dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Science

(b)(6)
DATE: JUL 3 1 2015 
INRE: Petitioner : 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION RECEIPT #: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service: 
Administrative Appeals Office 
20 Massac husetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Wash ingto n, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. 
If you believe we incorr ectly decided your case, you may file a motion requesting us to reconsider our 
decision and/or reopen the proceeding. The requirements for motions are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. 
Motions must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this 
decision. The Form I-290B web page (www.uscis.gov/i-290b) contains the latest information on fee, filing 
location, and other requirements. Please do not mail any motions directly to the AAO. 
Thank you, 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
REV 3/2015 www. uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The matter is now before 
the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
On the Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129), the petitioner describes itself as a 
34-employee "IT Services and Solutions" company established in In order to employ the 
beneficiary in what it designates as a full-time "Computer Programmer Analyst" position at a salary 
of $90,000 per year, the petitioner seeks to classify him as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty 
occupation pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The petitioner is requesting to employ the beneficiary from 
October 1, 2014 to September 3, 2017 at its business address of in 
New Jersey. The petitioner indicated on the Form I-129 that the beneficiary will not 
work off-site or at any other addresses. 
The Director denied the petition, concluding that the evidence of record does not establish that 
specialty occupation work exists for the beneficiary, and thus, that the proffered position qualifies 
for classification as a specialty occupation. The petitioner now files this appeal, asserting that the 
Director's decision was erroneous. 
We base our decision upon our review of the entire record of proceeding, which includes: (1) the 
petitioner's Form 1-129 and the supporting documentation filed with it; (2) the Director's Request for 
Evidence (RFE); (3) the petitioner's response to the RFE; (4) the Director's letter denying the 
petition; and (5) the Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) and submissions on appeal. 
As will be discussed below, we have determined that the Director did not err in her decision to deny 
the petition.
1 
Beyond the Director's decision, we have identified additional grounds of ineligibility, 
i.e., that the evidence does not demonstrate that the petitioner qualifies as a United States employer 
with an employer-employee relationship with the beneficiary, and that the beneficiary is qualified to 
perform services in a specialty occupation. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed, and the 
petition will be denied. 
II. THE PROFFERED POSITION 
The Labor Condition Application (LCA) submitted to support the visa petitiOn states that the 
proffered position is a "Computer Programmer," and that it corresponds to Standard Occupational 
Classification (SOC) code and title "15-1131, Computer Programmers" from the Occupational 
Information Network (O*NET). The LCA further states that the proffered position is a Level I 
(entry) position. 
1 We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
In a letter dated March 20, 2014, the petitioner provided an overview of the proffered position and 
its constituent duties, stating that the beneficiary's job duties include the following: 
• Analyze, develop and write complex high-end, mission critical role-based 
computer programs requiring high degree of security and computational ability. 
• Work with project architect and /or technical lead to confirm and substantiate 
functional, technical designs, and project specifications. 
• Perform projects using open-source technologies. 
• Review and analyze complex programming specifications to resolve any possible 
misunderstandings. 
• Perform application programming assignments, typically maintenance or 
modification of existing systems. 
• Enforce coding standards and deploy new technologies as needed 
• Install new and improved application systems-enhancement, compilation, and 
testing. 
• Utilize appropriate software tools to develop, document, test and debug 
programs/objects. 
• Create procedures and batch processing control statements, user materials, 
documentation, and moving programs into production 
mode. 
• Understand and realize the design document using applicable Design Patterns. 
• Provide various reusable Design approaches to solve business functionalities for 
various modules. 
• Implement Web Services; develop business logic and test cases. 
• Involve in Developer Testing during application release every month. 
• Perform various forms of testing- unit, string, system, acceptance, volume, etc., to 
ensure that desired test results are achieved. 
• Troubleshoot applications. 
(Verbatim.) 
In the same letter, the petitioner stated that "[t]he beneficiary will work at [the petitioner's] office 
premises at NJ on the project. is the most complete mobile app 
for automation projects . . . . This is not an offsite position . . . . The beneficiary will be supervised 
at [the petitioner's office] by Mr. President." 
With regard to the minimum educational requirement for the proffered position, the petitioner stated 
that "[ o ]ur company consistently requires that the Computer Programmer Analysts working for our 
company possess the usual minimum requirements for performance of job duties namely Bachelor's 
degree in Computer Science, Information Systems, Engineering, Business Administration, or 
related field of study." 
In a separate letter dated March 15, 2014, the petitioner confirmed that the beneficiary "will be 
serving in the 
role of Computer Programmer on the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
project for [the petitioner]" and that the beneficiary will work on this project at the petitioner's 
office at , New Jersey. The petitioner further stated 
that the beneficiary will be directly supervised by Project Manager on the 
project. The petitioner reiterated the same job duties and minimum educational 
requirements as listed in its March 20, 2014letter. 
