dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Science

MATTER OF S-T-, LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY3,2016 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a computer company. seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a .. computer 
systems analyst" under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. ,\'ee 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 8 U.S.C. 
§ 110l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). The H-1B 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. Vermont Service Center. denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish that ( 1) the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation: and (2) 
the Petitioner meets the definition of a U.S. employer pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4 )(ii). 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeaL the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the Director erred in finding that it does not have specialty occupation work available for 
the duration of the H -1 B requested period. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
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) 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: 
Matter ofS- T-. LLC 
(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. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has consistently 
interpreted 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 proposed 
position. See Ro.val Siam Corp. v. Cherf(~tt: 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"): Defensor v. Jl;feissner. 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
We note that, as recognized by the court in Defensor. 201 F.3d at 387-88. where the work is to be 
performed for entities other than the petitioner, evidence of the client companies' job requirements is 
critical. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d at 387-88. The court held that the former Immigration 
and Naturalization Service had reasonably interpreted the statute and regulations as requiring the 
petitioner to produce evidence that a proffered position qualities as a specialty occupation on the 
basis of the requirements imposed by the entities using the beneficiary's services. /d. Such evidence 
must be sutliciently detailed to demonstrate the type and educational level of highly specialized 
knowledge in a specific discipline that is necessary to perform that particular work. 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
In the H-IB petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a .. computer systems 
analyst." In the letter of support, the Petitioner provided the Beneficiary's job duties in the proffered 
position, as follows (verbatim): 
In this position [of a computer systems analyst], [the Beneficiary] will develop. 
document and revise system design procedures. test procedures. and quality 
standards. He will expand or modify system to serve new purposes or improve \\ork 
t1ow. He will test maintain. and monitor computer programs and systems. including 
coordinating the installation of computer programs and systems. I le will develop. 
document and revise system design procedures, test procedures. and quality 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter (?fS-T-, LLC 
standards. He will provide staff and users with assistance solving computer related 
problems, such as malfunctions and program problems. He will review and analyze 
computer printouts and performance indicators to locate code problems, and correct 
errors by correcting codes. He will confer with clients regarding the nature of the 
information processing or computation needs a computer program is to address. He 
will coordinate and link the computer systems within an organization to increase 
compatibility and so information can be shared. He will determine computer 
software or hardware needed to set up or alter system. 
The Petitioner stated it requires at least a bachelor's degree in .. Computer Science, Management 
Information Systems, Computer Engineering, Electronics and Communication. Electronic 
Engineering, Mechanical Engineering or other related fields of study.'" 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE). the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary 
would be employed on the Petitioner's in-house project, which it described as ··a software 
development project in which the Petitioner provides technical services to [an end-clientJ at the 
Petitioner's worksite.'' The Petitioner submitted a letter from the end-client, which identities the 
project name as the anticipated end date 
as ··one year term (With high probability of extension),'" and the work location as the Petitioner's 
office. 1 
This letter also lists the following job duties for the Beneficiary (verbatim): 
• Modify existing software to correct errors, allow it to adapt to new hardware. or to 
improve its performance using tools such as, SSO, Oracle. and Federation 
Manager. 
• Expand or modify system to serve new purposes or improve work t1ow. 
• Confer with systems analysts. engineers, programmers and others to design 
system and to obtain information on project limitations and capabilities, 
performance requirements and interfaces. 
• Analyze user needs and software requirements to determine feasibility of design 
within time and cost constraints. 
• Test. maintain, and monitor computer programs and systems, including 
coordinating the installation of computer programs and systems. 
• Develop, document and revise system design procedures, test procedures. and 
quality standards. 
• Consult with customers about software system design and maintenance. 
• Provide staff and users with assistance solving computer related problems. such as 
malfunctions and program problems. 
• Coordinate software system installation and monitor equipment functioning to 
ensure specifications are met. 
1 This letter reflects that the end-client's office is located in Washington . 
3 
Matter ofS-T-, LLC 
• Review and analyze computer printouts and performance indicators to locate code 
problems, and correct errors by correcting codes. 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides another job description for the proffered position. along with the 
approximate percentage of time the Beneficiary will spend on each duty, as follows (verbatim): 
# Job Duty % ofTirne 
Spent on Each 
Duty 
1 • Review requirements, high-level document (HLD) for planning the 9 
project timelines; 
2 • Analyze and develop complex business solutions using .NET, CA 32 
SiteMinder, SSO. Oracle. Java, JQuery and XML; 
3 • Review and support environments in DEV, QA, UAT and PROD 6 
for various ongoing projects: 
4 • Engage in full Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC) of the 10 
application; 
5 • Engage in performance analysis of application to support multiple 5 
environments; 
6 • Ensure quality by reviewing and optimizing code for better 5 
performance; 
7 • Follow Agile-SCRUM methodology for project development; 12 
8 • User version control system such as GIT and SNV: 13 
9 • Document Standard Operational Procedures (SOP) 8 
Total 100% 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below. we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation.
