dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF N-, INC. 
Non~Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 31,2016 
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 "senior 
software engineer" under the H -1 B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act)§ IOI(a)(IS)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § IIOI(a)(IS)(H)(i)(b). The 
H-1 B 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: (I) 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-, /ne, 
The regulation at 8 CFK § 2142(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 CF,R, § 214,2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualifY as a specialty occupation, a proposed position must 
meet one of the following criteria: 
(I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent IS normally the m1mmum 
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; 
(J) 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 CFK § 2142(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 
oflanguage which takes into account the design ofthe statute as a whole is preferred); see also COlT 
Independence Joint Venture v, Fed Sav, and Loan Ins, Corp,, 489 US, 561 (1989); Matter ofW-F-, 
21 I&N Dec, 503 (BIA 1996), As such, the criteria stated in 8 CFK § 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 CFK § 214,2(h)(4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory or 
regulatory definition, See Defensor v, Meissner, 201 F3d 384, 387 (5th CiL 2000), To avoid this 
result, 8 CFK § 2142(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 (USCIS) consistently interprets the 
term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered position. See 
Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in 
a specific spec1alty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular 
position"). Applying this standard, USCIS regularly approves H-lB petitions for qualified 
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 typ·es 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 th~ individual, 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 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 Nonimmigrant Worker, the Petitioner described itself as a 23-
employee company which engages in "Technology Integration Services for applications and 
hardware" located in California . The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a 
"senior software engineer" from October I, 2015, to July 18, 2018, at a salary of $65,000 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 
15-1132, "Software Developer s, Applications;" from the Occupational Information Network 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of N-, Inc. 
(O*NET). The LCA further state s 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 work out of the worksite of its 
"direct-client, " whose office is located in Michigan. The Petitioner listed the 
duties of the proffered position as follow s (verbatim): 
• Develops software solutions by studying information needs; conferring . with 
users; studying systems flow, data usage, and work processes; investigating 
problem areas; following the software development lifecycle. 
• Detennines operational feasibili ty by evaluating an~lysis, problem definition, 
requirements , solution development , and proposed solutions. 
• Documents and demonstrates solutions by developing documentation , flowcharts , 
layouts, diagrams , chart s, code comments and clear code. 
• Prepares and installs solutions by determining and designing system 
specifications , standards , and programming. 
• Improves operations by conducting systems analysis; recommending changes in . 
policies and procedures. 
• Updates job knowledge by studying state-of-the-art development tools, 
programming techniques , and computing equipment; participating in educational 
opportunit ies; reading professional publications; maintaining personal networks; 
participating in profe ssional organizations. 
• Provides information by collecting , analyzing , and .summari zing deve
lopment and 
servtce tssues. 
• Accomplishes engineering · and orga nization mission by completing related results 
as needed. 
• Supports and develops software engineers by providin g advice , coaching and 
educational opportunitie s. . 
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 
0
/o Time 
Level to be 
Spent 
1. Develops infonnation systems by studying operations ; designing, 
developing , and installing software solutions ; supports artd develops 5 25% 
software team. Develops software solutions by studying information 
needs; conferring with users ; 
studying systems flow, data usage, and 
work processes; investigating problem areas ; followin g the software 
deve lopment lifecycle. 
2. Detennines operational feasibility by evaluating analysis, problem 
4 
Matter of N-, Inc. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 
8. 
9. 
definition, requirements, solution development, and proposed 4 
solutions. Documents and demonstrates solutions by developing 
documentation, flowcharts, layouts, diagrams, charts, code comments 
and clear code. 
Prepares and installs solutions by determining and designing system 4 
specifications, standards, and programming. Improves operations by 
conducting systems analysis; recommending changes in policies and 
procedures. 
Updates job knowledge by studying state-of-the-art development 4 
tools, programmmg techniques, and computing equipment; 
participating in educational opportunities; reading professional 
publications; maintaining personal networks; participating m 
professional organizations. 
Preparing and installing solutions by determining and designing 4 
system specifications, standards. Protects operations by keeping 
information confidential. 