The petitioner also submitted a series of letters describing the beneficiary's responsibilities during 
different phases of the project. The first in this series of letters describes the 
beneficiary's responsibilities during the "Product Design (Core Product)" phase of the project, 
which would last from October 6, 2014 to November 5, 2015, as follows: 
• Will be responsible for planning, Analyzing and execution of and 
environments. 
• Responsible in Standardize business processes and deliver end to end business 
process model; Facilitate workshops, present client reports, business cases and 
other deliverables ensuring clarity around process reorganization and ownership 
are effectively communicated and trained in conformance to program objective 
• Gather client's key business drivers & document Business, Functional/non­
functional requirements, Data flow models, Use Cases, and systems with various 
kinds of Content Management needs. 
• Perform rigorous unit and system testing before releasing application to the end 
users. 
• Will perform end-to-end testing, which includes Functional, Regression and 
Retesting. 
• Involve in integration testing, UAT, data migration and Product Rollout and 
support 
• Integration of data model updates into code base 
• Mentor junior Analyst 
• Create and execute Unit test plans 
• Defect management and resolution-
• Manage a variety of programming and design staff according to project(s) 
scheduled. 
(Verbatim.) 
The second in this series of documents describes the beneficiary's responsibilities during the 
"Software Analysis" phase of the project, which would last from November 5, 2014 to December 4, 
2014, as follows: 
In addition to the above-mentioned duties, candidate will identify problems, study 
existing systems to evaluate effectiveness and develop new systems to improve 
production of workflow .... Analyst will assist in developing application software 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
on specific needs. He will provide technical evaluation of new products, assess time 
estimation and provide technical support within the organization .... 
The third in this series of documents describes the beneficiary's responsibilities during the 
"Technical Design/Implementation/Testing" phases of the project, which would last from December 
5, 2014 to March 30, 2015, as follows: 
Analyst job duties shall include analyzing and gathering project requirements, 
developing and designing business programs customized to meet specific needs, 
training users on the use of software applications and providing trouble shooting and 
debugging support. It is thus her responsibilities and the time spent on the same 
would be as under: 3 
• Gather, analyze the business requirements from end-users 
• Lead and co-ordinate with teams for project deliverables 
• Design, develop and integrate the Business Process Management and 
Enterprise Application module 
• Provide subject matter expertise on workflow and database products 
• Provide dynamic reporting capability 
• Resolve technical issues in the systems by research and investigation. 
• Standardize and automate the build process 
• Using Design Methodologies & Tools: 
(Verbatim.) 
The fourth in this series of documents describes the beneficiary's responsibilities during the "Mobile 
Add-On/Release 1.0/2.0 and 3.0" phases of the project, which would last from March 31, 2015 to 
September 29, 2017, as follows: 
• Beneficiary will enter program codes into the computer systems and enter 
commands into the computer to run and test the programs. She will replace, 
delete or modify codes to correct errors. He will provide technical support, solve 
problems and troubleshoot systems. 
• She will specialize in developing programs for specific applications to certain 
industries. She will be involved in systems integration, debugging, 
troubleshooting and installation. Beneficiary will offer solutions for various 
software and hardware problems and compatibility of various systems. 
• The Beneficiary will also be responsible for updating existing software systems 
and updating management on new software that is developed. Beneficiary will 
maintain records to document various steps in the programming process. 
• Involve in creating sequence diagrams as part of design using Visio. 
3 Despite the petitioner's reference to "her responsibilities," the beneficiary in this case is a male. 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
• Develop marketing strategies, operating model and lead business transformation 
by standardizing business processes, restructuring organization, enabling 
Culture/Behavior change, effectively communicating policies, processes and 
procedures in alignment with strategic direction and business plans 
• Increase sales turnover by 30% by identifying commercial opportunities and 
expanded market share, through the management of various organizational, 
operational and technology changes 
• Improve management efficiency by 10% by integrating information systems for 
accounts and HR management enabling staff to focus on critical value added 
activities 
• 15% reduction in inventory costs, and improved customer retention, by modifying 
proprietary inventory management database to reflect product-brand sales 
• Analyze business's core and support processes to standardize processes by 
reducing process variance and eliminating waste 
• Develop technology roadmap, facilitate IT system procurement and 
implementation by collaborating with finance team to negotiate deals resulting in 
an integrated technology infrastructure 
(Verbatim.) 
III. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
A. Legal Framework 
To meet its burden of proof in establishing the proffered position as a specialty occupation, the 
petitioner must establish that the employment it is offering to the beneficiary meets the following 
statutory and regulatory requirements. 
