1B approved for the 
intended employment dates. The aforementioned documentation establishes that the project for 
which the beneficiary will be assigned will last only through December 31, 2015. 
Additionally, as noted in the LCA, the beneficiary may only work at the petitioner's office in 
Michigan. However, the petitioner did not provide evidence of any projects and associated 
job duties the beneficiary would perform once the project for is 
completed by December 31, 2015, as referenced in the record. Therefore, it is not clear what the 
substantive nature of the work would be for the entire period of employment requested on the Form 
I-129. 
Thus, we conclude that the record of proceeding provides an inadequate factual basis for us to even 
determine that, at the time of the petition's filing, the petitioner had secured for the beneficiary definite, 
non-speculative work conforming to the petition's description of the proffered position. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) regulations affirmatively require a petitioner to 
establish eligibility for the benefit it is seeking at the time the petition is filed. See 8 C.P.R. § 
103.2(b)(1). 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. 5 Moreover, the burden of p�oving eligibility for the benefit sought 
5 The agency made clear long ago that speculative employment is not permitted in the H-1B program. For 
example, a 1998 proposed rule documented this position as follows: 
Historically, the Service has not granted H-lB classification on the basis of speculative, or 
undetermined, prospective employment. The H-lB classification is not intended as a vehicle 
for an alien to engage in a job search within the United States, or for employers to bring in 
temporary foreign workers to meet possible workforce needs arising from potential business 
expansions or the expectation of potential new customers or contracts. To determine whether 
an alien is properly classifiable as an H-lB nonimmigrant under the statute, the Service must 
first examine the duties of the position to be occupied to ascertain whether the duties of the 
position require the attainment of a specific bachelor's degree. See section 214(i) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the "Act"). The Service must then determine whether the 
alien has the appropriate degree for the occupation. In the case of speculative employment, 
the Service is unable to perform either part of this two-prong analysis and, therefore, is 
unable to adjudicate properly a request for H-1B classification. Moreover, there is no 
assurance that the alien will engage in a specialty occupation upon arrival in this country. 
63 Fed. Reg. 30419, 30419 - 30420 (June 4, 1998). While a petitioner is certainly permitted to change its 
intent with regard to non-speculative employment, e.g., a change in duties or job location, it must 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The petitioner has 
thus not established that, at the time the petition was submitted, it had secured work for the beneficiary 
that would entail performing the duties as described in the petition and that was reserved for the 
beneficiary for the duration of the period requested. 
IV. REVIEW OF THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION 
Specialty Occupation 
For ease of reading, we will first address whether the proffered position qualifies for classification 
as a specialty occupation. Into our analysis of each of the criteria at 8 C.P.R. §2 14. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A), 
we hereby incorporate all of our earlier comments and findings regarding the inconsistencies, 
conflicts, and deficiencies in the information provided by the petitioner. The combined effect of 
these features of this record of proceeding fatally undermines the petitioner's attempt to establish the 
proffered position as a specialty occupation. 
Based upon a complete review of the record of proceeding, we agree with the director and find that 
the evidence does not establish that the position as described constitutes a specialty occupation. 
A. Legal Framework 
For an H-1B petition to be granted, the petitioner must provide sufficient evidence to establish that 
it will employ the beneficiary in a specialty occupation position. To meet its burden of proof in this 
regard, the petitioner must establish that the employment it is offering to the beneficiary meets the 
applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C . § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(ii) states, in pertinent part, the following: 
nonetheless document such a material change in intent through an amended or new petition in accordance 
. with 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(E). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(9)(i)(B) also contemplates that speculative employment is not 
permitted, stating that a "petition may not be filed ... earlier than 6 months before the date of actual need for 
the beneficiary's services or training ... " 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
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: 
(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. 
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)(1) 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 
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)(1) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
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-lB visa category. 
B. Analysis 
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. 
Moreover, when determining whether a position is a specialty occupation, USCIS must look at the 
nature of the business offering the employment and the description of the specific duties of the 
position as it relates to the particular employer. To ascertain the intent of a petitioner, USCIS looks 
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, et cetera. Pursuant to 8 C.P.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.P.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." 