Provides information by collecting, analyzing, and summarizing 3 
development and service issues. 
Keeping abreast with state-of-the-art development tools, programming 4 
techniques, and computing equipment. 
Supports and develops software engmeers by providing advice, 3 
coaching and educational opportunities. Accomplishes engineering 
and organization mission by completing related results as needed. 
Supporting junior software engineers 5 
Notes on Difficulty Level 
I Novice 
2 Some Exposure 
3 Familiarity with Computers 
4 Bachelor's 
5 Master's 
10% 
15% 
10% 
20% 
5% 
5% 
5% 
5% 
In support of the petition, the Petitioner submitted two Employment Agreements with the 
Beneficiary which provide the following description of duties (verbatim): 1 
1 The Petitioner submitted an "amended" Employment Agreement in response to the Director's RFE which had noted 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of N-, Inc. 
[The Beneficiary] will be responsible for Core Development of the Credit Engine in 
the project . It includes development of both web layer and business Layer for 
the credit module using JSP's , EJB's , DAO's, JMS and Struts Framework and 
deployment of the application on WebLogic.Production and QA support for the 
developed components including bug fixing and enhancements .Creating clustered 
Weblogic domains and deploying all the modules of the application and integrating 
all the modules. Deploying and integrating every release in Onsite 
environments. Written ant scripts tor creating clustered domains and deploying all the 
modules.Automating the process of build and deployment using ant and also involved 
in the development of Automatic Path Process for using Java and Ant. 
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 Senior Software Engineer "for the project entitled 
The end-client letter lists job duties similar to those listed in the Petitioner' s 
cover letter and RFE response . The end-client letter further states that the company ha.s "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 
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 theoretic"al 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 
several impermissible provisions relating to the LCA in the original Emplo yment Agreement. Both Employment 
Agreement s contained the same description of duties. 
2 While the Petitioner ' s list of acceptabl e degrees does not contain a degree in business, the Petitioner has not explained 
why its requir ements differ from the end-client's requirements. Regardles s, 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. 
Meissner, 20 I F.3d at 387-388 (the petition er-provided job duties and alleged requirement s to perform those duties are 
irrelevant to a specialty occupation determination) . 
6 
Matter of N-, Inc. 
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 
F.3d at 147.3 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 
The evidence of record contains generalized, broad descriptions of the work to be performed by the 
Beneficiary. For instance, the "Assigned Personnel Form" signed by the Petitioner and the end­
client simply describes the "Services to be performed" as "Database design, Application design and 
development, Unit testing, Bug fixing, deployment and support." No further details about these job 
duties or the "Database" or "Application" upon which the Beneficiary will work were provided in 
the Assigned Personnel Form5 
The end-client letter, as well as the Petitioner's letters, describe the proffered duties in vague and 
duplicative terms. For example, the Petitioner's RFE response indicated that the Beneficiary will 
spend 15% of his time performing duties including "[p ]repares and installs solutions by determining 
and designing system specifications, standards, and programming." The Petitioner then stated that 
the Beneficiary will spend another 20% of his time performing the nearly identical duties of 
"[p]reparing and installing solutions by determining and designing system specifications, standards." 
The Petitioner also listed a separate set of job duties involving "designing, developing, and installing 
software solutions" which account for another 25% of the Beneficiary's time. The Petitioner further 
indicated that the Beneficiary will spend separate percentages of time to perform the duty of 
remaining updated with "state-of-the-art development tools, programming techniques, and 
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 B specialty 
occupation visa. See, e.g.. Tapis /nt'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). 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. 
5 We note that the Assigned Personnel Form lists the duration of the Beneficiary's assignment as ending on October 12, 
2018: In contrast, the Petitioner requested a validity period ending on July 22, 2018. The Petitioner did not request the 
maximum of three years, which would have ended on September 30,2018. 
7 
(b)(6)
Matter of N-, Inc. 
computing equipment." The Petitioner has not adequately distinguished each of the stated job duties 
from one another, even though they account for separate percentages oftime . 
"[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. 