Section 214(i)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(1) defines the 
term "specialty occupation" as one 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 term "specialty occupation" is further defined at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) as: 
An occupation which requires [(1)] 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 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
the arts, and which requires [(2)] 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.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, the position must 
meet one of the following criteria: 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel pos1t10ns 
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.P.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) must logically be read together 
with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). In other words, this regulatory 
language must be construed in harmony with the thrust of the related provisions and with the statute 
as a whole. SeeK Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) (holding that construction 
of language which takes into account the design of the statute as a whole is preferred); see also 
COlT Independence Joint Venture v. Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989); 
Matter of W-F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). As such, the criteria stated in 8 C.P.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.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory or regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 
P.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). To avoid this result, 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must therefore be 
read as providing supplemental criteria that must be met in accordance with, and not as alternatives 
to, the statutory and regulatory definitions of specialty occupation. 
As such and consonant with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(ii), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) consistently interprets the 
term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.P.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. Chertoff, 484 P.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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
position"). Applying this standard, USCrS regularly approves H-lB petitions for qualified aliens 
who are to be employed as engineers, computer scientists, certified public accountants, college 
professors, and other such occupations. These professions, for which petitioners have regularly 
been able to establish a minimum entry requirement in the United States of a baccalaureate or 
higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, directly related to the duties and 
responsibilities of the particular position, fairly represent the types of specialty occupations that 
Congress contemplated when it created the H-lB visa category. 
To determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCrS 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. users must examine the 
ultimate employment of the alien, and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. The critical element is not the title 
of the position nor an employer's self-imposed standards, but whether the position actually requires 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty as the minimum for entry 
into the occupation, as required by the Act. 
B. Analysis 
We find that the evidence of record does not demonstrate that a work assignment exists for the 
beneficiary, and thus, that the duties of the proffered position are in fact associated with a specialty 
occupation. That is, the petitioner has not submitted sufficient, credible evidence to establish that 
the beneficiary will be exclusively assigned to its in-house project, as claimed. 
As evident from the job descriptions quoted above, the record of proceeding presents the duties 
comprising the proffered position in terms of relatively abstract and generalized functions. The job 
descriptions lack sufficient detail and concrete explanation to establish the substantive nature of the 
work within the context of the project, and the associated applications of specialized 
knowledge that their actual performance would require. For example, the petitioner stated that the 
beneficiary will "assist in developing application software on specific needs," and "will provide 
technical evaluation of new products, assess time estimation and provide technical support within 
the organization." The petitioner did not clarify what it meant by the broad terms "assist" and 
"provide technical support," what associated applications of specialized knowledge are involved, and 
how these duties specifically relate to the project. As another example, the 
petitioner stated that the beneficiary will " [ d]esign, develop and integrate the Business Process 
Management and Enterprise Application module." The petitioner did not further explain what 
substantive tasks and bodies of knowledge are involved, what these Business Process Management 
and Enterprise Application modules are, and how they relate to Notably, there are 
no specific references to the Business Process Management and Enterprise Application modules 
within the documents. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
Despite the petitioner's assertion that the beneficiary will be exclusively assigned to its in-house 
project, the petitioner stated in its March 20, 2014 letter that the beneficiary will 
analyze, develop, and write "computer programs," perform "projects," perform "application 
programming assignments, typically maintenance or modification of existing systems," and 
troubleshoot "applications" (plural emphasized). In other documentation, the petitioner also 
described the proffered duties as including work on unidentified programs, applications, and 
systems in the plural, such as "developing programs for specific applications to certain industries" 
and "study[ing] existing systems to evaluate effectiveness and develop new systems (emphasis 
added)." Here, however, the petitioner has identified only one product - the mobile 
application - that is being developed through the project to which the beneficiary 
will be exclusively assigned. The petitioner has not specified what other projects, programs, 
software packages, applications, and systems the beneficiary will work on, and how they 
specifically relate to · project. Further, the petitioner has not articulated the nature of 
the beneficiary's work on existing systems, considering that the project seeks to 
develop a new mobile application. 
Moreover, the petitioner repeatedly referenced unspecified clients and end-users to whom the 
beneficiary will provide his services. To illustrate, some of the proffered duties include "[g]ather 
client's key business drivers .... [and] requirements," and "[g]ather, analyze the business 
requirements from end-users." The petitioner has not explained who these clients and end-users are 
and why there would be client and end-user requirements, particularly during the initial design and 
development stages of an in-house project. Similarly, the petitioner listed some of the proffered 
duties as "[s]tandardize business processes and deliver end to end business process model; 
[f]acilitate workshops, present client reports, business cases and other deliverables." The petitioner 
has not explained why there would be client workshops and reports in the beginning product design 
stage of an in-house project. 