2 
Specifically, the record (1) does not describe the position's duties with sufficient detail; and (2) does 
not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent. commensurate 
with a specialty occupation. 3 
As a preliminary matter, we observe that the Petitioner and end-client have provided different 
descriptions of the proffered position and its associated job duties. For instance, the wording of the 
job duties provided by the Petitioner in its initial letter of support is taken almost verbatim from the 
Occupational Information Network (O*NET) OnLine's Details Report for ··computer Systems 
2 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
3 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 8 petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, \\e have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter ojS-T- , LLC 
Analysts" corresponding to standard occupational classification (SOC) code 15-1132.4 However, 
the wording of the job duties provided by the end-client is taken almost verbatim from O*NET 
OnLine's Details Reports for both "Computer Systems Analysts'' and "Software Developers, 
Applications" (SOC code 15-1132). On appeal, the Petitioner provides a new description of the 
proffered position which does not contain any of the job duties previously listed in its initial support 
letter or in the end-client's letter. The Petitioner has not provided an explanation for these various 
descriptions, and established through competent evidence which of the descriptions accurately 
represents the duties and responsibilities of the proffered position. 5 
In response to an RFE or on appeal, the Petitioner cannot offer a new position to the Beneficiary. or 
materially change a position's associated job responsibilities or requirements. The Petitioner must 
establish that the position offered to the Beneficiary when the petition was filed merits classification 
for the benefit sought. See Matter (~{Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248, 249 (Reg'l Comm'r 
1978). A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an etTort to make a deficient 
petition conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter of Izwnmi. 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. 
Comm'r 1998). 
We further observe that the Petitioner has not consistently identified and described the project to 
which the Beneficiary will be assigned. According to the end-client's letter, the Beneficiary will be 
assigned to the project named The 
whitepaper submitted with the end-client's letter identifies the product as 
which was ''developed to address the database access section for Sarbanes-Oxley compliance."
6 
On 
appeal, however, the Petitioner identifies the project product as 
and describes it as "an automated software batch job control system tor planning. 
organizing, scheduling, monitoring and reporting jobs .. , Although on appeal the Petitioner states that 
. . 
. . is an internal component of 
software product and is used for validating user credentials during authentication,·· 
the document submitted with the appeal contains no references to 
4 See O*NET Online Details Report for "'Computer Systems Analysts." http://www .onetonline.org /link/details / 15-
1121.00 (last visited Apr. 29, 20 16). 
5 The duty descriptions provided in the record were copied almost verbatim from O*NET. The O*NET description s may 
be appropriate when defining the range of duties that may be performed within an occupational category, but they do not 
adequately convey the substantive work that the Beneficiary will perform within the context of the Petitioner and/or end­
client's business operations and, thus, generally cannot be relied upon when discussing the duties attached to specific 
employment. The Petitioner's job duties provided on appeal are similarly generic, and do not adequately specify what 
duties the Beneficiary will perform within the context of the end-client's operations. 
In establishing a position as a specialty occupation, a petitioner must substantiate that it has H-1 B caliber work for the 
beneficiary for the period of employment requested in the petition. Simply submitting a generic job description that is 
not specific to the Beneficiary. the Petitioner, and/or the end-client is insufficient to establish the substantive nature of 
the proffered position . 
<> The whitepaper also references features, i.e., Database Security 
Scanner, Security Dashboard, Vulnerability Compliance Dashboard, and SOX Audit Report. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter ofS-T- , LLC 
product.7 
or ''Sarbanes-Oxley compliance," which was the stated purpose of the 
In addition, there are several inconsistencies within the document 
that lead us to question whether the Beneficiary will be assigned to this project. For example, the 
last .. milestone" (implementation and support) of the project has a --planned end date'' of November 
10, 2017, but the Petitioner is requesting a three-year validity period ending on June 30. 2018.8 
There is no documentation explaining what work will be done after November 10. 2017. In addition. 
the Petitioner is requesting a start date for the Beneficiary of October 1, 2015, which falls in quarter 
four of 2015 (Q4-15). On the other hand. table 6.1 of the project document reflects that the end­
client would have already hired its two --architect/system analysts" by quarter two of 2015 (Q2-15). 
We observe that the Petitioner is not listed anywhere in the document as one of the end-client's .. key 
partners." 
