dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6738870 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR. 12, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "computer programmer" under the 
H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C . § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 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 evidence of 
record does not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofSkirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&NDec. 799, 806 (AAO 
2012) . Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. SPECIAL TY OCCUPATION 
A. Legal Framework 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C . § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R . § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
( 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 with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We construe the term "degree" to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal 
Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in a 
specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular 
position"). 
B. Analysis 
For the reasons discussed below, we have determined that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 1 Specifically, we conclude that the record does 
not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate 
with a specialty occupation. 2 
1. First Criterion 
We first tum to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I), which requires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. To inform this inquiry, we recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's 
(DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 3 
1 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the petition, including evidence regarding the position and its business 
operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 We do not, however, maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. To satisfy the first 
criterion, the Petitioner bears the burden to submit sufficient evidence to support a determination that its particular position 
will normally have at its minimum. a bachelor's degree requirement in a particular specialty, or its equivalent, for entry at 
any level - be it at the entry level (Level I), or at the folly competent level (Level TV). 
2 
The Petitioner submitted the required DOL ETA Form 9035 & 9035E, Labor Condition Application 
for Nonimmigrant Workers (LCA) with this petition, where it classified the proffered position under 
the occupational title "Computer Programmers," corresponding to the Standard Occupational 
Classification (SOC) code 15-1131. 4 The subchapter of the Handbook titled "How to Become a 
Computer Programmer" states, in relevant part, that "[m]ost computer programmers have a bachelor's 
degree in computer science or a related subject; however, some employers hire workers with an 
associate's degree ... [and] some employers hire workers who have other degrees or experience in 
specific programming languages." 5 Thus, the Handbook does not support the Petitioner's assertion 
that a bachelor's degree is required for entry into this occupation. 6 
In the absence of support from the Handbook, the Petitioner submitted a letter from .... l _____ __, 
an associate professor of computer applications and information systems at the University of 
I I who concludes that the duties of the position and its level of complexity require at least a 
bachelor's degree in computer science, or a related area. We carefully evaluated I Is assertions 
in support of the instant petition but, for the following reasons, determined his letter is not persuasive. 
First, we note thatl ldoes not discuss the duties of the proffered position in any substantive 
detail. Rather, he restates the same job description from Petitioner's support letter. He does not 
discuss them in the specific context of the Petitioner's business. There is no indication that he 
possesses any knowledge of the Petitioner's proffered position beyond this job description, e.g., visited 
the Petitioner's business, observed the Petitioner's employees, interviewed them about the nature of 
their work, or documented the knowledge that these workers apply on the job prior to documenting 
his opinion regarding the proffered position. His level of familiarity with the actual job duties as they 
would be performed in the context of the Petitioner's business has therefore not been substantiated. 
MoreoverJ !regularly refers to the position as "so specialized and complex." He also contends 
that the background of a bachelor's degree in computer science, or a related area, or the equivalent, 
qualifies the computer programmer to serve "in this highly skilled leadership role." However, it is 
4 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCTS) to demonstrate 
that it will pay the Beneficiary the higher of either the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the "area of 
employment" or the actual wage paid by the employer to other employees with similar experience and qualifications who 
are performing the same services. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.731 (a). 
5 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Computer Programmers, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-programmers.htm (last visited March 11, 
2020). 
6 In response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner cited to the Handbook's chapter entitled "Software 
Developers," SOC code 15-1132 and referenced two job advertisements in this occupational category. The Petitioner does 
not provide an explanation for classifying the proffered position under the occupational category "Computer Programmers" 
but submitting an excerpt from the Handbook regarding the occupational category "Software Developers." Notably. the 
prevailing wage for "Computer Programmers" - the occupation the Petitioner selected - is lower than the prevailing wage 
for "Software Developers." 