In fact, there are several job duties which are clearly not limited to the project, such 
as "[i]mprove management efficiency by 10% by integrating information systems for accounts and 
HR management enabling staff to focus on critical value added activities." Other similar duties 
include "15% reduction in inventory costs, and improved customer retention, by modifying 
proprietary inventory management database to reflect product-brand sales," and "facilitat[ing] IT 
system procurement and implementation by collaborating with finance team to negotiate deals." 
These duties involving the petitioning company's systems for accounts, HR management, and 
inventory are outside of the scope of the project, which the petitioner has described 
as the development of a mobile application related to home appliances automation. These aspects 
of the petitioner's descriptions undermine the petitioner's assertion that the beneficiary will be 
exclusively assigned to the project, and raise additional questions as to the actual 
nature of the proffered position. 
Another problematic aspect of the petitioner's job descriptions is that many of the proffered duties 
appear inconsistent with the wage level selected here. As previously discussed, the petitioner 
designated the proffered position on the LCA as a Level I (entry) position. In designating the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
proffered position at a Level I wage, the petitioner has indicated that the proffered positiOn is a 
comparatively low, entry-level position relative to others within the occupation. 4 However, the 
petitioner listed several duties indicating that the beneficiary will have relatively high-level 
responsibilities over others in the company, such as "[m]anage a variety of programming and design 
staff," "(l]ead and co-ordinate with teams for project deliverables," and "mentor junior Analyst." 
Other relatively high-level duties include "lead business transformation by . . . restructuring 
organization," "[i]mprove management efficiency by ... integrating information systems," and 
"(d]evelop technology roadmap, facilitate IT system procurement and implementation." Moreover, 
on appeal the petitioner repeatedly emphasizes the "advanced, complex nature of the position's 
duties." The petitioner's designation of the proffered position as a Level I, entry-level position is 
inconsistent with these and other stated duties, and raises additional questions regarding the 
substantive nature of the proffered position. 5 
4 A Level I wage rate is described in DOL's "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" as follows: 
Level I (entry) wage rates are assigned to job offers for beginning level employees who have 
only a basic understanding of the occupation. These employees perform routine tasks that 
require limited, if any, exercise of judgment. The tasks provide experience and 
familiarization with the employer's methods, practices, and programs. The employees may 
perform higher level work for training and developmental purposes. These employees work 
under close supervision and receive specific instructions on required tasks and results 
expected. Their work is closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy. Statements that the 
job offer is for a research fellow, a worker in training, or an internship are indicators that a 
Level I wage should be considered. 
See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, 
Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/ 
pdf/NPWH C _Guidance_ Revised _11_ 2009. pdf. 
Thus, in accordance with the above DOL explanatory information on wage levels, the Level I wage rate 
indicates that the beneficiary is only required to have a basic understanding of the occupation and carries 
expectations that the beneficiary perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; that 
he would be closely supervised; that his work would be closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and 
that he would receive specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. 
5 The issue here is that the petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level positiOn 
undermines its claim that the position is relatively higher than other positions within the same occupation. 
Nevertheless, it is important to note that a Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position 
from classification as a specialty occupation. In certain occupations (doctors or lawyers, for example), an 
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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
In addition to being inconsistent with the Level I wage rate, many of the proffered duties are also 
outside of the scope of general duties for the SOC code and occupation title "15-1131, Computer 
Programmers." More specifically, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary will "[d]evelop 
marketing strategies, operating model and lead business transformation by standardizing business 
processes, restructuring organization, enabling Culture/Behavior change, effectively communicating 
policies, processes and procedures in alignment with strategic direction and business plans." The 
petitioner also stated that the beneficiary will "[i]ncrease sales turnover by 30% by identifying 
commercial opportunities and expanded market share, through the management of various 
organizational, operational and technology changes." The "15-1131, Computer Programmers" 
occupational classification does not, however, include any sales, marketing, or management-type 
duties.6 Not only are these duties outside of the computer programmers occupational classification, 
but the petitioner has not explained how they specifically relate to the project.
7 
be a consideration but is not a substitute for a determination of whether a proffered position meets the 
requirements of section 214(i)(1) of the Act. 
6 See O*NET Details Report, 15-1131, Computer Programmers, http://www.onetonline.org/link/details/15-
1131.00 (last visited July 22, 2015). 
7 With respect to the LCA, DOL provides clear guidance for selecting the most relevant O*NET occupational 
code classification. The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" states the following: 
In determining the nature of the job offer, the first order is to review the requirements of the 
employer's job offer and determine the appropriate occupational classification. The O*NET 
description that corresponds to the employer's job offer shall be used to identify the 
appropriate occupational classification . . . . If the employer's job opportunity has worker 
requirements described in a combination of O*NET occupations, the SWA should default 
directly to the relevant O*NET -SOC occupational code for the highest paying occupation. 
