dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Science

MATTER OF N-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY31,2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a computer company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "SAP 
consultant" under the H-1 B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) § !Ol(a)(IS)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(l5)(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, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
evidence of record is insufficient to establish that: (1) the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation; and (2) the Beneficiary is qualified to serve in a specialty occupation position in 
accordance with the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's 
conclusions are erroneous. 
Upon de novo review, the appeal will be dismissed. 
I. SPECIALTY 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. 
Matter of N-, Inc. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) states, in pertinent part, the following: 
Specialty occupation means an occupation which [(I)] 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 quality as a specialty occupation, a proposed position must 
meet one of the following criteria: 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the m1rumum 
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)(l) 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. Fed. Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989); Matter of W-F-, 
21 l&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. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of N-, Inc. 
As such and consonant with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4 )(ii), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USC IS) 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 
Royal Siam Corp. v. Cherto.IJ, 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, US CIS regularly approves H -1 B petitions for qualified 
individuals 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-1 B visa category. 
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 individual, and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meis sner, 201 F. 3d 384. The critical element is not the title 
of the position or 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. 
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 qualifies as a specialty occupation on the 
basis of the requirements imposed by the entities using the beneficiary's services. !d. Such evidence 
must be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate the type and educational level of highly specialized 
knowledge in a specific discipline that is necessary to perform that particular work. 
B. The Proffered Position 
On the Form 1-129, Petition for a No nimmigrant Worker, the Petitioner described itself as a 22-
employee software services company located in California. The Petitioner seeks to 
employ the Beneficiary as a "SAP consultant" from October 1, 2015, to July 23, 2018, at a salary of 
$63,000 per year. The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary will work off-site in Michigan. 
The labor condition application (LCA) submitted to support the visa petition 
states that the proffered 
position corresponds to Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code and occupation title 
15-1121, "Computer Systems Analysts," from the Occupational Information Network (O*NET). 
3 
(b)(6)
Maller of N-, Inc. 
The LCA further states that the proffered position is a Level II position. The LCA lists the sole 
. place of employment as the Michigan address. 
In its cover letter, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary "will be designated to primarily work at 
[the P'etitioner's] End-Client's business premises located [inJ MI This 
assignment is based on [the Petitioner's] direct contract with [the End-Client]." The Petitioner then 
described the proffered position as follows (verbatim): 
[The Beneficiary] will be responsible for working with the SAP team for conducting 
Migration Analysis and Verification Sessions. Proactively identifying issues that 
may negatively impact a projects deliverables. Planning 
and establishing after go-live 
activities including ongoing application support. Working on End-to-end 
Implementation, Upgrades, Installations, Configurations , Post-Installation Activities, 
OS/DB Migration, Performance Tuning, Documentation, Defining SLA, Transition, 
and Managing Delivery of all SAP. Participating in 24*7 Support of applications and 
translating business requirements into technical requirements and implementing the 
solution. Performing analysis, definition, .creation and 
implementation of technical 
application standards and documentation. Managing the delivery of SAP OS/DB 
migrations from one hardware platform to anothe'r within defined time and adhered to 
quality standards. Participating in Proof of Concept Development, HANA 
administrat ion and monitoring, HANA revision and SPS upgrade, HANA studio and 
client installations , Monitoring of SAP HANA studio for Performance tuning, 
Activating and deactivating services using SAP HANA studio, Performing OS 
Migration of the Entire R3, BI, PI Landscape from HP-UX to Linux Environment, 
.Handling Runtime issues during the Export and Import and Upgrade, Monitoring the 
systems from the SAP Solution Manager , . Configuring the. OSS settings, and 
Coordinating with off-shore Basis Support Team. 