When determining whether a proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCIS must 
determine, inter alia, whether the petitioner has (1) provided sufficient evidence to establish that the 
beneficiary will perform the duties of the proffered position as stated in the petition; and 
(2) established that, at the time of filing, it had secured non-speculative work for the beneficiary that 
is in accordance with the petitioner's claims about the nature of the work that the beneficiary would 
perform in the proffered position. 
Here, as previously discussed, the petitioner has not established that the petition was filed for non­
speculative work for the beneficiary that existed as of the time the H-lB petition was filed. The 
petitioner did not submit sufficient, probative evidence corroborating that, when the petition was 
filed, the beneficiary would be assigned to perform services pursuant to any specific contract(s), 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
work order(s), and/or statement(s) of work (or other probative evidence) for the requested validity 
period and/or that the petitioner had a need for the beneficiary's services during the requested 
validity dates. There is insufficient documentary evidence in the record corroborating what the 
beneficiary would do and the availability of work for the beneficiary for the requested period of 
employment. For an H -1B petition to be granted, the petitioner must provide sufficient evidence to 
establish that it will employ the beneficiary in a specialty occupation position. Going 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 
of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm'r 1972)). USCIS regulations 
affirmative! y require a petitioner to establish eligibility for the benefit it is seeking at the time the 
petition is filed. See 8 C.P.R.§ 103.2(b)(1). 
Thus, based upon a complete review of the record of proceeding, we find that the petitioner has not 
established (1) the substantive nature and scope of the beneficiary's employment; (2) the actual 
work that the beneficiary would perform; (3) the complexity, uniqueness and/or specialization of 
the tasks; and/or (4) the correlation between that work and a need for a particular educational level 
of highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty (or its equivalent). Consequently, this 
precludes a determination that the petitioner's proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation 
under the pertinent statutory and regulatory provisions. 
That is, the fact that the petitioner has not established 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.P.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 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. Thus, the 
petitioner has not established that the proffered position is a specialty occupation under the applicable 
provisions. 
Based upon a complete review of the record of proceeding, we agree with the director and find that 
the evidence does not establish that the position as described more likely than not constitutes a 
specialty occupation. The petitioner has not established that it has satisfied any of the criteria at 8 
C.P.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A) and, therefore, it cannot be found that the proffered position qualifies as 
a specialty occupation. The appeal will be dismissed and the petition will be denied for this reason. 
Employer-Employee Relationship 
Finally, we will briefly address the issue of whether or not the petitioner qualifies as a United States 
employer with standing to file the H -1B petition. As detailed above, the record of proceeding lacks 
sufficient documentation evidencing what exactly the beneficiary would do for the period of time 
requested or where exactly and for whom the beneficiary would be providing services. Given this 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
specific lack of evidence, the petitioner has not established who has or will have actual control over 
the beneficiary's work or duties, or the condition and scope of the beneficiary's services. In other 
words, the petitioner has not established whether it has made a bona fide offer of employment to the 
beneficiary based on the evidence of record or that the petitioner, or any other company which it 
may represent, will have and maintain an employer-employee relationship with the beneficiary for 
the duration of the requested employment period. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term 
"United States employer" and requiring the petitioner to engage the beneficiary to work such that it 
will have and maintain an employer-employee relationship with respect to the sponsored H-1B 
nonimmigrant worker). As previously discussed, there is insufficient evidence detailing what the 
beneficiary will be doing, the specific projects to be performed by the beneficiary, or for which 
company the beneficiary will ultimately perform these services. Therefore, the director's decision is 
affirmed, and the appeal is dismissed for this reason. 
V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 
An application or petition that does not comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by us even if the service center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial 
decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 
2001), affd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004) (noting that we conduct appellate review on a de novo basis). 
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 Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1037, affd. 345 F.3d 
683; see also BDPCS, Inc. v. Fed. Communications Comm'n, 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.6 In visa petition proceedings, it 
is the petiti oner'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. 
6 As these matters preclude approval of the petition, we will not address any of the additional issues we have 
observed on appeal.