For example, if the employer's job offer is for an engineer-pilot, the SW A shall use the 
education, skill and experience levels for the higher paying occupation when making the 
wage level determination. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. 
Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/ 
pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _11_ 2009 .pdf. 
Here, however, the petitioner has not identified which other occupational classifications are applicable to the 
proffered position. Therefore, we are unable to determine whether the petitioner has selected the most 
relevant O*NET occupational code, i.e., the code for the highest-paying occupation. 
Moreover, where a petitioner seeks to employ a beneficiary in two or more distinct occupations, the 
petitioner should file separate petitions requesting concurrent, part-time employment for each distinct 
occupation. While it is not the case here, if a petitioner does not file separate petitions and if only one aspect 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
The petitioner submitted a document entitled " 
and a technical document entitled " 
'8 However, it is not evident how these documents constitute 
evidence of the beneficiary's assignment. Neither document specifically references the beneficiary. 
While both documents indicate that several programmer analyst positions (among other positions) 
are involved in the project, neither document details the specific tasks to be performed by each 
programmer analyst, or by the programmer analyst position generally. 9 
of a combined position qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCIS would be required to deny the entire 
petition as the pertinent regulations do not permit the partial approval of only a portion of a proffered 
position and/or the limiting of the approval of a petition to perform only certain duties. See generally 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h). Furthermore and as is the case here, the petitioner would need to ensure that it 
separately meets all requirements relevant to each occupation and the payment of wages commensurate with 
the higher paying occupation. See generally 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h); U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training 
Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 
2009), available at http://www .foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _11_ 2009. pdf. 
Thus, filing separate petitions would help ensure that the petitioner submits the requisite evidence pertinent 
to each occupation and would help eliminate confusion with regard to the nature of the position being 
offered. 
8 These documents vary significantly in their descriptions of major aspects of the project, such as the 
milestones, timelines, and resources dedicated to the project. For instance, the first document, " 
lists the milestones as: (1) Product Design (10/5/14 
to 1115/14); (2) Software Analysis (1115/14 to 12/4/14); (3) Technical design (12/5/14 to 1115/15); ( 4) 
Implementation (1115/15 to 3/15/15); (5) Unit Testing (2/18/15 to 3/16/15); (6) Beta Testing (3/15/15 to 
3/30/15); (7) Release 1 (3/31115 to 6/29/15); (8) Mobile Add-on release (6/30/15 to 3/30/16); (9) Release 2 
(3/31116 to 3/30/17); and (10) Release 3 (3/31117 to 9/29/17). It lists the required personnel as consisting of 
10 programmer analysts, 6 systems analysts, 3 database administrators, 7 application engineers, and 4 
support engineers (total of 30 positions). 
The second document, " " divides the project 
milestones into four levels, each of which contains different timelines for planning, requirements gathering, 
design, development, integration and testing, and deployment. In addition, it lists the required personnel as 
consisting of 22 programmer analysts, 1 systems analyst, 2 database administrators, 1 quality analyst, and 1 
human resource person (total of 27 positions). 
While understandably some plans may change over time, the petitioner is obligated to explain these changes, 
especially if the changes are significant as in this case. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve 
inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 
(BIA 1988). The petitioner has not done so here. 
9 
Again, we note that one document states that 10 programmer analysts are needed, while the other states that 
22 are needed. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
The petitioner also submitted a document entitled " 
" Like the two documents referenced above, this document also 
does not specifically mention the beneficiary. This document broadly depicts the "Proposed Team 
Structure" as consisting of the following teams or positions: Project Executive Management; Project 
Manager; Business Analyst; Quality Assurance Team; Development Team; and Database Team. It 
is not clear which of the above teams or positions include the proffered position, as the duties of the 
proffered position confusingly overlap with almost all of the roles and responsibilities for the 
above-listed teams or positions. 10 These overlapping duties raise additional questions regarding the 
actual role of the proffered position in the ' project. 
In addition, there are discrepancies regarding who will directly supervise the beneficiary on the 
project. The petitioner specifically stated in its March 20, 2014 letter that "[t]he 
beneficiary will be supervised at [the petitioner's office] by Mr. President." 
However, the petitioner also stated in its March 15, 2014 letter and Offer Letter that the beneficiary 
will report to and be directly supervised by Mr. Project Manager on the 
project, at the petitioner's premises. The petitioner's organizational chart submitted on appeal also 
identifies Mr. as a "Project Manager" who oversees numerous technical positions, 
including twenty computer programmers (to be hired). The same 
organizational chart indicates that 
Mr. President, does not directly supervise any computer 
programmers. The petitioner 
has not explained these inconsistencies. 