There are also other discrepancies regarding the overall resources dedicated to the project that lead 
us to further question the Beneficiary's assignment. For example , table 6.1 of the project document 
indicates that the end-client will have a total of 14 people for Q4-15. On the next page on Figure 
6.1. it indicates that they will have less than ten total resources during this same quarter. In addition, 
table 7.1 indicates that startup costs were expected to be a little less than $500,000 for just the 
beginning of FY 2014, while on the next page, the entire FY 2014 costs were expected to be 
$196,000. Again. ''it is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve the inconsistencies by independent 
objective evidence.·· Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. 
Based on the above discrepancies and deficiencies, the record does not contain evidence sufficiently 
concrete and informative to demonstrate (1) the actual work that the Beneficiary will perform. (2) 
the complexity, uniqueness and/or specialization of the tasks, and (3) the correlation between that 
work and a need for a particular level education of highly specialized knowledge in a specific 
specialty. The evidence of record is insufficient to establish that the proffered position qualities as a 
specialty occupation. 
Nevertheless, for the purpose of performing a comprehensive analysis of whether the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation, we will discuss the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A). 
A. First Criterion 
We first tum to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). which requires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
7 The Petitioner also states on appeal that the Beneficiary will be involved in "various ongoing projects" (plural 
emphasized) , but also claims that the Beneficiary will only be assigned to one project. 
8 The end-client 's letter states that the Beneficiary's assignment is a one-year term with "high probability of exten sion" 
for an unspecitied additional term. 
Matter of S- T-, LLC 
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. 9 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-1 B petition. the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category .. Computer Systems Analysts" 
(SOC code 15-1121) at a Level I wage. 10 
We reviewed the chapter of the Handbook entitled ''Computer Systems Analysts.'' including the 
sections regarding the typical duties and requirements for this occupational category. 11 The 
subchapter of the Handbook entitled ''How to Become a Computer Systems Analyst" states, in 
pertinent part: "A bachelor's degree in a computer or information science field is common. although 
not always a requirement. Some firms hire analysts with business or liberal arts degrees who have 
skills in information technology or computer programming." U.S. Dep't of Labor. Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., Computer Systems Analysts. 
http://www. bls. gov I oohl computer-and-information-techno logy /print/ computer-systems-analysts. htm 
(last visited Apr. 29. 2016). 
The Handbook does not support the Petitioner's assertion that a bachelor's degree is required for 
entry into this occupation. While the Handbook indicates that a bachelor's degree in a computer or 
information science field is common, it does not report that there are any degree requirements for 
these jobs. Moreover, the Handbook continues by stating that a wide-range of degrees may be 
acceptable for positions in this occupation, including general-purpose degrees such as business and 
9 
All of our references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the lntemet site 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not, however, maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant 
information. That is. the occupational category designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the 
general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered position, and USC IS regularly reviews the Handbook on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. To satisfy the first criterion. however. the 
burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to submit sutlicient evidence to support a finding that its particular position 
would normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement. or its equivalent, for entry. 
10 The ''Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" issued by DOL provides a description of the wage levels. A 
prevailing wage determination starts with an entry level wage and progresses to a higher wage level after considering the 
experience. education. and skill requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. The Petitioner classified the proffered 
position at a Level I wage, which is the lowest of four assignable wage levels. We will consider this selection in our 
analysis of the position. A Level I wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which the Petitioner expects the 
Beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the occupation. This wage rate indicates: (I) that the Beneficiary will be 
expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that he will be closely supervised 
and his work closely monitored. 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:l/flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC_ Guidance_Revised_II_2009.pdf 
11 For additional information regarding the occupational category ''Computer Systems Analysts." see U.S. Dep't of 
Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., Computer Systems Analysts. available 
at http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/print/computer-systems-analysts.htm (last visited Apr. 
29, 2016). 
Matter of S-T-. LLC 
liberal arts. 12 The Handbook does not support the Petitioner's assertion regarding the educational 
requirements for its position. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)(l). 
B. 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 perfonned only by an 
individual with a degree[.]"" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong 
casts its gaze upon the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
1. 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. 
Upon review of the record, we find that the Petitioner did not submit any evidence to support this 
criterion of the regulations. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. 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 
perfonned only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. or its 
equivalent. 
To establish eligibility, the Petitioner must describe the specific duties and responsibilities to be 
performed by the Beneficiary in the context of the end-client's business operations. demonstrate that 
a legitimate need for an employee exists, and substantiate that it has H-lB caliber work for the 
Beneficiary for the period of employment requested in the petition. The Petitioner has not done so 
here. As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not adequately discussed the specific duties to be 
performed by the Beneficiary. The Petitioner also has not submitted sufficient reliable evidence to 
demonstrate which project the Beneficiary will be assigned, or that a legitimate work assignment 
12 USC IS interprets the degree requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 2 14.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) to require a degree in a specific specialty 
that is directly related to the proposed position. Although a general-purpose bachelor's degree may be a legitimate 
prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify a finding that a particular 
position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam Corp. v. Cherh?fj; 484 F.3d at 147. 