In response to the Director ' s request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner elaborated upon the duties of 
the proffered position, as well as the time spent on each duty, as follows: 
Tasks Difficulty %Time 
Level to be 
Spent 
1. Have a good knowledge of all SAP software, Understand the pros and 
cons of the various SAP software, Be SAP qualified , Solid 4 20% 
communication and interpersonal skills. Experience with SAP 
projects. Analytical and creative thought. Ability to deliver activities 
to tight timescales · 
2. Provide expert advice on SAP functiona lity. The Consultant is 
supposed to be expert in his SAP module and should be able to 4 20% 
provide in detail the functionality available in SAP. He should advice 
4 
Matter of N-, Inc. 
customer on how to use the best business processes as provided in 
SAP. 
. 
3. Collect & analyze customer requirements on the following: oBusiness 3 10% 
processes and parameters: This is important for business processes to 
be covered in SAP and compile the various parameters required for 
subsequent Configuration. oAssist in data transfer mapping: Data is 
required to be transferred to SAP from the legacy systems (e.g. Master 
Data like Material Master, CustomerN end or master etc .. ) 
oDetermining reporting requirements: Standard SAP Reports and any 
Customized Reporting required. 
4. Determine printed forms requirements, Suggest solutions to customer 4 10% 
based on best business practices so that Customer gets Business 
benefits by following these SAP processes. 
5. Assist in the development of business processes descriptions. Conduct 3 5% 
implementation & training workshops: This is particularly required for 
SAP Power users and then guidance for end-user training. Most of the 
implementations follow 'Train the Trainer' approach .. 
6. Provide guidance on end-user documentation. Provide guidance on 4 15% 
test plan.: How to test SAP functionality for the required Business 
processes and ensure that all scenarios are covered. Conduct unit tests 
based on customer defined scenarios 
7. Coordinate with other module SAP Consultants for Integration 4 10% 
requirements. 
8. Provide Functional Specifications to Technical team for any 4 10% 
Customized developments .. 
Notes on Difficulty Level 
. 
I Novice 
2 Some Exposure 
3 Familiarity with Computers 
4 Bachelor's 
5 Master's 
The Petitioner stated that the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree in computer science, 
electronics engineering, computer information systems, or a related field, plus a minimum of two to 
four years of related experience. 
(b)(6)
Matter JJ N-, Inc. 
In support of the petitiOn, the Petitioner submitted two Employment Agreements with the 
Beneficiary which contain a lengthy description of duties, as cited below in part (verbatim):' 
[The Beneficiary] will be responsible for Gathering the security requirements in 
Preparation Phase with touch base. with Customer. Prepared the Security blue print 
according to the customer requirements and policies.lnteracting with the customer 
during realization phase.Created Project team roles and provided access to Project 
team based on the equipment.Prepared Role Matrix by gathering the requirements 
from BPDDs and FTDS Created Business and end user roles through BRM in GRC 
10.0 Performed Unit testing of roles and transported them to Production Handled 
User &role administration using ARM & BRM in GRC 1 O.O.Configured MSMP 
work flow for ARM and BRM in Access Control.Prepared the end users access and 
trained them based on their ·functionality. Built the SOD Rule set as per customer 
business specifications and uploaded them to production. Performed the risk analysis 
for roles and users using ARA in GRC I 0.0 Creation of users and roles based on 
Customer predefined process Resolving authorization issues for Project team and also 
end users. Performed security testing during SIT2 and made the security section 
ready as part of preparation phase. Configured de-centralized functionality EAM in 
GRC Supported the SAP Implementation team during go-live Resolved Access and 
authorization issues during post go-live is a Global leader in 
automobile sector with operations world wide.Jn the Latin America, Africa, Middle 
Project/Customer: General basis administration 
arid Health checks. User administration and Authorization support .... 
The Petitioner also submitted a letter from the claimed end-client stating that the Beneficiary will 
work at its business premises in Michigan as a SAP Consultant "for the project entitled 
The end-client letter lists job duties similar to those listed in the Petitioner's RFE 
response . The end-client letter further states that the company has "never recruited for [the 
proffered] position for less than a Bachelor ' s degree in the following fields Computer Science, 
Computer Applications, Information Technology, Mathematics, Business or a closely related field 
[sic]," along with at least two to three years of related experience. 