Occupational Category Prevailing Wage: 
Ralei2h, North Carolina 
Computer Programmers $48,464 
Software Developers $65,728 
3 
unclear i~ I was informed of the Petitioner's attestation on the LCA that the proffered position 
was a Level II wage position. A Level II position indicates that the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary 
to perform only moderately complex tasks that require limited exercise of judgment compared to other 
positions within the same occupation. 7 The omission of a discussion or acknowledgement of the wage 
designation diminishes the evidentiary value of this opinion as it does not appear to be based on a 
complete understanding of the proffered position . 
.__ __ __.I cites the Handbook; however, as previously discussed, the Handbook does not state that a 
bachelor's-degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required for these positions. In addition, 
I I references DOL's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) summary report for 
"Computer Programmers" listed as SOC code 15-1131.00. The summary report provides general 
information regarding the occupation; however, it does not support the Petitioner's assertion regarding 
the educational requirements for these positions. For example, the Specific Vocational Preparation 
(SVP) rating, which is defined as "the amount oflapsed time required by a typical worker to learn the 
techniques, acquire the information, and develop the facility needed for average performance in a 
specific job-worker situation," cited within O*NET's Job Zone designates this position as having an 
SVP 7 < 8. This indicates that the occupation requires "over 2 years up to and including 4 years" of 
training. 8 While the SVP rating provides the total number of years of vocational preparation required 
for a particular position, it is important to note that it does not describe how those years are to be 
divided among training, formal education, and experience - and it does not specify the particular type 
of degree, if any, that a position would require. 9 The O*NET summary report for this occupation also 
does not specify that a degree is required, but instead states, "most of these occupations require a four­
year bachelor's degree, but some do not." Similar to the SVP rating, the Job Zone Four designation 
does not indicate that any academic credentials for Job Zone Four occupations must be directly related 
to the duties performed. 
Furthermore, I references a document entitled "North Carolina 2026 Occupational 
Employment Projections (All Occupation Levels)" and asserts that "state-level information verifies 
that Bachelor's-level preparation is required at a minimum to fulfill the typical job duties and 
responsibilities of this occupation." However, upon review of the document, we observe that it does 
7 For additional information, 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://t1cdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised_ 11 _ 2009.pdf 
We note that a low wage-level designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty 
occupation, just as a high wage-level designation does not definitively establish such a classification. In certain 
occupations ( e.g., doctors or lawyers), a Level TT position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, for entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designation would not reflect that an occupation 
qualifies as a specialty occupation if that higher-level position does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. That is, a position's wage-level designation may be a relevant factor but 
is not itself conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements of section 2 l 4(i)(l) of the Act. 
8 This training may be acquired in a school, work, military, institutional, or vocational environment. Specific vocational 
training includes: vocational education, apprenticeship training, in-plant training, on-the-job training, and essential 
experience in other jobs. 
9 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/help/ 
online/svp. 
4 
not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is required for computer programmer 
positions. 
For the reasons discussed, we conclude that the opinion letter from I lis insufficient to satisfy 
the first criterion. Matter of Caron Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (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."). 10 
In the instant matter, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation from a probative, 
authoritative source to substantiate its assertion regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this 
particular position. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
2. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs: "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[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong contemplates the 
common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific 
position. 
a. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
We generally consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there is such a common degree 
requirement: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the industry's 
professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether letters or 
affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms "routinely employ and recruit 
only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 1999) 
(quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (considering these 
"factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook, or other authoritative source, reports a requirement for at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, we incorporate by reference the previous discussion on the 
matter. 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner submitted copies of job announcements placed by other 
employers. However, upon review of the documents, we find that the Petitioner's reliance on the job 
10 We hereby incorporate our discussion ou.fl __ __,ls letter into our discussion of the other 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) 
criteria. 
5 
announcements is misplaced. First, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that these organizations are 
similar. When determining whether the Petitioner and the organization share the same general 
characteristics, such factors may include information regarding the nature or type of organization, and, 
when pertinent, the particular scope of operations, as well as the level of revenue and staffing (to list 
just a few elements that may be considered). It is not sufficient for the Petitioner to claim that an 
organization is similar and conducts business in the same industry without providing a legitimate basis 
for such an assertion. For instance, the Petitioner did submit information regarding the employers' 
revenue or staffing. The Petitioner did not sufficiently supplement the record of proceedings to 
establish that these advertising organizations are similar. 