Moreover, if the beneficiary will be supervised by Mr. as alternatively asserted by the 
petitioner, then this raises additional questions regarding the beneficiary's claimed assignment to the 
project. That is because Mr. . is identified by the petitioner in its list of 
employees and their present work locations pursuant to their LCA as a "Systems Analyst" working 
at . New Jersey. 11 The petitioner has not explained how Mr. 
1
° For instance, the Project Manager is "[r]esponsible for the successful planning executions, monitoring, 
control and closure of a project [sic]," while the beneficiary will also be "responsible for planning, 
[a ]nalyzing and execution of and environments." The Business Analyst is to " [a ]ct a liaison 
between business users and technical team developing [sic]." The beneficiary will also be 
responsible for a variety of duties related to gathering and analyzing requirements from business users (i.e., 
clients and end-users) as well as to "[l]ead and co-ordinate with teams for project deliverables." The Quality 
Assurance Team is to "[test] the product for bugs, defects and other software issues." Similarly, the 
beneficiary will perform numerous testing functions, such as "rigorous unit and system testing," "end-to-end 
testing," "integration testing," and "[c]reate and execute Unit test plans." The Database Team is responsible 
for " [setting up] the entire database and ... for its functioning and security." The beneficiary will likewise 
be responsible for a variety of database functions, including "[providing] subject matter expertise on .. 
database products." 
11 
In another list of employees submitted on appeal, the petitioner indicated that Mr. 
petitioner in 2014. 
joined the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
could be the beneficiary's direct supervisor on the petitioner's in-house project when Mr. 
is not actually working at the petitioner's worksite. Again, it is incumbent upon the 
petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. Matter of 
Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 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. 
Furthermore, the evidence does not demonstrate that the petitioner has sufficient work space to 
support the employment of the beneficiary, as well as the entire "team" for the ' 
project, at the petitioner's premises at New 
Jersey. In particular, the petitioner stated on appeal that its current premises at are 
sufficient to accommodate its seven employees currently working on-site, "in addition to 
conveniently accommodating additional at least seven (7) employees at its work location [sic]." 
The petitioner also stated on appeal that its current "Lease agreement for the work location ... can 
conveniently accommodate more than twenty five (25) employees." However, the evidence of 
record does not corroborate these assertions, as there is no information in the floorplan or lease 
specifying the maximum occupancy allowed. 12 Nevertheless, and more importantly, the petitioner 
has not explained and documented how its current premises are sufficient to accommodate its seven 
on-site employees plus the entire team. As outlined in the evidence of record, the 
project will require 27-30 employees, for a total of 34-37 employees on-site. Thus, 
even if the petitioner's premises could accommodate more than 25 employees as asserted, it is still 
not apparent that the petitioner has sufficient work space for its current on-site employees and the 
entire team. The lack of adequate work space leads us to further question the 
credibility of the petitioner's descriptions of the beneficiary's assignment and of the 
project overall. 13 
12 The floorplan of the petitioner's current premises consists of five (5) individual offices and one general 
office area of 688 square feet. 
13 The petitioner also indicated that it can enter into a new lease for additional workspace, as needed, located 
at . New Jersey. However, the petitioner must establish 
eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(1). A visa petition may not be approved at a future date 
after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Michelin Tire 
Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. Comm'r 1978). 
Even if the petitioner had entered into the new lease for additional workspace as of the time of filing, the 
petitioner still has not explained and documented that this new lease would be sufficient to house the entire 
team in addition to the petitioner's current on-site employees. Both the lease proposal letter 
and the floorplan of the prospective premises are silent as to the maximum occupancy allowed. The 
floorplan shows that the proposed premises have 15 individual offices, and two areas of general office space. 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter 
of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm'r 1972)). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
Finally, we share the Director's concern that many of the petitioner's documents contain 
descriptions, diagrams, and other statements copied verbatim or virtually verbatim from materials 
created by other individuals or companies. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that "mere similarity in 
certain literature of brochures or certain pictorial diagrams in brochures to contents of another 
product description on web sites do not and cannot affect the veracity and genuine nature of the 
originality of the product developer/petitioner's concept." However, the petitioner's assertions are 
unpersuasive. The unauthorized reproduction of literature created by other individuals or 
companies undermines the petitioner's credibility, and precludes us from comprehending the true 
nature and scope of the project. 16 It is again emphasized that doubt cast on any 
aspect of the petitioner's proof may lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the 
remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. !d. 
