dismissed H-1B Case: Conflict Resolution

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-P-A-D-R-C-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 1, 2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a not-for-profit organization, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"community program counselor and coordinator" under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. ISSUE 
The issue is whether the Petitioner established that the petition is exempt from the H-1B numerical 
limitations under section 214(g)( 5)(B) of the Act. 
II. H-1B CAP 
A. Legal Framework 
In general, H-1B visas are numerically capped by statute. Pursuant to section 214(g)(l)(A) of the 
Act, the total number ofH-1B visas issued per fiscal year may not exceed 65,000. 
An exemption from the H -1 B is available for certain petitions. Section 214(g)( 5) of the Act states, 
in pertinent part: 
The numerical limitations ... shall not apply to any nonimmigrant alien issued a visa 
or otherwise provided [H -1 B status] who-
(A) is employed (or has received an offer of employment) at an institution of 
higher education (as defined in section 1001(a) of Title 20), or a related or 
affiliated nonprofit entity. 
(B) is employed (or has received an offer of employment) at a nonprofit research 
organization or a governmental research organization; or 
Matter of A-P-A-D-R-C-
(C) has earned a master's or higher degree from a United States institution of 
higher education (as defined in section 101 (a) of the Higher Education Act of 
1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)), until the number of aliens who are exempted from 
such numerical limitation during such year exceeds 20,000. 
Further, the following definition of "nonprofit research organization or governmental research 
organization" is provided in the regulation at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(19)(iii)(C): 
A nonprofit research organization is an organization primarily engaged in basic 
research and/or applied research. A governmental research organization is a United 
States Government entity whose primary mission is the performance or promotion of 
basic research and/or applied research. Basic research is general research to gain 
more comprehensive knowledge or understanding of the subject under study, without 
specific applications in mind. Basic research is also research that advances scientific 
knowledge, but does not have specific immediate commercial objectives although it 
may be in fields of present or potential commercial interest. It may include research 
and investigation in the sciences, social sciences, or humanities. Applied research is 
research to gain knowledge or understanding to determine the means by which a 
specific, recognized need may be met. Applied research includes investigations 
oriented to discovering new scientific knowledge that has specific commercial 
objectives with respect to products, processes, or services. It may include research 
and investigation in the sciences, social sciences, or humanities. 
8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(19)(iii)(C). Notably, 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(8)(ii)(B) states, in part: 
Petitions indicating that they are exempt from the numerical limitation but that are 
determined by USCIS after the final receipt date to be subject to the numerical limit 
will be denied and filing fees will not be returned and refunded. 
B. Analysis 
The Petitioner claimed that it is exempt from the H-IB cap as a "nonprofit research organization" 
under 8 C.P.R. 214.2(h)(19)(iii)(C). On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in 
concluding that it is not a nonprofit research organization. We carefully examined each piece of 
evidence in the record and determined that the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient documentation 
to demonstrate that it meets the definition as a nonprofit research organization, primarily engaged in 
basic and/or applied research. 
1 
1 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-IB petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position and the Petitioner's operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-P-A-D-R-C-
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that it conducts basic research as part of its mission and also 
conducts applied research to meet its mission. Specifically, the Petitioner states: 
[The Petitioner] must conduct research, both applied and basic, in order to accomplish 
its mission of serving the communities's [sic] need for conflict resolution, mediation 
and peace-building . . . . [The Petitioner] simply cannot fulfill its mission without 
conducting the requisite research. Research is therefore inextricably tied to its 
mission and it is a non-profit research organization as defined in the statute and the 
regulations. 
In support, the Petitioner submitted documentation regarding some of its research projects including 
letters from and the 
Administration confirming the Petitioner's research activities. 
We note that the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(19)(iii)(C) defines a nonprofit research 
organization as an organization that is primarily engaged in basic research and/or applied research. 
The Petitioner's brochure indicates that it provides conflict resolution services including meditation, 
group dialogue facilitation, community workshops, and training services. Although the Petitioner 
may engage in some basic and/or applied research as part of its mission, the Petitioner did not submit 
evidence regarding what portion of its time and resources are dedicated to research activities and 
what portion of its time and resources are dedicated to other programs and services. Without more 
information on how their time and resources are allocated, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that it 
is primarily engaged in basic research and/or applied research. 
On appeal, the Petitioner further asserts that it "is a non-profit research organization because as its 
primary mission, it must conduct 'research to gain knowledge or understanding to determine the 
means by which a specific, recognized need may be met."' However, the Petitioner has not claimed 
that it is a government research organization; therefore, it is not required to establish that its primary 
mission is basic and/or applied research. Instead, the Petitioner must establish that it primarily 
engages in such research, which it did not do here. 
We also note that while the Petitioner stated in response to the Director's request for evidence that 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) previously recognized the Petitioner as a 
nonprofit research organization, no evidence was submitted to substantiate this claim. "[G]oing on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden 
of proof in these proceedings." In re So.ffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft ofCal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
We find that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that it qualifies as a nonprofit research organization. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not established that the instant petition is exempted the H -1 B cap and 
the numerical limit has been reached. 2 
2 USCIS announced that the H-1B cap for fiscal year 2016 was reached on April 7, 2015. 
3 
Matter of A-P-A-D-R-C-
III. CONCLUSION 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met.3 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-P-A-D-R-C-, ID# 15628 (AAO Mar. 1, 2016) 
3 Since the identified base for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we will not address any of the additional 
grounds of ineligibility we observe in the record of proceeding. 
4