Moreover, the advertisements do not appear to involve parallel positions. For example, one of the 
positions appears to be for a more senior, experienced employment than the proffered position. 11 
Further, some of the postings do not include sufficient information about the tasks and responsibilities 
for the advertised positions. Thus, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the primary duties 
and responsibilities of the advertised positions are parallel to those of the proffered position. 
As the documentation does not establish that the Petitioner has met this prong of the regulations, 
further analysis regarding the specific information contained in each of the job postings is not 
necessary. 12 That is, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. 
Without more, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations. 13 Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
b. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
11 For instance. the posting placed by AURA Technologies, LLC states a requirement for a bachelor's degree and five to 
ten years of direct experience in computer progralllllling. 
12 The Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how representative the job postings are of the particular 
advertising employers' recruiting history for the type of job advertised. As the advertisements are only solicitations for 
hire, they are not evidence of the actual hiring practices of these employers. 
13 It must be noted that even if all of the job postings indicated that a requirement of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations (which they do not). the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from the advertisements with regard to 
determining the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. See generally 
Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 ( 1995). Moreover, given that there is no indication that the 
advertisements were randomly selected, the validity of any such inferences could not be accurately determined even if the 
sampling unit were sufficiently large. Sec id. at 195-196 (explaining that "[r]andom selection is the key to [the] process 
[ of probability sampling]" and that "random selection offers access to the body of probability theory, which provides the 
basis for estimates of population parameters and estimates of error"). 
6 
We reviewed the Petitioner's statements regarding the proffered position; however, the Petitioner has 
not sufficiently developed relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the proffered position. 
For instance, the Petitioner did not sufficiently explain how the following tasks require a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent: 
• Develop and implement mobile applications forLJandD stores. 
• Implement scalable system usin~ I Services. 
• Develop system using Artificial Intelligence algorithms. 
• Participate in all phases of Scrum/Kanban - working in concert with Product, QA, 
and DevOps teams. 
• Design an application's architecture and DB structure. 
• Write technically detailed specifications for the projects. 
• Develop and implement refactoring process for legacy code and existing projects. 
Moreover, in response to the RFE, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would be responsible for 
the following: 
• Analyzing customer data and creating the Neural Network models based on the 
provided information. He will be responsible for software development based on 
the received results. Devoted time: 50% 
• Researching the possibility of improving the business process with Artificial 
Intelligence and building the required server infrastructure. Devoted time: 50% 
Nonetheless, this additional information falls short of explaining what the Beneficiary will actually do 
on a day-to-day basis in the proffered position. That is, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained 
in detail how the tasks require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge. While a few related courses may be beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, 
the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated how an established curriculum of courses leading to a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the 
duties of the proffered position. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the pos1t10n, and references his 
qualifications. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education 
or experience of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative 
complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position, and it did not identify any tasks 
that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
3. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it normally 
requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. The Petitioner 
asserted that "[e]very Software Developer and programmer in [the Petitioner] has [a] Master of 
Science degree," but upon review of the record, we observe that the Petitioner did not submit 
7 
information regarding employees who currently or previously held the position. The record does not 
establish that the Petitioner normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, directly related to the duties of the position. Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
4. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature 
of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
In the instant case, relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by the 
Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. While the position may require that the Beneficiary 
possess some skills and technical knowledge in order to perform these duties, the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently explained how these tasks require the theoretical and practical application of a body of 
highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific 
specialty ( or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation. The record does not include 
sufficient probative evidence that the duties require more than technical proficiency in the field. Thus, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated that its proffered position is one with duties sufficiently specialized 
and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
II. LABOR CONDITION APPLICATION 
Moreover, we wish to identify an additional issue to inform the Petitioner that this matter should be 
addressed in any future proceedings. 14 Specifically, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the LCA 
corresponds to the petition. 