For all of the above reasons, we find that the evidence of record does not sufficiently demonstrate 
that the beneficiary will be assigned to the project, as claimed. Moreover, even if it 
were established that the beneficiary will be assigned to the project , the evidence 
still does not sufficiently describe the duties to be performed by the beneficiary. Consequently, we 
find that the evidence of record does not demonstrate the substantive nature of the proffered 
position and its constituent duties. The failure to establish the substantive nature of the work to be 
performed by the beneficiary precludes a 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 (1) the 
normal minimum educational requirement for the particular position, which is the focus of criterion 1; 
(2) industry positions which are parallel to the proffered position and thus appropriate for review for a 
common degree requirement , under the first alternate prong of criterion 2; (3) the level of complexity 
or uniqueness of the proffered position , which is the focus of the second alternate prong of criterion 2; 
( 4) the factual justification for a petitioner normally requiring a degree or its equivalent, when that is an 
issue under criterion 3; and (5) the degree of specialization and complexity of the specific duties, which 
is the focus of criterion 4. 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. 
Even if the petitioner were able to establish the substantive nature of the work to be performed by 
the beneficiary, we still could not find that the proffered the proffered position qualifies as a 
16 For instance, because the petitioner copied the work of others in its " 
' document, we cannot determine the level of research, planning, and other 
resources that the petitioner has actually devoted to . We also cannot determine which aspects 
of the document are credible and accurately represent the petitioner's work, and which do not. 
Thus, we find that the petitioner's response to this particular concern of the Director (i.e. , the petitioner's 
statements and documents focusing on the originality of the product) does not fully address 
the questions posed by the unauthorized reproduction of materials. As such , we will not further address these 
aspects of the petitioner's evidence, including the opinion letter from Mr. and the 
petitioner's patent applic ation. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 16 
specialty occupation. Specifically, the petitioner asserts that the proffered position can be satisfied 
by a degree in "Business Administration, or related field of study." 
The claimed requirement of a degree in Business Administration for the proffered position, without 
specialization, is inadequate to establish that the proposed position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. The petitioner must demonstrate that the 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 Administration, without further 
specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz 
Associates, 19 I&N Dec. 558 (Comm'r 1988). See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d at 147.17 
For this additional reason, the evidence of record does not demonstrate that the proffered position is 
a specialty occupation. 
Finally, we will briefly address why we accord little probative weight to the "Expert Opinion 
Letter" from Dr. Associate Professor of Computer Systems Technology at the 
Dr. concluded that the duties of the proffered position 
"describe a position requiring the ability to apply the knowledge associated with the completion of a 
bachelor's-level degree (or the equivalent) in computer science, computer information systems, 
electronic engineering, or a related field." 
First, Dr. did not indicate that a bachelor's degree in Business Administration, which is 
accepted by the petitioner, would provide the requisite training and knowledge needed to perform 
the proffered position. Second, it is not evident that Dr. possessed sufficient knowledge 
about the proffered position in order to demonstrate a sound factual basis for his conclusions. Dr. 
specified that his evaluation of the proffered position was based upon the job duties listed 
in the petitioner's letter dated March 20, 2014. However, Dr. did not indicate whether he 
considered or was even aware of the numerous other job duties of the proffered position, such as 
" [ d]evelop marketing strategies" and "[i]ncrease sales turnover by 30% by identifying commercial 
opportunities and expanded market share." He also did not indicate whether he considered or was 
aware of the numerous inconsistencies and deficiencies regarding the proffered job duties, as 
17 Specifically, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit explained in Royal Siam that: 
!d. 
[t]he 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-lB specialty occupation visa. See, e.g., Tapis Int'l 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 frequently cited 
analysis in connection with ·a conceptually similar provision). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 17 
detailed in this decision. Moreover, Dr. did not mention at all. It is thus 
not clear whether Dr. was aware of the petitioner's claim that the proffered position 
would exclusively be assigned to the project. Nor does Dr. indicate 
whether he considered or was even aware of the fact that the petitioner designated the proffered 
position as a low-level, entry position relative to others within the occupation on the LCA. We 
consider these to be significant omissions, in that they suggest an incomplete or inaccurate review 
of the proffered position and a faulty factual basis for his ultimate conclusions. 
For these reasons, we conclude that Dr. letter is of limited evidentiary value in this 
proceeding. We may, in our discretion, use as advisory opinion statements submitted as expert 
testimony. However, where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way 
questionable, we are not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Matter of 
Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988). 
For all of the reasons specified above, the evidence of record does not demonstrate that the 
proffered position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. According! y, the appeal will 
be dismissed and the petition denied. 
IV. ADDITIONAL ISSUES 
Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the petitioner's appeal, we need not address 
other grounds of ineligibility we observe in the record of proceeding. Nevertheless, we will briefly 
note and summarize two of them here with the hope and intention that, if the petitioner seeks again 
to employ the beneficiary or another individual as an H-1B employee in the proffered position, it 
will submit sufficient independent objective evidence to address and overcome these additional 
grounds in any future filing. 