Notably , the evidence of record does not contain any · detailed explanation of the. 
project mentioned in the end-client letter, such as the nature, complexity, and length of 
this particular project. Equally, if not more, significant is that the Pet~tioner ' s Employment 
Agreements both indicate that the Beneficiary will be assigned to a different project for a different 
end-client. More specifically, the Employment Agreements state that the Beneficiary "will be 
responsible for Core Development of the Credit Engine in the project ' and that he will also be 
"involved in the development of Automatic Patch Process for These agreements also state 
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 he "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]." The Petitioner has 
not resolved these apparent inconsistencies regarding what project(s) upon which the Beneficiary 
will work, and for whom. Again, it is incumbent upon the Petitioner to resolve the inconsistencies in 
the record, and 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. at 
591:·92. 
There are other vague statements by the Petitioner and the end-client which also lead us to question 
the Beneficiary's actual job duties and work location. For instance, the Assigned Personnel Form 
·tists the Beneficiary's "Primary work location" as the end-client's Michigan premises. The use of 
the word "Primary" denotes that the Beneficiary may also be assigned to perform work at other, 
unspecified locations. We also note the Petitioner's statements in its cover letter that "[t]he 
petitioner has enough resources and financial strength to continue paying the beneficiary even 
without specific project/s," 
and that "[i]f required, the petitioner can place the beneficiary in llace of 
any one of those contractor positions" which are "sourced through third party companies. 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. 
6 
The Petitioner states that it has a direct contractual relationship with the end-client , thus indicating that there are no 
third-party or vendor companies involved. 
8 
Matter of N-, Inc. 
There are also inconsistencies with the wage level and the proffered duties which further prevent us 
from understanding the true nature of the proffered position. For example, despite the proffered title 
of "Senior ·Software Engineer," the Petitioner designated the proffered position as a Level ~I 
position. In designating the proffered position at aLevel II wage rate, the Petitioner has indicated 
that the proffered position is a comparatively lower position relative to others within the occupation.7 
That is, in accordance with the relevant DOL explanatory information on wage levels, this wage rate 
indicates that the Beneficiary will only perform moderately complex tasks that require limited 
judgment. See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination 
Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _II_ 2009.pdf. The 
Petitioner's designation of the proffered position as a Level II position is inconsistent with this 
purportedly senior~level position, whose job duties include "[supporting] and [developing] software 
engineers by providing advice, coaching and educational opportunities" and "[s]upporting junior 
software engineers." 
Finally, the Petitioner indicated that some of the proffered duties are a "Difficulty Level" 5, which 
requires a master's degree. However, the Petitioner has never claimed that the proffered position 
requires a master's degree.8 Nor has the Petitioner claimed that positions located within the 
"Software Developers, Applications" occupational classification normally require a master's degree. 
Rather, the Petitioner repeatedly states that a bachelor's degree is the normal minimum requirement 
for this as well as other positions within the "Software Developers, Applications" occupational 
classification.9 Again, we observe that the Petitioner designated the proffered position as a Level II 
position, which indicates that it is a comparatively lower-level position relative to others within the 
occupation. These inconsistencies further undermine the credibility of the position descriptions, as 
well as the Petitioner's overall credibility. 
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. 
7 
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 occupation. Nevertheless, a Level II wage-designation does not 
preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty 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 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)(l) of the Act. 
8 The Petitioner also does not claim that the Beneficiary possesses a master's degree or its equivalent. It is therefore 
unclear how the Beneficiary would be qualified to perform the proposed duties of the proffered position according to the 
Petitioner's own standards. 
9 
The Petitioner indicates that the job duty of"[s]upports and develops software engineers by providing advice, coaching 
and educational opportunities" is a Difficulty Level 3, requiring "Familiarity with Computers." This leads us to question 
whether the Petitioner requires at least a bachelor's degree for its other software engineers. 
9 
Matter of N-, Inc. 
§ 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 ofspecialization 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. However, a beneficiary'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. 
III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 
The Petitioner has not established that the proffered position, more likely than not, qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. The petition, therefore, may not be approved. 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. 
Cite as Matter ojN-, Inc., ID# 16748 (AAO May 31, 2016) 
10