C. Analysis 
As · a preliminary matter, the end-client's assertion that a bachelor's degree in "Business" is a 
sufficient minimum requirement for entry into the proffered position is inadequate to establish that 
the proposed position qualifies as a specialty occupation .2 A petitioner must demonstrate that the 
.
1 
The Petitioner submitted an "amended" Employment Agreement in response to the Director 's RFE which had noted 
several impermissible provisions relating to the LCA in the original Employment Agreement. Both Employment 
Agreements contain the same description ofduties . . 
2 While the Petitioner's list of acceptable degrees does not contain a degree in business, the Petitioner has not explained 
why its requirements di.ffer from the end-client 's requirements. Regardless ; to the extent that the Petitioner's 
descriptions differ from those provided by the end-client , we defer to the end-client's descriptions. See Defensor v. 
6 
Matter of N-, Inc. 
proffered position requires a precise and specific course of study that relates directly and closely to 
the position in question. Since there must be a close correlation between the required specialized 
studies and the position, the requirement of a degree with a generalized title, such as "Business," 
without further specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of 
Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560(Comm'r 1988). 
To prove that a job requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge as required by section 214(i)(l) of the Act, a petitioner must establish that the position 
requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specialized field of study or its 
equivalent. As discussed supra, USCIS interprets the degree requirement . at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) to require a degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed 
position. Although a general-purpose business 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. Chertoff, 484 at 
14 7 _3 Without more, a degree requirement in "Business," alone, indicates that the proffered position 
is not in fact a specialty occupation. 
Moreover, it also cannot be found that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation 
because the Petitioner has not credibly and sufficiently demonstrated the substantive nature of the 
proffered position.4 
Foremost, we find insufficient credible evidence directly from end-client describing the duties of the 
proffered position. The evidence of record contains two different versions of the "Assigned 
Personnel Form" signed by the Petitioner and the end-client, both of which were purportedly entered 
into on October 21, 2013. These two documents contain different descriptions of the services to be 
performed by the Beneficiary; one of the Assigned Personnel Forms describes the "Services to be 
performed" as "Design, Coding and unit testing core components and client customization of the 
Meissner, 201 F.3d at 387-388 (the petitioner-provided job duties and alleged requirements to perform those duties are 
irrelevant to a specialty occupation determination). 
3 Specifically, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit explained in Royal Siam that: 
!d. 
The courts and the agency consistently have stated that, although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, 
such as a business administration degree, may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, 
requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify the granting of a petition for an H-1 8 specialty . 
occupation visa. See, e.g., Tapis lnt 'I v. INS, 94 F.Supp.2d 172, 175-76 (D. Mass. 2000); Shanti, 36 F. 
Supp. 2d at 1164-66; cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 ([Comm'r] 1988) 
(providing rrequently cited analysis in connection with a conceptually similar provision). This is as it 
should be: elsewise, an employer could ensure the granting of a specialty occupation visa petition by 
the simple expedient of creating a generic (and essentially artificial) degree requirement. 
4 
The California Secretary of State website indicates that the Petitioner's corporate status has been suspended. That is, 
the Petitioner's powers, rights and privileges, including the right to use its corporate name in California, were suspended. 
See attached print-outs. The Petitioner's corporate status raises questions regarding whether the Petitioner's offer of 
employment to the Beneficiary is bonafide. 
7 
(b)(6)
Matt er of N-, Inc. 
product," while the other Assigned Personnel Form describes the "Services to be performed" as 
"SAP systems ,BI Security,EP security [sic]." In addition, both Assigned Personnel Forms list the 
Beneficiary's end-date as October 12, 2018, even though the Petitioner requested a validity period 
ending on July 23, 2018.5 We thus question whether either of the two Assigned Personnel Forms 
constitute an accurate, legally binding contract between the Petitioner and the end-client for the 
Beneficiary 's services, as claimed.6 "[I]t is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve the 
inconsistencies by independent objective evidence." Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 
1988). Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner 
submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. !d. at 591-92. "Doubt cast on 
any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the · reliability and 
sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition." !d. at 591. 