As noted above, the Petitioner specified a position located within the "Computer Programmers" 
occupational category, corresponding to the SOC code 15-1131. The Petitioner farther indicated a 
Level II wage on the LCA. The Petitioner's minimum requirements for the proffered position is a 
master's degree in computer science, software engineering, or its equivalent, and "[a]t least 3 years' 
experience with .NET /JavaScript/Python/Lua" and "[ a ]t least 3 years' experience in Mobile 
Development forl 1 1 0 I store." Considering the Petitioner's combined education and 
experience requirements, it appears its Level II wage rate designation was incorrect. 
14 In reviewing a matter de novo, we may identify additional issues not addressed in the Director's decision. See Spencer 
EJ1te1prises, IJ1c. v. UJ1ited States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003) ("The 
AAO may deny an application or petition on a ground not identified by the Service Center."). 
8 
To assess whether the wage indicated on the H-1 B petition corresponds with the wage level listed on 
the LeA, users applies DOL's guidance, which provides a five step process for determining the 
appropriate wage level. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage 
Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009). 
A. Level of Education Requirement 
First, we will focus directly on step three of DOL's aforementioned five step process for wage level 
determinations. The third step involves a comparison of the Petitioner's education requirement to that 
listed in Appendix D of the DOL guidance. 15 The Petitioner's stated minimum education requirement 
is a master's degree in computer science, or software engineering. Because the education requirement 
contained in the Appendix indicates that the usual education level for computer programmers is a 
bachelor's degree, the Petitioner's master's degree requirement warrants a one level increase in the 
wage. 
B. Position Experience Requirements 
Moreover, computer programmers are classified within Job Zone 4 with an SVP rating of"7.0 < 8.0." 16 
This SVP rating means that the occupation requires "over 2 years up to and including 4 years" of 
specific vocational training. In the SVP context, the "over 2 years up to and including 4 years" consists 
of the two years one focuses on completing coursework for the specialty while obtaining a bachelor's 
degree, as well as "up to and including" four years of work experience. If the Petitioner requires a 
master's degree and three years of work experience, a wage level increase is required as follows: 
• If more than two years and up to three years of work experience is required (the low end of the 
experience and SVP range), a one level increase is required. 
• If more than three years and up to four years of work experience is required (the high end of 
the experience and SVP range), a two level increase is required. 
• If more than four years of work experience is required (greater than the experience and SVP 
range) a three level increase is required. 17 
The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LeA to users to demonstrate that it will pay an H-lB 
worker the higher of either the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the "area of 
employment" or the actual wage paid by the employer to other employees with similar experience and 
qualifications who are performing the same services. 18 Based on the foregoing, it appears the 
Petitioner should have designated the proffered position at least at the Level III rate on the LeA. 
Doing so would have resulted in a higher wage than the $68,372 it was offering the Beneficiary. A 
15 Appendix D of the DOL guidance provides a list of professional occupations with their corresponding usual education 
level. 
16 Appendix E of the DOL guidance provides that SVP is the amount of time for an individual to achieve average 
performance in a specific job-worker situation. The DOL guidance states: "This training may be acquired in a school, 
work, military, institutional, or vocational environment. Specific vocational training includes: vocational education, 
apprenticeship training, in-plant training, on-the-job training, and essential experience in other jobs." 
17 See the DOL guidance. 
18 Section 2 l 2(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.731 (a); Simeio Solutions, LLC, 26 T&N Dec. at 545-546. 
9 
Level III prevailing wage for the Computer Programmers category, for the relevant location and 
timeframe was $88,254. 19 
Therefore, we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the LCA corresponds with and 
supports the petition. 