More specifically, the petition cannot be approved because the evidence of record does not 
demonstrate that the petitioner qualifies as a United States employer having an employer-employee 
relationship with the beneficiary. As detailed above, the record of proceeding lacks sufficient 
documentation evidencing what exactly the beneficiary would do for the period of time requested or 
where exactly and for whom the beneficiary would be providing services. Given this specific lack 
of evidence, the petitioner has not corroborated who has or will have actual control over the 
beneficiary's work or duties, or the condition and scope of the beneficiary's services. In other 
words, the petitioner has not established whether it has made a bona fide offer of employment to the 
beneficiary based on the evidence of record or that the petitioner, or any other company which it 
may represent, will have and maintain the requisite 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). Again and as previously discussed, there is insufficient 
evidence detailing where the beneficiary will work, the specific projects to be performed by the 
beneficiary, or for which company the beneficiary will ultimately perform these services. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 18 
The petition also cannot be approved because the evidence of record does not demonstrate that the 
beneficiary is qualified to perform services in a specialty occupation. The petitioner has not 
submitted a sufficient evaluation of the beneficiary's foreign degree or other evidence that meets the 
requirements of 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D). 
Here, the petitioner submitted the "Expert Opinion Letter" from Dr. stating that the 
beneficiary has the U.S. Academic Equivalency to a Bachelor of Science Degree in Electronic 
Engineering. However, the petitioner did not submit adequate evidence establishing that Dr. 
is "an official who has authority to grant college-level credit for training and/or 
experience in the specialty at an accredited college or university which has a program for granting 
such credit based on an individual's training and/or work experience" pursuant to 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(D)(I). 18 Furthermore, while the petitioner submitted several documents 
pertaining to the beneficiary's past employment, the petitioner has not submitted an explanation of 
how these documents establish eligibility under 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5) or any other 
provisions at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D). 19 As sufficient evidence has not been presented that the 
beneficiary has at least a U.S. bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, the petition 
could not be approved even if eligibility for the benefit sought had been otherwise established. 
18 The letter from , Registrar of the , states that faculty 
members "have the authority to recommend college-level credit for training and experience" and that "[i]nput 
by faculty is an important component of evaluating the appropriateness of credit assigned." Having the 
authority to recommend and give input as a component of granting credit, however, is not equivalent to 
having the actual authority to grant such credit, as required by the plain language of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(D)(l). The letter then confusingly states that Dr. "has the authority to make 
determinations concerning the granting of college-level credit" and that he "has the authority to assess, 
evaluate, and grant credit for training and experience." It is thus not clear from the Registrar's letter whether 
Dr. authority is limited to recommending and giving input, or whether it extends to actually 
granting credit. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve inconsistencies in the record by independent 
objective evidence; any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the 
petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 
at 591-92. In addition, the letter does not specify the criteria under which such credit would be granted, 
hence failing to demonstrate that the program fully meets the requirements set forth under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(D)(l). 
19 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5) requires the petitioner to "clearly demonstrate[]" that 
the beneficiary's work experience included the theoretical and practical application of specialized knowledge 
required by the specialty occupation, and was gained while working with peers, supervisors, or subordinates 
who have a degree or its equivalent in the specialty occupation. It also requires the petitioner to demonstrate 
that the beneficiary has recognition of expertise in the specialty as evidenced by at least one type of specific 
documentation, such as recognition of expertise in the specialty occupation by at least two recognized 
authorities in the same specialty occupation. Merely submitting the beneficiary's employment contracts, 
resignation letters, and/or other similar documentation from prior employers, without more, is insufficient to 
meet all of the specific requirements set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(D)(5). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 19 
V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 
As set forth above, we find the evidence of record insufficient to establish that the proffered 
position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. We also find the evidence of record 
insufficient to establish that the petitioner qualifies as a United States employer that will have an 
employer-employee relationship with the beneficiary, and that the beneficiary is qualified to 
perform services in a specialty occupation. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed and the 
. . d . d 20 petitiOn eme . 
An application or petition that does not comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by us even if the service center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial 
decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 
2001), affd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004) (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
Moreover, when we deny a petition on multiple alternative grounds, a plaintiff can succeed on a 
challenge only if it shows that we abused our discretion with respect to all of the enumerated 
grounds. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1037, affd, 345 F.3d 
683; see also BDPCS, Inc. v. Fed. Communications Comm'n, 351 F.3d 1177, 1183 (D.C. Cir. 2003) 
("When an agency offers multiple grounds for a decision, we will affirm the agency so long as any 
one of the grounds is valid, unless it is demonstrated that' the agency would not have acted on that 
basis if the alternative grounds were unavailable."). 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons , with each 
considered as an independent and alternative basis for the decision. 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 ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden 
has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied. 
20 As these issues preclude approval of the petition , we will not address any of the additional deficiencie s we 
have identified on appeal.