Even if we were to find either or both of these Assigned Personnel Forms to be credible, these 
documents do not describe in detail the nature of the proffered duties. As previously stated, the 
Assigned Personnel Forms simply describe the "Services to be performed" as "Design, Coding and 
unit testing core components and client customization of the product," and "SAP systems ,BI 
Security,EP security [sic]." No further details about these job duties or what "product" or "systems" 
the Beneficiary will work on were provided in these forms. Notably, the Assigned Personnel Forms 
do not contain any reference to the ' project. 
The end-client letter similarly describes the proffered duties in broad and generalized terms, such as 
"[r]esponsible for having a good knowledge of all SAP software, Understand the pros and cons of 
the various SAP software, Be SAP qualified, Solid communication and interpersonal skills, 
Experience with SAP projects."7 However, there is no further explanation of what specific tasks the 
Beneficiary will perform (i.e., what is meant by the vague phrases "[r]esponsible for having a good 
knowledge" and "Be SAP quaiified"). Moreover, while the end-client letter references the 
project, it does not provide any additional information and explanation about 
this project, such as the nature, complexity , and length of this particula~ project. 
In fact, the evidence of record contains apparent references to other projects and/or end-clients. For 
example, the Petitioner's Employment Agreements with the Beneficiary describe the proffered job 
duties as including ' is a Global leader in automobile s ector with operations 
world wide.In the Latin America, Africa, Middle Project/Customer: 
" 8 The Petitioner has not explained the meaning of this particular duty, and the relationship 
5 The Petitioner did not request the maximum three years, which would have ended on Septemb er 30, 2018. 
6 We also note that these Assigned Personnel Forms list the Beneficiary 's "Primary work Location [a]s 
Michigan ." As will be discussed infra, the use of the word " Primaril y" is problematic and denotes that the Beneficiary 
may also be assigned to perfonn work other than at the stated premise s. . 
7 The Petition er's RFE respon se lists these same duti es, and indicate s that the Benefici ary will spend 20% of her time on 
these part icular duties . 
8 While petitioner-provided job duties are genera"lly outside the scope of consideration for establishing whether the 
position qualifi es a s a specialt y occupation, we are consider ing the Petitioner' s description s of the dutie s here for the 
purpo se of highlighting the inconsistencie s and deficiencie s in the evidence of record . See Defensor v. Meissner, 20 I 
8 
(b)(6)
Mauer of N-, Inc. 
(if any) between and the Petitioner. The Petitioner's Employment Agreements also 
contain repeated references to "GRC 10.0" among other undefined terms and acronyms. The 
Petitioner has not explained what "GRC 10.0" is, and how it relates to the ' 
project. "[G]oing 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 ofTreasure Craft of Cal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
We note that many of the proffered duties listed in the Employment Agreements are worded in the 
past t ense. This, along with the unexplained references to . GRC 1 0.0, and other 
undefined terms and acronyms , lead us to question the credibility of the Petitioner 's documents 
The Petitioner's cover letter lists job duties such as "SAP HANA studio for Performance tuning, 
Activating and deactivating services using SAP HANA studio, Performing OS Migration of the 
Entire R3, BI, PI Landscape from HP-UX to Linux Environment." These job duties involving "SAP 
HANA studio" are not found elsewhere in the evidence of record. The Petitioner has not explained 
how these duties are consistent with other stated job duties, and moreover, how they relate to 
project. Again, "going on record without supporting documentary evidence is 
not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings." !d. 
The Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary will perform duties such as "[p]rovide expert advice on 
SAP functionality" and being an "expert in [her] SAP module.'' The Petitioner also asserted that the 
Beneficiary will perform duties such as "Managing Delivery of all SAP." However, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position as a Level II position. In· designating the proffered position at a 
Level II (qualified) wage rate, the Petitioner has indicated that the proffered position is a 
. comparatively lower position relative to others within the occupation.9 That is, in accordance with 
the relevant DOL explanator y information on wage levels, this wage rate indicates that the 
Beneficiary has a good understanding of the occupation, but will only perform moderately complex 
tasks that require limited judgment. See · U.S. De p'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_l1_2009 .pdf The 
Petitioner 's Level II wage rate designation is inconsistent with the duties requiring the Beneficiary to · 
be an "expert" and to "[Manage] Delivery of all SAP," and leads us to further question the nature of 
the proffered position. 
F.3d at 387-88 (stating that the petitioner-provided job duties and alleged requirements to perform those duties were 
irrelevant to a specialty occupation determination where the nurses in that case would prov ide services to the end-client 
hospitals and not to the petitionin g staffing company) . 
9 The Petitioner 's designation of this position as a Level II position undermines its claim that the position is a senior 
position compared to other positions within the same occ upation. Neve rtheless, a Level II wage-de signation does not 
preclude a proffered position from classificatio n as a s pecialty occupation , just as a Level IV wage-designation does not 
definitively establish such a classification . In certain occupations (e.g., doctors or lawyers), a Level I or Level II position 
would still require a minimum of a bachelor 's degree in a specific specialt y, or its e quivalent, for entry. Similarly, 
however, a Level IV wage-designation wou ld not reflect that an occupation qualifies as a specia lty occupation if that 
higher-level positio n does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor 's degree in a s pecific 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 requirement s of section 214(i)( I) of the Act. · 
9 
Matter of N-, Inc. 
The evidence of record contains other vague statements by the Petitioner and the end-client 
regarding the Beneficiary's "primary" work duties and location that further lead us to question the 
nature of the proffered position. For instance, both Assigned Personnel Forms list the Beneficiary's 
"Primary work location" as the end-client's Michigan premises. The Petitioner states in its cover 
letter that the Beneficiary "will be designated to primarily work at [the Petitioner's) End-Client's 
business premises." However, the use of the words "primary" or "primarily" denotes that the 
Beneficiary may also be assigned to perform work at other, unspecified locations, and that she may 
be assigned to perform job duties other than those disclosed in the petition. The Petitioner's 
Employment Agreements with the Beneficiary contain other similar provisions indicating that the 
Beneficiary may be assigned to perform undisclosed work, such as that the Beneficiary's "duties 
shall be rendered at [Petitioner's] business premises or at such other places as the [Petitioner] may 
require" and that she "shall also perform such other duties in the ordinary course of business as 
performed by other persons in similar such positions, as well as such other reasonable duties as may 
be assigned from time to time by the [Petitioner)." When considered as a whole, the evidence of 
record lacks a sufficient, detailed explanation of all the work the Beneficiary will be assigned to 
perform during the entire validity period requested, including the location(s) of such work and the 
specific job duties to be performed. · 
For all of the above· reasons, we find the evidence of record insufficient to demonstrate the 
substantive nature of the proffered position and its constituent duties. Consequently, we are 
precluded from finding that the proffered position satisfies any criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), because it is the substantive nature of that work that determines (I) the normal 
minimum educational requirement for the particular position, which is the focus of criterion I; 
(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. 
Accordingly, as the evidence does not satisfy any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it 
cannot be found that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The appeal will be 
dismissed and the petition denied for this reason. 
II. BENEFICIARY QUALIFICATIONS 
The Director also found that the Beneficiary is not qualified to perform the duties of the proffered 
position if the job had been determined to be a specialty occupation. However, a beneticiary's 
credentials to perform a particular job are relevant only when the job is found to be a specialty 
occupation. As discussed in this decision, the proffered position does not qualify as a specialty 
. occupation. Therefore, we need not and will not address the Beneficiary's qualifications further. 
10 
Matter of N-, Inc. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that the proffered position, more likely than not, qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. 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; Matter o[Otiende, 26 . . 
I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofN-, Inc., ID# 16747 (AAO May 31, 2016) 
II