dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Systems Administration

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9688843 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-18) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 26, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks employ the Beneficiary temporarily as a "network and computer systems 
administrator" under the H-18 nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations.1 The H-18 
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 Vermont Service Center Director denied the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, 
concluding that the record did not establish that the proffered position qualified as a specialty 
occupation. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate el igibi I ity by a preponderance of the evidence. 2 
We review the questions in this matter de novo.3 Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the entire record, for the reasons set out below, we have determined that the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that the offered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. In her decision, the Director thoroughly discussed the Petitioner's failure to 
meet any of the four regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4). Upon consideration 
of the entire record, including the evidence submitted and arguments made on appeal, we adopt and 
affirm the Director's decision with the comments below. 4 
1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) , 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) . 
2 Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
3 See Matter of Christa's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
4 See Matter of P. Singh, Attorney, 26 l&N Dec. 623 (BIA 2015) (citing Matter of Burbano , 20 l&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 
1994)); see also Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 7-8 (1st Cir. 1996) ("[l]f a reviewing tribunal decides that the facts and evaluative 
Regarding the duties the Petitioner initially provided, the Director determined the functions within 
those nine bullets were insufficient and requested a more detailed explanation of the position. The 
Petitioner responded by offering the same bullets as the initial filing (with the exception of one duty 
the Petitioner indicated was a mistake), six bullets listing administrative functions, and the 
organization copied thirteen duties from U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Information 
Network (O*NET) Online report for the occupational category "Network and Computer Systems 
Administrators." 
Providing generic job duties for a proffered position from O*NET or another Internet source is generally 
insufficient to establish eligibility.5 The duties themselves provide the nature of the employment.6 While 
this type of description may be appropriate when defining the range of duties that may be performed 
within an occupational category, it does not adequately convey the substantive work that the Beneficiary 
will perform within the Petitioner's business operations. 7 Here, the job description from the Petitioner 
does not sufficiently communicate: (1) the actual work that the Beneficiary would perform; (2) the 
complexity, uniqueness and/or specialization of the tasks; and/or (3) the correlation between that work 
and a need for a particular level of knowledge in a specific specialty. 
Even if the Petitioner had not copied a significant portion of the duties from the O*NET, on appeal 
the petitioning organization resubmits the same material it offered in its response to the Director's 
request for evidence and failed to explain how the Director erred. The Petitioner's appeal brief 
essentially restates its opinion that its position is so specialized and complex that it qualifies under the 
H-1B program requirements. The reason for filing an appeal is to provide an affected party with the 
means to remedy what it perceives to be an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact within a 
decision in a previous proceeding. 8 By presenting only a generalized statement without explaining 
the specific aspects of the denial they consider to be incorrect, the affected party fails to identify a 
sufficient basis for the appeal. 9 In order to review this appeal, it would therefore be necessary to search 
through the record and speculate on what possible errors the Petitioner claims.10 The Petitioner 
judgments prescinding from them have been adequately confronted and correctly resolved by a trial judge or hearing 
officer, then the tribunal is free simply to adopt those findings" provided the tribunal's order reflects individualized 
attention to the case). 
5 Cf. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990) (stating 
specifics are an important indication of the nature of a beneficiary's duties, otherwise meeting the requirements would 
simply be a matter of providing a job title or reiterating the regulations.) 
6 Id. 
7 DOL guidance states that for a wage level determination, it is important that the job description include "sufficient 
information to determine the complexity of the job duties, the level of judgment, the amount and level of supervision, and 
the level of understanding required to perform the job duties." U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Adm in., 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. 
8 See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v). 
9 Matter of Valencia, 19 l&N Dec. 354, 354-55 (BIA 1986). 
10 Appellants have an obligation to spell out their arguments squarely and distinctly, or else forever hold their 
peace. Rivera-Gomez v. de Castro, 843 F.2d 631, 635 (1st Cir.1988) (quoting Paterson-Leitch Co. v. Massachusetts 
Municipal Wholesale Elec. Co., 840 F.2d 985, 990 (1st Cir.1988)). The mention of an error in an appeal brief, absent any 
specific argument as to how the previous entity was in error, is insufficient to present the matter for adjudication on appeal. 
Zivojinovich v. Barner, 525 F.3d 1059, 1062 (11th Cir. 2008) (citing Davis v. Hill Engineering, Inc., 549 F.2d 314, 324 
(5th Cir.1977)). See also Minghai Tian v. Holder, 745 F.3d 822, 827 (7th Cir. 2014) (stating that "an argument consisting 
of more than a generalized assertion of error" is required to hold that an issue has not been waived in the briefing). 
2 
therefore has not satisfied its burden of proof. A petitioner's burden of proof comprises both the 
burden of production, as well as the burden of persuasion.11 Ultimately, the Petitioner's appeal did 
not demonstrate that the Director erred in denying the petition. 
11. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and 
alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is a petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
11 Matter of Y-B-, 21 l&N Dec. 1136, 1142 n.3 {BIA 1998). 
3