III. INCOMPLETE PETITION 
As a final matter, even if the Petitioner was to overcome the ground for the Director's denial of the 
petition (which it has not), it could not be found eligible for the benefit sought. We have found another 
issue, not addressed by the Director, which precludes the approval of the H-lB petition. The Form 
1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, was not completely signed by the Petitioner. More 
specifically, the Petitioner did not certify that it would be liable for the reasonable costs of return 
transportation if the Beneficiary is dismissed from its employment prior to the period of authorized 
stay. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(l) states, in pertinent part, the following: 
Every benefit request or other document submitted to DHS must be executed and filed 
in accordance with the form instructions, notwithstanding any provision of 8 CFR 
chapter 1 to the contrary, and such instructions are incorporated into the regulations 
requiring its submission. 
The instructions for Form 1-129 state that the petition must be properly signed. The instructions further 
indicate that a petition that is not properly signed will be rejected. Moreover, according to the 
instructions, a petitioner that fails to completely fill out the form will not establish eligibility for the 
benefit sought and the petition may be denied. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(2), which concerns the requirement of a signature on applications 
and petitions, states the following: 
An applicant or petitioner must sign his or her benefit request. . . . By signing the 
benefit request, the applicant or petitioner ... certifies under penalty of perjury that the 
benefit request, and all evidence submitted with it, either at the time of filing or 
thereafter, is true and correct. Unless otherwise specified in this chapter, an acceptable 
signature on a benefit request that is being filed with the USCIS is one that is either 
handwritten or, for benefit requests filed electronically as permitted by the instructions 
to the form, in electronic format. 
The regulations provide, in pertinent part, the following: 
An applicant or petitioner must establish that he or she is eligible for the requested 
benefit at the time of filing the benefit request and must continue to be eligible through 
19 Foreign Labor Certification Data Center, Online Wage Library - FLC Wage Search Wizard available at 
http://www. flcdatacenter. com/0 ES WizardStait.aspx. 
10 
adjudication. Each benefit request must be properly completed and filed with all initial 
evidence required by applicable regulations and other USCIS instructions. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
In the instant Form I-129 (page 14 ), a required signature from an official of the Petitioner has been 
left blank. This section of the form reads as follows: 
As an authorized official of the employer, I certify that the employer will be liable for 
the reasonable costs of return transportation of the alien abroad if the alien is dismissed 
from employment by the employer before the end of the period of authorized stay. 
By failing to sign this signature block of the Form I-129, the Petitioner did not attest that it will comply 
with section 214( c )( 5) of the Act, which states the following: 
In the case of an alien who is provided nonimmigrant status under section 
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) or 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) and who is dismissed from employment by 
the employer before the end of the period of authorized admission, the employer shall 
be liable for the reasonable costs ofreturn transportation of the alien abroad. 
The regulations farther state, in pertinent part, the following: 
The employer will be liable for the reasonable costs of return transportation of the alien 
abroad if the alien is dismissed from employment by the employer before the end of 
the period of authorized admission pursuant to section 214( c )( 5) of the Act . . . . Within 
the context of this paragraph, the term "abroad" refers to the alien's last place of foreign 
residence. This provision applies to any employer whose offer of employment became 
the basis for an alien obtaining or continuing H-1B status. 
8 CFR § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(E). 
Thus, the petition has not been properly filed because the petitioning employer did not sign the 
signature block certifying that it would be liable for the reasonable costs of return transportation if the 
beneficiary is dismissed from its employment prior to the period of authorized stay. Pursuant to 8 
C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(7)(i), an application or petition which is not properly signed shall be rejected as 
improperly filed, and no receipt date can be assigned to an improperly filed petition. While the Service 
Center did not reject the petition, we are not bound by service center decisions. La. Philharmonic 
Orchestra v. INS, 44 F. Supp. 2d 800,803 (E.D. La. 1999). The integrity of the immigration process 
depends on the employer signing the official immigration forms. We conduct appellate review on a 
de nova basis, and it was in the exercise of this function that we identified this additional ground for 
dismissing the petition. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 145. Thus, for this reason as well, the petition 
may not be approved. 
11 
IV. 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
12