8 
Matter of S-T-, LLC 
exists for him. We incorporate our earlier discussion and analysis regarding the evidence of record· s 
inconsistencies and deficiencies with respect to the proffered position and its associated duties. 
In addition, we considered the Petitioner's designation of the proffered position as an entry-level 
position within the occupational category (by selecting a Level I wage). This designation. when read 
in combination with the Petitioner's job descriptions and the Handbook's account of the 
requirements for this occupation, further suggests that the particular position is not so complex or 
unique that the duties can only be performed by an individual with a bachelor's degree or higher in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. While related courses may be beneficial in performing certain 
duties of the position, the Petitioner has not 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. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second 
alternative prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. 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 stated in the Form I-129 that it was established in 2012 (approximately three years 
prior to the tiling of the H-1 B petition) and that it has 16 employees. The Petitioner did not submit 
information regarding employees who currently or previously held the position. The record thus 
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). 
D. 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. 
The Petitioner has not established that the proffered duties are more specialized and complex than 
duties for positions that are not usually associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. We again incorporate our earlier discussion and analysis regarding the 
insufficient job and project descriptions, as well as the Petitioner's designation of the position as a 
Level I position (the lowest of four assignable wage-levels) relative to others within the same 
occupational category. 13 The Petitioner therefore has not demonstrated in the record that its 
13 The Petitioner's designation ofthis position as a Level I, entry-level position undermines its claim that the position is 
particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation. Nevertheless. a 
Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty occupation. just as a 
9 
Matter of S-T-, LLC 
proffered position is one with duties sufficiently specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C .F .R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(..f). 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one ofthe 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. Accordingly. the 
petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed. 
IV. UNITED STATES EMPLOYER 
The Petitioner also has not demonstrated that it qualifies as a United States employer as that term is 
defined at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
As detailed above, the record of proceedings does not contain sufficient documentation evidencing 
what exactly the Beneficiary will do for the period of time requested or where exactly and for whom 
the Beneficiary will be providing services. For instance. the Petitioner and end-client provided 
different descriptions of the proffered position and its associated job duties. many of which were 
copied almost verbatim from O*NET. The Petitioner also has not consistently identified and 
documented what project to which the Beneficiary will be assigned. and what specific job duties and 
responsibilities the Beneficiary will perform with respect to that project. Additionally, the evidence 
of record presents different descriptions of the project's timeline and resources which further lead us 
to question whether such a project exists. 
Although the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary will work from the Petitioner's office in New 
Jersey. the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how he will provide his services to the end­
client whose office is located in Washington. The Petitioner has not explained. for example. how 
the Beneficiary will perform the stated job duty of '"[p ]rovide staff and users with assistance solving 
computer related problems'' for the end-client located in Washington. Merely claiming in its letters 
that the Petitioner will exercise complete responsibility and control over the Beneficiary. without 
evidence supporting the claim, does not establish eligibility in this matter. "'[G]oing on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof 
in these proceedings." Af·atter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter l?l 
Treasure Crafi l?fCal, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
Given this 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 
Level IV wage-designation does not definitively establish such a classification. In certain occupations (e.g .. doctors or 
lawyers), a Level L entry-level 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 214(i)( I) of the Act. 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter o.fS-T-, LLC 
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). There is insufficient evidence detailing where the 
Beneficiary will work, the specific project to be performed by the Beneficiary, or for which 
company the Beneficiary will ultimately perform these services. The Director's decision is aftim1ed 
and the appeal is dismissed for this additional reason. 
IV. BENEFICIARY'S QUALIFICATIONS 
Since the identified bases for denial are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal. we need not fully 
address other issues evident in the record. That said, we wish to identify another issue to inform the 
Petitioner that this matter should be addressed in any future proceedings. 14 
Specifically, the record does not currently demonstrate that the Beneficiary's combined education 
and work experience is the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. While the 
claimed 
equivalency is based in part on experience, the record does not establish that the evaluator, 
has authority to grant college-level credit for training and/or experience in the 
specialty, i.e., Management Information Systems, at 
and that the has a program for granting college-level credit based on an 
individual's training and/or work experience in the particular specialty. 
V. CONCLUSION 
The burden is on the Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden 
has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofS-T-, LLC, ID# 17295 (AAO May 3, 2016) 
14 In reviewing a matter de novo, we may identify additional issues not addressed below in the Director's 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) ('"The AAO may deny an application or petition on a ground not identified by the 
Service Center."). 
11